Skip to comments.
Mix-up puts House farm bill veto override in doubt
AP via SFGate ^
| 5/21/8
| MARY CLARE JALONICK and JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writers
Posted on 05/21/2008 6:22:57 PM PDT by SmithL
The House overwhelmingly rejected George W. Bush's veto Wednesday of a $290 billion farm bill, but what should have been a stinging defeat for the president became an embarrassing episode for Democrats.
Only hours before the House's 316-108 vote, Bush had vetoed the five-year measure, saying it was too expensive and gave too much money to wealthy farmers when farm incomes are high. The Senate then was expected to follow suit quickly.
Action stalled, however, after the discovery that Congress had omitted a 34-page section of the bill when lawmakers sent the massive measure to the White House. That means Bush vetoed a different bill from the one Congress passed, leaving leaders scrambling to figure out whether it could become law.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 110th; agriculture; congress; farmbill; federalspending; override; pork; rats; veto
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
Where's that ha-ha kid?
1
posted on
05/21/2008 6:22:58 PM PDT
by
SmithL
To: SmithL
Show of hands.... Does anybody out there think this was an accident?
2
posted on
05/21/2008 6:24:41 PM PDT
by
gridlock
(RNC.com wants you to know... It's OK to vote against Barack Obama...)
To: SmithL
Idiots. Now let’s waste some more time, resend it, he can reveto it, then you can reoverride it. Yea, let’s put these fools in charge of our health care system.
3
posted on
05/21/2008 6:26:19 PM PDT
by
Huck
("Real" conservatives support OBAMA in 08 (that's how you know Im not a real conservative))
To: gridlock
Faith lives in failure.
Hope you’re right about the “accident”!
Please elucidate.
4
posted on
05/21/2008 6:26:34 PM PDT
by
acapesket
To: gridlock
“Does anybody out there think this was an accident?”
Yes. Proof: Congress acted incredibly quickly in all regards so not to let this atrocity get a full airing, and have this pass as far before the election as possible. Doesn’t surprise me there was a screw-up due to haste.
5
posted on
05/21/2008 6:28:03 PM PDT
by
Shermy
(Nightmares From My Pastor, A Story of Race and Insanity)
To: SmithL
6
posted on
05/21/2008 6:28:26 PM PDT
by
Jet Jaguar
(Who would the terrorists vote for?)
To: SmithL
7
posted on
05/21/2008 6:28:26 PM PDT
by
xjcsa
(Has anyone seen my cornballer?)
To: SmithL
8
posted on
05/21/2008 6:29:34 PM PDT
by
Jet Jaguar
(Who would the terrorists vote for?)
To: xjcsa; Jet Jaguar
9
posted on
05/21/2008 6:31:18 PM PDT
by
SmithL
(Reject Obama's Half-Vast Wright-Wing Conspiracy)
To: SmithL
That means Bush vetoed a different bill from the one Congress passed, leaving leaders scrambling to figure out whether it could become law. Makes no sense. The version he vetoed obviously can't become law, and the full version hasn't yet reached his desk. ...but he'll veto it if/when it does. So what's this "law" business?
10
posted on
05/21/2008 6:34:40 PM PDT
by
Mr. Mojo
To: gridlock
I don’t think it was deliberate but that doesn’t necessarily mean it then was an accident. Instead, I think it was pure incompetence from Pelosi who is angling to get her picture in the dictionary for that word. Yes, I know she didn’t personally type up the bill but she did select the staff and it happened on her watch. She’s two heartbeats away from the Presidency and that scares me greatly. Prayers for Cheney’s health.
11
posted on
05/21/2008 6:36:52 PM PDT
by
NonValueAdded
("Just because you're running for President doesn't mean that you are the center of the universe")
To: Mr. Mojo
Ah I see...the override. Forget it.
12
posted on
05/21/2008 6:37:12 PM PDT
by
Mr. Mojo
To: gridlock
Bureaucratic snafu ... nothing more, nothing less ... nothing to see here people, move along move along, all is well .....
/sarc off
To: gridlock
I think it was, otherwise we would be giving the idiots too much credit.
14
posted on
05/21/2008 6:43:41 PM PDT
by
WesternPacific
(I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils!)
To: SmithL
Its unconstitutional. But its not like the Democrats much care about abiding by its letter and its spirit. Pork's more important in Washington and for both parties, that overrides the lip service they give to the Constitution.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
15
posted on
05/21/2008 7:23:45 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: gridlock
Not an accident; a blunder.
To: SmithL
Seems kind of silly. I doubt if anyone has even read 34 pages of the thing.
17
posted on
05/21/2008 8:19:01 PM PDT
by
Wolfie
To: SmithL
...an embarrassing episode for Democrats.Not for Democrats only, I regret to say. There are not 316 Democrats in the House.
To: SmithL
Bush was right to veto this measure when rich farmers and Big Ethanol is making millions. Call your idiot congresscritter and tell him or her where they can shove their override.
19
posted on
05/21/2008 10:57:06 PM PDT
by
TheThinker
(Capitalism is the natural result of a democratic government.)
To: SmithL
All Bush needs to say is vetoing this bill is a beginning to getting the economy back on track. Everything’s too lopsided right now.
20
posted on
05/21/2008 10:58:09 PM PDT
by
TheThinker
(Capitalism is the natural result of a democratic government.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson