Poker Face Politics

Michael Grunwald of the Washington Post has an interesting theory on why President Bush hasn't vetoed anything since he's been in office:

"Bush likes to project an image of strength bordering on omnipotence, where every initiative is a presidential initiative, everyone marches to the presidential beat, and everything happens according to the presidential plan -- even when he's clearly changing that plan, as when he co-opted the Democratic proposal to create a Department of Homeland Security or when he incorporated a popular Democratic idea to send $300 to every American into his own tax-cut plan. A veto does not square with this aura of all-powerful, agenda-setting leadership. It's a defensive, reactive measure, used to block someone else's initiative, suggesting a lack of discipline within the Republican ranks."

What that implies is that (for Bush) the veto is more or a signal than a threat:

"So when the Bush administration has floated veto threats, on issues ranging from stem cells to the Patriot Act, they've usually been signals to GOP leaders about priorities...On philosophical issues, Bush's veto threats have often turned debates over principle into tests of partisan loyalty, helping congressional leaders persuade recalcitrant Republicans to toe the party line."

I agree. The veto has traditionally been a tool of conviction; it's suppose to show the American people that the President feels so strongly about a law that he/she is willing to void Congress for it. Now, Bush simply uses it to scare Congressional Republicans into submission. And because they fear dissent may make them look bad during elections, the Congressional Republicans repeatedly get in line when Bush speaks in this code.