House Republicans demonstrate irritation with arrogance from Bush White House

The Union Leader, Manchester, NH ^ | July 29, 2003 | Robert D. Novak

[RJCogburn]

The two jewels in the President’s crown — his vigorous management of the war against terrorism and his determination to keep cutting taxes — are seen at the White House as sufficient to satisfy his base.

Perhaps.

[Miss Marple]

I think the only phone calls not being returned by the White House are Bob Novak's.

[Ronin]

Bump for FReeper comments. I need to hear more opinions before I make up my mind on how I feel about this.

[WhiteGuy]

The two jewels in the President’s crown — his vigorous management of the war against terrorism and his determination to keep cutting taxes — are seen at the White House as sufficient to satisfy his base.

It appears that the "conservative base" is being taken for granted.

A mistake

[Miss Marple]

The vote is the only thing on record. Notice all these "complaints" about arrogance have NO named source. Just the usual passive voice type BS.

[AntiGuv]

I'm not so short-sighted that I fail to realize cutting taxes now only means even higher taxes later than they would've been if they'd never been cut [interest rates], so long as they're also increasing welfare and pork handouts:

[leprechaun9]

Is this "arrogance" any different than that displayed by the Democraps toward their base? I.E., Our base would never support the other party, so we can do as we wish, forget principle!

[poet]

The reuplicrats are overlooking the possibility that there may be another perot hiding in the woodpile who could open the door for the hildebeast. Don't forget, her slime husband was elected with just 43% of the vote, but, he got the big liberal States Electoral votes. Bush's "base" consists of people who want government handouts which is why he is embracing the dem's agenda for the last 2 1/2 years.

[NittanyLion]

Wow. Says it all...

[RJCogburn]

Hmmm........that's a tad disturbing.

[BushCountry]

A mistake

You're right, I am so upset I can not wait to vote for Dean. Dean's America will be so much better! </sarcasm off>

[Rodney King]

Wow, I think I'm going to puke. I didn't realize it was that bad.

[jpl]

Bush has been in office two and a half years and he hasn't vetoed a single bill yet? That has to be a record.

[BushCountry]

I don't know if it is a veto record, you forget that he has a Republican House and Senate.

[AntiGuv]

Presidential Vetoes (1789-2001)

Since 1789, the President has had the authority to veto legislation passed by Congress. This authority is one of the significant tools in the President's legislative dealings with Congress. It is effective in directly preventing the passage of legislation undesirable to the President, and the threat of a veto can bring about changes in the content of legislation long before the bill is ever presented to the President.

There are two types of vetoes available to the President. The "regular veto" is a qualified negative veto, which is limited by the ability of Congress to muster the necessary two-thirds vote of each House for constitutional override. The other type of veto is a "pocket veto." This veto is actually an absolute veto that cannot be overridden; it becomes effective when the President fails to sign a bill after Congress has adjourned and is unable to override the veto.

President	Congresses	Regular Vetoes	Pocket Vetoes	Total Vetoes	Vetoes Overridden
George Washington	1st- 4th	2	.....	2	.....
John Adams	5th-6th	.....	.....	.....	.....
Thomas Jefferson	7th-10th	.....	.....	.....	.....
James Madison	11th-14th	5	2	7	.....
James Monroe	15th-18th	1	.....	1	.....
John Quincy Adams	19th-20th	.....	.....	.....	.....
Andrew Jackson	21st-24th	5	7	12	.....
Martin Van Buren	25th-26th	.....	1	1	.....
William Henry Harrison	27th	.....	.....	.....	.....
John Tyler	27th-28th	6	4	10	1
James K. Polk	29th-30th	2	1	3	.....
Zachary Taylor	31st	.....	.....	.....	.....
Millard Fillmore	31st-32nd	.....	.....	.....	.....
Franklin Pierce	33rd-34th	9	.....	9	5
James Buchanan	35th-36th	4	3	7	.....
Abraham Lincoln	37th-39th	2	5	7	.....
Andrew Johnson	39th-40th	21	8	29	15
Ulysses S. Grant	41st-44th	45	48	93	4
Rutherford B. Hayes	45th-46th	12	1	13	1
James A. Garfield	47th	.....	.....	.....	.....
Chester A. Arthur	47th-48th	4	8	12	1
Grover Cleveland	49th-50th	304	110	414	2
Benjamin Harrison	51st-52nd	19	25	44	1
Grover Cleveland	53rd-54th	42	128	170	5
William McKinley	55th-57th	6	36	42	.....
Theodore Roosevelt	57th-60th	42	40	82	1
William H. Taft	61st-62nd	30	9	39	1
Woodrow Wilson	63rd-66th	33	11	44	6
Warren G. Harding	67th	5	1	6	.....
Calvin Coolidge	68th-70th	20	30	50	4
Herbert C. Hoover	71st-72nd	21	16	37	3
Franklin D. Roosevelt	73rd-79th	372	263	635	9
Harry S. Truman	79th-82nd	180	70	250	12
Dwight D. Eisenhower	83rd-86th	73	108	181	2
John F. Kennedy	87th-88th	12	9	21	.....
Lyndon B. Johnson	88th-90st	16	14	30	.....
Richard M. Nixon	91st-93rd	26	17	43	7
Gerald R. Ford	93rd-94th	48	18	66	12
James Earl Carter	95th-96th	13	18	31	2
Ronald Reagan	97th-100th	39	39	78	9
George Bush*	101th-102nd	29	15	44	1
William J. Clinton	103rd-106th	36	1	37	2
George W. Bush	107th-108th	.....	.....	.....	.....
Total	............	1484	1066	2550	106

* President Bush attempted to pocket veto two bills during intrasession recess periods. Congress considered the two bills enacted into law because of the President's failure to return the legislation. The bills are not counted as pocket vetoes in this table.

Source: Congressional Research Service

[MEG33]

Bob Novak does not like Bush.

[NittanyLion]

You're right, I am so upset I can not wait to vote for Dean. Dean's America will be so much better!

Because we all know the only choices are George Bush or Howard Dean.

Talk about a logical fallacy.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

Yes, your graph is disturbing, BUT, isn't it just one face of cube of data? For example, how much money was/is available to the Federal Government in Reagan's time and in Bush's? What percentage of the budget were spent on these programs? What was their dollar amount?

I myself don't know the answer to these questions, but I know that if someone says to me: "spending is down -11.5%" Mathematically, speaking, they could still be spending more money than someone whose spending has increased to 16%. It all depends on what you're comparing too, and the amount of real dollars (as opposed to percentages). For example, one can say: "The Dow dropped 10% today". That obviously means a bigger drop if the Dow is sitting at 10,000 as opposed to 5,000. But, if you were to say: "The Dow dropped 1,000 / 500 points" that has a lot more meaning.

[AntiGuv]

No, it doesn't. It has far greater meaning to say the Dow fell 10% than to say it fell 1,000 points. The same applies for the budget and your questions are meaningless.

I hope you've got a good financial manager..

[PGalt]

Arrogance is a difficult trait to correct

So we are down to "arrogance"? It has no legs Novak. The Democratic Crime Syndicate is not an option.