The intra-party politics are certainly interesting on this one. I think its too early to tell. The WaPo count seems to make the President’s position worse than it is. Some of the comments from those leaning no seem to simply be expressing the gravity of the concerns and a desire to learn more. They may need a Presidential address.
I think the political consequences of defeat of authorization are overblown. And while Republicans will complain its not fair, if Obama take the defeat eloquently, recognizing the importance of our democratic institutions, the press will just eat it up and make it sound like a grand achievement.
I’d like to try a variant of the question. And I’m serious, not the usual snark.
The “facts” and the “strategy” surrounding Syria seem to be changing – incredibly – almost by the hour. Who are these rebels? Is the strategy military or some other factor driven? Or, as it seems, all politically driven?
Against that backdrop, if you were in Congress:
1) Would anyone under any circumstance now vote to move militarily?
2) Would you vote to move under the theory that the credibility of the US, in a sort of Machiavellian way, trumps any humanitarian or collateral damage calculus simply because this won’t be the last conflict in the world and the US’ credibility currency cannot be debauched?
3) Would you vote yes or no out of raw domestic political considerations, basically Dave’s query.
BTW – I’m observing an awful lot of what appears to be “3” thinly cloaked in other reasons, conspicuously “2” or one side of “2,” humanitarian considerations.
Actually, no. We have representative democracy, not direct democracy. If Congresspeople and Senators do nothing but vote their constituents’ wills then we can dispense with this form of government and turn it over to a sort of American Idol call-in.
The reps are meant to be better-informed, more knowledgeable than their constituents who presumably have other things to do with their time.
Now you are talking like me. The reps simply pander to voters, promising candy in return for their vote. You may disagree, but this is especially true of those on the left, who want to expand government to provide benefits or programs for every possible perceived need or grievance. And we are going broke because of it.
Should reps vote, or people like me express their conscience, knowing as an empirical reality that government stinks at solving problems, and oh-by-the-way is bankrupting us while not really making material headway in solving all they promise to solve……………….or be called racists, uncaring, throw grandma in the snow and starve children no-cares?
You don’t think the Right panders to their constituents on things like guns, abortion, prayer in schools, toadying Netanyahu, denying the existence of science, defense spending, racist b.s. and groveling to Big Finance? Please.
As for government being empirically incompetent? That’s one of those facile and false truisms your side uses to pander to you. The NSA — the government at work – has just been outed for managing to break encryption programs created by private industry. Medicare, the IRS, the Army, they all work pretty damned well. Better than say, Radio Shack, JC Penney, or any number of banks that had to be expensively rescued by the US Government.
The intra-party politics are certainly interesting on this one. I think its too early to tell. The WaPo count seems to make the President’s position worse than it is. Some of the comments from those leaning no seem to simply be expressing the gravity of the concerns and a desire to learn more. They may need a Presidential address.
I think the political consequences of defeat of authorization are overblown. And while Republicans will complain its not fair, if Obama take the defeat eloquently, recognizing the importance of our democratic institutions, the press will just eat it up and make it sound like a grand achievement.
No, they should do their jobs and listen to their constituents for a change.
Democrats should begin distancing themselves from a President who shows signs of becoming an anchor around their necks.
I’d like to try a variant of the question. And I’m serious, not the usual snark.
The “facts” and the “strategy” surrounding Syria seem to be changing – incredibly – almost by the hour. Who are these rebels? Is the strategy military or some other factor driven? Or, as it seems, all politically driven?
Against that backdrop, if you were in Congress:
1) Would anyone under any circumstance now vote to move militarily?
2) Would you vote to move under the theory that the credibility of the US, in a sort of Machiavellian way, trumps any humanitarian or collateral damage calculus simply because this won’t be the last conflict in the world and the US’ credibility currency cannot be debauched?
3) Would you vote yes or no out of raw domestic political considerations, basically Dave’s query.
BTW – I’m observing an awful lot of what appears to be “3” thinly cloaked in other reasons, conspicuously “2” or one side of “2,” humanitarian considerations.
They should vote their consciences. I’m sure at least a dozen will.
Optimist.
“They should vote their consciences.”
Should they vote their constituent’s will?
Red:
Actually, no. We have representative democracy, not direct democracy. If Congresspeople and Senators do nothing but vote their constituents’ wills then we can dispense with this form of government and turn it over to a sort of American Idol call-in.
The reps are meant to be better-informed, more knowledgeable than their constituents who presumably have other things to do with their time.
Michael
Now you are talking like me. The reps simply pander to voters, promising candy in return for their vote. You may disagree, but this is especially true of those on the left, who want to expand government to provide benefits or programs for every possible perceived need or grievance. And we are going broke because of it.
Should reps vote, or people like me express their conscience, knowing as an empirical reality that government stinks at solving problems, and oh-by-the-way is bankrupting us while not really making material headway in solving all they promise to solve……………….or be called racists, uncaring, throw grandma in the snow and starve children no-cares?
Please pick a point of view on governance.
You don’t think the Right panders to their constituents on things like guns, abortion, prayer in schools, toadying Netanyahu, denying the existence of science, defense spending, racist b.s. and groveling to Big Finance? Please.
As for government being empirically incompetent? That’s one of those facile and false truisms your side uses to pander to you. The NSA — the government at work – has just been outed for managing to break encryption programs created by private industry. Medicare, the IRS, the Army, they all work pretty damned well. Better than say, Radio Shack, JC Penney, or any number of banks that had to be expensively rescued by the US Government.