For the most part, Jewish-Americans have something between a lack of interest and a lack of success in getting elected as Republicans, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the whole spectrum of what we might as well call “difference of opinion” within the Jewish community must unfold in the context of divisions within the Democratic Party. There are things that Joe Lieberman shared with Paul Wellstone, Al Franken, and Bernie Sanders, and we ought not be surprised that Chuck Schumer can simultaneously win control of the Senate Democrats by acclamation while acting out as Bibi Netanyahu’s servant boy– a real neo-con’s neo-con.
Supporters of the president–the kind of people who rejected Hillary and Lieberman around the same time, and for the same reasons– can be forgiven for wondering how Schumer could be given the reins without a fight. This fait accompli would be irritating in its own right, simply for the fact that the Senate acts as its own club, asking no input from the party base about who should be its leaders. But to have this ascension coupled in time with Schumer’s Liebermanesque war-hawkery and galling Republicophilic apostasy? This taste of violation and clear sense of powerless–I imagine this is a bit like what rape feels like.
We will accept Chuck Schumer as our leader and things will go better- be safer- if we pretend to like it. In any case, no one is going to hear our cries for help- the cavalry is not coming over the hill.
Yet, this is just the beginning. We cannot just be still for a while knowing this will soon be over. And, anyway, that is always a lie because these things stick with you- changing you- for the rest of your life.
Schumer is not Lieberman, and he has many qualities to recommend him as a leader of the party. But here he is, taking sides with Netanyahu and the most unhinged of right-wing bedwetters. And we can’t do one single thing about it.
Don’t talk to me about his constituents and tell me he is only representing them, because that is also a lie, and a lie that no longer matters. The leader of the Senate Democrats cannot behave like a Brooklyn assemblyman.
Just as with Lieberman, this is a about war and peace, facts and fear mongering.
And there is no Ned Lamont in sight.
For the most part, Chuck Schumer is a happy warrior blessed with many skills and a record of accomplishment. But it takes a special kind of myopia to not recognize that Wall Street’s senator is going to step on the ascendant message of the left– the only message with a prayer of reaching middle America’s “real Americans” in the upcoming presidential election. This would be bad enough, but to usher out Obama’s presidency and its promise of reconciliation and resolution with the empowerment of a Likudist perspective on the Middle East? Our party contains multitudes, as it should. But it shouldn’t be led by bellicose dissenters.
This is beyond frustrating. It is malpractice.
I would say “from your page to Dem Party leadership ears” but clearly they do not care what we think. My only solace here is that Warren supports Schumer, and I doubt she would if she thought he would be a major impediment to her core economic concerns.
Reading Juan Cole’s latest on Bibi’s slip really hit a nerve. And after reading your piece here, the two pieces came together for me to answer why I can’t agree with Schumer’s position. It’s the broader reach of putting Iran under Israel’s thumb; sanctioning them into the dirt until they look like Palestine…much like the GOP likes to sanction the middle class into the dirt.
They want another Cuba. Don’t think the neocon has anyone to back them up with another preemptive war. Russia, China, the EU will never support another ME war. Just yesterday the Saudis came out in support of an agreement with Iran. The neocon is going to need a Gulf of Tonkin to move the Iran War forward.
What worries me is that the “young Democrats” that are the basis of hoped-for demographic shifts are overwhelmingly antiwar. If the Democratic leadership prefers war with Iran (the only alternative) to such an excellent deal they’re going to stay home. I suspect this is part of what happened in 2014. I don’t think the anti-Iraq War activists who basically got Obama elected had a great turnout after the man they’d elected called for endless war in Iraq and Syria.
What the Democratic leadership should be doing is demanding Israel be subjected to the same inspections and limitations as Iran. Expose Bibi for the hypocritical warmonger he is.
Amen, BooMan. Amen.
How quickly things change. Not that long ago Barack Obama and Dick Durbin were my senators. We had a democratic governor. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were our leaders in congress. We had a democratic mayor for our city.
Now the vile Mark Kirk is my senator. Bruce Rauner, who aspires to be like the other vile republican governors in the midwest, is my governor. We are no longer in the majority in congress. Harry Reid is replaced by Chuck Schumer. And today I suspect my city is about to elect either the vile republican or the liar who is pretending to be Independent even though he is clearly republican.
And now this move by Chuck Schumer. I was horrified when I read about this last night. I don’t feel that I’m represented by anyone except Dick Durbin, and it seems like even he has been screwed over by Schumer, who appears to have promised Durbin that he could keep his #2 position if Schumer took over for Reid, and now Schumer is denying that. It’s all so discouraging.
“Vile Republicans” vs. corrupt Democrats in the “Land of Lincoln.” Rahm has upset that equation by being a “vile Democrat.”
Voter preference for Democrats in IL, NJ, and NY is being undermined by the ease of loathsome creatures being elected.
○ Chuck Schumer Bucks President Obama on Iran Nuclear Deal Approval | The Forward |
My recent comment – James Baker III On Bibi Netanyahu and ME Peace.
Supporters of the president-the kind of people who rejected Hillary and Lieberman around the same time, and for the same reasons- can be forgiven for wondering how Schumer could be given the reins without a fight.
Because they’re all funded by the same clowns. Who paid for the DNC HQ? Haim Saban. He basically runs Democratic FP in the Middle East. Read Max Blumenthal’s Goliath. Do you follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter? He has a lot to say on Chuckie. None of it good.
Now that we have finally driven a stake through the heart of “Hey, maybe Warren will run for President!” we should turn to a more important battle: Senate Leadership.
Clinton will be the nominee. Get used to it.
But Schumer can and should be challenged and that should be the focus of Progressive activists from now until 2016.
