Merry Christmas, from GWB!

Remove all ads!

Exactly. The Dems picked up 5 seats in 2006 as well - so that's 11 out of 100 seats. The Democrats have not lost a senate seat in two elections cycles - that's the first time that's ever happened. The only incumbents to lose have been Republicans.

One small correction - I think there are officially 58 total when you count the two Democratic leaning independents. The only way they were going to get to 60 is if Al Franken won Minnesota - which looks unlikely based on the current recount, and the runoff in Georgia - which was a real long shot from the beginning. A total of 59 counting the independents was really a best-case realistic scenario for the Dems.

 

Chandos, that's only a 'problem' if you think giving them a majority should mean giving them absoute power. As I said before, many congresses have had a similar situation. It's even rarer for the President's party to have a supermajority in Congress. This lead to things like the Carter Administration. One expects these people to work together, to make comprimises.

 

NOG - If you check the history, you will find that Carter and the Democratic Congress did not work well together and were often at odds. That's one of the reasons why Carter is considered such a failure; he could not even work with his own party. Clinton worked better with the Republican Congress. They actually achieved quite a bit.

http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0053560-0&templatename=/article/articl

 

Lieberman? Lieberman? On domestic issues, you are absolutely right. Move to foreign policy or the military, and he might as well be a republican. What's more, Bush has been vetoing bi-partisan legislation. SCHIP, for example, was passed by a large enough majority to over-ride a veto. After the veto, however, the republicans that crossed the aisle changed their tune. The decider hasn't just been causing problems for democratic legislators, either. He's been giving quite a bit of grief to his own party as well. His immigration reform comes to mind as one example of that.

 

Umm Drew, GWB has vetoed 12 bills total, clinton vetoed 37 & yes, many were bi-partisan bills.

Welcome back BTW. It was a little too quiet without you here.

 

Martaug, Bill Clinton vetoed 37 bills over 8 years, six of them with a republican congress. How many times did Bush use his veto during his first six years?

 

I believe that GWB only vetoed 1 or 2 bills while he and Rove were in control of Congress. After 2006 the number increased fairly dramatically. Nothing partisan about that.

 

Just like clinton vetoed no bills before june '95 because the 102nd & 103rd congresses were in the control of the democrats.
Lets see, the republicans gained control of congress in january '95 & suddenly he vetoes 37 bills.
As you said, nothing partisan about that

Clinton vetoed 37 in 5.5 years, thats 6.72 per year
Bush vetoed 12 in 2.5 years, thats 4.8 per year
He needs to veto 5 more to match clinton & that just doesn't seem possible at this time, now does it?

 

You may need to recheck your facts.

His first veto was July, 2006, (HR 810, introduced in 2005, by the Republican Congress), which you covered. But the second veto came in May, 2007, (the first Democratic Congress veto), which is 1.5 years ago.

 

So chandos, only certain vetoes count? His first veto was in july '06, that starts the clock. How long between vetoes is pretty much irrelevant.

 

Then I fail to see your point. I believed you were comparing opposing party vetoes, not the total amount. As I commented, during GWB's first 6 years there was no need for him to veto anything, since the Republican Congress rubberstamped just about everything he wanted. I still fail to see what this has to do with Clinton. I suppose you are trying to prove that he was a paritsan Democrat because of his veto record. Do you mean with the Republican Congress that tried to impeach him? There was certainly nothing "partisan" about THAT impeachment. No way.

My point was that Bill Clinton, AND the Republican Congress, achieved quite a bit, despite the impeachment.

 

It's relevant if you are comparing his vetores with a R vs D Congress. In the last 1.5 years, he had 11 vetoes, which is 7.33 per year. So it makes a big difference in the numbers. Or, to go to the other extreme, you can look at Bush's entire presidency, and say his rate is only 1.5 vetoes per year.