Townhall.com is reporting a "Veto Threat", but I'm not so sure it's a veto threat.
Look at the language used:
"I can confirm that the president would not sign this bill," Earnest said at Tuesday's White House press briefing after being asked about House Keystone legislation fired earlier in the day.
"We indicated that the president would veto similar legislation considered by the previous congress and our position on this hasn't changed," Earnest said. "I would not anticipate that the president would sign this piece of legislation."
Do you see the difference?
Earnest isn't saying that the President would veto the bill, he's saying the President would not sign the bill. There's a big difference. If the President doesn't sign a bill presented to him within ten days, it becomes law if Congress is not adjourned.
Now, maybe I'm being a little too specific about what the White House Press Secretary said, but I think it's worth considering. After all, the WH Press Secretary is someone who is careful with his words, right? Could Obama take the position that he isn't going to sign the bill, but not veto it? That could be a possible middle ground for him. Could this be possible? Am I onto something?
Or am I just over-lawyering the Press Secretary's words?
No comments:
Post a Comment