On vetos
Clinton - 37
Bush - 3 thru 6/20/07
And Bush is a dictator?
2007-07-10 16:10:06 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
A point was made that Bush is a dictator because he vetoed dem bills. How is this congress any less hostile than any of Clintons?
2007-07-10 16:16:21 · update #1
They also ignore the fact that Clinton signed NAFTA and CAFTA, gave the RIAA permission to enter your house without a warrant and seize your computer(s) if they just THINK that you MAY have downloaded a song from the internet, and refused to sign the Kyoto protocol.
But, the funny part of the whole thing is how they will blame all "bad" things that happened when Clinton was in office on Congress, but apparently he was able to end run Congress to get the "good" things done.
2007-07-10 16:16:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Ok, if you take a look at Congress during these periods, you would see why bush has less vetoes.
When Clinton was in office, Congress had more Republicans than Democrats, so when Congress was trying to pass their agenda-type bills, Clinton would veto them.
Now when bush was in office, Congress was still in Republican control. Now that Congress is trying to pass their (badly, pro-business, pro-rich) agenda, bush is going to agree, so there will be less vetoes.
By the way, he IS trying to be a Dictator. I remember the man stating after the 2004 election that he, "...has capital, and plans on spending it." Then talks about being the "decider" as well. The fact that the Republicans controlled Congress at the time gave him more of a big head to think he was above the law with the Guantanimo Bay, spying, and other issues to break the laws of the Constitution.
2007-07-10 23:41:52 · answer #2 · answered by linus_van_pelt_4968 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I actually wish Bush had vetoed more bills coming out of Congress, but some folks have a short memory...
Clinton did have an adversarial Congress with which to deal, but only for his second term, and we all know what was going on during his second term.
Bush has dealt with a severely divided Congress for both his terms. I guess some people would think that even a majority would result in a "suck up" house and senate. However, a closer examination of the facts reveals that most of the bills coming out of a divided congress take so much compromise and deal-making that their fate is sealed once they leave the Senate.
What am I saying? A majority of the bills are "centric". They have gone to committee and compromises have been made.
By the way, compromise is government. It's the way stuff gets done.
As for those that would characterize Bush as "Hitler" or a "dictator", these good folks are as fools and their small minds are exposed. Respectfully, these folks demonstrate more Hitler characteristics than those they accuse of being like him.
2007-07-10 23:30:53 · answer #3 · answered by Schneiderman 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The veto has nothing to do with being a dictator. Congress can override it. The Patriot Act is where things are getting scary.
In fact, if Bush used the veto a little more on the budget we might not have such a big mess.
2007-07-10 23:21:51 · answer #4 · answered by Jeff P 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The act of comparing George W.Bush to Bill Clinton is futile indeed. I'm not sure how sharp everyone's history is, but they never ran against each other for the office of the Presidency.
And the republican controlled congress did send Bush some bills worthy of veto.
2007-07-10 23:22:24 · answer #5 · answered by DOOM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One runs the country in to debts and signs in everything and his momas expenses into law, but vetoes Stem Cell Research based on religious believes, which is forbidden in our constitution.
The other vetoes insane bills by the Republicon congress and leads the nation through a period of peace and prosperity.
Clinton Wins!!!!!!!
Bush - a moron, idiot, stupid and wanna be dictator.
2007-07-10 23:16:21 · answer #6 · answered by Dangerous 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Number of vetoes has nothing to do with this. Grover Cleveland had 584 when you combine his two terms in office. Franklin Roosevelt had 635, even when having a Congress of his own party for almost all of his term in office.
2007-07-10 23:17:26 · answer #7 · answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Clinton had a hostile Republican controlled Congress throughout his terms, so the 37 vetoes.
Bush had a suckup Republican controlled Congress throughout his terms except for the last few months. Now that the Democrats have a slight lead, the vetoes start showing up.
2007-07-10 23:14:37 · answer #8 · answered by flushles 3 · 7⤊ 2⤋
Clinton had more vetoes because during his presidency the Congress was Republican and against him. For most of Bush's presidency the Congress has been his ally. You must look at these things in their context.
2007-07-10 23:14:52 · answer #9 · answered by Kronos 3 · 7⤊ 2⤋
Clinton had a hostile Congress to veto....Bush had a compliant one. What's your point?
2007-07-10 23:14:36 · answer #10 · answered by Brand X 6 · 8⤊ 2⤋