White House Brushes Off Chuck Schumer's Iran Deal Rejection

[Purveyor]

Source: ABC News

Aug 7, 2015, 2:22 PM ET
By BENJAMIN SIEGEL AND JORDYN PHELPS

The Obama administration is confident it can get enough Democrats on Capitol Hill to support the Iran deal, despite prominent rejections of the deal from Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, and other members, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said today.

“I would describe this as an announcement that was not particularly surprising to anyone here at the White House, even if it was disappointing,” Earnest said. “But it doesn’t change our confidence that we’ll be able to mobilize a substantial majority of Democrats both in the House and in the Senate in support of the deal and if necessary.”

Schumer, a senior Democrat next-in-line to replace Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, was a top White House target in the Iran deal lobbying campaign. His support would've lent legitimacy to the deal in the pro-Israel community.

Instead, he became the the first Democratic senator -- and fifth New York City-area Democratic lawmaker -- to oppose it Thursday night, citing concerns that the deal would not do enough to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions and sponsorship of terror.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-brushes-off-chuck-schumers-iran-deal/story?id=32950436

[Jack Rabbit]

1. I've got a better idea

We Democrats should brush off Schumer's designs on becoming the Democratic leader.

[George II]

8. I think now that's in the works.

[yeoman6987]

24. Isn't that what a leader does?

They vote what they believe and keep their convictions?

[BillZBubb]

26. No, if you are in a party leadership position, you push the party's goals.

If you cannot do that, you resign your leadership position, then vote what you believe.

[yeoman6987]

34. That is an interesting and valid take on it.

I didn't look at it that way but you are right. If he gave up the leader position then he can vote the way he wants. That is really excellent. Thank you so much for replying to me because you really made a difference in how I was looking at it.

[cheapdate]

2. To his credit, Schumer is open and explicit about his alligience to the state of Israel.

I am strongly in favor of the Iran nuclear deal. But at least Schumer is up-front about his reasons.

[still_one]

4. No actually the reason he used was republican talking points that the deal isn't

verifiable. He is disingenuous at best. Note the other senator from NY is for the deal

[cheapdate]

13. Maybe. I listened to an extended audio clip of him speaking to a Jewish group

where he was explicit about his allegiance to the state of Israel and his aversion to the nuclear deal.

I heard it on NPR yesterday. I didn't catch all of the details about the context of the remarks (where?, when?, etc.)

Like I said, I'm strongly in favor of the deal and opposing it, like Schumer has, is a line in the sand for me. Fuck him. I'm just saying, from what I heard yesterday, Schumer was at least explicit about his allegiance to Israel in the remarks I heard him make -- which is worth something in my book.

[still_one]

16. That doesn't correlate with his press release. Not sure what or when NPR said Schumer said his

"allegiance" was to Israel. I could understand him saying he strongly supports Israel, but allegiance is an entirely different connotation. To be honest I am somewhat skeptical of NPR also. Ever since NPR was trying to infer that Bernie Sanders had dual citizenship, and keep pushing the point despite Bernie's denials. The next day NPR apologized, but that really put a bad taste in my month about that.

Here is the official release on Schumer's decision, and why I said he was just echoing the republican talking points:

http://www.schumer.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/my-position-on-the-iran-deal

[cheapdate]

19. I chose the word "alligience" and not NPR.

The audio they played was from Schumer's address to an important AIPAC conference last year. If the word "allgience" is problematic (although I think it's fitting enough) then let's just say that Schumer is a consistently outspoken and explicit supporter of aligning American foreign policy with the policies of the state of Israel.

[still_one]

20. No question Schumer takes bribes, ER, I mean donations from AIPAC

He also takes donations from Wall Street PACs and other special interest groups

Don't get me wrong, I detest Schumer not only for going against the Iran deal, but dissing the ACA and other things where he is influenced by special interest groups

I don't want him as majority / minority leader. He cannot be trusted as he has demonstrated. Schumer is for Schumer, and to hell with the people

[cheapdate]

21. AIPAC has a lot to give.

It's estimated they'll spend $20 million to $40 million on lobbying over the Iran nuclear deal alone.

I don't want Schumer either, but considering how Liberman was rewarded, I'd guess that Schumer is golden.

[still_one]

22. Just more reason why he doesn't deserve to take over Reid's position when Reid steps down

[6chars]

29. inflammatory choice of word

not that you're the only one. this kind of escalation can lead to bad places, although it does help the people doing it to feel better.

[cheapdate]

30. If the word "allegiance" bothers you,

then let's just say that Schumer is a consistently outspoken and explicit supporter of aligning American foreign policy with the policies of the state of Israel.

[6chars]

31. that is a better way to phrase your point

more precise and without (unintended) negative implications

[cheapdate]

33. We could argue over "better".

Last edited Sat Aug 8, 2015, 11:30 AM - Edit history (1)

Allegiance is concise and I believe a fitting and proper choice for describing the relationship.

The other is more precise but longer.

It's a trade off we all must occasionally make between precision and brevity.

You're right (thank you) the statement wasn't intended to smear Schumer.

People have different outlooks and opinions on Israel. That's life.


(edit: please don't think I'm preaching at you. I'm just talking. And I'm argumentative by nature. Too much so, most people say.)

[Xipe Totec]

3. Very disappointed but not surprised. nt

[ArizonaLib]

5. Wall Street 'No' Vote

Sounds like Wall Street is voting against it. He is announcing this for a reason - is it because he needs establishment money for a future presidential run? Is he planning to succeed Hillary Clinton for blue dog leader after her primary or her possible presidency? I hope Bernie wins the white house.

[Backwoodsrider]

6. expected and harmless

To his credit he waited until they got the votes to pass this before he tipped his hat at his string pullers. Wonder if this was discussed with the Whitehouse before hand? Schumer could never gotten up to where he is at with out the support of the state of Israel. This Iran plan is also a reshuffling of the control of oil in the ME that's why Bush and the Saudis are so pissed. The deals Baker made 30 years ago are being replaced. Israel is a smart country and once they see where the wind is blowing and get their ducks in a row I think they will be able to work with the Iran deal, just my 2 cents. And Schumer is not near as apathetic as Reid

[6chars]

9. just playing (to) his constituency

[geek tragedy]

12. No, he did NOT wait until they had the votes to pass it. That's why the Obama people are so pissed

at him.

[24601]

14. This isn't about votes to pass it. It's about not having the votes to override a veto. The

agreement goes forward unless new legislation blocks it.

Expecting that blocking initially passes both houses, and then it's vetoed, an override would require 67 Senators and 290 Representatives.

[geek tragedy]

15. they don't have the votes to block an override.

maybe including soft leaners who aren't committed, but nothing solid yet.

They're still at least 7 votes shy in the Senate.

[red dog 1]

10. Are you referring to Sen. Bernie Sanders?

If so, what does he have to do with this OP about Schumer?

[Doctor_J]

18. Freeper alert ^^^^

[red dog 1]

11. K&R...Thanks for posting

Schumer is a DINO.

I expect at least one or two other Senate Dems will oppose the Iran deal as well.

President Obama has his work cut out for him to get Congressional approval of this deal.

[Doctor_J]

17. the other thread says they're at war

kabuki theater

[DCBob]

23. They brush the any possibility of it affecting the final result but..

I guarantee they are royally pissed. I suspect Schumer will regret this decision. The Obama wing of Dem party is still very powerful and if they wanted to, they could take this guy down.. and I suspect they do.

[BillZBubb]

27. I sure hope so. I would support any retaliation against Schumer.

He should NEVER become Democratic leader in the Senate or chair any committee.

[november3rd]

25. So...

We're better off without an Agreement, Chuck?

[BillZBubb]

28. Netanyahu says YES! That's good enough for Chuckles.

[MrTriumph]

32. Say what, Chuck?

Is Iran's sponsorship of terrorism a part of the agreement?

Notice the last 3 words in ABC's report:

"Instead, he became the the first Democratic senator -- and fifth New York City-area Democratic lawmaker -- to oppose it Thursday night, citing concerns that the deal would not do enough to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions and sponsorship of terror".