Obama’s Stunning Political Victory Brings Unknown Cost
When it comes to the balance of power, Obama set a dangerous precedent.
Let’s put yesterday’s action in the Senate into perspective: Barack Obama circumvented the majority of senators to enact an agreement with a state sponsor of terrorism, a de facto treaty that could very well alter the course of Middle East politics. Roughly 20% of Americans support his deal. The political shrewdness needed to pull it off was breathtaking. All he needed was for Democrats to fall in lock step with his agenda to jam the legislative process. In the vote Thursday, 42 Democrats filibustered against even bringing the Iran deal up for vote. The Senate came two votes shy of breaking the filibuster to actually consider voting down the Iran deal, per the law authored by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) earlier in the year. Of course, that deal only amounts to putting the Democrats on record that they endorsed Obama’s actions, as he would have gotten the deal with or without congressional input. Now, Iran gets its sanctions relief and, if it keeps its word, we are assured no Iranian nuclear bomb for at least a few years. But at what cost? Obama once again alienated the Republican Party. He used the speed afforded to the executive to his full advantage and worked around the Senate. When it comes to the balance of power, Obama set a dangerous precedent, as The Wall Street Journal opines.
Meanwhile, the House is trying to disrupt Obama’s deal in its own way. Along party lines, it voted through a resolution that alleged the Obama administration didn’t provide all the documents of the Iran deal to Congress. But with the number of Democrats who think Obama treated the lawmaking body fairly (not to mention constitutionally) in wrangling this deal, the resolution means little.
Speaking of the nuclear deal, Fox News’ Brit Hume offered this blistering assessment: “If it were [a triumph for Obama], then why would Harry Reid and Senate Democrats be filibustering to block a Senate vote? The answer is simple: they don’t want Mr. Obama to suffer the indignity of having to salvage the agreement by vetoing a resolution disapproving it. Consider this: Back in May, the Senate voted 98-1 to have a debate and vote on any Iran nuclear deal. Every single Democrat present voted ‘aye.’ Now they’re trying to prevent the very vote they voted to hold. … So the deal will limp across the finish line, unpopular, opposed by a distinct majority in Congress, and, because it’s not a treaty, subject to cancellation by any future president. Some victory.”
Start a conversation using these share links: