Home | About | Donate

Chuck Schumer Is The Exact Opposite of What Democrats Need


#1

Chuck Schumer Is The Exact Opposite of What Democrats Need

Ryan Cooper

Listen to the leaders of the Democratic Party, and it seems America is in some of its most dire straits in its history. In an interview with NPR regarding President Trump's assertion that he can break any law he wants, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said: "We do not have a dictatorship. The Founding Fathers did not want a king." Sounds bad!


#2

We Democrats out here in the rest of America already KNOW this, and have known about it since soon after Schumer was appointed. He’s an empty bag of vague, ill-thoughtout ideas that do NOT reflect Progressive values. He’s a throwback to the “congenial past,” when legislators weren’t expected to ACHIEVE anything, but to posture a lot.

The faster the Democrats replace this incompetent, the sooner we will win back the unmotivated left-wing voters who understand it’s not worth voting for anybody if they have to go subject themselves to Schumer’s patterns of lack of imagination replaced by feckless posturing.

If we’re to win back the Congress from the self-destructive Right, we need LEADERSHIP, not posturing and pandering.


#3

It is increasingly clear the Democratic Party leadership, and about half their Congressional members, are firewalls fiercely opposed to the progressive/populist left-center wing of the rank-and-file.
The " what to do about it " part of this serious disconnect, imo, remains an individual decision for the progressives. I voted for Stein in 2016 and Democratic on the down ballot to protest this situation. I haven’t decided what I personally will do in 2018. It’s Oregon, so the Democrats running may not need my vote, anyway.
Schumer, Pelosi and Hoyer have the best of both worlds, currently. They can fundraise against the despicable Trump and not change or adjust their positions, whatsoever. I sure hope their blunt calculations pan out for the good of " the general welfare of the country " ( snarky, sort of ). But, I wouldn’t bet a dime, or give them one, for taking that position.
Enough of 2005, is more than enough in 2018.


#4

Fuck Chuck, and the donkey he rides in on.

It’s no surprise an “ass” is the Democrat’s mascot.


#5

Replacing corporate Democrats with progressives is a greater challenge in Connecticut, New Jersey and in Schumer’s New York compared to other states since a greater percentage of workers in those three states are dependent upon the financial services industry compared to other states, and compared to other industries in CT, NJ and NY.


#6

All you need to do to see just how far (to the right) that main stream democrats have fallen is to watch the supposed “progressives” on Bill Press’s or Stephanie millers show. While Bill seems to be being moved slightly back to the left as he ages, Miller unfortunately continues to drink the Clinton Koolaid. She spent a half hour again today bad mouthing Bernie and his supporters and defending corporatist scum like Feinstein and Hillary.
I ask everyone, if the supposed “blue wave” this fall elects a new bunch of third way Clintonista scum, is it really a wave at all?


#7

Stephanie Miller is simply playing to her audience in the Bay Area. See raydelcamino’s comment about Schumer’s pandering and that’s Miller’s base, as well. It’s where Pelosi’s money comes from, too. FYI- she’s # 1 big dog fundraiser for Dims so : " she who has the gold makes the rules ". Pelosi is buying votes but it’s in Congress as opposed to " walk around " money on the street. SOSDD
Feinstein getting 43% and meeting De Leon in the general, should be a good test for folks interested in where things stand in 01/01/2019.


#8

I think Schumer has done a poor job with regard to Israel as was pointed out in the article. I suspect this may have something to do with a large percentage of orthodox and ultraorthodox Jews living in New York State. Therefore, he may be reflecting the views of his most vocal constituents on this issue. When it comes to the worst excesses of Trump I think Schumer has been pretty much on target. I think Schumer understands that Trump is in effect the leader of a white nationalist movement and is trying to move the country toward fascism. But he and Nancy Pelosi do have some sort of working relationship with Trump perhaps because all three are from the northeast and have at least that in common. None of them is from Kentucky or some state rather foreign to New York and Maryland. If Schumer has a bad fault it seems to be that he too easily backs down and is willing to compromise. Being able to work with Republicans is his strength but given how far right the Republicans have drifted it would be better to have someone who keeps resisting.


#9

Exactly. The “Blue Wave” will simply mean the Washington Generals will be taking us all for a ride instead of the Globetrotters. We’ll still head for the cliff, just a bit slower and with a nicer-looking veneer over the plutocratic foundation. We’ll be more diplomatic, nicer to our allies, speak more intelligently. Wear the velvet glove over the iron fist.

I actually almost prefer the Globetrotter’s blatant in-your-face fascism to the Generals’ subtle, slower kind. At least with Trump and the new Rethugs, the trip to the cliff will be quicker and more honest. They are unapologetic about their hate and racism and nationalism and authoritarianism. I prefer the fist to my face and the knife in my stomach, to the one in my back that the Dims offer.


