Democrats & Liberals Archives

What Bush Failed to Veto

Finally! After 5 1/2 years, we finally meet a bill George doesn’t like (aside from his predecessor)! It took him long enough. I guess this was one case where he couldn’t just sign it and slink away and make a quiet signing statement to overrided the courts and the legislature illegally. (I know, that was a bit of bomb throwing, but if the shoe fits…) But really, let’s see all that Bush didn’t veto.

He didn't veto any of the budgets provided to him, including several that he damn well knew were in deficit. He didn't veto a brand new entitlement that was full of wasteful provisions and went way over budget. He didn't exercise that prerogative to stop all kinds of porkbarrel spending, nor did he do so to prevent the Homeland Security Department from become a bloated roadkill smear of a department that couldn't peel itself off the asphalt to respond properly to Katrina.

He didn't veto program after program our soldiers didn't need in a defense appropriation bill, nor did he use the threat to make sure it was the soldiers and their vehicles who got the money they need and not some guy peddling impractical high-tech equipment in a world where no other country is anywhere near our equal in military power.

Rather than take unpopular stands against bills he felt unfairly constricted his power, Bush made signing statements, which he claimed stood as interepretation of the law. Rather than exercise a constitutional power that would make him directly responsible for opposing legislation broadly supported by his own party, Bush made himself judge and legislator as well as president, and rewrote and reinterpreted the laws to his liking.

Most Presidents have been content to use the powers they got, and have used them skillfully. Rather than do that, though, Bush took a weaselly way out. The Veto is the executive no, the legal way for him to say "I won't execute this law". As much as I disagree with his veto on Stem Cell Research, it's the one time he's been honest enough to take a stand out there, without the insulation of a brokered deal and a signing statement to get his way.

If a president is going to refuse to support a law, he should do it this way, out front and center so we know how he stands. America does not need the Chief Executive going behind their backs time and again to refuse to live up to his end of the bargain, that which he made both taking the oath of office, and signing the bills he's been given.

Yes, there is a political cost to things like these. There is greater cost, though, to the refusal of the government to follow constitutional law, and a refusal of that same government to both be open about its actions and deal with the will of the people in good faith. If Bush wants to continue to bury his party in debt both political and actually, he can continue to do what he's been doing. If, however, he has the guts, and feels he can justify his actions, he should exercise the power the founding fathers gave him and just say no.

If he doesn't like the result, well then he picked the wrong job, because all the presidents before him have faced the same issue. This is Democracy.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at July 19, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #168979

—-Stephen Daugherty—Do you believe President Bush
Used Scientific Evidence, or Religious Beliefs, or some other reason like “political”, or just his own
personal beliefs? I believe his decision has not only jeopardises some of the most significant advancement in medical discovery an possible curatives of major injuries an probable cures of
very serious illness! guess we must Waite to save more lives once we install a new Democratic party.

Posted by: DAVID at July 19, 2006 8:29 PM
Comment #168981

————With A New President As Well———-

Posted by: DAVID at July 19, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #168999

Yea new democratic party, the old one ain’t worth a @#@!#@$#.

Posted by: RAK at July 19, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #169006

It doesn’t really matter… Bush is trying to bring on the second coming by destroying the whole world, not just this country.

The world is at war, soon we’ll be tossing nuclear bombs at eachother and Bushco will be safely tucked away in some shelter 20 miles underground.

Posted by: Pat at July 19, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #169007
Rather than take unpopular stands against bills he felt unfairly constricted his power, Bush made signing statements, which he claimed stood as interepretation of the law. Rather than exercise a constitutional power that would make him directly responsible for opposing legislation broadly supported by his own party, Bush made himself judge and legislator as well as president, and rewrote and reinterpreted the laws to his liking.

I’m not too worried about these “signing statements” at this point. Bush can say, in words or writing, whatever he wants about a law, but once he signs it, it’s the LAW that’s in effect, not his signing statement. As long as the judiciary upholds the LAW, there’s no problem.

Now, if the judiciary gets packed with people who think that signing statements ARE law, then we have a problem. But so far, I haven’t seen a single court case where the judiciary has held such a position.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at July 19, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #169015

The veto was absolutly by “mutual consent.” Purely for political reasons. Reps from moderate districts can say the voted for it to distance themselves from Bush.Vote fot me. Those in rightwing districts can say They and Bush oppose it.Vote for me.
The moral justification is as usual,nonsense, designed to appeal to those easily impressed by magic tricks. What else do you expect from an administration willing to keep our troops in harms way until after the Nov. election.

Posted by: BillS at July 19, 2006 10:13 PM
Comment #169016

You’re absolutely right, this veto is completely in character for Bush and the Bush Republicans. We should expect nothing less from a President who has NO value for life as evidences by his sitting idle as hundreds of innocent people die in Lebanon, thousands of innocent people die in Iraq. How many thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousand will die because of a lack of stem cell research?

