Politic thinks there are growing signs that he will
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.
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? (snip)
“I haven’t made up my mind,†said Schumer, who is in line to be the first Jewish Senate leader next Congress. “There are expectations all over the lot. I’m doing what I’m always doing when I have a very difficult decision: Learning it carefully and giving it my best shot, doing what I think is right. I’m not going to let pressure or politics or party get in the way of that.â€
Will Chuck put the concerns of the United States above the “legacy” of Obama? Schumer will surely still be in office when the true failure of this deal becomes apparent in practice, while Obama will be gone and making millions on the lecture circuit. Will Schumer listen to his constituents and be a “no” vote? We will see. If he votes no, though, it makes it quite a bit easier for other Democrats to vote no.
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.
Go figure, most are against this deal. Many, many Democrats are “carefully considering” the deal, which means they understand that it is a really bad deal, and they’re trying to figure out how to oppose Obama on it.
Meanwhile, the NY Post’s Michael Goodwin thinks Schumer will be a “yes” vote, and makes a good point
Imagine an alternative scenario. Instead of Barack Obama in the White House, it is a Republican president who negotiated the Iran deal and now demands Sen. Chuck Schumer’s support.
What would Schumer do?
The answer is obvious — he’d say no, the deal stinks. Unfortunately, that scenario makes it just as obvious what Schumer will do in reality.
Tip O’Neill was wrong. All politics are not local. All politics are personal.
The career of Democrat Schumer is best served by standing with Democrat Obama. That is what he will do. Everything else is detail.
He is the party’s anointed leader in the Senate, and breaking with a Democratic president on a signature, legacy issue would be so huge as to jeopardize the position he has craved and earned. Obama would see the act as unforgivable treason and demand a replacement.
Two good points, especially about if this deal was struck under a Republican president. Of course, really, what has Obama done for Democrats? He has presided over 3 straight losses for Democrats in Congress, some at historic levels. He’s mostly been unwanted on the campaign trail by Democratic Party contenders, even in safe states/precincts.
I guess we’ll see.
Israel is quite divided on the Agreement
Jerusalem (AFP) – Many Israeli ex-generals and former security chiefs have signed a petition urging Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept the nuclear deal between world powers and Iran, which he strongly opposes.
A petition signed by the former officials and made public Monday calls the July 14 accord a “fait accompli”.
It urges the government to pursue a policy that would “restore trust and reinforce security and diplomatic cooperation with the American administration”.
Doing so would “allow us to prepare to face the numerous challenges that will result from the agreement”, the petition says.
The signatories include two former heads of the Shin Bet internal security agency, Ami Ayalon and Carmi Gillon; a former deputy director of the Mossad intelligence agency, Amiram Levin; the ex-chief of the Atomic Energy Commission Uzi Eilmann; and dozens of former generals and senior officers.
“Israel is quite divided….” That could be true, but if “dozens” are, say, two dozen, then you list 28 people who are “divided” against the agreement. Does that equal “Israel is quite divided”?