Column: So Bush Wants the Line-Item Veto?
Secondly, Farenkopf also observed that Edwards seemed consumed with selecting the correct tie after he came to the debate site. He frantically tried on one tie after another. Obviously this was an exercise in coping with an anxiety that also seemed to be apparent in the debate, albeit not one that subtracted much from his substantive performance.
As the Edwards effort could be described as "sort of a tie" vis-a-vis the effort of Cheney, no more need be said. Regarding W, when I heard the report of his comments to Farenkopf, I did not think it an excuse. Instead I thought that it was evidence of extremely poor decision making on part of W and on the part of a staff who should be looking out for his best interests. Certainly, I thought, W could have done his hurricane politicking AFTER the debate. If this was indicative of his decision making capabilities, I opined that maybe this explained failures in other decision making situations, ergo, perhaps in policy making re Iraq, etc.
But now the results are in, and my mind is swaying back to another thought. W kept his eyes on what was most important to the people, albeit, he let his eyes be taken OFF of THE PRIZE momentarily. It hurt him for sure, but also, for the people of Florida perhaps it left an impression--their problems were more important to W than was his debate performance. Service to people is ALWAYS the PRIZE, and his solid victory in Florida confirms that he can make good decisions.
Ah, but in his first news conference he has now brought up an old STUPID idea. As president he wants to have a line item-veto. Remember, Senator Dole got a legislative line item-veto through Congress in 1996, but "thinking" that he was about to be elected President, he did not want President Clinton to have the "advantage" of using the item veto, so its date of effectiveness was made 1997. BAD, BAD decision. Just think what Dole could have done if the line item-veto would have been available to Clinton in 1996. He could have pointed his finger at every stupid pork idea in the budget-individually, and he could have personally blamed Clinton for each dollar appropriated. For example, consider that $85,000 dollars were allocated to the University of Montana for studying the anal temperatures of grizzly bears. Without the line item-veto, the appropriation might sail through mostly unnoticed as part of a big (billion dollar) education budget. With a line item-veto, Clinton could be held responsible for either "wasting" tax money, or conversely attacking an appropriation for a specific state.
W doesn't "get it." He wants to expose himself to having to review
every line of the national budget, and for every minuscule but politically stupid
sounding idea, he will have to take the heat either from a congressman for messing
with a constituency, or he gets attack as a mis-spender. The stupid idea is
part and parcel of what political scientists consider good government on their
texts about state governments, but alas like the 2004 election the political
scientists are wrong again. Seems strange W would be listen to THEM now, doesn't
comments powered by Disqus
- The Memorial Where Slavery Is Real
- Thomas Piketty accuses Germany of forgetting history as it lectures Greece
- Greek ‘No’ May Have Its Roots in Heroic Myths and Real Resistance
- 150 years later, schools are still a battlefield for interpreting Civil War
- Where are America's memorials to pain of slavery, black resistance?
- Historian: "I don’t want my students to simply choose sides in a polemic between heritage and hate"
- Harvard’s Nancy Cott says the Chief Justice in the gay marriage case has a stilted idea of the history of marriage
- Did a historian who said he’s a victim of McCarthyism get the story wrong?
- Stephanie Coontz’s work on the history of marriage cited by the Supreme Court.
- How Does It Feel To Have One’s Work as a Historian Cited by the Supreme Court? Cool. Very Cool. Thank You Very Much.