Posted by: mark at July 19, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #169021

Rob Cottrell-
Bush is what happens when people pick charisma and politics over brains and experience. I don’t think the voters are stupid, I just think sometimes they lack decent awareness of the dangers of power unwisely given.

My feeling on the signing statements, is that he’s going to fight tooth and nail to act as he sees fit on these issues. If a court rules one way, he’ll try to slip and slide around their ruling in some other direction, dragging his actions and activities further into the dark.

He acts the way Nixon wished he could act, justifying his executive privileges on the ground that his power under the constitution to fight this war is as absolute as that of Louis XIV.

As for Life? I think there’s a religious angle to how he defines life, but mostly it’s conservative, worldly.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 19, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #169028

“He didn’t veto a brand new entitlement that was full of wasteful provisions and went way over budget.”


You must be speaking of the Medicare part D plan. I know quite well how it works because I’m on Medicare. For me it was good the first few months (I know this wasn’t the case for everyone) but now every time I turn around the insurance company I chose changes their formulary. I speak to enough retirees to know this is quite common.

IMO the primary reason for this part D plan was to bankrupt Medicare sooner. The Social Security Privatization plan is basically the same thing. Believe it or not the new majority of the Republican Party is pushing us closer and closer towards a true Dominionist Theocracy where the needy, regardles of age, will be at the mercy of the clergy.

Historical precedent tells us how that will turn out! I guess the idea of thousands of people being basically imprisoned in poor farms and poor houses just doesn’t effect some people. have you ever seen the old movie “Soylent Green”?


Posted by: KansasDem at July 19, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #169033

“Bush is what happens when people pick charisma and politics over brains and experience.”

Charisma? did you watch Bush at that “shit” luncheon? Bush has never shown charisma. Hard line Republicans voted for him just because he’s a Republican. He stated quite well that his base was the “have mores”. Then you have the Religious Right that basically adopted the repubs and began to influence the decision making process back in the 80’s.

The name Bush and the word charisma do not belong in the same sentence. Bush is a dill-rod! Those who voted for him are Dill-Holes!


Posted by: KansasDem at July 20, 2006 12:02 AM
Comment #169038

Rob Cottrell-
Bush is what happens when people pick charisma and politics over brains and experience.>>>

I have not seen a President with less charisma. He is a bully and should move to Africa after he finishes so he can just shoot anybody who disagrees with him. Darfur sounds like a lovely place for him to retire to.

Posted by: Kathy at July 20, 2006 12:35 AM
Comment #169043

Bush is an idiot:

He’s of course completely incompetent. But, then again, he’s more meant to be a figurehead, to carry out their agenda. The real power probably lies with Dick Cheney, Rove, the elite have-mores, etc.

Posted by: mark at July 20, 2006 1:00 AM
Comment #169048

Charisma, and for that matter intelligence, comes in different forms. Just because it’s not the form that you prefer, doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Nixon was absolutely brilliant (read his writings if you doubt it). But his brand of brilliance lapsed into paronoia.

As for charisma, of recent presidents I put Bush closest to Jimmy Carter. He’s folksy and (seemingly) genuine in a way that appeals to lots of people

As far as raw intelligence goes, intelligence is NOT an aura you project but an ability to set and achieve goals, to solve problems. John Kerry, to cite a recent example, projected what some thought to call “intelligence”—but how intelligent was he really?

Al Gore? Intelligent? I don’t think so. By rights, he should have walked away with the election in 2000 but he blew it.

Intelligence is not a way of talking or dressing. It’s not an eastern accent instead of a southern one. It’s an ability to set and accomplish goals.

By definition, nobody who is elected President of the United States twice is lacking in either intelligence or charisma.

Bush and Clinton both fall into that category. They’re two very intelligent and very charismatic men. Unfortunately, the kinds of intelligence that get you elected aren’t always the same kinds that make an effective president.

Posted by: M P at July 20, 2006 1:34 AM
Comment #169052


I’d seen that, but to anyone that hasn’t it’s worth a full reading. Uygur caught the same thing I did. Long before “shit” slipped out the buffoon was chewing his food open-mouthed like a cow chewing it’s cud. I’m not just talking about him talking with his mouth full, the man has no table manners at all. That was not a Nascar tailgate party.

You said, “As for charisma, of recent presidents I put Bush closest to Jimmy Carter.”

Now, I just might go shoot myself! You can’t be serious! I’ve really thought about it, you’re joking, right?


Posted by: KansasDem at July 20, 2006 2:08 AM
Comment #169053

This was an absolutely brilliant Republican political play. Now they can reaffirm their Christian-ness to their base by saying they stopped stem cell research — while at the same time appeal to moderates by saying they support stem cell research. Brilliant!

