Skip to comments.House Might Not Vote on Obama’s Syria Resolution
Posted on 09/06/2013 8:23:58 AM PDT by quimby
Congressional aides in both parties tell me that the chances of President Obama winning House approval for military action in Syria are so bad they actually doubt the House would ultimately vote on it if failure seemed certain.
Two new whip counts of House members by ABC News and the liberal Firedoglake web site show a majority of House members firmly or leaning against intervention. The Washington Posts more conservative count stands at 204 no votes, only 13 short of the majority needed to kill the presidents request.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I just dont believe that if defeat is certain, the House leadership will want to see a president utterly humiliated on the House floor in a public vote, one top aide to the Republican leadership told me. Should the full Senate vote to approve an attack on Syria as still appears somewhat likely the battle would shift to the House. An attempt would be made to let the whole thing go away. I dont think it would be done to give the GOP any extra leverage in debt-ceiling or budget negotiations Obama isnt the grateful type but simply because the weakness it would demonstrate wouldnt be good for the country, the aide told me.
Lol! Maybe Boehner will just “deem” it passed like they were planning with Obamacare....
Maybe I’m missing something.
What exactly is showing weakness by having a congressional vote on an issue?
Isn’t the whole point of Congress that they vote on issues, pass legislation, etc?
Sometimes legislation is voted down. Sometimes resolutions do not pass. It’s all part of the process, isn’t it?
What am I missing?
So they’d use procedure and just not bring it up?
Seems like he’d be humiliated anyway.
So, if the Hastert rule is no vote if R yea’s in the minority...
then the Boehner rule is no vote if it embarrasses the pResident
You are spot on, not missing a thing. It’s no doubt a RINO aide that is speaking. Probably one of Boners.
I pay them to vote. Do their duty.
They will be forced to vote by a President who desperately needs political cover. Those that vote for war against the wishes of the American people will be hounded mercilessly out of office. The end result will be a fundamental change in the Republican leadership. Boehner and Cantor’s days are numbered.
He’s in the bathroom fixing his face.
Would all you people in Boner’s district please start burning up his phone lines.
If the House votes “abstain” and the Senate votes “go for it”, then the President wins a “go” vote.
The House must bring this to the floor, but the democrats will side with Boehner on this one in any discharge petition. That way they get to save face as democrats by not voting against their fearless leader, and they get to go to their districts NOT having supported the war in Syria.
It must have a majority on the petition, so only a few republicans + Cantor and Boehner can defect.
Why is the Republican leadership trying to prevent Obama from being humiliated?
I’m betting that Obama will be back in DC next week spreading Saudi cash and he’ll get his war.
If this thing gets voted down I don’t see how Bohener and Cantor can stay in leadership positions.
The President wants Congress to enable him, not thwart him.
If true, Obama will strike before the House votes.
The president asked for this congressional debate and vote.
Don’t we deserve to see how our elected representatives have decided this issue, which the president decided to push?
Der Fuehrer maintained (somewhat correctly) that he can do all of this without congressional authority, at least for a while. The backlash against action has been so great that he flipped and is pushing the yes-no decision off on congress so that if it fails he can blame congress (republicans) and walk away saying it wasn’t his decision. He’s looking for a sure scapegoat.
Telling him he doesn’t need congressional approval and not voting on it pushes the ownership of his disasterous policy back into his lap.