Has President Obama vetoed any bills?

How many times has President Obama vetoed a bill since he has been in office?

Liked this question? Tell your friends about it

6 Answers

Order by
Oldest to Newest
Newest to Oldest
Votes

President Obama has repeatedly refused to sign back into law any and all funding to end the drug traffick from Afghanistan, the world's most notorious supplierof illegal drugs.

Regardless that they intended to use those drugs to enslave us, they only found themselves fiercely addicted.  Parents get their 12-year-old children hooked and find nothng wrong with it.

 

 

Even light will bend to do our bidding if we apply force correctly. The lowest servant in Heaven is still in Heaven, whoever rules in hell is still in hell, but they won't rule for long. No man stands taller than when he stoops to help a little child.

Probably very few, if any.  He's had a "Rubber Stamp" Congress to deal with so far.  This may change after the new Congress is seated.

If I can't always dazzle 'em with brilliance, I'll try baffling 'em with BS. Band of None

Hodag, now that Obama bin Laden is once again accountable, and his Muslim agenda is now public property, we live in absolute shame that a fascist Muslim has come here to betray us.

Why is that such a concern?

Because these are Obama full true sentiments about America.  All of them.

 

 

Even light will bend to do our bidding if we apply force correctly. The lowest servant in Heaven is still in Heaven, whoever rules in hell is still in hell, but they won't rule for long. No man stands taller than when he stoops to help a little child.

"Keep Calm and Carry On" -- a British poster created at the start of World War II to boost morale in advance of what would be a very dark few years on the continent -- has been revived of late: on mugs, t-shirts, and Joe Scarborough's Twitter account. Americans have been collectively bummed out for the last two years (the economy, unemployment, war, terrorism, and a general sense of doom), so the resurgence of this motto speaks, perhaps, to some deeper desire for guidance, or as a rejoinder to those inclined toward depression.

It's also apparent, here at the end of 2010, that it is a template for the governing style of President Barack Obama. For all the "hopey changey stuff" for which Obama was both praised and derided, and despite the soaring, shivery rhetoric of his speeches and rallies, the president has proven himself to be quite a bit more terrestrial than all that.

In his first two years in office, Obama has made considered, specific moves, shied away from both confrontation and praise, and remained sanguine in the face of voter insurrection -- or, as he put it, a shellacking at the polls. Throughout this year, the White House has had to defend itself against what critics called the president's deliberative management style during the health care debate, his lack of passion over the BP oil spill, his forsaking of congressional Democrats in the midterm elections. Yet despite this furor and outrage, Obama and his team have scored a stunning number of legislative victories and have accrued a hefty stash of political capital going into 2011.


Related Stories

As much as the public and the media decreed that Obama had to change, speak to the base, or get emotional, he never really did. Apparent to most Americans now is that Obama's fundamental inability to be anything other than what he is -- extremely patient and very, very focused -- has served him well. The president's pragmatism and distaste for drama have compelled him to broker landmark agreements with Republicans and win historic victories in the lame-duck session of Congress. As Obama said on Wednesday, "I am persistent. If I believe in something strongly, I stay on it."

While Obama's recent deal with Senate Republicans included extending tax cuts for high-income earners -- an about-face from one of his core campaign promises -- it also guaranteed $858 billion in incentives that will directly benefit the middle class and an extension of unemployment benefits for 13 months -- the longest period in the program's history.

"Governing is hard. It involves achieving the possible, not the perfect," said Les Francis, White House deputy chief of staff for President Jimmy Carter. "Did the wealthy get something they shouldn't get? Yes. So what? If he didn't do what he did, what was the alternative? Yell louder? Yell longer? And then what would we have gotten out of a Republican-controlled House? I think the liberal base should be popping champagne corks."

After a protracted -- and at times dicey -- congressional debate, the president on Wednesday signed into law the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, handing a major civil rights victory to gay Americans. Some gay rights advocates had privately groused that the administration was not doing enough to support repeal, outsourcing advocacy to the Defense Department. But as Michael Cole-Schwartz, press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign, a prominent gay rights group, told me in advance of the vote, regardless of who did what (and when), "the measure of success is whether the repeal happens." While Obama expended little political capital on the issue, he reaped the rewards -- winning over his base at a critical moment, while keeping his centrist bona fides intact.