Republican Congressional leaders don’t let votes happen until all the ducks are in line. They knew they had enough votes to pass the bill, they knew President Bush would veto it, and they knew they wouldn’t muster enough votes to override the veto.

This didn’t happen by accident, and now Republicans get to have it both ways on stem cell research.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 20, 2006 2:14 AM
Comment #169061

—RAK—You must want to play with tricks again!

Posted by: DAVID at July 20, 2006 3:58 AM
Comment #169077

AP, you hit the nail on the head. It was politically brilliant! Which begs the question, where can such brilliance be found in the Democratic organization?

This explains the history of elections and their outcomes since 1992. Where is Democrat’s Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and where is their core platform that unites the majority of Americans instead of dividing them?

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 20, 2006 7:20 AM
Comment #169079

David Remer
Are you serious? Do you really want the Dems to have the likes of Gingrich, Rove, etc.(Or is this just a ploy to entice people to join a third party?)
How would using an issue in this way(having it both ways on stem cell research) unite the country. Rove’s methodology is to divide and conquer, not unite.

Posted by: mark at July 20, 2006 7:55 AM
Comment #169092

Once again the Repugs have made their stance (and their politics) quite clear. They can’t say or do anything without meaning the opposite.

Pro-Life =’s Anti-Life.

There are a lot of people in this country that are ACTUALLY ALIVE. The suffering from this decision will effect those hundred’s of thousands of lives….hopefully come November, some will actually remember that.

How many nails, does it take to close this coffin, anyway?

Posted by: PlayNice at July 20, 2006 9:16 AM
Comment #169093

President Bush as well as the cowardly congress, that refuses to override his veto. Are directly responsable for all the suffering and deaths that stem cell research could have been prevented.May God forgive them.

Posted by: George at July 20, 2006 9:17 AM
Comment #169098

I am sick of the talking. Is anyone ready to storm the white house and get this guy out of office? Look at what he has done over the past 5 and 1/2 years. He has ruined almost everything. Yes I blame him for most of the crap that is going on. He is a complete failure. I will never forgive the d*cks that put him in power and my patience is running thin. I can only put up with incompetance for so long. The GOP is the new fascist party. I refuse to live in a theocracy. I wish Bush, Cheney and Rove would all have accidents. Its such a joke, bush doesn’t want to kill a group of cells but has no problem ordering the killing of thousands of civilians.

Posted by: knob at July 20, 2006 9:29 AM
Comment #169115

Mark, Gingrich was and is, one of the brightest minds on conservative side. His orchestration of the Contract with America was masterful, and his carrying through with its message in the Congress before being booted was also a huge seller of Americans on the Republican Party.

Rove is brilliant at reaching out to middle America on issues they care deeply about, on both the left and the right. You cannot overcome an adversary if you don’t respect, emulate, and improve upon the tactics and strategy which made them victorious over you.

Democrats are a defeated party. Republicans have been a victorious party. Them’s the facts and that’s the history of the last 14 years. Get over it, and start learning from those who continue to kick your party’s ass. November is not going to go to Democrats if they don’t define clearly, uniformly, and succinctly for voters why they are the better choice as a party.

In terms of party platform and philosophy, a majority of voters still prefer Republicans. It is Republican implementation, or, in most cases the lack of it, that is causing voters to distance themselves from Republicans. But, it is Republican performance that is backing voters toward Democrats, not Democrats attracting voters to them.

To accomplish the latter, Democrat leadership must borrow from and improve upon the tactics and strategies that brought the Republicans to power. When is the Democrat leadership going put a halt to allowing the Republicans to define the Democrat Party. Because they are still doing it today.

Democrats have to define themselves and with a very short, succinct, and clear list of values and priorities that voters on both sides of the fence can embrace and support. There is still no evidence that is happening. Democrats are still bogged down in the fruitless effort of trying to define the Republican Party in the public eye. That is pure negative politics and it hasn’t been working for over a decade. How many times does your party have to repeat the same failed tactics before they get it? Stupid!

Democrats need to define their party in a positive, credible light to voters if they want to attract a clear majority of voters. Republicans tried and Americans died, and are still dying. But, what have Democrats done for the country. They didn’t even TRY to stop the Iraq invasion. They haven’t even TRIED to halt the illegal immigration at its source, the border! Republicans tried and failed. The Democrat Party doesn’t even try, They just complain and point fingers.

Change that image, and the Party might live again. Though my personal belief is that the majority of Americans have given up on the Republocrat Party/s. And the voting public is moving toward the individual candidate regardless of party. If that trend continues, the days of the Republican and Democrat Party are numbered, and the parties will become increasingly irrelevant to voters decisions in the polling booth.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 20, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #169127

Its time for a revolution. When incompetence is this high at the highest level of government and within the people who support this guy (dave remer) included steps need to be taken unlike any other before. We should become a more socially democratic country. Remer you should take your show on the road I couldn’t stop laughing while reading your post. Republicans are in for a wake up call in the midterms and next election. No debate that is a fact. The anti-medicine, anti-cure, anti-science stance will play well with voters I’m sure. Dems won’t have to do anything because this latest move by Bush is going to backfire huge. Religion is a farce.

