House Might Not Vote on Obama’s Syria Resolution

National Review ^ | 9-6-13 | John Fund

[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 Post’s more conservative count stands at 204 “no” votes, only 13 short of the majority needed to kill the president’s request.

[MNDude]

Hugh Hewlitt sure supports attacking Syria.

[animal172]

As far as I’m concerned a non vote is tacit approval for The One to go ahead.

[edpc]

As others have said, the lack of a vote would push the issue of action taken back to the WH. However, they’ll just crow on about dereliction of duty if that were to occur. The entire focus has been less of what Obama really thinks of the Syria situation and more toward having an issue for the 2014 mid-terms.

[Mike Darancette]

I pay them to vote. Do their duty.

Hastert rule be damned? Maybe there should be a vote on immigration too?

[jjsheridan5]

If they don’t vote, Zero will claim apathy on the part of congress and proceed under executive order.

Bingo. And that is what the establishment Republicans want. Congress will have "supported" any action, in the sense that support = an absence of opposition. Given that the Senate, the minority leadership in the house, the majority leadership in the house -- all actively support action (probably, in the case of the senate) -- this spin will give the president all the cover he needs.

[ReaganÜberAlles]

Obama is going to get the Senate and he will bomb mere hours later. It’s a done deal.

Kosovo redux.

[headstamp 2]

This is also a vote of no confidence in Boner, who voiced support for it, along with Cantor and the other House GOPe leadership.

[ReaganÜberAlles]

Obama will narrowly win the vote in the Senate and he will go ahead at that point. Same as Kosovo.

[cripplecreek]

I want a vote and I want those votes on record.

[thoughtomator 2.0]

Can’t tell the difference between Boehner and Pelosi anymore.

The ONLY reason they would not vote is to give the President political cover when he decides to go ahead anyway, despite knowing there is zero popular support for it.

GOP has a serious problem in not only being unable to purge the snakes in its midst, but actually putting them in all the top leadership positions. Boehner, Cantor, McCain, Priebus, etc. totally useless to any Republican who wants to see effective opposition to this President.

[mrsmel]

You know, I can almost really believe that Hussein blackmailed Roberts, when I remember the spiteful little disclaimer in his opinion, something to the effect of “you voted for the guy, so now you can live with his actions”. It’s as if he would’ve liked to have voted according to the Constitution, but he couldn’t because of the blackmail, and bitterly threw the blame back onto the voters. He had a point, but he of all people knows that’s not how the SC is supposed to function (”you voted for this unconstitutionalty, now you get it”).

[GraceG]

If they think that the result will be NO!!!

They will simply just not vote at all....

[Hoodat]

In a normal situation, the President of the United States would offer a convincing case before Congress, and then Congress would go along accordingly.

(See: "Day of Imfamy" speech - FDR, "Gulf of Tonkin" speech - LBJ, "Iraqi Freedom" address - GWB)

But this is not a normal situation. In those other instances, we had Presidents who actually possessed the ability to lead. But things are no longer normal. Today, we are left with a President who couldn't lead ants to a picnic. We have a President whose only experience with accountability came as but one of many legislators who vote from time to time on various pieces of legislation - always diluting their accountability among their cohorts, and always shielded from actually having to put that legislation into action. Yet even in that, this man who is now President would not allow himself to bear even the most minimal degree of accountability. Instead of actually voting 'yea' or 'nay' on something that would have no consequence upon him personaly, he chose to vote 'present'.

Congress needs to think long and hard about this one. Because when the missiles are loosed and the shells begin to reach their targets, there will not be anyone at the top leading. As oil climbs to $200/bbl, as Soviet-era anti-ship missiles target our solitary destroyers in the Med, as the war spills out through the southern border of Lebanon, and as Egypt opens the Suez up to Iranian ships under Russian escort resupplying Syria, everyone will look to see this President blaming everyone else for this predicament while en route to the closest golf course or vacation spot.

We are screwed.

[Jane Long]

Do we have a Yay/Nay count on the House Rep, on this? If anyone knows where a count can be found, please let me know.

I'd like to see if which RINO's are for this debacle. Thanks.

[Old Yeller]

Elections are coming up. They don’t want to be tied to a vote.

[Mike Darancette]

As far as I’m concerned a non vote is tacit approval for The One to go ahead.

I don't think the 80% of Americans against any action will see it that way.

[Jim Robinson]

VOTE IT DOWN!! NO AMERICAN BLOOD AND TREASURE FOR THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD!! FUBO!!

[cripplecreek]

Elections are coming up. They don’t want to be tied to a vote.

Which is exactly why they must be. It can only go badly for the democrats. Either democrats throw their president overboard or they support a war no one wants. The GOP would do themselves a favor by voting in line with the wishes of the people.

[Zhang Fei]

I don’t think it would be done to give the GOP any extra leverage in debt-ceiling or budget negotiations — Obama isn’t the grateful type — but simply because the weakness it would demonstrate wouldn’t be good for the country,

That's a nonsensical view. Objecting to wars that are against the American interest isn't weakness; it's common sense.

[ZX12R]

It's racist not to give the pres__ent what he wants.

Also, Odumbass is not just another American president. He is "THE ONE". The one that is smarter than anyone else in government, heck, he is the only one in government that knows anything, and therefore should never be questioned on anything. He is the one that is causing the earth to cool and the oceans to recede. He causes the co2 to disappear from the atmosphere. The one that has made the middle east a region of peace and calm reflection about democracy. He is the one that is causing race relations to advance to new heights.

He is a libtard God among men. Humiliating him would be blasphemy. Don't tempt the Odumbass our God.