Bush Consistently Played Politics During 109th Congress
Bush Consistently Played Politics During 109th Congress
In an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, President Bush urges the new Congress to not “play politics as usual.” He writes, “If the Congress chooses to pass bills that are simply political statements, they will have chosen stalemate. If a different approach is taken, the next two years can be fruitful ones for our nation.”
But three of the most egregious examples of partisan politicking in the 109th Congress — gay marriage, flag burning, and Terry Schiavo — were pushed by the President.
Ban on Gay Marriage: In every year of the 109th Congress, Bush urged lawmakers to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage. From the beginning, the move received little public support and was considered “likely to fail,” but Bush and other conservatives continued to push it as one of the most important issues facing the nation. When the amendment failed in the Senate in June, the New York Times reported that Bush “expressed disappointment,” but urged lawmakers to “take several [more] tries.”
Ban on Flag Burning: Conservatives’ attempt to ban flag burning was opposed by the majority of Americans, called a “non-problem” by a Republican senator, and would have violated rulings by the Supreme Court that declared flag burning protected free speech. Yet Bush supported the amendment and when the vote in the Senate failed, called on the senators to keep trying.
Terry Schiavo Legislation: Bush and conservative leaders in Congress used the tragic case of Schiavo as an opportunity for political grandstanding. A memo, which the AP reported was distributed by Senate leadership to right-wing members, called Schiavo “a great political issue.” Bush played his part in the spectacle by flying to Washington from his ranch in Crawford to sign the bill, even though waiting a few hours for the bill to be flown to him would likely “have made no difference in whether Ms. Schiavo lives.”
Under Bush’s watch, the 109th Congress used valuable time to “play politics as usual.” It failed to raise the minimum wage, left nine out of 11 spending bills undone, and left unresolved a long list of national security priorities.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
62 Responses to “Bush Consistently Played Politics During 109th Congress”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Excuse me but there is something very misleading about this: He writes. Who exactly wrote the op-ed?? Was it one of his speech writers, one of the WSJ editorial page scribes, perhaps a political hack in the White House press office??? Certainly and most importantly, Bush did not write anything, and therein lies the original deceipt. All the rest is just more of the same. Tune out, turn him off, and move on with something real and honest.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:58 pmThat jumped out at me too, spyder.
He writes.
No, he doesn't.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:02 pmhow bizarre
EXCUSE ME?
the democrats BETTER make political statements, THEY BETTER make it CLEAR his presidency is HAS DAMAGED THIS COUNTRY, HER REPUTATION, HER CONSTITUTION, HER FUTURE AND IT IS A MISERABLE FAILURE
iF HE wants a productive two years then HE had better act with congress, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, if HE doesn’t want a stalemate HE better act WITH THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS and STOP trying to get us to follow his BIZARRE interpretation of the world, politics and life
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:02 pmspyder sez:
Well, if you looked at the actual op-ed via the link, it says quite clearly, "by George W. Bush".
I fail to see the deceit you allude to here. Whether the op-ed was written by Bush's speech writers, someone in the press office, or by the man himself, it has his name on it. Therefore, it has his endorsement.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:05 pmBush is an idiot...no question.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:06 pmI think someone got a new veto pen for Christmas.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:07 pmwhat a dick.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:07 pmA lesson for (empty) Pistol Pete, a presidential veto can be overruled by congress re-voting on the bill, or did you not get to that part in your civics class?
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:07 pmBush's platitudes will soon be put to the test.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:09 pmVeto up, or shut up.
Isn't it being leaked out that the troop surge will be a political move and not a military move? hmmmm, ok to make a political statement with the lives of the military but don't you dare try to make political statement between politicians.
And pp, that slant you seem to see is just the slope of your forehead. the above are facts for this thread. The 109th congress called an emergency session for the Schiavo legislation. That's playing politics. Look it up if you actually want to learn something. You have a right to your own opinion (no matter how dilluted) but you don't have a right to your own facts.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:11 pmKrazny - Maravich hasn't had civics class yet, that comes in 10th grade.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:12 pmAmericans see the liar for who he is. The 109th Congress rubber stamped anything and everything as the Republicans controlled the vote. The idiot has to lie because when the 110th Congress has taken oath all hell we break loose. I noticed Bush never said a word about the 2 Trillion dollars given to Iraq/Afghan that was wasted and used as pay offs. Look at PM Maliki is now looking to leave as he knows the free money will stop. Look for more fall out as those who wont be able to line their pockets with the GOP stolen money. The most likely leader of Iraq will be Al-Sadr as the so called loyal Shiites yelled honor to him as they hung Saddam. Our troops are walking into sure death as Bush sends 20,000 more to Iraq. We will see about 500 soldiers killed a month that should make Connie happy as she calls our dead soldiers investments.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:12 pmA lesson for (empty) Pistol Pete, a presidential veto can be overruled by congress re-voting on the bill, or did you not get to that part in your civics class?
