I am often asked why I remain a member of the Republican Party. My stock answer has become that it's the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower and I would like very much to return it to similar hands and am working, however infinitesimally well, to do so. Leaving the party would accomplish nothing in that regard. I also contend that there are still sane and sober people -- in the minority to be sure -- remaining in my party.
It diverts attention from, firstly, the endlessly more important issue of whether the deal that the Obama administration seems close to striking with Iran is one that serves the interests of the United States well, and, secondly, the question of the potential deal's effects on U.S. allies in the region and elsewhere, as well as on peace in the region and even the world.
The neocon crowd -- including Netanyahu -- insist that Iran agree to terms that they know would never be accepted by the Tehran government. That's because they don't want a negotiated deal; they want the U.S. to launch a military strike against Iran that would effect "regime change." This is exactly the same line of argument that led the U.S. into the Iraq quagmire.
I strongly agree with both the prime minister of Israel and the president of the United States that Iran can never be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon. That is why I feel particularly anguished that the ill-advised invitation from House Speaker Boehner has managed to threaten, in my view, both the security of Israel and the historic bipartisan support in the Congress.