These two statements seem contradictary.
The Republicans only need 51-49 in the Senate, hence Roberts-Alito.
But, they can't move on anything else because of the threat of a filibuster?
Has there been any filibuster in any 'Bush' Congress?

Your suggestion is to be patient and wait until there are more little Bushs running around both Houses because the dems might filibuster otherwise?

Preposterous.

 

I agree, well said.

It's a shame that the need for power will continue to strangle our country's ability to get anything done. Maybe that's a good thing in some case but with Social Security, the war on terror, financial stewardship, immigration and health care costs being major problems, we can't afford to wait to act on something sensible.

 

Which brings us back to my bucket/titanic comparison.

You cant fix a problem this big with small incremental steps that will have no effect. We need to overhaul the whole dang thing.

 

If the pansy Republicans would call the Dems bluff I'd be impressed..

"we'll filibuster"

"well ok...we'll stop"


screw that...

"Kennedy grab War and Peace and get up there....cause ya'll are gonna have to talk until we recess this summer"

 

Apparently Congress not only fears the filibuster but, also the VETO.
That I can't follow at all.
Bush hasn't vetoed anything ever.(zero)
Usually a President will be at odds with his Congress over 'something'.

Question: Last President with zero vetoes while in Office?
Answer: President Garfield 1880.
Reason: President Garfield - assassinated 1881.

Question: Next President with zero vetoes while in Office?
Answer: Millard Fillmore 1850.
Reason: Fillmore was a Putz.

 

Getting enough votes to overturn a fillibuster hasn't been needed because nothing truly "earth shattering" in terms of how the government is run has been brought before Congress!

If you tried to run a piece of legislation through Congress right now that truly changed with way business was run in Washington (take the line-item veto, or the privitazation of Social Security as examples) I guarantee that you would need enough votes to overturn a fillibuster! The fact that overturning one hasn't been required is more indicative of politicians who are unwilling invest the time required to bring about legislation that would affect true change in Washington, only to have it go nowhere in Congress!

Regarding the Supreme Court Justices, the only reason the Dems didn't fillibuster is that their own polling showed this would not go over well with the American people! Getting into a pi$$ing match with Bush on a well-qualified candidate for the court (even if they don't agree with you on certain issues) is not what the Dems are looking for moving into the mid-term elections!

 

Obviously it would be rare if a President vetoed legislation out of a Congress that was controlled by his own party.

But moving forward to 2008, it is plausible to foresee a Congress with Republican majorities in both Houses, and a Democrat as President. In this scenario, having enough votes to override a veto would be critical for a Congress that was compelled to push through sweeping change!

 

Lack of filibuster over court nominees and the reason privitazation of SS wasn't run through are one in the same, the American people. Bush had to sell SS on the street before he went to Congress and it didn't sell.

As for the 'Line Item Veto' Republican congressmen know that what they give their boy today, will get passed to somebodys elses boy(girl) tomorrow.

i.e. Bush gets the Line Item Veto for the next three years, whoop-dee-doo,
Hillary will have it for the next eight.
They may be nuts but, they ain't crazy.

My point is Bush has the ability to push a decent agenda through and it appears to be squandered from what I heard last night and the clock is ticking.

 

Stop it man, you're killing me here.
So, they ain't going to do anything now but,
vote more of them in because hillary might get the WhiteHouse
and they need enough to overturn her veto
because that's when they are going to do something?

I am seriously trying not to mis-paraphrase you.

(at least you come out and play)

 

This is what happens in every administration, nothing of great value takes place until the last year of a presidents term.. in the end they finaly work with the congress/senate and actually get some promising legislation through the works

 

I was thinking the same thing.

As I have said here in the past, whenever being accused of being a left wing moron (usually based on my location), I voted for Bush in this last election because I figured he had a great opportunity to get things done.
And what was thinking at the time . . . "[I]A Prez with their party having a majority in both Houses . . . surely they will seize this opportunity to get things done, to do the right thing (no pun intended with regard to "right") and they can actually do some good for this country."

Now I have been accused in the past of being a pessimist, of seeing only the dark side of things, and a lot of the time that may be true. But in a moment of optimism I voted for him, hoping that something good would come of it.

Of all the times to see thru rose coloured glasses, I guess that was not the time.

Sadly, ddellwo's statement demonstrates the mindset of politicians. They can't actually do anything when afforded the opportunity, they only operate on a negative reaction basis; all they know is how to play "stop the other guy." And that goes for ALL politicians, not just one party or the other.

Where's Pat Paulson when you need him?

 

Gridlock is Good

 

No -- I think you're reading a tad too much into my statements.

I'm not saying, "Vote Republican in the Congressional elections to counteract the possibility of a Billary Presidency." What I'm saying is that IF a Republican controlled Congress in 2008 decided that sweeping change was needed, and a Democrat was the President, then they would undoubtedly need the ability to override a veto to move forward with their agenda!

Don't misinterpret what I'm saying could happen, or anything I would want to happen, and confuse it with what I think will happen....

 

hehehehehehe..... ......you said strategery.......heheheheheh.....

 

Regardless of 'would','could' or will' I'm afraid Nov '06 will make your thesis 'Pie in the sky'.

But good luck with all that.