NEGOTIATIONS RATHER THAN ATTACKS? WHAT IS HE THINKING?

Why did 16 Democratic senators sign on to legislation-in-waiting that would increase sanctions on Iran for non-compliance in the deal to cease their nuclear weapons programs? Why now, at this time of delicate negotiations with the leadership in Iran about the programs, are the senators not willing to wait and see how the agreement plays out? Doesn't the bill send a message to Iran and the world that they have no confidence that the agreement will have a positive outcome?

The time is long past for the leaders in the US to seriously consider negotiations, rather than a rush to war, as the better way to solve international problems. Are we back to "Bomb Iran" if increased sanctions don't work? What's wrong with these people? What good is a Democratic majority in the Senate if a sufficient number, less one, of Democratic senators are willing to undermine the Democratic president's policies and possibly join with Republicans to override a presidential veto?

Many questions, no real answers.  A number of the senators in the list are up for reelection next year, and may have made the decision to support the bill for - Gasp! - political purposes.  Since the Supreme Court ruled in "Citizens United" that corporations, organizations, and unions are people and entitled to spend unlimited funds on political campaigns, the senators keep in mind fund-raising for the next election.

Throwing down the gauntlet:

"If certain members of Congress want the United States to take military action, they should be up front with the American public and say so," Bernadette Meehan, National Security Council spokeswoman, said in a statement. "Otherwise, it’s not clear why any member of Congress would support a bill that possibly closes the door on diplomacy and makes it more likely that the United States will have to choose between military options or allowing Iran’s nuclear program to proceed."

Bravo!

The list of renegade Democratic senators with check marks by those whose present terms end in January 1915:

Mark Begich - Alaska ✓
Michael Bennet  - Colorado
Richard Blumenthal - Connecticut
Cory Booker - New Jersey ✓
Ben Cardin - Maryland
Bob Casey, Jr. - Pennsylvania
Chris Coons - Delaware ✓
Joe Donnelly - Indiana
Kirsten Gillibrand - New York 
Kay Hagan - North Carolina ✓
Mary Landrieu - Louisiana ✓
Joe Manchin - West Virginia
Bob Menendez - New Jersey
Mark Pryor - Arkansas ✓
Chuck Schumer - New York
Mark Warner - Virginia ✓

THREE CHEERS FOR JUSTICE JAMES C NELSON OF THE MONTANA SUPREME COURT!

"While, as a member of this Court, I am bound to follow Citizens United, I do not have to agree with the [U.S.] Supreme Court’s decision," wrote Justice James C. Nelson, in his dissent. "And, to be absolutely clear, I do not agree with it. For starters, the notion that corporations are disadvantaged in the political realm is unbelievable. Indeed, it has astounded most Americans. The truth is that corporations wield enormous power in Congress and in state legislatures. It is hard to tell where government ends and corporate America begins: the transition is seamless and overlapping."

The photo of me taken at Occupy New Orleans is a fright, and my enemies may well use it against me, but I sacrifice for the cause.

H/T to Charles Pierce at The Politics Blog at Esquire, who urges us to send flowers to the justice.