Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Democratic support for the Iran Deal: How Democrats lose elections.

According to a head count in the senate and Nancy Pelosi's head count in the House, Barrack Obama now has enough Democratic support to sustain a veto on the congressional rejection of his Iran Deal. Yesterday Democratic senators Coons and Casey announced their unenthusiastic support for the Iran deal with about as tepid and lukewarm endorsement imaginable and  Senator Barbara Mikulski announced her tepid support today giving Obama the 34 votes he needs to sustain his veto -- IF the Democrats who support the deal actually vote that way.And events can always change that.

Curiously none of the Democrats supporting the deal are disputing any of the obvious problems, weaknesses, capitulations and potential failures that have been pointed out by those opposed to the deal but are supporting it anyway.Which is how and why Democrats lose elections .

Coons said of the deal, " its not the deal I would have hoped for", and Casey said that "with all its flaws i believe it will constrain Iran's nuclear program".  Except the point of negotiating a deal in the first place was not to "constrain Iran" from getting a nuclear weapon, but to prevent it. Which makes Bob Casey one more Democrat supporting the deal who shows he has no idea what he's talking about. 

The agreement is good for ten years. After that Iran is free to do as it pleases with its nuclear program (assuming they don't cheat sooner). And in the last few days Iran has celebrated the deal by ratcheting up its threat to destroy Israel.

Which is also how Democrats lose elections. By having Obama policies blow up in their face sometimes before they are even implemented.

That's how and why Democrats were wiped out of congress in 2010 and 2014 over Obamacare by going along with Obama's sell out and capitulations to the insurance companies on the public option (something I predicted was going to happen months before the election if Democrats didn't change course and pass the public option in spite of Obama) and this is what is going to happen to Democrats who support the Iran deal by going along with Obama's sell out to Iran.

When senator Coons says, " this isnt the deal I would have hoped for" and " it was a very close call",  either his hopes were in the unicorn fantasy world Kerry says those who think there could have been a better deal are living in, or he knows the deal isn't what should be but will vote for it anyway.  Which is one more way Democrats lose elections. Just as they did by grudgingly voting for Obamacare instead of insisting on something better. 

Which is why the deal is likely to become an Iranian nuclear Obamacare,  which itself is a massive failure Democrats still haven't come to terms with yet.  Which means more likely than not  a lot of Democrats are going to lose their next election.

Mikulski's non-endorsement endorsement gives Obama the votes he needs to sustain a veto, although Harry Reid, doing the very thing he complains about when Republicans do it which shows what the words, "principle" and "integrity" have meant to Democrats since Obama took office , has vowed to keep the deal from even coming to a vote by using the filibuster if he can get 41 Democrats to support it instead of the current 34. 

But Democrats need to think about what they're doing. No Democrat will ever lose an election voting against this preposterous deal whose supporters either lie about like the dishonest war mongering PR coming out of people like Jo Comerford and Anna Galland at MoveOn,  or those who defend it by showing they have the foresight of a drunken longshoreman by saying " What's the alternative?" as if there is none. Mikulski joined the latter group by reluctantly endorsing it and saying " it's the best option available". Which is like going to a used car lot full of lemons and thinking you have to buy one or you walk. 

When Democrats lose elections its usually because they deserve to by bringing it on themselves, not because their principles are wrong or values are wrong but because they don't live up to them. And when you are supporting the most dishonest and ineffective and untrustworthy president in the history of the Democratic party that is what happens.

Republicans lose elections because their policies usually fail. Democrats lose by not living up to the policies they promise and being true to their own beliefs . Usually because of a failure of leadership.  Like with Obama and Pelosi and Reid. And as a result too many Democrats go along with bad unprincipled decisions that actually violate traditional Democratic principles, common sense and logic in the name of being team players. 

Which is how they lost the House. By letting Nancy Pelosi browbeat them on the Obamacare sell out.  And then they lose not at the hands of Republican voters but at the hands of Democratic ones who express their displeasure,  not by voting Republican as many independents do when Democrats fail,  but by staying home and not voting at all so as not to support polices they oppose. Which is what happened to Democrats in 2010 and 2014 with Obamacare . And was all very predictable. And is likely to happen again over the Iran deal if it passes because of Democratic support.

Twice since Obama was elected I predicted massive Democratic defeats in two elections for the above reasons and I was proved right both times and both were a result of Democrats going along with bad Obama policy. 

General Dempsey, Obama's outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs trashed the Iran deal when he said in testimony to congress that letting Iran have ICBM's (whose sole purpose is to deliver a nuclear warhead,) and lifting the arms embargo " should never happen". Obama let both happen.  The former Deputy General of the IAEA said the inspection regimen is inadquate. In the last couple of days the IAEA has expressed " concern" over satellite imagery showing Iranian construction and heavy equipment at a military facility that the deal says will be off limits to inspections.

How good is this deal? All Democrats need to do is read or listen to the reasons given by other Democrats who support it to know just how bad the deal is and just how shortsighted  and self destructive supporting the deal is. 

These reasons include, " its not the deal I had hoped for", " what's the alternative"? "despite it's many flaws...", "it's the best we can do now" or Kerry's answer to what happens in 10 years when the deal runs out and Iran can pursue a bomb: "we'll see what happens". There is also the promise  Obama made to Jerrold Nadler to get him to support the deal by promising to use "military force" to keep Iran from a bomb which makes fools out of the relentless lying by groups like MoveOn who claim that the deal prevents the use of military force and is supposed to be its alternative. Which shows even Obama knows the deal is nonsense. Or he is.  It also makes Nadler look foolish since its one more disingenuous Obama promise since Obama will be collecting Social Security by the time the deal runs out and Iran will be free to pursue a nuclear bomb.

But the last and most important thing Democrats should keep in mind in whether or not to vote for or against this deal  is something Colin Powell once said about foreign policy when he said, " if you break it you own it". In the case of the Iran deal and  Democrats,  its going to be, if you don't break it you own it. And the consequences that come with it. Some of which are already starting to show their ugly head. And, like going along with Obamacare and Obama's needless concessions to insurance companies which most Democrats didn't support but reluctantly went long with anyway, they will pay for it in the next election.

In an interview with Christiane Ammanour defending the deal John Kerry said: " to show you the myths surrounding the idea that hundreds of billions will go to finance terrorism around the world, they are'll only be $50 -55 billion."


That sounds like General Buck Turdgison in Dr. Strangelove  downplaying U.S. casualties in a nuclear war with Russia by saying, " no more than 10-20 million killed. Tops. Depending on the breaks".

Kerry went on to agree that the money freed up by sanctions relief will in fact go to sponsor terrorism. Just not all of it. Which is certain to make a lot of people opposed to the deal feel better. 

Obama, Pelosi and Reid have led the Democratic Party over a cliff supporting Obama's policies before.  Policies that proved to be failures. And Democrats went along. There is no reason to think it won't happen again over Iran. And every reason to think it will.

No comments: