Pages

Friday, January 23, 2015

Netanyahu Invited to Speak to Joint Session of Congress




Speaker John Boehner invited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress.  Consulting with The White House and the State Department was not a part of the process. Naturally, the White House felt the sting of the Speaker going rogue and called the invitation a break in protocol.

I know. I chuckled, too. President Obama and his White House take great pleasure in going around Congress at every opportunity yet Boehner is breaking protocol?  We have in our democratic republic three separate branches of government.  While unusual, the move is not usurping power from the Executive Branch.

Recently, British Prime Minister David Cameron told the White House press corps that he made phone calls to members of Congress to encourage them to not proceed on increasing sanctions against Iran as it could hinder ongoing nuclear power negotiations.  Ever heard of that kind of statement from a foreign leader? I suppose a break in protocol is in the eye of the beholder.

The reasoning from the House speaker is that members simply do not trust the president and stories in the press that the White House believes that the president doesn't need approval from Congress to sign a deal with Iran led the House to the invitation to Netanyahu.  

The relationship between Netanyahu and Obama has never warmed, to say the least.  Obama has already said he will not meet with Netanyahu during his visit. "It's an ongoing soap opera", said Aaron David Miller, Vice President for New Initiatives and a Distinguished Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, as well as a former advisor to both Republican and Democrat Secretaries of State on Arab-Israeli negotiations.

This White House has a real problem with transparency.  This has been called the most secretive, least transparent presidency since Richard M. Nixon. In keeping with this White House's behavior, the promise to keep the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the loop on the decision to end the embargo on Cuba was broken.  An apology was made to Senator Marco Rubio, who specifically asked the White House to keep the committee updated and was told they would during a hearing, once the President made his announcement.

Have you seen the video of Rubio in his most recent questioning on the Cuban decision?



Sometimes turnabout is fair play, even if it is between Congress and the president.



Thursday, January 22, 2015

Republican Women and the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act


This is our message as Republicans. It comes from the State of the Union response delivered by newly elected Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa. All issues are important and principles matter.  This, however, is the absolute core of Republican philosophy.

 "You don’t need to come from wealth or privilege to make a difference. You just need the freedom to dream big, and a whole lot of hard work."

Personal freedom to make the American Dream work for you and yours is our most basic message.  Why, then, do we continue to allow the male leadership of the party to torpedo our message when it is completely avoidable? 

Wednesday House Republican women took on the male leadership and it was a very good thing.  Instead of allowing the leadership to present a bill simply for the optics of the date, the bill was pulled without a vote allowed.  The bill is called  Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and has been voted on in the affirmative in previous years.  Last year it was voted on and passed despite a last minute change that betrayed the Republican women enough that they told leadership that if it happened again, they would no longer vote for the bill.  What did the leadership do? Put the language into the bill again this year anyway.

This year leadership brought the bill forward to be passed Wednesday, with the optics playing out that the March For Life in D.C. was set for Thursday.

Taking the lead were Rep Renee Ellmers (R-NC) and Rep Jackie Walorski (R-IN). There was language in the bill that required women to report rape to the police in order to receive an exception to the law for an abortion after 20 weeks. This language was slipped in at the last minute the last time and Republican women objected, yet voted for it anyway.  This time it was different.  

The women were concerned that requiring a police report would discourage some women from reporting rape to medical officials.  The women were also concerned about the next election. This type of rigid language is what turns off Independent and more conservative Democrats from voting for Republicans in the presidential elections.  As responsible politicians, it is vital that they look at the long term gains of legislation, not just quick optics that contain potentially offensive language. 

About eleven Republican women stood up and insisted that passing a bill on the anniversary of Roe v Wade just for optics was not the way to go.  More thoughtful discussion was needed.

Do social issues matter? Yes. It is also imperative that Republican candidates and elected officials learn to talk to voters in a way that maintains personal principle while keeping conversations on the true focus of Republican philosophy.  Why give the ugly leftists fodder to lob against Republican candidates?  There is a better way.  It is perfectly reasonable to support the Pain Capable Anti-Abortion Bill, except for the one requirement.  Republican candidates in 2016 need all the millennial and women voters possible. 

