Calling Mona Charen

 

SchumerFrom Politico:

Chuck Schumer is getting an earful from opponents of the Iran nuclear deal.

More than 10,000 phone calls have flooded his office line the past two weeks, organized by a group looking to kill the deal. Another group has dropped seven figures on TV in New York City to pressure Schumer and other lawmakers to vote against the plan. The powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee has put its muscle behind an effort to lobby the New Yorker against it.

And Dov Hikind, a state assemblyman from Brooklyn, was arrested for disorderly conduct while protesting the deal outside Schumer’s office.

People who have spoken with the senior New York senator believe the pressure campaign is having an effect: They say there is a growing sense inside and outside the Capitol that Schumer will vote against the deal when the Senate considers it in September.

Mona, can this be so?

And if it is so — if Sen. Schumer does vote against the deal — is the deal doomed?

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 31 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Nick Stuart Inactive
    Nick Stuart
    @NickStuart

    He may vote against it the first time through, but he’ll vote to sustain a veto when it comes to that.

    Some way, some how, he’s going to weasel out of doing anything substantive to block the deal.

    Does anyone really think there is the remotest possibility he’d lose a senate race in New York no matter how he votes?

    • #1
  2. David Sussman Contributor
    David Sussman
    @DaveSussman

    There are some very powerful groups in NY against this deal, as well as AIPAC. He is running for re-election next year. One can hope that Schumer is wise enough to understand his future may not be aligned with Obama’s legacy.

    • #2
  3. Matt Bartle Member
    Matt Bartle
    @MattBartle

    As one of his constituents (shudder) I wrote to him and asked him not to support the Iran deal. But I suspect that in the end he will side with Obama.

    Because that’s what always happens – Obama gets his way.

    • #3
  4. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Peter,

    The incentive is building.

    IRAN DEAL POLL: AMERICANS OPPOSE 2-TO-1

    I will quote some guy on Ricochet by the name of James Gawron.

    Chuck…Obama will be gone in 18 months. You and the Democratic Party will still be here. Well, that’s assuming Obama doesn’t intend to take the Democratic Party with him to Gehinnom. There is still time brother.

    Chuck may feel the heat.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #4
  5. Valiuth Inactive
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    So he kills the deal. What is going to prevent Obama from letting the deal be approved by the UN and then claiming he has to abide by that? This vote will be entirely symbolic if it even occurs.

    • #5
  6. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    I stand by my claim in a related thread.

    Schumer is a Democrat first, last, and only.  He’ll vote with Obama both times.

    Eric Hines

    • #6
  7. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Valiuth:So he kills the deal. What is going to prevent Obama from letting the deal be approved by the UN and then claiming he has to abide by that? This vote will be entirely symbolic if it even occurs.

    First, the deal will fall apart once Congress kills it.

    Second, in specific answer to your question how about Impeachment. He made a deal with Congress to respect the Corker process. Of course, he figured that they would never get the 2/3 so ha ha ha, suckers! It would be final justice for his duplicity. If he wants to drive down Pennsylvania Ave. on January 20th and retire wealthy he can be a good boy. If not maybe it’s time he got what he deserves.

    Convicting takes 2/3 of the Senate. Let him consider that.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #7
  8. Valiuth Inactive
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    James, I love your optimism but I don’t think it will work out that way.

    I think if the deal falls apart Obama will let the sanctions fall apart too. I doubt we will be able to impeach him before he leaves office, or that Democrats will go along with it.

    Iran has played Obama for a chump and his pride and ideology blind him to this fact. He relishes fighting “Evil Warmongering Republicans” and has no taste for combating our enemies. The Iranians have given him exactly what he wants. An excuse to fight his real enemy instead of doing his job.

    • #8
  9. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Valiuth:James, I love your optimism but I don’t think it will work out that way.

    I think if the deal falls apart Obama will let the sanctions fall apart too. I doubt we will be able to impeach him before he leaves office, or that Democrats will go along with it.

    Iran has played Obama for a chump and his pride and ideology blind him to this fact. He relishes fighting “Evil Warmongering Republicans” and has no taste for combating our enemies. The Iranians have given him exactly what he wants. An excuse to fight his real enemy instead of doing his job.

    Val,

    All that you say is true. I just think that this time, “It’s the end of Rico”.

    Regards.

    Jim

    • #9
  10. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    None of this means anything. Obama , outside of firearm issues so far, gets his way and nobody will stop him. 18 more months of the phone and pen. 18 more months of the GOP proving that people without spines actually can live. The GOP will bluster and some dems may tell you they “feel” your concerns. In the end, Obama gets his way. Nobody will stop him.

    • #10
  11. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    DocJay:None of this means anything.Obama , outside of firearm issues so far, gets his way and nobody will stop him.18 more months of the phone and pen. 18 more months of the GOP proving that people without spines actually can live. The GOP will bluster and some dems may tell you they “feel” your concerns. In the end, Obama gets his way. Nobody will stop him.

    Doc,

    You know that I am a very very rational fellow. After all, going to the trouble of reading as much Kant as I have makes you realize that I would go a very long way to find a good rational argument.

