Cochran Votes to Reject Amendment That Would Treat Obama’s Iran Agreement as a Treaty

Yesterday, the US Senate rejected an amendment offered by Republican Ron Johnson of Wisconsin that would treat any deal negotiated by Obama with the Islamic Republic of Iran as a treaty, requiring 2/3s of the Senate to ratify it.  Sadly, only 39 Republicans supported it, including Roger Wicker I might add, and the amendment failed by a vote of 57 to 39.

Once again, Mississippi’s Thad Cochran sided with all Senate Democrats and 11 other Liberal Republicans to support Obama’s position on the Iranian negotiations.  Mark Levin tore into these 12 Republican Senators, calling them, appropriately enough, the “Dirty Twelve.”

Obama does not want his agreement, whatever that may be, treated as a treaty because it will never get a 2/3s vote, and he knows it.  In fact, he doesn’t want the Senate, or even the House for that matter, to have any input at all.  So Cochran has voted to abdicate the Senate’s duties in foreign policy and to ensure that Obama will get his way on Iran.

Let us again offer our congratulations to all of Thad Cochran’s supporters.  I hope y’all are proud of YOUR Senator!

Advertisements

Comments

  1. William Smith says:

    The reason they voted down the amendment (which amendment I favor) is to preserve the bi-partisan deal Corker cut. One can agree or not agree with the Corker and thus keep it from being amendeded without being a liberal, or sellout, etc. Good people can disagree.

    • If they are in fact good. That’s debatable. It was a simply amendment to said any deal would be considered a treaty. What the heck is wrong with that?

      • William Smith says:

        There’s a big part of the problem, MCD, as I see it – the kind of absolutizing of political views and votes that leads thinking that a person who takes an opposite view or votes another way is not good. Apart from the point John made about the amendment not being germane, its effect would have been to upset the deal that Corker deal that keeps together a bi-partisan approach to letting both Obama and the Iranians know what is negotiated will have to be disclosed and the Senate has options regarding regarding the substance of it. Had the ammendment been adopted the bi-paritsan agreement would have fallen apart and Obama would have vetoed it. Then what you get at the end fo the day is that you have the satisfaction of making a point but otherwise you effected nothing.

      • No I’m looking at the issue as a singularity: he sided with Obama and Iran with this deal. Period.

  2. This doesn’t bother me at all, since I tend to agree more with Obama on this matter than with the Republicans.

    In the past, plenty of Republican presidents have negotiated such “deals” for foreign powers and I don’t recall Republicans getting all uptight about forcing them to submit the deals as treaties for Senate approval.

    In fact, here’s a State Department list of all such “deals” and “agreements” that Presidents have entered into over the past 20 years. http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/tias/index.htm

    Notice how many GWB entered into. Did Republicans scream and holler that all these deals should be submitted to the Senate for approval as treaties?

    Since unequal judgments are being applied to Obama’s “deals” than were applied to Bush’s “deals,” it sounds like this is an example of the sin of partisanship.

  3. So I looked up the amendment. What the heck were these bozos trying to pull here? An amendment to the Internal Revenue Code regarding firefighters?

    They wanted to drag Obama and Iran and nukes into a bill to change the tax code to protect first responders?

    It’s not even germane?

    Everybody should’ve voted against it.

  4. Jane Green says:

    Yes, I am proud of my Senator. He voted exactly as he should have on this issue. I would rather be proud of the Senator that I voted for (even if maybe he doesn’t always vote as I think he should) than constantly humiliated by a Ted Cruz wannabe.

    • So you are ashamed of your other Senator, Roger Wicker, who voted for the amendment?

      • Jane Green says:

        Nope. I can disagree with him on certain issues, as I can Cochran, and not be “ashamed” of him. I have many more issues with the Democrats in general than with Republicans. Unlike this site which seems to thrive on attacking Republicans (particularly Senator Cochran) and letting the Dems off scott free on every issue. I just don’t get it.

      • If you will read this site, you see we have plenty of attacks against Democrats. But it’s the Republicans that attack and smear us, and quite frankly conservatives are sick of it. Go ahead and nominate Bush and get your butt handed to you by Hillary. A poll yesterday said 42% of Republicans will never vote for Bush. Count me in the 42%!

      • William Smith says:

        Let me see if I have this right. The Republicans attack you but you do not attack the Republicans? If you read this site it is primarily the Republicans you attack. And you are “the conservatives”? The fact that this is repeated time and again does not make it true. You don’t have a copyright on “conservative” nor the exclusve right to decide who is and who is not. There is a whole conservative history and movement that exists outside the rather narrow scope represented at MCD. Some of us go back to Goldwater.

        Then to say in April of 2015 that 42% will never vote for Bush lacks perspective. In MS last year when faced with the choice between Cochran and Childers Republicans chose Cochran. Face Republicans with Bush or Clinton in November of 2016 and the vast majority are not going to stay home or vote for Clintion or waste their vote on a third party. They will vote and vote for Bush. The road to victory for any Republican will be hard to thread because of the states any Republican has to concede going in, and the election is so important that, unless you are willing to have a third hard left Democrat who will have chose several Supreme Ct nominees and who will solidify leftist programs and policies to the point they cannot be turned back, that any thinking conservative will go to the polls and vote enthusiastically for whoever the Republican nominee turns out to be.

        One of the differences between the MCD constituency and traditional Republicans is that had McDaniel wrested the nomination from Cochran traditional Republicans would have voted for McDaniel rather than Childers, whereas the MCD constituency would not support Cochran. Likewise while traditional conservative Republicans would not chose a Cruz or a Paul as the nominee, the nominee will get their vote over the Democrat. A win with any Republican is much to be preferred over a loss to Clinton.

        Bush’s problem, btw, is his name not his conservative credentials. As George Will wrote in National Review about both conservatism and Bush in relation to the Cruz candidacy:

        “When Jeb Bush, the most conservative governor of a large state since Ronald Reagan (by some metrics — taxes, school choice — Bush was a more conservative governor than Reagan), is called a threat to conservatism, Republicans are with Alice in Wonderland.”

    • So Chris McDaniel would have humiliated the state? So seeking a balanced budget and wanting to actually follow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is humiliating? See this is the problem. Wanting to limit government and cut spending, etc. is become an “extremist” “fanatical” position, and I guess now humiliating. I just wonder what all you people are going to say with then economy really crashes to the ground! Blame us I guess!

      • michaelw says:

        well of course, you don’t think they would blame themselves or the old career politicians do you? they continue to praise them because they were trained to do that regardless of what they do or how they vote even when it goes against the majority of their constituents who put them in office. go ahead and praise them, but remember they are the same folks that got you 18 trillion in debt and growing. i ain’t thanking old thad for that!

      • Michael Bosley says:

        I can’t speak for anybody else but I have to agree with the humiliating the state part. You cannot erase what Chris himself said on his radio show. You can’t make Chris’s wacky supporters disappear, and make no mistake, there are many (check out the FB page). And yes it would be humiliating. Sorry. And while you are using poll numbers to attack Republicans where Jeb Bush is concerned, check the poll numbers on your boy Ted Cruz. He won’t make it out of the primaries, not by a long shot.

      • So you judge a candidate by some of his supporters, or things he said in jest, taken out of context, more than a decade ago? Wow, then no one is safe! But at least he can remember who just interviewed him five minutes before!

        Won’t make it out of the primaries? You do realize that only one candidate makes it out and that’s the nominee so there’s a LOT of candidates who won’t make it out! But I’m glad to know you have a crystal ball. Tell me, what’s the winning power ball number for the next draw?

      • There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a balanced budget and following the Constitution and I don’t think Chris and all of his supporters are whacky, but many conservatives refuse to compromise or work with the Democrats. Right now, there are 56 Republicans in the US Senate. They have a majority, but in order to get any bill passed there has to be 60 votes, which means that they are going to have to have at least 4 Democrats on their side. How do they think they are going to get that if they refuse to work with them?

