The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Maiello's picture

    Congress: What Is Good For?

    By Michael Maiello on Sun, 09/08/2013 - 4:28pm | Politics

    Those of you who know me know that I torture myself with The New York Times Op-Ed page, allowing many of my first post gym hours to be consumed by perplexed rage at the chosen few who have access to the most coveted op-ed space in all the land. 

    This morning, a double whammy of Ross Douthat(*) and Maureen Dowd.  The two made the same argument, in different words which is that the President was unpresidential by consulting Congress about Syria, even though, as Dowd recognizes, the President is a Constitutional scholar who actually believes that he owes Congress a voice in matters such as these.

    Dowd argues that it is about identity.  He is acting like a parliamentarian, not a Commander in Chief.  C in Cs don't ask for permission, apparently, preferring the theory that it is better to explain or to apologize than to be told no.

    Douthat says that Obama is risking the global credibility of the presidency. The world needs to believe that when the president says force might be used that force might be used.  It was foolish, he argues, for Obama to go to Congress without knowing what the outcome of a vote should be.

    We have all heard that argument before.  Nobody, including a President, House Speaker or Senate Majority Leader is ever supposed to call for a vote unless they are absolutely sure it will go the way they want it to.  All floor debates and testimony and all of that is just theater.  It is there to present the appearance of deliberation and to allow vulnerable representatives the chance to go on record with objections before ticking off the voters back home.

    I wonder if, Syria completely to the side, if this is what we want.  I know Congress has not acquitted itself well lately but this all adds up to the argument that the President should only consult Congress when victory is assured.  That seems to imply no real public voice at work in actual policy.

     

    *I called him Charles when first posted. Not sure why. Fixed. Now Emma can keep her comment up.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    Absolutely nuthin'! Say it again!


    by Donal on Sun, 09/08/2013 - 6:01pm

    Do That is a sniveling wet behind the ears right wing wind bag. Dowd is not much better.

    I suppose Congressional impeachment of President Clinton amounted to 'rebuke' and a dire blow to his Presidency and standing in the world.

    And Douthat compares bombing Syria, in ruins after 2 years of war, with past bombing of Iraq and Libya when they were tightly controlled by Saddam and Gaddafi with no bloody ongoing internal conflicts.

    If we don't bomb Syria the GOP will move back to repealing Obamacare. Obama may be a bit humbled and realize he might have to get the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party on board before he enters a new war.

    The world, which was champing at the bit to pin everything bad in Syria on the United States as soon as the very first bomb hit the ground, will turn away in disappointment, ignoring Syria as they have for the last 2 years.


    by NCD on Sun, 09/08/2013 - 9:14pm

    I would not of known what's Douthat's first name was.  I live in the underclass and rely on blogs to tell me about the op page on the NYT.  Most reference him as just Douthat, that is when they are being nice. 

    I like the idea that our President has dumped this in Congresses' lap.  Let them own it. I am sure they are not happy with the response coming from their voters.  This is delaying the food fight over the debt ceiling.  They now have a real problem that they have to work on.  

    All the people I correspond with outside the country still hold our President in high esteem.   


    by trkingmomoe on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 5:06am

    Thanks for mentioning it. I didn't  read Dowd's but Douthat's piece was particularly offensive.


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 2:08pm

    Like the title.  I suggest it be sung to the tune of Edwin Starr's "War: What is it good for?"  The next stanza is apropos.  The irony is apparent. However, it's our fault.  We have to make them accountable.


    by TimDanahey on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 4:41pm

    My dear departed mumsy used to say:

    THANKS FOR NOTHIN!

    hahahaha

    With bipartisan support for no military action (how often does that happen? Maybe because the Prez is a dem?) maybe the Commander in Chief really wishes for a negative vote?

    If he refuses to act following a no-vote, the repubs are going to have one hell of a time claiming he is chicken or pro-Muslim or a peacenik or whatever...

    Maybe President Obama does not wish to get into the Syrian Conflict?

    I do know this:

    Congress and the CIC have way more info than I have!


    by Richard Day on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 5:09pm