Bush, vetoes and oxygen

by Kagro X

In his first six years in office, and joined at the hip with a Republican Politburo Rubber Stamp Congress so completely faithless to the Constitution that it ceded every possible power to the president, George W. Bush found it necessary to veto a grand total of one bill: stem-cell research. Everything else he wanted deep-sixed (and there was plenty, despite Congress having prostrated itself before Zod Bush) was sent to the Phantom Zone via the now-infamous "signing statements."

Back in May, Bush issued the second veto of his presidency, to kill the supplemental Iraq occupation spending bill he'd requested, because it actually demanded he fish or cut bait.

Turns out that vetoes and threats of vetoes are a habit Bush has taken a shine to:

Bush Is Prepared to Veto Bill to Expand Child Insurance
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, July 14 — The White House said on Saturday that President Bush would veto a bipartisan plan to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program, drafted over the last six months by senior members of the Senate Finance Committee.

The vow puts Mr. Bush at odds with the Democratic majority in Congress, with a substantial number of Republican lawmakers and with many governors of both parties, who want to expand the popular program to cover some of the nation’s eight million uninsured children.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said: “The president’s senior advisers will certainly recommend a veto of this proposal. And there is no question that the president would veto it.”

Sure, but that's just one bill. Right?

Well, let's put it in context:

Faced with a Congress working to take America in a new direction, President Bush—who vetoed nothing during his first five and a half years in office—has now vetoed 2 bills and threatened to veto 16 more. The Democratic-led House of Representatives has passed legislation to address the toughest challenges we face—working together to defend our country, restore accountability, grow our economy, strengthen our families, and preserve our planetmost with a bi-partisan majority. Unfortunately, the President has been a stubborn opponent of progress for the American people on these key issues. He opposes or has threatened to veto 60 percent of the House's work. [Emphasis added.]

The Children's Health Insurance Program bill makes 17. What else is on the block?

 

1. The College Cost Reduction Act - H.R. 2669
2. Homeland Security Appropriations - H.R. 2638
3. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations - H.R. 2764
4. Interior-Environment Appropriations - H.R. 2643
5. The Energy Price Gouging Act – H.R. 1252
6. The No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act - H.R. 2264
7. FY 2008 Defense Authorization Bill - H.R. 1585
8. FY 2008 Homeland Security Authorization - H.R. 1684
9. Hate Crimes Prevention Act – H.R. 1592
10. D.C. Voting Rights Act – H.R. 1905
11. Rail and Mass Transit Security Act - H.R. 1401
12. Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 - H.R. 1255
13. Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 - H.R. 985
14. Reauthorizing Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund - H.R. 720
15. Employee Free Choice Act  - H.R. 800
16. Requiring Medicare to Negotiate Lower Prescription Drug Prices - H.R. 4

[Note: This -- the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act -- makes 18. For more on which, see the very last link, below.]

Not good.

Now, there are a few easy shots that can be taken here. One is that these bills represent all the "oxygen" impeachment advocates were told they would be "sucking up" if the Congress were to put that option "on the table." So, everyone, how's your breathing?

But look, there's still time. Who knows what will happen, right? Bush could change his mind. He could find himself somehow so politically weakened and isolated that he can't afford to follow through on his vow to veto these bills. It could happen.

Another shot would have to be aimed directly at those who, I think, underestimated Bush's intransigence. Back in March of 2006, I had an exchange with someone who, I think it's fair to say, represented the views of a good number of people both here and around the country. The gist of the challenge to me was that the president to that point had never vetoed anything. Was he really going to start vetoing popular bills in the sixth year of his presidency, just as he became a lame duck? That, it was thought, was giving his brazenness too much respect.

Now, that's offered not to call that particular person to account. I only bring it up to the extent that it was necessary to illustrate the point with a direct example, and I'm sorry to have to put anyone in particular on the spot. It's surely something less than fair to do, on the front page in particular. And we should recognize that it was surely, at least at the time, a view not completely unfounded in reality, and he could hardly be blamed for taking it. But with the benefit of 16 months of hindsight, I think we may be starting to see the outlines of an answer taking shape, don't you think? That's the important thing.

And the reason it's important is that it also gives us a window into one of the other hot issues of the moment: how far will Bush go to stonewall Congressional oversight?

That's an issue in which, once again, most Congressional Democrats assume that the game will be played within the confines of the old rules, and that the president "wouldn't dare" instruct the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia not to prosecute anyone the Congress voted to hold in contempt for failure to comply with its subpoenas, for instance. Or that he "wouldn't dare" pardon (for all intents and purposes) Scooter Libby so far in advance of the end of his term. Or that he "wouldn't dare" to simply "defy" an Act of Congress.

I think that makes it a fair question for those of us who are concerned to ask whether there's a "Plan B" -- not for Iraq, but for Congress, in the event that Bush should "dare" to do any of these things the old rules of politics made us so sure he wouldn't. And if you don't want tot talk about it in terms of the contentious questions concerning oversight and/or impeachment, what other crisis can we see looming here? Looking at the list above, we can see that Bush has threatened to veto the Homeland Security, State-Foreign Operations, Financial Services, and Interior-Environment appropriations bills. That's one third of the year's 12 regular appropriations bills, and two-thirds of the appropriations bills that have managed to pass the House so far (5 out of 7 if you include the first Iraq supplemental).

Now, consider what happened with that Iraq supplemental. Anyone observing closely could see that the Congress provided the funding, and Bush rejected it. And yet, Bush successfully convinced even many Congressional Democrats that they would be blamed for not "funding the troops in the field." With Bush already threatening to veto half of the FY08 appropriations bills, who do you think will be blamed for that other thing Americans supposedly hate more than anything, the government shutdown?

So, what's the "Plan B," folks? What are we doing differently to avoid taking the blame for these vetoes? What are we doing differently to avoid having to bend to Bush's increasingly ridiculous demands in exchange for his signature?

Comments

[russkirk]

Put impeachment (both idiots) back on the table. That might make him understand just who he's defying and what the costs will be to him and his party if he keeps it up. If Sheehan does, indeed, file for Pelosi's seat, I might even vote for her, just to wake Nancy up. It'll be better than watching Nancy fear to wake BushCo up.

[profmarcus]

i know i'm preaching to the choir, but the single biggest thing we could ever do for our country is to get those criminals out of office by the most expeditious means possible... back last october when they announced their intent to engage in a "a cataclysmic fight to the death" over unfettered executive power should have been a clear signal to what we are facing now... there is no way we can extricate ourselves from iraq, there is no way we can stop the daily negation of the constitution, and there is no way we can stop the ceaseless trashing of everything that means anything for this country unless and until they are OUT of the white house... but, getting rid of them isn't enough... we also have to insure that all the provisions that have been put in place to uphold that unfettered power and all the dubious precedents that have been used in justification are not only rolled back but officially repudiated BEFORE the next president takes office... i honestly do not understand why it is so difficult to understand just how critical our situation as a nation is... when the national emergency is declared, it will be too late... it may already be too late...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

[emptypockets]

I thought he vetoed stem cells twice, once in the last Congress and once at the beginning of this one. Maybe I'm mistaken.

[Kagro X]

He did veto stem cells twice. The first one was his single veto in the first six years. The 18 bills listed are those he's threatened with vetoes.

During this Congress, he's vetoed two already: stem cells (the second time around) and the first Iraq supplemental.

Three vetoes, 18 pending veto threats.

[emptypockets]

whoops, you're right as usual. The Iraq veto was #2 back in May, and the second stem cell veto came shortly after in http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/20/politics/main2954583.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_2954583>June.

[emptypockets]

not only are you right, but you're faster at it.

[bmaz]

You ask what Plan B is; I haven't seen evidence of a freaking Plan A yet. I cannot term repetitive issuance of letters saying pretty please comply with our small requests as a "plan" The plan should be immediately, in expedited fashion, for the House to start locking up recalcitrant witnesses in conjunction with the opening of a formal impeachment process and full fledged investigation, with the direct initial target being Gonzales and Administration obstruction. Every issue that needs to be addressed can be delved into with this simple start and then Bush and Cheney quickly added as fellow direct targets as the information is revealed.

[Kagro X]

I'm faster, but only because I already researched it in order to write this thing. I guess if you count all the time I spent not saying it before you asked, then... uh...

As for what Plan A is, Plan A is to "go to court," whatever that means. The House and committee leadership are still under the impression that they can somehow sue their way out of this.

[bmaz]

Precisely. Not much of a plan under the circumstances.

[freepatriot]

let presnit george veto a bunch of bills

anybody noticed that bush is about as popular as Adolph Hitler lately ??? (and they both look appealing to the same crowd)

and if the repuglican congresscritters decide to support presint bush on this, all the better for us

I'm telling you guys, we can win 17 Senate seats if george continues his current behavior

and then we can say "So Long Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts"

george bush is our best friend right now

Americans don't like bullies, or the socophants of bullies

btw, Lincoln never discussed what happens when you get caught trying to "Fool all of the People all of the time"

[Dismayed]

and then we can say "So Long Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts"

How would that happen, free? Even Scalia is pretty young as SCJs go. Not that I wouldn't love to see these corporate lapdogs gone. Absurd rulings this year -

[phred]

I'm with you bmaz. Bush will continue to defy Congressional oversight and the will of the people as long as Congress continues to let him get away with it. The very fact that Gonzales is still in office demonstrates the intransigence of this administration. We are where we are because they believe they get to make the rules as they see fit. Congress will accomplish NOTHING in the next 18 months if Bush stays in office. So they might just as well spend that time doing their constitutional DUTY and defend the Constitution against the domestic threats arrayed against it.

Start putting people (lets begin with Miers) in jail for contempt of Congress. Begin impeachment proceedings. Shine a very bright light on the evidence for all the world to see. And when that happens, we will have taken the first step in restoring our constitution and our reputation as an honorable country in international affairs.

[mhpcr]

With all the atrocities that this Administration has committed, what's denying children healthcare? Thanks to this and other sites, I remain uninured to our perilous political and cultural circumstances; thank you.

[ab initio]

Its at times like these my frustration builds. For some inexplicable reason the Dem DC leadership can't play "chicken" with Cheney/Bush. As a result they get continually rolled over by Cheney/Bush who would take the most egregious stance knowing fully well that the Dems will never take any issue to the edge.

Take for example Iraq, no matter that the vast majority of the American people believe the occupation is a mistake and want to withdraw our troops and Sen. Webb's amendment to insure our soldiers get the rest they need gets "filibustered" but not really since Majority leader, Sen. Reid will not make the Repubs actually filibuster legislation that supports the troops. It would make great TV to see each night a Repub on the floor of the Senate actually prevent a vote to support the troops. Why can't the Dems DC leadership actually call the Cheney/Bush bluff? Is it their genes?

Note that when the Repubs where in power they always threatened the "nuclear option" and the DC Dems rolled over and we got Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court.

Why do the DC Dem leadership take options off the table - like impeachment? Most Americans recognize the Cheney/Bush abuse of power and obstruction of justice. Why not stop funding OVP and start impeachment - play "chicken" - there's no other choice with the Cheney/Bush regime. They don't care if the country is down the tubes and the constitution trashed.

[Youffraita]

We are in the middle of a Constitutional crisis. Shrub-for-brains claims to be the supreme commander and refuses to acknowledge the oversight function of Congress.

The DoJ has been completely corrupted. Most of SCOTUS has been bought and paid for by the entire underbrush clan.

Publicity -- sunshine -- fresh air: this is always the antidote when dealing with neofascist regimes. Slam your Repug congresscritters with email. Write well-considered letters to the local newspaper, especially if it isn't reporting these stories. Can we achieve one big victory right now? No. But the chipping away at elected officials (esp. your Repugs) has to help the drumbeat crescendo.

After all, your congresscritters don't want to be unemployed any more than you and I do.

[Kagro X]

Would it make great TV to see Republicans every night on the Senate floor? The days of filibustering by reading the phone book are long gone, I'm sure. Now, you can filibuster by reading Ann Coulter, or just generally using your free, national air time to trash Democrats.

We should want to make them work hard, but we should be ready for what that means when we do.

[MarkH]

Let 'em filibuster to show America how awful they are.

Watch their poll numbers drop and see them run from Bush.

Impeach and convict Cheney and replace him.
Impeach and convict Gonzales and replace him.
Impeach and convict Bush (if there's time).

Then, with a new White House we can impeach and remove Alito and Roberts.

We'd be well on our way back to Constitutional government based on the Rule of Law and founded in the Great Western Civilization.

[mighty mouse]

Steve Benen at TPM makes a great, great point. He's reporting that Bush will (of course) veto the Lugar/Warner bill and says Congress can't tell him how to run his war, but concedes they do have a role in funding Bush's war, and Benen asks: Does Congress see itself as anything more than Bush's ATM?

[tekel]

mighty: that is surely the three-trillion-dollar question. Becuase if Congress wants to be anything other than a cash machine, they're going to have to take that power and use it.

Momentum is on their side. Do they know it?

[ab initio]

Kagro X

They could read Ann Coulter or Billy Kristol all day and night but the fact they are filibustering a resolution that provides the troops basic rest and training will not be lost on the American people - despite all the spinning by Murdoch and the rest of the corporate media - what they are preventing to come to a vote will become obvious. In contrast I'm willing to wager that 90% of the American people did not even know what the Webb amendment was nor that it was not brought to the floor of the Senate for a vote by the status quo Repubs.

The American people are slow to respond but the aint dumb and they get it eventually even through all the fog of obfuscation. IMHO, if the Dems make the Repubs really filibuster and start impeachment investigations and every day there is more revelations - it will all build up that even the Dem DC leadership may actually discover some residual courage.

[freepatriot]

yo, dismayed, all it takes is 67 Senators, and the whole pack of conservative judges is a dead issue

67 votes in the Senate, and you can REMOVE ANYBODY

we got 50 Seats in the Senate right now

21 repuglicans are "On The Menu" in November of 2008

if george bush is still presnit, and soldiers are still dying in Iraq, the GOP will be lucky to defend 5 of their seats

if the repuglicans CAN'T defend 5 seats, the repuglican revolution is OVER

if YOU were a repuglican, would YOU want to put your party's whole future existence in george bush's hands ???

some people see a problem here

I see OPPORTUNITY

I once heard that Napoleon could see the "Opportunity of the Terrain"

I think I got a little bit of that power

[Dismayed]

Has a SCJ ever been removed by congress? That would be a thing to behold, and I think there have been some stories of Alito lying during his confirmation hearings. I'd remove his ass in a second. Those two new fucks could give a damn about the constitution. They are neocon activist judges and they need to be gone.

[...]

fp - it seems the democraps think like you so they sit on there friggin hands and do nothing towards impeachment... it is going to bite them in the ass in 2008 for not taking a stand where it counts - impeachment proceedings.

[Jodi]

Personally I would go after Bush tooth and (long)nail over the Children issue.

I would blanket the airwaves with the pictures of real suffering children that are being ignored by our health system.

(I do support some local efforts there already) which actually reminds me of something I need to do.

[orionATL]

i too will confess to hidden desires to remove certain supreme court justices.

my choices would be john roberts who is a republican political operative before he is a united states supreme court judge.

and antonin scalia who is a republican political operative before he is a united states supreme court judge.

i won't hold my breath on this,

but

i seem to recall that, after the roosevelt administration and the public had put great pressure on the supreme court in the late '30's,

one of the very conservative justices had a sudden change of heart.

and would you guess,

the court was never as conservative again for decades.

maybe some folks who know history can amend this little précis.