Finally, a bipartisan move
This is certainly interesting:
Represenative Eliot Engel of New York, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said he and Republican Chairman Ed Royce of California were sending a letter to President Barack Obama expressing their concerns about what needs to be in an Iran nuclear deal.
A draft of the letter emphasizes that permanent sanctions relief, which Iran has repeatedly requested during the Geneva negotiations, would require new legislation.
“In reviewing such an agreement, Congress must be convinced that its terms foreclose any pathway to a bomb,” the lawmakers wrote, adding that “Iran’s role in fomenting instability in the region ”¦ demonstrates the risks of negotiating with a partner we cannot trust.”
A spokesman for Engel told VOA that 363 House members, Republicans and Democrats, signed the letter.
363 is a lot of people, and a lot of Democrats must have been part of this. Now of course that doesn’t mean all of those Democrats would be willing to go against Obama if push came to shove. But it indicates that it is at least possible, if Obama’s deal with Iran is awful enough.
I’ve often wondered what on earth it would take for enough Democrats to turn against Obama to get to the all-important two-thirds of Congress in opposition, enough to override a veto or even convict him if impeached. Would handing nuclear weapons to Iran count? Obama certainly seems to wants it bad enough to risk the fallout, as it were.
I’ve often wondered what on earth it would take for enough Democrats to turn against Obama
This is almost same question with different successive US administrations in different matters.
let remember going to war for regime change in Iraq…..
Latest news (via Rush Limbaugh): the Obama regime is now saying they won’t reveal all of the Iran deal to us serfs — parts of it will be kept secret. They’re claiming “security” reasons. Neo, he agrees with you: he says we’ve never before seen a president like this one, and that the next two years are going to be very, very terrible in ways we can’t yet imagine.
Rush also says that the “two-state” solution is a mask for what would be the real “Final Solution” to the Israel “problem”: death/expulsion for all the Jews. Yeah, he went there.
Obama’s a lame duck. He’s extremely unpopular according to his approval rating in polls. Over the next two years, many Democrats will be distancing themselves from him. One way to do that will be by opposing some unpopular policy of his, such as Iran.
“over the next two years…” There are forces at work trying to trying to stir up major civil unrest. Have you seen the post Franklin Graham made about dealing with police and the insane response to it? Just a tip of what is boiling beneath.
Beverly,
“two-state” solution is a mask
This what Tom Cotton saying:
As when it comes to Iran despite the Iran’s supreme leader slams senators’ letter,
and then Cotton said Sunday on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” adding that he had “no regrets at all” for his communications with Tehran. “It’s so important we communicated this message straight to Iran,”
Now more laughable to read this:
The worst excuse yet for the Senate Republicans’ Iran letter
Someone else pointed out that with civil unrest and this crusade against local police there is an excuse to federalize the local police departments more.
The current thought is that Obama doesn’t really care about US approval for the deal. He’ll instead use it to give the UN an excuse to remove the (leaky) sanctions in place against Iran.
Refusing to tell anyone what’s in the deal would fit right in with this thinking.
Wooly Bully:
Obama’s popularity has gone way up in the polls lately.
Obama certainly seems to wants it bad enough to risk the fallout, as it were.
Does he? I wonder. Personally, I think he may be wondering, at this late stage of his career, if he can truly get away with ANYTHING. (They used to say that a politician was so golden that the only way he’d fail to be re-elected was to get caught with a dead girl or a live boy. So such thinking is not new.)
President Obama has long since passed the point of doing things that, in a bygone era, would have been called “treason”. If he’s wondering what he CAN’T get away with, he has good reason to do so.
Daniel in Brookline:
I agree that Obama thinks there is nothing he can’t get away with.
What I meant was this: appeasing Iran, removing sanctions, and allowing them to develop weapons is a move that will probably rouse more Democratic ire than previous moves of Obama’s. Thus, more negative repercussions. He’s willing to risk that, however, because he definitely thinks he can get away with it, and obviously the Iran deal means a lot to him.
I really don’t think Hillary wants to be associated with Obama’s now very clear anti-Israel stance. She and Bill must be worrying their little heads over how and when she’ll separate herself from it.
Ann:
Easy-peasy.
She says she opposed it, and that’s why she resigned—because she wouldn’t be party to it.
That could even have the virtue of being true. Who knows?
“363 House members, Republicans and Democrats, signed the letter”
I’ll be generous, 10% of the democrats who signed that letter did so out of patriotism. The other 90% of democrats who signed that letter did so to send an unspoken message to Obama; ‘if you are going to do this, we need more political cover…’
While most congressional democrats are Marxist/Progressive/Socialists I suspect that the majority do not wish for the destruction of America. They seek appeasement as the ‘solution’ to ‘the Iran problem’.
