After years of worm-like behavior, the US Congress seems to have finally found that missing backbone:

Congress Overrides Bush Veto

This took a bipartisan effort. Republicans might be acting out of self-preservation, but at least they are acting rather than rubber-stamping.

Questions for debate:

What common-cause issues face the US Congress that might survive a presidential veto?

What will the Executive try to do as a result of veto overrides?

How will this situation impact the 2008 election season?

The Democrats have been widely criticized for not having backbone. Well, there it is. All it takes is for cooperation from the large minority of Republicans. Can't force the issues without them. So play nice or lose power, that's what I see happening.

What common-cause issues face the US Congress that might survive a presidential veto?
I think the Democratic just got its last over ride. Yesterday the Senate Republicans forced the Democratic leadership to do their will to hear the AG vote. They threatened to return the military funding back to the house through use of Senate rules. Yesterday the HHS and VA funding was sent back to the House to be separated so Bush can pass one and veto the other. Little room for compromise and little reason for Republicans to compromise.
What will the Executive try to do as a result of veto overrides?
Nothing.
How will this situation impact the 2008 election season?
The Democratic Party is already favored and has the press on their side.

What common-cause issues face the US Congress that might survive a presidential veto?

It remains to be seen- I think, perhaps, some Republicans are starting to get rid of the yoke of the neo-con and realize that having an R behind your name will be a HUGE liability if they can be tied to closely to the worst president in US history- I don't think anyone wants that legacy right now.

I am hoping the Rs put down the rubber stamp and make this prez irrelevent, and just do an end run around him for everything. If the Rs are going to hold on to seats this next cycle, they need to put down the rubber stamp and think for themselves, and start realizing what is good for the country is pretty much the opposite of whatever GW says.

What will the Executive try to do as a result of veto overrides?

Um- nothing? If congress gets a backbone- and I am only really looking in the direction of the R side of the aisle- then the executive can do very little.

How will this situation impact the 2008 election season? The Rs are going to get slaughtered, and for good reason- they need to pay the price for thier boot licking of this scumbag moron of a prez we got. They show some backbone and personal responsibility that they used to talk about- then they might pull it out a bit.

Two of the most senior lawmakers in the nation are from my state- and they are both vunerable this year.

Before those on the left start drooling all over themselves at the prospect of "sticking it to President Bush" they might want to put on a new bib and do a reality check. Difficult as I know that is for the whacklibs. This over-ride was on a so-called "public works" kind of bill where all kinds of pet projects in various congressional districts get funded by the American taxpayer. Where I come from we call that "pork". In Congress they call it "getting re-elected". Apparently in this case the Democrats threw enough ribs and BBQ sauce over the wall to the other side to get a veto over-ride. Easiest way to get a big vote in Congress on a bill is to load it up with pork barrel spending.

What common-cause issues face the US Congress that might survive a presidential veto?

"Common-cause"? They all want to have some pet project funded to point at during their re-election campaign.


What will the Executive try to do as a result of veto overrides?

Oh probably play a little politics back I suppose. I'd start going through those spending bills and point out some of the ridiculous things Congress is spending tax-payer money on. Stuff like "the bridge to nowhere".


How will this situation impact the 2008 election season?

Not a whole lot. Congressional elections are local and as long as the Congress critter brings home the bacon, they usually get re-elected. Same ole, same ole.


Aquilla

What common-cause issues face the US Congress that might survive a presidential veto?

If this bill is any indication, then the answer is pork barrel spending. That is one thing that most Congress critters can agree on: let's spend the people's money on "popular programs".

Considering that the President hasn't vetoed many bills, including previous pork barrel bills, I don't think this means much.

What will the Executive try to do as a result of veto overrides?

One bill is not plural (overrides). Why would he do anything? He should stick to his principles and veto bills which he feels are unjustified.

How will this situation impact the 2008 election season?

It will probably allow pork barrelers to bankroll more projects and then brag to their constituents how they are "bringing jobs to Northern Iowa" (or wherever). Sheesh this is business as usual. Another Incumbancy Protection Act.

Um, out of curiosity- what "principles" are you talking about? I mean- can't be fiscal restraint- we are talking about the first vetos on spending bills in the last 7 years?

Are you talking about the principle of spending gazzillions of dollars on everything BUT the American poeple?

I mean- lets be clear- GW never saw a spending bill he didn't like- as long as the money was being sent to his ultra-rich buddies!

What principles?

Amlord you have inadvertently hit on something. Often Bush doesn't think he "feels." That's always a dangerous proposition.

Hopefully, this is just the first in a series of lessons on humility Bush will be taught. It's about time Congress took his tail to the woodshed.

Normally Aquilla- I would be in lock step with you on this one- it is basically reality- and perhaps, a good reality in many ways. Our "bridges to nowhere" was hyped as pork- very few here felt that they were pork at all-= but badly needed infrastructure in a state that is still pre-1958 in our infrastructure developement- and our projects are a drop in the budget compared to some of these projects. One of the reasons we have the set up we have is that one man's "pork" is another communities 'neccesity".

We really, really need that bridge across our inlet- we will be a city of a million poeple in a few years, and the federal infrastructure work that most "lower 48ers" take for granted in thier states and communities have never had the opportunity to grow up here- and one of the great dissatisfactions we have with the federal goverment- we got creamed in an issue by mischaracterizations and downright lies.

