Chuck Schumer is NOT betraying his country OR his President. Learn about politics...

[cherokeeprogressive]

President Obama has ALL the fucking votes he needs. Sometimes, believe it or not, you have to vote the way your constituents EXPECT you to vote.

Imagine that; voting the way your contributors and constituents WANT you to vote... Strange, isn't it? An elected official voting the way their FUCKING CONSTITUENTS AND DONORS want them to vote?

When the votes are CLOSE, some are given a pass, if for NO OTHER REASON than to placate their constituencies and donors, ONCE THE OUTCOME IS CERTAIN, close or NOT. Why is that...? SO THE SEAT ISN'T GIVEN TO THE OTHER PARTY.

If you don't understand that; YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND POLITICS.

[Skittles]

1. it's not just this issue

[cherokeeprogressive]

6. I understand that. But that's not how politics work today, and not how it's worked for a LONG time.

"We've got this in the bag... your vote doesn't matter. Vote in which ever way you need to to keep your seat."

It happens every. freaking. day.

Personally, I see it as my party LYING to me on nearly everything I hold dear.

I became a Democrat when I was a kid and one summer spent nearly EVERY DAY watching the Watergate hearings because my Grandma was my babysitter.

My eyes opened, and I looked backward and understood how my government was dishonest in nearly every way.

Fuck me if today the people I learned to hate (career politicians) as a youngster are now being championed as the saviors of the future.

[herding cats]

16. Do you realize he's about to be the Demcratic leader in the senate?

He's been touched to take on Harry Reid's job. Did you realize that? Do you support a Democratic leader who is for more conflict in the ME? That's wars, in case I'm not making myself clear here.

His vote needs to be held against him until he's no longer considered a choice for the position. Period! He's not a good choice for our senate leader. He's a horrible choice, actually.

You want to know something else? The president would agree with me on this one. He's taken Schumer to task already over his potential vote on this matter and Schumer just thumbed his nose at him!

He's the wrong person for the job. We need to be united on making sure he's not appointed to the position if we don't want more wars in the ME. That's the Republican's territory, not we Democrats!

[Pisces]

100. I agree 100%. He can not lead with this vote.

[IL Lib]

103. +1 n/t

[ibegurpard]

2. Not for next Senate minority leader

And not on this one.

[Arugula Latte]

3. Fuck him. He is voting on behalf of AIPAC, not his constituents.

[GitRDun]

7. maybe his constituents like AIPAC

but i definitely agree with the sentiment.

Other than DINO'S like Manchin and D's with heavy ties to AIPAC, I think the treaty will be ratified largely along party lines.

[geek tragedy]

8. Manchin is voting for the agreement. He's a better Democrat than Schumer is nt

[still_one]

12. On this issue. Also the argument the OP is making regarding constituents doesn't hold water since

the other Senator of NY, Senator Senator Gillibrand, who has the same constiuients is voting for the deal.

[Bohunk68]

119. Absolutely! My thought exactly when I read it

Schumer is merely doing what his boss, Bibi, tells him to do.

[Historic NY]

39. And just last week he was a POS too.....

the problem is these guy only vote for themselves and when its suits them, us. Pandering sucks.....its going to cost Chuck down the line.

[geek tragedy]

41. Chuck is going to skate on this because he bathes

in Wall Street and AIPAC cash and is willing to spread it around.

[geek tragedy]

56. Heh. Someone might consider your comment

anti-Semitic.

Did you make such donations to Marco Rubio and Scott Walker?

[6chars]

60. i know what you just did

[still_one]

14. Well the other NY Senator, Senator Gillibrand, is for the deal, and since we all know that Senators

represent an entire state, and not a particular district, they are supposed to have the same constituents.

My Senators, Feinstein and Boxer are both supporting the deal. That is consistent if nothing else from the same state

[One of the 99]

33. I'm one of his constituents and I don't support AIPAC

Schumer has sold his soul to Benjamin Netanyahu. I'll never vote for him again.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. I'd just like to note that in 1996, Schumer voted against the rights of millions of Americans when

cast his strong yes vote for DOMA and that you and other NYers did not bother to replace him for that e for nearly 20 years after he cast that vote.
20 years.

[One of the 99]

78. Didn't know that he voted for DOMA

But that issue is moot now.