As pointed out in this article, abortion is an issue that can be prominent in both parties, but the messages are different.   
 But, the key to politics -- or at least to winning in politics -- is emphasizing those issues where you have the support of a majority of the country and spending less time and energy on those where you don't. Abortion -- particularly when it comes to questions of women who have been raped or the victims of incest -- is an issue in which the majority of the country is not in line with the Republican base. Fifty-two percent of voters in the 2014 election said that abortion should be legal in the United States (23 percent said in all cases, 29 percent in "most" cases), while 44 percent said it should be illegal in all (17 percent) or most (27 percent) cases. And those raw numbers might not even tell the full story. Remember that the electorate in 2014 was strongly tilted toward Republicans, making it more likely that in a more neutral election with presidential-year turnout -- like, say 2016 -- the support for keeping abortion legal would be higher.
Message matters.  The Republican message of economic opportunity and the freedom to pursue it is the strongest of all messages from the party.   Sixteen House Republicans spoke in favor of the bill Wednesday night. Only one was a woman. It is time to move women forward as a voice of the Republican party, especially on an issue like this one.  This is a perfect example of why it is so necessary for women to run for and win elected office. Women bring a different perspective to issues.  

The language in this bill would not have brought a single new voter to vote Republican in the next election.  Banning abortions after 20 weeks is not unreasonable. I would say that eliminating any federal money in abortion is not unreasonable. Without the police report requirement, at least the battle from Democrats on that issue is eliminated. And conservative Republican principles remain in tact.




Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Obama Presents the State of the Union Address Minus Reality


It was the standard big speech delivered by a far left liberal intent on transforming America more in line with the Democratic Socialist governments in Europe.  President Obama used the State of the Union address to promote lots of goodies while presenting no plans for financing these new entitlements, except for the mention that "the rich" must pay with more taxation.

THIS is the transcript released by the White House. You will note that it was released before he delivered the address to the country.

THIS is a good fact check on some of the bigger claims made by Obama. His claims on energy production, Obamacare and jobs were inflated and not quite honest, to be sure.

It was as though President Obama could not bring himself to acknowledge the shellacking he and Democrats received in the November 2014 election results.  There was no mention of the new majorities in Congress in the hands of Republicans. One has to ask, if his policies and programs have been so successful - as he boasted - then why did voters respond by bringing in even more opposition to his agenda? He made attempts to say he wanted to work with Republicans but this is the same old story - when the opposition speaks up and challenges his agenda, he is quick to go into "I won" mode and threaten vetoes. He also enjoys going on the road with speeches laden with taunts and pokes to Republicans. His inflated ego does not allow him to not be blinded by raw ideology in his partisanship. Barack Obama has shown himself the most partisan, least mature president in my lifetime. He is simply not up to the job. He divides when he should unite.

Texas Senator John Cornyn said, ‘Sadly, the President has doubled down on the same agenda, which in his own words was on the ballot this last fall and was soundly rejected. I think I speak for many Americans and many Texans when I say, Mr. President, enough is enough.’

What didn't the president mention in the 2015 State of the Union address?  al Quada.  Considering the state of the world today, that is an amazingly cynical omission. Taking shots at previous administrations, he referred to U.S. foreign policy as "bluster" and yet he is the one issuing red lines and then failing to act when countries like Syria ignore his own form of bluster. Perhaps bluster is in the eye of the beholder.  Today Yemen is on the verge of toppling into a completely failed state.  That vacuum has been quickly filled by those who plot to kill westerners, the most extreme of those practicing Islam.

This president refuses to use the term "extremist Islamists" when speaking about those terror cells in the headlines recently.  

