He's going to vote against Barack Obama's nuclear sellout to Iran, but he's not going to lobby his colleagues to join him. And given that there's pretty much no such thing as a non-pushy, live-and-let-live Chuckie Schumer, that ought to tell you all you need to know:
Senator Chuck Schumer said Thursday night he'll oppose the nuclear deal worked out by the United States and five other world powers with Iran.
The New York Times reports the New York Democrat – a prominent Jewish voice in Congress – in a statement said his decision came "after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching...."
"Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed," Schumer said, making evaluation of the deal "a difficult and deliberate endeavor…" but that he had "decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval."
"There are some who believe that I can force my colleagues to vote my way," Schumer said.
"While I will certainly share my view and try to persuade them that the vote to disapprove is the right one, in my experience with matters of conscience and great consequence like this, each member ultimately comes to their own conclusion." [emphasis added]
Schumer may be sincere in his sentiments, but if he really and strongly believed in them, he wouldn't be so passive about them,
But the "suspense narrative" has to be built up over the next month, and Schumer's "agonized but heartfelt" opposition will be the catalyst for a wave of stories like this one:
Schumer's opposition, announced in a lengthy statement, could pave the way for more of Obama's fellow Democrats to come out against the nuclear pact announced on July 1st between the United States, five world powers, and Iran.
The New York senator is among the most influential Jewish lawmakers in the United States. He was the first Senate Democrat to announce his opposition to the agreement.
Another influential Jewish lawmaker, Representative Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, also said on Thursday he would oppose the nuclear pact in a statement obtained by Reuters.
It's a trickle that might become a sluice but will never become a flood. It's just like the ObamaCare vote where designated "blue dog" Dems in the House were given permission to vote no in order to have political cover in their next re-election campaigns (didn't work) while still retaining enough yes votes to ram it through. Ditto pretty much every unpopular leftwingnut cram down that's come down the pike over the last quarter-century. The only difference is, on the Iran "deal," slightly fewer Dems will be given the go-ahead to defect to ensure that the resolution falls just short of veto-proof majorities in order to "send a message" but not actually shoot down the "deal".
Which was always the core point of the Corker-Cardin/Menendez legislation. It's just now approaching it's crescendo, and Chuckie is lending his lugubrious baritone to the slimy chorus of self-destruction.
I bet his faux solemnity still can't take that sneering smirk entirely off his face, though.
UPDATE: Boy, the White House is sure playing up the dramatic "betrayal" tension:
White House allies angrily struck back after Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) announced his opposition to Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal late Thursday, suggesting Schumer could lose support as Democrat leader in the Senate in 2016 if he helps block the accord.
The forceful response from some of Obama’s former top-ranking aides was the latest example of the president’s take-no-prisoners approach to ensuring the survival of a pact that he views as a historic, legacy-defining achievement that could help remake the security situation in the turbulent Middle East…
“Senator Schumer siding with the GOP against Obama, [Hillary] Clinton and most Democrats will make it hard for him to lead the Dems in ’16,” Dan Pfeiffer, who served as Obama’s senior political adviser until leaving in February, wrote on Twitter. “The base won’t support a leader who thought ObamaCare was a mistake and wants war with Iran.”
Looks like Pfeiffer is trying to drizzle comedy into the mix as well,
Seriously, yeah, Schumer said O-Care might have been a mistake long after the fact, but he supported and voted for it when it mattered. And, sure, Schumer says he'll vote against O's nuclear sellout, but he's not going to lobby any other Dem to change their vote, and there's no way thirteen more Senate Dems and another three dozen-plus House Dems are going to join him across the aisle.
Is there?
Not a chance. Just as Chuckie will be Senate Minority Leader a year and a half from now.
What I want to know is, since when did the Regime get tired of being blatant about its fait accomplis? Has "fundamental transformation" gotten so passe that they're getting bored?
No comments:
Post a Comment