Posted by: bob at July 20, 2006 10:45 AM
Comment #169145


Did you read anything David Remer said? Nowhere did he say ANYTHING hinting that he was a supporter of W or the Rebublican establishment in general. He talked about political strategy and what the Dems have to do in order to strengthen their party, and in my opinion, he is absolutely correct. There is no honorable alternative to the two reigning parties in American politics, and to say “he is against the dems, he must be for the reps” is totally off base.

It’s an incumbency issue, and considering the Leiberman vs. Lamont battle here in CT, i hope nationwide the incumbents get shaken up and get their act together.

Posted by: Greg at July 20, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #169150

David Remer,
You make some very valid points but look past the ethics of the Republican leadership(especially Rove). I agree that Gingrich, Rove, Chaney, Delay and others do have brilliant minds but I would be unwilling to follow any political leadership with their ethically lacking values. They are masters of deception and unfortunetly the voters of this country fall for it time and time again.
One thing you failed to mention that has brought the Republican party to power and will make it difficult to displace them is there successful redistricting of congress throughout the country. An example is here in Michigan where the majority of our Representatives in the House are Republicans even though both our Senators and Governor are Democrats.
I don’t think a majority of voters agree with the Republican platform or their philosophy as you say. It is the gerrymandering of the congressional districts and the “brilliance” of
Rove and Co. that make it appear that way.

Posted by: mark at July 20, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #169168

I think it’s nonsense to say that what Democrats need are more snappy phrases and focus-grouped campaigns. What we need is to have a compelling story that America can be a part of.

For the Republicans, it was beating back the forces of bureaucratic intrusion, giving greater prosperity to America and defending America from attack. Unfortunately for them, the story they’re telling and the story people are piecing together from their observations of the GOP’s actual behavior are diverging.

What the Democrats need to do is create a similar story, not necessarily a similar approach. We need to emphasize a commitment to government that works, to politics that reflects the people it represents rather than just the party line. We need to make it clear that regardless of the Republican propaganda, we’re committed to this nation’s defense and security.

Most importantly, we need to make clear the extent of our commitment to making America an example of what can go right about a democracy, not a sad example of a nation that’s struck a cowardly bargain to buy its safety at the expense of its freedom.

People won’t remember many of the details of what we say or do, but they will remember the overall sense of what we stand for.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 20, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #169179

—PlayNice—I am afraid with all the acid they
sputter out, it would take a silver bullet
before you close the coffin!

Posted by: DAVID at July 20, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #169184

Stephen Daugherty— I like your dignified commentary, I believe all the Democrats an some
other people would do well to read your post for a second time an take those words to heart, nice work.
I would love to see some other people making
posts here, even myself write with less negative, an
disrespectful posts, anyway it’s a good read!

Posted by: DAVID at July 20, 2006 1:37 PM
Comment #169191

Stephen, good article. Last post — Fantastic!!! I couldn’t agree more.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 20, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #169194

Mark, I didn’t say Democrats should hire Karl Rove. I said they need to discover his brilliance within their own ranks, and follow tried and true methods of campaign strategy that Rove adhered to, such as having the party speak with one voice, and operate from one platform, and focus on one set of issues and not allow others to derail them.

I never advocated Rove’s weaknesses and deceptions, and my words didn’t even imply that. Reread what was said. Take in the words and their context.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 20, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #169203

Never mind, click that ^^^ or copy it into your address bar.

Posted by: Neil at July 20, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #169212

I think bush lets his religious views get in the way alot. I know, thats a breaking news moment but seriously. He thinks its morally wrong. By his religion it is. But the research could help thousands, even millions if they could actually do it. And I am always the one to say “I can’t wait until 2008” But really all the people in politics are just recycled. We need a NEW group or nothing will change. As it stands now, I have learned something from the pres. Killing and torturing innocent civilians, even children is okay because there is a miniscule chance they are terrorists, but using unclaimed embryos is wrong. I got it. Embryos are more significant then living people. Thanks for the lesson!

Posted by: Karen at July 20, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #169215

Louis Quatorze had plenty of money, he was not shy about taxation, so “the petit princes held out their hands, and the grand Princes, Charles2 especially, held out their hats.” He hired armies by paying these princes a set fee for a number of troops. They provided the troops to him, and paid them almost nothing.

GWBush is ruining our country with debt, the war in NO OIL AFghanistan is being neglected, and

if the judiciary gets packed with people who think that signing statements ARE law, Posted by: Rob Cottrell at July 19, 2006 09:39 PM
The judiciary put GWBush in power in the first place. They are his people. Election maps in Florida showing Duval, Martin, and Seminole counties in the red column are particularly irritating cases of Bush Family Fraud.

