General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDisqualified
By JOSH MARSHALL Published AUGUST 14, 2015, 10:08 AM EDT
Fareed Zakaria had a column out yesterday dissecting and demolishing New York Senator Chuck Schumers argument for opposition to the Iran nuclear deal. I wont try to duplicate his arguments on the merits. I dont think I can improve on them. But I have wanted for the last week to address Schumers decision.
As you may know, in the midst of last week's Fox-GOP-Trump debate, Schumer leaked the news that he planned to vote against the deal when it comes before the Senate for review. There are a few things to say about the manner of the leak. As the Senator himself would no doubt agree, no one is more adept, experienced, or desirous of press attention than Schumer. The timing was no accident. It seemed aimed at creating as little splash as possible. Given his status as a prominent, senior, and outspokenly pro-Israel Senator from New York, there is only so much that he could do to limit the impact and reaction. But this was clearly an attempt to do so. And it did get buried to some degree in the Trump Debate/GOP Meltdown/Blood Drama. Schumer has also said that since this is his position, he will of course lobby others to follow his lead. But he has done so not altogether convincingly. Take all this together and I think it is possible that Schumer believes this to be a free vote for him personally - that he can vote in opposition, either knowing that it will pass (sustain a presidential veto) or at least that he wont be blamed for it going down.
ADVERTISING
Well know after the vote how that all shook out. And in terms of what one makes of Schumer, there is some difference over what the truth turns out to be. Just after Schumers announcement, James Fallows said that it was one thing for Schumer to vote this way himself but if he lifts a finger to lobby other senators against the deal, he should be disqualified from becoming the next Senate Majority/Minority Leader, an office he very much wishes to fill.
I would take it a step further. I think Schumer should be disqualified on the basis of this decision alone. In fact, I would personally find it difficult to ever vote for Schumer again as my Senator, though I doubt hell lose much sleep over that since he is amazingly entrenched as New Yorks senior senator.
I say all this with some regret since Ive always liked Schumer. And I should make clear that I see fidelity to a President of ones own party - even on an issue central to his presidency - as a non-issue in this case. The issue is that this agreement is a matter of grave importance. And Schumers position is wrong. Indeed, what makes it an issue for me is that it is more than wrong. His stated arguments are simply nonsensical and obviously tendentious. In this case, Schumers ample brain power stands as an indictment against him. There are plenty of senators who are voting against this deal because of a combination of bellicosity and partisan fervor. And there are a good number of them who either cannot or do not care to apply a real logical analysis of the question at hand. Lets put that more bluntly, theyre either lazy or dumb. And of course this general point applies to senators on both sides of the aisle.
more
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/disqualified
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Schumer has disqualified himself from any leadership position in the party.
This would be different if Schumer resigned his current position and then opposed the Iran deal. He'd be wrong on the issue but at least then he would not be betraying his leadership position.