Bush has never vetoed a bill. Never.

[bluestateguy]

I was looking at a chart of presidential vetoes, and there is no past president who has a similar record of rubber stamping acts of Congress like George W. "Baby" Bush. This president, whose defenders cite as being such a principled man of conviction, who does what he thinks is right, no matter what the political consequences, is apparently quite a rubber stamp for this Congress. The last president never to veto a bill was James Garfield, who served only 6 months in office. To find another president who went this long without vetoing a bill you have to go back to Martin Van Buren and John Quincy Adams (is there something about sons of former presidents?), each of whom had no vetoes during their respective single term presidencies. For a two term president who did not ever veto a bill, you have to go back to Thomas Jefferson. The issue isn't that Congress is controlled by his party, either. FDR vetoed 372 bills, and he had a Democratic Congress for over 12 years. LBJ vetoed 16 bills in just over 5 years; Carter vetoed 13 bills in 4 years; Coolidge vetoed 20 bills in almost 6 years as president. All had a Congress controlled by their party.

Every time Bush has threatened to veto a bill he has backed down: the pork riddled highway bill, the torture ban (which he signed, but will likely interpret so flexibly as to make it worthless) and the McCain-Feingold bill.

Source on the data: Vital Statistics on American Politics, 1997-98, CQ Press: Washington, D.C., p. 252.

[salin]

1. we now know why: singing papers

he just writes his way around the laws he signs. Had he not done so on the anti-torture legislation - when there was tons of press watching, the follow up story (of how oft they have used this mechanism, and how differently he uses it than past presidents - that is in terms of declaring the parts of what ever law he doesn't have to follow) wouldn't be getting MSM coverage.

[justabob]

4. exactly

I thought I read that Bush is the ONLY president to use signing statements, and that they are illegal to boot... not that BushCo cares about the legality of anything. :eyes:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. Because the Republicans control congress...

...and do their best to implement his agenda.

[tritsofme]

3. Probably unlike any president in history, this Congress works for him

If Bush disagrees with a bill, it never gets a vote in the House.

[PATRICK]

5. Simple explanation

Bush has adopted a strategy in which the appearance of flexibility is totally deceiving, but used so inflexibly he might appear weak if Congress actually clashed with him very much.

He signs a bill with vocal reservations and INTERPRETATION which pretty much seals how HE considers the bill and will not be bound otherwise. It is the interpretation veto mentioned on another DU post. In Texas it was the same song and dance as governor. He fought, then lost, then signed, then executed the bill as he saw fit(and cheaply), then took credit for everything he underfunded. Sort of a purer, gentler Nixon, he would appear to bend to the breeze when simply twisting around to deliver a knife thrust in the back.

For all practical purposes he does as he sees fit regardless, which has become a near fatal habit. A veto is a clear assertion of one branch vying with another. Under the Monarchy, that is hardly seemly or necessary and creates more trouble than it is worth.

To this I will raise an old "theory" of mine that a possible Big LIHOP Plan called for Congress to be decimated on 9/11 and naive Bushbots under a warflag to be a rubber stamp to end all rubber stamps. Was he going to work with the spared GOP and Dems? No. As in all other Bushco agendas, the plan just goes ahead despite all setbacks or obstacles. It still seems puzzling and odd, but plainly they have neither the mental equipment nor the patience to deal with Congress or anyone else. Why veto when you can just choose to ignore the bill or enact it according to your own interpretation? Being inconsequential together as a patriotic peanut gallery is what biaprtisanship in Congress is all about, similar to the Roman Senate during the Imperial days.