Chuck Schumer Says No
[guest post by Dana]
This morning, Sen. Chuck Schumer, who has been a long-time supporter of Israel, announced that he would not be supporting President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal:
If one thinks Iran will moderate, that contact with the West and a decrease in economic and political isolation will soften Iran’s hardline positions, one should approve the agreement. After all, a moderate Iran is less likely to exploit holes in the inspection and sanctions regime, is less likely to seek to become a threshold nuclear power after ten years, and is more likely to use its newfound resources for domestic growth, not international adventurism.
But if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.
Admittedly, no one can tell with certainty which way Iran will go. It is true that Iran has a large number of people who want their government to decrease its isolation from the world and focus on economic advancement at home. But it is also true that this desire has been evident in Iran for thirty-five years, yet the Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat. Who’s to say this dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years?
To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.
Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.
For all of these reasons, I believe the vote to disapprove is the right one.
Reaction from Democrats was swift and harsh:
White House allies angrily struck back after Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced his opposition to President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal late Thursday, suggesting Schumer could lose support as Democratic leader in the Senate in 2016 if he helps block the accord.
The forceful response from some of Obama’s former top-ranking aides was the latest example of the president’s take-no-prisoners approach to ensuring the survival of a pact that he views as a historic, legacy-defining achievement that could help remake the security situation in the turbulent Middle East…
“Senator Schumer siding with the GOP against Obama, [Hillary] Clinton and most Democrats will make it hard for him to lead the Dems in ’16,” Dan Pfeiffer, who served as Obama’s senior political adviser until leaving in February, wrote on Twitter. “The base won’t support a leader who thought Obamacare was a mistake and wants War with Iran.”
Schumer indicated that he would be working to get other senators to join him in opposing the deal:
“There are some who believe that I can force my colleagues to vote my way,” Schumer said. “While I will certainly share my view and try to persuade them that the vote to disapprove is the right one, in my experience with matters of conscience and great consequence like this, each member ultimately comes to their own conclusion.”
But knowing that nothing in politics is quite what it appears to be, we are warned not to be fooled by Schumer’s position given that he wants to have it both ways. Both ways, and at little cost to him:
Does the incoming Senate Democratic leader really want to take the blame for actively helping Republicans sink Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement, one that likely Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has already leaned into supporting? Doubtful. By voting No — while doing little to prevent the deal from going forward — Schumer can vote his conscience while not seriously undermining his position as Democratic leader.
Knowing how hard Schumer has worked to position himself as Harry Reid’s likely successor, do you really think he would jeopardize that opportunity for this?
Certainly Schumer weighed out the risk of opposing President Obama. And certainly he knows that public sentiment is in his favor given that the more Americans find out about the deal, the more they oppose it.
Meanwhile, President and Obama and Mitch McConnell, realizing the gravity of the situation, jumped into action to shore up their positions by getting into a twitter war. Because that’s how grown men in charge of running the most powerful nation on earth behave when working to protect and defend the citizenry.
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (86e864) — 8/7/2015 @ 9:09 pmsparks flyin in chuck’s eyes like lighters
happyfeet (831175) — 8/7/2015 @ 9:13 pmChuck Schumer blows…
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 8/7/2015 @ 9:20 pma day no jewpigs wood dye?
i’m crying cause of i can’t stop smiling for the joy unto jesus
America!
omg America!
noble thou art like
like when i think about you I touch myself
like palin on a trumpbone
my ardor knows no bounds
joncoogerjondearjahn316
happyfeet (831175) — 8/7/2015 @ 9:26 pmHis protege/lackey/Charlie McCarthy, Kristen Gillibrand, is voting YES. He has counted the votes and thinks he can have his cake and eat it too.
Bugg (5f4a83) — 8/7/2015 @ 9:59 pmFrankly at this point what difference does it make. The failure was already baked into the cake. You will get a few senators to vote against. But it will be 3-4 short. Just enough to make sure Obama gets his deal. But not so close you can pick out 1-2 senators to aim anything at.
This current political class is not only the worst ever. But the most painfully transparent.
mythx (2b99f8) — 8/7/2015 @ 10:04 pmIt’s possible that Babs Boxer can be moved on this issue. Both she and DiFi are New York Jews.
Not saying it’s a great chance, after all she stabs Californians in the back regularly. Whose to say she won’t stab Israel?