It doesn't help a bit that all of our lawmakers are hopelessly corrupt (to be a repubican, remember, you have to be hopelessly corrupt or have closeted gay sexual liasons while searching for your next crystal meth score )- so they make easy targets.

Pork spending is very subjective- sometimes, sure, it is horribly obvious, such as the Reagan building, a massive pork project- given to a guy that campaigned on smaller goverment while increasing it more than any president before him- yet, interestingly- there were lots of poeple that actually bought his fecal material he was spreading about pork spending and such

My point is this - We have had lots of talk about "spending" and how democrats love big goverment etc- but, while in power, no republican in my lifetime has even TRIED to riegn in the budget.

So let's interject some reality- GW and the republicans had 6 years of total power- and they had the power of every branch of goverment, unrestrained and unchecked.

So - the American public has seemed to turn a corner, those like me that LIKE fiscal responsibilit have to call into question the motives of ANY veto by GW, since he had passed some of the worst legislation in US history- NCLB, Patriot act etc.

How does one justify thier new found "fiscal responsibility" when they clearly never had it before?

If you are going to spend the kind of dollars the republican majority and president has spent money on- then I prefer domestic spending to black holes in the desert, thanks.

On top of that- it is pretty obvious that the entire US has infrastructure problems now- I have no problem with a capital budget that helps business do business- i.e.- roads, bridges, faster fibre optic info super hiways etc.

So exactly what is so bad that is in this bill, EXCEPT for the obvious soundbites, with no real info in them, that this is "earmarks and pork"- or is it really a MAJORITY of very needed infrastructure projects?

Only issues like this “water bill” that had pork larded into it for everyone. This is the Congress at their worst.

The Republicans had little fiscal control and now Dems in control are catching up with the pork.

Loser is the Taxpayer.
Nothing he can do.



Not really.

All of this might make for an interesting debate in another thread dealing with pork barrel legislation, the line item veto and the like, but it's off-topic I think in this one dealing with a veto override. I read the questions posed in this thread more as dealing with whether or not things were changing in Congress from a political standpoint. Did Congress really "get a backbone"? My claim is that no, nothing's changed, business as usual. Pork is pork and it it oinks like a pig..... This veto wasn't overridden because of any kind of basic philosophical split between the Republicans in Congress and the President. Rather it was overridden because apparently there were enough pet projects (oink) in the bill in Republican districts.


Aquilla

This is the classic example of pork barrel spending.

The Army Corps of Engineers identified approximately $5 billion in infrastructure work that they recommended being done. The House passed a $15 billion bill for this. The Senate, not to be outdone, passed a bill that authorized $14 billion, but for different projects. In conference, the bills were combined and the total rose to over $23 billion.



I just love how just about every news story calls this bill "wildly popular" or some other nonsense. Of course pork is popular. The pigs in Washington live on that stuff.

Pork or no pork - this is basically money spent on domestic projects. Not every "pork" project is bad. How many billions did we spend already on reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq? So, some money are staying in this country instead of going into the black hole that is Iraq right now.

Amlord- it is very hard to argue with Russ Fiengold- except he was all over my bridge as well - I gotta drive that road tonight, and will be cursing all those poeple in the "lower 48" today probably

Amlord- EH has really boiled it down to this- how can ANYTHING with money being sent to the US be called "pork" when we are talking about money that you would burn up in a month in Iraq?

In other words- there is no such thing as domestic pork, until we get rid of the monster elephant dragging money out of this country, with no return.

I think that gets to the heart of the political equation and question being asked here- how can this prez veto ANYTHING over spending money domestically when he has shown to be a big spender when it comes to KBR/Haliburton and pals?

When cutting any budget, if you are say, in a relationship, you have to have a moral authority and justice and balance when justifying cuts and increases. If my wife demands more money for shoes, but wants me to forgo any spending for myself, for anything, even basic neccesities, it is very hard for her to convince me this is neccesary to keep us from going broke.

That is what we have here- we have a president and party that has coughed up the money for champagne and caviar for 6 years for his buddies- while ignoring infrastructure, and well, not done a single positive thing domestically for this country in his entire 6 years- all of a sudden, he has the political capital, and his cronies with an R behind thier names, have some sort of moral authority to determine some small domestic spending is 'pork"

I find it hard to believe that any of this is really pork, because the poeple calling it that don't really have a leg to stand on, with the exception of Fiengold, but he has his own agenda as well, so it is hard to say.

What common-cause issues face the US Congress that might survive a presidential veto?

I agree with Aquilla and Amlord that the common cause is in fact pork. I also agree with English Horn and CruisingRam that the "pork" that this bill represents is almost inconsequential compared to the spending on Iraq.

If the goal is to reign in spending, then reign in the spending on Iraq. Iraq is the "low hanging" fruit.

What will the Executive try to do as a result of veto overrides?

It will get the Dubya apologist to talk about how this bill is "pork" so that it helps to deflect our attention from Iraq. See! Look at those Congress-critters spending money again. And..um.. don't look over there: these aren't the 'droids you're looking for.

How will this situation impact the 2008 election season?

If you buy into the "Congressional elections are local" philosophy, then you might believe it could make a difference. I believe, however, that national issues such as Iraq and health care trump this notion. Thus, the spending will help some but not very much. Of course, Republicans need all the help they can get.

I'm not certain if your analysis of this is right. Flood control and reconstructive efforts to help Louisiana aren't necessary wasteful projects. On top of that, the bill just authorizes the programs, no money was appropriated. That can only occur through spending bills. Check out the last paragraph of the originally cited article.