Please, I'm looking for insightful opinions, preferably with citations or logical justifications, since this is a non-threatening question. I'm curious to know what factors contribute to this and what effect this has had on our country?
Bush had issued just one veto against embryonic stem cell research. A look at the vetoes of other presidents over eight decades:
Bill Clinton (1993-2001), 37 vetoes, two overridden.
George H.W. Bush (1989-93), 44 vetoes, one overridden.
Ronald Reagan (1981-89), 78 vetoes, nine overridden.
Jimmy Carter (1977-81) 31 vetoes, two overridden.
Gerald Ford (1974-77) 66 vetoes, 12 overridden.
Richard Nixon (1969-74), 43 vetoes, seven overridden.
Lyndon Johnson (1963-69), 30 vetoes, none overridden.
John F. Kennedy (1961-63), 21 vetoes, none overridden.
Dwight Eisenhower (1953-61), 181 vetoes, two overridden.
Harry Truman (1945-53), 250 vetoes, 12 overridden.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-45), 635 vetoes, nine overridden.
- AP
2007-05-01 12:56:14 · 19 answers · asked by genmalia 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
PLEASE KEEP POSTING! Such a delicate and concise touch is sorely needed.
My thanks.
President Bush has tried to be a representative President. Being nice is not rewarded. Being ethical is, but it often takes a long time, even into historical rewards.
Our Presidents have a very hard job. The seditious people who claim a place in either party make that job SO much harder, and often undermine our country with their efforts to make political points for their party.
It's contemptible.
They have my respect. All of them. Even when I protest their actions. I am a democrat.
2007-05-01 13:01:40 · answer #1 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because for the first six years of his presidency his party controlled both Houses of Congress. The Republican Party is very disciplined, the tow the line and follow the lead of the President in most issues. Unlike the Democrats, that they tend to be always fighting among themselves. Thus, Congress was happy to let George Bush set the agenda and they rubber stamped it. From now until 2008, I expect that the number of vetoes are going to increase. The Democrats have their own agenda that is not that of the President. Expect a dramatic increase in the number of vetoes in the year and a half that is left in his presidency.
2007-05-01 13:02:23 · answer #2 · answered by William Q 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah! You advise like the $10 billion in line with month conflict we've been given occurring? confident! Bush could desire to have completely vetoed that! stupid democratic congress! they have gotten us right into a 5- basically approximately 6 three hundred and sixty 5 days conflict that's value us approximately $1Trillion without income! oh wait... that wasn't the assumption of the democratic congress, became into it? And BTW: i seem to bear in recommendations a downhill slope while he took place of work in 2001. It boomed after 9/11, and then slowed down returned till now 2006. end blaming each and every thing on the democrats. attempt taking in undemanding terms somewhat of duty. Come on. in undemanding terms somewhat.
2016-10-14 07:26:55 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
During those years when Republicans are in Congress, Bush claimed that it is hard to veto bills passed by his own party. However, I think the claim is false because he cannot face with some of the big Republicans in Congress.
2007-05-01 13:01:53 · answer #4 · answered by RICARDVS 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush engineered some sort of 'signing agreement' (sorry, don't know actual term) so where he could pick and choose which parts of a bill he wanted to sign into law, allowing him to override Congress's authority. So much for checks and balances.
Oh, and a Republican Congress helps, too.
2007-05-01 13:03:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Franklin D. Roosevelt sure got ALOT of vetoes
2007-05-01 13:03:41 · answer #6 · answered by Kim 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The way i look at it due to the all the reports and documentaries. A gang of Major corrupt politicians, and of course led by gang leader, Bush and his evil VP, Chaney!
2007-05-01 17:59:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He had a rubber stamp Congress until now. They gave him what he wanted and thus had no need to veto.
2007-05-01 13:20:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush had six years with a blank check, Republican ran congress and senate. There was no need for a veto.
2007-05-01 12:59:22 · answer #9 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
He has had a congressional majority and has been able to bully Congress into passing only legislation he was willing to sign. He also used "signing statements" whose legality is yet to be determined to avoid vetoes, making himself appear more powerful.
2007-05-01 13:00:42 · answer #10 · answered by ash 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