Comment by Krazny
But it takes a 2/3 majority, do you really see that happening?
Just a point of irony: A POLITICIAN playing POLITICS. Kind of like the Dems are playing politics by "freezing out" the Republicans for the 1st 100 hours.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:15 pmDon't think the rest of the World hasn't noticed that the "Mightiest" Military power in the World can't even secure a country barely bigger than the state of Texas. How embarrasing and dangerous.
Sure, Iran and North Korea would be a CAKEWALK.
Bull-sh*t.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:17 pmI still can't believe that this buffoon, this halfwit, this DOLT was elected as president. Of course he didn't write it - it's a script for him to follow. Interesting how it keeps him in character. The entire "speech" is hypocritical and dishonest.
Simply repugnant.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:19 pmRobert,
Bush has vetoed ONE bill. Just sayin'
Also, he's interested in polishing his turd of a legacy. Do you think his party loyalty overrides his own legacy?
Dems "freeze out" Repubs for 100 hours -- Repubs "freeze out" Dems for years. Hmmm, which might cause more damage to this country?
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:20 pmJust a point of irony: A POLITICIAN playing POLITICS. Kind of like the Dems are playing politics by “freezing out†the Republicans for the 1st 100 hours.
Comment by robert — January 3, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
aawww, robert... you were doing so well...
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:23 pmyour steps forward were just negated by that GIANT leap backward...
too bad...
ever since the morning after the election, when i heard an AirAmerica caller say something like "i hope the dems are not gonna be sore winners like they were sore losers", i knew the spin and parsing was going to be wild... this is even beyond chutzpah...
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:27 pm...this is even beyond chutzpah…
Comment by katy
You're right, katy. And who has the ear of the MSM? This is going to be a hard fight, but it's a fight we must win.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:31 pmI wonder if he wrote the op-ed with the same crayon he used on the partisan "signing statements" (800 and counting)
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:32 pmFirst he was a lame brain, now he's a lame duck!
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:33 pmBush will be looking at (for) a legacy. The rest of the republicans will be looking for their futures. GW is the one in the hardest position. The far right wingers won't hang their hats in his corner if they see another option that will give them life. It's not Frist or McCain or Guliani but it's too early for them to throw all their remaining weight behind a failed CEO, coke snorting, AWOLing language abuser.
Zooey, the dems froze the republicans out years before. And before that the repubs did it to the dems. robert has no argument.
Do the first 100 hours scare you Robert? Or maybe that actual 5 day work week? The ideas the democrats have ready to put to the floor are worthy and overdue. give them the chance to run with this. Your side had the ball for 6 years and we can hardly recognize the playing field.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:33 pmZooey and katy,
In 1995, when the Repubs took over and they "froze out" the Democrats for the first 100 hours, the Dems whined and cried about it. Now that they are the Majority again, it is O.K.? Sorry, doesn't pass the BS test. Didn't pass the BS test in '95 either, for the record.
But then again, it is easy to pass bills with NO opposition, isn't it? So much for the "fairness and bi-partisanship" promise.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:33 pmSo much for the “fairness and bi-partisanship†promise.
Comment by robert
Suck it, loser boy.
Your turn to whine...
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:38 pmHey, Zoo. I read that BnF and brtruthful are no longer posting here. Is that so?
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:38 pmBush wants cooperation from Congress.
Interestingly, on the same day he asks for cooperation what does he do?
Sen. Leahy has asked the DOJ for two documents. They've ignored his request. As incoming committee chair he asked again.
Today, Bush's Department of Justice told Leahy no again.
George, where's YOUR cooperation?
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:43 pmThe op-ed was just full of hollow words. The article was spin of all sorts. A fool had to laugh.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:45 pm"The tail between the legs" message.
Total failure as will probably be his speach.
Isn't this the same President who's playing politics with the lives of tens of thousands of service members in Iraq?
And didn't the Republicans of the 109th play politics with ... well, pretty much everything? They shut Dems out of meetings, added provisions to bills without allowing any comments by Dems, and even ended one meeting without letting a single Dem speak.
