4 ms·

Obama has vetoed two (2) bills to date. CISPA is certainly not going to be #3. Grade sitting Presidents participating in a reelection campaign on their action

Obama has vetoed two (2) bills to date. CISPA is certainly not going to be #3. Grade sitting Presidents participating in a reelection campaign on their actions, not their words.

krschultz 15y ago
That's because once the president says he is going to veto a bill, it almost never makes it to his desk. Much like the threat of a filibuster is basically as powerful as a filibuster, the threat of a veto is almost as powerful as a veto.
- maratd 15y ago
  > That's because once the president says he is going to veto a bill, it almost never makes it to his desk. You're being vague. The truth is, once the president says he's going to veto a bill, it never makes it to his desk in its present state. In fact, all of the veto threats outline the parts he has a problem with and those parts usually go away. But some laws can't be fixed. They can't be fixed because they're based on a false premise. Enough with these threats of fix this or fix that! Garbage shall not pass. As simple as that.
yahelc 15y ago
Issuing a veto threat and then not following up on that veto is pretty much the biggest tactical mistake a President can make. The whole point of a veto threat is to make a credible threat to coerce Congress to change course. If he didn't follow through, all his future veto threats would ring hollow and he'd have lost an important executive tool. Even if he didn't want to veto CISPA on principle, at this point he has too.
- baddox 15y ago
  Why not just veto bills when you want to veto them, and signing them when you want to sign them?
  - boling11 15y ago
    Perhaps he agrees with most of a bill but wants parts taken out. Threat of a veto allows him to have some influence over the specifics.
  - laxatives 15y ago
    Because its a waste of everyones time if they write up a bill thats just going to get killed
    - maratd 15y ago
      That waste of time is what keeps the nation vibrant. That's the entire premise behind the checks/balances system.
      - yahelc 15y ago
        That sounds nice in theory, but in practice the legislative process is so slow and backlogged that even just the threat of a veto (where Congress knows it doesn't have the votes to override the veto) is simply enough of a threat to get them to move.
  - saraid216 15y ago
    Because it risks having his veto overridden with none of the changes he would be able to demand otherwise.
  - nikcub 15y ago
    we have the same thing with startups, you agree on a term sheet before going to the effort of drafting up all the deal docs. what Obama is saying is that he won't sign the term sheet, so you obviously don't bother with the deal docs.

Obama has vetoed two (2) bills to date. CISPA is certainly not going to be #3. Grade sitting Presidents participating in a reelection campaign on their actions, not their words.

krschultz 15y ago

That's because once the president says he is going to veto a bill, it almost never makes it to his desk. Much like the threat of a filibuster is basically as powerful as a filibuster, the threat of a veto is almost as powerful as a veto.

maratd 15y ago
> That's because once the president says he is going to veto a bill, it almost never makes it to his desk. You're being vague. The truth is, once the president says he's going to veto a bill, it never makes it to his desk in its present state. In fact, all of the veto threats outline the parts he has a problem with and those parts usually go away. But some laws can't be fixed. They can't be fixed because they're based on a false premise. Enough with these threats of fix this or fix that! Garbage shall not pass. As simple as that.

yahelc 15y ago

Issuing a veto threat and then not following up on that veto is pretty much the biggest tactical mistake a President can make. The whole point of a veto threat is to make a credible threat to coerce Congress to change course. If he didn't follow through, all his future veto threats would ring hollow and he'd have lost an important executive tool. Even if he didn't want to veto CISPA on principle, at this point he has too.

baddox 15y ago
Why not just veto bills when you want to veto them, and signing them when you want to sign them?
- boling11 15y ago
  Perhaps he agrees with most of a bill but wants parts taken out. Threat of a veto allows him to have some influence over the specifics.
- laxatives 15y ago
  Because its a waste of everyones time if they write up a bill thats just going to get killed
  - maratd 15y ago
    That waste of time is what keeps the nation vibrant. That's the entire premise behind the checks/balances system.
    - yahelc 15y ago
      That sounds nice in theory, but in practice the legislative process is so slow and backlogged that even just the threat of a veto (where Congress knows it doesn't have the votes to override the veto) is simply enough of a threat to get them to move.
- saraid216 15y ago
  Because it risks having his veto overridden with none of the changes he would be able to demand otherwise.
- nikcub 15y ago
  we have the same thing with startups, you agree on a term sheet before going to the effort of drafting up all the deal docs. what Obama is saying is that he won't sign the term sheet, so you obviously don't bother with the deal docs.