Breaking: Sen. Schumer (D-NY) to oppose Iran deal

[All Along The Watchtower]

Are Jews in New York really that opposed to the deal, or is this more about the  influence of AIPAC, etc.?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Are Jews in New York really that opposed to the deal, or is this more about the  influence of AIPAC, etc.?

I suppose the large majority of NY Jews are very liberal so the latter is the correct answer.

[Angel of Death]

I suspect he only made his opposition public when he was certain that there was enough support in Congress to sustain a presidential veto of a disapproval resolution, and that therefore his vote would not be needed.

I think so too, but this cynical act is still very damaging to the Democratic party.

[traininthedistance]

Are Jews in New York really that opposed to the deal, or is this more about the  influence of AIPAC, etc.?

I suppose the large majority of NY Jews are very liberal so the latter is the correct answer.

Most are quite liberal.  However, NY Jews are more conservative than Jews in America overall, due to the large concentration of Orthodox/Hasidic/Haredi populations in southern Brooklyn and Rockland/Orange.

C.f., well, NYJew (remember him?)

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Schumer is such an HP.

[DavidB.]

This kind of thing is exactly why I've always loved Chuck Schumer.

This!

B'H! Schumer the Shomer stands strong!

On the one hand this ^. On the other hand, I think he probably ensured that there would be a majority for the deal anyway. Cardin and Booker are probably going to do the same: vote against without any consequences.

Still, him voting for this horrible deal would render him the ultimate Court Jew. Now, Schumer has showed that even if most Senate Dems are more than happy to throw Israel's security under the bus, he won't do that to his people - which is a powerful signal in and of itself. I fully support his re-election.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This kind of thing is exactly why I've always loved Chuck Schumer.

This!

B'H! Schumer the Shomer stands strong!

Yeah, because current policy has been working sooooo well

[Landslide Lyndon]

OTOH, we must remember that before becoming Democratic leader in 2004 Harry Reid was quite conservative but he quickly changed his positions in order to represent his caucus and  later to promote Obama's legislative agenda.

[Simfan34]

I suspect he only made his opposition public when he was certain that there was enough support in Congress to sustain a presidential veto of a disapproval resolution, and that therefore his vote would not be needed.  

This is why I don't think you should be making such a big deal about this.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I suspect he only made his opposition public when he was certain that there was enough support in Congress to sustain a presidential veto of a disapproval resolution, and that therefore his vote would not be needed.  

This is why I don't think you should be making such a big deal about this.

Yeah, it's kind of creepy to see so many people wanting reprisals for this when the odds are all he's doing is voting his conscience without actually trying to derail the deal.

[Bigby]

Well, while I am personally glad that he is opposing the deal, it is idiotic for him to go against his own party, especially in this age of partisanship. Looks like Durbin will become the Minority Leader instead.

[Indy Texas]

Fine. No deal. Iran will go back to acquiring their nuclear materials as before. Good luck getting China and the EU to go along with ratcheting up sanctions when they're in bad need of export markets. Good luck getting anyone to take the US seriously as a global dealmaker when we devote years to an agreement and then have our legislative body dump water all over it after it's done.

Those of you who are opposed are more than welcome to explain, very specifically, how you would have gotten anything more from Iran than what was gotten. And if "Bomb Iran" is your answer, then go down to your nearest recruiting center and sign up instead of sitting there like a neocon chickenhawk.

Loving Indy Texas' medieval conception of war (although to be fair even then many of the instigators of such wars didn't fight on the front lines).

Still waiting for someone to answer my question.

[/]

Ugh

[ElectionsGuy]

What's breaking about this story. I thought we knew Schumer was more of a hawkish Democrat, I'm not surprised.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Are Jews in New York really that opposed to the deal, or is this more about the  influence of AIPAC, etc.?

I suppose the large majority of NY Jews are very liberal so the latter is the correct answer.

Most are quite liberal.  However, NY Jews are more conservative than Jews in America overall, due to the large concentration of Orthodox/Hasidic/Haredi populations in southern Brooklyn and Rockland/Orange.

C.f., well, NYJew (remember him?)

plenty of liberal hawks in NY though, aren't there?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Are Jews in New York really that opposed to the deal, or is this more about the  influence of AIPAC, etc.?

I suppose the large majority of NY Jews are very liberal so the latter is the correct answer.

Most are quite liberal.  However, NY Jews are more conservative than Jews in America overall, due to the large concentration of Orthodox/Hasidic/Haredi populations in southern Brooklyn and Rockland/Orange.

C.f., well, NYJew (remember him?)

plenty of liberal hawks in NY though, aren't there?

