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

Skip to comments.

A Day in the Life of President Bush (photos): 1-4-07
www .yahoo.com/news www.whitehouse.gov/news ^ | 4th January 2007 | Snugs

Posted on 01/04/2007 5:40:04 PM PST by snugs

Today the President met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in the Oval Office and later made a statement to the press.

Both the President and Vice President took part in a secure video teleconference with Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki from the newly-renovated Situation Room at the White House.

The President spoke with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md) (L), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) (C) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Oh George W. Bush on a telephone conference call at the start of the 110th Congress

Today Vice President Dick Cheney took part in the Senate re-enactment swearing-in ceremony for the 110th Congress

Enjoy your visit to Sanity Island


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 110thcongress; dickcheney; presidentgeorgewbush
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-172 last
To: snugs; All
It was not too many years ago that both political parties had both liberals and conservatives. The New England Republicans tended to be pretty liberal and the Southern Democrats were quite conservative.

This really effected the house. Even when the Democrats had large majorities, a combination of the Midwest and Western Republican Conservators combined with the Southern Democrat Conservatives could block liberal legislation. Sometimes they had to votes to bypass committee leaders and bring a bill to the house floor for an up or down vote.

In the Senate combinations of Conservative Southern Senators and Conservative Republican Senators could force passage of Conservative bills. Neither party dared trash conservatives or liberals. Both parties contained members that spanned the political spectrum.

By the same token often the combination of Liberal New England Republicans and Liberal mid western Democrats could pass Liberal legislation. Both parties had to cooperate.

But since it often took cooperation between the two parties to get anything done, neither party leadership could afford to trash the opposition party or liberals or Conservatives. Both parties had both liberals and conservatives.

Today all Conservatives are in the Republican party. In addtion only a very few liberals remain in the Republican party. Of the remaining liberals in the Republican party only Specter, and the two Main Senators come to mind. The Democratic party is almost entirely made up of liberals

But the Senate rules are a major problem for the majority party. To effectively rule the Senate the majority party must find a way to get 60 of the 100 Senate votes.

Today the Democrats can at best count on perhaps 53 votes. That is 50 democrats and 3 Republican votes. But they need 60 votes to get anything passed that most Republicans want blocked.

Today we are hearing about all the legislation that Nancy Pelosi's house is planning to pass. The problem for the Democrats is they don't have a snowballs chance in Hades of getting most of those bills through the Senate. And unless those bills pass both houses, there is no need for the President to Veto unpassed bills. But even those that pass can easily be vetoed.

What has President Bush who will never ever be running for office again got to lose by blocking every attempt by Democrats to enact their agenda? The worst that could happen is the President will win huge praise from the Republican and conservative base.

But the Democrats and the media have made a big deal out of the Democratic victory. The Democratic base is not very knowledgeable. Labor Union members and Democrats in general are expecting their Liberal agenda to be enacted.

When that Dumb, Stupid, Ignorant and Inept Bush manages to stop the passage of the Democratic agenda the liberals will be ticked. The Democratic base will be angry that the Democrat "Controlled" congress can not pass bills. They will draw the conclusion that Democrats who can't "out Smart" G.W. Bush are not worthy of re-election.

The simple truth is the Democrats need 10 Republicans to vote with them to get Senate passage of any bill the Republicans and/or the president opposes. Republicans have seen how it works when the Democrats blocked the Conservative agenda for the last few years. The Conservatives responded to what they saw as unexcused failure by letting the Democrats win the House and Senate.

In two years it is likely that the Democrats will have failed to pass much of anything the liberals want passed. It is quite likely the rank and file will blame the Democrats in congress for allowing Bush and his "stooges in the Congress" to block the Democrats even with the Democrats in charge of both houses of congress.

Republicans know full well what happens when they fail to do what the base wants done. They know that blocking the Democrats from doing what the liberal base wants will produce the same reaction in the Democratic party.

The kickers are the 60 percent majority it takes to break a filibuster and the 60 percent majority it takes to override a veto.

The Democrats will not have either. So to an even lessor extent the Democrats will control congress than the Republicans did for the last 4 years.

What the Democrats will be able to do is hold hearings to "investigate" the Bush administration. But the President and Republican members of congress can respond by refusing to allow passage of almost everything. Bush's poll numbers are so low that blocking the Democrat agenda can only improve his job approval numbers. There is nothing the Democrats can do but drop the investigations.

Otherwise the Republicans can run the 2008 campaign on "Did the Democrat congress fix (Name anything Democrats want passed)?? The answer is NO. The Democrats were too busy trying nail President Bush."

The Unions will be ticked. They wanted legislation that would allow them to more easily organize companies. They could care less if Bush is nailed or not. Academia wants more federal money for their pet projects. They could care less if Bush is nailed to a wall.

Go through the entire Democratic coalition and they all have bills they have been waiting since 1980 to get passed. They will look upon the Bush attacks as keeping them from getting the legislation they want.

If the Democrats do as they are planning.. investigating the Bush administration to cover the fact that they do not have the votes to get anything passed and enacted, they will only convince the Liberal base that the Democratic congress has blown its chance.

I suspect the 2008 election will be for the Democrats what the 1948 election was for Republicans. The Republicans won the house and senate in 1946. But all they could accomplish was attacking Truman. It did not work. The Republicans wanted cut backs in federal programs, they wanted the economy fixed. What they got was attacks on Truman because they did not have the votes to pass legislation.

History does repeat. Nancy Pelosi can pass anything she wants to have passed in the House. But Reid can't get diddle passed in the Senate and if he does get some stuff passed, it will be vetoed by the President.

To get anything done at all, the Democrats will have to suck up to the hated Republicans. That really ticks off the base.

The liberal base will find that the most despicable act of all.


151 posted on 01/04/2007 9:10:12 PM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: snugs
White House Photos


152 posted on 01/04/2007 9:14:30 PM PST by snugs ((An English Cheney Chick - Big Time))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: snugs


153 posted on 01/04/2007 9:16:23 PM PST by snugs ((An English Cheney Chick - Big Time))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: snugs


154 posted on 01/04/2007 9:18:19 PM PST by snugs ((An English Cheney Chick - Big Time))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: snugs

NICE!


155 posted on 01/04/2007 9:19:42 PM PST by onyx (DONATE NOW! -- It takes DONATIONS to keep FR running!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: snugs

Beautiful roses and I love the close up pic of POTUS.


156 posted on 01/04/2007 9:20:38 PM PST by onyx (DONATE NOW! -- It takes DONATIONS to keep FR running!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator

Thanks for your interesting and informative post


157 posted on 01/04/2007 9:26:00 PM PST by snugs ((An English Cheney Chick - Big Time))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: All

158 posted on 01/04/2007 9:27:08 PM PST by snugs ((An English Cheney Chick - Big Time))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: snugs

I'm thinking of how the Veep could have done the nation a great service at this point...but it would be wrong.

159 posted on 01/04/2007 9:34:46 PM PST by RichInOC (NO! BAD Rich!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RichInOC

re: 159
...wrong but necessary!!! :)


160 posted on 01/04/2007 9:38:23 PM PST by MeekMom (Present your bodies a living sacrifice unto God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator

Thank you so very much for posting. I always love reading what you write. It is always very informative!
Hope you are feeling well.


161 posted on 01/05/2007 8:28:05 AM PST by dmd25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb

Is Bush's War the exact title of the book you are reading.

Deb


162 posted on 01/05/2007 2:11:26 PM PST by DebWisconsin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: DebWisconsin

Yes:

"Bush's War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age" by Jim A. Kuypers.
http://www.amazon.com/Bushs-War-Justifications-Terrorist-Communication/dp/074253653X/sr=8-1/qid=1168044015/ref=sr_1_1/104-3783454-0296756?ie=UTF8&s=books


I've just started reading the book so I can't as yet make a recommendation; however, fellow Freeper 'LS' highly recommended it!


163 posted on 01/05/2007 4:43:25 PM PST by DrDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: altura
It was like something on the Dem underground. This Day in the Life thread was mentioned with derision and we were all dismissed as Bush-worshiping idiots.


Oh, you came upon the FReeper coven that thinks W is running in 2008? I sure hope that sKerry thing works out for them! LOL!

Old tagline I have used regarding the Dose:

(I subscribe to this thread for the articles! Really!)

164 posted on 01/06/2007 9:07:06 PM PST by Watery Tart (algoron: Constitutionally unable to run in 2008. He's been president since 2000, right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: snugs

I wonder where Harry Reid was that was so important it trumped the call from the president.

Thank you for this Thursday Dose, Eleanor.


165 posted on 01/07/2007 2:33:41 PM PST by GretchenM (What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Please meet my friend, Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: snugs
I can't tell if Byrd is sitting down. The whole thing looks like a caricature of a photo, kind of a Gulliver (Byrd) with the Brobdingnagians.

166 posted on 01/07/2007 2:37:18 PM PST by GretchenM (What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Please meet my friend, Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: snugs
"Yeah, right, whatever, Ted."


167 posted on 01/07/2007 2:38:15 PM PST by GretchenM (What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Please meet my friend, Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: snugs
U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

If President Ford had retained his birth name, he would have been President King.

Slim chance of it, but if Senator Whitehouse were elected president, he'd be President Whitehouse.

168 posted on 01/07/2007 2:40:56 PM PST by GretchenM (What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Please meet my friend, Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GretchenM

It was the House not the Senate leaders


169 posted on 01/07/2007 4:12:52 PM PST by snugs ((An English Cheney Chick - Big Time))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: GretchenM

I thought something similar to that LOL


170 posted on 01/07/2007 4:13:51 PM PST by snugs ((An English Cheney Chick - Big Time))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: GretchenM

If you look at other photos he appears to be standing that one I must admit is a bit strange though


171 posted on 01/07/2007 4:14:28 PM PST by snugs ((An English Cheney Chick - Big Time))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: snugs

Oh, duh, lol. Thanks for helping me think that one through.


172 posted on 01/07/2007 4:31:41 PM PST by GretchenM (What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Please meet my friend, Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-172 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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