MSNBC asks: Are vetoes the key to a Bush recovery? The simple answer is "no" because I don't think he'll veto the Iraq spending bill.
Before I tell you why, let's look at some background...
A defining moment of Clinton’s presidency was Oct. 19, 1995 when he threw down the gauntlet to House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole. "I will not let you destroy Medicare and I will veto this bill," Clinton said referring to GOP legislation curbing the future growth of Medicare spending.
The standoff between Republican leaders and Clinton led to the government shutdown at the end of 1995. Clinton won the perception battle on Medicare and it helped him win a second term.
Looking back on it, the differences are stark: Medicare was hugely popular. The Iraq war? Uh...not so much.
"You guys took extraordinary advantage, very correctly so, of demonizing us," Dole’s advisor Sheila Burke told Clinton strategist George Stephanopoulos during a 1996 campaign post-mortem at Harvard University. "We essentially lost the public relations war early in December (1995)."
The time for demonizing is over. My hunch is that Bush has gone to the well one time too many to be able to convince the public that the Democrats are dangerously crazy. As Bill Clinton would have said: "That dog don't hunt."
Speaking of the Clintons, Bush might be able to prevail -- by being a divider and not a uniter:
Bush’s veto threat may pay some dividends in that he’s splitting the Democratic ranks. While Obama sounds resigned to Bush winning on the veto, his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton said Tuesday, "This is vetoing the will of the American people." She added that "I’m not ready to concede" that Bush will ultimately make his veto stick.
I think Obama made a rookie mistake in saying what he said (whether or not it's what he meant). Hillary was much more on point.
As for other threatened vetoes (stem cells, discounted pharmaceuticals, labor unions) -- at this point, who cares? We're into the primary season already and these are all political theater. The Democrats will nationalize these issues on the way to the general election.
One lesson some members of Congress drew from last November’s election was that that the public was fed up with partisan discord. If that’s true, would a veto antagonize a public tired of confrontation?
In a word: no.
The public is already onboard with Congress. Everyone is tired of this endless occupation and they'll see Congress as being more than generous in giving Bush his war funding -- but with a redefinition of the mission.
So here's what happens next:
If Bush is smart, he'll sign the bill and then ignore the part about withdrawal timelines -- you know, with one of his infamous (and ubiquitous) signing statements. By the time it winds through the courts, Bush will be nearly at the end of his term. His legacy "secure," Bush will leave office -- but not before screwing the Republican candidate for president.
End result: Democrats add to their lead in Congress and also take the White House. But Bush will have accomplished one thing that he wanted: it'll be someone else who has to end the war, not him.