Yeah but the idea that it would be enough for a serious primary challenge is laughable.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What's breaking about this story. I thought we knew Schumer was more of a hawkish Democrat, I'm not surprised.

He's the first Senate Democrat to oppose this deal. Feinstein is a hawkish Democrat, and yet she was the first Senator to support this deal.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Obama really doesn't know how to handle dissent. Schumer made clear in his initial statement that while he couldn't vote for this deal, he didn't plan to lobby people to join him. This was basically a tacit admission that while he accepts that the deal will pass, he won't give it his stamp.

Obama's response was to send his spokesman out to suggest that the Dems should pick a new majority leader. So, why exactly shouldn't Schumer decide to put out a full-court press on another 12 Democrats?

[Torie]

Obama really doesn't know how to handle dissent. Schumer made clear in his initial statement that while he couldn't vote for this deal, he didn't plan to lobby people to join him. This was basically a tacit admission that while he accepts that the deal will pass, he won't give it his stamp.

Obama's response was to send his spokesman out to suggest that the Dems should pick a new majority leader. So, why exactly shouldn't Schumer decide to put out a full-court press on another 12 Democrats?

Because doing that would undermine his becoming the Dem Senate leader far more than his breaking with Obama on Iran.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Obama really doesn't know how to handle dissent. Schumer made clear in his initial statement that while he couldn't vote for this deal, he didn't plan to lobby people to join him. This was basically a tacit admission that while he accepts that the deal will pass, he won't give it his stamp.

Obama's response was to send his spokesman out to suggest that the Dems should pick a new majority leader. So, why exactly shouldn't Schumer decide to put out a full-court press on another 12 Democrats?

Dissent on such critical issue should not - and, in any self-respecting party, would not - be tolerated.

[Torie]

Obama really doesn't know how to handle dissent. Schumer made clear in his initial statement that while he couldn't vote for this deal, he didn't plan to lobby people to join him. This was basically a tacit admission that while he accepts that the deal will pass, he won't give it his stamp.

Obama's response was to send his spokesman out to suggest that the Dems should pick a new majority leader. So, why exactly shouldn't Schumer decide to put out a full-court press on another 12 Democrats?

Dissent on such critical issue should not - and, in any self-respecting party, would not - be tolerated.

I think this is more of a conscience vote, than a party line thing myself. Plus, all politics is local, and his colleagues understand the pressures Schumer is under. Plus his vote makes no difference in the outcome.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Obama really doesn't know how to handle dissent. Schumer made clear in his initial statement that while he couldn't vote for this deal, he didn't plan to lobby people to join him. This was basically a tacit admission that while he accepts that the deal will pass, he won't give it his stamp.

Obama's response was to send his spokesman out to suggest that the Dems should pick a new majority leader. So, why exactly shouldn't Schumer decide to put out a full-court press on another 12 Democrats?

Dissent on such critical issue should not - and, in any self-respecting party, would not - be tolerated.

Obama let dozens of Democrats vote against the ACA without any consequences, because the vote was guaranteed to pass. Doing anything else here makes him look petty and biased.

The President isn't owed lockstep loyalty from every member of his party, especially not on an issue as critical as this and especially not in the 7th year of his term.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Dissent on such critical issue should not - and, in any self-respecting party, would not - be tolerated.

Since when have American parties had any respect, self or otherwise?

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Conscience" has nothing to do with Schumer's vote. In fact, I'm pretty sure he (like anyone who knows anything about foreign policy) thinks it's a good deal. It's just that he's a spineless panderer who's afraid of a primary challenge that would never have happened anyway.

And even if he doesn't end up sabotaging the deal, Schumer's opppsition will contribute to shaping public opinion. When voters see that the deal has Republicans unanimously against it and Democrats split in two they will assume it's some far-left thing - whereas it's a great diplomatic success that should receive widely acclaim and bipartisan support.

[Torie]

"Conscience" has nothing to do with Schumer's vote. In fact, I'm pretty sure he (like anyone who knows anything about foreign policy) thinks it's a good deal. It's just that he's a spineless panderer who's afraid of a primary challenge that would never have happened anyway.

And even if he doesn't end up sabotaging the deal, Schumer's opppsition will contribute to shaping public opinion. When voters see that the deal has Republicans unanimously against it and Democrats split in two they will assume it's some far-left thing - whereas it's a great diplomatic success that should receive widely acclaim and bipartisan support.

Well, I am not sure of that at all, but I await the debates, and the contents of the two secret side letters, and then maybe I will join you in thinking the deal is beyond per adventure just fabulous. Anything is possible.