1
1
0
Senator Kaine:
“The British Parliament, the French National Assembly, the German Bundesrat and even the Duma in Russia, for God’s sake, are having a debate and having a vote,” the Democratic senator from Virginia said in an extended interview.
“The spotlight is getting bigger and bigger on congressional inaction and indifference.”
A week ago Sunday, President Obama used his Oval Office address to call on the legislative branch to “vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists.” While some members signaled support, the latest push is basically dead on arrival.
Sitting on a yellow couch in his office, the former governor ticked off events that should have prompted lawmakers to, well, get off their couches: the beheadings of American hostages, the downing of a Russian airliner over Egypt, the coordinated attacks in Paris that killed a U.S. student and now the massacre in San Bernardino.
Instead, he fumed, “It’s been crickets over here. And, in the House, even more so.”
This has been Kaine’s crusade for 18 months now. Starting with a June 2014 op-ed in The Post—two months before Obama started bombing ISIS targets in Iraq—he’s pressed for Congress to assert its Constitutional prerogative and define the scope of the mission. This June, Kaine and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) proposed language that would authorize the use of force for three years with certain limitations. They have not even gotten a hearing in committee.
Still burned by the messiness of the 2013 deliberations about intervening in Syria, congressional leaders are eager to avoid a vote that could haunt members facing tough reelection campaigns. They say a debate is moot because the far-reaching war authorization that passed Congress soon after the Sept. 11 attacks gives Obama the justification he needs to let them off the hook. Hawks on the right worry about tying the president’s hands with limitations, such as restricting the number of ground troops. Doves on the left worry about giving a blank check for another open-ended conflict in the Middle East.
“They want to criticize the president but if they can avoid voting to authorize or stop him … then they feel they can be completely scot-free and they’re not going to be held accountable,” said Kaine." -WashPo
Well, just another GOP attack on the country itself.
Nothing to see, move along.
Walt
“The British Parliament, the French National Assembly, the German Bundesrat and even the Duma in Russia, for God’s sake, are having a debate and having a vote,” the Democratic senator from Virginia said in an extended interview.
“The spotlight is getting bigger and bigger on congressional inaction and indifference.”
A week ago Sunday, President Obama used his Oval Office address to call on the legislative branch to “vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists.” While some members signaled support, the latest push is basically dead on arrival.
Sitting on a yellow couch in his office, the former governor ticked off events that should have prompted lawmakers to, well, get off their couches: the beheadings of American hostages, the downing of a Russian airliner over Egypt, the coordinated attacks in Paris that killed a U.S. student and now the massacre in San Bernardino.
Instead, he fumed, “It’s been crickets over here. And, in the House, even more so.”
This has been Kaine’s crusade for 18 months now. Starting with a June 2014 op-ed in The Post—two months before Obama started bombing ISIS targets in Iraq—he’s pressed for Congress to assert its Constitutional prerogative and define the scope of the mission. This June, Kaine and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) proposed language that would authorize the use of force for three years with certain limitations. They have not even gotten a hearing in committee.
Still burned by the messiness of the 2013 deliberations about intervening in Syria, congressional leaders are eager to avoid a vote that could haunt members facing tough reelection campaigns. They say a debate is moot because the far-reaching war authorization that passed Congress soon after the Sept. 11 attacks gives Obama the justification he needs to let them off the hook. Hawks on the right worry about tying the president’s hands with limitations, such as restricting the number of ground troops. Doves on the left worry about giving a blank check for another open-ended conflict in the Middle East.
“They want to criticize the president but if they can avoid voting to authorize or stop him … then they feel they can be completely scot-free and they’re not going to be held accountable,” said Kaine." -WashPo
Well, just another GOP attack on the country itself.
Nothing to see, move along.
Walt
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 5
1
1
0
The job description for Congresspeople has changed from representing their constituents, to pacifying and mollifying the great majority of the American populace in between election cycles.
