« | »

Dems Afraid Of ‘Wounding Obama’ On Syria Vote

From some very concerned folks at The Hill:

Fears of wounding Obama weigh heavily on Democrats ahead of vote

By Mike Lillis and Erik Wasson | September 07, 2013

The prospect of wounding President Obama is weighing heavily on Democratic lawmakers as they decide their votes on Syria. Obama needs all the political capital he can muster heading into bruising battles with the GOP over fiscal spending and the debt ceiling.

So we have to go to war to keep Obama from ‘getting hurt’? To protect his political capital? We thought Obama told us this isn’t about him? His credibility isn’t on the line.

Democrats want Obama to use his popularity to reverse automatic spending cuts already in effect and pay for new economic stimulus measures through higher taxes on the wealthy and on multinational companies.

Gee, what a switch for them. But we have to go to war so we can have another stimulus?

But if the request for authorization for Syria military strikes is rebuffed, some fear it could limit Obama’s power in those high-stakes fights.

That has left Democrats with an agonizing decision: vote "no" on Syria and possibly encourage more chemical attacks while weakening their president, or vote "yes" and risk another war in the Middle East…

Since we know their priorities, we know they will vote ‘yes.’

Publicly, senior party members are seeking to put a firewall between a failed Syria vote — one that Democrats might have a hand in — and fiscal matters…

"Firewall" = finding a way to blame the Republicans.

Still other Democrats, meanwhile, are arguing that the ripple effects of a Syria vote are simply too complicated to game out in advance. Some said the GOP has shown little indication it will advance Obama’s agenda even after his reelection, so a Syria failure would do little damage.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas)… said using Syria to score political points would be “frolicking and frivolity” by the Tea Party.

Allah knows, no Democrat would ever use a military crisis to try to advance their agenda.

Yet others see a more serious threat to the Democrats’ legislative agenda if the Syria vote fails…

In fact, we already had this thinking confirmed last week, via NewsBusters:

Dem Congresswoman: Only Reason I’d Vote for Syria Attack Is Loyalty to Obama

By Noel Sheppard | September 3, 2013

Democratic Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton said Tuesday that at the current time, the only reason she would vote in favor of an attack on Syria was out of loyalty to Barack Obama.

Appearing on radio’s Bill Press Show, the non-voting delegate from the District of Columbia also said if the President actually gets the votes he needs, "it’ll be because of loyalty of Democrats. They just don’t want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national stage" …

From the transcript:

Del. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON (D-DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA): I happen to believe there has to be a response. I do, I do believe in crimes against humanity need to be addressed, and I am, I can’t believe that the only way to address it is a slight bombing which will somehow punish somebody or deter somebody. I don’t know if there’s some way other than a military way to address this.

BILL PRESS, HOST: … Let me just ask you one final question before we let you go. If, as you said, if the vote were held today, the president would probably not win it. If he doesn’t win it, a week from now, do you think the president will be justified in taking action on his own, you know, unilaterally with Congress having voted against it?

HOLMES NORTON: No, oh boy, no. I think it’ll be like the red line trap. He said if the red line you cross it. I think once you say, "I’m going to Congress," you can’t say, “Okay, I’m going to do it anyway.”

PRESS: Yeah, yeah, I don’t…

HOLMES NORTON: So I think he’ll be in real trouble if he then does it anyway. No president has done that.

PRESS: It’s not an easy decision for any of you, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.

HOLMES NORTON: Oh, and I’d like to say, Bill, that if he gets saved at all, I think it’ll be because, it’ll be because of loyalty of Democrats. They just don’t want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national stage.

PRESS: Yeah, right.

HOLMES NORTON: At the, at the moment, that’s the only reason I would vote for it if I could vote on it.

How impressive. Loyalty trumps all.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, September 9th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

8 Responses to “Dems Afraid Of ‘Wounding Obama’ On Syria Vote”

  1. Mithrandir says:

    This is just another SCORE KEEPING exercise for the democrats. Obama has his carrot and stick incentives ready. These votes will be rewarded and punished accordingly, and they all know how the game is played. No doubt, the democrats will authorize the use of force, knowing the Republicans will most likely refuse it, giving them voting cover, and rewards in the future.

    Santa Clause and his goodie bag is out and ready, and if you want a future in democrat politics, you better vote for whatever he wants.

    I just hope the Republican know better than to authorize force in a fight we have no interest in.
    This is a fight between the Cleveland Browns, and the Jacksonville Jaguars, no one cares, don’t bother with it.

    • Petronius says:

      “Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother.” – Nerobama to Rep. Peter DeFazio (Bolshevik, OR), when DeFazio voted against the regime’s stimulus spending bill.

  2. captstubby says:

    “weigh heavily on Democrats.”
    can you hear it,
    the sound of the worlds smallest violin .

  3. Petronius says:

    “to reverse automatic spending cuts already in effect and pay for new economic stimulus measures….”

    But what about new military spending for all those bombs and cruise missiles they’re going to drop on Syria? Isn’t that stimulus enough?

    (A rhetorical question. In Liberal parlance, military spending is never considered to be an economic stimulus, and automatic cuts in military spending are never considered to be a sequestration.)

  4. captstubby says:

    To protect his political capital?

    how many times have we seen this?


    “Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother.”

  5. Right of the People says:


    Can anybody tell me WTF a slight bombing is? That sounds to me like being a “little” pregnant. I’m willing to bet the Mooselimbs who get bombed all the way to Allah aren’t going to think that it’s a slight bombing.

    • Petronius says:

      Yes, ROP. It’s an itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny, fluffy-wuffy, pin-prick, pin-point bombing that is guaranteed to cause no civilian casualties whatsoever, including zero property damage to mosques, hospitals, schools, madrasas, playgrounds, homes, livestock, water supplies, Muslim holy shrines, embassies, and manufacturing or storage sites for chemical weapons.

      It is designed to be a punishment that is as painless as possible. It’s sort of like when the dermatologist takes a biopsy of a little mole on your behind, but with extra anesthetic.

      Or like raising taxes on the rich.

      It’s for your own good and doesn’t hurt a bit.

  6. captstubby says:

    if the threat of a “surgical” strike doesn’t scare them enough,

    they should be grateful The One didn’t threaten to send over Barbra Walters, Jesse Jackson,or a plane full of Hollywood Elites.

    probable something in the Geneva Convention.

    and as for a “a slight bombing ”

    “YES WE CAN.”

« Front Page | To Top
« | »