Quite frankly, Bush and every single person who still supports him could do the world a favor if they just went away ... forever.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:51 pmhellinabucket,
I look at it like this. A 5 day work week gives them 2 more days a week to screw us. By them, I mean the ENTIRE Congress. But at the same time, they should be working 7 days a week. I know, I'm confused.
My point is that I do not think that EITHER side should freeze to other out. Then you have strickly single-party politics and that undermines the entire reason for a multi-party system. I was not crazy about the Republicans controlling the House, Senate, and Presidancy either. Again, too much single party control.
Like I said, it was BS in '95 and it is BS now.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:52 pmShorter version:
During a political statement, Bush will insist that Democratic politicians shouldn't make political statements.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:53 pmHey, Zoo. I read that BnF and brtruthful are no longer posting here. Is that so?
Comment by Juan C
I don't know. Where did you hear that?
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:54 pm#25,
This November past, a message was sent to Washington DC by the American people. The message was clear:
- Get out of Iraq
- Fix the budget
- Fix the economy
- Address the environment
- Stop the corruption
No where in that message was it said or implied that the incoming majority had to continue to act like the minority? Civility is expected, of course, but the job to get done does not include navigating around the egos of the left behind.
Republicans are in the minority because they deserve to be just as Democrats are in the majority because they deserve to be. That is how voting works. That is how the two party system plays out.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:54 pmHey, Zoo. I read that BnF and brtruthful are no longer posting here. Is that so?
Comment by Juan C
sorry to butt in but, I hope not, BnF gives me a lot to think about. I would miss his input, even if we don't agree.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:55 pmDoes Bush holding that flag in the photo count as flag desecration?
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:01 pmthink the yahoo article says it all.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:11 pmBut then again, it is easy to pass bills with NO opposition, isn’t it? So much for the “fairness and bi-partisanship†promise.
Comment by robert — January 3, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
just who the hell told you the dams were gonna freeze ANYone out???
anyone of repute? ...ooh... didn't think so...
shoot... can't believe i'm even disappointed in you... whoddathunkit...
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:11 pmsilly me...
Now let's see. Is Bush's fair & balanced budget going to contain war funding, or is that "off budget" money he's going to be hitting us up for>?>?
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:14 pmDoes Bush holding that flag in the photo count as flag desecration?
Comment by WC — January 3, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
it does as far as i'm concerned... especially with that look on his face...
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:14 pmWhere did you hear that?
Comment by Zooey
At the bottom of yesterday´s thinkfast thread.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:14 pmkaty,
Here you go, just so you do not think I am making stuff up.
Don't give up on me yet!!
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:21 pmTry this again, katy
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:24 pmWatching the chimp this morning give a brief summary of his op-ed in the WSJ made me spit out my coffee -- he called for bipartisanship! Of all people, the man of the party who wouldn't consult a Democrat on anything for 6 years - whose party turned off the lights on a Dem meeting in the basement - whose VP told a Dem Senator to go f--k himself.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:33 pmPathetic SOB. How many more days before we can tell him good riddance.
And, there is NO way the moron WROTE that op-ed. He merely signed off on it.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:34 pm#
Your side had the ball for 6 years and we can hardly recognize the playing field.
Comment by hellinabucket — January 3, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
#
Correction: Twelve years (since 1994).
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:36 pmrobert - i never thought you were making stuff up... just very disappointed that you were whining about it... you know what the repugs have done these past years, evidently with no thought of "what goes around comes around"...
but since you asked so nice and desperately (heh), ok, i won't give up on you... yet... ;-)
this from your link (and thanks for that):
"It's in the nature of the House of Representatives for the majority party to be dominant and control the agenda and limit as much as possible the influence of the minority," said Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University. "It's almost counter to the essence of the place for the majority and minority to share responsibility for legislation."
In the Senate, by contrast, the Democrats will have less control over business because of their razor-thin 51-to-49-seat margin and because individual senators wield substantial power. Senate Democrats will allow Republicans to make amendments to all their initiatives, starting with the first measure -- ethics and lobbying reform, said Jim Manley, spokesman for the incoming majority leader, Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).
[...]
Democrats acknowledge that if they appear too extreme in blocking the opposing party, their party is sure to come under fire from the Republicans, who are already charging they are being left out of the legislative process.