[leftynyc]

48. Take it from a NYer

He most certainly is voting on behalf of his constituents. The only people I meet either hate the deal or don't know about it - and this crosses gender, race, economics.....they simply don't trust Iran. And that's downstate. The further north you travel, the more conservative NY gets. I'm hoping that Gillibrand supporting the deal doesn't hurt her as I think she's great.

[CanadaexPat]

4. It appears you don't understand the import

Of the issue or the fact that the nominee will have to run on the deal.

[ericson00]

26. exactly. I don't know for the life of me why Obama

did this. His approvals are middling right now. They're not sub-40, which is when the incumbent party loses, but they're not above 50%, when winning is guaranteed. They're in the 45-49 range. Aside from the fact that his attempt at making Muslim societies like America is not working, he could easily have higher approvals right now going into 2016, when if his party were to win a 3rd WH term, he'd look very good, if he cares so much bout legacy, right?

No deal doesn't mean "war." More sanctions=/=war. Iran could never get troops anywhere near us, and no one is saying invade them, that would be a disaster. At worst a "military option" is just airstrikes as we did against Saddam in Iraq for years before actually invading, or against Libya after Lockerbie.

[geek tragedy]

45. "his attempt to make Muslim societies like us"

Any doubts as to whether you're a Neocon rightwinger should be erased by that lovely piece of neocon nonsense.

[BeyondGeography]

47. He's a pretender who's blowing it for the Clintons

AGAIN!

I know this hurts, because it's yet another validation of the choice most Dems made when Hillary was rejected in 2008, but this is a great deal that has the support of all the leading military powers of the world, 75 percent of Democrats and many Israeli security experts. Project "Americanize the Muslims"? Ffs, stick to Hillary entitlement posts.

[ericson00]

51. I'm not commenting on the merits of the deal, but on the PR that could've been

seen against it. Politics is a game of public perception. If Obama had been perceived as friendlier to Israel in his presidency, then I think this deal would be more popular and likely to go thru. Also, 75% of Democrats isn't the right number, its more like 60%

[BeyondGeography]

62. The deal will go through

Schiff's support in the House is at least as important as Schumer's opposition, because the House was always going to be the firewall. In the Senate, moderates like Nelson and Kaine are on board, plus Gillibrand and Boxer have announced support while Schumer went through his thinking-hard-about-it charade.

The OP is right; this is happening. Schumer waited until it was clear and is now keeping his AIPAC butt kissing bona fides intact. He didn't come out early and loud against it because he knows it's the best possible deal, there are no alternatives short of war and he couldn't stomach a high-profile personal defeat. It's gutless on his part and a sad predictor of what kind of "leadership" we can expect from him, especially on FP issues.

[Fast Walker 52]

67. I hope you're right

but it does sound like typical gutless politics

[angel123]

114. Obama could have been friendlier to Israel

Are you confused? Obama is a friend to Israel. The problem is that Netanyahu does not like Obama because Obama does not cater to his BS. When McConnell invited Netanyahu to speak to congress without consulting the White House and he accepted, don,t you think that loyal americans were offended? Our president owes no one friendship that does not show it to him. Thank you, very much!!

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. For fuck's sake, you toss off 'air strikes' as if they don't kill people

Obama, and all the other world leaders and negotiators, did it to decrease the chances of Iran, and then Saudi Arabia, developing nuclear weapons. No deal and increased sanctions would mean an Iranian population that sees that the USA would never make a deal with them, and they may as well arm themselves like North Korea did, and bring back the nutters like Ahmadinejad, rather than reformers. And you'd be sending in the aircraft to kill some Iranians to teach them how fucking manly you are, and the Iranians would decide to do what they could to defend themselves from you - which would be terrorism, problems in the Gulf ...

You are proposing the foreign policy of George W. Bush.

[H2O Man]

65. Well said.

Perfect.

Thank you.

[annabanana]

123. thank you . . . .n/t

[marmar]

102. Yikes! Just Yikes!

[truebluegreen]

109. No deal essentially does mean war, with or without an invasion,

since the other parties to the deal have clearly signaled that sanctions will fall apart if the deal is rejected. And, as we have discovered, "just airstrikes" are not very effective, are they?...except in harming the general public and stirring up anti-American sentiment. I'm not sure why you seem to feel they are consequence-free.

[geek tragedy]

5. Leave Chuckscum alooooooooonnnne!

Obama does not have all the votes he needs.

Also, he represents New York, not Israel. His constituents do not support him voting for war with the Republicans against President Obama's diplomatic initiative.

You are claiming that Kirsten Gillibrand is ignoring the wishes of her constituents by voting for peace instead of war.

You should probably self-delete. This is kinda embarrassing.

UpChuck just endorsed Jeb Bush's foreign policy over Hillary Clinton's.

He's LIEberman with a more annoying personality.

[Paka]

20. I didn't think it was possible to have amore annoying

personality than LIEberman.

[still_one]

9. Maybe you are the one who does not understand. If you do not believe that Netanyahu and AIPAC

are not trying to influence his vote, then perhaps you are not aware of what's happening.

You see Schumer is senator for the whole state of New York. Gellibrand is also a senator for the whole state of NY. She supports the deal. They have the same CONSTITUENTS. ALL THE PEOPLE IN NEW YORK STATE are the CONSTITUENTS. So who is being influenced by PACS, specifically AIPAC, and who isn't, and is AIPAC representative of the constituents in New York? Are the Koch brothers PACs representative of the constituents in the country.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/03/politics/aipac-iran-nuclear-deal-congress/

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/17/aipac-funds-ads-opposing-iran-nuclear-deal/

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/250455-gillibrand-backs-iran-deal

When Netanyahu immersed himself in American politics, and elections, and spoke before Congress, what do you think that was about? Netanyahu is NOT a constituent of any Senator. I have a real problem with the election stunt that Netanyahu tried to pull. He not only hurts Israel, but is getting into a very gray zone.

[global1]

15. Let's Face It He's Not Voting Because Of AIPAC Or Netanyahu - He's Voting To Save.....

himself and his job. He's thinking of himself not his constituents.

[still_one]

18. Then we agree, he is not voting for his constituents. However, there is no doubt he gets a lot of

donations from PACS which include Wall Street, AIPAC, and others. A lot of elected officials do.

He is a politician after all

[herding cats]

10. I understand politics.

Very well actually. He's also not acting as just a senior senator from NY in this vote. He's acting as our future head of the Democratic party in the senate. As such, this vote is more important that his other votes. Is he going to be for more conflict in the ME or more peace? He's been elevated to a national level, he has to assume the role if he wants the position.

Where does he stand on ME relations? This appears to show he's not in the camp of more peace but rather more conflict. Is that his stance? If so, I don't think he's the right person for the job of our senate leader. That's not what we need to be supporting as a party. The Republicans already own that stance.

[Skittles]

11. correct

Schumer does not fool me for a minute

[herding cats]

13. Nor me.

I don't support him for our senate leader. I didn't before, but this is the nail in his coffin for me. I will be preaching this from the rooftops.

He's the wrong person for the job. This proves just how wrong he is for the position. Any person who wants more conflict in the ME is welcome to go join the Republicans in their attempt to further destabilize the region. I don't support more conflict, and I don't support Democrats who do. I certainly don't want one as a leader of my party!

[phleshdef]

17. I don't believe Schumer is a traitor. I think he is voting his heart. But I highly disagree...

...with him on this and I think it has a lot more to do with personal bias than his constituents.

[still_one]

19. of course he isn't a "traitor", that term has a very specific meaning. However, I am not convinced

that he is "voting his heart". He is a politician. He gets a lot of donations from special interest groups, PACS. A lot of our senators do, and I believe donations like that influence people.

Let's face it, the reason we didn't get single payer or a public option is because the lobbyists influenced enough Democrats to NOT support those avenues. We didn't have the Democratic votes in Congress, even though we had the majority. Instead, We got the ACA, and it is amazing it got through. It is not ideal by a long shot, but far superior than what was before.

[ericson00]

38. Schumer's predecessor, Al D'Amato, was a Republican

and that was only before 1999, when Schumer was inaugurated (after 1998 elections), so that's in the memory of many NY voters and pols. He's also up for re-election soon, and he wants to guard in case Obama's approval fall and the Dem presidential nominee loses, possibly hurting the whole Dem ticket.

[KamaAina]

115. Repukes like Alphonse are few and far between these days

It was pretty well known that if you needed something done, you called D'Amato's office, not Javits' (senior senator back then). Hence the nickname "Senator Pothole".

edit: the only NY 'puke who scares me even a little is Rudy Nineleven Giuliani, and he's well past his sell-by date.

[SunSeeker]

21. Well, it was definitely what his top donors wanted.

His actual constituents, not so much.

[karynnj]

22. Why do you think the majority of his constituents are against the deal

Face it , when others labeled him (LIKUD, NY) they were right. On many issues he is ok, but he is a complete hawk on any country in the Middle East.

