Posted on 11/09/2008 7:51:58 PM PST by winoneforthegipper
You’re right. I don’t believe he ever got to use it.
I wasn’t aware that ANY president has ever had a line item veto. Do you have a link?
> Bush, did the best he could, with what he had. What he did was very good, what he didn’t was very bad.
I must respectfully disagree. I am afraid that George Bush missed an opportunity to be a great president. For example:
1. He failed to expand the military post 9-11. Following Clinton our military is too small. After 8 years of George Bush it is not larger.
2. He tried very hard to be “bi-partisan”. We got the Kennedy-written prescription drug, education and campaign reform bills. We almost got an amnesty bill.
3. After 8 years when Republicans controlled all 3 branches for a significant time, we got enormously bloated government.
4. He failed to make tax cuts permanent.
The fact is voters gave Republicans a chance to set things right and Republicans failed.
John McCain was promising more of the same. More “bi-partisanship”, more spending (he promised to use tax money to buy bad mortgages!) and quite possibly more taxes (read my lips).
It would have been a different story had he challenged them daily on their propaganda.
This bears repeating, in full!
Not me. I was dead-set on voting for McCain and was waiting on his VP pick to seal the deal. As long as he did not pick a pro-abortion running mate, e.g. Lieberman, my vote was assured. I know many people who were in the same boat.
McCain’s problem is that he had to campaign on “change”, just like the other guy. And why would people choose OLD change with McCain when they could choose NEW change with Obama?
The reason McCain had to campaign on “change” is because George Bush sat there like a punching bag for eight years, never having the guts to stand up and defend himself as lie after lie after lie from the rats and their newsrooms went left unanswered. Bush’s unwillingness to stand up and fight was an eight-year slap in the face to his bewildered supporters, including me.
The result was that the Democrat candidate could successfully tie his opponent to the easily-smeared punching bag, Bush, while the Republican candidate had little choice but to distance himself from Bush. What, McCain was supposed to defend a man who refused for eight years to defend himself? This situation left McCain between a rock and a hard place.
So yes, Tuesday’s Republican slaughter was Bush’s fault. No joke.
Ironically, Bush defeated McCain in 2000 and now again in 2008.
Whew....
That said, McCain was the guy running for President, not Bush, and so maybe he SHOULD have defended, supported, and lifted Bush to the high heavens rather than “distance” himself. “George Bush has kept America safe from the terrorists since 9/11”, might have been a good start.
Maybe if Bush had been an ally and unleashed him on the campaign trail, the whole game would have been changed completely. That would have taken some guts, but it could have worked because the rats greatly overestimated the general public’s dislike of Bush, and exit polls showed that.
What a freaking mess.... And NOW look at the steaming pantload we have for a president-elect.
God bless Sarah Palin! She speaks the truth and is easily the most intelligent conservative in the country
You may characterize as a “fine job” Jorge’s ignoring conservatives’ pleas to abandon his desire for amnesty while arrogantly saying, “See ya at the bill singing”. I think it sucked. He also sucked by not vetoing any part of the out of control spending of congress. He also sucked by sending hunderds of millions of our tax dollars to African countries who hate us. There’s a reason why he is known as being a founding member of the “Ted Kennedyt wing of the Republican Party”; it’s because he’s the best Republican president the left has ever had.
<PAnd I am fully aware of who caused the economic crisis, thanks.
Last I checked the current President decided to attack his base as being racist, sexist and elitist after winning re-election. Don’t look to my corner for a defense of the man. After the amnesty battle we divorced.
I’ll defend a few of his policies and give credit where he went right (sometimes unwillingly) but on a personal level you don’t attack the people who brought you there and deserve their unflinching loyalty in return and that would explain why his poll numbers are where they are right now.
Sarah’s right about the size of government and the spending. Republicans deserve no credit for their actions, and taking ownership for their actions is first means to repair the damage with the public and the brand.
Mistakes were made in Iraq, she’s right about that to. I’d balance the statement with what went right as well, so on that we’d differ but she isn’t wrong on what was said here.
The media smelled blood. Bush handed them everything they needed. My god, wake up! Bush starved the war 04-6 for political reasons and magically found out we we were losing, when ??? NOVEMBER 2006. Yet everyone knew we were losing but the commander and chief and his dwinding followers like ME and YOU. With the bailout he gave Pelosi Obama everything they need to takeover the entire economy. Jeeze. There are so many Bush believers!
To ALL, I love you Sarah:
Write to Governor Palin at this address below to show your continued support.:)
In 2004’s election, the Dem's were floating that Bush was going to start the draft again. They were crying to the public the travesty!
Now four years later...hey it's okay!....lol
After 8 years of either party in power, people want a change. Its just the way it is. President Bush has been under fire since the 2000 election. Not a minute of peace. I will miss him when he is gone, although I will be happy for him.
I know, it’s heartbreaking.
Correct.
Bush simply didn't know how to say no to huge spending bills.
Mind you, it didn't help any that McCain decided to increase the deficit even further, by voting for that $700 Billion “bailout” bill.
You two have it. I was a Bush believer, used to defend him. But I am not a brain dead robot. At this point one has to be self destructive to not accept the disaster.
The media smelled blood. They jumped on democrats like Clinton too, not as much, but they cant resist blood, Even FNC reported war disaster 2005-2006
Yes, Clinton did. He used it twice. It, line item veto, was challenged and went before the SCOTUS by Sen. Byrd-Dumassocrat, and remanded without decision, and then again by none other than Rudy Giuliani’s New York City, where it, finally, died.
No President has a line-item veto as so many here have mentioned. What Bush should have done was told Congress that spending had to be under a certain amount, otherwise the “budget” would be vetoed. Then veto it until they got it right. But he did not have the guts to do it, plain and simple.
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.