But nowhere was Obama's temperament and dedication better rewarded than on the New START arms treaty with Russia. Long a priority for the White House and a personal concern for the president, the nuclear weapons treaty was the issue on which the president himself had done the most visible advocacy. He discussed it with international heads of state at NATO, met with former secretaries of state, including Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright, and pressed the issue behind the scenes with key Republicans lawmakers amid resistance from others. On Wednesday afternoon, eight months after the first hearings on New START began, it was finally ratified.

"Once this treaty is signed, this is the only game in town," said John Isaacs, executive director of the non-proliferation advocacy group, Council for a Livable World. "New START is the precondition to treaties with anyone else." Isaacs explained that concerns about other countries' nuclear arsenals, including "China, Pakistan, France, Israel -- those are important questions, but until the U.S. and Russia significantly reduce their stockpiles, we aren't going to get to that."

It has been a very impressive end to a very tumultuous year. For all the bickering and talk of a one-term presidency, even Republicans have sounded bullish on Obama lately.

Ken Duberstein, former chief of staff for President Reagan, said, "Obama deserves credit for leading the efforts to resolve the tax-cut issue and to resolve unemployment compensation, but more fundamentally, to bring people together. He has showed some real leadership."

The challenge, Duberstein cautions, "is to build a consensus for the country, and not simply a consensus in Washington."

Thomas "Mack" McLarty, former White House chief of staff for President Bill Clinton, thinks Obama must better explain the "bigger picture: where he's trying to take country and how we'll get there. Obama needs to marshal support and unite people in a vision for the country."

In all likelihood, Obama will try and do just that next month in his State of the Union address. We're reminded (albeit sporadically these days) of Obama's remarkable gifts as an orator, and so it is not too much of a stretch to envision a speech that will detail the president's grand plan for the next two years (and, presumably, beyond). But here's the thing: maybe the actual narrative of Obama's presidency -- the stuff of history books -- won't really end up being about his broad strokes and clarion calls, but about the stiff upper lip he maintained in the face of very strong headwinds, and the small, deliberate steps he took to move our cacophonous, lurching democracy forward.

Barbour furor obscures GOP problem with people of color by brooklynbadboy Sun Dec 26, 2010 at 05:02:05 PM PST


