Why DON'T they like Romney?

[creaker]

But seriously--what is the point of having a presidential veto if he won't use it?

In the end, I'm not surprised, and I am beginning to agree with those of you who see Mitt Barak Romobama as essentially the same guy. While the real action will take place in Congress, if the Prez has the power to stop something, then he should do so if he is against it. I do not buy that he's against it but bowing to the will of the people.

I agree - basically "change" has shown itself to be "business as usual". And Obama has done nothing to stand in the way of it.

ETA: He should still have vetoed it, but it looks like it already had 2/3's support in the House and the Senate for an override.

(House) "House of Representatives passed the National Defense Authorization Act in a bipartisan 283-136 vote. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) joined 189 other Republicans and 93 Democrats in voting for passage of the measure, while 43 Republicans and 93 Democrats voted against it."

(Senate) "Voting in favor were 45 Democratic and 41 Republican senators with just six Democrats, six Republicans and one independent opposed."

[bae]

ETA: He should still have vetoed it, but it looks like it already had 2/3's support in the House and the Senate for an override.

It's far worse than "he should have vetoed it". The Obama administration, according to testimony during the Senate hearings on the bill, *asked for* the changes to throw out our civil liberties for expediency.

"A curse upon you, Oliver Cromwell..."

[ApatheticNoMore]

ETA: He should still have vetoed it, but it looks like it already had 2/3's support in the House and the Senate for an override.

He also had the bully pulpit (not that he has shown any capacity to use it), the bill of rights may have been an issue on which he could get widespread popular support (because see I don't think the majority has decided they want this so much as it was slipped through on them!). But he could have been attacked from that part of the right that is authoritarian (law and order) as not being "tough enough on terrorism"? He could have. And both them and a Dems could have wailed "but think of the troops! We must fund the troops, even though we refuse to remove the aweful sections of this bill to do so". Still he would have had the fricken founding document of the country on his side, you know, gotta be worth something.

"I do not believe that kind of society I describe (in 1984) necessarily will arrive, but I believe… that something resembling it could arrive. I believe also that totalitarian ideas have taken root in the minds of intellectuals everywhere." ~ George Orwell

Yes for early 20th century evils, but as for year 2011 evils, I don't think intellectuals are much to blame. Except to the extent they make themselves Obama apologists, ah the apologists what fun!

[jp1]

I would disagree.

Southern Democrats have historically been rather conservative. After World War II, during the civil rights movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. After the signing of the Civil Rights Act, white voters who became tolerant of diversity began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. Rising educational levels and rising prosperity in the South, combined with shifts to the left by the national Democratic Party following the New Deal and a variety of other socio-economic issues, led to widespread abandonment of the Democratic Party by white voters and Republican dominance in many Southern states. In my opinion, liberalism had everything to do with it while race played a very minor role.

Actually the. Ew deal happened in the 30s so i have a hard time believing that that is what tirned white southeners off from rhe dems.

[Alan]

Actually the. Ew deal happened in the 30s so i have a hard time believing that that is what tirned white southeners off from rhe dems.

But that's when it started and the transition gathered steam over time. Why would you believe that it was solely a result of the Civil Rights Act when there were so many other contributing factors?

[jp1]

I would disagree.

Southern Democrats have historically been rather conservative. After World War II, during the civil rights movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. After the signing of the Civil Rights Act, white voters who became tolerant of diversity began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. Rising educational levels and rising prosperity in the South, combined with shifts to the left by the national Democratic Party following the New Deal and a variety of other socio-economic issues, led to widespread abandonment of the Democratic Party by white voters and Republican dominance in many Southern states. In my opinion, liberalism had everything to do with it while race played a very minor role.

Actually the. Ew deal happened in the 30s so i have a hard time believing that that is what tirned white southeners off from rhe dems. Even jfk, hardly a conservative, carried most of the south. With the exception of a few states voting for the racist strom thurmond in 1948 the south was reliably dem.

[creaker]

It's far worse than "he should have vetoed it". The Obama administration, according to testimony during the Senate hearings on the bill, *asked for* the changes to throw out our civil liberties for expediency.

"A curse upon you, Oliver Cromwell..."

Apparently the administration and Congress, and democrats and republicans, have no problem working together when they want to.

[jp1]

Iagree. I dont quite understand the whole concept that the dems and reps are so diffeent. Other then a few social issues that get trotted out over and over both parties seem to be in favor of war, big business and spending more money then gets taken in in taxes.

[Gregg]

"We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”

George Orwell, 1984

[Bronxboy]

But seriously--what is the point of having a presidential veto if he won't use it?

The presidential veto has been drastically underused in the past 50 years--by both parties. Only Gerald Ford averaged more than 10 a year.

Truman and Eisenhower together vetoed more bills than all their successors combined. No wonder Congress has become so dysfunctional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...dential_vetoes