There has been a fair amount of online ridicule mixed with nausea at the disgusting op-ed piece that the NYT saw fit to publish yesterday, featuring warmonger John Bolton and torturer John Yoo lecturing constitutional law professor Barack Obama about his constitutional obligation to restrain himself as President.
All very deserved, but the commentary thus far has, I think, missed the point of this nauseating article. That lies in their insistence that Obama dare not engage in any foreign diplomacy without a two thirds vote of the Senate.
No longer is a sixty vote margin enough for Republicans to allow Democrats to act, no longer is it enough to just act in clear violation of the law, as Yoo and Bolton have so often argued for Bush to do. No, Obama must have a two thirds majority to be allowed to act at all.
At this point, you would have to be naive indeed to think this is some sort of casual suggestion. One can see here the fear of the Republicans that they will not be able to hold absolute party discipline in the Senate- that one or two of the laughably described moderate Republicans might someday decide to vote moderately, instead of just talking moderately. So, they are going to try to move the goalposts so that Obama has to have a two thirds vote in the Senate to accomplish anything.
I expect to be hearing more about this in the future. With Harry Reid at the helm, who knows, the Dems might just fall for it.