Carper Leaning Yes. Coons Leans War.
Yesterday, the President spoke at American University on the need for the Iran Nuclear Deal. Prior to the speech, the President had received some good news that three Democratic Senators, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Bill Nelson of Florida and Barbara Boxer of California, all considered possible no votes, all said they would vote yes on the deal. Thus, the math now looks increasingly difficult for the deal’s opponents.
Greg Sargent explains why these yes votes are important to how the vote will play out:
Kaine and Nelson are both quite significant. They are both genuinely moderate; previously, the only ones who had come out for the deal were liberals or were always all but certain to do so: Dianne Feinstein; Martin Heinrich, Tom Udall, and Dick Durbin, who is rounding up support for the accord inside the Dem caucus.
What’s more, both Kaine and Nelson were early supporters of the original bill creating an oversight mechanism for Congress on the Iran deal, a group that was seen as skeptical early on. Kaine subsequently played a lead role in brokering the final compromise on that oversight bill. He’s widely seen as knowledgeable on foreign policy. He’s a serious vice presidential contender from a major swing state. So while most people thought he’d probably back the deal in the end, having it official represents a boost to the deal’s chances.
Taken together, Nelson and Kaine are key because they reduce the size of the pool of Dems thought to be gettable by the opposition. The group of around eight or nine Democrats who backed the original oversight bill have long been seen as the most likely to oppose the accord. In addition to Nelson and Kaine, those include: Chuck Schumer, Heidi Heitkamp, Richard Blumenthal, Joe Donnelly, Michael Bennet, Robert Menendez, and Angus King (an independent who caucuses with Dems).
Take Nelson and Kaine out of that pool, and you’re left with around seven Senate Dems who seem like they could genuinely still vote No. Seven others who are thought to be undecided, or at least who can’t be ruled out as No votes: Harry Reid, Chris Coons, Benjamin Cardin, Joe Manchin, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Tom Carper. If all of them vote No, that’s 14 Senate Dems opposing the deal. Opponents need 13 in order to get 67 Senators to override Obama’s veto of a measure blocking the accord.
Thus, Delaware’s two Senators hold the key. If they both vote yes, the greatest diplomatic breakthrough in 50 years is achieved and Iran doesn’t get the bomb. If one of them votes no, it is likely the deal is dead, America is despised throughout all the world, even by our allies in Europe and Canada, war with Iran would be days away, and Iran would have the bomb.
Thankfully, Tom Carper is leaning yes.
Unthankfully, Chris Coons, supposedly the smart one, is leaning no.
Sen. Chris Coons, who was personally lobbied by President Barack Obama and national security adviser Susan Rice to back the deal during a trip to Africa in July, said the view of the accord was about evenly split in his home state of Delaware in the first few days after the announcement. But the Democrat now says telephone calls against the deal outnumber those in favor by 10-to-1 in his state, an avalanche of opposition he has no choice but to listen to.
“I am a Democrat, and I would like to be able to support this agreement,” Coons said. “But I have serious reservations about it.”
Let me make some things crystal clear for the Senator.
If you vote no, you are not a Democrat.
If you vote no, you want and desire immediate war.
The day after you vote no, you and I can meet at Elaine Manlove’s office, and I will help you fill out the forms to change your registration to the Republican Party.
Your next election is not until 2020, but I will make it my life’s work to deny you renomination and reelection. You will be the Joe Lieberman of Delaware. You think we hold Tom Carper in disdain for his moderation at times, just wait to see what we do to you.
I can give two shits about conservative astro-turf phone calls to your office. This is one of those issues where you substitute your own judgment and your knowledge for the people’s rather than just being a conduit of what an unintelligent Sussex County teabagger thinks.
And if you genuinely have reservations about this deal, let me tell you something: everyone has reservations about this deal. This is a deal with an adversary. An enemy. Someone and something we do not trust. If you did not have reservations about this deal, you would be an idiot. I have reservations about this deal. We have to see whether Iran sticks to it. That is my reservation. And if they do not, guess what Senator… WE CAN BOMB THEM THEN. WE CAN REIMPOSE SANCTIONS THEN. WE CAN GO TO WAR THEN.
To vote no now means you unequivocally want war now. It means you do not want to even give peace and inspections a chance. It means you have no brain. It means you are a Republican.
If you are really taking into account the phone calls of those who do nothing all day but sit at home and watch Fox News, please remember, they voted for Christine O’Donnell. They never voted for you. They never will. And besides, your next election is in 2020. Chances are they will be dead by then anyway.
Seriously though, to base a vote of this importance on feedback your office receives makes me question your suitability and ability to perform your job. It also makes me think you are a coward. Whether you fear the voters or you fear your donors, or both, you are still acting out of fear.
DL readers, since it appears the so wise Senator places great value on the calls he gets, take a moment and call 202-224-5042, say you are a Democrat, say that he will support the Iran Deal or he will not be the Democratic nominee in 2020. Say all that.
It’s time to clobber our mealy mouthed federal representation over the head.
Tags: Featured
What a tough guy. He could have decided to demonstrate what a cool ass jock he is by doing something productive, but no. He has charted the “Dem hawk” course as a brand identity. What a fucking waste.
Complete bullshit.
If the calls are 10-1 against, those who support peace are not doing our jobs. It’s like Feelin the Bern! but not registering Dem.
Isn’t this genius supposed to be able to see through the astro-turf? I doubt the efficacy of calling these guys. Once they settle on a course that they think has the most career profit, that’s the course they go with.
My question is, Senator, why do you think this Dem Hawk brand ID offers you a career advantage? Planning on hitting K Street sooner rather than later, maybe?
Well said Jason330, always consider the siren song of K Street and the mega millions to be had there.
jason, not that i don’t love and appreciate everything you write, but what are the chances Coons is gonna read that? I’m sure we’ve all signed petitions already, but I’m willing to whip together another one (although I’m not great at word-stuff) and make another phone call. His office is saying he i’snt feeling the heat from his constituents it’d be nice to know that is false…. or to change it. OR we can jsut complain when he votes against it and everyone 18-30 is drafted in Mr Trumps Happy Fun War!
You have a point. At least we can make him a liar when he votes as he was going to vote all along.
202-224-5042, I am a constituent asking him to support the Iran Deal negotiated by President Obama.
(302) 573-6345 Wilmington office with actual human picking up.
DD this is great. And so true…
“If you are really taking into account the phone calls of those who do nothing all day but sit at home and watch Fox News, please remember, they voted for Christine O’Donnell. They never voted for you. They never will. And besides, your next election is in 2020. Chances are they will be dead by then anyway.“
*sigh* Coons was always going to vote this way. He just pretended to wait and ponder and trot out “phone calls” for cover.
OK I’ve always considered Coons a smart guy even when I completely disagreed with him. But this is insane, and I don’t believe for a minute he’s been receiving large numbers of calls–astro-turfed or not–from Delaware conservatives. Two reasons for that belief: (1) I pay close attention to chatter like that, and there is none; and (2) most Sussex GOPers believe Coons is Satan incarnate and would not call his office if he was giving away free money. They don’t believe that their calls could ever influence his decision-making, and neither do I.
Steve, if that is the case, then Pandora is right, that he has already made up his mind, and he is lying about the phone calls as a cover story. And if that is the case, the bastard should resign.
So sick of these democrats voting with the obstructionist. We need to be heard by by these clowns
I called two days ago and told the woman who answered that I was calling specifically because of his comment. I asked if she wanted my name and she said no, so I seriously question the validity of the “10 to 1 against” bullshit line.
And nobody should be surprised that cowardly Coons won’t buck his constituents. We should call him Moth Balls, because that’s how big his are.
I just sent an email. Here is the link if anyone needs it
http://www.coons.senate.gov/contact/
DD I should be clear: it is possible that Coons is receiving organizationally astro-turfed calls routed through DE by somebody like AIPAC. I don’t believe it, and I particularly don’t believe that he’s too stupid to know the difference between than and real DE calls, but I acknowledge the possibility.
And–for the record–there are an awful lot of us out here who are not Democrats who don’t want war, either. I know it is an exercise in futility, but I have called Coons’ office on this issue and I will continue to do so.
Got to love how all the talk radio educated rubes have suddenly become foreign policy experts. Where were these POS morons when Reagan sold Iran missiles
We need to figure how we can get to and organize more like minded with sites like this one.
I just called and they didn’t want my name or address. She said they are taking a tally and I asked how they know it’s a Delaware constituent. She said they could tell lol. I reminded her to tell him many of us are willing to support a primary challenger if he votes with the Republicans
Steve, I understand, and I am not saying that you can only support the Iran Deal or not want war if you are a Democrat.
Hell, Ron Paul has supported the deal, complicating life for his son, no doubt.
Thank you mouse.
The long gaps between elections for Senators, the high filing fee, and the fact that they can direct federal money to some projects and withhold from others makes a Senate seat a lifetime sinecure.
The threat of a primary is a hollow threat. The office is Coons’ for as long as he wants it. Calling to put he lie to his claims that he is following the will of his constituents makes sense. Calling for any other purpose is a waste of time.
Glad you guys have this site. Not many liberals in SC more than a mile west of Rt 1 LOL
I’m not sure you’re right, Jason. Coons’ polling numbers are not great — he barely breaks the 50% favorability level, poor numbers in such a blue state.
@Geezer start with this premise: I don’t think it was by any means a slam dunk that Coons could have beaten Mike Castle had he not been upset in the primary. Hell, that was why Coons was running: nobody with better cred was willing to go up against Castle. Unlike Carper, who is an institution in Delaware, not that many people know that much about Coons in the first place.
Which is not to say he’s really vulnerable: no Dem with a shot will primary him, and there is no longer a moderate GOP equivalent of Mike Castle with any statewide recognition. Coons wins by default.
Bryan Townsend
Not a chance. My guess is Bryan runs for Lt. Governor. There is absolutely no upside for his career in taking a primary fight to Coons. He’s way too smart for that.
Steve and Ben…
Bryan Townsend is running for Congress in 2016 if Carney vacates the seat to run for Governor, which is about 95% likely.
BUT WWHHHYYYYYYY. If there is one politician that has a shot at breaking up this stupid “next in line” method of anointing our state officials, it’s Townsend. We’re going to have Gov Gordon (ew) and Senators Carney and Coons… REALLY?
“You think we hold Tom Carper in disdain for his moderation at times, just wait to see what we do to you.”
1. Carper is still in office
2. We will do nothing
3. See above
You elect a guy in Delaware, you elect him for life. He isn’t going anywhere.
So…I’m reading this:
“Seriously though, to base a vote of this importance on feedback your office receives makes me question your suitability and ability to perform your job. It also makes me think you are a coward. Whether you fear the voters or you fear your donors, or both, you are still acting out of fear.”
Makes me wonder what the hell you are talking about? He’s not supposed to listen to people that call him?
And then you ask us to do this????
“DL readers, since it appears the so wise Senator places great value on the calls he gets, take a moment and call 202-224-5042”
So what do you want him to do after you tell him to stop listening to the idiots calling his office…only listen to the idiots from DL calling?
Donviti… I will thank you not to point out the hypocritical inconsistency in my post.
Call me and tell me how you feel. I may or may not listen
Provided that you believe that his office is really getting calls against this deal at that level. I’d bet that he isn’t, he’s looking to indulge his real constituents — the people who pay for his campaigns.
JFK has a message for Coons:
I heard it on the Maddow podcast. I realize Coons only listens to Fox News, but he should broaden his range of information sources.
Hear hear dammit
Man created bombs to solve man made problems. I almost feel like there is a defense contractor in Delaware the way this asshole is talking about wanting a war.
I posted this message on my FB page late yesterday and also sent many emails to other peace people. Many are telling me they called – guessing about 20 of them so far. Between those calls and the ones from DL people, he should be getting a different message today.
The “Iran Nuclear Free” people (read that AIPAC) were connecting all the stupid people who believe their message straight through to Coons’ office — that’s one reason he got a lot of calls opposing the deal. Considering that Coons is very pro-Israel, I guess none of this is a surprise.
It is ludicrous that being pro-Netanyahu has become the same as being pro-Israel.
Having the same foreign policy goals as Dick Cheney is no virtue.
If being pro-Israel means I have to be anti-Iran Deal and pro-Netanyahu, then consider me officially anti-Israel.
“Having the same foreign policy goals as Dick Cheney is no virtue.”
WORD
I got two of the calls in the last two days. Was polite and then slightly less polite in telling them I do not agree so don’t call me again.
I am not surprised at Coons here. Sadly.
But when I handed him our 2,000 signature petition in 2005 to save La Grange farm in Glasgow, he spurned it. Set it to the side of his NCC Council President perch and sneered “I don’t think much of petitions.”
That’s a pretty telling story. He doesn’t think much of petitions or petitioners.
Can someone list the reasons why he is against this deal?
Has anyone asked?
“I almost feel like there is a defense contractor in Delaware the way this asshole is talking about wanting a war.”
Ever hear of GoreTex? The Pentagon buys a lot of it.
@anonymous: Here’s a story from early July (before deal was finalized) in which he states his concerns:
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/senate-democrat-expresses-real-concerns-about-potential-iran-nuclear-deal-could-vote-against-it/
I applaud him for voting against it, if in fact he does. Our country has to start looking out for our interests, not the world’s. This deal does nothing to protect us , but only makes it harder to protect us going forward from what I have read. Just my opinion
Read more widely.
Hey, geezer, would you mind providing a link or particular reference. Please
While I’ve never been a John Kerry fan, I’m not sure that given the circumstance viz. Obama wanted a deal as part of his legacy, our so called allies wanted a deal and there is already major cheating on the sanctions. True presidential leadership would have put heat on the Allies and cheaters. The sanctions have really be
en squeezing Iran’s economy. The best way to get a peaceful Iran is to keep the pressure on their economy to promote domestic unrest.Also the domestic squeeze on the economy has crimped their ability to support foreign terrorism. As far as nuclear threat, as far as I’m concerned anybody that develops an Icbm program that can eventually reach the U.S. gets bombed. We need to step on the eggs be it Iran or North Korea. From here all the choices are bad. Either we take a bad deal or the president and the country lose stature and the allies and the other cheating countries bag the sanctions the Iranian economy recovers and its ability to foster terrorism has significantly more resources. Even if the nuclear provisions work perfectly, all we do is delay its ultimate development. Iran arguably the strongest military power in the mideast will be able to further fortify it conventional capabilities and to have unfettered ability to export terrorism around the world while waiting a decade or so to develop its nuclear program. I think I would vote against the agreement. This deal might be a bad deal if we truly believed it would permanantly keep iran from having nuclear weapons
Sanctions *are* squeezing the Iranian economy. It is the biggest reason why they came to the table.
It never ceases to amaze me how the patriotic American set can be so set on indulging their fears. Never mind the facts, if there is a boogeyman someplace, we need to bomb it out of existence. I never thought that Kerry and Obama would get this deal — at best, I thought they had a 50/50 chance and what they came back with is really quite remarkable (This is the best breakdown of the deal I know of). It’s fatal flaw to the fearful is that it won’t 100% guarantee that the Iranians won’t get their weapon.
Which, of course, no one can do. If you have the right skill sets, knowledge and resources you can get a nuclear weapon. And every nuclear weapon country knows that your own weapon makes you bullet-proof. The fearful and belligerent can’t stand not having Iran to rattle their sabres at. The Iranians probably won’t change their overall project in the Middle East, but what this deal does do is give the young people in Iran (who have been clamoring for more interaction with the West) and chance to make their own changes internally.
Even better, it pretty much takes war with Iran off of the table — unless they violate their agreement. Iran’s conventional forces aren’t that great (there’s a reason why Iran is a nation of very young people and very old people). And airstrikes to take out Iranian nuclear production facilities are the idea of the people who told us that Iraq had nuclear capabilities and that a war there would take a few months and pay for itself. If we want to take out these facilities there will have to be boots on the ground and it will be a brutal business. A brutal business that I’d bet a good deal of money that neither the Israelis or many of our allies will join us in.
And this is why Chris Coons is such a disappointment here. He is tacitly agreeing to this boots on the ground option, which isn’t a part of anyone’s moral circle anywhere. And the people who are against this deal have no better options. Or a way to pay for those options.
The Iranians may not live up to their part of the deal. But this deal would let us know that pretty quickly and has provisions to snap back sanctions that had been lifted. But we didn’t ask the Soviets to change themselves much when we agreed to non-proliferation with them and yet somehow the Iranians have to live up to something utterly different.
But if you are here complaining that this is a bad deal, you need to propose another one — and if it includes deploying American military, you need to tell us how much more in taxes you are willing to pay to pay for this bullshit.
“The best way to get a peaceful Iran is to keep the pressure on their economy to promote domestic unrest.”
Millions should suffer so your oil stays cheap and the European beachhead in the Middle East stays safe. Helluva moral compass you got there.
