This
past week saw Congress return to Capitol Hill, but was nevertheless a busy few
days. Representative Frelinghuysen was active in the debate on Syria,
announcing on September 3 that he would vote against President Obama’s measure.[1]
Additionally, he seems to have taken advantage of the crisis in Syria for the
sake of his public profile. Finally, his votes on the House floor reflect very
strong and consistent partisan tendencies.
Interestingly,
in an interview with the New Jersey Jewish News published on September 11,
Frelinghuysen said, “I don’t think there is a great partisan divide”[2]
in regard to the Syria issue. However, his statements have been heavily
critical of President Obama. In his September 3rd statement,
Frelinghuysen said, “[w]hile I am horrified by the deaths of so many innocent
men, women and children, I want to know how the president’s strategic plans
will change the course of this civil war. I cannot support any authorization
unless and until my questions are answered fully.”[3]
This statement,
coupled with the fact that he was one of the earliest members of Congress to
publicly oppose President Obama’s suggested measure, suggests that he is
actively entrenched in a mindset to consistently oppose the President. By questioning
way in which an attack would impact the course of the Syrian civil war, he
seems to undermine President Obama’s suggestion that the attack would merely
serve as a punishment to the Assad regime for its use of chemical weapons.
On
Friday, Frelinghuysen’s office announced that he will host a “Veteran’s Fair”
on September 28th in his district “as part of ongoing efforts to
help veterans transition from their military service to civilian life.”[4]
The suggestion that the timing of this announcement is coincidental is dubious.
Frelinghuysen is a veteran of Vietnam, and has been a strong supporter of
veterans throughout his time in the House. By announcing this event this week,
he arguably paints himself as a politician who is more concerned with the
interests of the military and military personnel than President Obama and his
supporters.
Lastly,
Frelinghuysen’s votes on the house floor this week certainly reflect partisan
tendencies. Of 11 votes cast, Frelinghuysen voted with the majority of his
party all 11 times. This included nine votes where 10 members or less of the
Republican Party voted in opposition to the party line.[5]
This includes a vote of “Yea” on an amendment to the Affordable Care Act,
sponsored by Rep. Diane Black (R TN-6). Republicans voted 227-0 in favor of
this measure, while Democrats voted 1-195 against it.[6]
[1] http://mendham-chester.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/us-strike-may-not-impact-syrias-civil-war-frelinghuysen-says
[3] http://newjerseyhills.com/the_progress/news/opponents-to-action-in-syria-hold-vigil-in-caldwell/article_9803f9dc-1b01-11e3-80ff-0019bb2963f4.html
[4] http://newjerseyhills.com/the_progress/news/rodney-frelinghuysen-to-hold-veterans-fair/article_a81a2afe-1add-11e3-a14a-0019bb2963f4.html
[5] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes
[6] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h457
3 comments:
I know this would be hard to find out but I would be really interested in finding out which of the two played a bigger role in Frelinghuysen's decision to oppose President Obama's plan. Is it party difference and he is just simply saying no because of who proposed it even though it may be a good idea, which has clearly been a factor in the past, or is it the fact that he might just deeply care for the military and veterans? I think the latter could be legitimately argued because he is a veteran, therefore, he knows the hardships of war and he could just really oppose the idea because he doesn't want to see more men go to a different country to fight a war that is not even ours and then have to come back and deal with trying to transition back into our society. I would personally hope that if it had to be either of these reasons it would be the second because I would hate to see such a fragile and important decision be handled over bitterness towards another party.
I agree with Emeley. I cannot fathom how one can decide the fate of millions based on his feelings towards another man. I would also like to know Frelinghuysen's stance on the Iraq War and whether or not he supported Mr. Bush's actions. If he was a supporter of a war that didn't involve us then, and now, he dissiproves of it, he is clearly playing party lines, something that should not be done when discussing millions of innocent peoples lives.
In response, I would argue that it's impossible to break down Frelinghuysen's reasoning through neat and tidy categorizations of his possible motives. I would imagine that concern over military personnel, disagreement with, or dislike for, President Obama, and responding to the expressed thoughts of his constituents are only a few of the factors that informed his decision. However, I do think his response definitively seeks to undermine President Obama; firstly, he came out with his opinion almost immediately after the President's announcement. This was before it became clear that the President would not have the support of many congressional democrats and at the same time as many leaders in the Democratic Party appeared to be aligning with the President. This arguably supports the notion that his response was, in some sense, based on a partisan instinct.
Secondly--and this is something that really grinds my gears--it seemed like Mr. Frelinghuysen was, in a sense, not even listening to what President Obama said. Firstly, the President has clearly stated that he does not want this to turn into a war, and that this specific action would not include boots on the ground. Rhetoric that uses words like "war", "Iraq", "Afgahinstan" in response to the Syria ordeal conflates this type of military intervention with something that could more properly be referred to as "war".
Secondly, the President has said that he doesn't want this intervention to sway the civil war in one direction or another. His goal is merely to punish the Assad regime for its use of chemical weapons. Granted, to suggest that this won't impact the civil war is probably naive. However, when Frelinghuysen said that he would like to have information on how this intervention would impact the civil war, I got the sense that he and the President were totally talking over one another. He wasn't responding directly, and was more just letting critiques of military intervention in general fly out of his mouth. I feel pretty confident that in and of itself is a partisan move.
Post a Comment