When you, as a Congressperson base your lawmaking powers on how it will benefit or harm your chances to get re-elected, you need to pack it in and go home. But Congress has become a career that affords one a lifetime of full pay and benefits for only four (4) years of service. I wish we, the US Military could get THAT deal!
When you, as a Congressperson base your lawmaking powers on how it will benefit or harm your chances to get re-elected, you need to pack it in and go home. But Congress has become a career that affords one a lifetime of full pay and benefits for only four (4) years of service. I wish we, the US Military could get THAT deal!
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
The Framers thought the congresscritters would change out rapidly, as much as a 1/3 every term. But the citizens have to take a healthy role in getting rid of them.
Walt
Walt
(1)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
Capt Walter Miller - Sir:
I totally agree. Back when I was a Political Science student in college, I think the statistic was that 86% of incumbents won re-election. Most Americans voted for the guy who was in office, provided he didn't end up on the front page of the local newspaper or as the lead story on national TV. Not many Americans seem to research the candidates, find out where they came from, what their opinions on issues are, how they've voted, and how successful they've been. It's all about who has scored the latest cheap-shot on the other guy. Many also voted straight party, regardless of issue or performance. This says a lot about our national character, or lack thereof. We definitely get the government we deserve.
I totally agree. Back when I was a Political Science student in college, I think the statistic was that 86% of incumbents won re-election. Most Americans voted for the guy who was in office, provided he didn't end up on the front page of the local newspaper or as the lead story on national TV. Not many Americans seem to research the candidates, find out where they came from, what their opinions on issues are, how they've voted, and how successful they've been. It's all about who has scored the latest cheap-shot on the other guy. Many also voted straight party, regardless of issue or performance. This says a lot about our national character, or lack thereof. We definitely get the government we deserve.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Yeah the rule of thumb is to not get caught with a live boy or a dead girl in your bed and you are pretty much inpervious to being defeated.
Walt
Walt
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I'm unclear on why everything with you is the fault of the GOP.
The entire political system is a reflection of the people they serve. Most of it, democrat or republican, is corrupt. Most of them are doing what the people they represent want, whether you like it or not. That's why they exist.
I feel like I shouldn't have to lecture on the purpose of the legislative branch, but it does not exist to be a lapdog of the executive as you seem to believe (but only of course when the exec is someone you like).
The entire political system is a reflection of the people they serve. Most of it, democrat or republican, is corrupt. Most of them are doing what the people they represent want, whether you like it or not. That's why they exist.
I feel like I shouldn't have to lecture on the purpose of the legislative branch, but it does not exist to be a lapdog of the executive as you seem to believe (but only of course when the exec is someone you like).
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Well, count on your fingers how many of our political parties have shut down the federal government.
Walt
Walt
(0)
(0)
SCPO Joshua I
Capt Walter Miller - The democrats have done it by themselves five times from 1977-199, while they had control of the presidency, the house, and the senate.
Each of the other thirteen government shutdowns were done by both republicans and democrats working together to shirk their Constitutional responsibility to enact a budget. You realize that a government shutdown isn't a one-party deal when both parties control different parts of the government, right? It's a failure to compromise on both parties. Saying the republicans did it is simply false.
Pro-tip, don't get your talking points from leftist facebook memes, fact check your data.
Each of the other thirteen government shutdowns were done by both republicans and democrats working together to shirk their Constitutional responsibility to enact a budget. You realize that a government shutdown isn't a one-party deal when both parties control different parts of the government, right? It's a failure to compromise on both parties. Saying the republicans did it is simply false.
Pro-tip, don't get your talking points from leftist facebook memes, fact check your data.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Capt Walter Miller
PO3 (Join to see) - Don't under any circumstance vote for a GOP candidate.
Bad as the Dems are, they haven't voted to shut down the government -- or gut Military retirement.
Walt
Bad as the Dems are, they haven't voted to shut down the government -- or gut Military retirement.
Walt
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google