And, in hindsight, he made the right call.
You appear to have given W too much credit there.
Lies require semantic content.
Sounds nice… until you realize that the last time he salivated for a power like that was to eliminate the anti-torture item that was added to the latest defense appropriations bill.
Anyone watching the Democratic response? I feel like I’m watching a low-budget informercial.
I was paraphrasing Bush’s speech.
Whoops! Sorry!
I like the idea on principle, no matter who’s in office. Besides, last time it still had built-in checks, since it had to be sent back to the House and it was limited only to appropriations. So a President couldn’t cut out an anti-torture item or the Real ID boondoggle. The pork can be helped with the line-item veto. I suggest an Amendment to get rid of the damn riders on unrelated bills.
And I was wrong. Clinton managed to use it 82 times.
It’s ok. 
I posted it because I thought it was particularly absurd and outrageous to anyone who’s ever read a history book.
Note how they made sure not to get anyone who might want to run in 2008. Or even has to run in 2006.
So far, the Democratic response is, I think, very shrewd. Calm, moderate, wonkish. Sounds like a guy with a plan - something the Democrats have sorely lacked for a long time.
The Democrats need to put forward more people like Tim Kaine, and fewer people like Howard Dean and John Kerry.
And nothing - nothing - could be worse than the response from last year. Wasn’t it last year that they trotted out Nancy Pelosi to give her deer-in-the-headlights look and utter some totally non-memorable inanities?
“Have you or a relative recently been injured in an accident? Do you feel entitled to compensation? Call Kaine and Sons today and find out how YOU can get money for your accident!”
Heh…I’m not familiar enough with your politics yet to have figured out whether you were serious or not.
Anyone notice Governor Kaine doing the Clinton thumb-sticking-out-over-the-top-of-his-fist gesture?
<snerk>
That was exactly what he sounded like!
Don’t you mean 45 years, 364 days, 23 hours and 40 minutes?
I would have loved to watch this. I generally don’t watch televised speeches, but this I would have watched. As most here, I wasn’t expecting anything but political theatre - but I wasn’t expecting good political theatre. That sounds awesome.
His eyebrows were… distracting… and kind of creepy.
We are talking about Bush here, his lawyers will find more powers there than the ones you can only imagine. Especially because it was in an appropriations bill.
Agreed. It should be more in the spirit of, “Well it’s all very well to blame the Big Bad Rabbit when by-elections are going against the Government!”
I don’t like appropriations riders, even when I agree with them. But, as I understand the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, only three classes of legislation could be removed. In no case was the kind of rider you’re talking about one of them. I don’t think legislation could be easily passed that gave any more power to the President than that.
I’m not sure how it’d have to be written to pass Constitutional muster, or if it was rechallenged if the slightly different makeup of the Court would affect the decision. Since Breyer, Scalia, and O’Connor dissented, I have no idea how it’d turn out. I might guess another 6-3 against. Maybe 5-4 against if all the votes were the same except for Roberts and Alito, since the makeup of the rest of the court is the same since the decision in 1998. I can’t really see a 5-4 for.