This morning the Arizona Republic reported that Arizona’s Democratic congressional caucus will support the P5+1 world powers nuclear agreement with Iran, with one member still “undecided” (oh, you already know who). Arizona Democrats in Congress to support Iran deal:
U.S. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., who represents a Tempe swing district, is the only member of the state’s Washington, D.C., delegation who has yet to publicly disclose how she will vote on the divisive foreign policy issue. A Sinema spokeswoman did not return messages Wednesday.
Now remember, on Wednesday the House fell into chaos when the GOP House Freedom Caucus derailed the scheduled vote in the House on the resolution of disapproval of the Iran deal and forced a recess. The hair-brained scheme they came back with is three votes to set up a lawsuit to sue the President on a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory that the President did not provide them the IAEA “secret side deals” with Iran, so the 60 day review period never started — because we say so! When you’ve lost in one forum, seek another forum and play on.
Today, Senate Tea-Publicans failed to muster the 60 voted necessary for cloture on the resolution of disapproval of the Iran deal, when 42 Senate Democrats held firm in support of the Iran deal. If Senate Democrats hold firm until the September 17 deadline, the resolution of disapproval of the Iran deal is dead. This is a done deal.
So it is curious logic by Kyrsten Sinema today, who once again is siding with Tea-Publicans in announcing that she will oppose the P5+1 world powers nuclear agreement with Iran. Does this mean that she will now support the GOP House Freedom Caucus plan for three votes to set up suing the President? Sinema Statement on Iran Nuclear Agreement.
Like Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Sinema’s excuses for opposition are on matters entirely outside of the negotiated nuclear agreement, and thus not on the merits of the actual agreement itself. Like every Tea-Publican, Sinema wants total capitulation by Iran, something Iran would never agree to in a negotiation. This is a ridiculous expectation:
“I am concerned that this agreement will escalate a conventional arms race in the Middle East and further destabilize the region. The agreement allows financial resources to flow to an Iranian regime, which siphons resources away from its citizens to fund terrorism and foment war. It allows Iran to strengthen its military capabilities, including conventional weapons and ballistic missiles. The Iranian regime and its proxies have made no secrets about how they will use these new resources and weapons in the region.
* * *
“The agreement may push back the time it will take Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon but does not eliminate the threat. At the end of the deal, Iran will have the tools, knowledge, and money to be an internationally recognized, empowered and legitimized threshold nuclear state. This newly created power and legitimacy will make deterring the regime’s aggression more difficult.
“The deal will go forward. We must now enforce vigilantly the provisions of the agreement and execute a comprehensive strategy that strengthens our security and supports our allies in the region.
When Saint Ronaldus Magnus negotiated nuclear agreements with the Soviet Union, it remained the “Evil Empire” and a super-power rival of the United States. The U.S. and Soviet Union continued to fight proxy wars around the world, Afghanistan being the prime example. But the threat of nuclear war between the U.S. and Soviets was substantially reduced, because that’s what was negotiated in the nuclear agreements.
I am deeply disappointed that Kyrsten Sinema does not seem to understand this simple concept.
this will get her campaign funds if she runs for the senate and hopefully loses so we can put a real democrat in their. you have to primary her with somebody. who is that somebody who is not third way democrat?
No Democrat of any stature will consider primarying Sinema. She has the backing of both the DCCC and the Arizona Democratic Party, and has a formidable war chest from her “Third Way” backers. She can pretty much do whatever she wants and ask “What are you going to do, vote for a Republican?” Well, are you, punk?
Once again Ms. Sinema votes with the radical right wing on a high profile vote. Why is that EVERY TIME a vote (even one like this where the vote does not even matter) of a high profile contentious matter comes up does she vote with the ultra conservative right? This woman is an embarrassment to the the Democratic party. All that she seems to have done since she got elected is to vote in a way that she thinks her constituents will like, i.e. she votes in a way that she hope will get her re-elected. So, what exactly does she stand for? Getting re-elected it seems like and not much else.
The first paragraph of the quote looks like it was written by AIPAC.
Since I doubt she’s any kind of an expert on Iran or nuclear reactors, I have to assume it’s pure politics. She probably made a deal with Steny Hoyer, the whip.
She will probably try to switch parties in the next six months. Not sure if the Republicans will embrace her, she’s probably slightly too liberal for their tastes. But in any event, the Democrats should primary her if she runs again as a Democrat, and the DCCC should not give her a dime of campaign help in 2016.
The DCCC will support her tooth and nail. The DCCC chairmen from Rahm Emanuel to Steve Israel to Ray Lujan have execrable records of supporting Republican lite Wall Street candidates over progressives. Candidates who may win a cycle or two and then lose when Democratic voters catch on and stay home. Rahm and Israel are known for discouraging donors from supporting progressive candidates in favor of those who have been constant impediments in supporting Democratic Party values. And Israel seems to be the puppet master behind Lujan.
Which is why I support candidates directly instead of entities such as the DCCC and DSCC.
I think it’s safe to assume she wants to run for that McCain Senate seat and she thinks this vote will help her with conservative voters. I’m not sure her vote would have been the same if the vote had any real consequence to it, as the vote itself was mostly symbolic. Still it’s a risky strategy because it will no doubt alienate her from her base.
So so so disapointed in her votes…add this one to the list of way too many. Having said that, I’d still take her over the Schweikert I have!
What’s the deal with her? Addicted to DOD contractor and Wall Street cash?
Why doesn’t the State Democratic Party have anyone to primary her?
Glad I’m represented by The Raul.
Used to think she had something to offer at the national level. Now, not so much.