Kerry: “Let’s Hold the President’s Feet to the Fire”

[kerrygoddess]

John Kerry to Introduce Line-Item Veto Proposal - “Let’s Hold the President’s Feet to the Fire”
March 6th, 2006 @ 1:18 pm

John Kerry has announced he will introduce a Line-Item Veto Proposal to help Bush out with his goal to “weed hometown projects from legislation passed by Congress.”

Below is a statement from John Kerry on President Bush’s call for a line-item veto. Kerry previously proposed a constitutional line-item veto that would allow the President to reduce pork barrel spending and save taxpayers billions of dollars. Under Kerry’s plan the President would identify wasteful items in spending and tax legislation and submit it to Congress to act on in an up-or-down vote.

“It’s no secret that President Bush and I don’t agree on much, but I fully support giving him the line-item veto. I’m going to introduce this legislation, Congress should immediately pass it, and I want to see President Bush use this veto pen to get tough on wasteful spending. Under this Republican-led House and Senate, pork barrel spending has gone through the roof. Nearly $30 billion a year is being spent on projects that have never even been debated. Billions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted on things like research to enhance the flavor of roasted peanuts and the infamous ‘bridge to nowhere.’ We have the largest deficit in American history, and the guys in charge are acting like teenagers with a new credit card.

“Let’s pass this line-item veto, and let’s hold the President’s feet to the fire to make sure that a White House that has never once vetoed anything starts vetoing the incomprehensible waste coming out of this Congress.”

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2151

[wiggs]

1. Kerry: "I think we should give the president more discretionary power"

Why, in God's name, would you give a lame duck president who makes terrible decisions more discretionary power? So with a line-item veto he guts good programs and leaves bad ones...and then how exactly do we hold his feet to the fire?

And why isn't this issue an opportunity to say something like: "Normally, I would support a line-item veto for presidents to help eliminate pork, but this president has proven incapable of making good decisions that benefit most Americans. I will not trust his judgement with a line item veto."

I don't get it. Perhaps someone can clear this up for me.

[unblock]

3. because the power would mostly be wielded by the NEXT potus

[wiggs]

8. Kerry wants it passed immediately

That gives Bush almost three years with it. No reason to do that, IMO.

Pass line-item veto it after Bush is gone, please. Otherwise, this is a gift to the administration and another chance for the unitary executive to shape policy. I can't think of a single reason why, when we know that executive power is already a problem, power of a flawed president should be increased here.

[Mass]

9. Because he knows Bush does NOT want a line-item veto.

It is an excuse for him not to vetoe legislations full of pork.

Jeez, how difficult is that to understand.

Bush has no pb with pork. Democrats (at least some) do. He is using the absence of a line-item veto to justify the deficit and the fact that he has vetoed NO legislation.

But of course, I know it is difficult to understand for some.

[wiggs]

22. I don't buy it at all

So they'll put some sacrificial pork in the budget and those will get cut along with a bunch of programs that dems want to keep. Who wins?

And if the congress flips in 2006, do we want this guy to have the line item veto? Even if it doesn't flip, you have to think that this administration would love another crack at stuff the dems insisted be put in.

In any case, I really don't think Bush worries too much what everyone thinks about the deficit or his vetoes. He just wants the pork he wants and he will cut programs he doesn't want. He is a lame duck corporatist president who has been handing out pork since day one in plain view without regard to repercussions!

No good can come of giving this president more power, period. Kerry is playing old politics, which don't work when all three branches of government, the media, and the elections are controlled by one party.

[depakid]

36. Never mind that it's been ruled unconstitutional already

and that all this does is further undermine whatever respect for the law there may be left in Washington.

Or on this message board....

[FreedomAngel82]

25. And Bush never vetos anything

See the John McCain torture bill. He came all out and said "I'm going to veto this!" but than McCain went up and "talked" with him. By the way did he ever sign that bill??

[IowaGuy]

28. By the time it gets passed...he'll be facing a decidedly more

DEM congress....with all the bridges he's burned, he'll be completely impotent to really use it to any great effectiveness, yet it will be there for the next POTUS. He's going to just be hanging on by his fingernails to just keep from being impeached...he won't have the balls to use it anyway.

[mom cat]

30. Bush not have the balls to use ultimate power? You are kidding,

arent you. He has abused every bit of power he has ever had and then some. He would just use this to beef up his unitary executive. If we do manage to take over one or both houses, giving Bush a line item veto would nullify the will of the people by giving Bust absolute budget authority for the next two years. What on earth could we possibly gain from this?

