Iran: P5+1 Overcomes American Enemies, Achieves Nuclear Pact

Well, your paranoia may well tell you so, but generally I don't listen to such impulses. I don't really believe at this point that you understood or read any of my comments, and I wonder whether or not you even read any of Joe's. Even if it were agitprop, you can't even make a sensible connection between my comments and Joe's. You don't seem to understand what 'walking it back' is and no sense of nuance as you pursue your mindless binary. You have single-handedly devolved this thread into childishness and pedantry. Can you possibly be referring to my comment "If"? If so: my God. If Iran sticks to the spirit of the deal. Heavens, what agitprop. How horrible. Ice, no one believes your nonsense and they won't start now, precisely because no one has leapt to your aid regarding your central accusation. The most that the other people in this discussion have complained about is the similarly flawed proposition that I am attempting to make the thread about me. No one has backed your inane strategy. Does this perhaps tell you anything?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I quoted you, and Joe, and your reference to Joe's posting, and made the connection directly. It was a simple observation, and you have never once since acknowledged it.

Quit this denial, this thrashing and baseless spewing of insult. Own your posting, respond with recognition: you backed the Crazy Iran meme, attempted by Joe. That is what you were pushing, until called on it.

Iran is not crazy. Iran is under siege.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, actually, you didn't quote anyone. What you did was turn a benign statement into the "Joe's crazy Iran" meme through misrepresentation. I don't think you know the meaning of the word crazy. People make illogical decisions all the time, but that doesn't make them "crazy", it just makes them human. We are after all emotional beings and all decisions are ultimately rooted in our emotions. Crazy people are dysfunctional to the point were they can no longer care for themselves and Iran clearly isn't crazy in that sense. Iran is functional. However, there may come a point where Iran's leadership does cross the line into crazy. Iran is lead by religious zealots who thus far have been very willing to kill others, including its children (e.g. using children and young adults to clear mines during the Iraq war) but has been very protective of lives and comforts of its leaders.

Well you created the Crazy Iran meme.

The only who has said Iran is crazy is you. Iran is under UN sanctions (i.e. economic siege) because Iran has attempted to construct nuclear weapons and no person of reason would want to see a dictatorial theocratic state which has and continues to support terrorism develop a nuclear weapon. So yeah, Iran is under an economic siege. But there are very good reasons for that siege. Even Russia, China and France have sanctioned Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons. So while you may be oblivious as to the threat a nuclear armed Iran would pose to the world, the world isn't.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Geopolitics, Texas Style

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

There are always questions of states' rights, and when it comes to Texas we can rest assured they will at least be interesting questions:

PELHAM, Ala. — Sen. Ted Cruz said Sunday that doing everything possible to thwart the Iran deal should include states exploring imposing their own sanctions.

The Republican presidential candidate from Texas was asked at a raucous town hall-style forum here about the prospects of states taking action to impose sanctions on the money the Obama administration has agreed to release as part of the deal regarding the country’s nuclear development.

“I think that states should act and lead to do exactly that,” Cruz said.

(Lesniewski↱)​

The Texas junior apparently acknowledged that it would be a tough legal sell, but pointed to his experience as Solicitor General for Texas, and a case in which he successfully argued that the George W. Bush administration could not oblige the state to enforce the International Criminal Court in its judicial proceedings. It is an interesting case, to be certain, but it does not translate to states conducting geopolitics.

But, you know, it plays in Pelham, or something like that.

And, you know, sure, it's presidential politicking for the tinfoil caucus, but it also is a reminder of just how desperate American opponents of the P5+1 nonproliferation accord with Iran really are.
____________________

Notes:

Lesniewski, Niels. "Ted Cruz to States: Impose Your Own Iran Sanctions". #WGDB. 9 August 2015. Blogs.RollCall.com. 13 August 2015. http://bit.ly/1Emdbx8

 

Perhaps because I have not the foggiest idea what in hell you're trying to misrepresent here. Clarity is a good watchword, generally. I appreciate that it gets in the way of a good hate, but, still.