‘An iron hand’
"If you're talking about 100 hours, you're talking about no obstruction whatsoever, no amendments offered other than those approved by the majority," said Rutgers's Baker. "I would like to think after 100 hours are over, the Democrats will adhere to their promise to make the system a little more equitable. But experience tells me it's really going to be casting against type."
so, we'll see... they know they've got 2 years... and, they know we are watching them... the dems are much more attuned to the PEOPLE's wishes and business...
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:54 pmAt the bottom of yesterday´s thinkfast thread.
Comment by Juan C
Thanks, Juan. I'll find out what I can.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:58 pmkaty, I'm not whining, just pointing out the pot/kettle equation.
As you said, we shall see what happens.
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:00 pmI guess this means Bush will put a big X on any bill that would require that future president's pass a psychiatric evaluation before he/she can assume office.
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:23 pmIt's all diversion so they can push a policy that no-one sane would support -- and it works. It works because they know how to play opportunist Dims. They give the heinous legislation patriotic sounding names and push it through at prime moments. The Dims vote for it because it is "good politics" even if it is bad policy. The repugs call the tune and define the terms, the Dims dance . . .
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:38 pmSo let me get this right, Nico. The Dems opposition to homosexual marriage, flag burning and pulling the plug on Terry Schiavo WAS NOT "playing politics"???? Prog hypocrisy is sooo precious.....
January 3rd, 2007 at 5:29 pmThe Dems didn't bring any of those issues to the table MA, they were however forced to maintain a level head during all the hyperbole.
PS still waiting on your next dead baby joke.
January 3rd, 2007 at 5:36 pmI noticed that one of the main things Bush is asking for is line item veto power. A small measure of this was granted temporarily to Clinton before the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Has the Supreme Court changed so much in the last ten years that Bush thinks he can hold it now? I am always very cautious about granting the office of the president any extra power. Realize that this power will extend to the next president whether it is McCain, Hillary, or whoever, and the president after that, and so on.
January 3rd, 2007 at 6:02 pmChris,
I would say given what has happened since 2000, that the supreme court hasn't changed, rather they would be more willing to grant a republican president the line item veto over a dem president. It becomes a partisan issue, rather then what is actually constitutional or not.
January 3rd, 2007 at 6:06 pmDear Krazny - Please show me WHERE I said Dems brought up homosexual marriage, flag burning or Terry Schiavo. I said they "played politics", which they did.....Case closed.
January 3rd, 2007 at 6:07 pmLOL not really, the republicans consistantly brought up gay marriage, Flag burning, and even wrote a memo on Terry Schiavo, to do nothing more then energize their flaggin base. I am unsure how the Dems saying, gee maybe we shouldn't get involved in this stuff, and well it isn't our business, after being forced by the republicans to take a stand on the non-issue is the dems playing politics. That is playing politics. Your inane hyperbole doesn't stand up to scrutiny. PS the dems did play politics with the Iraq war, and look what they won.
got any new dead baby jokes? I am really curious you screwed up hag.
January 3rd, 2007 at 6:15 pmGWB has got the ol' perma-pursed lips of so many of the GOPers. It looks like guilt to me.
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:14 pmI think it is more the worry that he is going to be dragged out of the whitehouse in handcuffs, and the knowledge that Jimmy Baker won't be able to help.
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:23 pmWhy do I get the feeling Karl Rove is still pulling the executive strings?!
January 3rd, 2007 at 9:43 pmThe real treasure from that laughable op-ed is found at the "Reader Responses" link on the top of the WSJ page. With one exception, the comments are so nauseatingly sycophantic that they bear strong resemblance to those found at Tom DeLay's ghost-blog. Gag!
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:13 pm[...] HT: Think Progress. [...]
January 4th, 2007 at 12:33 pmI think ALL of the INCUMBANTS are very happy...
We're sitting here, talking about Schiavo, instead of Rumsfeld's KBR favoritism...
lets not forget WMD, Bin Laden, Social Security (its gone, and no I havnt been contacted about a "private Account")
Bush is....A LIBERAL...with nothing but a pre-emptive failure of a war, along with a failed massive national school initiative that allows faculty to prescribe psycotrophic drugs to the youth..
He also championed an ineffective tax cut that allows the Carlyles, Rotheschilds, and Rupert Murdoch's of the world to use an over-inflated dollar to monopolize American Media, Energy, and, strangely enough, Paper...yes paper.
January 5th, 2007 at 8:59 am[...] of playing politics with everything from climate change to Iraq… To all the nonsense over flags and queers and Terri Schiavo. Perhaps, we are ready for someone who will move us beyond the old political games of the past and [...]
February 13th, 2007 at 12:55 am