Listening to Tim Kaine you almost would have to think so as according to him, the C-M bill makes it more rather the less likely there will be an Iran deal.
"There is zero chance that Corker-Menendez passing will harm these negotiations. Iran is very sophisticated. They want out from under Congressional sanctions. They’ve known from the beginning that Congress would be involved in that. The question is, What is the process that Congress will use? The letter from the 47 Republicans is engagement under a free-for-all. It’s much better to have Congressional engagement under a standard that is agreed upon and timely, and I think this is deferential to the administration."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/09/could-the-corker-menendez-bill-kill-an-iran-deal-a-top-dem-supporter-pushes-back/
I don't know. It'd be nice to believe this but then why does the GOP love this bill then? Remember they do want to hurt these negotiations even if this is not Kaine's intent. They also aren't too concerned about showing the President deference. So who's kidding themselves: the GOP who supports this bill unanimously or the 8 Dems who are cosponsoring the bill?
Kaine argues that this bill will not mean that the GOP will be able to kill the deal-the bar for disapproving-or approving-the bill are very high:
"Let’s say Corker-Menendez passes. And let’s say there’s a final deal that looks like the framework. You’ll probably see in that 60-day review period discussions and expert testimony. You’d then likely see both resolutions of approval and disapproval of the final deal introduced. The prospects of a resolution of approval passing both houses is tough. But a resolution of disapproval passing would be unlikely."
"Either a resolution of approval or disapproval is subject to the 60-vote threshold. And if a resolution of disapproval passed, it would be vetoed by the president. If he could convince one-third plus one in one house of Congress to stick with him on the veto, that amounts to “no action.” Which is then defined as “approval.” That’s a very deferential standard for the president."
Again, it'd be nice to think this is how it works, but if it is what is the GOP missing? Still, I give Kaine credit for sitting for an interview with the Plum Line. It shows he cares what liberals think. Certainly he's not a ConservaDem.
P.S. I would change this sentence by Greg Sargent just slightly:
"It is likely too late for a real Democratic primary, unfortunately."
Lose the 'un' and my sentiment exactly.
If the Democratic party wasn't happy with Hillary as the nominee, there would be a real primary. Sargent himself has pointed out that the Dems are ideologically very unified while the GOP has all kinds of fissures. This is 180 degrees from how it used to work. Why not let the Dems once not rip each other apart before the Republicans even take a crack?
"There is zero chance that Corker-Menendez passing will harm these negotiations. Iran is very sophisticated. They want out from under Congressional sanctions. They’ve known from the beginning that Congress would be involved in that. The question is, What is the process that Congress will use? The letter from the 47 Republicans is engagement under a free-for-all. It’s much better to have Congressional engagement under a standard that is agreed upon and timely, and I think this is deferential to the administration."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/09/could-the-corker-menendez-bill-kill-an-iran-deal-a-top-dem-supporter-pushes-back/
I don't know. It'd be nice to believe this but then why does the GOP love this bill then? Remember they do want to hurt these negotiations even if this is not Kaine's intent. They also aren't too concerned about showing the President deference. So who's kidding themselves: the GOP who supports this bill unanimously or the 8 Dems who are cosponsoring the bill?
Kaine argues that this bill will not mean that the GOP will be able to kill the deal-the bar for disapproving-or approving-the bill are very high:
"Let’s say Corker-Menendez passes. And let’s say there’s a final deal that looks like the framework. You’ll probably see in that 60-day review period discussions and expert testimony. You’d then likely see both resolutions of approval and disapproval of the final deal introduced. The prospects of a resolution of approval passing both houses is tough. But a resolution of disapproval passing would be unlikely."
"Either a resolution of approval or disapproval is subject to the 60-vote threshold. And if a resolution of disapproval passed, it would be vetoed by the president. If he could convince one-third plus one in one house of Congress to stick with him on the veto, that amounts to “no action.” Which is then defined as “approval.” That’s a very deferential standard for the president."
Again, it'd be nice to think this is how it works, but if it is what is the GOP missing? Still, I give Kaine credit for sitting for an interview with the Plum Line. It shows he cares what liberals think. Certainly he's not a ConservaDem.
P.S. I would change this sentence by Greg Sargent just slightly:
"It is likely too late for a real Democratic primary, unfortunately."
Lose the 'un' and my sentiment exactly.
If the Democratic party wasn't happy with Hillary as the nominee, there would be a real primary. Sargent himself has pointed out that the Dems are ideologically very unified while the GOP has all kinds of fissures. This is 180 degrees from how it used to work. Why not let the Dems once not rip each other apart before the Republicans even take a crack?
No comments:
Post a Comment