So you're back on this again, even though you've never attempted to make any logical connections between my doubting Iran's perfectly benevolent intent and CITAI. Talk about baseless. I'm not sure what the point of your constant, shrill, shilling is. It does waste a little time, I guess.

Anyway, back on Earth:

Tiassa's article (2 of his posts above or so) does illustrate some major fractioning within the GOP cohort (I include the military here because, you know) is an unexpected bonus for the progress of the deal. This said, I still think my idea is better (elapsed consideration time: about 5 seconds). I can't access the letter link, and so I assume this is a kind of Freudian typo here:

Like Quint used to say, nothin's ever perfect, is it? There's a report by the (ahem) New York Post that the Iranian foreign minister went on Beirut TV to state that "the nuclear agreement between Tehran and the world powers created a historic opportunity for regional cooperation to fight extremism and face threats posed by the Zionist entity.” This could be bad, or could be bollocks, as I have no supporting sources.

 

Or it could be ordinary and predictable pragmatic realpolitiks by a hardliner in a country under seige.

 

"Siege".

So you're voting for 'real'. Even given a long history of poor relations, I think it would be customary to offer some kind of rapprochement at this stage.

 

A Prospect of Peace, and the End of the World

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

To the one, we ought not be surprised.

In an interview with Religious Right radio host Jan Markell this weekend, former Rep. Michele Bachmann once again claimed that President Obama is ushering in the End Times, this time citing the nuclear agreement with Iran as proof of the arrival of the Last Days.

Bachmann claimed that the unanimous UN Security Council vote to approve the agreement was “the most important national security event of my lifetime” because it fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah 12:3 that all the nations of the world will unite against Israel, “with the United States leading that charge.” She added that God and “heaven’s armies” will use groups like AIPAC to defeat the deal in Congress and in doing so “prove to the world His power and His strength.”

“There are consequences to doing things like this against God’s covenant land, there are horrible consequences,” Markell said. “Then you throw in some other things such as the Supreme Court decision back in late June and a lot of other things. Judgment isn’t just coming; judgment is already here.”

(Tashman↱)​

To the other, we might reiterate that it is simply unwise to take advice from those looking forward to the end of the world.

No, really. As the Right Wing Watch account explains:

Bachmann told listeners that they should feel “encouraged” by the fact that they are living in the End Times, explaining that these dark times are actually the best time to be alive since that means the world will soon come to an end.

“The prophets longed to live in this day that you and I are privileged to live in,” Bachmann said.​

And how about tinfoil so priceless it's not tin, but gold?

"One thing that I should mention, Iran isn't just based in the Middle East to conduct terrorism. Iran has also been engaging deals in our hemisphere, with Argentina, Venezuela, and also with Cuba. So I think it's particularly troubling that President Obama is lifting the state sponsor of terror status, in effect, in a practical way, both with Iran and with Cuba. Because Iran has started dealings with Cuba, as well, and we could potentially be inviting nuclear activity to return to the island of Cuba, which is why in the first place Cuba was put on the list of the state sponsor of terror."​

It's an interesting message. As a horrible consequence to American sin, God will reboot the Cuban missile crisis, and this is all horrible unless you're a Christian, in which case this is all an encouraging reminder of your privilege.

In the first place, this is Michele Bachmann. To the other, it is also Jan Markell↱, a self-styled, self-superior evangelist who seems to think she's smarter than everyone else:

To be perfectly honest, I am growing weary of the many voices I hear saying that the world makes no sense today. It makes perfect sense if one understands the proper eschatology or doctrine of the "last days." The problem is that there is either little or no interest in the topic or it is being taught improperly. Why is it that even the History Channel, A & E, Discovery Network, etc. are paying more attention to it than the churches? In most churches it was shelved 20 years ago as "controversial," "divisive", and "gloom and doom." What is gloom and doom about the fact that the King is coming? Hanging on to this "blessed hope" (Titus 2:13) should be able to get the believer through most any trial.​

And she also pretty much loathes human beings; denouncing dominion theology, she asserts, "Two world wars caused these theologies to diminish but they have resurfaced in the last 20 years in spite of 9/11 and other world disasters due to man's evil nature."