[mom cat]

46. Then lets wait for the next POTUS to pass a line item veto. This is some

powder that we must keep dry.

[grytpype]

34. Answer: Repugs get "earmarks," Dems don't.

I don't know this for a fact but I bet all or substantially all of the pork earmarks are for Repugs.

Now let's see which ones Bush is going to cut. He's only hurting his own party if he does anything, and if he does nothing he's a proven liar and hypocrite.

[wiggs]

44. He's already a proven liar and hypocrite

...and he's pursuing his agenda more than ever.

If you want to limit the line item veto to earmarks, then I can see it. Otherwise, no.

[mom cat]

47. He won't cut earmarks ... he will cut social programs for the poor and

say that those programs were the fat. A lot of poor people stand to be gravelly hurt by this. He ccould slash Medicare, food stamps, etc and Congress would have given away any power to do anything about it.
This whole idea seems like it is meant to be a grand move on the political chessboerd. Instead, I think that it is moving into being checked. In the process, a lot of people will be hurt as a result of this "nifty" idea.

[TayTay]

48. They have already done this.

Also, the conservatives in Congress have done a austerity budget in which they have taken a meat cleaver to all the social programs that they can.

This is going to happen anyway. Rethugs hate social programs. They hate government. This is the lesson of Katrina. These people will use any opportunity to whack away at programs for the 'underserving poor.' They don't believe in them at all. They already have the numbers in Congress, in the State Houses and such to do this.

Sen. Kerry's idea is to make the accountable, federally, for what they do. They have to stand and defend this stuff as individual budget items. This goes to Kerry's long-held point that the Republicans should be held accountable and responsible for what they do and have to 'stand and defend' their efforts in an 'up-or-down' vote in Congress.

I think it's a great idea!

[mom cat]

50. The Dems already have plenty of info about repub irresponsibility. Tons

of it. The problem with accountability is that the corporate owned media is giving Bush a pass and will continue to do so until the puppet masters decide to throw Bush under the bus. A line item veto will not give the desired results. The media can ignore the info about Bush's irresponsibility on line item issues just as easily as they have downplayed Bush's many other crony enrichment schemes. The real fat is well protected in the Defense budget which is still a sacred cow.
The line item veto also would transfer power to the executive. I cannot think of a worse time to even consider giving Bush more power.
He does not care what the public thinks. He will be spending his last days in office enriching his cronies and himself and trying to go down in history as George the Conqueror. He will use any line item powers to shift even more money from the people to the neo-nobility.

[TayTay]

54. I can't think of a better time to hold him accountable

The earmarks in Congress are overwhelmingly in Rethug districts. They control Congress, they control the Executive. We have to hold them accountable for what they are doing. This is one concrete way to do so in a very public manner.

They are totally responsible, for example, for the Bridge to Nowhere. They had a chance to take it out in the initial round of budgeting in Congress. Then the PResident would have a chance to take it out via that line-item veto. Finally, if the Congress wanted to put it back in, they can do so with aan 'up-or-down' vote that is recorded. Then they should be held accountable for that.

That Bridge to Nowhere funds XXX Pell Grants in someone's district, or XXX Loans to the Katrina-damaged area of the Gulf and so forth. The Rethugs did this in 1993 when Clinton's tax reform package was on the floor of the House. Each time a Dem voted for the Tax Reform bill, a Repub would hold up a sign saying what that vote would cost the average person in that person's district. It was highly effective and very telegenic as well. Why can't we hold people accountable for what they do and use a similar tactic?

[mom cat]

57. i absolutely agree with the need to hold them accountable. It is critical.

I am not sure that the line item veto is the best way to do that. i see the theory and the theory looks appealing. I am just worried that the line item veto will backfire and that in practice, it will be quite harmful to the most vulnerable people.
We have a lot that we should be holding them accountable for right now:
Trillions missing from the Pentagon
Billions missing fron Iraq
Botched anthrax investigation
Huge royalty fees waiver for big oil companies
Tax breaks for the super wealthy
Loosing Osama
Spying on the people
Lying to get us into a war
Lobbying scandals all over the place.
The list goes on and on.
We do not need to set a trap to collect evidence against Bush. We already have tons od evidence and we need to be using it forcefully. While I am not against setting traps for Bush, I would like to see traps that do not give Bush more opportunity to abuse power. He has already proven that he will grab whatever he can. Why give away power over the budget to a madman when we are on the verge of regaining that power?

