( CNN ) -- We all understand that the closer Congress gets to an election , the more risk-averse it becomes . Members just want to get re-elected and are n't looking to take any chances . That 's why lame-duck , post-election sessions are sadly often the most productive : Once members feel safe ( or are even on their way out of office ) , they can actually do some real work . So the aerodynamics of Congress as it gets close to an election are this : Stop . Go home . Avoid real votes . Par for the course . Except for this : Republicans have recently made a fetish of complaining that President Barack Obama wo n't let them vote on things . He does too much without us , they say . Too many executive actions . Too many new regulations . They even voted to sue him over his so-called abuse of power . `` Are you willing to let any president choose what laws to execute and what laws to change ? '' House Speaker John Boehner intoned mightily on the House floor . `` Are you willing to let anyone tear apart what our founders have built ? '' But wait . Are these the same people who now are , um , ducking a vote on congressional authorization for action against ISIS ? While Boehner told CNN 's Dana Bash that while `` it would be in the nation 's interest '' to `` speak '' on this question , he said it was up to the President to request it . `` We 've not gotten that . '' So , does the White House intend to send something wide-ranging to Boehner ? Not exactly . Instead there will be a vote to authorize the arming of the Syrian rebels . While the President would `` welcome '' further congressional action , a senior administration official says , `` we believe we have the authority that is necessary '' to wage war against ISIS . Alphonse , meet Gaston . Hagel : If ISIS allowed to continue it will be threat to 'homeland ' Not that it 's a surprise . We all know that in the world in which we live , Congress -- with an approval rating of 14 % -- wants to take responsibility for things that are good and avoid responsibility for things that are risky . But here 's where each party makes us scratch our heads . In the past , Republicans have believed -- strongly -- in the thesis that the chief executive has strong unilateral war-making authority . ( George W. Bush went to Congress to approve the Iraq war , but only after much debate and pressure -- and even his vice president opposed the idea . ) So Boehner 's position has historical precedent . Except when you consider it in terms of the recent domestic debate : Obama ca n't issue a domestic regulation , but he can unilaterally decide to go to war ? Huh ? The Democrats take the exact opposite posture . The President can issue strong policy regulations and orders when it comes to health care and the environment , but he should n't act without Congress when it comes to war . Ah , except in this case , because a Democrat is President . And because Democrats are worried a vote on the use of force could hurt them with their base in the election , which already looks perilous for their party . Some unendangered Democrats have publicly called for a vote , but their leaders are much more sheepish . `` Right now we believe , as the President has stated , that he has the authority he needs , '' says House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi . For now , at least . So case closed ? Not quite . There are plans this week to vote on the narrower proposition that has bipartisan support : arming the Syrian rebels . But what about the larger issue of voting to authorize war against ISIS ? Yea or nay ? Check back -- after the election . That 's when politicians vote .
Borger : In topsy-turvy world of Washington , parties doing their best to avoid ISIS vote on Congress . Democrats suing Obama for overuse of authority yet giving him a free pass on military action . Republicans fear a congressional vote 's impact on midterms , conflicted on presidential authority . Borger : Governing will have to wait until the election is over .