Syria: A little "collateral damage" vs. make Obama into a lame duck
"At the end of the day, a lot of these Democrats are going to be with the president," a House Democratic aide told Politico, "because the choice is to vote against [the Syria intervention] and turn the president into a lame duck and destroy his credibility, or swallow it and vote for something that you're not wild about. When you're faced with that kind of decision, most of these fence-sitters are going to come aboard."
That's also the assessment of strategists from both major parties who are veterans of past battles where presidencies have seemed to be at stake. They include congressional votes on George W. Bush's war in Iraq and his father George H.W. Bush's Persian Gulf War. When presidents argue forcefully that their effectiveness is in jeopardy, they often get their way, especially among members of their own party who don't want them to become lame ducks.
"I've got to think that, in the end, the Democrats and some Republicans will come down on the side of protecting the presidency," says a former senior White House adviser to a GOP president.
"[V]ote for something that you're not wild about."
I'm with The Onion and most Americans: Send Congress to Syria. Let's see how "wild about" this war they are then.