Posted by: ohrealy at July 20, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #169217

Good point, Karen!

Did anyone view that image that I linked 3 posts ago?

It’s very interesting…

Posted by: Neil at July 20, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #169220

I do hope that parties become irrevalant to voters.

Independence must become the spirit of politics!

Then, people won’t just vote according to the party their parents voted for, they might actually think of the views!

Posted by: Neil at July 20, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #169223
Where is Democrat’s Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and where is their core platform that unites the majority of Americans instead of dividing them?

David, I hope you’ll forgive us if we don’t use the same tactics as those guys. :)

As for getting the message out, we’re working on it. It took the Republicans 20 years to create their network of think tanks and media outlets. We’re playing catch-up — but we are catching up.

Probably the biggest difference between the character of the two parties is the fact that the Democratic Party is getting most of its money from individual donors rather than lobbyists and special interests as the Republican Party does.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 20, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #169225

BTW, if you want to see that trend continue, buy a democracy bond. ;)

Posted by: American Pundit at July 20, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #169236

AP said: “Probably the biggest difference between the character of the two parties is the fact that the Democratic Party is getting most of its money from individual donors rather than lobbyists and special interests as the Republican Party does.”

Obviously, that will change in a heartbeat if Democrats achieve majority status again. Money seeks power to wield it in money’s favor.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 20, 2006 4:41 PM
Comment #169240

David Remer

That is the number one reason that the Republicans can appear to speak with one voice; they have the oval office. I don’t recall hearing all this complaining about the Dems lack of cohesiveness when Clinton was in office.

The Republicans are not always together on every issue either. There are plenty of splits on immigration, stem cell research,and we are seeing a lot more of it on Iraq as that situation get progressively worse, The freshman Senator from Minnesota just said that if he were up for re-election he would distance himself from Bush and Iraq. Many Repubs are doing just that.

I always maintain that as a Democrat I’m glad I do not have to follow a party line but that I can make up my own mind and speak out as I see fit. But you are absolutely correct it stating that Dems cannot let others derail their set of issues, as Rove is so talented at doing.

Posted by: mark at July 20, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #169245

mark, then your memory of the 1990’s is pretty faulty. Democrats fought Clinton on welfare reform. Some fought him vigorously on free trade agreements.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 20, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #169250

AP said: “David, I hope you’ll forgive us if we don’t use the same tactics as those guys. :)”

I will pat you on the back if pass you pass legislation ending Presidential signing statements. I will pat you on the back if you seek a national holiday for federal elections across a weekend, and mandating accountability and verifiability for any and all machines and voting techniques used in federal elections. I will pat you on the back for actually reducing the national debt instead of pulling a Bush and vowing to cut the deficit in half, SOME DAY!

I should hope your party would not borrow the most offensive and aggregious tactics used by Republicans. But, your party damn well better get your core platform issues published and turn a deaf ear to minority fringe issues like gay marriage. Republicans did not allow the Evangelicals to diminish or derail their smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and national security core platform. Never mind that their performance on these issues were a total failure and abdication of action on them. They kept to their core platform message and they rode it for 14 years of victory after victory.

That is a tactic your party should borrow and improve upon by actually voting to make the goals a reality, unlike the majority of Republicans in Congress.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 20, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #169253

Bush is in no way intelligent.
Have you listen to the man talk? He can’t stay focused long enough to make a coherent statement much less an intelligent statement.

Posted by: tinka at July 20, 2006 6:19 PM
Comment #169284

I don’t think you can separate many of Rove’s successes from his tactics. He’s willing to do what others won’t so he winss…

Temporarily at least. I think many of Bush’s current troubles are the consequences of the way he and Rove played politics. By engaging in the tactics he did, he often avoided dealing with problems and even caused some problems outright.

Ultimately how you gain power now determines how you keep it later. Buy your power with trickery, deception, and immoral behavior, and it will come back to haunt you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 20, 2006 9:06 PM
Comment #169298

Stephen, I think you misunderstand a lot in your comment above. First your comment assumes more trickery and deception than there actually was, though there was quite a bit. But, Rove campaigned on smaller gov’t., fiscal restraint, and common person values. Rove had absolutely no control over what Congressional Republicans did or how they voted. It was not Rove’s fault that Congressional Republicans refused to live up to the campaign promises, thank you Hastert, Frist, and Lott, very much.

Rove was brilliant tactically to campaign as he did for the President and the Republican Party. But, contrary to some Dem’s belief, Rove is not the head of the Republican Party. Not even Bush has been.

It is still incumbent upon the Dem. party to follow Rove’s lead in setting a platform of core issues and campaign agendas that have wide public acceptance and keep faith with them, which is where Congressional Republicans and Bush went wrong). And defend them against extremists in your own party as well as from non-bipartisan Republicans.

