The Skywriter

Advising a veto is not a commitment to veto


Advising a veto is not a commitment to veto

"Sucker Hole" by Flickr user filo1000

Some of you might not know it, but I was born and raised in the great state of Alaska. In good old Anchorage, Alaska, there isn’t a lot of sun. Sometimes, local residents find themselves staring hopefully into the sky at a small spot of blue. Up north, we refer to that small patch as a “sucker hole.” Why? Because it doesn’t mean the sun is coming out, and believing anything else makes you a sucker.

There has been a bit of hubbub surrounding EPA head Lisa Jackson’s threat of a veto of any anti-Clean Air Act legislation. Like the residents of Alaska, I suggest you view it with a similar air of caution.

Let’s take a closer look at Jackson’s statement:

What has been stated from the White House is that the president’s advisers would advise him to veto any legislation that passed that would take away the EPA’s greenhouse gas authority."

Has the President actually threatened veto? No, but his advisors have threatened to advise him to veto.

That, my friend, just might be a sucker hole.

Luckily, unlike the weather, we have some control over potential political ‘sucker holes.’ This is still a step in the right direction, and just the small spot of hope we need to show us that our pressure is working.

There are people on our side within the administration, and we need to make it clear that they are not standing alone. We cannot let this be a lone ray of hope; we will keep pushing for the President to make a full vocal defense of the Clean Air Act.

Share |