As poll after poll indicates, the American people could not be more clear in their opposition to President Obama’s Iran deal:
Fox News: Fox News Poll: Majority would reject Iran nuke deal
Gallup: Obama Gets Low Marks for His Handling of Iran
Monmouth University Poll: 61% of Americans do not trust Iran at all to abide by the terms of the agreement
Quinnipiac University National Poll: American Voters Oppose Iran Deal 2-1
CNN/ORC Poll: Majority wants Congress to reject Iran deal
Pew Research Center: Iran Nuclear Agreement Meets With Public Skepticism
The Hill: Poll finds growing opposition to Iran deal
Chuck Schumer, the next Democratic leader, could not be more clear in his opposition to President Obama’s Iran deal:
- "I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be. For all of these reasons, I believe the vote to disapprove is the right one." (My Position on the Iran Deal, Chuck Schumer, 8/7/15)
Will they side with fellow Democrats Russ Feingold – who was bought off by more than $35,000 from J Street PAC, and Joe Sestak in supporting President Obama’s deal or the American people in opposing it?
BACKGROUND:
Earlier This Week, Russ Feingold Said He Supported The Iran Nuclear Agreement Saying “It Appears To Me From My Reading That It Moves Us In The Right Direction Rather Than In The Alternative That Is To Be Potentially Going To War To Deal With This Problem.” “Former Senator Russ Feingold told a radio host Monday that he supports the Iran nuclear deal and believes President Obama has done a good job in crafting an alternative to what he says is a path to war. ‘Frankly, I think the President is doing a good job of the fundamental point,’ said Feingold. ‘I do agree that we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon, but we’re not giving up any options by being in this agreement. If it’s broken by them, we can do what we need to do.’ … ‘It appears to me from my reading that it moves us in the right direction rather than in the alternative that is to be potentially going to war to deal with this problem,” said Feingold.” (“Council Endorsed Candidate Supports the Iran Deal,” Council For A Livable World, 8/12/15)
- Feingold Received More Than $35,000 In Lobbyist Contributions From J Street PAC. "Former Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, who is attempting to take back the Senate seat he lost to Republican Sen. Ron Johnson in 2010, received over $35,000 in bundled lobbyist contributions despite previously leading the push against lobbyist money and for full disclosure from bundlers. The group who made the donation—the J Street PAC—is a liberal “pro-Israel, pro-peace” advocacy organization that is one of the biggest backers of President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal and has come under heavy scrutiny in the past." ("Feingold Received $35K in Lobbyist Contributions From J Street PAC," The Washington Free Beacon, 8/14/15)
Joe Sestak Supports The Iran Nuclear Agreement, Saying “The Nuclear Accord That Major Powers Reached With Iran Last Month Is A Promising First Step Toward Peacefully And Permanently Stopping The Iranians From Attaining Nuclear Weapons.” “The nuclear accord that major powers reached with Iran last month is a promising first step toward peacefully and permanently stopping the Iranians from attaining nuclear weapons. It is a result of painstaking diplomacy, made possible by principled American leadership and endorsed by the international community, and it provides a chance to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions while avoiding another costly war in the region.” (Joe Sestak, “Joe Sestak: An Accountable Agreement With Iran,” Centre Daily Times, 8/12/15)
In July, Tammy Duckworth Said She Was Still Reviewing The Agreement, But Said “My Colleagues Who Condemn This Proposed Agreement Without A Viable Alternative Short Of Going To War Are Being Reckless And Irresponsible.” “‘I am encouraged by the President’s comments this morning. It is imperative that members of Congress and the general public not rush to judgment on an agreement that will have enormous consequences not only for the Iranian nuclear program, but for U.S. national security interests throughout the region.’ ‘I am committed to standing by our ally Israel and remain cautious and concerned about Iran’s intentions. As I review this agreement, my focus will be on making sure that any sanctions relief is tied to a strong, verifiable inspection regime.’ ‘Members of Congress have a critical responsibility to put politics and partisanship aside and carefully review the details of this agreement. My colleagues who condemn this proposed agreement without a viable alternative short of going to war are being reckless and irresponsible.’” (Rep. Tammy Duckworth, “Duckworth Statement On Iran Agreement,” Press Release, 7/14/15)
In July, Maggie Hassan Said She Wants To Hear “Full Details And Implications Of The Agreement” Before Making A Decision. “Gov. Maggie Hassan Tuesday weighed in on the Iran nuclear weapons deal struck by the Obama administration, saying through a spokesman while she is focused on state issues, particularly the budget, ‘like all Americans’ she wants to hear more about the ‘full details and implications of the agreement.’ Hassan’s comments came after her office posted on Twitter Friday that she ‘fully supports the state of Israel and its right to exist and defend itself.’” (John DiStaso, “Hassan Weighs In, Noncommittal," On Iran Deal,”WMUR, 7/14/15)
In July, Catherine Cortez Masto Said She “Will Take The Coming Days To Review The Proposed Agreement.” “Former Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto released the following statement on the announced nuclear agreement between President Obama’s Administration and Iran: ‘Iran’s quest for a nuclear bomb must be brought to an end. I support giving diplomacy a chance to succeed, however, walking away from a bad deal would be better than accepting one that is wholly insufficient. We know we cannot take the Iranian regime at their word, so any agreement must ensure a robust compliance component that blankets their country with inspectors. We cannot trust, so we must diligently work to verify through independent means. I will take the coming days to review the proposed agreement.’” (Catherine Cortez Masto For Senate, “Catherine Cortez Masto Statement On Iran Nuclear Agreement,” Press Release, 7/14/15)
In July, Patrick Murphy Said “There are still a lot of unanswered questions” About The Agreement And He Was Hearing A Fair Amount Of “Misinformation” From Constituents. “Many Democrats remain undecided, even after hearing the administration’s pitch. ‘There are still a lot of unanswered questions,’ Rep. Patrick Murphy, a centrist Florida Democrat running for Senate next year, said after Wednesday’s House briefing. Mr. Murphy said he’s hearing significant concern, including a fair amount of ‘misinformation,’ from constituents.” (Kristina Peterson and Carol E. Lee, “Uptick In Democratic Support For Iran Deal,” Wall Street Journal, 7/22/15)