A popular topic of discussion among the budget folk here at OMB Watch is the mystery of President Bush's veto threats, which he's made against just about every remotely progressive piece of legislation being considered by Congress. His party just lost an election, and President Nixon was better liked. Where does he get off trying to stymie Congress? As we sketched out in this article for TomPaine.com, it's critical that Congress stand up to the President, on substantive policy grounds. But another reason to hold firm is that liberals will be demoralized if the President wins too many more of these fights. A loss would reinforce doubts about the competence and courage of progressive leadership, who would not have been able to control the President even at his weakest. It would set the stage for an election year with a progressive base feeling less motivated to turn out to vote. The President's strategy is quite risky. There's plenty of opportunity for it to backfire. Congressional Republicans should find it very costly to oppose spending for children, students and low-income workers, or to be associated with the unpopular President. Typically, these costs would be enough to ensure the passage of modest program expansions. But these are desperate times. The President is in a hole, so he's chosen to raise the stakes on a weak hand, so to speak. The stakes being so high, it's critical that liberals call his bluff. Fiscal policy may not be first on everyone's list of priorities. Making only modest progress, as the raft of fiscal policy proposals now being considered would, probably won't fire up liberals as much as, say, ending the war in Iraq would. But a loss to a reviled and weakened Administration could be far more influential. Perhaps that as much as anything else is what President Bush and other conservatives are trying to achieve, and what liberals need to stop.