I understand what Senate Democrats are saying about Chuck Schumer, and why they are saying it.
I just hope that they learn sometime just how much this makes supporters of the president hate them.
I think that matters.
Maybe it doesn’t.
I understand what Senate Democrats are saying about Chuck Schumer, and why they are saying it.
I just hope that they learn sometime just how much this makes supporters of the president hate them.
I think that matters.
Maybe it doesn’t.
Durbin – Don’t throw me into that brier patch.
Reid – I’m outta here anyway.
The designated clean-up hitters:
Schatz
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tip-off: Only Schumer and Menendez will be traitor Dems and vote No? Is that what this article is? If that is true, then all is forgotten by 2017. So what is Schumer going to do to Netanyahu to redeem himself in the next 17 months?
The establishment looks after itself.
That’s exactly what I hope is the take-away from this. As long as there won’t be enough traitors to override the veto, I can’t get too worked up about the posturing of Schumer and Menendez.
I’m pissed because he’s going to be majority leader. Menendez I don’t give a fuck about because he’ll be in jail.
The establishment looks after itself.
True, but I don’t think leftie DEMs fully appreciated what the attempted unseating of Lieberman meant.
DC DEM pols have been playing the hold onto whatever DINOs get elected since 1994. Whatever the cost.
In 2006 DC DEMs smelled the possibility of taking back the House and cutting into the GOP Senate majority. Not so much by their astute efforts but because the GOP had been fumbling badly since 1/2005. Pelosi had some game in spite of Emmanuel’s generally unimpressive roster of new candidates. Schumer’s wasn’t any better — his recruitment of Sherrod Brown was only because he was desperate and he wasn’t quite as lamebrained as the bloggy left that wanted Hackett who didn’t stand a chance to defeat the incumbent DeWine.
The DSCC objective was not to lose any of the seventeen seats then held and up for re-election. Their early targets were PA (Santorum), TN (Frist retiring), and perhaps MO (Talent) and RI (Chaffee). OH (DeWine) came later and Schumer probably wasn’t optimistic that Brown could succeed.
Democratic activists upset the game plan with Lamont who as a general election candidate would have been in Hackett’s league. The DSCC hadn’t put enough R seats in play that they could afford to risk a loss in what they had considered to be a safe DINO one. Plus, Joe was reliable, provided good cover for the “moderates,” and could stand up to the heat from the left. So, they feared losing a seat, losing a known entity that they could do biz with, and feared that “f**cking morons” on the left would become more powerful if Lamont won.
Meanwhile, Dean at the DNC was trying to run that 50 state strategy with no authentic buy-in from the DC DEMs. Not in the DSCC wildest dreams could they imagine that Allen (VA) was vulnerable much less win. He was like all the other Republicans that they didn’t bother to challenge. Not to give Dean too many props because McCaskill, Tester, Webb weren’t outside of the box that Schumer prefers.
2008 offered my opportunities for Democrats — fewer seats to defend and more potentially weak incumbent Republicans. Of the eight seats gained that year, three were lost in 2014 and Warner (VA) came close to losing to an opponent with negative charisma and Sheheen (NH) had a fight against a carpetbagger. (Franken (MN) Merkley (OR) and Udall (NM) had relatively easy re-elections.) Six of the incumbent DEM seats held in 2008 also went down to defeat in 2014. To be fair, there were slim pickings for DEMs to target for flipping in 2014, but better to go down as a DEM than lose as a DINO and that DINO defensiveness made the candidates smell like losers and voters don’t like to show up for losers.
… if the interest of the Democrats serving in U.S. Congress lies in Jerusalem. What a naivité and bs.
Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew who ran unsuccessfully for vice president as a Democrat in 2000, will play a key role in United Against Nuclear Iran‘s “efforts to educate and inform the American public regarding the serious shortcomings” of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
○ White House: Vote against Iran Deal at your own peril
Would have been nice for the WH to play hardball on health care,etc.
They did about as much as they could without jeopardizing everything.
We’ll agree to disagree on that.
What makes you think the WH didn’t play hardball on health care? Seems to me they decimated anyone to the left of Romneycare.
Touche. Single-payer was beaten down and relegated to the doghouse pretty quickly.
It was never even floated. But there’s good reason for that. It wasn’t ever going to pass. Even a public option couldn’t make it past Lieberman and Baucus. So how was single payer going to fare better?
Because it’s the right thing to do. And superior policy.
Stuff that’s the right thing to do passes. Because it’s the right thing to do. And superior policy.
If it doesn’t, there’s no explanation except active malevolence on Obama’s part.
Are we living in the same universe? In my experience, being right rarely makes a difference in what passes.
You need to adjust your snarkometer; it’s apparently not picking up strong signals from this direction.
Because it’s the right thing to do. And superior policy. Stuff that’s the right thing to do passes. It just does. Because it’s the right thing to do. And because it’s superior policy.
If it doesn’t, there’s no explanation except active malevolence on Obama’s part. You can’t stop an idea whose time has come.
Don’t float, never sail.
Make the case and in the first go around, settle for as much that gets closer to single payer as possible.
Would “Medicare for all” have been a stone cold loser in the court of public opinion? Just because it wasn’t going to happen, doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t have resonated with a lot of people. Seriously, how can it not be “fair” that all of us get what seniors get?
Personally, I’m not a “single payer” advocate because it’s not practical given the state of US health care delivery system. Education is a right, but that doesn’t mean we can collectively afford “Sidwell Friends” and “Harvard” for all. Same with health care.
If it’s a stone cold loser in the Senate it doesn’t matter what happens to it in the court of public opinion because there’s no second bite of the apple.
If it doesn’t get done by the turn of 2009/2010, it doesn’t get done for another 10-20 years.
A simple vote on an amendment wouldn’t have ended federal health care for a generation. It would have been a blip in the news. The fear was that it might have passed and hurt all the pharma/insurance profits.
This would have accomplished exactly what?
Gestural politics is the other guys’ forte.
Do you think change that’s ultimately enacted in Congress begins there? The only things that begin in Congress without public pressure are changes we don’t want.
Ordinary people can comprehend “Medicare for all,” but “single payer” doesn’t resonate for them.
○ A Jewish Journalist’s Exclusive Look Inside Iran | The Forward |
My earlier comment/diary – Chuck Schumer Will Oppose Obama’s Iran Deal.
Obama didn’t understand why Lieberman didn’t deserve his support. Ned Lamont became road kill. That choice came back to haunt the Administration. They seem to have learned the importance of team play; they’re at least making noises to the effect that Schumer should be bypassed. Unfortunately, Democrats in the Senate don’t get it.
I can understand having built up reserves of good will. Schumer has raised a lot of money for a lot of folks. But the guy is really out of step with his party on a number of issues. His comment that Obama should not have expended his political capital on the ACA was unhelpful to say the least (and moronic to boot). His reflexive support of Wall Street, while understandable in one sense, is shameful in another. I’d be happy if Democrats like Schumer were a thing of the past.
Isn’t that the truth? There aren’t any purity tests in the Democratic party that in any way compares to the lockstep voting and toeing the line that we see on the right. But I’m pissed at all of those making a decision by sticking a finger up to see which way the political winds are blowing. Frankly, McCaskill irritates me just about as much as Schumer. He’s bought and paid for by Wall Street, in addition to having to prove his support of all things Israel. She bows to the right of center in her state. Saw her asked by O”Donnell, I think, about where she was on the Iran deal. She’s going to make up her mind after consulting with named other countries like Japan and China to see how they will react if the U.S. backs out of the deal.
Jesus, people, have a bit of spine when having some spine truly counts. This Iran Deal counts big time.
P.S. Did anyone catch Matthews pressuring DWS on his show about the difference between a socialist and a liberal, or something. She never would answer (sort of made a fool of herself) and he ended the interview in disgust. But, then again, what’s going on at MSNBC right now disgusts and angers me.
It’s the GOP all day every day;an unrelenting focus on the GOP Presidential campaign with lots of pundit types coming on all the shows. Methinks it’s more than ratings. MSNBC and parent obviously want the GOP to win in 2016. Yeah, I know it’s all about the viewers but prostituting your network in hopes of becoming another CNN that can attract conservatives is clearly NOT a winning strategy. Plus they’re gonna alienate folks like me.
Not sure if the Senate Dems coming out and blasting Schumer would be advatageous at this time. However, come time to vote on who replaces Reid, this may be a pretty good incentive to stick the knife in the back, so to speak.