[TayTay]

61. Because sometimes you show you are serious

by challenging these people on their bullshit, up front, and to their face. This bunch tells the public at every opportunity that they are for 'smaller government, lower taxes and less regulation.' Well, make them prove it. Challenge them on this, cuz it's a lie. A flat out lie.

Sometimes you have to play some offense as well as defense. They control all the decision making branches of government. Fine, what are they doing with it? (Remember, budget bills can't be filibustered in the Senate right now. They are 'up or down' votes by law. Fine, then let's be consistent on that and make the 'lower taxes and smaller government' crowd justify their earmarks and pork in the same way they want Dems to be held accountable, in a 'up or down' vote.

I really like this proposal by Sen. Kerry. I don't think it will be adopted, but I like it. It showed, at the least, a sense of humor on his part. (And the desire to make them do as they say. That, of course, will never happen.)

[mom cat]

62. I love the sence of humor, but giving Bush more power, and that is

exactly what this would do, is not a laughing matter. Yes, I can see the point about sticking it to Bush, but we already have tons of stuff to stick him with. If we get more control in congress, we will have a chance to straighten out a few things, but not if we give the Bush crime family the last word on the budget for the rest of his term.

[TayTay]

77. We have to be consistent in asking for accountability

I think the line-item veto is a good idea. I thought so when Clinton was President as well. I still think it is. It is a tool in the box to get Congress to do it's job. How much of the apprpropriations done are done by these earmarks and by specialized pork leigislation?

We can't just be in favor of something when our side is in power. (This is hypocrisy.) We can't say that we want a Congress that is works on the principle of 'open government' and on opening up the legislative process to scrutiny and then run and hide because we are afraid that only we are good and just enough to have the power. It won't play with the voters and it shouldn't because it is dishonest.

We have to start being consistent in what we ask for. We don't want anymore Medicare Drug bills getting through in the middle of the night because the rules were basically made up on the spot. We don't want Bridges to Nowhere that aren't really voted on but are passed by the current 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' approach to defining the budget of the United States of America. Congress is not doing it's job now. The Rethugs are getting away with it now because they are not being held accountable for what they do. They lie to the American people and pretend that they are fod 'smaller taxes, smaller government and less government intrusion.'

We need ways to expose their lies. I like this one. I think it can help to do that and is consistent with stated Democratic desires to make government a more open and transparent process. I think this works to lessen the power of the cartel in Congress to decide things in the middle of the night or in horrendous Omnibus bills that no one reads. That system is corrupt to the bone and, especially under Rethug rule, protects nothing on the progressive side at all. We need ways to expose that.

[karynnj]

43. Bush IS actually the best test of whether a line item veto makes sense

Looking at all the scenarios, it may,

With the current situation (significant Republican majorities in both houses), there are few or no budget items in the budget which were "Democratic". Watching the Senate this last year has been very frustrating because of this. To pass, an item not already in the budget needs 60% to pass. When that has happened - it's for amendments that nearly everyone approves, like some of Kerry's Small Business or veteran related amendments. Getting a parallel House amendment is harder as bringing the amendments to the floor is not as easy. Even when there is a comparable house amendment - time after time, these Democrat initiated bills are then eliminated in the Republican Senate/House conference. Under this scenario, there are few or no Democratic amendments surviving to get to Bush and then only if they are overwhelmingly popular.

If Bush eliminated only these amendments, the Republicans in Congress will vote with the Democrats to restore them for the same reason they passed to begin with (often with voice votes). If Bush vetoes them plus Republican pork, Congress will still vote to retain them but it will be a cloudier vote. I can't think of any way a good Democratic amendment that surviced the process to get into the bill could be eliminated. (The closest I can think of is if Bush eliminated a lot of Republican pork and it and he gets the Republicans to give up all the listed pork.)

Now, assume that we take both the House and the Senate. Unlike the current case, where the Republicans pass the Bush proposed budget items plus Republican pork and Bush vetoes nothing, the Democrats controlling both houses would face the veto. The threat of a veto would have some effect. The actual use of it is a double edged sword for both parties.

