To date, the Democratic leadership of the state Legislature has shown little enthusiasm for a special session to override expected vetoes from Republican Gov. Linda Lingle.

After all, there are elections to get ready for, and a special session would likely become a public-relations loss against Lingle, who is riding a huge wave of public popularity.

Absent matters of high principle, the thinking has been to let Lingle have her vetoes (she has indicated she might red-line 28 bills) and get on with the election season.

But now the ground has shifted. A consortium of union leaders, representing organizations almost always aligned with the Democrats, has called on the Legislature to come back in special session to override each and every one of Lingle's vetoes.

While the leaders said some of the proposed vetoes are of direct interest to organized labor, the larger point is to encourage a show of Democratic force against Lingle and her Republican administration.

What we're seeing here is a strong sign that the traditional Democratic alliance will not concede the governorship to the popular Lingle without a vigorous fight.

By calling for a blanket override, however, the unions are giving up an opportunity to strike a clear ideological line between the Democrats and the Lingle administration.

Some of Lingle's proposed vetoes are based on policy. Others are based on technical flaws or unintended consequences.

It is undoubtedly true that many of the bills are of high interest to labor. No wonder the union leaders would like a veto override.

But it is hard to see any direct union (or Democratic Party) interest in other proposed vetoes such as a ban on the sale of 'opihi or rejecting the idea of converting the popular sand bar in Kane'ohe Bay into a protected state monument.

In general, then, this is a call for a show of muscle.

Lingle was quick to respond, saying any decision should be made on the merits of the issue, not on politics.

The question here is how a mass override, even if lawmakers went along, would translate into any kind of political advantage in the fall. The public would likely view all this as an inside-the-Capitol squabble that has little to do with their daily lives.

On the larger point, the unions are correct. The Democrats must not roll over for the governor simply because she has enormous positive rating in public-opinion polls. But the focus should be on specific, measurable differences. And on the veto list are several bills of high interest to unions and working people where a clear political line can be drawn.

In their letter to legislators, the union leaders said that "It is imperative before the 2006 elections that Democrats make a stand and demonstrate how we are philosophically different from the governor and her party."

Fair enough. But does the gulf between both sides really hinge on 'opihi and a popular party spot in Kane'ohe Bay?

Jerry Burris is The Advertiser's editorial page editor.

Reach Jerry Burris at jburris@honoluluadvertiser.com.