When President Obama requested Congressional authorization for military intervention in Syria, he not only “scored one for the Constitution,” he also—not coincidentally—scored one for his party.
First of all, he provided an opportunity for the GOP to lay bare the division within their ranks: on this dimension, there are effectively “I hate Obama, so I vote `no'” and “We need to be an effective superpower and project our rightly garnered might wherever the executive sees fit” camps.
Second, and more provocatively, he also drummed up a prologue to the forthcoming budget fight(s) between him and Congress. In short, the GOP can either say “no” to intervention in Syria (and hence have the blood of whatever comes from that tragic crisis at least putatively on its collective hands), or the GOP can authorize something that it then must try—if it plays hardball with budgetary/debt ceiling recalcitrance—to explain why it won’t fund. I have a hard time seeing either one being palatable to the GOP, much less in tandem.
The sad part of this, of course, is that it centers on the lives and dreams of people far away, who get no vote in how it could ever be settled. Nonetheless, these are the times we live in: work for what you think is right, and pray that the chips fall on the side you support.
With that, I leave you with this.