But she’s not running again. That and a concerted effort from constituents might rekindle the pilot light on her atrophied conscious.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 8/7/2015 @ 11:07 pmHas Patterico died? Or is he just on vacation?
Dejectedhead (152876) — 8/8/2015 @ 2:15 amIt’s all a Kabuki dance. The way the Corker Bill is rigged, they vote on allowing
the so called treaty or not. (actually voting on whether to not allow the
expiration of the sanctions that were voted on by Congress) The send this bill
to Obama who promptly vetoes it. Ensuring that the Sanctions expire. Then they
have to have a 2/3rd majority to then override.
During all of this, Schumer can symbolically vote against allowing the sanctions
to expire and even to over ride Obama’s veto, safe in the knowledge that his
vote will not matter one whit in preventing the sanctions from expiring.
This is all what the Corker bill was meant to do; give cover to those in Congress
who need to appear tough on Iran while at the same time giving Obama what he
wants. And remember this was brought to you by a Republican Majority Congress.
Why all this you ask? Because the Sanctions currently in effect were brought to
be by a Congressionally passed bill. It’s currently law. So a way had to be
devised to allow expiration without anyone having to actually approve of letting
them expire. It’s a genius of a bill and it shows the total fecklessness and
cowardice (if not willing accomplices of Obama) of the Republican “leadership”.
Welcome to the 21st century where bills are deemed to have passed, and bills
jakee308 (c37f85) — 8/8/2015 @ 2:30 amcause other bills to expire with no one responsible. what a country.
mcconnell and corker showing up to penetrate the backside of the American people. again. The republicans have done more harm to the middle class than I ever imagined. I feel so used and abused by these scum. I have prepared my family for democrat ruling, as the republicans are a farce.
mg (31009b) — 8/8/2015 @ 3:07 amThis whole Iran sanctions thingie has turned into kabuki. Maybe decent people should just step back and save their hoots for a rainy day.
nk (dbc370) — 8/8/2015 @ 4:47 amThe anti-Semitism on the left is getting ever more prominent.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 8/8/2015 @ 6:51 amI still don’t understand how the Corker bill passed,
unless I’m confused about it,
or the repubs in DC are more useless than I can imagine.
I think I can relate to the bear in “The Last Battle”, mortally wounded and succumbing while still not understanding what was going on.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/8/2015 @ 6:53 amYep, doc, they are.
narciso (ee1f88) — 8/8/2015 @ 7:05 amITS A BOY” I shouted “A BOY, I DON’T BELIEVE IT, ITS A BOY”. And with tears streaming down my face I swore I’d never visit another Thai Brothel!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 8/8/2015 @ 7:18 amThe anti-Semitism on the left is getting ever more prominent.
in shoomer’s statement linked above, here’s his only mention of Israel:
In the NYT’s article about shoomer’s statement, here’s *their* only mention of Israel
and then we come to National Soros Radio
they ignore his statement and reach back to a speech he gave earlier this year to inform their reporting
i’m a let you do the maths
happyfeet (831175) — 8/8/2015 @ 7:23 amRepublicans and Democrats are both triangulating.
They both have Wall Street telling them “There’s hundreds and hundreds of billions to be made from this, so don’t screw it up”.
The Republicans have evangelicals telling them “Christ won’t come back without an Israeli passport so don’t mess with Isreal”.
The Democrats have their Jewish base telling them “What are you, anti-Semites?”, and the nutroots telling them “Obama can do no wrong”.
The Democrats need to do a little more fancy footwork, but the Republicans will keep in step, and in the end the money will win.
nk (dbc370) — 8/8/2015 @ 7:25 amAnd we, that’s all you all and me, are making a big mistake laying this on the Republicans, instead of doing our best to make sure that the Democrats own 100% of it.
nk (dbc370) — 8/8/2015 @ 7:31 amBeing a cynic, I would guess the “treat” has the necessary votes, so Schumer is only objecting for the sake of his gullible supporters.
Patricia (5fc097) — 8/8/2015 @ 7:46 am#8,
Vacation.
Dana (86e864) — 8/8/2015 @ 7:51 amIt’s not character assassination to note that Chuck Schumer had been among the most publicly outspoken hyper-partisan Democrats from his time in the House, since he joined the Senate he’s been more conscientious about appearing more mature but still reliably putting party above country at nearly every turn, quick to spin any random tragedy into an attack on the GOP. In short, a publicity seeking, self-aggrandizing party hatchet man.
