Cheney Resignation Rumors Fly

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: zendari

Condi is proabortion.

pro-abortion? you mean pro-choice...

william bennett is pro abortion.

but then condi is a neocon... you may be right...

Wow, you are full of ****** and so is that website on the Bennett thing, talk about propaganda

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: zendari

Condi is proabortion.

pro-abortion? you mean pro-choice...

william bennett is pro abortion.

but then condi is a neocon... you may be right...

Wow, you are full of ****** and so is that website on the Bennett thing, talk about propaganda

Does anyone have an audio clip of him saying it?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What's the record on vetos when the president and congress are the same political party affiliation?

Clinton did not have a single veto in his first 2 years under a Democratic congress.

Okay, prove it.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If you are looking for trivia try Google.

Off the top of my head I would say Clinton (2 years), Carter, JFK, maybe Eisenhower, and part of FDR had the benefit of party dominance.

It's still irrelevant b/c responsibility lies BOTH with the legislators that draft the bills and the President that signs the bills. The sole exception would be a Congressional override.

As the President during a period of unprecedented US-caused strife and domestic fiscal mismanagement, what should Bush be getting kudos for? The only superlative he qualifies for is least qualified President in the past century. Granted, after he's finished in 2008, he will have solidified his claim to worst fiscal leader in modern history. If it makes you feel better, the Congress can accept the award with him.

You seem to be imagining I'm giving Bush some kudos for his lack of vetos. I am not. I am merely posing a question - How does having a congressional majority of the same party as the president affect vetos? Surely it has an impact as it's no secret that vetos are often partisan in nature.

But somehow I'm not surprised that I can't get a straight answer to this question.

Your question had no revalance to the orginal comment made by BaliBabyDoc
. It has nothing to due what's being discussed at hand either, it's another Strawman Fallacy.

Please show me some "evidence" for the part that is underlined.

Erm...read back a bit. Todd33 made the comment about Bush not vetoing any bills thus far. That's what my comment was in regards to. BBD decided to chime in as an excuse to go on yet another of his Bush bashing excursions.

Yes, you did respond to Todd33's post however what you're implying has no revalance. It doesn't matter if congress is controlled by the same party thats in the white house; the president is ultimately responsible for all bills that are passed.

Still waiting for evidence to back up your claim... What said BaliBabyDoc
is nothing but constructive critism of president Bush.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What's the record on vetos when the president and congress are the same political party affiliation?

Clinton did not have a single veto in his first 2 years under a Democratic congress.

You need to go back to history classes.

He used what was called a Line Item Veto.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What's the record on vetos when the president and congress are the same political party affiliation?

Clinton did not have a single veto in his first 2 years under a Democratic congress.

Okay, prove it.

Text

There were no vetoes in the
first and second sessions of the 103d Congress.

 

[Tab]

Look what I found...

The last time a president's party dominated Capitol Hill was in 1993 and 1994, the first two years of President Clinton's term. That period was also marked by zero vetoes, but for a very different reason. Unruly House and Senate Democrats failed to toe the line on Clinton's big-ticket proposals, such as nationalized healthcare, leaving him with few major bills to sign. Lack of party discipline nearly scuttled the North American Free Trade Agreement and his budget. By the end of his second term, Mr. Clinton had issued 37 vetoes.

It seems that his own parties dis-organization has affected how many bills were put through. Bush's zero is a farcry from Clinton's 37..

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What's the record on vetos when the president and congress are the same political party affiliation?

Clinton did not have a single veto in his first 2 years under a Democratic congress.

You need to go back to history classes.

He used what was called a Line Item Veto.

Are you so sure about that Dave?

Text

The President of the United States was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control spending in supplementary clauses attached to appropriations bills that included vital spending measures, which had to be signed or vetoed in entirety. Under the line-item veto law, which took effect January 1, 1997

Maybe you'll be my professor in history class when I arrive? Better hit the books first though, eh?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What's the record on vetos when the president and congress are the same political party affiliation?

Clinton did not have a single veto in his first 2 years under a Democratic congress.

Okay, prove it.

Text

There were no vetoes in the
first and second sessions of the 103d Congress.

Bill Clinton for the history challenged

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What's the record on vetos when the president and congress are the same political party affiliation?

Clinton did not have a single veto in his first 2 years under a Democratic congress.

You need to go back to history classes.

He used what was called a Line Item Veto.

Are you so sure about that Dave?

Text

The President of the United States was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control spending in supplementary clauses attached to appropriations bills that included vital spending measures, which had to be signed or vetoed in entirety. Under the line-item veto law, which took effect January 1, 1997

Maybe you'll be my professor in history class when I arrive? Better hit the books first though, eh?

Notice the word WAS

You wish I would be your Professor, god forbid you actually might learn something.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: zendari

Condi is proabortion.

pro-abortion? you mean pro-choice...

william bennett is pro abortion.

but then condi is a neocon... you may be right...

Wow, you are full of ****** and so is that website on the Bennett thing, talk about propaganda

uh-huh, and why is that? Care to elaborate why my link is "propaganda"?

What in particular do you have a problem with what Del Williams wrote?

Is it because it's not from a suburban white source that blames blacks?

Or are you just trolling again?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What's the record on vetos when the president and congress are the same political party affiliation?

Clinton did not have a single veto in his first 2 years under a Democratic congress.

You need to go back to history classes.

He used what was called a Line Item Veto.

Are you so sure about that Dave?

Text

The President of the United States was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control spending in supplementary clauses attached to appropriations bills that included vital spending measures, which had to be signed or vetoed in entirety. Under the line-item veto law, which took effect January 1, 1997

Maybe you'll be my professor in history class when I arrive? Better hit the books first though, eh?

Notice the word WAS

You wish I would be your Professor, god forbid you actually might learn something.

Let me bold the relevant section for you.

 

[Ninepepper]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Link

Don't know about the reputability of the source, but saw it on Fark. Thought'd I'd share

White House Watch: Cheney resignation rumors fly

Charlie Archambault for USN&WR
Posted 10/18/05
By Paul Bedard

Sparked by today's Washington Post story that suggests Vice President Cheney's office is involved in the Plame-CIA spy link investigation, government officials and advisers passed around rumors that the vice president might step aside and that President Bush would elevate Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"It's certainly an interesting but I still think highly doubtful scenario," said a Bush insider. "And if that should happen," added the official, "there will undoubtedly be those who believe the whole thing was orchestrated ? another brilliant Machiavellian move by the VP."

Said another Bush associate of the rumor, "Yes. This is not good." The rumor spread so fast that some Republicans by late morning were already drawing up reasons why Rice couldn't get the job or run for president in 2008.

"Isn't she pro-choice?" asked a key Senate Republican aide. Many White House insiders, however, said the Post story and reports that the investigation was coming to a close had officials instead more focused on who would be dragged into the affair and if top aides would be indicted and forced to resign.

"Folks on the inside and near inside are holding their breath and wondering what's next," said a Bush adviser. But, he added, they aren't focused on the future of the vice president. "Not that, at least not seriously," he said.

I personally never liked Cheney all that much, and Rice may be a step up. Surely there are alternatives though. I can hear the bottles being popped around here already though.

gee this scenario sounds familar :

Cheney will resign this Winter or Early Spring citing "health concerns"
Bush will win confirmation of Cheney's sucessor (I don't think it will be Rudy)
The new V.P. will win the White House in '08

The Democrats, or any other political party for that matter, can't do a damn thing about it.

Sometimes....I had it when I'm right.