RealGun
Member
rick_reno said:
Get a grip.
Was Miers a Throw Away Nomination?
- Thread starter Waitone
- Start date
- Status
Get a grip.
oct_97
Member
Lone_Gunman said:
Al Gore & John Kerry! Do you think the AWB would have sunsetted or the recent Bill protecting gun makers would have been signed into law?
Lone_Gunman
Member
I think the AWB would have still expired. There would have been nothing Kerry or Gore could have done to prevent that.
The lawsuit protection for gun makers probably would not have been signed.
Jay Kominek
Member
In fact, it was my understanding that he has vetoed absolutely nothing. I'd be interested in knowing if that is still the case.
RealGun
Member
Jay Kominek said:
Vetoes are improbable when the White House and the Congress are the same party. You would have to blame the whole system if you thought something should have been vetoed. Becoming a lame duck comes soon enough without crossing swords with Congress. Alienating ones own party is not very smart. The President is a moderate Republican, not a libertarian. Get your own gig.
Jay Kominek
Member
Stop reading stuff I didn't write. And take your blood pressure medication.RealGun said:
longeyes
member
No.
Irrational compulsion fits the bill. Bush likes to call this trusting his instincts.
RealGun
Member
It would seem that "irrational" is plentiful among critics as well.
Brett Bellmore
Member
RealGun said:
Plenty of Presidents, of either party, have managed to rack up substantial veto records, despite having Congress controlled by their own party. And it should be remembered that Bush has signed bills he'd promised he'd veto. Bills that were passed by the opposing party, with a handful of defecting Republicans, and which were remarkably unpopular with his base.
No, there's something more than a little unusual about Bush's refusal to veto anything. I might even say pathological. It's not even remotely a normal state of affairs.
Waitone
Member
Bush's reluctance has been explained to me as his way of forcing his other party members to accept reponsiblity for their own stupid actions. This explanation was brought up while kicking around his refusal to veto Campaign Finance Control. He told them what he wanted in reform and the congress promptly gave him nothing of the such. He was unwilling to accept the slings and arrows of his responsible actions. If he veto'd the bill he'd forever be the boogie man while those responsible (in his view) skated. So he tells his part, "Don't send that thing to me. I will sign it and you will have to answer for it."
That's the theory. Personally, I think it is his methodology of fighting fights. He simply will not engage in conflict unless his chances of victory approach 100%. At the first of his term as president I marveled at how he could do an about face at the drop of a simple dime. Well, he still is capable of close order drill. Its just now it appears to be moral cowardice.
I think we'll be analyzing this guy for decades into the future.
That's the theory. Personally, I think it is his methodology of fighting fights. He simply will not engage in conflict unless his chances of victory approach 100%. At the first of his term as president I marveled at how he could do an about face at the drop of a simple dime. Well, he still is capable of close order drill. Its just now it appears to be moral cowardice.
I think we'll be analyzing this guy for decades into the future.
RealGun
Member
Brett Bellmore said:
On Vetoes
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0903/092903ff.htm
Historical tally of vetoes
http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/vetoes.html
Looks like Clinton had the fewest among two term Presidents in many years. There was a Democrat majority in the Senate, as I recall.
GigaBuist
Member
He hasn't Veto'ed anything yet. I've heard there's a very good reason behind that, though.Biker said:
Upside down the stamp looks like 3T0V and he just doesn't know what it's for!
Hey, I voted for the guy... but I'm regretting that every day. McCain/Feingold, Miers, and now "Jose" the Spy-Guy. I can't believe what I'm seeing anymore.
Nehemiah Scudder
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2004
- Messages
- 391
He threatened to veto that Defense Department spending bill. (Because of McCain's Army regs amendment)
That's about the closest he's come lately.
That's about the closest he's come lately.
El Rojo
Member
I never even bothered looking at this thread because I figured she was going to get it and the President wouldn't just throw away a nomination. I am here to say you were right!
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
Bye bye Miers...
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court
I'm not sure if we'll ever know whether or not this was the plan from the beginning.
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court
I'm not sure if we'll ever know whether or not this was the plan from the beginning.
Hypnogator
Member
An interesting point: The newsies were speculating about the last paragraph in Meiers' withdrawal letter. In it she says she is proud to have served the White House. This would seem to indicate that she was no longer going to be White House Counsel, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Could it really be that she served the President as she indicates in her letter by being the throw-away candidate? Her nomination has (1) galvanized the conservatives into demanding a candidate with very conservative leanings. They must now stand behind their demands. And, (2) given the liberals someone arguably to their ultimate liking that they have opposed. Opposition to the expected conservative candidate will now seem petty and knee-jerk.
I'd really like to think our President is more canny than most of us give him credit for.
Could it really be that she served the President as she indicates in her letter by being the throw-away candidate? Her nomination has (1) galvanized the conservatives into demanding a candidate with very conservative leanings. They must now stand behind their demands. And, (2) given the liberals someone arguably to their ultimate liking that they have opposed. Opposition to the expected conservative candidate will now seem petty and knee-jerk.
I'd really like to think our President is more canny than most of us give him credit for.
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
Time will tell. But he does seem to be in a much stronger position to get a Luttig or Brown on the court now, doesn't he?
Cosmoline
Member
Sir Aardvark said:
Except the wolves turned out to be from the GOP itself. The Dems didn't have to spend much money or political capital to get her cut. They just sat back and waited for the hearing where they knew they'd rip her to shreds. If GW really wanted a "throw away," his best bet would have been to pick another Bork--a deeply conservative but brilliant academic attorney with WAY too much political baggage to actually get confirmed but more than enough intelligence and background in Con law to get in the mosh pit and beat the bejesus out of the Dems at the confirmation hearings. Forcing them to spend a lot of time and money to quash the choice. THEN put in your mild-mannered stealth conservative with a solid but limited record as a District Court judge.
spartacus2002
Member
GW would be my hero if he re-nominated Bork 
spartacus2002
Member
USMC_2674 said:
Don't want Bork, but it would send the Democrats into orbit
Back to the TITLE of this thread...
Has anyone a thought or two about "timing"? After all, about every major federal court nomination in the past 5 years has been a real grind for Bush. There's an election in a week or so that may change some of the seats in congress. And there was pressure after Renquist died to fill the seat then deal with the O'Connor retirement.
Is it possible that the "throw-away" concept ate up the clock - as planned?
Toss that one into the conversation.
Has anyone a thought or two about "timing"? After all, about every major federal court nomination in the past 5 years has been a real grind for Bush. There's an election in a week or so that may change some of the seats in congress. And there was pressure after Renquist died to fill the seat then deal with the O'Connor retirement.
Is it possible that the "throw-away" concept ate up the clock - as planned?
Toss that one into the conversation.
DRZinn
Member
Think about the stamp that would read 3TOV backwards.... Who's illiterate?
(You meant OT3V)
- Status
Similar threads