#10

What is wrong with people? Why do they think they can say things that aren’t true?

Trump never made this assertion. He said that he does have the constitutional authority to pardon himself (which he does) but why would he since he hasn’t done anything wrong?

That’s what he said. I’m sick of the narrative of people saying what they think something means replacing what the actual something was?

How many folk in this nation are upset that Roseanne “had a racist tweet” and yet don’t seem to know what it is she actually tweeted?

How can we discuss things when we don’t discuss things but what the gatekeepers tell us it all means instead?


#11

Please tell us what Roseanne said. Then tell us what was reported that she said.
I’ll take your next comment as proof I misjudged Roseanne. Though, in hindsight, she should of sung Take Me Out To The Ballgame while holding a beer, instead. Agree?


#12

Senator Schumer--------------wha a strange man you are. I recently saw a video where you were speaking to AIPAC and you wanted America to cut any money to Palestine as they are all terrorists ther., you said. YOU, Senator Schumer, want to make it a crime for anyone in America to criticize Israel. Wow, so I guess the First Amendment is up for sale in your eyes, and you already sold the Peoples’ rights to free speech away?

Why should I ever be arrested for using my guaranteed Free Speech? HOW can you be a senator and even think this. I wish I lived in NYC and I would vote you out. You seem to care more about AIPAC than you do about Americans.
And by the way----with your sold out soul, surely you could afford eye glasses that fit--------sadly , you look like a looney Pinochio and you have somehow succeeded in looking and speaking like a real puppet too.


#13

What she tweeted was: “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj.”

Now perhaps this is racist. Valerie Jarrett is of African American heritage, who, despite her extremely light complexion, according to the one drop rule that is from America’s racist past, is still Black. There is a heritage of calling Blacks apes done by racists.

But on the other hand Valerie Jarrett is so light skinned that some people unfamiliar with her might think she was white just from seeing a photo of her. Also “planet of the apes” is not a reference to regular apes but to a film series in which apes are intelligent and the main female apes, both in the original 60s & 70s films and in the recent reboots, are heroes, loving persons, and to be admired.

But then clearly Roseanne wasn’t complimenting Jarrett and in later tweet, in which she apologized, said it was a joke about her looks.

So was Roseanne intending to make a racist comment on Jarrett or wasn’t she? There is solid reason to conclude she was being racist. But it’s not a 100% clear thing.

Yet what do people see and comment on? Not the actual tweet and then debate what her meaning and intent were. No the conversation starts with the conclusion and all that is discussed is her “racist tweet.” I wouldn’t be surprised if some people actually think she used the “n” word.

This is what disturbs me. The narrative quickly arrives at a interpretation and then the entire media discussion is about the interpretation. Articles quote other articles. Half the time it is almost impossible to find original quotes. So often the original article will paraphrase or cut parts of a quote, but the other articles and newscasts just quote the original article about it.

Roseanne’s tweet is no where near as hard to get to the original quote as some. There have been times after hours and hours of research and attempts to get a full quote that is in the news instead of the common truncated one and to get it in context I just have to give up.

This is a way of controlling information people get and shaping consensus. Sometimes the conclusion that becomes the common consensus in the media that gets repeated over and over is intentionally vague from the get go, implying something more than what is actually said by those who spout the narrative, even though they know it doesn’t include that.

But the audience out there jumps to that implication and believes it. Thus many Democrats after the election though that the accusation was that Russia hacked voting machines and changed the vote. Also 13 years earlier many, especially Republicans, were convinced that Saddam was behind 9/11. Now the Clinton machine and the W. machine never actually said those things- but the way they did say what they said set it up.

So, like I said before, I wouldn’t be surprised if lots of people now think that Roseanne tweeted the “n” word and think Trump literally said he is above the law.

What I want is for people to have the real information, to get arguments about what it means, and to arrive at there own conclusions. But the more common paradigm in US media is to tell people what to conclude from the get go.

(Let me take this opportunity to say that I think Schumer is horrid. It just bothered me immensely that an article critiquing him couldn’t just critique him without also adding to a false narrative about what Trump said.)


#14

I agree with you almost all the time, but here I think you are reaching. It seems quite reasonable to conclude if you can pardon yourself for any reason (and on LRC presents All the President’s Lawyers the claim was made that constitutional scholars take differing positions on whether he actually can or not so I don’t think it is obvious) then you can do anything as well. Given previous brags about being able to shoot someone and still win the election, it doesn’t look like such a stretch.

Roseanne’s tweet was most certainly racist (I’m not sure if you are inferring a judgement here or not) though I happen to think she shouldn’t have been fired - VJ should have been asked what kind of penance was required. I still can hardly believe she ever called herself a Green Party person.


#15

(sorry I didn’t scroll down far enough before my last reply - I understand your position on this tweet now)

Valerie is 46% of African decent according to her Wikipedia page, but I agree you could look at her and conclude she has different ancestry - but I think it was pretty well known she was of African American heritage.

