Has the House GOP leadership ever been as detached from the caucus as it is on Syria? And BTW, why wouldn't the House want to vote on the resolution.

Immediately after a conversation with Obama, Speaker Boehner rushed to the microphones to announce that he supported the president’s idea of bombing Syria. Majority Leader Cantor soon followed with his own endorsement. (James Lankford, 4th in the leadership, is opposed)

With upwards of 90% of House Republicans opposed to the idea, I can’t recall a comparable instance of the leadership ever being so out of step with the members.

I’ve wondered why they just didn’t shut up and wait, hold the hearings, attend the briefings, and THEN comment. Will they ever learn?

We face major debates this fall: among them immigration, the budget, the debt ceiling, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that the present House GOP leadership reflects the will of the voters that put them in charge.

Boehner’s future has been the subject of considerable speculation these past few days. I personally wonder if he could survive a vote of confidence within his conference.

The ultimate irony here would be if Assad survives, but Obama succeeds in decapitating Boehner. Come to think, that’s an outcome that’s seems pretty desirable.

One last thought. There’s been some discussion that given the overwhelming unpopularity of the resolution, the House won’t even bother to vote on it.


Why let Obama off the hook? He’s been smearing the GOP at every opportunity for the last 6 years. Let him reap the mess of his own making. And why let House Democrats escape having to stake a stand. Let them be forced to put party loyalty, the fear of seeming “racist” ( to quote Ed Asner) ahead of duty to their country.