House and Senate leadership have a similar reaction when it comes to the increasingly serious threat from ISIL in the Middle East: We’re not getting involved.

Top House Republican and Senate Democratic leadership have next to no interest in passing any sort of legislation to deal with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) threat in Iraq and Syria, according to aides. The top lawmakers believe President Barack Obama has enough authority as commander in chief to launch strikes without congressional action — at least for a short period of time.

And neither Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) nor Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) think Congress has any role – unless Obama asks them directly to take a proposal up.

Both Reid and Boehner are navigating tricky political waters when it comes to dealing with this issue. Reid is trying to keep his majority in the Senate, and Boehner has a House Republican Conference that’s deeply split between defense friendly hawks and war weary libertarians. Several House Republicans say there has been lots of chatter about passing something, but there’s not one leading proposal. With time short — the House is only slated to be in for two weeks before adjourning for the midterm elections — that makes it unlikely anything will reach the floor in time for a vote.

“Reid and Boehner are in the same position here,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide. “They both don’t want to vote on this.”

The rare political alignment — which was revealed during background interviews with top House and Senate sources — comes the day before Boehner, Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) trek down Pennsylvania Avenue to meet Obama to discuss ISIL. Obama is scheduled to address the nation Wednesday. Top intelligence officials will brief the Senate on Wednesday and House on Thursday. CIA Director John Brennan briefed the House Intelligence Committee Monday evening.

The politics of doing nothing works for both parties, at least for the moment. Having no responsibility for the outcome is fortuitous – especially in war. Hawkish Republicans like Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) have called for much stronger military action against ISIL, and criticized Obama for not being more aggressive, even though many of their GOP colleagues have not endorsed any such position.

When Obama convenes Tuesday’s Oval Office meeting, Boehner will be looking to press him on his strategy for dealing with the threat. Republican leaders are sharply critical of how the president has dealt with ISIS so far.

“I think what we need to hear is a real strategy – an admission by the president that his feckless policies haven’t worked up to now, and he knows he needs to do something different and better,” one GOP leadership aide said Monday.

But House Republicans have some political problems of their own. Senior GOP aides say lawmakers reported they heard about ISIS frequently in their districts. Many aides are watching the polling, and are keenly aware where public opinion is. A CNN/ORC poll released Monday showed that 76 percent want additional airstrikes against ISIS, and 61 percent oppose sending U.S. soldiers to engage in a ground war with terrorist forces.

It would also mean expanding the military campaign against ISIL to Syria, and potentially helping prop up the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who Obama has called on to leave office. Just a year ago, Obama initially said he was going to Congress seeking authorization for U.S. intervention in the Syrian civil war, and then backed away from that vote after it became clear that even Democrats wouldn’t support such a measure, a hugely embarrassing reversal for the president.

There’s still a chance Congress will have to pass something to facilitate an anti-SIL military campaign by U.S. forces. Obama could ask for additional money to combat the threat, and that could end up in a must-pass government-funding bill set to hit the House floor this week.

The hesitance from congressional leaders on moving forward on an ISIL resolution isn’t matched by their own backbenchers. A number of Hill Democrats – including influential voices on foreign-policy issues – have openly called on Obama to seek a resolution authorizing military action against ISIL. The White House has shown no inclination to do so up until now.

These Democrats include Sens. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Bill Nelson of Florida and Chris Murphy of Connecticut. Reed could end up as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the next Congress if Democrats hold onto their majority, giving him added clout on this issue. Reed has suggested a “a long-term, intense operation” against ISIL could require congressional approval.

Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has also called for congressional action, and believes a majority of his Democrat colleagues support his position.

“I think that the president has an initial period under the War Powers Act to do what he needs to do,” Engel said Monday night. “If this is a sustained battle, as it will be, he has to come to the Congress for an authorization.”

But politics could halt any floor action, he said.

“Let’s face it — Election Day is a couple months away, and these are tough votes. But you know what? We are paid to make tough decisions. That’s what we’re here for. I am ready to take the vote before Election Day, after Election Day, whatever.”

Engel and Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.), chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, have invited Secretary of State John Kerry to testify before their panel next week.

For his part, Royce said he wants to hear from Obama on Wednesday before deciding whether to move forward with a vote.

Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.), top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, believes Obama will ultimately need congressional approval for any ISIL-related action, but is not looking to force the White House’s hand at this point.

Smith also acknowledges that it is rough vote politically for many lawmakers.

“It’s too soon to say. Congress just got back into session,” Smith declared about the need for Congress to weigh in on ISIL. “I think in an ideal world, the House and the Senate come together on an AUMF [authorization for the use of military force] for what’s going on in Syria and Iraq. As I have pointed out, that will be difficult to achieve for a wide variety of reasons.”

If the White House does ever decide to ask Congress for an authorization for its ISIL campaign, some Senate Democrats would like to see the United Nation’s Security Council back such a move first, a potentially tough hurdle for Obama to overcome.

These Democrats also want to see a broad-based coalition of U.S. allies in Europe and the Middle East signing onto the effort before they would approve any resolution. Kerry is heading to Jordan and Saudi Arabia to round up support for an ISIL-focused military campaign.

“If [Obama] wants to expand the campaign and do something he would need a military authorization for, first let him build an international coalition and do what [former President George W.] Bush did and get a U.N. resolution,” suggested a Senate Democratic aide. “Then come back to us after that and we can talk about it.”

His 21-year-old attacker was sentenced to 14 years in prison at the Old Bailey today, with the judge saying it was only the skill of medics who prevented Mr Huntley from dying.

Here's a list of the top 50 richest Senators, with the top 10 consisting of 7 Democrats (tells you a lot with just that)
http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.html

Why are we hating on this guy again?

He wasn't a legislator, and he was fully within his rights to close his business when he damn well pleased.

Quote from: IcyWind on September 08, 2014, 12:10:45 PM

Sorry, but his handling of stuff like the AIDS crisis pisses me off. I'm sure there are arguably worse that people have done (Buchanan), but in modern history, Reagan falls to the dead bottom for me.

That's fair enough, you seem like a person who focuses mainly on social issues, where economics is more my area. So, I'll concede Reagan was pretty shitty when it came to that.

Quote from: IcyWind on September 08, 2014, 12:06:36 PM

Best: JFK, Monroe
Worst: Bush (Sorry, but the whole WMD bullshit kinda kills him in terms of me ever liking him), Reagan, FDR

Reagan wasn't that bad, to be honest.

A lot of liberals hate him because he's the conservative poster-boy, and a lot of libertarians don't like him because it was essentially "rhetoric masking Statist content", to borrow Rothbard's description.

He certainly wasn't good, but he was fairly moderate in reality.

It is WAY more positive than negative.