The fact is this is the first big step in turning US policy from the neo con policies that dominated for almost 2 decades. Schumer was willing to trust those policies even when they involved war. It is not a supris that he, like other neo cons, will fight this tooth and nail?

[hobbit709]

23. And sometimes you should do the right thing regardless of what the constituents want.

But money matters more than morals.

[kelliekat44]

101. BINGO! nt

[Exilednight]

24. Does he represent US citizens or Isreali citizens?

[FlatBaroque]

58. Depends on the issue. n/t

[Exilednight]

113. And there is where the problem is.

[FlatBaroque]

120. Yah I know n/t

[ericson00]

25. Israel is one of the few popular polled issues in America

and this is consistent over the years. You can find tons of other data with similar results, even if Bibi himself isn't pop. Obama either made a big political error with this Iran deal, or he's doing it so he can say he tried to avoid a military solution.

People here need to stop thinking of AIPAC as a rogue organization: the cause it supports is heavily favored by the country on both the grassroots and institutional level.

[geek tragedy]

27. Your rightwing spin on Obama's thinking shows us

exactly where you're coming from.

AIPAC exists for one reason: to lobby on behalf of a foreign government.

[ericson00]

28. I agree with Obama on almost all major domestic policy issues and social issues;

but sorry, this foreign policy issue I don't. But notice I don't take invective to him as others here do to Dems who don't agree with them on everything.

I did vote for the guy twice, even after the bitterness I held as a Hillary primary voter.

[geek tragedy]

29. Awfully gracious of you to join DU to lobby for a war

in polite terms.

You claim to support Hillary but prefer Marco Rubio's foreign policy.

[ericson00]

30. I'm not lobbying for war. This all or nothing thinking on the part of guys like you

makes the Bernie wing look stupid.

[geek tragedy]

32. That's Obama's position. And Hillary's position.

You are disparaging the mainstream Democratic position in favor of Jeb Bush's.

Pretty obvious your Hillary support is a cover story. You joined after the Iran deal was announced and have been pimping war with Iran since then.

[ericson00]

35. She's taken the position as leverage with Obama

to help keep Biden away, and for that I can't fault her. She's a politician, and on this, given her previous pro-Israel record, I accept this. Schumer is a top Dem and one of the leader voices for fair wages and equal rights in our Senate. He also took out Al D'Amato, who plagued NY for way too long, but that was before your time.

There you go with your Israel/AIPAC/NWO conspiracies: claiming I joined to "promote war." No, I joined because I want to see Hillary Rodham Clinton as the 45th President of America, because I support a fairer economy but done in a pragmatic way that brings people together, not apart as super ideological people would do. I joined because blacks and gays deserve equal rights and opportunity.

[geek tragedy]

36. So now you're making shit up about Hillary's motives as well as Obama's

and invoking an absurd conspiracy theory.

While pushing the rightwing asshole claim that supporting this deal is inconsistent with supporting Israel.

You are transparent, and no amount of banal chatter on domestic policy changes that.

[ericson00]

40. there's a difference between pointing out political motives

and accusing someone of joining a message board to "promote war." And I never said the deal was actually inconsistent with supporting Israel, but public perception seems to demonstrate it, and public perception, not reality, decides who runs Washington.

[geek tragedy]

50. You're claiming Clinton secretly opposes the deal she helped

create. Either you're a close associate of hers, or a bullshit artist looking to pimp Team Neocon's talking points.

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. "given her previous pro-Israel record, I accept this" - odd

You seem to be saying that you judge American politicians primarily on how supportive of Israel they are. Rather than whether their policies and votes help the USA, or the world in general.

[ericson00]

79. can you stop twisting everything

please? Most of the Democrats' domestic stances are somewhat similar. Nonetheless, Hillary has already proven her domestic policy mettle for over 22 years, and even before then in Arkansas. Foreign policy is a bigger difference between Dems, so its a differentiator. America's friendship with the Jewish State of Israel is very beneficial.

[whathehell]

80. My first loyalty is to America, not Israel.

I don't know if we can say the same about you or Chuck.

