Bush Says Vote Doesn't Signal U.S. Weakness

AP via AOL ^ | November 11, 2006 | Terence Hunt

[xtinct]

After arguing during the campaign that Democrats would undermine national security, President Bush changed course Saturday and said America's enemies should not read this week's ground-shaking election results as a sign of U.S. weakness.

Four days after voters threw Republicans from power in the House and Senate, Bush used his weekly radio address to issue a call for unity.

"The message of this week's elections is clear: The American people want their leaders in Washington to set aside partisan differences, conduct ourselves in an ethical manner and work together to address the challenges facing our nation," the president said. "This is important work that will demand the hard effort and good faith of leaders from both sides of the aisle, and I pledge to do my part."

[xtinct]

article

[unspun]

Let's try backing Republicans who don't suffer from personal ambition, so we can get the sanity back under the rotunda.

What a concept.

[Zuben Elgenubi]

God Bless President Bush.

Truth is, the Democrats WILL undermine security.

I hope the veto pen is out come mid-January.

The President is a powerful branch of government. This is something, somehow, the Democraps do not understand.

[peyton randolph]

Bush's pen will come out to sign an amnesty bill for illegals, a hike in the minimum wage, and increases in social welfare programs. Don't hold your breath waiting for him to use it for a veto.

[Zuben Elgenubi]

I think you are nuts. I expect President Bush to veto at least 50 bills that come before him.

This guy has guts.

[peyton randolph]

"I think you are nuts. I expect President Bush to veto at least 50 bills that come before him."

Yes. He has such a track record for exercising the veto. Not.

BTW, which do you think he'll veto in particular?

1. Amnesty for illegal aliens.
2. Hike in the minimum wage.
3. Social welfare programs.

The only person who is nuts is one who thinks Bush won't happily sell conservatives down the river for his L-E-G-A-C-Y.

[ryan71]

Nice of Bush to try and lighten the negative impact this election has made on the military but the fact is, many American citizens and nearly all it's politicians have turned their backs on the US military.

If we leave Iraq with out accomplishing our mission, the US military will never be deployed again. It's role will be purely defensive.

It's a damn shame how we've treated our military. They're dedication is unquestionable but our support of them and their mission, surely is.

[MonroeDNA]

"The message is clear. We will NOT build a single mile of fence on the Mexican border."

[Zuben Elgenubi]

You are from Texas and don't believe me? I ususally don't respond to FReepers who have registerted before 2000, but this President has guts. Why would you possibly challenge that statement? You are smarter than ZE? You have an ability to make more money in the process?

I've been around the block a few times, there pr. In Politics, either you make money, influence events or just blow hard.

I blow hard. How about you?

[himno hero]

only one problem

proof of the pudding is in the eating

the mideasstern a$$hole are already dancing in the streets, with new bellicose promises. Empowered and emboldened.

thats how THEY see it....

[Caipirabob]

I blow charts and tables. Here's a good one telling why Peyton has his justified concerns. Now I believe that President Bush has the power of his convictions. He has already sent Michael Bolton back to the Senate but what followed was a media void, so I suspect that he was simply ignored as not to inflame the public. However, I suspect Bush's veto power might simply serve as a tool to keep impeachment proceedings at bay, for all the good it will do him. His big problems is that he is convinced the rats want the best for the country as well. He probably won't give that up until he is convicted in the house and the senate.

President Bush will try to work with the rats as he has done the past 6 years. That will hurt his presidency worse than he can imagine.

Interesting to see that Presidents Monroe and Van Buren have a similar history. I'd like to learn more about their presidencies at the atmosphere at the time.

Presidential Vetos - President Bush at the bottom of the class at time of print.

President	Congresses	Regular Vetoes	Pocket Vetoes	Total Vetoes	Vetoes Overridden
George Washington	1st- 4th	2	.....	2	.....
John Adams	5th-6th	.....	.....	.....	.....
Thomas Jefferson	7th-10th	.....	.....	.....	.....
James Madison	11th-14th	5	2	7	.....
James Monroe	15th-18th	1	.....	1	.....
John Quincy Adams	19th-20th	.....	.....	.....	.....
Andrew Jackson	21st-24th	5	7	12	.....
Martin Van Buren	25th-26th	.....	1	1	.....
William Henry Harrison	27th	.....	.....	.....	.....
John Tyler	27th-28th	6	4	10	1
James K. Polk	29th-30th	2	1	3	.....
Zachary Taylor	31st	.....	.....	.....	.....
Millard Fillmore	31st-32nd	.....	.....	.....	.....
Franklin Pierce	33rd-34th	9	.....	9	5
James Buchanan	35th-36th	4	3	7	.....
Abraham Lincoln	37th-39th	2	5	7	.....
Andrew Johnson	39th-40th	21	8	29	15
Ulysses S. Grant	41st-44th	45	48	93	4
Rutherford B. Hayes	45th-46th	12	1	13	1
James A. Garfield	47th	.....	.....	.....	.....
Chester A. Arthur	47th-48th	4	8	12	1
Grover Cleveland	49th-50th	304	110	414	2
Benjamin Harrison	51st-52nd	19	25	44	1
Grover Cleveland	53rd-54th	42	128	170	5
William McKinley	55th-57th	6	36	42	.....
Theodore Roosevelt	57th-60th	42	40	82	1
William H. Taft	61st-62nd	30	9	39	1
Woodrow Wilson	63rd-66th	33	11	44	6
Warren G. Harding	67th	5	1	6	.....
Calvin Coolidge	68th-70th	20	30	50	4
Herbert C. Hoover	71st-72nd	21	16	37	3
Franklin D. Roosevelt	73rd-79th	372	263	635	9
Harry S. Truman	79th-82nd	180	70	250	12
Dwight D. Eisenhower	83rd-86th	73	108	181	2
John F. Kennedy	87th-88th	12	9	21	.....
Lyndon B. Johnson	88th-90st	16	14	30	.....
Richard M. Nixon	91st-93rd	26	17	43	7
Gerald R. Ford	93rd-94th	48	18	66	12
James Earl Carter	95th-96th	13	18	31	2
Ronald Reagan	97th-100th	39	39	78	9
George Bush*	101th-102nd	29	15	44	1
William J. Clinton	103rd-106th	36	1	37	2
George W. Bush	107th-109th	1	.....	1	.....
Total	............	1485	1066	2551	106

[peyton randolph]

Thanks for the chart. Insightful...sadly, it won't persuade the true believers. They project onto Bush what they want in a President and ignore all evidence to the contrary.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Bush has always supported social welfare programs. His programs forced teachers to teach, the elderly to buy into a preseription plan and a jobs plan to help low income people develop so they can get off the government dole.

And if you take the costs of 9/11 and the war into consideration, he would have done this without putting us into debt.

[hnj_00]

none of the above.....jorge bush will sign the senate amnesty bill for the illegals which will be the death warrant for the US....he was always a big supporter for the death penalty in texas and this bill will be the biggest death warrant in history!!!!

[badpacifist]

ON this Bush is wrong big time.

[xander]

That table fails to take into consideration the makeup of the House and Senate. Bush may not need to veto many bills since Republicans were controlling Congress up to now and killing off many bills that would have required it. I think this will be new territory and we will have to see how Bush handles the task, which could very likely be compared with what Arnold is faced with on a regular basis in California.

[Caipirabob]

Good point. Although I'm not too pleased with the "Ahnold" association, I think it's a realistic perspective. I do belive Bush will run into conflicts with his personal moral perspective and the agenda pressed upon him by the Democrats. All the while, he will be persecuted by local and foreign media while the moonbats scream impeachment and demand his head. Very sad times, my FReinds.

[MuttTheHoople]

Yes it does.

[WOSG]

I like him better beore the election: "The Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses. That's what's at stake in this election. The Democrat goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republican goal is to win in Iraq."

Still, Bush's point about this not shaking our will is the right thing to say. Bush will figure out the best survivable policy on Iraq that Congress will buy into , ie, meaning bipartisan support. If he needs to bring Lieberman or someone like that to help sell to Democrats, he will.

This is why Lieberman over Lamont was an important election. People werent satisfied with status quo in Iraq, *but* neither are they for defeat through withdrawal.