SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Will House Democrats #StandWithJan to Back the Iran Talks?
Apr 19, 2015
House Democrats will play a key role in whether the Obama Administration can get a deal with Iran. Under the Corker-Cardin deal on the Corker Congressional review legislation, if a third of the House or a third of the Senate were willing to sustain a Presidential veto of Congressional legislation against the deal, that would be sufficient to block Republican efforts to kill the deal.
Even if all House Republicans oppose the President if it comes to a vote (by no means guaranteed, but certainly plausible), that means roughly 3/4 of House Democrats supporting the President would be sufficient to protect the deal.
To be precise, there are 435 seats in the House, so a bloc of 435/3+1 = 146 House Members would be sufficient to protect the deal. There are 188 Democrats in the House. So roughly 3/4 (78%) of House Democrats have to support the President to guarantee House protection of the deal. If no more than forty-two House Democrats defect to the Republican side, the advocates of diplomacy are dancing in the street. But if forty-three House Democrats defect to the Republican side, diplomacy advocates will have to start calling in chits with the Ron Paul people (the father, not the prodigal son.)
House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is strongly backing the President on Iran diplomacy. But that's no guarantee that three-fourths of House Democrats will back the deal. For example, House Democrat Alan Grayson is attacking the negotiations by trying to introduce issues that are outside the scope of the talks and by trying to set an impossible "unicorns and ponies" standard for a "good deal."
So, what would be really useful right now would be a show of strength by House Democrats in support of diplomacy.
Fortunately, Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky (you may recall that she skipped Netanyahu's anti-diplomacy speech to Congress) is circulating a letter to her colleagues in support of diplomacy. Wouldn't it be grand if we could get 146 House Democrats to sign the Schakowsky letter? You can weigh in online here; if you happen to be represented by a Democrat in the House, you can call them here.
Here is a video - made by a Grayson supporter - of Alan Grayson attacking the scope of the Iran talks at a fundraiser in Santa Monica.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
House Democrats will play a key role in whether the Obama Administration can get a deal with Iran. Under the Corker-Cardin deal on the Corker Congressional review legislation, if a third of the House or a third of the Senate were willing to sustain a Presidential veto of Congressional legislation against the deal, that would be sufficient to block Republican efforts to kill the deal.
Even if all House Republicans oppose the President if it comes to a vote (by no means guaranteed, but certainly plausible), that means roughly 3/4 of House Democrats supporting the President would be sufficient to protect the deal.
To be precise, there are 435 seats in the House, so a bloc of 435/3+1 = 146 House Members would be sufficient to protect the deal. There are 188 Democrats in the House. So roughly 3/4 (78%) of House Democrats have to support the President to guarantee House protection of the deal. If no more than forty-two House Democrats defect to the Republican side, the advocates of diplomacy are dancing in the street. But if forty-three House Democrats defect to the Republican side, diplomacy advocates will have to start calling in chits with the Ron Paul people (the father, not the prodigal son.)
House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is strongly backing the President on Iran diplomacy. But that's no guarantee that three-fourths of House Democrats will back the deal. For example, House Democrat Alan Grayson is attacking the negotiations by trying to introduce issues that are outside the scope of the talks and by trying to set an impossible "unicorns and ponies" standard for a "good deal."
So, what would be really useful right now would be a show of strength by House Democrats in support of diplomacy.
Fortunately, Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky (you may recall that she skipped Netanyahu's anti-diplomacy speech to Congress) is circulating a letter to her colleagues in support of diplomacy. Wouldn't it be grand if we could get 146 House Democrats to sign the Schakowsky letter? You can weigh in online here; if you happen to be represented by a Democrat in the House, you can call them here.
Here is a video - made by a Grayson supporter - of Alan Grayson attacking the scope of the Iran talks at a fundraiser in Santa Monica.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
House Democrats will play a key role in whether the Obama Administration can get a deal with Iran. Under the Corker-Cardin deal on the Corker Congressional review legislation, if a third of the House or a third of the Senate were willing to sustain a Presidential veto of Congressional legislation against the deal, that would be sufficient to block Republican efforts to kill the deal.
Even if all House Republicans oppose the President if it comes to a vote (by no means guaranteed, but certainly plausible), that means roughly 3/4 of House Democrats supporting the President would be sufficient to protect the deal.
To be precise, there are 435 seats in the House, so a bloc of 435/3+1 = 146 House Members would be sufficient to protect the deal. There are 188 Democrats in the House. So roughly 3/4 (78%) of House Democrats have to support the President to guarantee House protection of the deal. If no more than forty-two House Democrats defect to the Republican side, the advocates of diplomacy are dancing in the street. But if forty-three House Democrats defect to the Republican side, diplomacy advocates will have to start calling in chits with the Ron Paul people (the father, not the prodigal son.)
House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is strongly backing the President on Iran diplomacy. But that's no guarantee that three-fourths of House Democrats will back the deal. For example, House Democrat Alan Grayson is attacking the negotiations by trying to introduce issues that are outside the scope of the talks and by trying to set an impossible "unicorns and ponies" standard for a "good deal."
So, what would be really useful right now would be a show of strength by House Democrats in support of diplomacy.
Fortunately, Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky (you may recall that she skipped Netanyahu's anti-diplomacy speech to Congress) is circulating a letter to her colleagues in support of diplomacy. Wouldn't it be grand if we could get 146 House Democrats to sign the Schakowsky letter? You can weigh in online here; if you happen to be represented by a Democrat in the House, you can call them here.
Here is a video - made by a Grayson supporter - of Alan Grayson attacking the scope of the Iran talks at a fundraiser in Santa Monica.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.