Here if Bush used the line item veto, we would defeat it (under this assumption we have the majority) UNLESS the set of items vetoed contained so little value (they were Democratic pork or marginally popular projects) that looked at together some Democrats said they were a waste of money.

This bill used properly could reduce pork. A president would have to create the list so that so obviously deserved to be eliminated that voting to retain it would come at a political cost. Kerry was for a line item veto if he won.

[movonne]

2. And just how do we do this...our own party goes along with almost

everything this bush administration does...

[ProSense]

4. Every member of Congress will have to vote up or down on cuts,

and no one will be able to duck responsibility for what's cut and what's left in.

[htuttle]

5. His feet? Hell, let's just throw him in!

[Libby2]

6. LMAO, took the words right out of my mouth.

[Jade Fox]

32. I was gonna say that!!

:cry: (just kidding)

[katty]

7. Not just the feet!!

[understandinglife]

10. Very strategically smart, Senator Kerry. Very!

Peace.

[blm]

12. heh...you got it....Bush doesn't WANT to have to veto pork - that's how

the GOPs get their kickbacks to fund their campaigns. And it puts Bush on the spot to get control of the deficit which the fascists WANT to explode so they can kill off ALL social spending.

[mom cat]

29. He would never use it to veto the real pork ... just the few paltry social

programs that are left. It would give Bush total control over the budget process. Please tell me what you see in this that is good, cause I think it is the dumbest thing Kerry has done since he conceded.

[sandnsea]

37. Show them for what they are

I think people really are going to have to be hit smack in the face to get it. They're cutting everything left and right anyway, we don't have the power to stop it. With the line item, the people will see once and for all who Republicans stand up for.

[mom cat]

45. With the line item veto, Bush will be able to gut any legislation that

the potentially Democratic congress (after the 06 elections) will pass.Why support the disempowering of a new Democratic House and maybe Senate by giving Bush absolute budgetary power now?

The lack of a line item veto is not the reason that people do not understand what Bush is doing. The corporate media does not now focus on Bush's greed and cronyism enough to make anything stick. What makes you think that the media will magically change if Bush is given absolute control over the budget? And why give him that kind of power and control right on the eve of the Democrats regaining some control. Bush is a madman. He is a lame duck so he is not worried about re-election and what people think. A line item veto would be a draconian tool in his hands. Yes. A few more people might then see Bush for who he really is, but how many real people would be really hurt in the process of Bush singlehandedly slashing social programs. Do you really want to give him that power? Isn't there a less dangerous way to hit people smack in the face so that they get it other than giving Bush more power? He has proved that he will take any hint of power and run with it. Giving him a line item veto would be like giving Hitler a bomb so every one could see how bad he was when he used it.

[sandnsea]

55. Maybe you're unaware

of just how many people use various social programs, for starters. Also, there would still be a Congressional vote. A Democratic Congress could draw up its list, a Republican President could draw up his, and the people could see. And a list is simple enough for any idiot to understand.

[mom cat]

59. Trere would be congressional legislation that Bush could go through and

wack away at will. Once vetoed, congress would have to mount enough votes for an override.Not very likely, even with the most hopeful scenarios for the 06 elections. Right now, if the Dems take over Congress, they would be able to pass significant budget measures. The way it is structured now, Bush would have to veto whole bills in order to get rid of things he does not like. If we give him line item veto power, he would be able to selectively cut whatever he wants and leave the real fat protected. A lot more people would be hurt. Line item vetoes are much easier for an executive to execute than the veto of a whole bill.
So lets say, under the best case sceanario that
Bush really shows his hand and does a lot of bad things with the line item veto. So what? He is not running again and clearly does not care what people think. All of that information could be clear as a bell and it would be totally irrelavent. The republicans could claim that it was just Bush gone overboard and distance themselves from him.
I still can not comprehend why anyone would want to give Bush more power. No matter how good the idea might sound, it would be giving Bush more power.

[sandnsea]

64. Congress would have to vote again

After the President does his line item, it comes back to Congress for an up or down approval of what was axed. It forces the President to show his true colors, that's all.

It isn't going to pass, this is Kerry calling Bush's bluff on wanting to cut spending, that's all.

[Canuckistanian]

24. Careful what you ask for, Shrub!

You just might get it!

