could the threatened veto be a bluff? - Democratic Underground

cleveramerican

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-25-07 04:40 PM
Original message

could the threatened veto be a bluff?

I've heard W say he's going to veto several times. Today ,at a red light, it dawned on me. Its a bluff. Its strategy to gently push the war funding bill in the direction he wants, BEFORE it gets to him.

what do you all think?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

hobbit709

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-25-07 04:41 PM
Response to Original message

1. He's NOT that smart

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Raven

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-25-07 04:42 PM
Response to Original message

2. No bluff, he'll veto. The real bluff is that the military will run out of $.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Fresh_Start

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-25-07 04:43 PM
Response to Original message

3. let him. He'll be the one denying the troops lifesaving resources

Think about it as a passion play.
He could do the same thing he's done for 6 years which is sign the billing saying "fu, Congress". I'll do what I feel like doing.
It's a move purely to make the Dems cave.
They shouldn't cave.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

pocoloco

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-25-07 04:44 PM
Response to Original message

4. Don't know?

Past history has the Dems folding.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

AtomicKitten

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-25-07 04:45 PM
Response to Original message

5. after flying back to sign

the Schiavo we're-sticking-our-nose-in-your-business bill, I put no bit of nonsense beyond him.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Lobster Martini

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-25-07 05:14 PM
Response to Original message

6. Agree with Raven--no bluff

If W. gets an appropriations bill with a timetable, it will be vetoed, and your morning newspaper will report that troops will be at risk because Democrats refused to drop the timetable. It will not mention that the timetable is non-binding. Then Democrats will cave in and pass an appropriations bill without a timetable because they are running for reelection and don't need the bad press whereas W. has nothing to lose.

Save this post because I will look incredibly prescient.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 02nd 2024, 01:02 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.