Posted on 02/21/2006 12:32:20 PM PST by Brian Mosely
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (AP) — President Bush says the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and he will veto any bill that would stop it.
Actually what I was asking is if any port deal could have a heightened risk if the company's owned by a hostile government, even if that government's agents wouldn't be near the facility.
That, by the way, is a separate question from whether its ownership actually is passing to a hostile government under the present Dubai deal. I was just posing a worst-case scenario as a way of getting an idea of what kinds of security implications there are in general in deals like this.
No question, Hoover was responsible for too much Gov't intervention during the Great Depression.
Roosevelt did run to his 'right' during the campaign, which should have been a lesson to Republican voters about trusting Democratic rhetoric (like JFK, Carter and Clinton)
The point is that spending bills are the responsiblity of the Congress, not the White House.
That is how the Constitution was written.
And how many spending bills did Coolidge veto against the Republican run Congress?
I am not arguing against the popularity of either man.
Reagan could veto a spending bill since it was put forth by a Democrat controlled Congress.
It would not hurt the Republican Party.
Going against your own leadership, however, does undermine them.
Hoover and Ike vetoed a number of bad bills, along with some good bills. Their vetos had nothing to do with their party controlling Congress. As I just noted, plenty of Dem presidents vetoed their own party's legislation and they were handily re-elected, along with Congress.
Since the Democrats controlled the House for 50 years, the Democrat Presidents felt confident they could go against the House leadership without fear of losing the House.
They had comfortable majorities and thus enough cushion to handle any negative backlash.
Now, I am talking about spending bills, which is the responsibility of Congress, not the White House.
A Bush veto of a spending bill would be symbolic at best.
This is, by the way, the Constitutional argument against the Line Item Veto, which moves into the House's area of responsibility.
The WH has no more business dealing with the money, the the House has dealing with Defense issues (except funding them)
Do you really think the President is supposed to be a rubber stamp for Congress and pass WHATEVER they think is a good idea if he's in the same party? I think you're the one who doesn't get "seperation of powers". If an "R" President is supposed to agree with whatever an "R" Congress wants, we might as well put a moritorium on the Presidency when one party controls all branches of government.
Only when it regards the sole responsibility of that Branch of Gov't.
Spending is suppose to be the responsibility of the House, not the WH or the Senate.
ALL Presidents in ALL parties have used their veto stamp REGULARLY when they felt Congress' legislation was not in the best interests of the people. It doesn't matter whether their party controls the legislative branch or not. The last President to have a scorecard of ZERO vetos during his term was James A. Garfield in 1880. Garfield had a much better excuse that Bush -- he was killed 6 monthes into his term.
Once again, I am not talking about veto's per se, but vetos of spending bills.
Now, in other areas, it may that the Republican controlled House and Senate are giving Bush what he wants and therefore he has no need to veto them!
A case on point was the renewal of the gun control law the Bush stated he would sign if it got to his desk.
Well, ofcourse, a Republican controlled Congress allowed it to die (thank you Tom Delay!) so Bush was not put into position of signing it back into law.
The one bill that I can remember off hand that Bush should have vetoed was that travesty, the McCain-Feingold fiance reform.
But that should have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as well.
Much of the spending that is now going on the Congress has little say over, it has been locked in with the entitlement system.
So, just how much do you think a Bush veto would accomplish?
It could strike a serious blow against pork-barrel spending, which is one of the most corrupting practices in American politics today.
I would agree that certainly is a problem, but how much a President veto is going to affect it is questionable.
However, a Bush veto certainly makes it look like the Speaker of the House isn't doing his job!
By the way, when Clinton became President, all three branches of Gov't were in Democrat hands.
He ignored the Democrat leadership and ran the White House against both of the other branches.
Clinton destroyed his own Party for his own benefit.
If you're referring to the 1994 takeover, I think the stage for that was set during the Republican National Convention in '92. Speaker after speaker made some very rousing and articulate defenses of conservative ideology, and I bet it influenced a lot of people. I know that it influenced me, who was still kind of on the fence at the time.
I also think Perot's candidacy helped with that as well. It seems that "Get in there and clean out the barn!" was advice that a lot of voters took to heart. And I would bet that the GOP wouldn't have taken such a strong pro-conservative stance if it wasn't for the electoral challenge that Buchanan and later Perot forced on them.
What you say may very well be true, but Clinton also did not see himself as being part of a Party-he was the Party!
Nixon had this same view also.
I think each branch of gov't should respect the others Constitutional bounderies.
And on the political level, each should try to help the other two remain under control of its own Party.
I think alot of the House/Senate Republican public criticism of Bush over certain issues that have nothing to do with them has not helped our Party.
If the GOP wants to remain in control, then it needs to do something about the spending. Individual Congressmen may have an interest in maintaing the spoils system for individual districts, but it doesn't help things nationally for that state of affairs to continue. Hence, those individual Congressmen have to be brought to heel, one way or the other.
I agree with you, but lets not blame the President for what is the responsibility of the House.
"Is it just me or do I see the same pro-Miers crowd supporting this bizarre deal with a radical Islamic nation?"
I was thinking along the same lines.
GEEEEZZZZZ!!!!
A post of over 3000 and you got it nailed at 17. Too easy.
Moreso than any bilge pumped out by a collection attorney.
You clearly overestimate the strategery or whatever nonsense they call it. Its called either gross ineptness or lying. They can't have it both ways.
Please tell me one thing, seriously, if GWB did not know anything about the deal until a day or two before it broke, why did he flat out threaten to veto any bill blocking the bill?
No insults, no slurs, just give me a straight answer.
>>Snow Sanborn Chertoff...all stand to gain financially from this deal. They must go.
And - as it turns out...it was Bill Clinton !!! That's why this "news" has died down.......Hillary put the kabosh on it.
Yea, that's why President Kerry is so busy planning his re-election bid.
And who is "they", btw? I'll tell you. Will Ferrell in a SNL skit. BFD. Paranoia will destroy ya', Chris.
"Please tell me one thing, seriously, if GWB did not know anything about the deal until a day or two before it broke, why did he flat out threaten to veto any bill blocking the bill?"
I've not seen one shred of evidence about the bill's timeline other than vapid MSM speculation & Boobird Autoflaming Paranoia. And again, as my original post indicated:
"How do you know that in fact that isn't the case here? If an override is guaranteed going in, Bush gives the Congressional GOP incumbency a chance to go back to the districts and say, "I'm my own man, I voted against the President on this major issue." Then Bush himself tells the Emirates that he went to the bitter limit for them, and thus they must make good to join a coalition supporting a pre-emptive strike on Iran. Then Halliburton gets the port contract after the elections."
In case you hadn't noticed, Chris:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.