Ron Paul: That Ted Cruz Is Owned By Goldman Sachs, But Sanders Has A Libertarian Streak
On Varney & Company, looney Ron Paul claims Ted Cruz is owned by big banks but Bolshevik Bernie Sanders is, well, …Read More »
I’ve tried to live my life by adhering to a few simple rules: to love God, always tell the truth, be polite to women. These last few years, I’ve added one more:
Anything that Nancy Pelosi is for, I’m against.
You really can’t go wrong following that maxim. However, this might just qualify under the “even the broken clock is correct twice a day” exception:
Yesterday, House Minority Leader Pelosi joined several other House Democrats asking Speaker Boehner to allow a debate and vote on whether Congress should give Obama the authorization to expand airstrikes and military action against ISIS.
And I’m asking myself: for Republicans, what’s the downside here? Why not let the Democrats tear themselves apart before the election?
There will NOT be a vote on this in the Senate, despite Tim Kaine’s rather surprising call for one a few days ago. Harry Reid won’t allow it.
But Boehner could actually let the Democrats draft the resolution, bring it up, then sit back and sell popcorn. Sort of makes it hard for Obama to complain about House Republicans….
Again, what’s the downside?
The GOP will hold the House, and likely gain seats this November. I don’t think any GOP seat would be at risk over this vote.
The hard left majority of the Democrat base is pretty much opposed to ANY form of military intervention against ISIS. They want this debate, this vote. And many House members are eager to demonstrate their ideological purity to their base.
So why not let them have at it?
Let them go on the record opposing their own president’s foreign policy.
As an added bonus, it will force Hillary to speak out, to take a stand. She can’t win either way.
It would seem to be a golden opportunity for the GOP.
What am I missing here?