And it is easy enough to get caught up in the apparent paradox: Stop the P5+1 deal because it will bring God's glory!

In truth, I can't think of anything more antithetical to Christian faith than fighting to forestall God's glory.

And while Olive Tree Ministries is not the sort of major evangelist operation as we see in the 700 club, we must also remember that it needs not be. Markell takes part in an epistemically closed market, with believers sending money to various ministries that then host each other on television and radio shows. Brian Tashman↱ also offers a broader glimpse at the buzz in the sector, including terror attacks against the U.S. as evidence of God's will, civil war between "sheep" and "goat" states, cannibalism, Muslim "avengers" to punish America for abortion, doomsday prepping, and God divorcing America because she had an affair with another woman.

And this is the new Michele Bachmann. True, it's not much different from former; more like Micki B v.2.0, just like before, only more so.

And this is also how, oh, let's call it a few million Americans at most―and some of them actually vote―are learning about the P5+1 nonproliferation accord with Iran.

To the one, this is what it takes to oppose the P5+1 accord. To the other, it's also what it takes to sell a "bucket of pancakes" at nine hundred sixty dollars apiece. When it finally comes down to a congressional opponent of the accord actually saying he or she is hearing from constituents that opposition is a Christian duty in the name of America, we need not doubt it true; this is the base bloc that frightens Republican politicians and campaign staff most―if you lose this bloc, you risk losing the whole evangelical wing, and that effectively ends your career as an elected Republican politician.

And what's really weird is that this all connects back to Israel in a darker way; these people are all premillennial dispensationalists, which in turn actually requires the elimination of Judaism. Oh, right, by the way: And it's all the Jews' fault, anyway! Yes, really↱.

Premillennial dispensationalism should not be underestimated; it is quietly but powerfully influential in the American foreign policy discussion. Ms. Bachmann isn't entirely stupid; this is the heart of these beliefs, how they are transmitted without the same degree of scrutiny we pretend to give blithe policy rhetoric in the open public discourse. What seems like a feelgood fantasy shared among believers is, in this case, a nexus of influences that allows one to assert and tamper with some of the most basic data transmission and thus affect the framework of the larger discussion. It is, to the one, a vague art; to the other, for a seemingly delusional narcissist aiming to exercise influence and make a living, it is certainly, not ultimately the place to be, but in that context a place to be.
____________________

Notes:

Markell, Jan. "The Importance of Understanding the 'End Times'". Rapture Ready. (n.d.) RaptureReady.com. 15 August 2015. http://bit.ly/1PrNf9S

New York University. "Prophecy and the End Times". (n.d.) NYU.edu. 15 August 2015. http://bit.ly/1DVJ58R

Tashman, Brian. "Michele Bachmann: Obama Fulfilled End Times Prophecy With Iran Deal, So Celebrate!" Right Wing Watch. 10 August 2015. RightWingWatch.org. 15 August 2015. http://bit.ly/1DT5xzF

—————. "Paranoia-Rama: Nuclear War, Civil War & Cannibalism Coming To America". Right Wing Watch. 14 August 2015. RightWingWatch.org. 15 August 2015. http://bit.ly/1ITA7py

 

I love it - absolutely adore it...

One thing that always crosses my mind when one of these releases appear though - do these people actually believe the crap that comes out of their mouths or is it a calculated political act?

Not sure which alternative would be the lesser evil.

 

Bachmann. Cannot achieve higher office than present, yet what are the rules for involuntary institutionalisation? Does it have to be a family member?

 

Well, on the good side Bachman has yet to be correct even once. With Republicans, this is all about the politics of fear. They cannot their case based on reason and evidence, so they go for the next best thing, fear. Fear works (e.g. death panels, vaccination causes pathology, Obama's election would send the economy into a deep depression, etc.).

"Fear is the most powerful enemy of reason. Both fear and reason are essential to human survival,
but the relationship between them is unbalanced. Reason may sometimes dissipate fear, but fear
frequently shuts down reason. As Edmund Burke wrote in England twenty years before the
American Revolution, “No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and
reasoning as fear.” http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/053007_gore_excerpt.pdf

 

A Necessary Question

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Completely unrelated: I like the extraneous rap in the song just for the fact of being extraneous.​

Well, you know.

I think of my daughter's maternal grandparents. They get their news through the church, and the only television they watch, a Seventh-Day Adventist operation called Three Angels.

My daughter's piano teacher also attends that church, and her husband is a naturopath who, during last year's outbreak of eleven ebola cases―only two of which were demonstrably contracted in the United States, but resulting from four that first emerged to diagnosis in the U.S.―hosted lectures explaining to the congregation how to use various herbs and minerals, determined by the superior science of naturopathy, to ward off the virus.

I can't really tell you how big the resulting community actually is, but it has to be at least a few to several million adults, that receives information about the goings-on in the world from these overlapping, epistemically closed evangelical operations essentially implemented to extract money from the faithful and lonely.

Indeed, it's part of a larger framework, too. In the early days of the Tea Party movement, all manner of cognitive dissonance was evident from the outset. One of my favorite episodes↗ involved a rally in Yakima, Washington, at which our hero the reporter stopped to talk with a guy who denounced President Obama as Hitler; one of his readers noticed a detail in a photograph, that another fellow Tea Partier had drawn a magic-marker yarmulke on a photo of Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA). I adore the resulting dissonance: As Hitler persecuted the Jews, so will President Obama lay siege to ... Senate Democrats? And as I think we're all aware, there are significant parts of the Tea Party movement, five years later, that aren't doing any better.

But whence comes such blithe dissonance? From the epistemically closed. Think back to the old days of ranting conspiracy theories and "newsletters"; think early information superhighway, Usenet, and even the old dialup portals.

This stuff, traditionally, has been overlooked by the mainstream marketplace. In recent years, though, more and more has been coming to the surface. Part of it is the seemingly perpetual redistillation of the GOP; there are no more liberal Republicans―the last one is now running for president as a Democrat↗. And in a marketplace where arguments and votes are won largely on style points instead of facts, with the press having forsaken its role↗ in pursuit of capital returns, the result is that if enough people, or someone prominent, says something ridiculous, the press no longer shrugs it off but toddles over to another to ask, "He said this, so what say you?" Basic reality is now demoted to essentially one side of the argument.

Combine the two factors: Republicans are scraping the barrel for support; the press isn't checking.

True, Michele Bachmann might well be insane, but neither is she alone. You know that joke about how we would call it a delusional disorder except it's already called Christianity? The Simpsons even did a version of the joke, with Marge shocking a Springfield jury by talking to an invisible person―e.g., praying―in court.

Right. We don't take the joke seriously because, let's face it, denouncing that many people with common identification as delusional sounds kind of bigoted.

To the other, though, this bloc and its influence are part of the price we pay. And not just for failing to take the cognitive and behavioral dysfunctions of exaggerated religious faith seriously, but also for giving over our information marketplace to fancy in lieu of truth. I would also add that it's not that Democrats don't have their part in all this; they certainly do. But it does strike me as ironic that the political heritage describing Democrats as liberal and therefore communist while upholding Republicans as capitalistic and therefore virtuous owes some significant portion of its unraveling to that capitalistic triumph. Our news and information service is not beholden to Fourth Estate principles, but, rather, the demands of commerce.

And this, for all we whine about it, is what we wanted. There's no point in putting an, "I voted liberal", bumper sticker on my car; I play my part in this marketplace, as does pretty much anyone participating in the American discourse.

Oh, right. Delusion. Dysfunction. Tinfoil and potsherds. Look, the average cosmopolitan American is still behind the times, but comparatively, this is where the societal problem comes from. And it's true, one would think this kind of delusional excrement would be as fringeworthy as it seems. Except it has this really bizarre influence. Y'know that weird Christian-derived obsession with sex and sexuality and grooming women Bells and I are on about all the time? Yeah, it's part of the same network of epistemically closed, self-reinforcing fantasy. In these concentrations it really does seem fringe; you'd think the Duggars were complete outliers. But there's a reason they have influence, and it's all the same audience Michele Bachmann is playing to.

