House Votes Against Approving Iran "Deal"

by JASmius



Which is not to be confused with the House voting in favor of disapproving the Iran nuclear "deal".

I know, leave it to "GOP Failure Theater" to take something that should be so brain-dead simple - "Iran nuclear 'deal,' yay or nay" - and turn it into a convoluted mess, but here we are.

When last we visited our stalwart heroes on this matter, we discussed why Tea Party foes of the "deal" dithered and dicked around until the last moment to bring up the fact that Corker-Menendez requires all side "deals" to be submitted for congressional review along with the main "deal".  We also talked about how unilaterally deciding that the C-M clock can't start ticking until the White House coughs up those side "deals" - which is entirely within Congress's purview, constitutionally speaking, since that's what the Corker-Menendez law that Barack Obama signed actually says - will just be interpreted by The One as "proof" that Congress has "abstained" from voting at all and he'll roll ahead with implementation, if he hasn't already.

He will, of course, do so regardless of what Congress does.  But if they stuck to the letter of Corker-Menendez, Republicans might at least be able to highlight Obama's trademark lawlessness on an issue on which the public is behind them by an almost 4-1 margin.

So how does a bill voting against approving the "deal" that is not a resolution in favor of disapproving a deal fit into all this?  How the hell should I know?:

If I understand Boehner’s answer, he says the Corker bill requires Congress to hold a vote on whether to disapprove of the Iran deal. Because Obama hasn’t submitted the side deals, the House will not vote on whether to disapprove until O fulfills his obligations. The Corker process is now frozen as far as the House is concerned. However, while they wait for Obama to submit the side deals and start the Corker clock, they’re going to vote on whether they should approve (not disapprove) the deal because they want to force House Democrats to take some sort of formal stance on whether they support this widely unpopular Iran-deal fiasco. If you find this approve/disapprove parsing too cute by half, you’re not alone, but I think it’s just the GOP trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want Democrats to take a tough vote on an unpopular bill but they also want to preserve their claim that Obama hasn’t complied with the Corker process in case they decide to sue him. That’s what today’s House vote on approving the deal is all about.

First of all, it's not a "tough vote" if the bill and the strategy behind it are too convoluted for the low-information voter to understand.  They'll see this vote as "THE vote" and then, a couple of months down the line when Boehner brings up the REAL vote, they'll think, "Didn't the House already vote on that two months ago?  Now they're just piling on poor President Obama.  Those racists!"

Second, since when are Democrats reluctant to support this sellout to the mullahs?  All but two of their Senate counterparts voted for it yesterday.  They know that our Polaroid pop culture will wipe current public opposition and attention from the public's collective consciousness like shaking an Etch-O-Sketch with no media countercampaign to keep it alive, and when the Iranian EMP attack comes, they'll all be able to go into well-appointed hiding while nine out of every ten of us outside those upholstered blast doors perish of exposure, starvation, and the breakdown of civilization.

All of which gets us back to the fact that we're helpless to stop the "deal" and always were.  The only way to have stopped it was to unelect Barack Obama three years ago, and that didn't happen.  Check and mate.

But Senate 'Pubbies, per Guy Benson, could at least make a heroic, if futile, last stand:

Republicans must not simply shrug and give up. They should instead seek to replicate the successful strategy they employed earlier this year in the face of another unconscionable filibuster. That Democrat maneuver ran afoul of clear public opinion, and exposed quite a few filibuster-enablers as rank hypocrites. I’m referring to the hardball game Mitch McConnell played on the anti-human trafficking legislation, which Democrats astoundingly filibustered in an attempt to add unprecedented abortion-funding language to the bill. This move was grossly out-of-step with established precedent, and every excuse [G]Reid and friends trotted out to justify their obstructionism was shown to be utterly dishonest. The GOP majority effectively shut down all Senate business until Democrats broke — which they did. Public opinion was against them, and the optics of filibustering a bill designed to help victims of sex trafficking were horrific. Similarly, impeding a simple vote on the controversial Iran deal is politically risky. Republicans hold a Senate majority, several prominent Democrats are with them, public opinion is heavily on their side, and they occupy the moral high ground. Use it. Shame Democrats for this action. Force them to vote to sustain this filibuster over and over again. Make them explain on television why their chamber has ground to a complete halt, and why they don’t believe Congress should have any say on the Iran deal. Shine a white, hot spotlight on this, day after day. Make Hillary Clinton defend them, too.

And the best part?  If it succeeded, Congress could pass the resolution in favor of disapproving the Iran "deal" and send it to Obama for his high-profile veto.  The deal would still be implemented and Republicans would still have thrown away their Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 ratification power last spring, but at least we'd get a pyrrhic victory of sorts.

Hard to see Mitchie The Kid going for it, though.  He just doesn't do "fights" and "showdowns," after all.

If it's any consolation, Speaker Boehner might sue, though.  That strategy ALWAYS works.