Yet, Schumer recently went on-record that his vote for ObamaCare was a mistake, and now he’s announced he’s not only openly opposed to Obama’s Iran deal, he’s also openly encouraging other Democrats to join him in opposition. Of course the White House and Obama’s true believers and other knee-jerk devotees and special interest political dependents are denouncing Schumer as a turncoat and calling for his shunning.
It’s easy to point to Schumer’s Jewish religion and conclude he opposes the Iran deal because it severely disadvantages Israel, turns a blind eye toward Iran’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and heaps unknown billions (150 billion?) of American taxpayer’s money into the coffers of an Islamic terrorist regime which supplied advanced IUDs to kill and maim our troops and has declared its dedication to our destruction, as well as Israel’s over and over.
However, there could be an additional reason for Shumer’s willingness to break ranks with Obama, although no one should doubt Shumer’s sincerity or his sympathy for Israel, he might be positioning himself for a run at the Democrat nomination. Hillary Clinton is obviously slipping badly, and most of the support Bernie Sanders is currently receiving is really a protest a rejection of Hillary’s candidacy. So, Chuck Schumer sees an opportunity to move toward the center, solidify his Jewish base, distinguish himself from both Obama and Clinton, and position himself for a run at the brass ring.
ropelight (6272a0) — 8/8/2015 @ 9:49 amI know Kabuki theater when I see it…
in_awe (a4f8b5) — 8/8/2015 @ 9:50 amWe will see how serious Schumer is by how hard he lobbies against the deal. He could bring some votes. If it’s one or two votes short of the override, he’s just posturing for his Jewish donors.
But he’s laughing at the threats. The next leadership election is in the next Congress, when Obama will be gone. He won’t have the means to punish anyone any more. I doubt Democratic Senators will do his bidding after he’s left office.
If there’s a betting line on the leadership, take Schumer. Durbin is an idiot and everyone knows it. Lizzie Warren wants to be President.
Estragon (ada867) — 8/8/2015 @ 2:31 pmCYA. Failure theatre, Dem style.
mojo (a3d457) — 8/8/2015 @ 4:28 pmwhich supplied advanced IUDs to kill and maim our troops and has declared its dedication to our destruction, as well as Israel’s over and over.
ropelight (6272a0) — 8/8/2015 @ 9:49 am
Exploding IUD’s? Intra-Uterine Devices killing our troops they are? Painful way to get a vasectomy! Ouchhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
IED’s kill you they will! 😆
Yoda (7d462a) — 8/8/2015 @ 9:17 pmYoda, thanks for the correction.
ropelight (49b88d) — 8/9/2015 @ 6:11 amImprovised explosive devices. Beside the fact that they’re not improvised but factory-made in Iran ….
Is “booby-trap” too sexist? Or too insensitive? Or too easily confused with “brassiere”?
nk (dbc370) — 8/9/2015 @ 6:45 ampapertiger:
DiFi is not from New York, and as far as I know she is not a Jewess.
jakee308:
The Corker-Menendez Act is not rigged, and the JCPOA is not a “so-called treaty”.
And the president can waive them. That’s currently law too. Except that thanks to Corker-Menendez he can’t do so until 60 days after he notified Congress of the JCPOA, or 10 days after he vetoes the inevitable bill forbidding him from doing so.
Garbage. No “way had to be devised”. 0bama had the authority to waive the sanctions, and Congress could just sit back and let him. Instead there was a mighty but ultimately unsuccessful effort to rally enough Democrats to form a veto-proof majority to forbid 0bama from waiving the sanctions. The effort fell a few votes short of 2/3 in each house, but 0bama agreed to a 60-day/10-day waiting period. That may not be much, but it’s better than nothing. Now that we know what the deal is, and how bad it is, maybe some of those who wouldn’t vote for an override then will come across now.
MD:
You are confused about it. See above.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 8/9/2015 @ 8:44 amIt has the obligatory join us and Meet Carly buttons, but if you are looking for her positions on the issues or how she plans to accomplish what she says she will, well, good luck! If those items are there, they re hidden.
Boyce Wills (593483) — 8/31/2015 @ 2:48 pm