So is the President losing his political credibility on top of every other kind of credibility? He threatened to veto the ban on torture. Now he accepts it. He threatened to veto any short-term extension of the patriot act. Now he embraces it. He said he'd stand by Harriet Miers, but withdrew her name. Like all bullies, he crumbles. I doubt Democrats take his veto threats seriously anymore, nor do Republicans count on them. So last night the Democrats killed ANWR drilling and the patriot act extension, and Frist caved. So did Bush. I suspect we will see a major standoff in the near future, because Bush will have to try to rescue his credibility - perhaps with Alito? - and the Democrats will be happy to play chicken because they don't believe Bush's threats.
Bush must be impeached.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Veto This
Posted by The Law Talking Guy at 8:48 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Gee, can you say WAFFLER! What did they say about Kerry? He was a "Flip FLopper"?
Impeach Bush!
// posted by USWest
I think what we are seeing is that as Bush's approval ratings drop (and he's a lame duck anyway), Republicans see less and less benefit in sticking by him. At the same time, Democrats have found a certain unity and party discpline in opposition. The final piece of the puzzle is Bush's failure with Katrina. Before that anyone who said he was an out of touch idiot was dismissed as being partisan. Now, such accusations stick. Democrats can say, "The President has no clue" and for the first time since 9/11/2001 avoid being effectively tagged as a traitor or coward - at least outside the Old Confederacy.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Regardless of that, RBR, Bush's reign is a fork in time, a pivotal administration. There will be a pre and post-Bush era. It will take another 10 years to repair the damage.
I wonder if the history buffs among us can discuss events from 1800-1810 or 1900-1910. Is there something about the changing of a centry that mark huge changes? I am not a millenialist, but is there something in the psyche of people that there has to be huge shifts at these times? Do we end centuries with golden ages and start them with dips? In a similar position in the early 1900's, we were preparing for WWI. Maybe people felt the same way back then- as if the world were coming apart at the seams.
// posted by USWest
There are actually political scientists who have made this and similar arguments. Samuel Huntington (before he went insane and wrote "Clash of Civilizations") wrote a book on American politics (outside his specialization actually). In it he argued that there was a 70 year cycle of sorts. I forget the details but he basically argued that these things come and go. I'm not so willing to attribute causality to time itself.
Ronald Inglehart and others have argued that people's youth experiences drive their adult political priorities. He argues that if you grow up poor you will have economic or "materialist" policy as your priority. If you grow up prosperous and content, you emphasize "post-materialist" things like traditional values or democratic equality or the environment. He sees democratic politics are largely driven by two dimensions of debate: a labor vs capital dimension and a materialist vs post-materialist dimension. There are left and right wing versions of both materialists and post-materialists. Inglehart argues that generations (like the Baby Boomers and the "Boomer Echo") who grew up in times of prosperity will be post-materialist generations. Generations who grew up in times of economic hardship like the "Greatest Generation" (depression and WWII) and Gen X (1970s/1980s recessions) will be more materialistic in their priorities. Bush is a Baby Boomer right wing post-materialist in this kind of framework.
I think Inglehart's argument is interesting and provocative but I'm not convinced that there is as much decisive generation shifting as he seems to suggest.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Is it true that Bush still hasn't vetoed anything? It certainly seems that way from what I've been able to look up. Maybe he doesn't have the intestinal fortitude for it.
Back when everything seemed to be going his way, his threats of vetos were enough. Now, he seems to recognize that using his veto would demonstrate his weakness.
I really thought Bush was the last person to consider what I think is a vital principle: real power is having the luxury to restrain your use of that power. Given his utter lack of restraint of any other presidential power, it seems strange that he seems to "get it" with this one.
// posted by Bob
Bob, you have to remember that Bush enjoys a Republican majority in both the House of Reprsentatives and the Senate. Before the Social Security fiasco, Bush could get the Republicans marching in lock step. They took their orders direct from the White House and damn well followed orders. Not so anymore. The fact that he even needs to threaten vetos demonstrates how much influence he's lost over the more moderate members of his party.
I'm not sure but I suspect if we checked we'd find out that LBJ didn't use the veto a lot either. I think Ford used it the most in recent memory. He was confronted with partisan opposition in both houses of Congress. And his leadership of the GOP was weak to put it mildly - since he wasn't elected and had no "political capital" to use as leverage.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
A link to presidential vetoes is here
It is curious that FDR, who presided over the most single-party dominated Congresses in our history (in 1936-38, 78 of 98 Senators were Democrats). Had by far the highest number of vetoes - ten times that of Clinton.
// posted by LTG
FDR was president for 3 1/2 terms. That probably has something to do with it. As might the fact that FDR was presiding over a major realignment of what the two parties stood for.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Post a Comment