GOP’s massive new lie: The truth about Obama’s second term

[DonViejo]

It's factually and morally wrong to say his agenda is doomed if war vote loses. Here's why they're doing it

BY BRIAN BEUTLER

When President Obama decided to seek authorization to bomb Syria, he didn’t just throw the fate of his plans into the hands of 535 unpredictable members of Congress. He also made himself vulnerable to overblown suggestions that his entire second term is on the line.

Political reporters have a weakness for narratives, and the narrative of a weakened president is irresistible. Moreover, members of Congress will feed that narrative. Even Democrats. If you’re Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, a great way to pad your vote count is to plead to your caucus that if the resolution fails, Obama will become a lame duck a year earlier than he ought to. This pitch is both morally and factually incorrect.

Let’s assume that absent a divisive, losing debate over striking Syria, Obama would have real potential to accomplish meaningful things before the end of his presidency. An immigration bill, say. It would be perverse for members to accede to acts of war they’d otherwise oppose to salvage an unrelated issue like immigration reform. The moral argument here is the same one that made the “death panel” charge so offensive — making the country’s health systems affordable is a praiseworthy goal, but that doesn’t make killing old people OK.

But the good news for Democratic whips on Capitol Hill is that they don’t need to engage in this kind of manipulation. If the Syria vote goes down, the gloom and doom tales of Obama’s losing gamble will be false.

full article
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/09/syria_wont_derail_obamas_second_term_house_republicans_will/

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. I don't quite understand why this would be "the end" of Barack Obama's Presidency

if he doesn't win Congressional support for military strikes on Syria. Is it THAT big of an issue? Really? He certainly doesn't have control over 535 members of Congress anymore than any other President does. Besides, he is doing what a lot of people said that they wanted him to do: consult Congress. If Congress refuses to endorse strikes, then so be it. The people have spoken. Then we move on to something else.

This all may be a moot point anyway as there may be signs of a possible solution that doesn't entail military strikes at all, which, if true, should make everybody happy.