How hard is it to say Chuck Schumer's opposition to the Iran deal is fucking stupid

[NuclearDem]

without calling him the "Senator from Tel Aviv", a backstabber, or disloyal?

I mean, is it entirely necessary to pull out the stab-in-the-back, "disloyal Jew" dog whistle, or are we perfectly capable of expressing how stupid his opposition to the deal is otherwise?

[YoungDemCA]

1. Seriously.

We're better than this. Or at least, we should be.

Recommended.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. I have made this point

and now anybody who uses that well trodden whistle is in my list of antisemites.

If they do not want to be thought that way, well, pretty easy.

Oh and this is one of the many reasons why this place sucks... many a times. I know the dog whistles and to be quite honest, makes me very uncomfortable to even be reading this site at times.

[Cosmic Kitten]

3. As hard as it is to ignore things disagreeable?

Bringing it up just fuels the fire.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Most of us understand he counted the votes...

and his vote is cover for his real bosses but will have no real effect. We hope.

But it still sucks for him to diss the President, his own party, and good judgment just to look good for a few backers. This is definitely not what we want as a Senate leader. Even less so if we become a majority.

We've already got this problem with our House leadership.

[Report1212]

5. Antisemitic rhetoric against him is deplorable but so his is own sectarian rhetoric

He has said some pretty harsh things against Arabs and tried to divide Jews against Arabs in the past

http://www.alternet.org/chuck-schumer-friend-wall-street-and-war-ready-be-anointed-head-senate-democrats

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Mentioning the fact that when the chips are down he votes for...

his Jewish supporters rather than the President is not ant-Semitic. It's just simply the way things are.

Are we to completely ignore where a large part of his loyalties lie?

We have no problem complaining about Walker as a tool for the Koch brothers.

Tools are tools.

[geek tragedy]

7. The problem is that Schumer intentionally feeds his image as Israel's champion inside

the US Senate, going so far as to claim "hashem" chose him to protect his fellow Jews with his vote in the Senate.

And he has never taken his own government's side when there's been a difference of opinion between the US and Israel. Anytime he speaks up, it's to advocate for Israel and castigate the United States government.

Every time.

When politicians ostentatiously pander to a foreign country as a matter of regular course, and ALWAYS make sure their public votes and words are 100% supportive of that foreign country, then they pretty much invite this inquiry.

Why should his critics disbelieve his own words, and disregard his very clear record?

[geek tragedy]

8. To put it another way: if AIPAC and Netanyahu had urged him to vote for the Iran deal,

does anyone think he'd still be voting with the Republicans?

Of course not.

But it's considered impolite to recognize the obvious.

[edhopper]

9. The counting votes is one thing

but if he controls the senate as majority leader, will he do what is right for Israel or his own country?

[Igel]

17. Do you ask that about everybody?

Does Obama do what is right for African-Americans or for the other 88% as well? Was this a reasonable question before the election? Is it now? (Only "bad" people asked it in early 2008. But "good people" could ask it in 2010 and 2011.)

Would HRC do what is right for women or for her country--including the othe 49%?

If we were to elect O'Malley, would he do what is right for his own state or for his country? Or maybe just Irish-Americans? Or perhaps Ireland? Which brings us to ...

The Kennedy's were staunch supporters of Ireland. Did they do things that were right for Ireland or for their own country?

It's a slippery slope. Given that the majority leaders have less power in some ways than we think they do, it's not an especially important one. It's worse with Schumer (and Kennedy) because it sort of smacks of treason. In the case of the Kennedys, meh. In the case of Schumer it goes back to a standard accusation of "divided loyalties." Others tried it with Obama, and it was odious. We tried it with Cruz, and it was odious.

I'll share an important lesson I learned in student government. I was on a committee that had some actual power on campus. There was an initiative proposed to try to deal with some horrendous budget shortfalls by restuctuing. This committee could vote down the restructuring entirely because it affected graduate programs and it had absolute authority over those programs. If it voted it down, the chancellor would have been stopped cold with no recourse because the restructuring couldn't happen. I defended graduate students (and some faculty) in increasingly brutal terms, but since I had no vote that was entirely appropriate role. Those with actual votes could sweat long-term implications and the rest. I was the graduate student rep and my duty was to graduate students.

