General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why the arguments of Obama's defenders leave many cold. [View all]BzaDem
(11,142 posts)if Obama vetoes a bill?
Let's say Obama were to say "I would veto a bill without a public option." Republicans would say "be my guest!"
Let's say Obama were to say "I would veto a bill that doesn't end private insurance." Republicans would say "please do so!"
Let's say Obama were to say "I will veto any increase in the debt limit that doesn't include a tax increase on the rich." Republicans would say "That's fine with us. You will get all the blame for the fallout, and your party will be discredited for a generation. Let us know when you completely change your mind, and have no more delusions that a tax increase is ever about to pass. Tick tock."
Why do you think the veto pen really matters all that much? It certainly matters for blocking proposals of a unified Congress of an opposing party. No question there. But there hasn't been a unified Congress of an opposing party. The Senate wouldn't even take up for debate a bill that Obama would veto. The veto pen doesn't really provide much additional leverage at all in any negotiation that has mattered thus far.
In reality, the power of the Presidency is a necessary but not sufficient condition for getting a bill passed. That is precisely why he is (correctly) not getting blamed for the inaction of Congress, but is getting praised for signing accomplishments into law. That's what "necessary but not sufficient" means. When a bill passes, his support was necessary for the law to pass. Yet it isn't sufficient -- that's why he shouldn't necessarily be blamed when a bill fails (for reasons other than his not supporting it).