DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Torn Between AIPAC and supporting The President

[zentrum]

Just heard on National Public Radio (NPR) from Nathan Guttman, who represents The Forward, which is described as one of the leading Jewish-American opinion publications for over 100 years, that Wasserman Schultz has strong ties to AIPAC, gets lots of money from them, and so, is in a bad position, because as head of our very own Democratic National Committee, she should support Obama in the Iraq Deal.

What is poor Debbie to do?

Why do we Democrats have powerful leaders and fundraisers who are split in their loyalties? It's really hurting us and presents a void of leadership, again and again.

Fine, if Schultz wants to support the Republicans, AIPAC and those aligning against Obama about Iran, but she must resign her post as head of the DNC. She cannot ride two horses. She needs to step down.

Her Washington DC number: 202-225-7931
To fax: [phone]

[procon]

1. As a paid lobbyist for a foreign country, its clear where her priorities are. nt

[Fred Sanders]

2. There are unseen, unspoken religious undercurrents at play.

I would think there are few American Muslims Democratic Party members "torn" between supporting America or supporting a religious lobbying group for the mullahs of Iran.

[still_one]

3. Her vote shouldn't matter. She also was against reestablishing relations with Cuba. She probably

is representing her constituents views. Bill Nelson gets contributions from AIPAC, but he backs the deal.

Washerman is in the house, which represents a specific districti, unlike a Senator who is supposed to represent a whole state

In California, both Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein are voting for the Iran deal, and they have also received donations from AIPAC, as has Al Frankin, all supporting the Iran deal.

Schumer is voting against it, but the other Senator in NY, Kirsten Gillibrand, is voting for it.

While I agree there is a problem with special interest money influencing policies, until we are able to legislate against it, and find a way to overturn Citizens United, things are not going to change soon. Also, as I have pointed out with the several examples I gave, in some cases money may influence some candidates more than others

[zentrum]

11. The point however

….about DWS is her leadership position for all Democrats, in theory anyway, as the head of the DNC.
She has more clout within the party than just any House member.

If she can't support Democratic initiatives because of her AIPAC ties—she should resign and then vote any way she wants.

[still_one]

12. Should she represent her constituents in her district, or Democratic initiatives? However, as head

of the DNC you are correct, she should support Democratic initiatives.

However, it is the Democratic National Committee that votes who will be head of the DNC, and how that committee is chosen is the key

[zentrum]

14. Yeah. That's true.

But I think she'll lose her power if she's seen as undercutting the larger interests of the party. I feel hopeful——that the tension means the old guard of neo-liberal third way is slowly having its decline because it falls apart from its own venality.

[still_one]

15. One would think so.

[Stellar]

4. With friends like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz....

Back in 2008, Wasserman Schultz was a co-chair of Clinton’s presidential run and one of the campaign’s most active surrogates. In the rough final weeks of the primaries, when the Obama campaign was looking for every pressure point to force Clinton to quit, Wasserman Schultz gave them one.

Wasserman Schultz reached out to the Obama campaign to let them know she knew Clinton’s campaign was over, even though it would take a few more weeks. And she wanted them to know she was ready to be there for Obama as soon as it was. Through back channels, according to people connected to the discussions, Obama aides promptly let Clinton aides know that one of her last allies was backing away.

This has not been forgotten.

Politico

[world wide wally]

5. If she won't step down, fire her for conflict of interests.

[Scuba]

6. Almost all Republicans are more loyal to AIPAC than the President.

[onenote]

8. I don't think it's the repubs obligation to be "loyal" to the President

any more than I thought it was Democrats obligation to be "loyal" to any Republican president.

[Scuba]

10. Of course not. Seems weird to think DWS would be loyal to a Democrat.

[onenote]

7. Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Torn between two constituencies

Would also be accurate.

I support the agreement and have urged my representative to support it. I have family members that have never voted for a republican, but who are urging their Democratic representatives to oppose it.

Making your voice heard is what matters.

[geek tragedy]

9. Has there ever been a worse DNC head? nt

[kelliekat44]

13. Not that I recall. She and Bernie have the same problem. Will be interesting to see what their

final votes are.