That is an interesting take on the female characters in the movie though I highly doubt that was going through Roseanne’s mind at the time. I am curious as to what was going in her mind, because I have yet to see that explained or even speculated on by anybody even though this story has been beat to death. What is her complaint about Valerie Jarret in the first place? I don’t recall anything that bad and I don’t see anything skimming her Wikipedia page.

As far as Schumer, I’m not crazy about him either - Schumer, Gillibrand, and Cuomo all have completely unreasonable views on restriction of free speech when it comes to BDS so I’d be happy to be rid of all of them.


#16

Trump has the constitutional authority to pardon himself, eh? Wrong. If that were true, then our President is a dictator that could LITERALLY run around committing massive, horrendous crimes, and just pardon himself immediately afterwards. He could LITERALLY walk into the Senate with an AR-15, blow away every single Senator in the place, then issue himself a pardon right afterwards. Then run outside, blow away a few hundred civilians on the Mall, and then Pardon himself for those crimes also.

Not sure what planet you live on, but that isn’t written anywhere in the Constitution. And I don’t know what planet - aside from the MAGA world of idiotic authoritarian-worshipping-circle jerking - where a dictator with that kind of power would be allowed to keep breathing.


#17

The constitutional limit on a president, which you ignore, is impeachment.

It may not be wise for a president to have the authority to pardon whoever he wishes for crimes against the United States, but that’s what the constitution gives the president.


#18

I live on Earth.

This is what is written in the Constitution:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. ~Article II, Section 2, Clause 1

Not, “except for himself.” Instead it reads, “except for Cases of Impeachment.” That is the only constitutional limit on the power of the president to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States.

Note that means Federal Law- which is what the Justice Department enforces. That does not mean state law. Governors have that power, not the President.

So all this hysteria about whether he could pardon himself that goes on about him being above the law or able to take a machine gun and kill people and pardon himself is a bunch of nonsense propagated by the shallow resistance.

So if the president turned out to be serial killer (I wrote a story where Ted Bundy never was caught and ended up president) then he couldn’t pardon himself for the crimes of murder he did in those states.

But again. President Trump, whatever his faults (and there are plenty) did NOT say he was above the law or a lot of other nonsense a lot of folk are saying he said. He said he has the power to pardon himself but he won’t because he’s done nothing wrong.

Does that mean he thinks he’s above the law? Does that mean he wants to be a dictator? Those are legitimate questions to discuss and debate based on his statement. But it extremely is disturbing that the media narrative is to not discuss these questions but just assume them from the start.

When people Center-Left and to their left begin accepting this kind of gate keeping by the media on what we think, we are supporting them to do it over and over again. Next time it might be like 15 years ago when the media was selling us weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

In fact next time might be the media supporting what seems to be Trump’s agenda with Iran now that he’s put Bolton in power: to sell us a false narrative that Iran is so evil we must attack them.


#19

You are taking a very liberal reading of that power. One of my many gripes about the founding fathers is that they were way too general in their wording of the Constitution. So many ways to interpret things, most of which has caused harms too numerous to mention. Just like the Bible. Any evangelical snake oil salesman worth his salt can interpret any passage 9 ways from Sunday to back up any insane idea he may have. In any event, your interpretation in my view is false, as it does not specifically state that the President can pardon himself. The founders were from a more innocent time, perhaps, and it never occurred to them that they would have to specifically write " except himself" in the text. Sadly, the Rethugs in Congress (and probably most Dims) will take your view as well, and Trump will officially make the Presidency a dictatorship in the next few months. And there will be no impeachment, as the Rethugs put their party before country, and the Dims won’t impeach even should they gain the majority in both chambers in the fall. No way would they want to set that precedent, when they know someday there will be another Dim in the Oval Office, and they want to take full advantage of all the dictatorial powers that Trump is granting the Presidency, for themselves someday.

In essence, then, the American democratic experiment is over. We have a dictator that is - literally - above the law, and untouchable, just as long as he makes sure that his team holds the reins of power. If this is what the Founders envisioned, then they were assholes. If it is not, then they did a piss-poor job of establishing the system of checks and balances that were supposedly the safeguards against tyranny.


#20

Thanks for taking the time to answer, which was an awesome one, btw. I concur with your points about losing the origin of the real story to further a political agenda; a sly form ( variation ) of manufacturing consent and a consensus. And, much more at its worst. That’s so true but never too obvious, or its lousy propaganda.
I think what Roseanne said was racist and a nasty joke, all in one. Just sayin’.
Schumer is horrible and I’ve said as much many times. He sure can shake a money tree, though. The rotten bastard has mastered that black art; like a 2nd story man masters the art of sitting quietly, while the cops search the apts on the 4th floor. A smooth, but conniving, operator that one.