No mo' control of Congress?
From time to time I'll see these articles calling Bush a fool or a weak president for not vetoing a single bill passed by Congress. And that's some of the funniest, most clueless political writing out there. Former DLC'er Bruce Reed, who came pretty close to White House power once upon a time, wrote one of these articles as recently as Feb. 23. The teaser wonders, "Why is the Imperial President stripping the presidency of its greatest power?"
The answer is breathtakingly simple: because it would be pretty counterproductive of Bush to reject the laws that he wanted passed. Exactly like taking the cupcakes you baked from the oven straight to the trash can. It would take a serious fool, a political infant to do that, or even expect someone else to do that, Bruce.
George Bush and his White House team have controlled the legislative process in Congress at least since the 2002 midterms, House and Senate both.
But I think what Duncan Hunter and his crew have done in the House Appropriations outfit -- rejecting the UAE port deal 62 to 2 -- signals the end of that in the House at least. As long as that tool Frist is at the Senate helm though, the White House will have that place down reasonably pat.
Sixty-two to two. That's searing opposition, with even a cute cherry of "dissent" on top -- kind of reminds me of the original Patriot Act vote (99-1), which author Matt Taibbi once described as your "basic fascist's wet dream." Watch the GOP show Democrats how to be the party of opposition.