Lady Belfry might well belong in bedlam, but what do we do about the consumer marketplace that devours this sort of stuff and demands ever more, more, more?

 

"The Whole Point", and Other Notes

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

JUDY WOODRUFF: Efraim Halevy, you have also said very clearly that you expect Iran to try to cheat on this agreement. Why should that be acceptable to the rest of the world?

EFRAIM HALEVY: It is not acceptable to the rest of the world. That is exactly the whole point of the agreement.

(News Hour↱)​

It's a pretty straightforward headline from PBS: "Expecting Iran to cheat is why we need this deal, says former Mossad chief"↱.

And it really is a pretty good interview:

JUDY WOODRUFF: You said just a moment ago that you believe this closes the road or the route to Iran’s military capabilities for at least a decade. Why are you so confident of that? As you know, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, says just the opposite.​

EFRAIM HALEVY: Well, I have looked at the details of the agreement.​

‡​

JUDY WOODRUFF: Efraim Halevy, you have also said very clearly that you expect Iran to try to cheat on this agreement. Why should that be acceptable to the rest of the world?​

EFRAIM HALEVY: It is not acceptable to the rest of the world. That is exactly the whole point of the agreement.​

‡​

JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally, Mr. Halevy, how difficult is it for you to support this agreement, when your prime minister, when the majority of Israeli public opinion, we’re told, opposes it?​

EFRAIM HALEVY: First of all, there has been no real public debate in Israel on this.

The Knesset, which is the equivalent, if I may say so, of Congress, has not even discussed it once. I think there is an attempt here to stifle public discussion.​

There is, of course, more to each of those answers, as well as a more subtle and complex discussion of the Parchin question that so possessed conservatives desperately searching these recent weeks for a warpath.

As the voices opposing the P5+1 nuclear nonproliferation accord with Iran find themselves ever more isolated, it seems easy enough to reflect on the general nature of imperfection, as well as the particular proposition that these critics could only be satisfied by perfection itself.
____________________

Notes:

Public Broadcasting Service. "Expecting Iran to cheat is why we need this deal, says former Mossad chief". News Hour. 21 August 2015. PBS.org. 24 August 2015. http://to.pbs.org/1JhJbH2

 

She was right about the light bulbs, and the bank bailouts. Credit where credit due.

 

Mikulski Announces Support: Obama Achieves Veto Threshold

And then it came to this:

Sen. Barbara Mikulski said on Wednesday that she will support President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, all but ensuring the agreement will survive an attack in the Senate.

“No deal is perfect, especially one negotiated with the Iranian regime," the Maryland Democrat, who is retiring after her current term, said in a statement. "I have concluded that this Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is the best option available to block Iran from having a nuclear bomb. For these reasons, I will vote in favor of this deal."

Mikulski's decision hands President Obama a needed foreign policy win after a months-long lobbying effort by administration officials to shore up support for the agreement.

"This strong support is a validation of the outreach that the president and his team have organized to make sure that every member of the Senate understands exactly what’s included in this agreement,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters aboard Air Force One.

Democrats have rallied around the deal since leaving town in August, giving Obama the 34 senators he needs to back the agreement and uphold a veto of a potential resolution of disapproval.

(Carney↱)​

Nor is this over. That is to say, opposition to the P5+1 nuclear nonproliferation accord with Iran can no longer wreck it, but are not expected to concede. The next task for the White House is to win seven of the ten remaining unannounced Senate Democrats in order to simply bury the resolution against the deal in filibuster.

And, yes, Republicans are already aware they might lose that threshold, too.
____________________

Notes:

Carney, Jordain. "Mikulski pushes Obama's Iran nuke deal over the top in Senate". The Hill. 2 September 2015. TheHill.com. 2 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1fW5Xd0

 

Pro Israel special interest groups are spending huge sums trying to convince Americans if the deal is passed it's the end of the world.

 

re: Filibuster

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

The question of a filibuster in the Senate really does keep the P5+1 drama dancing. Burgess Everett↱ of Politico considered the possibility in July, before the nuclear nonproliferation accord was announced:

If President Barack Obama announces a nuclear containment deal with Iran this week, an army of critics led by Republican hawks in Congress will leap into action to kill it.

