Powered by WebAds

Monday, August 03, 2015

Schumer to vote AGAINST Iran deal?

Could Chuck Schumer have been for the Iran deal before he was against it? That's what a Politico report suggests.
Chuck Schumer is getting an earful from opponents of the Iran nuclear deal.
More than 10,000 phone calls have flooded his office line the past two weeks, organized by a group looking to kill the deal. Another group has dropped seven figures on TV in New York City to pressure Schumer and other lawmakers to vote against the plan. The powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee has put its muscle behind an effort to lobby the New Yorker against it.
And Dov Hikind, a state assemblyman from Brooklyn, was arrested for disorderly conduct while protesting the deal outside Schumer’s office.
People who have spoken with the senior New York senator believe the pressure campaign is having an effect: They say there is a growing sense inside and outside the Capitol that Schumer will vote against the deal when the Senate considers it in September. The bigger question many have now is this: How hard will he push against it?
And Schumer isn't the only Senator who is wilting under pressure from deal opponents.
Sen. Chris Coons, who was personally lobbied by President Barack Obama and national security adviser Susan Rice to back the deal during a trip to Africa in July, said the view of the accord was about evenly split in his home state of Delaware in the first few days after the announcement. But the Democrat now says telephone calls against the deal outnumber those in favor by 10-to-1 in his state, an avalanche of opposition he has no choice but to listen to.
The New York and New Jersey delegations have been the top focus of groups trying to kill the agreement, and there’s evidence they are making headway. In New Jersey, Sen. Robert Menendez sounds like a “no” vote, while Sen. Cory Booker is undecided. In New York City, the group Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran spent $1.6 million on broadcast television and $119,500 on cable between July 16-July 30 advertising on the issue, according to a media tracking source. Secure America Now, a hawkish group trying to kill the deal, has organized the call-in campaign to Schumer.
What a concept: Senators (and Representatives) who listen to their constituents! If only we had that in Israel!

Then why does Israel's Hebrew 'Palestinian' daily continue to editorialize against the pressure that is turning the tide? 10-1 is a lot more than 'more than half but less than two thirds.' Maybe because Haaretz doesn't listen to Israelis because they don't stand for elections?

In the meantime, it sounds like Schumer will not try to persuade anyone else how to vote. In fact, he may not even be able to.
If Schumer wanted to persuade members to side with him, “Chuck would have let his intentions known a long time ago, and everybody would have known,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). Winning over members now, Manchin added, “would be much more difficult.”
The Iran vote could reverberate for Democratic senators facing tough reelection races in the coming years, especially if they back the accord and it fails to rein in Iran. Only one of them, Colorado’s Michael Bennet, is up in 2016; several others will be on the ballot in 2018.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a moderate who faces voters in three years, said she’s still carefully weighing the agreement.
“Schumer is not going to move anybody on this,” she said.
“I think he’s conflicted,” McCaskill added. “Many of us are. It’s hard.”
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), another moderate up for reelection in 2018, said Schumer would have “none, zero, nada” sway over his vote.
“Don’t tell Chuck that,” Tester joked.
So far, just one member of the Senate Democratic leadership team has voiced his position on the matter — Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who supports the plan. That’s far different than the House, where Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced her backing almost immediately after the deal was announced. In the Senate, the other members of the leadership team, including Reid, Schumer and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), are playing coy.
Will it really come down to what the American people want? Wouldn't that be something!

Labels: , , , , ,


At 2:47 PM, Blogger onlyajew said...

The story is not really a story in that he will get cover from democrats who vote for it and uphold a ver to. That's why he's waited so long to say something. He's counting votes then he can say I am voting against the deal but knows his vote is like a vote for a republican president in New York. It means nothing. The numbers will give him cover so he can keep talking out of both sides of his mouth. Despicable.

At 2:50 PM, Blogger Sunlight said...

What would be really amazing and great would be for Senator Schumer to stand up and say that THIS IS A TREATY and that the Congress has no authority to abdicate their responsibility to use RATIFICATION processes. It may turn out well for the individual fortunes of people like Senator Schumer to get rid of the U.S. Constitution as underlying law, but it will not turn out well for the rest of us IN THE WORLD to have the US as a Gangbanger Democrat Diktatorship!!!

At 3:20 PM, Blogger Sunlight said...

BTW Will Iran's "Kill the Jews" manual make any impression on Senator Schumer? Or will he chuckle and discount it, like the Democrats do with the "Death to Israel, Death to America" chants?

At 4:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree. This is meaningless. Schumer waited to make sure that he would have cover from Democrats who will loose nothing by voting for the deal. That is why at the Rally in NYC, they kept emphasizing that he would be held liable if the deal passes even if he votes against it.

If he wants to be the minority leader of the Senate, he needs to lead, and sometimes that means going against what the WH wants. But that would take political courage, not something Schumer is know for.

At 4:20 PM, Blogger Sunlight said...

Analysis says the Senator Schumer, due to his participation in vacating the TREATY provisions of the Constitution, will be able to vote AGAINST the "deal," while giving the Obama/Clinton/KhmerRouge Kerry Posse their way, because the "DEAL" will go through without his vote. That way, he can simper with Israel and the NY Jewish community, while still having undercut the Constitution and the safety of the US and Israel, as ordered by Obama. Does everyone realize how badly this is going to turn out for the Jews everywhere, and for everyone else, as well?

RT from Facebook feed
The Times of Israel
7 hrs ·
While Republicans control a majority in both chambers, they cannot muster a two-thirds veto-proof majority without at least 44 Democratic House representatives and 13 Democratic senators.

Democrats say Iran deal all but secure in CongressLeaders confident they can deny opponents of nuclear accord a veto-proof two-thirds majority in both chambers



Post a Comment

<< Home