Israel Matzav

After being branded a traitor by the White House, why isn't Schumer coming out fighting?

All sarcasm aside, this could be a great moment in Chuck Schumer's history. The real question is, why isn't he pushing to make it one.

Branded a traitor by the Hussein Obama White House (along with other Jewish legislators who have come out against the Iran sellout), Schumer has remained curiously silent since announcing his principled opposition to the Iran nuclear sellout. He wasn't on any Sunday news shows (hard to believe he wasn't invited), and there have been no reports of him trying to influence other Senators to oppose the deal. Why? This is from the second link, by Seth Lipsky in Haaretz.

So why, in the light of all the burning bridges, hasn’t Schumer launched a full campaign to block this deal? Why hasn’t he hit the talk shows and done what the Senate leadership is supposed to do to, well, lead the Senate? That would normally mean twisting arms, bargaining, and trying to get wayward or undecided senators to vote their way. Or even attempting to change the minds of those who have come out on the other side.

The way this is being retailed in New York is that the Senator is prepared to talk to anybody who asks. He himself has characterized it as a vote of “conscience” (unlike the other votes he casts), a situation in which one can’t twist arms in the normal political way. There are those I’ve heard from who find that line unconvincing, to say the least. After all, if it were a matter of conscience and even a life-and-death situation for America and Israel, wouldn’t one feel impelled to spare nothing?

...

Experience suggests, at least to me, that the big danger is a last-minute dodge, like the waiver Congress gave the president to avoid moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv. Schumer was in the thick of that default. Could there be a waiver or some maneuver now to defuse the constitutional crisis between the Senate and the president over Iran? Maybe there’s a good reason for Mr. Schumer’s silence — he’s on vacation, he’s under the weather, he’s plotting. But if he’s really committed on this, the logic would be to re-engage. This just isn’t a time to stand on ceremony.

Or perhaps, Schumer still wants to lead his party in the Senate and has silently cut a deal with the White House that he will not lead opposition to this sellout, and in return the White House will call off its minions when the time comes for the vote on a Minority Leader?

Of course, that vote won't be taken until Obama's last two weeks in office, so Schumer has no way to enforce a deal like that....

And about those other Jewish Democrats who stand accused of treason by the White House, this is from the first link - Adam Kredo at the Washington Free Beacon.

These allegations of dual loyalty to Israel, which many have identified as anti-Semitic, began almost immediately with the White House, which accused its critics of worrying more about Israel’s interests than the United States’.

The use of this rhetoric by the Obama administration and its allies is attracting concern among Jewish leaders, who worry the White House will pin the potential failure of the Iran deal on the American Jewish community.

In a July 21 interview, Obama said that shady “lobbyists” and people with “money” were working to kill the deal.

...

The rhetoric also has extended to what many view as implicit threats against Israel.

Obama reportedly told a group of Jewish leaders last week that rejection of the Iran deal will result in rockets falling on Tel Aviv.

Secretary of State John Kerry also said that Israel will be blamed if Congress rejects the deal.

Organizations close to the White House quickly latched onto this rhetoric and have taken aim at Democratic Jewish lawmakers who have come out against the deal.

NIAC, which has been accused of lobbying on behalf of Tehran and the regime, explicitly accused Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) of being more loyal to Israel than America.

Reza Marashi, a NIAC flack, took to Twitter to accuse Schumer of “putting Israel’s interests ahead of America’s interests.”

In addition to Schumer, Democratic Jewish Reps. Brad Sherman (Calif.) and Eliot Engel (N.Y.) also have come out against the deal.

J Street, an anti-Israel group that has described itself as the Obama administration’s “blocking back,” also questioned the motives of those Jewish lawmakers opposing the accord.

“Opposing the #IranDeal against recs of top scientists, Israeli & US security experts, 100+ ex-diplomats can’t plausibly be a policy decision,” J Street official Dylan Williams pontificated on Twitter over the weekend.

The Daily Kos published a cartoon over the weekend that accused Schumer of being a “traitor” who is more loyal to Israel than the U.S.

On Sunday, the White House aligned dark money group CREDO Action, the political arm of CREDO Mobile, teamed with the Democrats.com to accuse Schumer of being a traitorous “warmonger” who is betraying his country.

In mid-July, when the deal was first announced, White House ally MoveOn blasted an email to its members headlined “47 traitors.”

In the note, MoveOn wrote: “We have just 60 days to stop the so-called ‘47 traitors’ and hawkish Democrats from killing this deal.”

Jewish leaders said the rhetoric from the Obama administration and its allies has crossed a line into anti-Semitic territory.

 And if the vote looks like it's going to be close, it's only going to get worse....

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Brad Sherman, Charles Schumer, dual loyalty, Eliot Engel, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:03 PM