We students had no vote. We'd fought for a vote for years. Then something truly horrible happened. The bylaws were changed and I had an actual vote. Suddenly I had to rethink my position. If I was wrong, there were no grown-ups to take the heat if I convinced them to side with me. If I voted and horrible things happened, I couldn't duck responsibility. I was quiet for a meeting or two as I came up to speed on all the backstory that I, as a single-purpose advocate, could completely ignore. I was now a fiduciary. I found my position untenable. The numbers were such that if I voted my conscience I'd hurt a lot of people--by protecting my narrow constituency from a small problem I'd help create a disaster. By giving us the vote, they'd blunted our advocacy in ways that we hadn't considered. We now shared responsibility and had to be responsible.

I could have held to my old position. It was defensible. I think it was probably wrong. Intelligent people can disagree without resorting to either straw man fallacies to discredit everybody and make oneself out to be a glorious figure of enlightenment and brilliance (which is just plain arrogant and petty at the same time) or to claims bordering on the racist.

It's why an electorate has to be informed, and the more direct authority it has the greater the burden on the electorate to be wise and informed. It's why those in leadership positions can't be advocates. It's why if Schumer were made majority leader he'd either lose the position fairly quickly or have to moderate his positions in his role as majority leader, however he cast his own vote. A lot of people can't understand that this happens: They're advocates first and foremost, and the idea of being responsible for more than just themselves and theirs is foreign to them--their empathy, their responsibility stops at their group boundaries. They (a) shouldn't be allowed to lead and (b) shouldn't be given shared responsibility.

[edhopper]

20. Yes I do

And this is particularly crucial to our country. Siding with the war mongers is not healthy for our party and our country.

And BTW I am a Jew living in NY and have voted for Schumer since he first ran.
Opposing this deal is choosing Netenyahu over our country.

And as majority leader he has a big say in how and when bills come to a vote.

[BeyondGeography]

10. That's not hard, nor is it very illuminating

[geek tragedy]

12. yeah, Chuck Schumer is NOT stupid, so calling a decision

'stupid' implies that it's an error of judgment rather than him operating from a different set of values and priorities than most of us.

[daybranch]

13. Yep

and they sure are not progressive. Go Bernie. Too bad about Schumer, the people deserve better.

[still_one]

11. Agree there are some over the top descriptions, like what you described, however, to not call

attention to the fact that Schumer appears to be more influenced by AIPAC in this case, and Wall Street PACs in other cases, is just sticking your head in the sand.

Arguments have been made that Schumer is just serving his constituents, but is he?

Kirsten Gillibrand, who is also a Senator from New York has the same constituents, and she is voting for the plan.

Senators are supposed to be mindful of the whole state they serve. In addition, both Senators are Democrats.

In my state, California, both Senator Feinstein, and Senator Boxer support the deal. They are both Democrats. Sounds like to me they are serving their constituents.

I also think why the words disloyal and backstabber are being brandied about is because Schumer is the presumed majority/minority leader when Harry Reid steps down, and folks have a right to question his loyalty at the very least to the party , and even to the country if we take the Iraq War as an "honest error" in judgement.

The reason he indicates he is voting against it is because it cannot be verified, which is false. The reasons he is using are republican talking points.

No, I think it is perfectly fair to point out any outside influences that contribute significant amount of money to Schumer that do NOT necessarily represent his constituents

[leveymg]

14. Chuck Schumer just disqualified himself as Democratic Minority Leader.

I don't think it's a question of stupidity or treason. He isn't supporting the President of his own party on a major issue.

Simple as that.

[ibegurpard]

15. it is not anti-Semitic to point out Schumer ' s

Strong support (too strong in my opinion) of Israel. Israel is a nation-state. It is not a religion, race, or group of people. The first determination should be what is in the best interest of the United States and the entire international community...not just what Israel wants. He wants to be Senate Minority leader. I don't think he should be.

[truebrit71]

18. Agree 100%

...

[Rex]

16. NP. His opposition to the Iran deal is fucking stupid.

Agree completely we don't have to get insulting to say he is wrong or more accurately, very fucking wrong. Would he be the first ever? No, of course not. Will he be the last? If someone believes so, I got some ocean front property in Arizona for sale cheap.

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. I'm just wondering if, as Democrats, we have any influence over his new leadership position.

Is there any way to make sure he doesn't ascend to Harry Reid's job?