July 28, 2004
A UNITER, NOT A DIVIDER:
Bush Has Threatened to Use the Veto 40 Times, but Never Has--What's Up? (Nicolas Heidorn, 7/26/04, History News Network)
In a matter of months, George Walker Bush, 43rd President of the United States, could go down in history as the first full-term president in 175 years not to have exercised his constitutional veto power.That’s quite a feat considering his father, Bush Sr., vetoed 44 bills in his one term in office. His successor, Bill Clinton, vetoed 37 bills in his eight years—a little under par for recent presidents: Reagan vetoed 78, Carter 31, Ford 66, and Nixon vetoed 43 bills before being impeached.
In fact, only seven presidents in U.S. history have not used the veto. The last was James Garfield, sworn in March 4, 1881, who served less than a year in office before being assassinated by a disgruntled lawyer. In all, four of the seven veto-free presidents, Garfield, William Harrison, Zachary Taylor and Millard Fillmore, did not complete an entire term. And, the very last president to serve a full term without using a veto was John Quincy Adams, the sixth president.
So why is it that George Bush, one of the most politically controversial U.S. presidents, hasn’t used his veto power?
Because he's won the fight on every bill that's made it to his desk? If there a line-item veto you could strip out some of the more egregious programs and spending; but in its absence you have to swallow some chaff with the wheat. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 28, 2004 10:29 AM
I think you can only say he "won" on campaign finance reform if you make the argument that he knew it would be a complete failure and expose CFR for what it always is.
I give the Bush Administration lots of credit, but I don't know if I will go quite that far.
I tend to put that one in the loss column.
Posted by: kevin whited at July 28, 2004 11:19 AMSome would argue (as Mr. Heidorn does) that Bush's lack of vetoes is explained by the Republican majority in both houses. But that ignores the fact that the majority in the Senate is razor thin and (given several far-from-conservative Republicans) very fragile. Keeping McCain in line alone is evidence of considerable skill. I'll be even more impressed if Bush can figure out a way around the new de facto supermajority requirement for judicial appointments.
Incidentally, Mr. Heidorn's "bell curve" analysis is way off:
For the next 100 years, from Andrew Johnson to Dwight D. Eisenhower, presidential vetoes exploded to an average of 118.9 per president. Franklin D. Roosevelt set the all-time record with 635 vetoes over his three and a half terms. Ideological battles in this era, from Reconstruction to the New Deal, fueled confrontation between the president and Congress. Moreover, as Rutgers University political scientist Ross Baker points out, this was also a time when "a large number of vetoes was seen as a sign of a vigorous presidency."
Nice theory, but the vast majority of FDR's vetoes were of private bills (for example, to provide a pension for a veteran or his widow, often vetoed when the claim was believed to be fraudulent or unwarranted). The same is true of Truman and Cleveland who, along with FDR, had the three highest veto rates (vetoes per time in office).
The President who had (by far) the highest public bill veto rate was Gerald Ford. Ford was by no means a great president, but he doesn't get enough credit for fighting a very liberal Congress.
Posted by: Tom L at July 28, 2004 11:34 AM"Nixon vetoed 43 bills before being impeached."
It would seem to me that someone who writes for History News Network would be a better historian.
Posted by: Pilgrim at July 28, 2004 12:41 PMYeah, but how many did Nixon veto after he resigned?
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at July 28, 2004 2:26 PMObviously the real reason the President hasn't used the veto is that he was too depressed to focus/care/notice. It is called reverse megalomania and is well understood in California medical schools. The only known treatment is for everybody to vote left before the guy blows up the whole world.
Posted by: Peter B at July 28, 2004 3:34 PM