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. You link to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy - an AIPAC offshoot

The organization has strong ties to the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC and was founded by former AIPAC employee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Institute_for_Near_East_Policy

I see they're in the news:

Washington Institute: Send Israel Massive Ordnance Penetrators to Deter Iran

Nothing short of providing Israel with the Massive Ordnance Penetrator — the world’s most powerful “bunker buster” bomb — and the aircraft to deliver it will guarantee effective deterrence to keep Iran from skirting the nuclear deal to produce weapons of mass destruction, a group of influential Middle East security experts and former officials wrote in a review of the nuclear accords released on Tuesday.

It is important, on top of a credible U.S. military threat against Iran should the country try to maneuver its way to possession of nuclear weapons, that Israel maintain its own effective deterrence capacity, said the authors, which included longtime White House Middle East adviser, Dennis Ross, the director of Military and Security Studies at The Washington Institute, Michael Eisenstadt and former ambassador to Iraq and security adviser to president George W. Bush, James Jeffrey.

The MOP has long been seen as the military Plan B to dealing with Iran and its troubling nuclear program. It can penetrate fortified bunkers deep underground, burrowing up to 200 feet before unleashing 30,000 pounds of explosives deep inside its target. It carries the world’s largest nonnuclear payload.

Israel lacks both the MOPs and the bombers capable of delivering them; those capabilities belong squarely to the U.S.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/08/05/washington-institute-send-israel-massive-ordnance-penetrators-to-deter-iran/

Bomb, bomb Iran, eh?

[ericson00]

84. WINEP gave awards to Bill Clinton & Tony Blair, Hagel praised WINEP too

and Hagel wasn't noted for honoring Israel.

Also, what is Algemeiner.com? Is that a serious source? Also, from WINEP's wiki, it seems their critics include wackos like Rashid Khalidi and Mearsheimer/Walt, authors of the discredited Israel Lobby pamphlet.

also, I notice you Israel-haters love flame wars. Even in other topics, I don't see people get so hepped up. Why?

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. " you Israel-haters"? What have I said that indicates hatred of Israel?

I don't like Israel trying to torpedo a Middle Eastern peace deal with Iran. I don't like Democrats falling in with Republicans to try to sink the deal, either. You're the person calling others 'haters', and academics 'wackos'. You seem to be the 'hepped up' one.

"Mearsheimer/Walt, authors of the discredited Israel Lobby pamphlet." Discredited in your eyes, perhaps. Not as discredited as Tony Blair, for instance.

Algemeiner.com is a website that reports on news of interest to the American Jewish community: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algemeiner_Journal . I just link to them to point out what your Washington Institute is saying. You linked to WINEP as if their opinion on US-Israel relations was a plain fact. Their call to give Israel the MOP and new aircraft (B-2 stealth bombers) to carry it is here: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/assessing-the-iran-nuclear-agreement-and-the-institutes-iran-study-group-ju

[whathehell]

85. Glad you edited out the part that called us "Israel haters"

and "Hillary haters". Wise move.

[roody]

107. It would be better that Americans

decolonize their minds and think for themselves.

[karynnj]

117. so, he should just follow the popular path

Even if it is clear it leads to a catastrophic war with Iran?

Just because Israel is "popular" , we should not work to make the world more peaceful? I assume Obama knew that this would be hard. First, to get 6 countries to hold together and get an agreement with Iran was a long shot. Then he had to know that this would trigger the neo cons, and Israel to go all out to fight it-- not to mention 100 percent of the Republicans.

Do you honestly think Obama ever thought this would be politically easy or popular? Not to mention, shouldn't a President by willing to do what is good even if unpopular? Note that BEFORE MILLIONS WERE SPENT DISTORTING it, this was popular.

Should LBJ have backed and fought for the civil rights legislation which was not popular when he did it and he KNEW and SPOKE of the political cost. It was the right thing to do.

[One of the 99]

31. I live in NY and will never vote for Schumer again.

We need a Senator who will serve New York and America and not do the bidding of Benjamin Netanyahu and Wall Street.

[Historic NY]

49. Come to my world here in NY where the suck ups, suck up to ...

the Hasidic Community to win $$$$ and a bloc vote. The Governor just vetoed a bill on home rules over development involving them and then accepted a 250k contribution.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Cuomo-vetoes-bill-related-to-growth-of-NY-Hasidic-6374784.php

[One of the 99]

76. Thanks for the link.

[lamp_shade]

34. I believe you're right. Schumer's sudden "no" decision (if true) tells me this...

Harry Reid gave it his blessing. Only a couple of days ago I heard Schumer say that he would take advantage of having a whole month to ponder the issue. Suddenly he's made a decision? I agree with you that Reid Harry KNOWS FOR CERTAIN that he has more than enough votes to override a veto. He "released" Schumer to do what he needs to do. That's what I believe. That's how it works.

