From the New Republic to the New York Times, we have seen articles talking about an effort by several Democratic Senators-including self described progressives like Michael Bennett (D-CO), Ben Cardin (D-MD), and Kristin Gillibrand (D-NY) and Corey Booker (D-NJ)-to add additional punitive sanctions to Iran right as the negotiations are about to be finalized on an interim agreement disarming Iran and averting war.
From the Times:
The White House has cast the issue in stark terms, saying that a vote for new sanctions would be, in effect, a “march toward war” and challenging those lawmakers who support the bill to acknowledge publicly that they favor military action against Iran.
“It just stands to reason if you close the diplomatic option, you’re left with a difficult choice of waiting to see if sanctions cause Iran to capitulate, which we don’t think will happen, or considering military action,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser.
But were these Senators, under pressure from AIPAC and perhaps due to the presidential ambitions of Gillibrand and Booker, are focusing on a bill written by Republican hawks and possibly joining them in an override of a presidential veto
Democrats, they say, recognize the delicacy of Mr. Obama’s signing a veto on the Iran bill, especially if Congress delivers the first veto override of his presidency on a matter that is so clearly a presidential prerogative. But Democrats said the current lull can hold only for a matter of weeks, not months.
Time to call them up and demand they back the President and Secretary Kerry on this. War is not an option.
I can speculate, but I don’t know the answer. I hope someone asks them.
Gillibrand is in New York and likely under the thumb of Chuck Schumer. Booker is in tight with New York and he’s DINOish anyway.
Bennet’s in trouble in Colorado, which is a purple state.
I’ll bet Schumer would find that funny. Gillibrand, not so much.
…NY and CO voters have strong opinions on Iran? I realize NY has a high concentration of Jewish voters, but I’ve been led to believe that American Jews aren’t necessarily an “Israel, right or wrong” constituency.
to be more “Israel, Right or Wrong” on Israel than the younger Jews. See Peter Beinart’s stuff. But it doesn’t take a majority of hard-core true believers to have influence. All it takes is money. And that’s what New York City has and why Schumer is so powerful.
… sheer, utter and nearly complete, lunacy.
I can’t help but think that this is what comes from no longer having Dick Lugar and John Kerry (amongst others) in the Senate. I’m glad Kerry is at State, don’t get me wrong, but there is a foreign policy vacuum in the Senate right now…
Is not the best Senator for that Committee by a long shot.
progressive Democrats. They are Democrats, but that doesn’t make them progressives. None, for example, are in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. They don’t have to be, but you know what I mean.
Gillibrand is in a fairly conservative district. Didn’t they recall a Democrat in CO?
…but as a Senator she represents the entire state.
As for CO they recalled a Dem over guns, not Iran.
A progressive? She represented a conservative district. As senator, she’s junior to Schumer and beholden to the same moneyed interests. Colorado is purple. I also wouldn’t be surprised to see some billionaires in the state with an Israel fetish. Evangelicals and fundies also have the jones and CO has them too.
I was just pointing out that she represents more than a conservative district now.
Is not a progressive anymore than Mary Landrieu.
Was “self described”. Bennett and Cardin would’ve fit my own definition previously-but not after this.
n/t (and n/e)
From the start, it was clear that Obama had never faced down a schoolyard bully of any age, i.e., today’s Republican Party: one doesn’t start by having beers with such people, rather one starts with a 2×4 to their heads just to make sure they’re paying attention. So the Republicans were lost from day one.
Obama’s loss of the Democrats seems to have been building for a while as he bent over backwards to appease Rightists and Wall Street while belittling traditional Democratic values. For example, I think Obama largely lost Harry Reid as a strong ally over the presidential fetish for cutting Social Security. It looks like all control was lost last summer, the last straws being the bizarre Libya episode and the attempt to appoint Larry “Toonces” Summers to have another crack at looting the Middle Class.
At this point, I think the best we can hope for is stalemate and limping along for three more years – any actual movement is likely to be in the wrong direction, e.g. a Grand Bargain against the 99%, the TPP, etc.
And I say this all as one who supported Obama’s candidacy once it was clear that either he, Hillary, or Edwards would be the nominee.
I just hope he can get it together in the next two years. I still like him personally and want him to succeed, but while I was once excited to possibly live in the same neighborhood and get access to the future library, I am now very anxious to leave Chicago and return home. A lot of that is for personal reasons, but I also feel like we have a blank canvas that we can paint as progressive as we want in MA and the opportunity to turn the state around is a far better one than the country at large.
This is a clear example where the President is 100% right and deserves our full support and Congressional Democrats are totally wrong. He should wake up OFA and get it pounding the phone lines, but certainly for this agreement. For our own Senate caucus to torpedo the best chance we have at resolving this situation peacefully, and adding really ridiculous resolutions like Booker’s stating the US would assist in an Israeli attack on Iran, is the height of folly. It’s as if none of the these DLCers learned the hard lessons of the Iraq War. It’s situations like these that validate my original judgment that Obama was the man to have his finger on the button.
The lesson was that there is, apparently, no negative personal consequence for Democrats backing horrific and unbelievably-stupid wars, but there’s a personal price to pay for not backing them.
Only a minority of Congressional Democrats voted to attack Iraq; of those, Kerry was our party’s subsequent nominee for the presidency, and Hillary is (again) our inevitable next nominee. At least Kerry’s owned up to his mistake.
Not like Boss Tweed, but like car engine. Politically, he’s very mechanical. I think he lacks the political chops to lead the party and work with caucuses.
Politics has a skill set that many outsiders just don’t have. You need to be able to schmooze and make deals. For Obama, and I think the same is true for Deval Patrick, who, I think, is notoriously aloof from Beacon Hill, governing is like assembling a really complicated legal case or writing a dissertation. I think the failure to understand the business of politics is what harms the effectiveness of so many non-establishment candidates. (I’m not saying insiders don’t have their own issues).
If I were a DINO, I’d be pissed that Obama has done such a piss poor job with the politics and implementation of ACA. Arguments matter. When it comes down to it, voters need memes to explain issues. Obama ceded everything to the opposition once the bill was passed.
The silver one.