My first duty as Commander-in-Chief is to defend the United States of America. In doing so, the question is not whether America leads in the world, but how. When we make rash decisions, reacting to the headlines instead of using our heads; when the first response to a challenge is to send in our military — then we risk getting drawn into unnecessary conflicts, and neglect the broader strategy we need for a safer, more prosperous world. That’s what our enemies want us to do.I believe in a smarter kind of American leadership. We lead best when we combine military power with strong diplomacy; when we leverage our power with coalition building; when we don’t let our fears blind us to the opportunities that this new century presents. That’s exactly what we’re doing right now — and around the globe, it is making a difference.
 First, we stand united with people around the world who’ve been targeted by terrorists — from a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris. We will continue to hunt down terrorists and dismantle their networks, and we reserve the right to act unilaterally, as we’ve done relentlessly since I took office to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to us and our allies.At the same time, we’ve learned some costly lessons over the last thirteen years.
Instead of Americans patrolling the valleys of Afghanistan, we’ve trained their security forces, who’ve now taken the lead, and we’ve honored our troops’ sacrifice by supporting that country’s first democratic transition. Instead of sending large ground forces overseas, we’re partnering with nations from South Asia to North Africa to deny safe haven to terrorists who threaten America. In Iraq and Syria, American leadership — including our military power — is stopping ISIL’s advance. Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group. We’re also supporting a moderate opposition in Syria that can help us in this effort, and assisting people everywhere who stand up to the bankrupt ideology of violent extremism. This effort will take time. It will require focus. But we will succeed. And tonight, I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against ISIL.Second, we are demonstrating the power of American strength and diplomacy. We’re upholding the principle that bigger nations can’t bully the small — by opposing Russian aggression, supporting Ukraine’s democracy, and reassuring our NATO allies. Last year, as we were doing the hard work of imposing sanctions along with our allies, some suggested that Mr. Putin’s aggression was a masterful display of strategy and strength. Well, today, it is America that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated, with its economy in tatters.That’s how America leads — not with bluster, but with persistent, steady resolve.
Unfortunately there is little evidence that the rest of the world trusts this president for support against terrorism.  He is so busy being the anti-war guy that he fails to acknowledge the real threats to national security at home and abroad. The recent terror attacks in Paris show clearly that his response is typically late, muddled, and insufficient.

Is the incessant use of drones to kill bad guys - along with innocents, too often - a better way of winning hearts and minds overseas versus capturing on the battlefield and using GITMO? Is it more efficient in the war on terror?

The first female combat veteran to be elected to U.S. Senate, Joni Ernst delivered the Republican response to the president's State of the Union address. She wore camouflage pumps, the pictures creating a social media buzz, and presented her delivery in a calm, concise and firm  as she delivered her  response. She is also the first woman elected to serve Iowa in Congress.

George Will said  a "semi star was born." "Helped put a fresh face on the Republican party." I agree.

Sunday, January 11, 2015

World Leaders Marched In Paris As Obama Stayed Home

The world rallied for France Sunday while the Obama administration took a pass.  More than one million people marched in Paris in a show of solidarity with the country after the assassination of seventeen people by terrorists last week.  World leaders convened to join in.  Not one person was there to represent the American people by proxy through the Obama administration.  The only person of any kind of dignitary status was the U.S. American ambassador to France. That is all.

There was not a presence of President Obama, the First Lady, the Secretary of State, the Vice President, and on down the line of those in leadership who normally attend these international events.  The absence of American officials was particularly poignant as video emerged of the world leaders lined up to lead the march, linking arms and walking in unison as the crowd cheered.  It was another missed opportunity for this tone deaf and woefully incompetent Obama administration.

Even CNN noticed.  The on air talent anchoring the coverage noted the absence of the president and the others.  As one or two tried to make excuses, as they do, for the president and his administration, those were easily knocked down.  All of the other leaders present faced the same security and logistics concerns.  Yet, they attended and did the right thing.

World leaders, including British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, joined the march.
They observed a minute’s silence before the march began.About 2,000 police officers and 1,350 soldiers – including elite marksmen on rooftops – were deployed to protect participants.The march was split into two routes for security purposes. Both rallies began at the Place de la Republique and finished at the Place de la Nation.
Attorney General Eric Holder was already in Paris for talks on terrorism and even appeared from the city on Sunday morning shows.  He was said to be attending the march, yet left town before it took place.

US Attorney General Eric Holder, already in Paris for anti-terrorism talks, was supposed to attend but was a no-show at the massive unity rally, which honored the 17 men and women killed there last week by terrorist gunmen, officials said.Holder attended meetings about militant extremism in Paris and even made the Sunday morning talk-show rounds but skipped town before what was billed as the largest rally in French history.Before the rally, he pledged US support.“On this day, we are all French citizens,” Holder said. “I am a citizen of France, and we stand in solidarity with the French people.”US officials gave no clear reason for Holder’s absence.
The rest of the world noticed the absence.  Remember after 9/11/01 here in America and the unity expressed from the world leaders to our nation?  France was one of the first to do so and President Chirac was the first world leader to visit the White House after that tragic day.

THIS SENTENCE sums up the problem quite nicely: "What is astonishing about Obama is how his White House continues to make rookie missteps nearly six years into its tenure on Pennsylvania Avenue." The author of that piece was writing about another misstep in foreign policy but the sentiment holds true in this case.

This president has a weak record on foreign policy and wishing away terrorism isn't a viable strategy.  As he continues to work diligently to release those held in GITMO and close the facility, it is not lost on those interested in world events that this president has once again lost an opportunity to lead.  He is dangerously naive and his rigid ideology persists despite the growing levels of danger in the world. Let's remember how important foreign policy and national defense is as we begin the process of nominating the Republican candidate for President in 2016.



Friday, January 09, 2015

U.S.House Passes Keystone Pipeline XL Authorization Bill

The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled Friday that the Keystone Pipeline XL could move forward, thus removing the final reason President Obama had for postponing his decision. Unfortunately for those of us supporting the pipeline, he has signaled he plans to veto the legislation, should it come to his desk.

The ruling from Nebraska was far from a profile in courage - the project can move forward only by default.

The Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday approved the route for the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, reversing a lower court that had blocked the proposal and clearing the way for a U.S. State Department ruling on the plan.The court said it was divided and could not reach a substantive decision, leaving in place legislation that favored TransCanadaCorp (TRP.TO) and its claim to build a crude oil pipeline across the state."(B)ecause there are not five judges of this court voting on the constitutionality of (the legislation), the legislation must stand by default," the court said in its ruling.

President Obama chose to start the year 2015 by issuing three (3) veto threats and ushering in 300 new regulations.  One of the veto threats pertained to the announcement that the House would take a vote on the authorization of construction of the Keystone XL pipeline as the first order of business for the new Congress.  As promised, the House voted Friday on this authorization.  It passed, thanks to a new, energized Republican majority and twenty-eight (28) "moderate" Democrats. 

HERE is a list of the Democrats who voted in favor of authorizing construction of Keystone XL:
Twenty-eight Democrats voted with 238 Republicans to authorize construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil-sands pipeline during a House vote on Friday.The legislation, sponsored by Republican Rep. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, passed the House 266-153. The Senate is expected to begin debate on an identical measure early next week, despite a White House veto threat.Keystone XL, a pipeline that would ship crude oil from Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf Coast, has driven a wedge into the Democratic caucus. Two major constituencies that traditionally support Democrats are at odds over the project. Environmentalists oppose Keystone XL, saying that its construction will worsen the problem of climate change. Labor unions, on the other hand, back the pipeline, contending that it will spur job creation.Several Democrats who backed Keystone XL Friday are members of the House Blue Dog coalition, a group of Democratic moderates. Coalition Cochairmen Kurt Schrader of Oregon, Jim Cooper of Tennessee, and Jim Costa of California sent a letter to the White House on Thursday urging swift approval of the project.

If President Obama was truly looking to get off to a fresh start with Republicans and work to sign into law bipartisan bills, this would be a good way to begin.  He won't as his words rarely match his actions.  Some of those Democrats on the list who voted in favor of the bill are normally the first to spew ugly against Republicans.  

Thursday, January 08, 2015

Is Gov Scott Walker Running for President?

Is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker running for President?  Some recent developments would point to that logical conclusion:
He isn't scared off by rivalry for the nomination by Jeb Bush.