First time he’s been quiet about anything.
According to the various accounts, Durbin himself didn’t dream of challenging Schumer, so if this is malpractice, it is a massive example of group malpractice.
What are the explanations? One, that senate Dems don’t see having a completely in-the-pocket of AIPAC Likudnik Leader as political malpractice. They are all supposedly professional pols, after all. But it’s not exactly like there has been any serious attempt by elected Dems to start a “discussion” or “conversation” about our appalling unconditional support for the abusive policies of Israel. Unconditional and vitriolic support for whatever our disastrous “ally” pulls is the official policy of both parties to date, as far as I can tell. Our stated “official positions” (two state solution, end of settlements, etc) clearly are not taken seriously as critical policy by either party.
So I haven’t seen many (any? Sanders?) elected Dem offer much criticism of Israel’s oppressive and illegal actions, and the idea that senate Dems would publicly suggest that Netanyahoo’s election performance merited a revision of aid and support is close to comic. So we await evidence of the presumed divisions within the Dem party. I fear we’re Waiting for Godot (as usual). Another way of looking at Schumer’s triumph is that there are indeed no (effective) divisions. The ground on which to start criticising our terrible ally hasn’t even begun to be prepared.
Or, perhaps most senate Dems do see Schumer’s radical Likudism as a serious political problem, but think he is just so wonderful in all others things that he is entitled to his little peccadillo. If that were the case, one would think they would have some plan to have a designated counter-spokesperson to at least get the idea out there that Schumer doesn’t represent the views of the party majority on the issue. Well, who’s that person?
Finally as regards Schumer representing his constituents, is Schumer’s loving embrace of Netanyahoo the position of New York’s Jewish citizens? I thought we have been hearing and reading of American Jewish disagreement and concern over the disgusting triumph of Netanyahoo and the ever-increasing Likudnik policies of oppression, injustice and racism. So who exactly is in the best position to start the supposed “discussion” and take Likudnik Charlie to task?
As I said, this attempt to diplomatically deal with the Iranian nuclear issue will be a real American spectacle.
Two other choices.
Patty Murray, if you are looking for extensive inside experience.
Al Franken, if you are looking for strong consensus and public representation experience.
There are some other more silent Senate Democrats who have the chops to conduct Senate caucus leadership and legislative tactics. The Senate Democratic caucus owes Schumer nothing at this point.
But Schumer’s treatment of the President disqualifies him. And no, Jewish Democrats like Joe Lieberman don’t get a pass for dual loyalty. Lieberman and Schumer have done quite enough already.
Been hoping that Patty Murray will get recognized, she’s worked well when tossed into the pit of impossible in the past.
It seems unclear that the President needs congressional approval for a deal. The point of the Corker law is to make it so the deal has to be approved, hence it currently doesn’t. It seems there’s even doubt about whether such a law could compel the President. I don’t really know all the nuances here, and Schumer is certainly scum as far as I’m concerned, but it’s unclear how much Schumer’s action here actually matters vs. being some despicable grandstanding.
Exactly. Schumer co-sponsored Corker’s bill back in March.
This is a lot of media drama because though Corker was close to getting a veto proof majority in March and holding Senate votes before the April1st deadline.
At that point, the Democrats began backing away from doing anything before Obama had a chance to actually reach a deal. That’s when the GOTP47 panicked and threw that stupid letter out to try and derail the talks before April 1st.
That open letter to Iran made things worse for Corker because Sen. King and others publicly separated themselves from interfering with the negotiations and refused to make Iran a partisan issue.
Since that letter and the passing of the April deadline, there a new June 30th deadline that the WH and Senate Democrats are pushing the Senate GOTP to honor. So far, I’ve read nothing indicating that any Democrat is bucking the president on the June 30th deadline.
Even if the Iran Review Act passes the Senate with 67 or more votes, that bill must keep all GOTP votes and find 40 House Democrats willing to buck the POTUS.
And even if the Iran Review Act becomes law (Obama is likely to sign it if it’s after the deal is made) because he’s said Congress has an oversight role to play. Under the bill, Congress would have 60 days to accept or reject the Agreement that the other P5+1 nations will likely have already signed off on. That review vote – to spit in the eye of the EU, Russia, and China to isolate the U.S. and its future options – is unlikely to hold all the Senate GOTP Senators.
BTW, Hillary Clinton has said the negotiations must be given a chance to succeed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/04/hillary-clinton-iran_n_7003450.html
Unless I’m missing, something Schumer agrees with Obama that the Senate has an oversight role after the deal is made. So despite the heavy pro-Israel media spin this process almost guarantees Obama will thwart the GOTP and Netanyahu again.
‘The onus is on Iran…’ A classic Clinton way of saying yes is no. ‘The devil is in the details…’ is another example of her meaningless weasel turns of phrase. She wouldn’t be so undiplomatic as to say she wants the diplomacy to SUCCEED or to FAIL, oh no never, it would be too vulgar. No, that’s not her way. I would put my money on her wanting them to fail. Maybe some day some will ask her point blank what the beef is with Iran. Let’s see her wiggle her way out of that one.
Steve Benen seems to think it’s a pretty big deal that Schumer appears to be on the wrong side of this one:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/schumer-endorses-gop-plan-iran-agreement
Being an agent of a hostile foreign government is not even the worst of Schumer’s sins. Remember when he led the charge against net neutrality? Remember when he sucker-punched the public option out of existence? I don’t hate him as much as I hate Lieberman … yet … but give him time.
Eric Lipton – NYTimes: G.O.P.’s Israel Support Deepens as Political Contributions Shift
Can’t say that Chuckie never follows the stench of money.