Americans want resolution in Iraq and a foreseeable exit. Americans want to common person values like marriage, our heritage and symbols to be regarded with respect. Americans want our borders secured against BOTH terrorists and illegal aliens. And Americans want an end to the deficits.

Is it possible for the Democrats to build a platform to run on that would appeal to mainstream America on those 4 issues and which its office holders could adhere to? That is the challenge for the Democratic Party in a nutshell. Succeed in this, and a majority of voters will electively choose to support Democrats. Fail, and a majority of voters may be backed into to supporting Democrats while holding their nose, having no alternative with Republican’s performance. But, failing also means a heyday for anti-incumbent sentiment for Democrats in future elections.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 20, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #169299

David Remer,

Of course Clinton had opposistion, in several areas, from his fellow democrats. He supported the death penalty too, while many if not most Dems are against it. I never meant to imply that there was not any dissent in the Democratic part during the Clinton administration. We are talking about the Democrats, where there are so many different factions that disagreement is second nature. But it was not the main topic of discussion in the 90’s. The Republicans have made it an issue and nearly everyone, including you, have fallen for it. I contend it’s ok to disagree, to discuss, to compromise, to hammer out the best solutions to our problems by taking into account everyone’s ideas even if it does involve a little fighting. But, the Dems do need to remain focused, as you pointed out, and remain on task if they want to accomplish their goals(once they figure out what they are!)

Posted by: mark at July 20, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #169302

David Remer

Who is the head of the Republican party? I certainly agree it’s not Bush Jr. If it is not Rove then is it Chaney? DeLay? Who’s your man?

And while we’re at it, who comes the closest to being the head of the Democratic party? Could it be Hilary? Bill? Howard? Care to throw out a name?

Posted by: mark at July 20, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #169313

The topic, “What Bush failed to veto”, could fill volumns, if you put in the reasons he signed every bill but one that landed on his desk. His poll numbers are in the crapper and it is very unlikely they ever will rebound to any respectibility. Bush will do anything to get some of his core backing back, the ultra-conservative churches and those who have no understanding of science.

I have to give him credit at the photo op his people created with the frozen embroyos that became babies. Of course he did not mention the many many frozen embroyos are distroyed after a certain amount of time. These distroyed embroyos could be used for stem cell research, but the ultra conservative factions see them only as potential babies. Distroying them is just fine but using them to uncrack the many diseases we now are facing is wrong?

I am a diabetic and my Mother has Alzheimers. It is too late for my Mother, her brain is like swiss cheese. She died several years ago, her body keeps on living, if you can call that living.

As I have said before, we all can do something about this. We can VOTE. We can CONTRIBUTE to a candidate or party in either money and/or time to volunteer. We must be INFORMED what the candidates stand for. Yes it is an investment in time and money but we can make a difference or just sit at our computers and complain

Posted by: C.T. Rich at July 20, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #169315

The head of the Democratic Party is Dr. Howard Dean. He may not be everyone’s cup of tea but I like the man and believe he has and is helping we Democrats.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at July 20, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #169322
The world is at war, soon we’ll be tossing nuclear bombs at eachother and Bushco will be safely tucked away in some shelter 20 miles underground.

A truly terrifying thought. The Bush dynasty is one gene pool that needs to dry up. 2 chimpanzees, a mother that would give the witches of Oz a run for their money, a wife that’s a drug scarred corpse and two drunken whore daughters. God save us all.

Posted by: Taylor at July 20, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #169331

I thought that it was improper for people like Rush Limp(you know what), no longer with the little blue pills, attacked Chelsie Clinton. We are better people than to attack the Occupant of the White House and his very strange, but wealthy, family.

Anyway, the witches of Oz were at least honest.
Remember, we have been told that God is a ultra-conservative Republican who hates everyone that they hate, or is it the other way around?

Posted by: C.T. Rich at July 20, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #169364

— David Remer—I have for some time believed
Tom Delay had the most influence on the day to day
operation an design for most of the domestic control, for getting the GOPs right bills passed.
Rumsfeld takes care of military, with the help of
Vice President Chaney.
I think President Bush gave them all their missions,
while he an Vice President Chaney took care of the
Justice dept.FBI, CIA, NSA, ATF, an President Bush
wrote the signing papers, by the hundreds, there
by effectively bypassing Congress an Senate. These
acts by the White House may not be tricky at all,
but they in my view are most unconstitutional.
These slight of hand, secret, actions are not
in any way what our principals an moral conduct
is what America was founded on. When I saluted our
American Flag, it meant “Pride” an I am a proud
American, I would hate to see all that disappear
because our congress an senate don’t have the guts
to stand up for the rights of our constitution!
These rights belong to every one they must be
defended, or mine will begone an those abusing them, don’t deserve them.

Posted by: DAVID at July 21, 2006 12:47 AM
Comment #169369

——one of the lines got lost in transport, like
every thing else seems to be, guess you can”t
loose something you may not have any way?

Posted by: DAVID at July 21, 2006 12:56 AM
Comment #169493

David R. Remer-
I really doubt Rove was that hands off on what the Congressional Republicans ran. This was the point of the whole redistricting controversy here in Texas. It’s a matter of record that it was his decisions that set the tone.

You have to understand that politics is policy for this administration, and by extension, the GOP. That’s why they don’t cut pork, or gouge out spending items, or other things, despite their ideological pretensions.

Among the other reasons that I don’t support VOID or similar efforts is that they aren’t focused on doing the one thing that would keep both fresh blood and old establishment in line: finding out the truth of what your people are doing. With your plan, even if you can get people engaged enough, Sooner or later people will tire of teaching politicians lessons, and they will return to minding their business as usual. My aim, and your aim, should be to both encourage Americans to pay better attention, and give them the tools to do so.

The alternative is, that the revolution quickly becomes the establishment, and your fresh faces become the people speaking out of both sides of their mouth. Democracy does not function in the absence of awareness.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 21, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #169503

—Stephen— Rove having been fired at least twice,
makes me believe his services must be quiet valuable to the Bush Administration. I also agree
with your post. I wonder who comes up with the
Administrations secretive ideas and who distributes the Republican talking points?

Posted by: DAVID at July 21, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #169510

Stephen, I was surprised by your comment and its lazy evasion of the task at hand. You talk ends, but, not one iota of means to achieve them. Typical of a Republocrat in these days and times.

VOID offers a means, with specific concrete steps to achieve some of the most important ends required of our near time future. Democrats winning control isn’t going to achieve those ends, because their control will only divide the nation as Republican control has.

To save our nation, superordinate goals that transcend Republocrat politics are required. VOID holds those goals high and we are finding those goals supported by Dem, Rep, Green, Lib, and Independent voters and volunteers. That is the potential power of VOID that supercedes anything the DNC or RNC can potentially muster.

I suspect the real reason you can’t support VOID, yet, is your narrow loyalty to your party, instead of the nation and her future. It is a common misplacement of loyalty, but one which is diminishing as evidenced by the dramatic increase in numbers of registered independent voters.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 21, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #169527

David R. Remer— I can’t see the cohesiveness that
is required to attract these groups together to
fill this void, you must be able to show, an lead
others to a better mouse trap before you can catch them.

Posted by: DAVID at July 21, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #169559

David R. Remer-
I’m surprised you don’t take my critique for what it is: bipartisan. Awareness does not know party boundaries. It’s as important for Democrats to know what their people are doing as it is for the Republicans.

People often vote by intuition, going for the person who feels more right. That intuition, though, feeds on the facts they know and what they feel about them. That is what message control is all about. The extensive lies and spin only serve to reinforce the feel the candidates want.

I want you to notice something: the more people discover about Bush’s actions, the less they like him. The intuition and mood of the nation shifts as the big picture of our understanding changes. It doesn’t change by itself, though.

Even if you succeed in your aims to oust incumbents, the Republocrats as you derisively call them, the people you bring in will face the same problems with the same temptations, and like a bad infection, they’ll keep on coming back. Corruption is an ever-present risk of government. There are no permanent solutions, only treatments for this chronic condition.

I believe Democrats would be the better choice, but I know I can be let down. It’s happened before. Still, whenever I hear third parties talking about there being no difference between the two main parties, I can simply point them to Bush, and say: Do you honestly think Gore or Kerry would have made the same choices as this man? Do you honestly think that these two were the worst choices of the two? Too much of the Third Party rhetoric is self-serving, in the sense that it’s meant to highlight how much better of liberals or conservatives the folks are. It’s as partisan as what it’s meant to oppose.

At some point, the third parties must offer up an intuitive vision of their own. They must compromise their politics to suit the masses. They must work their way up and show people their competence and skill in governing. Get your foot in the door. Be aggressive. But be warned: you will take on many of the characteristics of your opponents, because large scale politics naturally engenders them.

Then we’re back to the same questions: accountability, policy, and the public interest.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 21, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #169578

I believe that Stephen is right in that the only way third party candidates can make it is by starting at local levels and working their way up. Although I’m a Democrat I would certainly consider voting for an alternative candidate, if they had acceptable credentials. They must start at the lower levels of government to earn those credentials.

The one thing I don’t understand about VOID(Vote Out Incumbants Democracy) is who do I vote for if not the incumbant. What are my choices going to be. I considered myself an independent for years but then I realized that in Northern Michigan(lower) there were only Republicans running for office at the local level. A group of us got together and started a county level Democratic party with a platform that we wanted. Six years later five of the seven county commissioners are Democrats. I don’t think we could have done this with a third party but now the people in this county have a choice(and it is pretty darn green).

