Indefensible.

Yes, another gentleman who thinks 50K Americans, hundreds of thousands of Asians, more bombs than were dropped on WWII, wasn't enough.
And, while I have no brief for a lot of what LBJ did. This speech alone, and the laws that followed from it...

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/johnson.htm

..puts him on several dozen levels higher than the one on which the incumbent currently squats, playing with his toes.

 

Because Bush has been a model leader of smaller government and tight spending.

He spends like a drunken sailor. He just doesn't want to spend money on health care for poor children.

Those are the facts, and they are not in question. Please at least adjust your talking points.

 

So if half the GOP thinks it's OK, they'll override the veto, right?

 

The Senate should have 69 votes to override, as Biden and Obama both missed the original vote which went 67-29.

The House is a mess, but I hope any fricking Congressman who votes against gets multiple TV ads about that vote run in his or her district when they run for reelection.

 

He doesn't give a rat's ass. He's invulnerable, other than to impeachment, for which the current congress doesn't have the nerve. Can't be touched. So he's on a free roll.

Makes you feel confident about quality of life, doesn't it?

 

Bush/GOP: War, good; affordable health care for little children so mommys and daddys don't go bankrupt, bad.

 

Wow, 3-for-3. Looks like LBJ and W have quite a bit in common. Of course, I don't think LBJ ever uttered the phrase BRING 'EM ON in reference to the VC guerrillas.

 

Too bad the rest of you couldn't be like HB and have words fail you.

BTW, given that being re-elected is more important than any bill or issue, I'm guessing the inevitable "Republicans hate children and want them to die" ads will lead to an eventual override of the veto.

 

Yes, because opposition to this veto must needs be unprincipled.
Yeesh.

 

OK, I'm listening. Defend the veto.