Democrats have the Majority in House, why didn't they Override the Veto?

[spanone]

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug::shrug: :shrug:

[Captain Hilts]

1. They do not have the 2/3rds majority you need to over ride a veto. nt

[Kutjara]

2. Two-thirds of both Houses of Congress have to vote to override.

The Dems don't have the required majority.

[sharp_stick]

3. We need to elect even more dems next time

and having the WH in 08 would really be a nice addition.

[spanone]

5. Ding! Ding! Ding! Correct Answer!!!!!! Get the Word Out!!!!

[regnaD kciN]

10. So, why did you ask the incorrect question...?

Was your point that "the spineless Democrats won't even overturn a veto, so they're just as bad as the Publicans?"

:grr:

[spanone]

12. Not my point at all. I believe you typed that.

[LoZoccolo]

6. And yet we'll probably hear from a bunch of splinterists...

...who'll use this as an excuse to try to make us not get more Democrats in Congress and not get one in the White House either.

[depakid]

9. Whether there's an R or a D doesn't necessarily matter on certain votes

D's who consistently vote with Republicans and legitimize and enable far right policies are as bad (and in some ways WORSE).

The last thing we need is more DINO's infecting the body politic. Their actions and statements make the party look weak, cowardly and impotent.

[LoZoccolo]

11. And who would that be?

Even Joe Lieberman voted with the Democrats on issues where the two parties disagree a good 90% of the time. These splinterists need to find out who these DINOs are before wrecking the country on account of them.

[depakid]

18. On this particular vote, there were only 7

Boren - Oklahoma
Barrow, John - GA
Davis, Lincoln - TN
Marshall, Jim - GA
Matheson, Jim - UT
McNulty, Michael - NY
Taylor, Gene - MS

However, on other key votes on some truly egregious legislation, there have been @ 40 who have consistently voted against traditional Democratic values- often selling out their own constituents in the process.

[sandnsea]

20. Consistently voted for Nancy Pelosi

And no matter what other kind of pain in the ass they might be, as long as they get that vote right, that's enough.

[depakid]

22. That kind of thinking has cost this country DEARLY

and given us such wondrous things as corporate media consolidation, financial deregulation (think Enron, et al.) as well as globalization and so called "free" trade.

It's also the primary reason why the Dems lost control of Copngress over the past 12 years and earned a reputation for "standing for nothing" other than ineffectualness.

[LoZoccolo]

24. Excuse me? YOUR kind of thinking gave us Bush*. n/t

[sandnsea]

25. Those Dems stand for red state "values"

The Dems accused of standing for nothing are the ones accused of pandering for the activist votes - the ones who stand up for women, minorities and the environment - because, you know, the only way a Dem can get elected is if "those" minorities, women, and fringe loons vote for them.

THAT is what is mean by "standing for nothing". And why would anybody vote for the architects of free trade - if free trade is the problem???

[LoZoccolo]

23. You didn't answer my question.

Any good case would also at least include percentages. You still have not established that any Democrats are worse than the Republicans.

And you probably won't answer my question. Nobody has in the four years I've been here.

[bouwob1]

4. and 2/3rds of the house and senate

that way the democratic pres can veto bills that he wants passed for shits and giggles and it will still go though

[texastoast]

7. Only if they are good bills

The last thing I want is another dumbass in the White House who thinks he or she is a freaking monarch like the present one.

If ever there was a case for checks and balances, the shrub demonstrated it to every thinking person. That would not include freepers.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. Ummmmmmmm.....

Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Bobbieo]

15. Please give them an "E" for effort .They tried and, of course, lost.

[Balbus]

13. New to this whole government thing, aren't you...

[whistle]

14. In the House of Representatives there are 426 elected reps and 2/3

....means in takes 284 votes to override a presidential veto. Apparently the override vote ended up being 222 overrides to 203 support of the veto and 1 abstained or were absents. I thought that was what I heard.

If it had gone to the senate where there are 100 senators, it takes 67 votes to override a veto, but it never got that far.

<snip>
US House Fails To Override Presidential Veto on Iraq Funding Bill
By VOA News
02 May 2007

US Capitol, Washington DC

The U.S. House of Representatives has failed to override a presidential veto on an emergency war funding bill that would have set a timeline for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq.

The vote in the House was 222 in favor of overriding the veto, 203 against and 1 abstention, short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. No Senate vote is expected.

President Bush met with Democratic and Republican leaders of the U.S. Congress Wednesday. Afterwards, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Republican leader John Boehner said all parties agreed it is time to work toward a compromise measure.

Earlier, Mr. Bush said he is confident both sides can agree on a bill that would give the troops the funds and flexibility they need to do their job.
<MORE>

http://voanews.com/english/2007-05-02-voa55.cfm

[Bobbieo]

16. When and where can we find out who voted for

and who voted against the override? That should be very interesting!

[Bitwit1234]

17. The need 290 votes in the house. They don't have them and we all

know they don't have the votes in the senate.

[SoCalDem]

19. 51 is not two thirds

Precisely why paper ballots are crucial to save democracy. The repubes don't even HAVE to have a majority to control part of the agenda,if their Cheat-o-Matic Electronic Whiz-Bang Voting Machines™ shave off just enough votes to prevent us from getting to 2/3 needed for overrides.

[WA98296]

21. This way, they can pretend they are doing something while on the fence.