Someone who seeks to appease has already subconsciously given up and submitted. Consciously, they deny that the monster exists and so it’s ‘impossible’ that the ‘non-existent’ monster will ever arrive at their door…
“An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last” Winston Churchill
Neo, it does sound easy-peasy, but what about Obama’s reaction to such “treachery” on her part? He could do a lot of damage to her by turning the left and the black community decisively against her.
Geoffrey Britain:
You may be correct.
I’m not saying the majority are doing it for what I’d consider the right reasons, or that they would sign up for a stronger protest against what he’s doing.
But I hope they are and I hope they would. I just wouldn’t bet a lot of money on it. Or any money at all.
Ann:
I think he’s working against her already, so I’m not sure it matters.
neo-neocon Says:
“Obama’s popularity has gone way up in the polls lately.”
I don’t think five percentage points is “way up”. The margin of error is three, so it’s barely significant.
Wooly Bully:
His popularity is close to 50% now. That’s astonishingly high under the circumstances. And yes, 5% is way up, since what it was before was already way too high.
Yes, Obama would “risk” the fallout, and the blast, from the safety of his White House bunker.
neo,
Your post made it clear that you had your doubts as to their motivation. I just offered a probable rationale.
starlord,
Dear leader would only flee to the WH bunker if time were of the essence, otherwise Camp David or even Cheyenne Mountain would have more appeal in protecting his irreplaceable hide. He’s not a physically brave man, in fact he’s a coward.
“I’ve often wondered what on earth it would take for enough Democrats to turn against Obama to get to the all-important two-thirds of Congress in opposition, enough to override a veto or even convict him if impeached. Would handing nuclear weapons to Iran count? Obama certainly seems to wants it bad enough to risk the fallout, as it were.”
It would take a nuclear device going off in an American City.
The democrats you mention are merely posing for the camera. Not one of them would dare oppose Obama – for the plain reason that they don’t want to! They agree with him 100%. They are posing because it looks bad that they are siding with Iran of all god-forsaken places against us and against Israel.
The only thing that will change these people is a disaster of such proportions that people literally push them aside and their replacements take over.
The fact is that ALL, 100%, ALL Dem Politicians are irredeemable. They can no more turn back than Hitler or Goebbels could turn back.
You are kidding yourself if you really think otherwise. I cannot believe that you actually do.
neo-neocon:
I agree with you that it’s too high, but that’s not what I’m talking about. It’s been pretty steady for many months. A five point change just isn’t much when the margin of error is plus or minus three.
Anyway, that’s all I’ve got to say. Au revoir!
Honestly, does much of the democrat base care about anything other than more handouts and hating this country as it is?
Nobody seems to get it. Obama will do whatever he wants.
Who is going to stop him?
The Press? Federal judge? Congress? Some piece of paper?
He’s black. He’s immune from impeachment!
Cornhead:
I think everybody gets that it’s highly unlikely. But for quite some time the question has been: but under what conditions could it actually happen? Because Congress does have the power to do it, if there were enough votes for it.
It may be that literally nothing Obama could do would cause enough members of Congress to vote to get him out of there. But there may be something that would be enough—it just would be something quite extreme.
From Mark Levin’s daily recap, today: the Wall Street Journal is reporting that FRANCE is fighting, openly, BO on his insane rapprochement with the Iranians:
On Friday’s Mark Levin Show: The world is standing up to President Obama against his negotiations with Iran. It’s so bad that we have to root for France, who is taking a harder line against Islamo-nazi negotiations than America. They are calling out Iran for building nuclear weapons and ICBMs while Obama wants to gloss over it.
Obama doesn’t care about the disasters he creates through his actions and inactions; he only cares about his legacy, which will be nuclearizing the Middle East despite putting the entire world at risk. Not a single country in the Middle East near this growing Islamo-nazi regime is part of this negotiation to arm Iran.
Also, the only way to slow down Obama is to make him live in the same world he’s making us live in. He lives one way while preaching another lifestyle; he isn’t affected by Obamacare, EPA restrictions, or the economy that he’s forcing on all of America. Obama needs to feel directly what it feels like to live under Obama.
At this link, Levin’s links. http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/page.php?pt=March+20%2C+2015&id=13772&is_corp=0
Here’s one you’ll actually enjoy. TMZ caught up with Charlie Sheen, and he just UNLOADED on BO:
http://www.tmz.com/2015/03/20/charlie-sheen-blasts-obama-for-final-4-pics-hes-wasting-valuable-time/#ixzz3UwuZibiR
Amazing rant from Martin Sheen’s son.
With respect, Neo, I would like to formally request a moratorium on all discussion of Obama’s approval rating. In so doing, I am not trying to target you or this blog. It is a redundant topic on all too many right-leaning blogs and discussion related therein has long lost any usefulness.
Here’s my bold prediction: In the 19 months until the 2016 election, Obama’s approval rating will never fall much below 40%. Nor will it ever rise much above 50%. The reason is simple: most of American has long made up their minds about him and nothing, absolutely nothing, will dissuade them. The fluctuation of up to 10 points stems largely from independent, very slightly left leaning LIVs who largely roll with the snippets of news they catch. Right now the economy is billed as in a consistent recovery; thus, these LIVs swing towards him. Foreign affairs largely elude their notice, but to they extent they pay attention, they passively accept Bush is largely to blame for ISIS and those EVIL Republicans (and crazy Netanyahu) are preventing a landmark treaty with Iran.
However, let’s just suppose Obama’s approval rating was 25% right now. What would that change? Would he alter his policies, his demeanor, his overall attitude one iota? A resounding no! Would the MSM offer a more critical and investigative coverage of his administration. Again, no! Would Congressional Democrats challenge him more strenuously. Here, there answer is “sort of”. A few more Democrats (the handful who still have principles and the smaller handful in reddish purple seats/states) would vote against him, after carefully consulting with their leadership to ensure that A) They have plausible cover but B) Votes still never come near a 2/3rd majority. A couple Bob Menendez types would risk Justice Department probes to strenuously criticize him on one or another issue. But that’s about it.
I’ve long stopped paying attention to Obama’s approval rating. I think we all should. He has made it abundantly clear he Does. Not. Care. Neither should we.
Well, it does matter: his fan club are our REAL problem. They are no longer Americans, but “US Persons,” as His Loathsomeness puts it.
The English didn’t draft Churchill until the British Expeditionary Force was scarpering back across the Channel with the Nazis hot on their heels.
I fear it is too late. The liberals are of the mindset that they can never admit they are wrong, or ever were wrong. They cannot admit this to themselves, let alone anyone else. I know this because I used to be one of them, and I still walk amongst them. They will follow Obama to the grave, if need be. That’s what they are like. Very very few change their minds. But there is always hope. And that hope is that in two years Obama will be gone. Whoever we get will be nowhere near as America hating as Obama.
#410Traitors
(What is that, about 80% of Congress?)
I agree with Ackler on everything he said, for the reasons he said it. I don’t mind discussing Obama’s approval numbers quite as much, but they will never move outside a narrow range.
Also, I don’t rely on only Gallup since they are a single poll and IMO, an outlier.
The Gold Standard is the Real Clear Politics poll average that smoothes out wild fluctuations.
For that average, Obama’s numbers have fluctuated between 42% and 46% over the last 6 months.
I disagree with some of the commenters who say nothing will persuade Democrats to turn on Obama. I think these people are so insulated that nothing reaches them of significance.
If that were to change, you would see poll movements. So the question is: What would have a large effect on masses of Democrats in a negative way, that they couldn’t avoid?
An economic meltdown would do it. All the upscale liberals would see their net worths plummet. Just the simple fact might be enough…it might not have to be plausibly blamed on Obama. And there’s nowhere to hide from that.
Another thing might be widespread race riots. Another might be a war that breaks out from one of his pet projects.
Of all these, I think the economic crash might be most likely.
The main point is, these people need to have their bubbles burst. Some of them will come around then.
I don’t see any downside to opposing Obama strongly. People do not feel safe. That will work against dems and for the GOP no matter what the polls say about Obama. Scott Walker has the right agenda: growth, reform and safety.
Informed speculation (for that’s all it can be) as to why a nuclear deal with Iran is so important to Our Lord Hussein is sorely lacking.
Don Carlos. How about he is a muslim?
Matt_SE:
I don’t see why an economic meltdown and/or race riots would be blamed on Democrats. Even if it happened on their watch. I really don’t see a single reason why those who are inclined to blame Republicans wouldn’t continue to blame them for those two phenomena as well as nearly everything else.
Logic has little or nothing to do with the blame game, for most people.
neo-neocon:
For some, they don’t care what the cause is. They only know their bank accounts are now 50% smaller than they used to be. They may find a scapegoat, or not, but jarring them into thinking is itself useful. They start asking questions about whether it was wise to bail out Wall Street in 2008, or whether the Fed should be printing easy money.
Race riots are EASY to blame on Democrats and Obama. Polls already show a wide majority of people think race relations have gotten worse under Obama. That doesn’t happen accidentally.
Yes, some people are lost. They won’t wake up no matter what. I think that percentage is much lower than some others do.
At least, I’m not willing to write off a majority of citizens without running the experiment.
This is based on my own experience:
Had a job, thought I was more clever than average because I held it through 2011. Only after I lost it did I realize I had been mostly LUCKY.
The first step to healing is admitting you have a problem. The sleeper must awaken.
Let me add Churchill’s famous quote:
“Americans always do the right thing, after they’ve tried everything else.”
This isn’t some piece of throw-away wit. It is actually a profound statement on the American character.
As a nation, we are too forgiving and too slow to anger. We give the benefit of the doubt serially. But eventually, we reach a limit and start to make the hard and correct choices.
The sense I’m getting is that America is getting awfully tired of the lies and dysfunction. If I’m wrong, then I have faith that America only needs to get burned a couple of more times to see the light.