Telling political fact

[sam h]

Here is an interesting political fact I ran across when reading about this Bush-McCain mess. If this legislation had passed without Bush's blessing and he had vetoed it, this would have been his first veto ever since being elected president.

So who was the last president to last even one term, let alone the two that Bush is heading for, without exercizing veto powers? John Quincy Adams.

Having your party control both houses helps, of course, although that has happened on many occasions and the GOP didn't really control the Senate for a significant part of Bush's first term. We seem to be in an era of unprecedented party discipline and cooperation between the White House and the Republican congress. Maybe this is partly to explain why so many of the GOP's actions have strayed so far from traditional conservative values under this administration. There's very little room for anything more than the symbolic protest of denouncing Alaskan bridges on the house floor.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
There's very little room for anything more than the symbolic protest of denouncing Alaskan bridges on the house floor.

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought I read somewhere that the bridge project was being dropped?

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought I read somewhere that the bridge project was being dropped?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I heard that too, but that is not the point.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought I read somewhere that the bridge project was being dropped?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I heard that too, but that is not the point.

[/ QUOTE ]
It shows it was more than symbolic. It worked. Like Colburn said, there is a palpable grumble among conservatives that are fed up with the waste.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
It shows it was more than symbolic. It worked. Like Colburn said, there is a palpable grumble among conservatives that are fed up with the waste.

[/ QUOTE ]

After looking into it, I'm not so sure it worked after all. But anyway, as I said before, this is not the point. Of course many people in congress will exert control over the details of various policies, either on the floor or more likely through committee. That is how the system works. But a bridge here or there represents a small drop in the bucket of public spending. To actually make a real difference, you need to change the overall orientation of policy. And my point is that doing so becomes much more difficult when party discipline and cross-branch coordination is tighter than ever before in American history. I'm talking about the big picture here, not some minor example of jockeying on the senate floor.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It shows it was more than symbolic. It worked. Like Colburn said, there is a palpable grumble among conservatives that are fed up with the waste.

[/ QUOTE ]

After looking into it, I'm not so sure it worked after all. But anyway, as I said before, this is not the point. Of course many people in congress will exert control over the details of various policies, either on the floor or more likely through committee. That is how the system works. But a bridge here or there represents a small drop in the bucket of public spending. To actually make a real difference, you need to change the overall orientation of policy. And my point is that doing so becomes much more difficult when party discipline and cross-branch coordination is tighter than ever before in American history. I'm talking about the big picture here, not some minor example of jockeying on the senate floor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think its a minor point. Coburn leading the charge against the highway bill marked a real deviation from the status quo that you correctly pointed out exists right now. I cant remember the name of the Representative that was one of the leaders in the House of fighting the highway bill but he was put under a lot of pressure by Hastert and company and he stuck to his guns. That represents a real difference. Remember, a journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's very little room for anything more than the symbolic protest of denouncing Alaskan bridges on the house floor.

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought I read somewhere that the bridge project was being dropped?

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't the bridge project get dropped but Alaska keeps the pork $$$ anyway?

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't the bridge project get dropped but Alaska keeps the pork $$$ anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, Alaska still gets the money, instead of New Orleans, as Coburn wanted. They just don't have to spend it on those bridges.

[BluffTHIS!]

I think that you are oversimplying things on both ends. The republicans are very good at party discipline, but what that means is that they work out their own internal differences behind the scenes. And maybe Bush has threatened to veto certain proposed legislation if it were not changed to suit him and we just don't know.

Also since history shows the party controlling the white house to do poorly in midterm elections, the repubs have a high priority on maintaining a common message and not appearing divided. This unity will allow them to pick up votes from the center from voters who might not like the repub policies 100%, but also don't like the discord that frequently characterizes the democrats' dealings amongst themselves. This can be readily seen in the fact that the democrats focus on saying NOT to whatever Bush is for, but can't among themselves agree on an alternative set of policies to present to the voters.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Also since history shows the party controlling the white house to do poorly in midterm elections, the repubs have a high priority on maintaining a common message and not appearing divided. This unity will allow them to pick up votes from the center from voters who might not like the repub policies 100%, but also don't like the discord that frequently characterizes the democrats' dealings amongst themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are misinterpreting why incumbent parties tend to lose midterm elections. The dominant theories explaining this phenomenon focus on the problems congressmen have differentiating themselves from the party at large and the current administration. Thus, the perceived homogeneity that attends parties with substantial discipline is generally an electoral weakness and certainly not an advantage. That is why party leaders in congress will commonly figure out whether they have breathing room on a vote, and then parcel out the "right" to go against the party line to congressmen who are up for reelection. This is also why many congressional votes appear to be closer than they really are.