In that case **asterion ** I can sleep better, but with this congress, I’m afraid of the types of items they will give this president the power to veto. (And one still has to worry on how his lawyers will interpret the law) To be more at ease, I have to know: were the line item vetoes of Clinton reversed after the law was declared unconstitutional?
I’m not sure. In any case, 43 states allow the line-item veto in one form or another, so why not the federal government?
You might want to be careful at using a dislike for the current President as the sole justification for opposing the line item veto (I’m not saying you are, but it seems to loom large in your arguments). Administrations come and go, and if it’s a good idea, it should be implemented. Remember the lesson of the 22nd Amendment. Republicans passed this amendment imposing term limits as a reaction to FDR’s 4 terms, ironically it was the Republican Eisenhower who might just have been popular enough to win a 3rd term in 1960. (I’m not saying he would run, but he might have been popular enough to pull it off. Clinton certainly might have had a good shot at 3 terms, good Lord, Gore beat Bush in the popular vote, Bill would have trounced him)
Best moment in years. Who knew I could guffaw at a SOU?
Some thougts:
What was with Dennis “Bluto” Hastert’s tie? It hung down to the floor!
This wasn’t a bad speech because it was nothing but empty platitudes. What did we expect, right? Well, Bush has actually announced policy initiatives in these things before, but he doesn’t have the juice now he did then, so it was all warm milk. With two exceptions – one was the Energy Initiative. CSPAN interviewed Jim Gibbons, the Editorial Page Editor of the Houston Chronicle right after, and he was incredulous about this – he said (paraphrasing) “This is an oil man talking about wood chips and sawgrass!” (And also – you’re giving us fucking sawgrass in the State of the Union? Dude, you’re the president. Stop acting like the assistant to a mid-level functionary in USDA’s Chillicothe field office.)
The other was the Education Initiative. All that science and math stuff sounded good (except for the part that was blatantly about marginalizing distinguished teachers with years of experience iin hostile and underpaid educational environments because they vote for Democrats and have a good union), but maybe that whole fostering education thing would work if you hadn’t slashed and burned the ability to get subsidized student loans.
Also, Laura Bush really needs to go to the botox clinic a little less often. Say what you will about the junior senator from New York, you know her puffy cheeks are all natural.
Another comment Gibbons made – Bush talked about tort reform (stupid stupid stupid) as a way of reducing medical costs. Except that Texas is the leading tort reform state, and medical costs keep going up. Well, fortunately this Administration has never let the facts stand in the way of policies that benefit their contributors.
Finally, the line-item veto. OK, I think it’s dumb, because trade-offs are how you get legislation passed. But it’s also unconstitutional, and I know it’s unconstitutional because we just did this exercise more recently than the last El Nino. When he sputtered out “line-item veto,” I was like “Did I somehow travel back in time ten years?” Except I know I didn’t, because ten years ago my stomach didn’t hurt every time I remembered who the president was.
As to Kaine’s response, I agree with Sam that it’s what the Dems needed. I think it’s unfortunate that Kaine’s eyebrows are going to be the story instead of the solid criticisms he laid out, but they certainly were solid.
Well, that’s it for anouther year. With any luck, the next SOU will be delivered to much more hostile crowd.
–Cliffy
I never noticed Hastert’s tie, but I remember thinking that a bunch of Senators had some goofy looking long ties. If Hastert had one, then I think we’ve spotted some form of trend here. Or knowing idiot politicians, maybe they were trying to make some kind of statement. Maybe they were ‘freedom ties’ or something.
Good GOD! Yeah, I have to agree, and the eyebrows too, as someone already pointed out.
I couldn;t wait 'til that was over, so I could channel-hop as each station had an interview with McCain… 
2008!
So what you’re trying to say here is “Strike him down and he will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.” I always thought of him as more of a Dark Side of the Force kinda guy.
Of course its not just you that is doing well. All of your patrons obviously have enough discretionary income over and above the neccessities to indulge themselves with a view of your breasts. No doubt they had to spend money to get to your establishment and pay a handsome fee in drinks or maybe cover charge to look at you. That speaks well for the economy.
I visited Dallas last September and was absolutely amazed at all the economic activity visible from the expressways.
good heavens, what speech were you watching?
:smack:
Now it’s 46 years, 9 days, 19 hours and 12 minutes (AFTER the 20 minute ensuance of penis)…and counting…(Chamorro Time Zone applied).
Man, I was stuck between amused and disgusted with that showing. I was just hoping Bush would have said something along the lines of:
“Well, it’s great to see you’re pleased with opposing an idea because it was mine, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to cheer the fact that we werren’t able to do anything about Social Security. The system is broken. I think we should work to find a solution rather cheer ourselves for doing nothing about it.”
Or something along those lines. It would have been a major dig against them, while coming across as caring for the elderly. The perfect diplomatic insult.
Lifted from imagined quote:
IIRC, this point was highly contentious. Not only that, but so was the idea that Bush’s plan would’ve been beneficial at all (even if SS is broken).
I don’t want to hijack the thread into a debate about SS reform (and I won’t respond to any follow ups – start a new thread if you’d like or dig up one of the old ones), but I felt that the above needed saying because, from what I recall, Bush’s plan was a big steaming load. With that in mind, I obviously think the Democrats acted correctly.
Well, for 10 years I’ve been hearing from both parties occupying the White House that Social Security needs to be “saved”. It either needs to be reformed, or everyone is full of shit.
Personally, I don’t expect to see a penny. But you’re right. This isn’t really the forum.
[QUOTE=duffer]
… or everyone is full of shit.[ …/QUOTE]
Every so often, you and I sort of agree on something 
Exactly! I may be angry as hell at Bushie-man, but that Democrat dumb@ss shit about “social security is ok”, just to be the opposite of Reps… oooo, I hate gan-sayers
Ah, Republican lite. When you just can’t bring yourself to vote for a real Republican.
I didn’t watch the speech as I was working. I didn’t even hear any soundbytes on NPR. I did catch a chunk of the “response.” Typical Democratic dreck, full of flatus and signifying jack shit.
As expected, Bush’s SOU appears to be completely contentless.
The difference between the Pubs and Dems right now is that the Pubs have brand and the Dems don’t. Reality doesn’t matter, but the “message” does: Small government, pro-life, fiscally responsible–blah buh blah. All a fucking pack of lies, but the cowed voters vote for it because they are “for” those things.
The Dems: The downer party of atheists, whiners, and visionless turds. Always toothlessly opposing the mean ol’ Republicans but never offering an exciting or practical vision of their own.
Man, what a choice we have in America. Hoo-fuckin’-rah.
So do something about it!
Perhaps a ‘true’ Democrat (whatever that means), simply isn’t what the US voter wants.
Yes, I remember this thread. I don’t agree, actually. I think a multi-party system just makes it more likely that nothing gets done at all.
The problem isn’t that the Dems are the same as the Pubs; the problem is that they are not courageous or bold in their differences. IOW, they’re fuckin’ lame.