[Ciberblade]

I find it strikingly odd that President Bush has not veto'd a single bill...NOT ONE!

On the surface you could try and rationalize this with discussions of 'Republican majority in house and senate' But we all know that it is not a functional majority of Republican rule. Or we could talk of the bi-partisan effort to churn out 'good' bills. While there are some good bi-partisan efforts going on...we all know that there is entirely too much static on capitol hill for that. So what's the deal? Is it an illusion of cooperation between the Executive and Legislative branches? If so, then that's practically all it is -- an illusion. Lets look at the recent numbers:
Clinton - 37
Bush Sr - 44
Reagan - 78
Carter - 31
Ford - 66
Nixon - 43

Alright...so I thought to my self -- has every president used the veto power? No...in fact there are seven who had not. James Garfield, William Harrison, Zachary Taylor and Millard Fillmore did not veto at all, and they did not complete a full term. The last President who completed a full term while not using the veto was none other than John Quincy Adams.

Then I thought maybe Bush just doesn't like the veto...off to the Texas legislature I go. Turns out that as Governor '95 to '99 he vetoed 97 bills. In his first term Bush officially declared that he would veto any transportation bill over $256 billion -- it is now signed at $286.4 billion.

FYI: Franklin D. Roosevelt set the all-time record with 635 vetoes

What do Y'all think?

[linskyjack]

This Republican Congress generally votes together most of the time, and most of the time they pass bills that Bush has no trouble with. Their majority in the House is fairly large, and their majority in the senate is ample. You are deluding yourself if you think Republicans aren't maintaining party discipline in both houses. Remember, most of these bills are spending bills, and both parties have absolutely no problem spending (ie. the Transportation Bill) because most politicians have a common bond. They exist to get re-elected and you don't get re-elected unless you bring home the pork! You could also say that Bush doesn't give a hoot about what he claims to give a hoot about. He claimed that the Transportation Bill was to expensive, with way too much pork. He asked for cuts, but didn't get them. Did he veto it--absolutely not (even if it would have only been symbolic) Did I hear any Republican complain--absolutely not.

When the Congress gets around to voting on Stem Cell Research----something that has social overtones, you will see the Republicans break rank---and you will see a Bush veto.

[Ciberblade]

Don't be fooled by the 'majority' status...that's based upon 50/50 split -- No bill gets through congress without Republican and Democrat support -- and I know about the party discipline...I read the rolls

I'm curious about the Stem Cell issue...I wonder if he says he will veto the bill just to try and keep it from making it to his desk....but will he do it?

[linskyjack]

Of course, but if you look at the voting record of this Congress you will generally see that Republicans vote as a party and as long as they vote as a party there won't be vetos. I assure you, the Stem Cell bill aside, every bill that is voted on by the Republican is approved by the White House. The current leadership (Delay, Hassert, and Frist) are very good at keeping their soldiers in line, using campaign funding, the power of the president and other tools to accomplish their goals. They are brilliant political operatives. By the way, you couldn't say the same years ago when you had a sizeable number of very independent Rockefeller Republicans in the Congress.

You wont see anything vetoed by this Congress unless its Republican members perceive that what the President wants isn't what the people who elect them want. Stem Cell of course, is a perfect example. You definately won't see much anything in the next year because 2006 looms on the horizon.

[Wino]

Ciber, you could knock me over with a feather..................I didn't remember Bush vetoing anything, ever, as governor. but if your dates are correct, he quit vetoing.

The pork inflated transportation bill passed his veto as a payback for CAFTA passing by the narrowest of margins (2 votes if memory serves correctly). He WILL NOT veto the stem cell bill should it ever reach his desk IMHO......particularly if it appears it will be overridden.

It's a damn shame the republicans did in the line item veto passed during the Clinton years (just to be sure Clinton couldn't use it again.........again if memory serves me well). To date, Bush has not seen a spending bill that he could not live with.............after all, it's not his money and has no adverse effect on his well being. I personally believe Bush has not vetoed anything as prez as he is afraid it will effect the anemic economy if he doesn't keep spending money (I also believe that he hoped the Iraq War would be the 'cake walk' they predicted, and it bit his butt). On the other hand, if the Iraq war continues to drain funds, gas prices remain high, inflation can't be too far behind...........if all this cascades at one time, we are in for one hell of a ride in that proverbial hand basket to hades. IMO, Bush has shown very little real leadership capabilities in any area..............I keep hoping he will do something I can applaud, but not holding my breath..............outside of Afghanistan, he has been a major disappointment..............he should have kept his eyes on that ball (Afghanistan) before leaping from the frying pan into the Iraq fire. Personally, I believe the man is lost at sea with no redemption in site.

[Ciberblade]

I wonder if he is trying to be the only President that has served two full terms while not using the veto?

[LANMaster]

Fiscally, he's no better than Ted Kennedy.

[linskyjack]

Fiscally, he spends like a drunken sailor while giving lip service to smaller government and spending cuts.

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Fiscally, he spends like a drunken sailor while giving lip service to smaller government and spending cuts.

Actually, he and this congress spend like drunken democrats!

[linskyjack]

LOL---well yes---they do---but the difference is, Democrats are known to be spenders, in fact many of them see it as the role of government--Where your good old conservatives are suppose to rescue the taxpayer from big government and big spending. In one case you have hypocracy of the highest order---The Republican Case! At least yhou admit that the president is a fake---now thats a good start!

[tomlunt]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

.... They exist to get re-elected and you don't get re-elected unless you bring home the pork! ...

But why do Congressmen and Congresswomen want to get re-elected so badly???? I'll give you a hint .... it's very similar to "pork". That's right folks, PERKS.

TL

[linskyjack]

Perks, power, control--they all play a role. I guess you can blame the American people---because by nature, if someone delivers the pork, they are willing to turn the other way and put up with so much of this nonsense. I guess its human nature.

[bassetman]

Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like!

[linskyjack]

Bush is like a shopping addict, in a mall.

[tomlunt]

Perks Power and Control, but in my mind, perks and control are the biggies. Personally, i've never really looked at what my representative or senator "does" for the area along the lines of bringing $$$ back to the district (or state). But i'm sure the special interest groups look at it, and that means soft money .....

Arrrgggghhhhh ..... it's a terrible cycle.

We need to get rid of the perks - with the FairTax (but that's another thread).

TL