I wonder what Clinton’s relationship is with Schumer.
IFIRC, Schumer and Clinton were buddy-buddy in the senate.
I just hope that they learn sometime just how much this makes supporters of the president hate them.
Why? When even Obama supported HolyJoe after HolyJoe spit in his face by campaigning with that cranky asshole from Arizona.
What would you have done, and explain how doing it wouldn’t have caused Lieberman to be even more spiteful and make sure nothing passes.
In fairness, Lamont may have had a shot if the president hadn’t campaigned for Joe. If all Democratic leaders had said, “Lamont is our candidate; Lieberman is not,” it’s hard to see how Joe could have put together the coalition (of imbeciles) he successfully duped.
You could use that as evidence that it backfired, and as a peak into the future if Lieberman lost his chairmanships: Obama backed Lamont once he won the primary.
Are you saying Obama supporting Lieberman in the primary caused Lieberman to win the GE? I find that hard to believe.
Most of those senators will be there in two years.
Obama will not.
Do Obama supporters not understand that Schumer is from New York? Holy jesus, this blog pile-on is getting bizarre.
Next up: going after Biden for not supporting credit card regulation. Going after Manchin for not supporting coal regulation. Etc.
I’m pretty sure there are far more Jewish New Yorkers who support this deal than oppose it. It’s just that the ones who oppose control most of the money. Schumer’s a pussy because he has more than enough campaign money to win his next election. He must have no national ambitions because he’s willing to screw over the Democratic base to appease his hard core supporters.
“I’m pretty sure there are far more Jewish New Yorkers who support this deal than oppose it”
Maybe, and maybe not, but the hawks are far more visible and powerful. The Orthodox and Hasidic leaders in NYC are among the few that can really deliver their communities’ votes. And they all have access to Schumer and are likely to have been threatening him and screaming at him for months. They’re probably still screaming at him for not whipping the vote. He’s probably hearing it at his synagogue from whatever right wing nuts they have there. And all the liberal Jews shut up because they’re afraid of being on the side of the Second Holocaust.
The pressure to do whatever Bibi wants is incredible around here. Bloomberg couldn’t resist it, and he owned this town.
Also, Nita Lowey and Eliot Engel are opposed. I can assure you that it’s for the same reason. Going against Bibi here is like going against gun rights in Oklahoma. The merits simply do not matter, and you will be destroyed. Schumer might survive, but it’s the single riskiest move he could make. And he knows there will be no veto override anyway.
it’s becoming as intolerant of dissent as Redstate.
#Whitelivesmattertoo
That’s why cops tend to be deferential. Too bad that respect doesn’t extend beyond white lives.
Voice, please drop the #whitelivesmattertoo. Even if you don’t get why, trust me that it’s not helpful.
Fine. Why is he likely majority leader?
A few cycles as DSCC chair while Reid continues to serve. Popularity within the caucus for some reason or another. And the consensus that he’s next. Plus Schumer’s treating it as an inevitability.
And then there’s the possibility that a good proportion of the others don’t want the job.
Supporters of the president? The White House has already said there will be no retribution. Logically there’s going to have to be a different reason to oppose what that scum is doing.
Realistically, what leverage does the White House have?
Senators all have stand-alone, independent fundraising capability. Any leverage via appointments is weakened by the GOP not confirming anyone, anyways.
And Obama is term-limited. They don’t need coat-tails he doesn’t even have.
This is just recognizing reality…
Agreed, I said something similar in a previous comment. My point is that I find it odd that Booman casts it as pissing off people who are supporters of Obama, instead of people who support the deal on the merits or don’t want war, are liberals etc. Especially as Obama already disarmed when a no comment or even ‘choosing a leader is the business of the legislature not the executive.’ Would have sufficed.
Obama could challenge Schumer for his Senate seat next year.
Did anyone here actually read the transcript summarizing Schumer’s objections? What if he actually believes that this deal is not in the best interest of the United States?
Then he is stupid or lazy.
once again…how in the hell is he considered ‘the smart one’?
all I gotta say…oh please let this be on video.
………………………….
Steven D’Amico@stevenjldamico
Bad moment tonight, @JebBush told man upset with 8-year wait to bring sister to U.S. that he would eliminate sibling preference.
That inveterate Firebagger, Josh Marshall, tears into Schumer here.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/disqualified