[cherokeeprogressive]

64. It's the only plausible explanation. n/t

[lamp_shade]

70. Washington Post Whip List (updated 8/6)....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/14/whip-count-where-the-senate-stands-on-the-iran-deal/

[Stellar]

94. So, Obama needs 36. right? nt

[lamp_shade]

95. He needs 34. He has 27 yes/leaning yes and 14 undecideds. (edited)

5 no's/leaning no.

Edited to change "decideds" to undecideds.

[Stellar]

96. Got'cha, thanks!

[H2O Man]

69. "to override a veto"

It seems unlikely that President Obama would veto this, were it to pass.

[lamp_shade]

74. Good question. Now I'm confused. I need to think about this. n/t

[H2O Man]

91. You were right!

My pre-coffee error. (It takes old men a cup of coffee in the morning to stimulate the brain processes!)

[lamp_shade]

82. It's a Resolution of Disapproval. Schumer will vote "yes".

"After deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval,"
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_IRAN_NUCLEAR_SCHUMER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[H2O Man]

92. I stand corrected.

I was wrong. Sorry.

[lamp_shade]

93. No you're not. I've been saying he'll vote "no". I was wrong.

[H2O Man]

98. It just sucks

that some people are so willing to move us towards another war. After drinking my coffee, I went to a store (gas to pick up my daughters, near Canada today). On the ride back, I picked up a hitch-hiker. Nice young man, in his early 30s. He was in the military, but can't find a full-time job. As he was fun to talk to, I drove him to his destination. He has knowledge of social-political issues, but expressed total frustration -- "what's the use?"

By the time I dropped him off, he was making arrangements for me to speak to a group of his friends about organizing. (He said that if he didn't have to work today, he'd have loved to ride along with me, just to talk politics!)

Have a good day, my Friend! I'm off to pick up my daughters.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. "Why is that...? SO THE SEAT ISN'T GIVEN TO THE OTHER PARTY" Um No.

Senator Gillibrand isn't exactly risking her seat by voting for the Iran deal. We are talking solidly blue New York State here.

[ericson00]

43. Schumer's up for re-election next year, Gillibrand not until 2018

when it will be forgotten. Schumer also needs to guard against downside effects on downballot races in case Obama's approvals fall below 40, and thus the top of the Dem ticket is in jeopardy.

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. Are you seriously aserting that Schumer could lose over voting for the deal?

Seriously, against what Republican? The Democratic margin of victory in state wide elections in NY has been laughably large n recent years and Schumer is, shall we say, a very well funded incumbent. New York is not exactly Colorado or Missouri. What can hurt downballot races for Democrats here is Progressive disillusionment, not Schumer supporting the President by giving peace a chance.

[karynnj]

118. you think Obama's approval will be better if this is defeated?

I think he will go down if his own party is willing to desert him on this. It would destroy his credentials on foreign policy in the US. It also hurts any Democratic Presidential candidate including HRC.

but it would make Netanyahu happy.

[Cosmocat]

42. He is the senator for New York, not Israel

nm ...

[6chars]

54. oh yeah?

then who represents Israel?

[FlatBaroque]

57. Congress?

[stone space]

44. Before scolding us over some politician, wouldn't it make sense to tell us...

...what we're being scolded for?

What did the politician you mentioned do to bring on this rant from you in his support?

What exactly are we being scolded for, and what specific position of his is this rant intended to be in support of?

[FlatBaroque]

59. I like how you organize your outrage n/t

[stone space]

122. When being scolded in this manner, ...

...without mention of the reason, I generally assume that it is felt that the argument would somehow suffer by the inclusion of that crucial bit of information.

And I don't take that as a good sign.

[mr blur]

104. Yeah!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

46. What's disgusting

is not when politicians 'get a pass' to vote their constituents' wishes, but rather the fact that so much of the time, they 'get a pass' for ignoring their constituents' wishes.

[H2O Man]

55. Actually, he definitely is.

And I understand politics very well.

[Bluenorthwest]

77. You know, this man voted for DOMA in 1996, meaning NY Democrats have known for about 20 years

that he shat on the rights of your neighbors, and NY Democrats kept sending him back to do more damage.
I offer that had NY Democrats not accepted that terrible vote, Chuck would not be there today.