    You and Val make very good rational arguments. Let’s just say I’m going to go with my intuition on this. I say he doesn’t get his way. I say we stop him.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #11
  12. Frank Soto Contributor
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    The dems can allow 10 defections in the senate without a problem.  I fully expect about that many to do so.  There is zero chance of an override.

    • #12
  13. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    Jim, this is a battle worth fighting. It’s the end of Israel, which was possibly the goal of many in power. When the scandals happened and nothing of significance was done I knew Obama would have his way the rest of his term. Obama will continue to stretch the envelope and only fighting his every move will hold him in check. I was just pointing out that this fight will end in defeat.

    • #13
  14. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Frank Soto:The dems can allow 10 defections in the senate without a problem. I fully expect about that many to do so. There is zero chance of an override.

    Frank,

    You say that in such a convincing style but that’s all it is. Until Schumer declares he is against it and will fight it openly then we won’t know what is possible. In every life a little pain must be suffered. This thing is causing me a great deal of pain. I’d like Chuck to feel the pain with me. I don’t give a rats ass for his Senate Minority Leader crap. Life has been good to him. Probably too good already. He needs to think about the next six million Jews he is selling down the river.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #14
  15. Mona Charen Contributor
    Mona Charen
    @MonaCharen

    I don’t think Schumer can vote against the deal and then turn around and vote to uphold the president’s veto. How would he justify that? Usually, when politicians vote with their party, they dress it up as principle. Voting to uphold the president’s veto, on such a momentous matter, after having “studied” the deal thoroughly as he claims he is doing, would look craven, right?

    I could be wrong, but I think if he votes no, he also votes to overturn the veto, and there’s no question that that would be helpful. BUT, his greatest contribution would be not just his vote, but his behind the scenes pressure on his colleagues to also vote no. He’s a future leader. He can make promises and deals (yes, that’s how it works and will always work). I don’t know whether he would do that. Declining to do it might preserve his standing with Obama and the party’s left, and he needs them.

    Then, there’s the intangible. As calculating as they are, politicians are sometimes  swayed by things other than positioning, ambition, and appearances. They’re human. Obama, as we know so well, has been indulging (along with Sec. Kerry) in some rank, borderline anti-Semitic appeals. That might just get Schumer’s back up.

    • #15
  16. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    Mona Charen: I don’t think Schumer can vote against the deal and then turn around and vote to uphold the president’s veto. How would he justify that?

    Why would he need to?  If Schumer does vote against the deal, it’d only be a throwaway vote so he can look good in the shower back home with his money cronies.  Then he’ll vote against the veto because he’s a Leftist Democrat, and this is a Leftist Democrat deal.  “I tried, guys.  Sorry.  Those da** Republicans.”

    He doesn’t care about Obama’s good offices, but he does care about the Left (who also don’t care about Obama)*; they’re his power base.  They want the deal, so he’ll vote against a veto override.

    Of the thirteen Senators who vote to kill the deal, no more than a dozen, and probably no more than a half dozen (six only because cloture votes sometimes work in this Senate, so there may well be six Democrat Senators…), will vote to sustain the veto.

    Getting 45 (too early in the morning to do the arithmetic) Democrats in the House to sustain a veto override will be even more problematic.  Pelosi still controls her caucus.

    Eric Hines

    *That’s not only a knock on Obama.  A vanishingly small number of lame duck Presidents has anything Congressmen of that President’s party can use.

    • #16
  17. Mike Silver Inactive
    Mike Silver
    @Mikescapes

    Frank Soto

    The dems can allow 10 defections in the senate without a problem.  I fully expect about that many to do so.  There is zero chance of an override.

    ————————————

    Agreed. It’s already a done deal. Some Senators have said Shumer’s vote won’t influence them. That’s because he’s cut his deal to assure passage by others, and to firm up his leadership. All this crap about hand wringing over his vote is pure theatre. And, sadly, NY Jews along with other voters against, will buy it in the end, which is precisely where they will get it. Mona is correct. Shumer will vote no on both votes if it comes to an over-ride. And ups to Eric Hines who hits it on the button with his numbers. I afraid the rest is wishful thinking

    • #17
  18. Frank Soto Contributor
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    James Gawron: rank, You say that in such a convincing style but that’s all it is. Until Schumer declares he is against it and will fight it openly then we won’t know what is possible.

    He won’t fight openly.  He will quietly vote against it.

    • #18
  19. Frank Soto Contributor
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    Mona Charen: BUT, his greatest contribution would be not just his vote, but his behind the scenes pressure on his colleagues to also vote no.

    I don’t think this happens.  He gets to vote no, and then goes silent.

    • #19
  20. jetstream Inactive
    jetstream
    @jetstream

    David Sussman:There are some very powerful groups in NY against this deal, as well as AIPAC. He is running for re-election next year. One can hope that Schumer is wise enough to understand his future may not be aligned with Obama’s legacy.

    The question is why would even the dimmest of the Democrats want to be associated with Obama’s legacy of mushroom shaped clouds in Israel and the U.S.?

    • #20
  21. Blue State Curmudgeon Inactive
    Blue State Curmudgeon
    @BlueStateCurmudgeon

    Schumer, as always will try to have it both ways and will likely succeed.  He will vote to disapprove in both votes secure in the knowledge that there will be enough other democrats to uphold the veto.  He then looks like a principled politician while the White House still gets what it wants.  Win-win for him and Obama.  Lose-lose for everyone else.

    • #21
  22. Reldim Inactive
    Reldim
    @Reldim

    Valiuth:James, I love your optimism but I don’t think it will work out that way.

    I think if the deal falls apart Obama will let the sanctions fall apart too. I doubt we will be able to impeach him before he leaves office, or that Democrats will go along with it.

    Iran has played Obama for a chump and his pride and ideology blind him to this fact. He relishes fighting “Evil Warmongering Republicans” and has no taste for combating our enemies. The Iranians have given him exactly what he wants. An excuse to fight his real enemy instead of doing his job.

    I think that may be partially right.  Some of the sanctions are statutory and cannot be lifted by the President unilaterally if Congress rejects the deal (and overrides the veto).

    I think the bigger impact would be that a rejection would provide cover for a Republican administration in 2017 to cancel the deal and reimpose U.S. sanctions – which is no small thing – though it will be substantially less effective than the global sanctions that had existed. But the ability to close the U.S. banking and financial system to Iran and those doing Iranian business is still a big stick. It would also provide cover for not abiding by some of the more ridiculous provisions of the agreement.

    A rejection also likely impacts how the issue is ultimately addressed by Hillary Clinton – if you have at least 13 Senate Democrats and 42 House Democrats (the numbers needed to override a veto if every Republican votes to do so), that’s a pretty significant chunk of the party that is effectively approving of a tougher line on Iran than what is laid out in the framework.

    • #22
  23. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    Reldim: Some of the sanctions are statutory and cannot be lifted by the President unilaterally if Congress rejects the deal (and overrides the veto).

    But he can refuse to go after violators and make plain that he will not.

    Reldim: A rejection also likely impacts how the issue is ultimately addressed by Hillary Clinton – if you have at least 13 Senate Democrats and 42 House Democrats….

    Overriding the veto isn’t necessary to achieve this.  A reasonably bipartisan vote-down, forcing Obama’s veto, will do this to.  It’ll force the Democratic nominee, whether Clinton, Sanders, or Biden, to defend the veto or decry the 30-ish fellow Democrats in the Senate and all those fellow Democrats in the House for failing to override.

    And none of the serious Republican candidates have shown themselves shy about taking on Clinton, in particular, on this sort of thing.

    Eric Hines

    • #23
  24. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    I never thought I’d ever be rooting for Chuck Schumer to do the right thing and rally his Democrat cohorts to vote to kill the Iran deal.

    • #24
  25. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    The Dems seem to be moving left. To undo the Iran deal, two things have to happen; both necessary, neither sufficient:

    • Congress has to rein Obama in, ideally overriding his veto
    • The right Republican has to win the White House.

    Schumer will do whatever it takes to keep #2 from happening, and so will most of the Democrat money in New York.
    Schumer votes against the President but makes sure the veto stands.

    • #25
  26. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Mona & all,

    Obama has lost some major people in the house. Steve Israel of New York, Ted Deutch of Florida and Nita Lowey of New York. No word about Schumer yet.

    In other news Obama has blamed WWI, WWII, Korea, and VietNam on George W. Bush and the NeoCon conspiracy in his recent spirited defense of the Iran deal. He admitted that Iran is a state sponsor of terror throughout the world but that’s no problem because they’ve been doing it for a long time anyway and so what if they have another $150 billion to get conventional weapons.

    Obama doesn’t have a screw loose, he is a loose screw.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #26
  27. David Sussman Contributor
    David Sussman
    @DaveSussman

    jetstream:

    David Sussman:There are some very powerful groups in NY against this deal, as well as AIPAC. He is running for re-election next year. One can hope that Schumer is wise enough to understand his future may not be aligned with Obama’s legacy.

    The question is why would even the dimmest of the Democrats want to be associated with Obama’s legacy of mushroom shaped clouds in Israel and the U.S.?

    Democrat politics trumps policy… always.

    • #27
  28. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    James Gawron: Obama has lost some major people in the house. Steve Israel of New York, Ted Deutch of Florida and Nita Lowey of New York.

    Really?  When did the House vote on their resolution?

    Eric Hines

    • #28
  29. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Eric Hines:

    James Gawron: Obama has lost some major people in the house. Steve Israel of New York, Ted Deutch of Florida and Nita Lowey of New York.

    Really? When did the House vote on their resolution?

    Eric Hines

    They have announced their opposition publicly. That’s the best they can do for now. Were you looking for a blood oath?

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #29
  30. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    James Gawron:

    Eric Hines:

    James Gawron: Obama has lost some major people in the house. Steve Israel of New York, Ted Deutch of Florida and Nita Lowey of New York.

    Really? When did the House vote on their resolution?

    Eric Hines

    They have announced their opposition publicly. That’s the best they can do for now. Were you looking for a blood oath?

    Regards,

    Jim

    No reason to believe their blood oath.  Only their actions matter.  Their words are chit-chat.

    Eric Hines

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.