That's very unlikely to happen.

The law that Congress passed in May allowing lawmakers to weigh in on a nuclear agreement will do just that — give them a say. But it also makes it impossible to block an agreement absent a full-on Democratic rebellion against the president. If opponents could somehow manage to get a resolution expressing their disapproval and blocking the lifting of congressional sanctions through both houses of Congress — a big if, given the Senate's 60-vote filibuster threshold — they'd run straight into Obama's veto pen.

And even some of the fiercest opponents of an Iran pact concede the president could probably cobble together 34 votes in the Senate to sustain his veto.​

On 25 August, Simon Maloy↱ tweeted, "what?" and it turns out he had something of a fair question:

Congressional Republicans are unanimous in their opposition to the international nuclear agreement with Iran, but even among GOP lawmakers, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) stands out as unique. Arguably no American lawmaker has done more to undermine U.S. foreign policy than the right-wing freshman.

This week, as support for the diplomatic deal grows on Capitol Hill, opponents confronted the very real possibility that a Republican bill to derail the agreement may not even get the 60 votes it needs in the Senate to overcome a Democratic filibuster. This in turn led Cotton to issue a fascinating press statement (via Salon's Simon Maloy).​

"First, the president did an end-run around the Constitution by refusing to submit the Iran deal as a treaty requiring a two-thirds vote of the Senate for approval. Now Harry Reid wants to deny the American people a voice entirely by blocking an up-or-down vote on this terrible deal. […]​

"The Congress and the president should speak with one voice when it comes to dealing with the Iranians, but it seems that Harry Reid believes that only his and the president's voices matter."​

(Benen, 26 August↱)​

‡​

Cotton isn't alone, of course. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), upon learning of the likely Democratic filibuster, responded, "Are you kidding me?" Politico reported today:​

"Is that where they really want to be? Do they really want to vote to block consideration of … probably the biggest foreign policy endeavor?" Corker said in an interview. "Do they want to be in a place where they voted to keep from going to the substance [of the Iran debate]?"​

Corker may not have fully thought this one through.​

(Benen, 27 August↱)​

And in either case it's easy enough to laugh at the idea of Senate Republicans complaining about a filibuster, Edward-Isaac Dovere and Burgess Everett↱, in the same article Benen pulled the Corker quote from, open:

President Barack Obama's almost certain to get the Iran nuclear deal — but whether he gets there by filibuster or sustained veto could make all the difference.

A Democratic filibuster in the Senate would be a clear victory for the president, allowing Obama to say that for all the political noise there wasn't enough actual opposition to the nuclear agreement with the Islamic republic to even get to a final vote.

Having to save the deal with a veto (just the fifth of his presidency) and relying on liberals in the House and Senate to sustain it would be much more trouble: a procedural pull across the finish line that sows more doubts in a public already skeptical of the deal, leaves international partners worried about America's long-term commitment and adds weeks of added time and tangles.

The White House very much prefers option A. And even before he came out publicly for the deal on Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had been in frequent contact with White House chief of staff Denis McDonough to try to make that happen.​

And by the end of last month the question loomed large; Sahil Kapur↱ summarized it:

Opponents of the Iran nuclear deal have all but accepted they cannot block the accord, as a growing number of congressional Democrats signal they'll supply the votes to sustain President Barack Obama's veto of a planned resolution of disapproval.

The question now is whether the resolution will even make it to Obama's desk. While passage by the Republican-controlled House is certain, Democrats in the Senate are planning to stop a resolution by using the filibuster to require a 60-vote super-majority to send it to the president. Republicans have 54 members in the Senate. Just two Senate Democrats have declared against the deal—New York's Chuck Schumer and New Jersey's Bob Menendez.

That means Republicans need four more Democratic defectors to secure the 60 votes needed to ensure passage of the disapproval resolution.​

And it is clear conservatives are aware. Kapur points to The Hill, where Julian Hattem↱ reported over the weekend:

Republicans intend to hammer Senate Democrats next month if they do not allow an up-or-down vote on a measure disapproving President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.

