First off, Coolidge served two terms and left office with sky high approval ratings, and along with Reagan was one of the most conservative Presidents of the 20th century.
Hoover and Ike vetoed a number of bad bills, along with some good bills. Their vetos had nothing to do with their party controlling Congress. As I just noted, plenty of Dem presidents vetoed their own party's legislation and they were handily re-elected, along with Congress.
Do you really think the President is supposed to be a rubber stamp for Congress and pass WHATEVER they think is a good idea if he's in the same party? I think you're the one who doesn't get "seperation of powers". If an "R" President is supposed to agree with whatever an "R" Congress wants, we might as well put a moritorium on the Presidency when one party controls all branches of government.
ALL Presidents in ALL parties have used their veto stamp REGULARLY when they felt Congress' legislation was not in the best interests of the people. It doesn't matter whether their party controls the legislative branch or not. The last President to have a scorecard of ZERO vetos during his term was James A. Garfield in 1880. Garfield had a much better excuse that Bush -- he was killed 6 monthes into his term.
And how many spending bills did Coolidge veto against the Republican run Congress?
I am not arguing against the popularity of either man.
Reagan could veto a spending bill since it was put forth by a Democrat controlled Congress.
It would not hurt the Republican Party.
Going against your own leadership, however, does undermine them.
Hoover and Ike vetoed a number of bad bills, along with some good bills. Their vetos had nothing to do with their party controlling Congress. As I just noted, plenty of Dem presidents vetoed their own party's legislation and they were handily re-elected, along with Congress.
Since the Democrats controlled the House for 50 years, the Democrat Presidents felt confident they could go against the House leadership without fear of losing the House.
They had comfortable majorities and thus enough cushion to handle any negative backlash.
Now, I am talking about spending bills, which is the responsibility of Congress, not the White House.
A Bush veto of a spending bill would be symbolic at best.
This is, by the way, the Constitutional argument against the Line Item Veto, which moves into the House's area of responsibility.
The WH has no more business dealing with the money, the the House has dealing with Defense issues (except funding them)
Do you really think the President is supposed to be a rubber stamp for Congress and pass WHATEVER they think is a good idea if he's in the same party? I think you're the one who doesn't get "seperation of powers". If an "R" President is supposed to agree with whatever an "R" Congress wants, we might as well put a moritorium on the Presidency when one party controls all branches of government.
Only when it regards the sole responsibility of that Branch of Gov't.
Spending is suppose to be the responsibility of the House, not the WH or the Senate.
ALL Presidents in ALL parties have used their veto stamp REGULARLY when they felt Congress' legislation was not in the best interests of the people. It doesn't matter whether their party controls the legislative branch or not. The last President to have a scorecard of ZERO vetos during his term was James A. Garfield in 1880. Garfield had a much better excuse that Bush -- he was killed 6 monthes into his term.
Once again, I am not talking about veto's per se, but vetos of spending bills.
Now, in other areas, it may that the Republican controlled House and Senate are giving Bush what he wants and therefore he has no need to veto them!
A case on point was the renewal of the gun control law the Bush stated he would sign if it got to his desk.
Well, ofcourse, a Republican controlled Congress allowed it to die (thank you Tom Delay!) so Bush was not put into position of signing it back into law.
The one bill that I can remember off hand that Bush should have vetoed was that travesty, the McCain-Feingold fiance reform.
But that should have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as well.