First Syria Vote May Be Today
Senate Foreign Relations Cmte slated to vote today. Politico: "A new use-of-force resolution for Syria sets a 60-day deadline, with one 30-day extension possible, for President Barack Obama to launch military strikes against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad — and it will also bar the involvement of U.S. ground forces in Syria. The revised resolution was crafted by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, following several days of negotiations. The panel is set to vote Wednesday on the proposal."
House resolutions not in sync. Politico: "[Rep. Devin Nunes'] proposal could be attractive to House Republicans, many of whom are solidly against attacking Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria. A draft copy of his bill, provided to POLITICO, requires Obama to come to Congress within 60 days to provide information in nine areas to justify the use of force ... [Democrats Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly and Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen have a] resolution [which] prohibits ground forces in Syria, limits attacks to 60 days and prohibits Obama from attacking again, unless Obama says that Assad’s regime uses chemical weapons again. The resolution also says Obama can only attack Syria with the goal of preventing use of chemical weapons, not to prevent the stockpiling of them."
Speaker Boehner supports Syria strike, but won't whip the vote. National Journal: "...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 ... 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 ... 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."
Same for Pelosi and the Dems. The Hill: "The California Democrat emphasized Tuesday that she and other Democratic leaders would not twist arms with a formal whip of a Syria vote. But in a press conference at the White House, and then in a letter sent to all her troops, Pelosi is laying out a very public case for intervention with an unequivocal humanitarian message aimed to rally wary Democrats behind their president."
McConnell quiet. W. Post: "For starters, McConnell is facing reelection in 2014 and a primary challenger who has said that the United States should not get involved in Syria. If he argues the opposite view, McConnell would immediately fuel debate and elevate the issue in the campaign. What’s more, fellow Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has come out in full force against military intervention. If McConnell had come out of the meeting Tuesday as supportive of Obama’s plan, he would instantly be triggering a story about discord over Syria within the Kentucky GOP delegation. And he would risk alienating Paul’s supporters."
"On Syria, Republicans actually have to govern" argues W. Post's Harold Meyerson: "If the American right increasingly seems to occupy an alternative planet, that’s largely because its media outlets — we can throw Fox News into the mix — dwell on stories so exquisitely calibrated to excite the right that they may not be stories at all. The New Black Panther Party? The Epidemic of Voter Fraud? The calculated perfidy of Benghazi? ... By throwing the Syrian conundrum to Congress, Obama has at least confronted Republicans with a real-world choice ... the coming collision of libertarian fantasies with reality will be instructive. Can a congressman vote to defund the government and approve a military action in the same month?"
Obama to seek international support at G-20. W. Post: "'He’s going over there, he wants their support on Syria, but for them it’s like, "Until your Congress says yes,"' said Mark Katz, a Russia analyst at George Mason University. 'For risk-averse politicians, why go out on a limb? They don’t want to state their support for the use of force against Syria and then have Obama not do it.'"
Former WH Aide Breaks Ranks On Summers
Former WH aide tries to stop Summers. HuffPost quotes: "He's smart on many topics; I don't think monetary policy or regulatory policy is the area where he's actually smart or particularly good. I think the possibility of severe dysfunction at the Fed is the most worrisome part of all of this. Exactly the skills you need in the modern world to get things through in the Open Market Committee -- you need to win people over behind a mixture of the strength of your arguments and your ability to persuade -- and that is not where Larry is going to be good."
Summers might not break from the bad economic past, says Krugman: " A Yellen appointment would clearly have represented something new at the Fed ... because she has been a strong and consistent monetary dove, and took that position before it was fashionable. Summers, on the other hand, while he often expresses unconventional views when not in office, has a strong tendency to revert to conventionality when in office ... can you imagine a stronger signal that the same old regime is staying in place than choosing a Robert Rubin protege at this late date? ... my advice to Summers if he is the guy: don’t spend your first few months being mild-mannered and winning friends. What this economy needs is a monetary shock — and if you don’t do it right away, you probably won’t get a second chance."
Corporate American losing control of the Republicans, argues NYT's Eduardo Porter: "From overhauling immigration laws to increasing spending on the nation’s aging infrastructure, big business leaders have seemed relatively powerless lately ... corporations’ reluctance to open their checkbooks suggests an intriguing alternative explanation for the rise of Republicans who are willing to defy their will: companies may have spent too little ... Political action committees run by businesses are known for spreading money on both sides of the partisan divide. They give to incumbents. They choose winners. They show little partisan loyalty."