 title=
Take a good look at the picture above. That is a meeting at one of the two major political parties. Notice anything peculiar? Yes, everyone is white, but that shouldn't be shocking. That would be the case at an Idaho Democratic officials meeting. But this photo wasn't taken in Idaho. This is a picture of former Senator Fred Thompson delivering the keynote speech at the 2007 Mississippi Republican Elected Officials Tribute Dinner. Mississippi, the state that has the highest proportion of Black Americans of any state in the country. This photograph is a snapshot of a party that has a big problem.
Haley Barbour may have been...less than diplomatic, in his comments about racial integration in the South. But the reaction to it typically ignores the elephant in the room: why are so few Black Americans Republicans? There is no other major demographic group that so routinely votes 90-5 in favor of Democrats and against Republicans. Latino Americans are approaching it, but the GOP typically gets a reasonable share of that vote. Jewish Americans are close behind. Even in races where the issue stances between the Republican and the Democrat are almost indistinguishable, the black vote still goes lopsidedly towards the Democrat. In multiracial megachurches where conservative evangelical values are commonly held by white, black and brown alike, the vote still splits along the lines we see among the secular. Why? The answer is obvious, but nobody ever talks about it.
The bottom line: Republican officials are hostile to people of color, especially blacks. That hostility is due directly to the Civil Rights Movement and the GOP's adoption of the Southern Strategy. Simply put, all the racists in the south and everywhere else became Republicans in response to the Democratic Party's acceptance of equality for people of all backgrounds. They didn't and still don't like that. To Black voters, this is as plain a truth as the sky being blue.
During the Great Depression, Black Americans moved solidly into the fold of the Democratic Party due to the social policies and positions of FDR. Prior to that, they voted heavily Republican because of the legacy of Lincoln. Still, Southern Democrats largely remained Democrats as they had been since Reconstruction. During the era of the Civil Rights Movement, White Southerners began moving away from the Democratic Party due to an open appeal on the part of Republicans. They promised to be the party of White Citizens Council members. It was no accident Ronald Reagan started his campaign for President in Philadelphia, Mississippi. In 1964, three civil rights activists were lynched there by white supremacists. The Republican party was planting its flag in the South, and they made it clear whose side they were on. If the Democrats had turned their back on keeping people of color in their place and white folks on top, the GOP would gladly take up that cause in return for a vote. It was very simple and it worked. The GOP is now completely dominant in the South. White flight and the growth of the Sunbelt states fueled this dominance.
It is a shame. I believe that black folks would be better served by competition for their votes, rather than see it taken for granted by one party that can always count on it. While the GOP's stances on a number of economic and social issues are out of step with the majority of Black Americans, we never even get the benefit of focus that an "in play" demographic does. The GOP wont bother to compete for our vote. While conservative ideology is a big reason for the GOP losing the black vote, that is not a sufficient explanation for losing 90% of it. I dare say that many wealthy or upper income Black Americans who may find a Republican candidate compelling still can't cross that line because the GOP is so hostile to minorities. If Republicans could ever get out from under their racism, the Democrats would have a real fight on their hands.
After this Barbour mess blows over, and it will, the current political state of affairs will continue to exist. The issue is easily swept under the rug by the occasional token Black Republican getting elected from white precincts. It is somewhat mitigated by the adoption of ideological conservatism as a convenient cover for racial prejudice. Things will not truly change until rank and file Republicans demand better character from their officials. The Republican Party will have to make the case for racial equality if they want these perceptions to change.
Maybe they should listen to the late, great Jack Kemp in the beautiful letter he penned to his grandchildren shortly before he died:

The party of Lincoln, (i.e., the GOP), needs to rethink and revisit its historic roots as a party of emancipation, liberation, civil rights and equality of opportunity for all.

That would be a good place to start

  1. December 30, 2009: Vetoed H.J.Res. 64, Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes. Override attempt failed in House.
  2. October 7, 2010: Vetoed H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010.
I don't wish to be argumentative ,but I disagree with the Islamic belief that I should be killed! " If radical atheists decided they needed to kill believers to ensure their place in nothingness, I'd be criticizing that too."

Related Questions

Other people asked questions on similar topics, check out the answers they received:

Asked: Is President Obama brain-dead or just stoned?

Is president Barack Obama brain-dead or just stoned out of his mind? Blaming the Republican's again. Can't he just pick up the phone? Skip congress again? C'mon dillweed, pull Sgt. Andrew ...

Asked: Eliminate the President? it would be most ...

Eliminate the President? it would be most sensible to eliminate this least effective post in government. For the last 5-1/2 years, we have had an impotent figurehead named Obama doing busywork ...

Asked: Espn airing bias political ads on live sports ...

espn airing bias political ads on live sports events

Ask a Question... We'll forward it to people who know

More Questions

From bill: do you answer me on line re: cancelling my anti-virus I

AOL Answers is not staffed by AOL employees, except for one or two. Was this through AOL? You need to either figure out how to cancel through the Internet, maybe under BILLING or My Account, or call AOL on the telephone. If it was some other company, you need to contact them.

Do you approve of President Obama's job performance?

Unfortunately, fools (and only fools) tolerate such defaults as "charisma." They will follow charismatic idiots as flies would follow a garbage truck. Hence we have the miseries that Obama inflicted and the obstructionist government this racket boss caused. This is the very sorest test of ...

100 Days of President Obama

Obama started out very slow, and about six months into office he was declined Q-Presidential clearance: he could not pass reliability minimums for the nuclear weapons program due to recent and habitual illegal drug abuse. He was declined twice more, each time on grounds of psychological instability ...