Another bipartisan vote against Obama

The House voted against the Iran deal. It did so in bipartisan fashion:

The House on Friday shot down a resolution approving of the Iran nuclear agreement, and had help from more than two dozen Democrats.   Members rejected the approval resolution in an 162-269 vote. Every Republican save one voted against it (Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., voted "present"), and Republicans opposed to the deal were joined by 25 Democrats.

The House vote was 61% against the deal or a bit better than the 58-42 votes in the U.S. Senate. Those are landslide numbers in any election.

Either way, it confirms that the White House is trying to pass a major foreign policy deal with a minority of the Congress.  

Once upon a time, we believed that partisan politics ended at the water's edge as Senator Lieberman and Governor Huntsman wrote:

For the first time in history, our nation will pass an arms control agreement without bipartisan support. Fourteen years ago, after an unimaginable attack on our country on our own soil, our leaders -- not all of whom supported the Patriot Act -- stood shoulder to shoulder and faced the world together. Recognizing the need to present a united front, and perhaps feeling the need to support one another after what would be the most devastating attack on U.S. soil, our leaders worked together, supported each other, and supported their president. No games, no blame, just collaboration to respond, and defend. 

Our nation has a strong legacy of bipartisanship in foreign policy. And rightly so. Solidarity between parties, between our branches of government is essential in projecting strength and unity on the world stage. Now, instead of underscoring our nation's commitment to national security by rallying to support each other, our leaders have further divided along party lines to prove a point -- to each other. And it begs the question: What is the point? 

Well, I guess that the point is that too many Democrats do not want to embarass their president by forcing a veto. Of course, these Democrats should be asking the White House why it put them in this situation.

We wouldn't be here if the White House had worked with Congress and listened to what the deal's critics were saying. In the end, they would have a better deal and we wouldn't have to watch this ugly partisan episode in the legislative branch.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

The House voted against the Iran deal. It did so in bipartisan fashion:

The House on Friday shot down a resolution approving of the Iran nuclear agreement, and had help from more than two dozen Democrats.   Members rejected the approval resolution in an 162-269 vote. Every Republican save one voted against it (Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., voted "present"), and Republicans opposed to the deal were joined by 25 Democrats.

The House vote was 61% against the deal or a bit better than the 58-42 votes in the U.S. Senate. Those are landslide numbers in any election.

Either way, it confirms that the White House is trying to pass a major foreign policy deal with a minority of the Congress.  

Once upon a time, we believed that partisan politics ended at the water's edge as Senator Lieberman and Governor Huntsman wrote:

For the first time in history, our nation will pass an arms control agreement without bipartisan support. Fourteen years ago, after an unimaginable attack on our country on our own soil, our leaders -- not all of whom supported the Patriot Act -- stood shoulder to shoulder and faced the world together. Recognizing the need to present a united front, and perhaps feeling the need to support one another after what would be the most devastating attack on U.S. soil, our leaders worked together, supported each other, and supported their president. No games, no blame, just collaboration to respond, and defend. 

Our nation has a strong legacy of bipartisanship in foreign policy. And rightly so. Solidarity between parties, between our branches of government is essential in projecting strength and unity on the world stage. Now, instead of underscoring our nation's commitment to national security by rallying to support each other, our leaders have further divided along party lines to prove a point -- to each other. And it begs the question: What is the point? 

Well, I guess that the point is that too many Democrats do not want to embarass their president by forcing a veto. Of course, these Democrats should be asking the White House why it put them in this situation.

We wouldn't be here if the White House had worked with Congress and listened to what the deal's critics were saying. In the end, they would have a better deal and we wouldn't have to watch this ugly partisan episode in the legislative branch.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.