How’s that?
She’s not in the senate. On further reading it appears Congress has voted itself the power to disapprove the deal by vote of both houses, though. No idea how that works.
IIRC it’s based on the deal they made with the White House – both houses will have the opportunity to vote to approve or disapprove any deal after the review period, but the President can veto any disapproval and this would require a 2/3rds majority in both houses to override.
When did MTV become available in East Berlin?
Of course I’m being allegorical. MTV is just an easy symbol.
She needs more than her base in Flushing to get her where she wants to go.
Chuck Schumer will not support the deal:
Interesting. This may be wishful thinking on his part, but James Fallows in the Atlantic thinks a Schumer no vote is a sign the deal will likely NOT be successfully blocked:
That’s what I was thinking too. The vote will probably be close, much like the ACA vote in the House. Anyone who needs to vote no for political cover will be allowed to do so if there are votes to spare. And Schumer is the whip, isn’t he?
No, it’s Dick Durbin. For 10 years now, apparently.
If last night’s debate was supposed to show the American people why the deal is bad, I can’t see it failing to pass Congress now. Not one person was able to identify a specific aspect of the deal that was bad, other than unrelated issues (“he forgot our hostages!”)
Shumer is the presumed successor to Harry Reid. Sad to see him be such a sellout on the Iran deal. Then again, he also sold himself out to the financial industry prior to the financial collapse.
He’s getting criticized by the anti deal crowd… they wanted him to wait until just before the vote to announce his disapproval for maximum impact. That he’s coming out early could be a sign that the Democrats have counted their votes and have enough to save the deal, and Shumer just wants the cover of a no vote without sinking the deal.
Not that he gave much detail, but Trump went on a bit about ‘24 hours’ and how outrageous it was.
Suppose the Iranians decide to rub Obama’s and Kerry’s noses in the dirt? they immediately buy advanced weapons from Russia, and announce they will be sending aid to Yemen, Hizbolla, Assad, etc. Netanyahu starts yammering again, and missiles start raining down on Israel from Gaza-what then? Iran hasn’t violated anything, so what would Obama do?
If they did that, we could impose unilateral sanctions or try to assemble multilateral sanctions addressing those specific activities. Or, of course, we could consider a military response. As the overwhelmingly more powerful party, I’m not too worried that the US could mount an adequate response if our interests so dictated.
Withholding relief from nuclear sanctions after Iran has agreed to constraints that will make pursuit of a bomb impossible would be extremely damaging to US credibility as a future negotiating partner, both with respect to our allies and to our adversaries.
Why the fuck would they suddenly want to do that?
Already happening.
Already happening.
If Gaza attacked Israel, Israel would defend itself. What does that have to do with Iran?
Judging by the hostility coming from the administration, this doesn’t sound like Schumer saying “no” because they already have the votes. When many Democrats voted against ACA in the House, there was no criticism of them from inside the beltway because it was understood that the Democrats had the votes and that they needed to protect some members. We’re not seeing that now, which means that there are still not enough votes in the can to uphold the agreement. And Schumer is the Democrats’ presumptive new Senate leader come 2017. He can take some votes with him.
What “hostility” (beyond vehement disagreement)?
Pretty sure that’s not the case. I recall lots of criticism.
I think your analysis is off here. We’ll see. If Schumer were to succeed in sinking this deal, I’m quite doubtful he would ascend to lead the Democrats in the Senate.
They are suggesting that he should be Democratic leader.
Yeah, from Daily Kos maybe.
The Washington Post vote counter still shows the Iran deal as having too many undecideds. I have to conclude at this point that the Democrats do not actually have the votes yet.
Nearly all of the undecideds would have to vote “no” in order to sink the deal, including folks like Cory Booker. If Booker votes no on this deal, I’ll be incredibly surprised. I think it’s extremely unlikely that the “no” votes will get 2/3rds in both houses.
But we’ll see.
Not so:
Current whip count is 27-58. Opponents only need to get 9 out of the 15 undecideds.
It seems the overwhelming GOP objection to the deal (other than that they want Obama to fail as much as possible without regard for the health of this country) seems to be that they are afraid Iran will do something just within the bounds of the deal that’s threatening or break it when they have a bomb and that the treaty binds the hands of the US to respond. To those people I ask: do you have any idea of history and what the US has done unilaterally in the past hundred years?
Your fears are unfounded, your suspicion is unwarranted, and your beliefs are misguided. This deal doesn’t bind the US’s hands, it binds Iran’s. Its akin to a parent telling their child they’ll get ice cream if they do the chores and finish their plate. The parent is 100% in control. If the kid screws up in any way, or tries to trick the parent by getting someone else to do the chores and feeding broccoli to the dog, the parent is going to withhold the reward. The kid can throw all the temper tantrums it wants, but its not going to do shit. The only difference is that in international politics, you need to at least give the impression that both sides got what they want so the leaders can go back to their people and save face.