[flpoljunkie]

11. Will Kerry also reintroduce his CLEAN MONEY, CLEAN ELECTIONS ACT?

Lobby reform, while important, will not help us take back our country from the special interests. Senator Dodd said today on the Senate floor that public financing of campaigns was his goal, but must be kept separate from the current lobby reform bill being debated in the Senate today and tomorrow, so that the much needed lobby reform would pass.

Any word from Kerry's people on this?

Link to Kerry's 1997 CLEAN MONEY, CLEAN ACTIONS ACT, S. 918.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.+918:

[blm]

14. Dodd would be a good ally on this - I think Feingold would tag onto it, as

well.

Kerry can already pretty much count on Durbin and Boxer, and if he does it in the name of Wellstone, he can get Harkin on it, too.

[flpoljunkie]

15. Kerry's four Co-Sponsors of S.918 were Wellstone, Biden, Leahy and Glenn.

[blm]

17. It would be great if Biden and Leahy haven't changed their positions

since then. Anyone know?

[Mass]

13. More here on rawstory - Congress would have to approve the line item veto

by up or down vote, which basically gives a lot less power to Bush.

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Kerry_to_introduce_lineitem_veto_bill_0306.html

[kerrygoddess]

20. Same a my OP

See the original post -
"Under Kerry’s plan the President would identify wasteful items in spending and tax legislation and submit it to Congress to act on in an up-or-down vote."

The Raw Story piece is the same statement as I posted here - nothing more added.

[catabryna]

16. I'm concerned about it being used to go after...

*'s political enemies. An infamous "up or down" vote would play into the hands of partisan politics (he who holds the most seats has the power). It has all the appearance of another power grab.

I'm not understanding the difference between *'s proposal and the line-item veto legislation that was struck down by the Supreme Court, other than * requesting a majority vote to override rather than a super-majority of 2/3.

Can someone help me with this question?

[karynnj]

33. The difference is that Congress then has to vote on it

so Congress retains the responsibility.

[htuttle]

18. I think a line-item veto is a bad idea, regardless of the short term

I remember when our corrupt Governor Tommy Thompson had line-item veto power and used it 'Vanna White' style -- he crossed out individual LETTERS in the bill, creating new words and sentences, changing the meanings of sentences (like crossing out the word 'not'), etc...

It's just a bad idea. The pork gets there because there's too much corporate money flowing into our Congress. If we don't address that, we're never going to get anywhere.

[mom cat]

27. I agree. I think that it is a very bad idea. Why give Bush even MORE power

to tilt the big bucks toward his chronies? A line item veto would become a political/economic tool against his opponents. If the partner of a non profit wrote something critical of Bush on DU for example,Bushed henchmen could veto their funding and call it pork. Does anyone in their right mind think that Bush is going to veto the real pork?
Earth to Kerry: Hello ... What planet are you on?

[karynnj]

52. It seems to me that it gives him more power - but onlt to do good

The set of projects line item vetoed go back to Congress. The only Democratic things that survive now are, by definition so popular that the Republicans:

- didn't vote in lock step to reject it (remember if it's Democratic it needed 60% to get in because it's the budget.)
- it was popular enough to either avoid it being thrown out in the re-conciliaion (or it was reinserted).

If items like these are in the set rejected, Congress will again pass it.

What it could do is get rid of some pork. More likely with Bush it would do nothing as Bush wouldn't use it. A President Kerry would have as would a President Clinton.

[mikelgb]

19. lets hold his head in it n/t

[ProSense]

21. Here's something they need to address.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2496575&mesg_id=2496575

[BlueIris]

23. MAKE. OUT. WITH. ME.

[Major Hogwash]

26. I don't know if I like this idea.

Congress has been this way for decades, giving the President more power over the budget is just another thing that Congress doesn't want to be responsible for - just like declaring war and over 2300 Americans are dead now because Congress didn't vote against Bush.

I generally like Kerry, but this is foolhardy wishful thinking.

[TayTay]

31. I don't think so.

This is an accountability isue. This Republican Congress and Republican President want to advertise themselves as fiscally responsible. They still manage to pin the 'tax and spend' label on the Democrats and the media lets them get away with it.

Okay, Kerry is saying, fine. You run the Congress, you run the White House, you control the budget process and the conference committees and everything else. Now, be accountable for it down to the last dotted i and crossed t. Defend the bridge to nowhere, if you want it in your district. Oh, and remember, the Republican next to you also has to defend it as well. Oh, and btw, there are Democrats standing right next to you who will not defend your spending priorities. We are going to explain to your voters why your vote for a bridge to nowhere means, under present budgeting offset rules, that we can't have money for more Pell Grants.