Geezer ” Helluva moral compass you got there. ” pretty harsh judgement! I didn’y say or suggest anything about oil. In fact if your interested in cheap oil you’d be for the agreement. With the sanctions gone the flow of the Iranian Oil onto the world supply would send oil prices plummetting. We’re energy independent and unlike our european allies are dependent on arab oil . My position has little to do with Israel We have defined its protection as one of our national interests. Their lack of gratitude and attitude smacking of the selfish expectations of a spoiled child is frankly getting more than tiresome. But given their self-interest I give great weight to how they percieve the Iranian military and nuclear threat. It would appear to me that voting for the agreement supports maintaining “the European beachhead ” Me? Like most of the rest of middle America I’m an isolationist. No icbms that reach America ,No boots on the ground,protection of the existence of Israel and thwarting terrorism.
To see how effective the sanctions are a google search will evidence a spate of reputable articles describing the disintegration of the Iranian economy. Note well that these kind of economic conditions brought down the authoritarian regimes in Egypt and Tunesia. Let me quote just one of these sources that is the July issue of International Affairs Review of the Elliot School of International affairs at George Washington University. ” On July 1, a ban went into effect that prohibits the 27 members of the European Union from purchasing Iranian oil or insuring tankers that carry it. Only days before the US imposed a new round of sanctions that punished most foreign countries that buy iranian oil. The new sanctions are wreaking havoc on the Iranian economy which relies on oil exports for 80% of its public revenue.” …” In june Iran’s Central Bank reported inflation at 22% although economists say that figure is grossly underestimated.” Later in the article it states that the unofficial rate of unemployment is over 35%. Just when we have finally have the sanctions having a devastating effect on the Iranian Economy, Kerry caves on the nuclear provisions of the agreement. I started off somewhere between ambivalence born out of ignorance and as a good democrat giving the benefit of the doubt to the President toward leaning toward approval. The Israelis being so adamantly against an agreement that would rein in Iranian nuclear weapons caused me to question support of the agreement. I conclude with the following question. What would be the consequence that now that we have an effective sanction program in effect to let the negotiations playout for another year?
“Note well that these kind of economic conditions brought down the authoritarian regimes in Egypt and Tunesia. ”
Note well that neither is a success story.
“What would be the consequence that now that we have an effective sanction program in effect to let the negotiations playout for another year?”
They will have a bomb in another year. Just ask any of the people against this deal.
Stay out of the deep end.
The Israelis being so adamantly against an agreement that would rein in Iranian nuclear weapons caused me to question support of the agreement.
The Israelis opposition has everything to do with being as belligerent towards Iran as possible. With as little risk as possible. They need us so Bibi can keep up his fearmongering. There are multiple senior Israeli security officials who support this deal and the logic is something like this:
And Israel’s president has gone public to warn Bibi against his No campaign in the US, thinking that Bibi is damaging Israel’s relationship with the US.
And this is really just wrong:
Note well that these kind of economic conditions brought down the authoritarian regimes in Egypt and Tunesia.
Egypt fell because of the extensive corruption of the Mubarak regime, including not delivering on real democratic elections and in allowing the army to run amok. When it did fall, the first elected government was dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood which wasn’t much of an improvement. Likewise, Tunisia was less about economic issues than it was a reaction to corruption and the need for social justice and self-governing. But neither one fell because of some economic sanctions.
Casandra I don’t know what your major is but I’m going to go with the Pros. Again quoting from the article i cited in an earlier posting, the folks at the GW school of international affairs analysis of the revolts in Egypt and Tunisia “One of the many lessons of the popular revolts that swept through the Mid East in 2011 is that domestic stability and economic conditions are inextricably linked. Both Tunisia and Egypt, the first two states to rise up against authoritarian regimes, had experienced high unemployment and inflation. Economics were arguably the primary drivers behind the first two revolts” If you read the earlier post you’ll see that Iran’s economic condition is likely to be much worse than Tunisia and Egypt. The inflation and unemployment numbers were from before the recent tightening of the sanctions.
Geezer “Stay out of the deep end indeed” you charge my motivation that opposition to the agreement was because I wanted cheap oil demonstrated that you didn’t even understand the most fundamental market concept viz price as affected by supply and demand. I’ll go slow this time. Approving the agreement will eliminate the sanctions and flood a weak oil market with massive amounts of Iranian oil thereby put heavy downward pressure on oil prices. The only reason to approve the agreement at this point is that if we renege on the bad deal that Kerry cut, it may be very difficult to keep the sanctions in place and then we have possibly the worst of all worlds ineffective sanctions and no pressure for a nuclear agreement. We should of had Joe Biden negotiate the agreement instead of Kerry.