Democrats appear close to having enough support for the deal to bottle up the disapproval measure with procedural motions. If Republicans vote in a united bloc, they would need the support of six Democrats to break a filibuster, but only two Democrats have broken rank so far.

If the resolution is filibustered, it would be a major victory for the White House, which wouldn't have to use President Obama's veto pen to protect the Iran deal.

Opponents of the agreement, however, believe Senate Democrats will pay a political cost.

"Democrats will be setting themselves up for a further political hit if they deny the people the opportunity — the people meaning members of Congress — to vote on it," said Allen Roth, the president of the hawkish Secure America Now, which is staunchly opposed to the agreement.

"I think it'll be handing a political gift to the Republicans."​

We're into a range by which a filibuster could actually happen. The Republicans have two, Sens. Menendez (NJ), and Schumer (NY); they need two more Democrats to break a filibuster, and have several to choose from who might be convinced. At the same time, with Sen. Joe Manchin (WV) closer to supporting the deal than Sen. Ron Wyden (OR), it's hard to figure how this field will break. It's also hard to imagine Sens. Maria Cantwell (WA) or Cory Booker (NJ) breaking rank, but it is hilarious to see the special interest advert running on msnbc during The Rachel Maddow Show in the Puget Sound region.

There's a rumor of a filibuster; this could get downright interesting, especially since President Obama has enough votes to hold the line on a veto. So now it's about time, with opponents hoping to to lobby and push all the way to an override vote. You know, because maybe they change a mind along the way, win back a vote or two with heartfelt appeals from Glenn Beck, Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, and the Tea Party Patriots↱. Because, you know, if anybody can win Senate Democrats, it would be ... er ... ah ... them?

There's still a show to be had, and for once it's hard to guess what comes next.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "After sabotage letter, Cotton wants US to 'speak withone voice'". msnbc. 26 August 2015. msnbc.com. 2 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1OaFu7c

—————. "GOP discovers it doesn't like filibusters after all". msnbc. 27 August 2015. msnbc.com. 2 September 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1i4I9FD

Dovere, Edward-Isaac and Burgess Everett. "White House pushes for Iran filibuster". Politico. 27 August 2015. Politico.com. 2 September 2015. http://politi.co/1JzQCr9

Everett, Burgess. "Congress all but powerless to block Iran deal". Politico. 8 July 2015. Politico.com. 2 September 2015. http://politi.co/1KJIvN3

Hattem, Julian. "Republicans plot counterattack to Iran nuclear deal filibuster". The Hill. 30 August 2015. TheHill.com. 2 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1ECqO0V

Kapur, Sahil. "Sorry, Hawks: Democrats Won't Pay a Political Price For Iran Filibuster". Bloomberg Politics. 31 August 2015. Bloomberg.com. 2 September 2015. http://bloom.bg/1JOxjJQ

Maloy, Simon. "what?" Twitter. 25 August 2015. Twitter.com. 2 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1OaFu7c

Wong, Kristina. "Glenn Beck to join Trump, Cruz at anti-Iran deal rally". The Hill. 31 August 2015. TheHill.com. 2 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1KJNkpt

 

Knee-jerk obstructionist Republicans were also against the affordable health care act, they call "Obama care." Now that several million people, previously with no health insurance, are covered (and voters), those obstructionists are growing quiet about the "evils of Obama Care."

I find fault with it too - Private insurance companies discriminate and their profits, still add to the per capita cost and your paper work, not to mention the lawyers with their mal-practices suit incomes.

US needs full coverage health care by the government like all other "advanced" societies have. I.e. why can not all Americans of all economic levels have less than half the per capita cost (in their taxes) for quality health care that gives two to three years greater life expectancy as most socialized European systems (or Canadian) do?