We do have to hold the Republican Party's feet to the fire. They are spreading bullshit and pretending to the voters that they are for 'smaller government' and balanced budgets and such. Fine, then put up or shut up, gentlemen. (I like this. Kerry has ante'd up at the table. Place your bets Repubs, place your bets. Let's see who is bluffing and who is playing for real.)

[depakid]

35. Another brilliant Kerry move....

Aside from some little unconstitutionality problems (oh, didn't bother to read that case?) you refused to hold Bush's feet to the fire when you had the chance.... you wouldn't fight back then- and under your "leadership" the Dems couldn't even muster a nationalized campaign.

So, now you're talking big again- about something else you can't (and WON'T) back up.

Excuse us if we aren't buying it anymore....

What an idiot.

[fedupinBushcountry]

Who is us and we

Please speak for yourself. Your rhetoric is boring. :boring:

[depakid]

42. Maybe "us" refers to people who

still respect the Constitution???

or maybe those who are sick and tired of empty rhetoric....

[WildEyedLiberal]

66. Or those who make knee-jerk attacks when they read the word "Kerry"?

It's so very... Pavlovian.

[depakid]

70. Right

Kerry's making another dumb move- not unlike the ones that cost him the election- and yet to mention that makes one a knee jerk.

Maybe you ought to have a look in the mirror.

[LittleClarkie]

78. The point I think they're trying to make is that you only really speak for

yourself.

[WildEyedLiberal]

83. No, actually

I've always thought the president should have a line item veto

And for those DUers saying that they might agree with a line item veto for a Democratic president but not a Republican one, I have but one word: hypocrisy. Last time I checked, it was the Republicans who want special privileges for only THEIR party - we're better than that.

I think a line item veto is a good idea and I've had that opinion way before Kerry endorsed it. The pile on here has a lot more to do with the mention of the word "Kerry" than it does with the merits pro or against a line item veto, that much is obvious.

[karynnj]

75. You also get the feeling that something

pulls him to all the Kerry threads. If he truely felt he were hopeless as a candidate wouldn't he wander over and either support someone else or attack candidates likely to upset his favorite?

[depakid]

80. That's just paranoia

This is the first Kerry thread i've been on in ages. Fact is- the guy's doing something dumb- and a lot of suckers are buying into it.

That'd be worth criticism, no matter who's lamebrained idea it was.

[fedupinBushcountry]

38. Delete

double-posted

[WildEyedLiberal]

39. He's "backed up" more than any other Dem this year

Sorry if that doesn't fit into your false paradigm, which starts with "Kerry sucks" and works backwards from there, facts be damned.

[blm]

56. Do you know that it's gonna take Dean 3 years to mount a nationalized

campaign for 2008? He has a huge party infrastructure to strengthen state by crucial state because it had been neglected for years by the supposed Dem leaders since 1997 - Bill Clinton and his righthand man Terry MacAuliffe.

Why they abandoned Ohio to the GOP after 1996 is just a mystery.

[paulk]

58. I'm sure Kerry understands that this has already been held as

unconstitional.

He's just pointing out the hypocrisy of Bush calling for the line item veto.

But, whatever.

I realize you need to get your rocks off trashing Kerry.

this thread is as good a place as any.

you shouldn't use "we", however.

Some of us here are actually smart enough to see the big picture.

[depakid]

71. Yep- same big picture folks

that thought "no Bush bashing" at the "high road" conventon- and then 6 weeks of Dukakis like silence in the face of attacks- followed by a "big picture" answer to Bush's simple question "would you still go to war with Iraq knowing what we know now" would win the election.

Brilliant. Confidence inspiring. Likely to get even better results this time around....

[paulk]

73. what's the matter, kid?

not gettin' enough attention over at the PI jerkoff?

Gotta come over here and piss on a thread or two?

[depakid]

79. Just don't much like losing

or seeing Dems doing the same stupid kind of thing over and over, playing into Republican hands and calling it "strategy."

Some people never learn, I guess-

[karynnj]

74. That was not the question - you know it and you

likely know all his other statements. If you don't like Kerry fine. Find someone to support, leave us alone and state why you support the one you support. It's more productive and more fun.