[Vinca]

61. The problem is politics.

If you run for office you should be voting for what is right or wrong, not what will or will not get you votes, and live with the consequences.

[Walk away]

66. Isn't that the same reasoning that got us into war in Iraq?....nt

[Iggo]

68. Placate their donors.

You said it, buddy.

[davidpdx]

72. Two things

First, the fact that you have to start a new thread and fly off the handle in cap locks (SEE I CAN DO IT TOO) just because you are pissed about the other thread says something.

Second, the main reason people are pissed at Schumer is because they feel that he is representing Israel more than his own state. I would be curious if a poll were taken as to whether people from NY support the deal or not. I personally haven't seen one that is state specific, only national polls. If you have seen one please post it.

[stonecutter357]

73. you seem concerned

[lamp_shade]

83. It's a Resolution of Disapproval. Schumer will vote "yes".

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_IRAN_NUCLEAR_SCHUMER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[LynnTTT]

86. Regardless of the issue

it's Democrats that don't support the President that lead us to lose the Senate in 2012. This just gives Republicans another arrow in their quiver. Schumer is doing this to make a point.

[katmondoo]

87. So he joins the stupid crowd. How about voting with honor

I was a New Yorker and we didn't want endless wars. Because of the Holocaust does that mean we must never negotiate with the Middle East or any other country close to Israel.

[procon]

88. True, if he was speaking as from the House of Representatives, but as a Senator

his obligations are different and the focus is on the nation as a whole. He failed.

[NCTraveler]

89. If I show you a politician who made a horrid vote.

Leading to the loss of lives in the thousands, along with a poll that shows it is how their constituency wanted them to vote at the time; I take it you will hold consistent.

Will you roundly chastise those speaking out against said politicians vote as note having a clue as to politics? This is one strange deflection. I will gladly call them out for their foolish vote and not make an attempt at justification in the manner you are.

[Skittles]

121. sounds like you are describing IWR

I will NEVER forgive those who voted for that travesty

[jeff47]

97. So....Gillibrand is fucking over her constituents?

Remember, Gillibrand has the same constituents. And she's voting for the deal.

So if your claim about Schumer is correct, then you are saying Gillibrand is a horrible person who is screwing over her constituents.

[Pisces]

99. You mean you have to vote based on who bought you!! Don't vote your conscious or what you know

to be the right thing. Good luck to him. I guess the people who bought and paid for him are happy. He better hope he
knows what his constituents really want and not the vocal minority. He can no way lead the Democratic party with this
vote.

[BillZBubb]

105. Maybe you should take a dose of your own advice.

Schumer is in a leadership position. He is in line to become the Democratic leader in the Senate.

He doesn't get a free pass on this vote like some junior member might.

Since Schumer is in a leadership position, going against his party on this vote gives total political cover to the republicans. It validates their BS arguments. They can say "See this deal is so bad even a leading Democratic senator has blasted it".

Schumer is an AIPAC tool. He should never be allowed to become the Senate leader.

[roody]

106. No integrity necessary?

[Reter]

108. Chucky's President is Bibi

Fuck 'em both. He never should have been elected to the Senate anyway.

[skip fox]

110. I think your basic argument is sound.

Your post deserves to be so stated.

The point is Schumer has counted the votes and realized his wasn't going to be needed. So even though he may well have backed the agreement even if with doubts, he is safe to do as you say, vote the way his constituents would have him vote. That his relationship with them was more important (and I'm thinking not only politically but psychologically and spiritually) than giving Obama an even stronger victory.

At least that's how I would have stated it. And I really hope that is the case.

[jwirr]

111. In the past votes often included just enough votes to win and that allowed Democratic candidates

from red states to vote no like their constituents and donors wanted them to vote without losing this issue. In that way we would win the red state election and keep us in control of the House and Senate. That is still why it happens today.

I am not sure that is the reason why Shumer will vote this way but that was the thinking before and it did not keep us from getting our bills through.

Today there is much less acceptance of the need to get elected in a red state. Maybe that is why we do not control the House and the Senate anymore?

And yes I realize that a blue dog is pretty damned useless in the congress - might just as well be a R. Except for one thing - control of the House and the Senate does matter. With R control we cannot even get our bills to the floor for a vote.

[Report1212]

112. What is the evidence his constituents want to kill the Iran deal?

He needs to represent New Yorkers, not just some elites tied to Israel quite frankly

[Cali_Democrat]

116. Do you think using caps makes you look cool or something?