[ketsu]

Damn shame that you can count on one hand, the number of vetoes Bush has used, and still have fingers left over...

Bush's lack of vetoes is not as bad as it seems. GW tends to undermine bills through "signing statements" which effectively eviscerate whatever intent congress had in passing the bill in the first place.

[Sonny M]

GW tends to undermine bills through "signing statements" which effectively eviscerate whatever intent congress had in passing the bill in the first place.

Not exactly, but its a common belief.

More propaganda then fact.

[mdefranc]

“GW tends to undermine bills through ‘signing statements’...” - ketsu

But, unlike a veto, such signing statements are: 1) subject to legal challenge, and 2) not even binding on the signer himself.

Nice try, Bushie.

[Iconoclast2]

Signing statements are a way to fool ignorant Republicans into thinking that Bush is doing something useful. They cannot possibly offset the plain language of the statutes.

[af_vet_rr]

Bush's lack of vetoes is not as bad as it seems. GW tends to undermine bills through "signing statements" which effectively eviscerate whatever intent congress had in passing the bill in the first place.

Yeah, that's a real good plan. When a Democrat comes into office and does the exact same thing in regards to bills they don't like, are you going to say it's "not as bad as it seems"???

Sorry, but I like good old fashioned vetoes, because they are right there where everybody can see them, not something that Bush will quietly sign and tuck away somewhere. That kind of crap gives me the creeps, especially given the precedent Bush is setting for Democrats to do in the future.