Why the Democrats Don't Force Bush to Veto

In an open thread today, kos intelligently and reasonably encouraged Democrats to force Bush to follow through on his threat to veto all the bills we ostensibly want to pass in support of the American people.

You know all those vetoes that Bush is threatening (60 or 70 at this point)? Well, make him veto. Every single time.

It'll make it much easier to create contrasts with Republicans.

"You want to end the war? Health care for the children of working families? A government that doesn't torture or spy on you? All that other good stuff that Bush keeps vetoing? Well you know what to do."

Instead, Democrats cave to the GOP at the mere threat of a veto, hence becoming complicit in all the warmed over crap Congress is dishing to the American people. People don't know that Republicans are obstructing the Democratic agenda. They just now that Congress has failed to deliver on the promises of the 2006 campaign season.

If we had a party leadership of spineless fools, this would be fantastic advice: grow a spine, make Bush a target of public ire, and either force him to back down on his vetoes or put himself into an even more unpopular corner than he's already in.

Unfortunately, we aren't dealing with spineless fools: we have instead a party leadership dedicated to cynically manipulative electioneering.  Our "leaders" aren't dedicated to trying to push through a progressive agenda so much as they're trying to win the next election by making Republicans look bad.

But still, even if it's all cynical politics, why not force Bush to veto?  Why not, if all legislative progress is to be stymied anyway, draw a distinct contrast with the Republicans by forcing good bills through the Senate, and showing the American people the horrible intransigence of the Bush Adminstration against anything that might be associated with progress or goodness?  Wouldn't that be a surefire election winner?

The answer (to the "mind" of the Democratic leadership) is, sadly, no.

The reason the Democrats don't force Bush to veto is that they're not running against Bush: they're running against their Republican colleagues.  Remember the telling paraphrase of Chuck Schumer:

"Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who leads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, insists that the more Republicans block Democrats in Congress, the more seats Democrats will win next year."

I didn't see Bush mentioned anywhere in that.

You see, Bush isn't up for re-election next year; their colleagues across the aisle are.  What good does it do our Senators to force their Republican colleagues to actually filibuster or stand down in the face of progressive legislation so that it can arrive on Bush's desk?

If they force the Republicans in Congress to vote with them (or at least fail to actively oppose them) on progressive legislation, it takes away a campaign issue to use against them.  Meanwhile, having a campaign issue to use against George W. Bush does them no good: Bush isn't running, the next Republican hopeful can always say that he wouldn't have made the same veto, and the Republican Congress can breathe a sigh of relief by maki Bush take the heat for stymying good bills.

Far better, in eyes of the Democratic Leadership, to make their Republican colleagues take the heat.  Besides (goes the thinking), the public already hates Bush: to what end drive down his numbers rather than, say, Gordon Smith's in Oregon?

The only problem with this, of course, is that these games are going far over the heads of the American people.  As Markos correctly says, the general public doesn't know that the Republican congress is filibustering; all they know is that the Democrats are failing to stop Bush.  Nor are the Democrats forcing the Republicans to actually filibuster, because they believe such lengthy inaction in the Senate would cause the American public to desire a pox on both political parties.

It's not a smart game they're playing--but that's the game.  Bush himself has little to do with it: it's all about trying to make Congressional Republicans look bad for 2008.