      • I beg to differ! We’ve been working with them, that’s why we are in the shape we are in and folks are fed up with doing that I think.

      • William Smith says:

        1. “The candidate” could have his staff who quickly block anyone who disagreees with “the candidate” from his facebook pages also remove the many objectionable and some crazy comments made and left on his page.

        2. And there you joined them with the tasteless if it were true statement about remembering who interviewed him 5 minutes ago. The kind of bitterness that leads to so many such remarks maybe feel good to indulge but it surely is tiresome.

        3. What you don’t say when you say that you and the “folks” are tired of such little cooperation as occurs in Washington is how you propose to go forward. Do you just keep taking symbolic acts for wahtever satisfaction comes from such? How do you get the votes? If you’d just as soon lose as have some Republicans elected, how do you propose overcoming the vetoes of Democrat Presidents?

      • Michael Bosley says:

        Pay attention to what William Smith says. When either he nor “his staff” or whoever is in charge of his FB page leaves comments on there wishing for Cochran to “die already” and plenty of other horrific comments, yet deletes any poster that might disagree with him, it reflects on Chris. Period. He obviously thinks wishing death on somebody is ok and guess what? I don’t want somebody like that representing me in any fashion. You so quickly defend his “out of context” “more than a decade ago” comments. I want your defense of what I, and William Smith, just mentioned. And yes, Ted won’t make out of the primaries and no, a crystal ball is not needed. Just look at the poll numbers (you know what those are? You must since you so quickly threw out poll numbers concerning Bush). And your insult to Cochran’s age and memory is just another one of those ways you Chris supporters win friends and influence people, right? And please, tell Chris something else about his FB page, he asked, on FB, for Cochran supporters to explain why Cochran voted the way he did then all his “fans” start commenting that nobody is defending him. Well guess what? He deleted any Cochran supporter that ever commented on his page. Then picks on them for not commenting. Some serious growing up in the Chris camp and MCD camp needs to happen.

      • Political folks tend to excuse the excesses of their own supporters, while pouncing on those of their opponents.

        Not only is this based upon hypocritical partisan judgment – whereby a different standard of civility is imposed on others vs. ourselves – but there is a practical political reason as well:

        Nobody wants to offend their own supporters, so people are reluctant to criticize them or call them to order.

        No such restraint is necessary in rebuking their opponents for wrongdoing.

    • William Smith says:

      John, I am not ashamed of either Cochran or Wicker. I support both. They went different paths on this Amendment and on the AG nomination but I consider both to be honorable men and good represtatives of the state of MS.

      • I agree with Cochran and disagree with Wicker on this issue. The whole rage against Obama because of a claim he’s bypassing the Senate’s treaty review is hypocritical partisanship.

  5. I am inclined to agree with MCD and the MCGOPers on this one. At the risk of appearing ignorant and argumentative, I am not aware of anywhere in the Constitution that provides for the President to enter into executive agreements with other nations without the agreement being ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. And what is an executive agreement between nations–a treaty.

    • You’re probably correct vis a vis Constitutionality of any agreement.

      But why insist on constitutional obedience now after all those years when Bush did the very same thing over and over with nary a peep from the folks screaming about it now.

      • If the congress had any courage, it would have impeached Bush and Cheney for their constitutional abuses. They did more to improperly expand the scope of powers of the Presidency than anyone since FDR. They laid the groundwork for the President and the Executive branch to act as a tyrant. They opened the door for Obama, Holder and others to rule by executive order ignoring the separation of powers.

  6. David Frazier at 8:51, I wholeheartedly agree with you on that! In fact, I was publicly calling for Bush’s impeachment way back in 2002.

  7. Iran is considered a terrorist nation, so why make any deal with them a treaty? The purpose of the original bill is for congress to review and potentially reject any Iran Nuclear Deal. The bill has not passed yet and there are more amendments to come.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: