If Bush can just veto anything the Dems try to pass, like pulling US troops out of Iraq, why do they waste....

Question

their time trying to get these bills passed? Are they just PR moves by the Dems trying to show the American people that they finally have the backbone to take on Bush? But since Bush isn't going to have to run again & doesn't need to win any votes from the US public a PR campaign by the Dems is pointless, isn't it?

Answer 1

It's never "pointless" to stand up against evil for what you believe.

Answer 2

It's a lot more complicated than that. Granted, for a few this is just grandstanding. But the fight here is real--and who wins depends on a lot more than jsut the fact that Bush can veto bills.

Here's two points to illustrate:
1) Bush s a lame duck. But Republicans have to go back to their constituants--and need to show they'vve accomplished something. But if they don't work with the Democrats to do something about Iraq (and therefore Bush) the Democrats can block any Republican legislation.

2) Suppose that the Congress passes this funding bill--and Bush vetoes it. Given the clear attitude of the American people that will go over like a ton of bricks. Which will hurt the GOP next year. And--it puts the bush administration on the defensive. Because the Democrats willl have passed the funding. Making sure the troops don't get hurt by lack of funds will be Bush's problem as soon as he vetoes the bill.

Those are a little bit hypothetical--the way things actually play out will obviously be a bit different. My point is it's not a simple matter of Bush having veto power. That only means he canstop (some) bills. But he can't get anything done wthout Congress.

Answer 3

Why would the Democrats need a PR campaign to win votes from the public? 71% of American already think Bush is doing a lousy job.

On top of that, I think you need to take a civics course.

In a nutshell, our government has three branches to provide checks and balances. The legislative and executive branch balance each other and the judiciary makes sure their actions are Constitutional.

Now, many younger people may only be aware of how Bush has run the government with a Republican-controlled Congress and assume incorrectly that Bush is some kind of Supreme Leader. He is not. He is subject to oversight by the House and the Senate. Whether he likes it or not.

Now, to answer your question. The Democrats didn't pass a bill demanding an end to the Iraq war, the House of Representatives did. Now, Bush is welcome to veto the bill if he so chooses, and he is almost certain to do so.

But that's not where it ends.

The House can override his veto with a 2/3 vote. And the bill passes anyway.

So no, it's not "pointless."

Answer 4

Dems really do want this to pass. If the president does veto it, Dems are counting on American outrage to bolster support for their party. Thereby winning the White House in 08 and controlling two of the 3 branches of government.

Besides, for 6 years, there was almost nothing a Dem could do to get anything passed or even have their own constituents best interests looked after. If you are part of the majority, you can have negotiations on a bill and certain favors accomplished, but if you are the minority, you basically have very little say.

And, of course, this is how the Constitution was set up, to not allow unilateral control. It may seem pointless, but you can't fault them for trying!

Answer 5

They try to pass the bills so that later they can say, "Well, we tride to pass that bill, but those evil republicans vetoed it". Yes, they are mostly PR moves. If they would have shown more backbone earlier it might have helped; it might have also gotten them hung by the manic sense of blind patriotism imediatly following 9/11 too. It's not completely pointless, if by doing what you mention lets the Dems win favoritsm, it will help then in the next election becuase even though Bush can't run again, the Dems still have to beat which ever republican nominee runs for office next term.

Answer 6

well, well. It seems that the unlikely is what has happened. Congress finally passed something. Both houses that is. As I look through this thread, it appears that many here were speculating that Congress wouldn't have the balls to be able to get this timetable motif off the ground in both houses. But they did it. Carl Rove's puppet is in a bit of a fix now. "To Veto or not to Veto, that is the question"....

So my only question now is, since GW is a stubborn dipshit, he'll veto this bill, sure as anything. But once that happens. Then what? let's see...dwindling money...quarter million deployed troops...multiplied by Halliburton's cut(KBR)...carry the zero's.

Gee, I guess that Bush is in a bit of a fix. He won't have enough cash-o-la to be able to fund the war through the rest of his term anyway. So he won't have the benefit of making the next president the fall guy for the withdrawl should it make things worse. It'll fall to his administration only that he started the war and that went badly, and the war ended and that went badly all within his administration. Long live Bush's legacy!

Answer 7

Good question, but, ya know, Bush isn't really moving on his tactics. He is getting things worse and moving more troops in on a war that seems never ending, when alot of people in this country also believe this war is now going nowhere. The Democrats are using these tactics to pressure him and try to annoy him enough to either finally give up on this thing or change his mind and try another tactic. Even if things get vetoed, the Democrats would have made their point and they will continue to try to get him to use other tactics. It is like a bit of a game they are playing really. They are trying to let Bush know enough is enough and that the wrong decision has been made here and he is in turn being stubborn and saying "NO, I WON'T FOLLOW YOUR ORDERS". Someone has to try something, to make some sort of effort on this and make the message more clear to Bush, even if he refuses to back down. They are trying to get him to think on this one.

Answer 8

Actually there are two reasons, one of which you touched on. First the democratic controlled house and senate make a resolution or bill to give to the president. It has to have a simple majority to be put before the president. The president may say that he is going to veto something, but that automatically doesn't mean that he will. If he does veto the bill, it just doesn't die, it goes back to congress, and if they get a 2/3 majority in both houses, then it overrides the veto and becomes law anyway. The other thing that happens is that it creates and can take away credibility. If the congress says that they are going to do something, then don't they loose creditability, and the same with the president. If he says that he is going to veto a bill and doesn't, he looses creditability. If the president does veto the bill, he may loose in other requests that he has. He can't make laws, but request congress to make laws that he will sign into law. Get congress upset and they won't put his requests in to become laws.

Answer 9

not if he's wise. yet on the comparable token, whether he does, that doesn't supply him what he needs. It purely potential that the bill has to start up as quickly as extra, and then all events, inclusive of the president, will might desire to come to the table and easily talk issues. Make a compromise. purely because of the fact he veto's some thing, does not propose that he wins. examine the unique funds request that Bush put in. He desires to value the militia veterans making use of the VA hospitals extra funds to get prescriptions, use the VA gadget, and pay extra out of pocket costs, so he can fund the conflict. Bush does not care concerning to the militia. not while they have served besides. yet, he will line them up in the back of himself, while ever he's giving a speech.

Answer 10

The House did it as a political PR move.

They know there is no way the Senate will pay such a bill next week.

The Senate needs 60 votes to pass a bill and the Democrats only have 51 votes, 50 if you count on Lieberman rejecting the idea also.

So Bush can say he will veto the bill all he wants, he knows it will never come to that point.

Answer 11

It is a PR campaign. It will be something that the Democrats can throw in the faces of their opponents in next year's election. Since the people elected them to bring our people home and they are making an effort only to be stopped by Senate Republicans and/or the President voters will be reminded how the Republicans did not follow the will of the people and therefore should not be allowed to remain in a postition of representing the people. It is not pointless it is shrewd campaigning. The Democrats know thay won't get anything progressive through because of the Senate Republicans and the President. But that's okay for the above reason.