Boehner Stands With Obama On Syria, But Not Too Close

The House speaker won’t whip the GOP caucus, and isn’t worried about the “Hastert Rule.”

Tea Leaves: Democrats question whether Boehner will rein in tea partiers.
National Journal
Patrick Reis
Sept. 3, 2013, 11:16 a.m.

John Boehner has de­cided: He’ll vote to ap­prove Pres­id­ent Obama’s re­quest for au­thor­ity to launch a mil­it­ary strike against Syr­ia, but that’s about all the help he’s pre­pared to provide.

In­stead, the House speak­er is put­ting the onus on Obama, say­ing the pres­id­ent alone is re­spons­ible for win­ning the votes he needs to au­thor­ize mil­it­ary ac­tion.

“It is the pres­id­ent’s re­spons­ib­il­ity to make his case to the Amer­ic­an people and their elec­ted rep­res­ent­at­ives,” Mi­chael Steel, a spokes­man for Boehner, said Tues­day. “Every­one un­der­stands that it is an up­hill battle to pass a res­ol­u­tion, and the speak­er ex­pects the White House to provide an­swers to mem­bers’ ques­tions and take the lead on any whip­ping ef­fort.”

And while Boehner has asked his Re­pub­lic­an caucus to sup­port mil­it­ary ac­tion, he’s not mak­ing any de­mands, in­stead call­ing the de­cision a “con­science vote” for each mem­ber.

If Boehner can con­vince voters it’s Obama’s job — and not his — to win Re­pub­lic­ans to sup­port mil­it­ary ac­tion, he will have par­tially sidestepped a chal­lenge that has com­plic­ated much of his ten­ure as speak­er: cor­ralling a caucus that ranges from Re­pub­lic­an vet­er­ans to a rowdy crew of tea-party new­comers.

But re­gard­less of what his of­fice says about a Syr­ia de­cision, some of the re­spons­ib­il­ity for the out­come will land at Boehner’s feet, be­cause it’s his de­cision when to put the res­ol­u­tion to a vote. And, when it comes to Syr­ia, Boehner has no safe op­tions.

If he pushes on-the-fence Re­pub­lic­ans to sup­port Obama’s po­s­i­tion, he’ll face ac­cus­a­tions of selling out his party’s hard-liners in or­der to side with the pres­id­ent. But if he fol­lows through on his ini­tial re­fus­al to rally sup­port, Boehner risks ap­pear­ing that he has lost con­trol of his caucus, not to men­tion jeop­ard­iz­ing au­thor­iz­a­tion for a mil­it­ary strike that — by vir­tue of vot­ing “yes” — he ex­pli­citly sup­ports.

Boehner’s vote alone is no guar­an­tee of Re­pub­lic­an sup­port, as the speak­er has fallen vic­tim to caucus re­volts be­fore. Boehner was left red-faced in June when a ver­sion of the farm bill failed after 62 Re­pub­lic­ans voted against it.

And mem­bers of his caucus are already speak­ing out against Obama’s re­quest. Flor­ida’s Ted Yoho on Tues­day said more evid­ence is needed to jus­ti­fy a strike, and Michigan’s Justin Amash — a per­petu­al thorn in Boehner’s side — has spent the day tweet­ing about how his con­stitu­ents over­whelm­ing op­pose U.S. mil­it­ary en­gage­ment in Syr­ia.

If a strike has sup­port from a ma­jor­ity of the House but is op­posed by a ma­jor­ity of Re­pub­lic­ans, Boehner will have to de­cide wheth­er to abide by the so-called Hastert Rule — an in­form­al policy that calls on the speak­er to only al­low floor votes on bills that are sup­por­ted by the ma­jor­ity of his caucus.

But a seni­or House lead­er­ship aide said he “couldn’t ima­gine” the Hastert Rule be­com­ing an is­sue, as both Re­pub­lic­an sup­port­ers and op­pon­ents of mil­it­ary ac­tion have de­man­ded a chance to vote on it.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4415) }}

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
6 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×