"Jeb Bush is a friend of mine, and a good guy," Walker said, although he said he will base his decision on family considerations and the state's needs.
He went to kiss the ring of Las Vegas billionaiare Sheldon Adelson last December.

Adelson has been a key financial backer for Walker in his last two runs for governor and, if persuaded, could be a source of even greater funds for a White House bid. 

Recently Gov Walker hired Rick Wiley, former Republican National Committee political director. Wiley is reported to be "aggressively" reaching out to potential staffers.

Wiley, a national political strategist, has left his position at the consulting firm Mercury LLC, a source confirmed with The Hill. He worked there since March 2013, along with Michael DuHaime, chief political strategist for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), a likely presidential rival to Walker should both enter the race. Last year, Wiley advised several successful Republican gubernatorial campaigns, including those of Walker, Bruce Rauner in Illinois and Greg Abbott in Texas. He also worked in the same role for Sen. Joni Ernst in Iowa for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Before joining the RNC for two years, he worked on Rudy Giuliani's 2008 presidential campaign and President George W. Bush's reelection in 2004. He also served as executive director of the Wisconsin Republican Party in 2005. 

Wednesday it is reported that Scott Walker is going to Iowa.

Walker will attend a major conservative gathering organized by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Citizens United on Jan. 24.The event will feature a number of Walker's potential primary rivals, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), outgoing Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina (R).
The next step would be for Walker to announce an exploratory committee or the formation of a PAC for a presidential run.

He's young at age 47; he's a successful two term governor who has gone up against heavy opposition in Wisconsin, including teacher unions and raucous recalls; and he has already gotten the story out of the way that he did not graduate from Marquette University, his alma mater. He is articulate and engaging with his audience, though I wouldn't characterize him as charismatic.  I heard him speak during a Texas Public Policy Foundation Legislative Orientation session several years ago. I have kept an eye on his career since, as I knew he would likely become a potential future presidential candidate.

Wednesday, January 07, 2015

Speaker Boehner Re-Elected As Opponents Learn A Hard Lesson

Like many Republicans, I have been on the lookout for up and coming politicians who will step forward and lead with statesmanship, not bombastic bromides and perpetual outrage.  Happy warriors win over uncertain voters, just as those who came before us instructed, like Ronald Reagan.  There is no substitute for a well reasoned, articulate response to those who oppose us.

All this leads to the spectacle that presented itself Tuesday as the House of Representatives re-elected Speaker John Boehner. Facing a less potent threat to his re-election this year than two years ago, Boehner was nominated in November by the Republican caucus to continue on as Speaker of the House. No one moved to challenge him for that spot.

A couple of challengers emerged in the days before the vote Tuesday on the Speaker's race.  Louie Gohmert and Ted Yolo both decided to run for the job.  The problem is, neither offered a reason nor a path to victory. Both clearly were spur of the moment candidates and neither, frankly, are up to the task.  As written about HERE, if a politician wants to topple the sitting top guy, then there had better be some ground work completed in advance.  In other words, ducks need to be in a row.  Think back to the days of Newt Gingrich and the historic Republican takeover of Congress in the early 90's. There needs to be a large enough group of supporters to make it happen.

Gingrich began working with the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) in 1979 as part of an effort to take the majority, and later took over GOPAC. Both organizations were focused on helping elect new Members to Congress. This means that newly-elected Republicans would be indebted (and thus loyal) to Gingrich. Aside from his brilliance as a visionary thinker, Gingrich spent years assiduously cultivating support and planning for a majority.
Now, about that statesman...  

As you can imagine, the supporters of the challengers were a bit upset (sarcasm noted) about a rather easy victory for Boehner.  Some really hideous temper tantrums played out in social media, both on Twitter and Facebook, from the purists.  Frankly, they should be ashamed of themselves.  No one likes to lose but there is such as thing as losing gracefully and moving on to fight another day.