[karynnj]

76. Actually the consensus seems to be that the up or down vote

make it constitutional as Congress gets the last word. He looked like he was fighting pretty hard to me in 2004 - he, his wife, 2 daughters and at least 2 stepsons seemed to be out every day for months doing many rallies a day. If he would have gotten a decent shake with the media - those incredible October rallies would have built the momentum needed.

[depakid]

81. The "consensus" is irrational- and incorrect

The Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue. What they "consensus" believe is irrelevant- except to point to the fact that even people here on DU no longer seem to have any respect for the Constitution or the rule of law when it suits their ill advised purposes....

[kerrygoddess]

40. Use Your Former Opponent’s Proposals When You’re Slipping in the Polls

How to Use Your Former Opponent’s Proposals When You’re Slipping in the Polls
March 7th, 2006 @ 12:13 am

Earlier today, I reported that John Kerry is supporting Bush’s call for a line-item veto. The MSM has been jumping on the news from the White House today about Bush’s proposal and some have caught on to where the proposal may have originated…

AP News notes:

Kerry on board

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who promoted a similar approach in his presidential campaign against Bush in 2004, immediately jumped on board.

And Reuters adds:

Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who ran against Bush in the 2004, supported the line-item veto proposal, which mirrored one Kerry had previously proposed.

It must suck being a lame duck president with a low approval rate that keeps falling and have to try to gain support from your former opponent’s prosposals. I guess this could be deemed a bit of another Kerry was right moment, but who’s counting?


LINKS - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2158

[RagingInMiami]

41. I'd rather stick his head in the fire

[Greyhound]

49. This is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. As this cabal has

shown so clearly, expanding the power of an office that already has too much power concentrated in it only leads to abuse. There is no provision to ensure that a line-item veto will be used to prevent pork. It is even likely that it would be used to veto the good stuff, leaving nothing but pork.

Imagine if you will, the previous pork-packed, supplemental spending bill that was jammed through by adding the money for the soldiers body-armor. No Democrats could vote against it because of the body armor item, and when the bill get to * desk he vetoes the body-armor item, leaving nothing but a huge corporate welfare bill that passed with bi-partisan support.

Think it can't happen? What about a lame duck shill that couldn't care less about his approval ratings?

[karynnj]

51. Except the exclusions come back to the Congress

Now it's an up and down bill on the body armor. Of course it would pass. (Remember that the initial votes on things like body armor etc were overwhwelming - the problem was insuring that they weren't left out in the reconciliation bill.

Your example is unlikely to occur, but if it did:

1) Bush (and indirectly any Republican he is backing) would be hit with a fire storm of dissaproval for having vetoed this.

2) It would be voted back in.

[Greyhound]

53. OK I wasn't being clear. The problem with the line-item veto is that it

relies on the CinC's competence and good intentions. We need to take back our power from the politiwhores, not give them more.

[karynnj]

65. I agree that a competent President could use it better

I would imagine that someone like Kerry, who really has been a good government fiscal moderate and very anti-pork, would make excellent use of it. My point was that even Bush could likely not use it other than to get rid of pork he didn't want - and that might not be successful if too many Senators vote for their pork.

I really think that anything strong enough for the DEMOCRATS to add to a bill and keep in through the reconciliation process will be something too popular to allow to be voted down. The point is that Bush is likely not sincere - he has vetoed nothing, while Kerry is.

[Greyhound]

67. I think you put far too much faith in politiwhores motives. I don't care

what party they're with, when push comes to shove, they will sell you out faster than you can read this warning.

[karynnj]

69. I'm not trusting their motives just their inclination

to act in their self interest. I think that can be counted on.

[Sensitivity]

60. Kerry is being consistent and patriotic above the noise of Political

wrangling.

[wisteria]

63. This is great! Turn their own phony ideals back on them and

use it against them in an up or down vote.LOL! I wish this would pass. Kerry is taking a page out of the Rove book of tricks and using it in an honest way for a good reason. The pork does need to be cut from the budget!

[radfringe]

68. lol

my partner was just reading this thread over my shoulder

she said "just put his pants on his feet, his pants catch on fire everytime he opens his lying mouth...."

[zann725]

72. "Feet" only? Should start by holding Shrub's hollow promises 'to the fire

That and the value of today's Dollar Bill might slow Global warming, and keep us warm for perhaps a nanno-second.

[ProSense]

82. Without this there is no accountability. Bush gets what he wants. n/t