I admire what David Remer is doing in trying to change the political system however there are other ways to go about it. It takes a lot of time, energy, and money and the only advice I have is find the most effective way to do it.

Posted by: mark at July 21, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #169662

—David Remer—You see an apply critical thinking
in most all of your posts an I suspect that
most of thoughts have rhyme an reason. As you read through the posts listed here, how many of them do
do you really believe you could convince to change or convince to even consider changing their
political views, let alone merge into a void way
of thinking. Then you have the voters who vote only as their parents do or have done in the past, not to mention some other obvious reasons. I have thought
hard on this issue for several hours an just can’t find a workable solution! Make me a believer if you can.

Posted by: DAVID at July 22, 2006 12:55 AM
Comment #169664

—-David Remer—Could be easier to pick one third
of the worst politicians an recall those on both sides of the isle might get the attention of the rest?

Posted by: DAVID at July 22, 2006 1:15 AM
Comment #169671

VOID? You must be joking. Cute acronym though. You should make on up about Reps and go to their blog. Personally I am quite happy with my incumbant Democrats. They are not what is wrong with the country and if it was not for them things would be worse. An arrogant disregard for political reality is why we got 8 years of Bushco in the first place. Vote you heart in the primaries and your head in the general election.

On a bright note, the Senate Dems have twice the campaign warchest than the Reps. Much is small contributios,much is large. The smart money backs winners. Sure there is too much money in politics but with the system we have now it is better to have more than the other guys. There is a change comming. Real oversite,no more right wing federal judges, no more federal vaults being blown open for neocon cronies to loot,a guest worker program that isn’t tantamount to slavery,no more union busting shills on the NLRB,no more stupid tax cuts for Paris and Leona,maybe even a real plan to strengthen Social Security,etc. Next the Whitehouse.

Posted by: BillS at July 22, 2006 2:46 AM
Comment #169678

—BillS— I have been a Democrat Probably more years than than you are young curious about thing I have never heard of an sometimes, getting the facts from someone is some what painstaking ordeal!

Posted by: DAVID at July 22, 2006 5:34 AM
Comment #169679

———- Smile Can’t be all that bad

Posted by: DAVID at July 22, 2006 5:38 AM
Comment #169702

David, I have read comments from Demcocrat voters who have agreed to vote for challengers instead of incumbents in their Primaries. We applaud them for supporting the VOID goals and mission, to force incumbent politicians to be beholding once again to the voters concerns and agendas instead of special, wealthy interests who can afford to legally and illegally bribe votes in Congress to their favor, instead of the nation’s and her future.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 22, 2006 10:28 AM
Comment #169704

Mark asked: “The one thing I don’t understand about VOID(Vote Out Incumbants Democracy) is who do I vote for if not the incumbant.”

The challenger! Your party’s challenger in a primary, or, if you are a third party or independent voter, any challenger running opposite the incumbent. See, that wasn’t difficult. No political or mental gymnastics required. We are realists. We don’t expect, or ask, loyal Democrats to vote for Republicans, or vice versa. Primaries offer Republocrat loyalists to further the goal of responsible government by voting for the challenger in their primary.

Third party and independent voters are asked to vote for their party’s candidate (who will be challenging an incumbent in 99.5% of the races) or, any party’s challenger if their party has no candidate running.

When the incumbent reelection rate drops from an average of 94% to 80, 70 or 60%, the remaining incumbents and new freshman will begin asking what it is the anti-incumbent voters want to stop voting anti-incumbent? And the answer will be obvious, legislation that insures prosperity, security, and liberty for Americans, their children and their grandchildren. Their political careers on the line, they will begin to legislate for the people over special interests.

Simple enough, provided the VOID message and rational just explained can reach sufficient numbers of Americans. We are working on it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 22, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #169733

David Remer

I wish there were that many choices to make in my neck of the woods. Most often there is only one Dem and one Repub, quite often only a Repub, running even in the primary. I will not vote for someone that I do not have some degree of faith in, I’d rather not vote at all. I’m basically refering to local and regional elections. I do often vote for a challenger or someone who has little chance of winning in a primary at the state or national level when there are choices to make(for instance I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the last Presidential primary(caucus).

Posted by: mark at July 22, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #169738

In my case the incumbant member of congress does and has reflected my views on a majority of issues. She has been against the war in Iraq from the beginning,is responsive to constituients,helps secure highway and flood control funding etc.,aids people in dealing with the federal agencies. She had a Republicrat challeger in the primary. I should have voted for him? Ridiculous. She trounced him,happily. Looking for simplistic fomulas is conter-productive. If your reps represent you views support them. If not THEN vote for the challenger.

Posted by: BillS at July 22, 2006 12:54 PM
Post a comment