Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

The AssPress is actively campaigning to ensure that the President isn't reelected.
1 posted on 11/02/2007 10:34:42 AM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: SmithL

Bush is acting as a conservative. Let’s give him credit for these actions. He should have taken this stance a long time ago but better late than never.


2 posted on 11/02/2007 10:38:17 AM PDT by businessprofessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

Can Someone list the pork that in this deal?


3 posted on 11/02/2007 10:43:49 AM PDT by Rodm (Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before kings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

GW has really gotten his groove back.

Keep up the good vetoes Mr. President.


5 posted on 11/02/2007 10:45:48 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (Every time you’re somewhere, that means you’re not somewhere else, Fred D Thompson 44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL
Jennifer Loven - its P-O-R-K. Earmarks. No matter how popular it is, it deserved the veto. The President should send more Congress' way.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

6 posted on 11/02/2007 10:47:51 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL
He hoped that his action, even though it is sure not to hold, would cast him as a friend to conservatives who demand a tighter rein on federal spending.

I always love how the AP can make such presumptions without proof.

Attempting to demonstrate fiscal toughness now, in the seventh year of his presidency, carried the risk being criticized for doing too little, too late or as waging a transparently partisan attack against the Democrats who now run Capitol Hill.

The AP again jumps to it's own conclusions while editorializing that in vetoing this bill, it's "too little" or "too late" or a "partisan attack" while ignoring the possibility that it was the right thing to do, overridden or not.

11 posted on 11/02/2007 11:07:40 AM PDT by torchthemummy ("A Tagline Presidential Endorsement Forfeits A Presumption Of Objectivity")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL
I am in Katrina central and screw this bill! CUT SPENDING! WE DON”T WANT dim bribes!!!

LLS

14 posted on 11/02/2007 12:01:06 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Support America, Kill terrorists, Destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

Good for us. Good for the President. He deserves high praise for this.


15 posted on 11/02/2007 12:02:35 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

Bush actually vetoed another bill!!???

Somebody must’ve opened their Funk and Wagnalls to the right page so he could spell it correctly!!!


16 posted on 11/02/2007 12:05:31 PM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

This is nice to see, but I can’t help but be cynical that only in the final year or so of his presidency does President Bush attempt to reign in spending. It seems he’s only doing it as a political move to paint the Dems in a certain way. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending the Dems here - they’re no doubt even worse over-spending pork-barrelers than the Repubs.

It’s just that if the Republican Congress of, say, 2006 would have sent Bush this same bill (and trust me, they have sent him many similar ones), he would have signed it. If we get a Republican president in 2009, I hope he will be an economic conservative from the start of his presidency, not just in the final 15 months.


17 posted on 11/02/2007 12:30:56 PM PDT by DallasJ7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL
"More than two years after failing to respond to the devastation and destruction of Hurricane Katrina..

Is Harry Reid even from this Solar System? I used to think he might not be from this planet, but I figured out he wasn't with his "Surge Failed" speech before the surge.

I watched brave people risk their lives (not shemp smith) to rescue people down there and Harry Reid acts as if Bush told them to "go buy a boat".

18 posted on 11/02/2007 12:44:10 PM PDT by BallyBill (Serial Hit-N-Run poster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL; Liz; Calpernia; mylife

“When we override this irresponsible veto, perhaps the president will finally recognize that Congress is an equal branch of government and reconsider his many other reckless veto threats,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

This is patently false. They are not equal. But they are reckless...with taxpayer $$$.


19 posted on 11/02/2007 12:57:21 PM PDT by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

Veto everything. Last rodeo, etc.
Repeal the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty, too.


21 posted on 11/02/2007 1:01:46 PM PDT by RightWhale (anti-razors are pro-life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

bttt


26 posted on 11/02/2007 3:11:40 PM PDT by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traviskicks; fieldmarshaldj; SunkenCiv; Congressman Billybob; kcvl

The reason for the veto seems rather obvious. The House approved a $14 billion waterworks bill, and the Senate approved a $15 billion companion bill. Rather than split the difference and approve a $14.5 billion bill, or even go with the Senate’s $15 billion, the conference committee reported out a $23 billion bill that proves that when pork multiplies, it’s because taxpayers are getting screwed.

Seriously — how did an extra $8 billion get added to the bill in conference?

That’s an increase of over 50% from the Senate bill, in conference. The larger embarrassment is that our elected representatives didn’t see this greedy manipulation of the conference process as any big deal and overwhelmingly supported the results.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/015800.php


27 posted on 11/02/2007 5:46:00 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; KlueLass; ...
The $23 billion water bill passed in both chambers of Congress by well more than the two-thirds majority needed to vacate a veto and make the bill law. Bush objected to the $9 billion in projects added during negotiations between the House and Senate.
Give 'em one they can override that isn't monstrously detrimental to national security, it's good politics. Well played, Mr. President.

And if perchance the bipartisan support falls apart, well, that's even better playing.
28 posted on 11/02/2007 10:50:00 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Monday, October 22, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson