So Congress overrides the veto of the bill nixxing the ports deal...

[TechBear_Seattle]

Poll question: So Congress overrides the veto of the bill nixxing the ports deal...

It seems reasonable at this point that Congress will present a bill prohibiting the ports deal with Dubai. Shrub will then veto the bill, his first presidential veto ever. Congress will then override the veto; I predict by a larger margin than passed it in the first place as GOP lawmakers express their frustration and dismay at the President's cavalier attitude -- ok, hypocricy -- regarding his own war on terror and promises to make this country safer.

So, my question: What will Shrub and the rest of the Current Regime do?

[f-bush]

1. I'd love to see an overide on a veto

Shrub would pitch a fit and then we'd have a constitutional crisis. Finally I think Congress would get some backbone and go for impeachment, because all of a sudden their power is being threatened!

As shrub is fond of saying: "Bring it ON!"

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. I was thinking the same thing about a constitutional crisis

The Regime has been trying to do to Congress what Augustus did to the Roman Senate: make it irrelevant to the business of government.

If a veto on this bill is overriden and the Regime proceeds anyway, Congress will have no choice but to impeach. If they don't, Congress has been made irrelevant and the President may, on the flimsiest excuse of "national security", do whatever he damned well pleases. Which may be why Senate GOP leaders are fighting so hard not to let the bill proceed at all, as that avoids the whole unpleasant mess.

[f-bush]

4. Thanks for the post-

I'm from Tacoma! What is Seattle doing for the March 19th anniversary?

[guidod]

3. This entire Dubai thing is

a political ploy so the republican congressmen that are running for re-election in 2006 will look like they're standing up for security of the country and all their constituents will be in awe of them for defying the presidfent. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Rove is in on this. Remember it's an election year, anything can happen.

[Ignacio Upton]

6. Hey they co-opted support for creating Homeland Security in 2002

I remember initially Bush was against it, argueing that it would just creat another layer of beaurocracy. Then, in June 2002 he flip flopped and came out in support of it in and attempt to rob Democrats of an issue to use against him in the Congressional races. Bush then threatened to VETO the DHS bill if it did not contain a provision in it that would have allowed him to do union busting of government employees in the DHS, argueing that he should be able to fire who ever he wants because we're in a time of war and he needs to be able to run the country efficiently:eyes:
He then campaigned against Congressional Democrats who opposed his version of the bill, most notably Max Cleland. Unfortunately, it worked because Democrats did aggressively use the issue rom the beginning (by beginning, I mean early 2002 when he was still against it.) They let Bush define the battle and let him claim that it was HIS work. I can see the GOP doing the same thing again in 2006.

[guidod]

7. Deja Moo huh?

We've heard this Bullshit before.

[Initech]

5. He'll say the law is a matter of national security and...

The Fox News Trifecta Of Evil Incarnate (TM)* would agree with him, then spin it in a way their lemming listeners would understand. Which would be that good ol' King George is president and gets to do whatever he wants, even this crap.


* - Of course by that I mean, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter.