13 thoughts on “Iran Deal Secure

  1. YAY!

    But upf*ck UpChuck!

    Sadly, unless there’s really good “Working Families Party” candidate, I’ll vote for UpChuck!
    A GOP Senator in NY, is just unthinkable.

  2. But doesn’t Washington have these arrangements where a member of Congress may get “permission” to vote against the administration if their constituents are going to give them grief about their vote and if the administration has enough votes from other members to get the desired outcome? Seems like this is the kind of situation where, before the member announces his vote, there will have been some discussions in which the White House says, “OK, we understand your political situation, so don’t sweat it; we will get the votes we have to have from elsewhere.”

  3. Ed,
    Yes, I also believe that there’s an unspoken law.

    But NY’s UpChuck Schumer is about as safe a candidate for reelection as there is on the Democratic side!

    He didn’t have to take the “NO!” side on the Iran deal.
    There’s no virtually chance that he’d lose reelection the next time.

    Sure, there are a lot of Jewish people in NY State. But not enough of them to make him lose an election.
    And besides, it think most of NY’s Jewish people would want peace.

    I think most downstate NY voters are smart enough to realize that this was the best deal we in the USA could get, and bring some peace and stability to an area we keep sticking our noses in, and wondering why people are ready, willing, and able to punch us in that nose!

    I can’t speak for the NY hinterlands, where rural voters are virtually indistinguishable from rural voters in the Red States.

    But, I’m halfway between NYC and Albany, where most voter are sane – even the ones who might occasionally vote for the GOP.

    And they’re no threat to UpChuck, since he’s been a pretty decent Senator for our state.

    I’ll take Gillibrand over him, but, different strokes for different folks…

  4. uncledada,
    UpChuck may not be my ideal, but is no Al D’Amoto!

    And, sadly, I voted for him in his election, because the Dem candidate was – unbelievably – far, far worse.
    That’s the only election I felt like staying more for!

  5. The Iran deal is one of those uncounted things where the public wants one thing (slow down the Iranians from getting The Bomb) the GOP wants another (posturing for their base). I mean, even American Jews are mostly behind the Deal (Chuckie notwithstanding).

  6. He didn’t have to take the “NO!” side on the Iran deal.

    He did the political equivalent of Pascal’s wager. He satisfied all eventual possibilities of getting egg on his face if the deal doesn’t workout as sold to the American public. He scored one of those win-wins that the GOP politicians are so fond of creating.

  7. Also no thanks to the head of the DNC. Which naturally leads to the question, why does she have, and why should she keep, her job?

  8. “UpChuck may not be my ideal, but is no Al D’Amoto!”

    Maybe not but he sure is a lot like Joe Lieberman, wall street fat cats and Israel Ãœber Alles. If put into a corner UpChuck would change parties so fast you wouldn’t know what happened, he’ll be a disaster for the democratic party as Senate minority Leader, between him and his counter part in the house Wassermann-Shultz, what is the point of being a progressive Democrat?

  9. Cund, which Democratic opponent of D’Amato was far worse than him? Holtzman, Mark Green, or Robert Abrams? I remember D’Amato being pretty friggin bad, for a lot of years, and don’t forget that anyone who voted against Liz Holzman in the 1980 election, helped throw control of the senate to the GOP the next six years. What was so bad about Green or Abrams to risk the same in ’86 and ’92?

  10. It was Abrams.
    And I regretted right after I left the voting booth.

    I could at least explain voting for (R) Jacob Javits in his last election – he was actually more liberal than most Dem’s, then and now!

Comments are closed.