Sick of Israel and it’s it’s powerful lobbies manipulating the politics in this nation
I don’t care what your opinion about oil is. Your opinion has nothing to do with it. (Your “facts” are skewed, too. The oil already reaches the market. Look it up.)
There are two main reasons we care about the Middle East: Oil and Israel. There are three reasons we care about Iran: Oil, Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Iran is Enemy No. 1 not because it took hostages, but because it tore up international oil agreements. It is hated by the Saudis because Iran is Shi’a, Saudi Arabia is Sunni. I assume you understand the Israel situation.
Its ability to attack us isn’t the issue. Its ability to dominate the Middle East is.
So yeah, stay out of the deep end.
“spate of reputable articles describing the disintegration of the Iranian economy”
“domestic stability and economic conditions are inextricably linked”
Yes, and the missing element in your analysis is the contrast between Tunisia/Egypt and the Iranian peoples nationalism. While there is considerable diversity in thought in Iran, one constant across all of Iran is their nationalism. Why? Because they are Persian and not a member of the Pan Arabic identity that transcends nation state borders or dominated by a religious identity.
Additionally, the members of the P5+1 are eager to do business in Iran and certainly for Russia and China there will be no retreat from the agreement. If Congress does not approve the agreement, the US can count on being the Lone Ranger when it comes to sanctions (with the possible exception of the UK).
Finally, we have had sanctions against Iran roughly since 1984 (or 1979 if you count the overthrow of the Shah timeframe). That’s 30 years of sanctions. In your terms that is a 30 year “disintegration of the Iranian economy.” That in and of itself should evoke a snort of derision. By the way since we are talking about things radioactive the half life of chromium-51 is 27.7025 years. So to put it in perspective, we’ve had sanctions longer than the half life of many radioactive isotopes, which disintegrate much fast than the Iranian economy.
Considering your thought process, I am sure you believe that the 50 years of sanctions in Cuba has disintegrated their economy and we should keep on keeping on. Well, you would be partially correct in that it has had a significant impact on their economy, but what you fail to recognize is the human element which causes people to suck it up because of their nationalism. Americans are not the only ones who can. Cubans can, Persians can.
If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always got. And in the case of Iran, status quo buys you nothing. I’m sure you would one to call for boots on the ground in Iran. That’s easy to do when they aren’t your boots.
And Cassandra’s point stands, Egypt and Tunisia had economies that were in the shitter because of internal forces (corruption, mainly) whereas Iran’s economy is going in the shitter because of EXTERNAL forces. In the short-term, sanctions can bring people to the table. In the longer-term (especially if a reasonable compromise like this one cannot be reached) it breeds a stronger us v. them mentality (see Germany after the Versailles treaty and the nationalism suggested above) and can lead to even less savory governments taking control.
^^^This.
Let’s also remember that when Mobarak fell, he was replaced by the Egyptian Army, then the Muslim Brotherhood. The Bros are gone, but there is still the Army.
It is worth also remembering for this deal that not only did Iran come to the table, but they came to the table to trade nuclear capability for better economic security.
Fred Kaplan on why Israel, the Saudis and the neocons hate this deal.
Makes sense, except I don’t think neocons like Bolton are deep enough thinkers to worry that Iran might rejoin the community of nations. It is pure Obama hatred for them. If the President said, “Don’t drink Clorox.” Bolton would slam a shot on the Hannity show.
Thought, reason, education and science are a threat to which political party? 20 points
Shia and sunni are too complicated for the us vs them republican mind set
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/iran-deal-politics-rouhani-khamenei/400985/
“Those supporting the deal include moderates inside the government, many opposition leaders, a majority of Iranian citizens, and many in the Iranian American diaspora—a disparate group that has rarely agreed on anything until now.”
Deal sucks and DOA.
“I distrust Iran, and believe this deal will only be successful if it puts in place the most intrusive inspections regime and an aggressive mechanism to re-impose sanctions should Iran violate any terms of the agreement. Given the magnitude and historical significance of this nuclear agreement with Iran, I am also working to understand how this deal will impact the United States, Israel, and stability in the Middle East.”
Chris Coons in a letter written to Nancy Willing on Delaware Way
I give him a great deal of credit, for taking his time and looking at all the facts first before just voting with the party! And I give Nancy a great deal of credit for asking, the question!