Via the Blaze, a postscript to the White House’s threat to veto Gowdy’s bill demanding faithful enforcement of laws like ObamaCare, warts and all. Simple question from Gowdy, who came armed with quotes from the golden days of Hopenchange: Would Senator Obama have supported the bill? The answer is even simpler: It depends on whether doing so would have helped him electorally or not. That’s the only real consideration, and remains the only real consideration to this day. As a fledgling presidential candidate up against the Clinton machine, O knew he had an opening on the left among liberals who were suspicious of the Clintons’ centrist credentials. He figured he could build a base there by telling them what they wanted to hear, so he did — George Bush was an executive run amok whose signing statements were an affront to the Constitution. They liked the sound of that, just as they liked what he had to say about the perils of drone warfare and the surveillance state. Ahem. Six years later, Democrats don’t care much about executive power grabs in defense of their party’s agenda, so neither does O. That’s my one criticism of Gowdy, Jonathan Turley, and nearly everyone else who’s been hammering him lately for endangering separation of powers. It should be noted more often that he’s responding to the political incentives set for him by others.
Gowdy’s bill passed the House yesterday, by the way, as did another Republican bill demanding stricter enforcement. Five Democrats voted for the former and just two for the latter. The only one in both groups was Nick Rahall, whose home state of West Virginia is increasingly red, whose last two House elections have been much closer than they used to be, and who’s even taken lately to describing himself as more of a Bush supporter than an Obama fan. Good luck in November, buddy.