There is a huge saving when the national health service makes the drug companies compete - instead of a few hundred different drug stores and chains buying drugs from a few, much bigger, drug companies. - Why same medicine cost half the price in Canada, as in the US. etc. Congress making it illegal for Americans to mail- order these cheaper Canadian drugs, doesn't have anything to do with the generous campaign support the drug companies give. - NO - That could not be. Congress represents the American people, not the drug companies, doesn't it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't care that the big medical insurance companies give generously to Republican's election companies - screw them. I want lower per capita health cost and greater life expectancies for Americans. Also in a few years, when Iran is again selling oil and improving the living conditions of its citizens (many then buying products "made in America"), I predict the knee-jerk Republicans will have fallen equally silent about the "Iran no path to nukes" deal too. But don't worry, they will than have some new irrational objections to stir up support for themselves from the right wing.

 

Whispers in the Wind

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

With the emergence of Democratic Sens. Cory Booker (NJ), Mark Warner (VA), and Heidi Heitkamp (ND) in favor of the P5+1 nuclear accord with Iran, the new magic number is forty-one:

There are only seven Democrats remaining who have not yet announced their position: Michael Bennet (Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Ben Cardin (Md.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Gary Peters (Mich.), and Ron Wyden (Ore.). How many are prepared to partner with the far-right, even knowing the proposal is doomed? Watch this space.

At the risk of making this needlessly complicated, there is just one additional angle I want to put on readers’ radar: some Dems who support the deal may not support a filibuster. Manchin, in particular, appears to fall into this camp.

I mention this because it’s not, strictly speaking, a matter of counting heads. It’s possible, if not likely, that there will be at least 41 Senate Democrats supporting the policy, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there will be 41 votes for blocking the bill. How they vote on the process and legislative procedures matters.​

It is nearly comical that Steve Benen↱ follows that up with, "But for now, let’s not get bogged down in these details". That is, sure, it is easy enough to move forward with the news of the hour, that three more Democrats in the Senate have announced support for the P5+1 accord, but as we considered yesterday↑, "President Barack Obama's almost certain to get the Iran nuclear deal — but whether he gets there by filibuster or sustained veto could make all the difference." And while Edward-Isaac Dovere and Burgess Everett↱ are not wrong to note the significance within the political narrative―"Having to save the deal with a veto (just the fifth of his presidency) and relying on liberals in the House and Senate to sustain it would be much more trouble: a procedural pull across the finish line that sows more doubts in a public already skeptical of the deal, leaves international partners worried about America's long-term commitment and adds weeks of added time and tangles"―there is also the question of what protraction brings for those barely convinced to support President Obama; the opposition will lobby and fight to the end, and the looming question would be whether or not they could reclaim votes as time marches on. Certes, we might comfortably suggest that would invoke political chaos for some of these senators, but neither can we ignore the possibility; the White House is aware of the possibility, as is Democratic leadership in the Senate, and every Democratic senator.

Of the list Benen noted, Sen. Ron Wyden (OR) is said to be leaning against the accord, though it's hard to read his real reasons, given the absurdity of his independent sanctions propsition. Still, he is one to watch. As is Sen. Joe Manchin (WV), for the reason Benen noted, and yet it is hard to account for the desire for protraction. Sen. Gary Peters (MI) is also said to lean against the agreement, though the reasons why are pretty much rumors.

Sens. Cantwell (WA) and Cardin (MD) seem determined to take their sweet time; the latter can be viewed as being in some manner of pinch between his president and a useful policy to the one, and his religion and heritage to the other. It might seem a false dichotomy, but it's also the word on the Hill. Sen. Michael Bennet (CO) might be in the heart of military country, and his poll numbers in the constituency are rough, but the swirling mountain winds whisper that he will likely fall in line with the deal. And Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT) might be holding out, but the way he's going about it reads more toward supporting the deal.

The Democrats will get between forty and forty-two, and that's pretty much as tight as it can get.

And in another aspect, at least the nation can say, "The Senate knew enough to not bother."

You know. In the long run. Or something.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Senate support for Iran deal reaches new heights". msnbc. 3 September 2015. msnbc.com. 3 September 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1JRbgCr

Dovere, Edward-Isaac and Burgess Everett. "White House pushes for Iran filibuster". Politico. 27 August 2015. Politico.com. 3 September 2015. http://politi.co/1JzQCr9

 

Colin Powell backs the agreement.