Rep Mick Mulvaney, from South Carolina, hardly a hotbed of liberalism, went into statesman mode after observing the level of crazy exhibited and posted this on his Facebook page:


There was an attempt to oust John Boehner as Speaker of the House today. I didn’t participate in it. That may make some people back home angry. I understand that, but I’ve got some experience with coup attempts against the Speaker, and what I learned two years ago factored heavily in my decision today not to join the mutiny.First, I learned two years ago that people lie about how they are going to vote. And you cannot go into this kind of fight with people you do not trust. We walked onto the floor two years ago with signed pledges – handwritten promises – from more than enough people to deny Boehner his job. But when it came time to vote, almost half of those people changed their minds – including some of those who voted against Boehner today. Fool me once, shame on you… Today was even worse: there were never enough votes to oust Boehner to begin with. On top of that, some people who had publicly said in the past that they wouldn’t vote for Boehner did just that. This was an effort driven as much by talk radio as by a thoughtful and principled effort to make a change. It was poorly considered and poorly executed, and I learned first-hand that is no way to fight a battle. This coup today was bound to fail. And in fact, it failed worse than I expected, falling 11 votes short of deposing the Speaker. At least two years ago we only failed by six.I also learned that the Floor of the House is the wrong place to have this battle. The hard truth is that we had an election for Speaker in November – just among Republicans. THAT was the time to fight. But not a single person ran against Boehner. Not one. If they had, we could’ve had a secret ballot to find out what the true level of opposition to John Boehner was. In fact, we could’ve done that as late as Monday night, on a vote of “no confidence” in the Speaker. But that didn’t happen…and at least one of the supposed challengers to Boehner today didn’t even go to the meeting last night. That told me a lot.Some people wrote me encouraging me to vote for Louie Gohmert. I like Louie, but let’s be clear: Louie Gohmert was – is – never ever going to be Speaker of the House. I respect his passion, but he isn’t a credible candidate. That was proved today by the fact that he got three votes, despite all the national media attention he managed to grab. My colleague who got the most anti-Boehner votes was Daniel Webster of Florida who got 12 votes. I like Daniel. He is a nice guy, and a good thinker…but his lifetime Heritage Action score is 60% (by comparison, mine is 91%). And this was supposed to be the savior of the conservative movement? Would the House really have been more conservative if he had won?The truth is, there was no conservative who could beat John Boehner. Period. People can ignore that, or they can wish it away, but that is reality.Some people tried to argue that voting against Boehner would give conservatives leverage, or somehow force him to lead in a more conservative fashion, even if the coup attempt failed. All I can say to that is that the exact opposite happened two years ago: conservatives were marginalized, and Boehner was even freer to work with moderates and Democrats. My guess is that the exact same thing will happen again now. And I fail to see how that helps anything that conservatives know needs to be done in Washington.I understand people’s frustration and anger over what is happening in Washington. And I also acknowledge that John Boehner may be partly to blame. But this was a fool’s errand. I am all for fighting, but I am more interested in fighting and winning than I am fighting an unwinnable battle.Finally, the most troubling accusation I have heard regarding the Boehner vote is that I have “sold out” my conservative principles. All I can say is this: take a look at my voting record. It is one of the most conservative in Congress. And I was joined today by the likes of Jim Jordan, Raul Labrador, Trey Gowdy, Mark Sanford, Trent Franks, Tom McClintock, Matt Salmon, Tom Price, Sam Johnson, and Jeb Hensarling. If I “sold out” then I did so joined by some of the most tried and tested conservative voices in Washington.I can say with 100% confidence that I have done exactly what I said I would do when I came to Washington: fight to cut spending, stop bad legislation, work to repeal Obamacare, and hold the President accountable for his actions. That will never change, and neither will I.

Makes it pretty clear, right? 

Opposition needs a plan, a willingness to do the ground work and earn the position.  How silly of these two men, in particular, to feel entitled when they have not earned it.  No politician is entitled to his/her office without accountability, that is true. However, one thing is certain about John Boehner - he knows about strategy and he knows how to work the process in the House.  He's not perfect but so far, no one else stepping forward to complain has proven to be anything better.

And those few who voted against Boehner? The ones with somewhat plum committee assignments no longer have them. That's the real world.  Apparently that consequence wasn't thought about in advance, either.  If your elected representative behaves in this manner, now is the time to demand better.