Posted on 11/15/2006 12:12:55 PM PST by Liz
Exultant Chuck Says He’ll Veto the Next Alito; New King of Washington Promises Moderate Court; Rove-like, Plans Permanent Democratic Majority; More N.Y. Homeland Money, Iraqi Federalism
More than the inability to influence Iraq policy or the President’s tax cuts, Chuck Schumer says that the single greatest failure of the Democrats as an opposition party was allowing Samuel Alito to join the Supreme Court.
“Judges are the most important,” said Mr. Schumer, who orchestrated the implausible Democratic takeover of the Senate last week. “One more justice would have made it a 5-4 conservative, hard-right majority for a long time. That won’t happen.”
From now on, all the President’s judicial appointments will need to meet the requirements of Mr. Schumer, the Park Slope power broker who has happily accepted the mantle of chief architect for the Democrats’ effort to build a majority for the 2008 elections and beyond.
The Senator also intends, in the coming months, to rework the federal government’s funding priorities in New York’s favor, to steer the Democrats toward a radically new position on Iraq and, while he’s at it, to cement his position as the unofficially declared tactical guru for the national party.
And in case anyone’s wondering, yes, Mr. Schumer is entirely comfortable with this sort of power.
With his Gold Toe–stockinged feet dangling, the 55-year-old slumped in his armchair on Friday morning as if it were a leather throne. On his apartment’s front door, a neighbor taped up a front page of The New York Times heralding the Democrats’ success and scrawled “Congratulations Schumers!” across the cover.
The candidates that Mr. Schumer recruited, groomed and bankrolled had won a comprehensive victory over the incumbent Republicans, giving the Democrats a narrow majority in the Senate to complement a rout in the House. Since the election, Mr. Schumer has been awash in attention from the media, his Democratic colleagues and even from the President, who called, quite sportingly, soon after the results were finalized.
For Mr. Schumer, who was installed on Tuesday as Vice Chairman of the Democratic caucus and officially reinstated as head of the DSCC, the attention couldn’t be coming at a better time.
“I am writing a book, about how to build a permanent—a long-term majority,” Mr. Schumer said during an early-morning interview in the pink den of his apartment near Grand Army Plaza. He sat between a view of lower Manhattan and portraits of Democratic icons Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Al Smith. “I generally have an eye toward longer-term strategy and politics, and I think my colleagues rely on me for that.”
His book, Positively American: Winning Back the Middle Class Majority One Family at a Time, will be released right around the President’s State of the Union address, and will fit neatly into the role that Mr. Schumer now envisions for himself as tactician in chief for the newly ascendant Democrats.
“I’ve always had some influence, and I guess now, because of what we’ve been able to accomplish, I have some more influence,” Mr. Schumer said. “So when I say we shouldn’t do this or we should do that, I guess people will pay a little more attention. Or go along with it, even if they don’t agree.”
Certainly, the party wasn’t united behind Mr. Schumer’s election strategy this year. He championed a traditional approach: directing the bulk of the party’s financial and logistical resources toward handpicked candidates in a few competitive races. Howard Dean, who heads the Democratic National Committee, advocated a “50-state strategy,” spreading money around toward the longer-term goal of making the party viable even in areas that have been Republican strongholds.
After the victory—the Democrats picked up six Republican-held seats and defended every Democratic one—Mr. Schumer hardly seemed ready to concede the point.
“Fifty-state is a good thing to do, but it didn’t help us in this election,” said Mr. Schumer. “My only disagreement with Howard is that he should help us fund taking back the majority, because it would make a difference with things like the Supreme Court. And he came through—he ended up giving us $7.5 million. We tried the honey approach rather than the vinegar approach, and it worked.”
--SNIP--
Do some people think those Dims that ran as GOP-lite would vote with the Republicans on judges? I am amazed because it will never happen IMHO.
I'd settle for 'pride goeth before a really deep pothole'...
He's a disgusting excuse for a human being..he and all like him.
Can a governor remove a senator for ethical problems? Wow, wouldn't that be fun.
I am amazed. You guys don't understand -- they will vote with Schumer as Freshman Senators. There is only ONE Senator in the Dims who will vote with Republicans in the Senate and that is Ben Nelson of NE. Here is one of your new leaning right Senators from Ohio - Sherrod Brown with a lifetime ACU rating of 8 with 13 years of service in the House.
If you think that Casey from PA will vote for a Bush Judge, think again, or the new Senators from VA, MT, RI, OH or MO. Do you realize how liberal some of these new Senators are?
Dems are not going right -- their candidates were told what to run on and if they were actually pro-life and vote against the Dims, they will out the next time because that is how they work -- louzy committee assignments, nothing for their states, and the list goes on. They will be blackballed if they vote with Republicans.
Someone needs to back to reality about the Democrat Party and not swallow the koolaid.
Note that Schumer is entirely comfortable with filibustering judges that are not to his personal liking. This debate illustrates the most base philosophical differences between the parties. The Republican Party, obsessed with order and process as they are, would probably never adopt such an obstructionist strategy. It offends them.
Liberal Democrats are revolutionaries. They know nothing of order and process, because they're dedicated to tearing it down. Republicans are preservationists. Notice that Republicans argued for nominees by using the traditional, "He is qualified, and deserves to be on the bench." Remember that they voted 96-0, I believe, for Ruth Bader Ginsburg!
Democrats didn't bother arguing. They boldly stated that Bush's judges would rule differently than they believed was right, and refused to consider them. Republicans should try understanding the Democrats motivation here, and start arguing for judges based on their sound philosophy and beliefs, rather than on their "qualifications." It would answer the Democrat's questions in the minds of the public.
The Republicans could, if they chose to do so, then filibuster every Democrat appropriation. They could shut down the workings of the Senate. I think they should use every political weapon in their arsenal, and do what is necessary to get a conservative, pro-life judge on the bench.
The question is: how badly do they want it? What is it worth it to them to have conservative jurisprudence? Is it worth getting less pork for their districts, disrupting the comfortable, day-to-day operations of the Senate that they depend on to get relected?
When that next judge retires, we'll find out a lot about what our party is truly made of.
In the Chuckster's world, Alito and Roberts are "out of the mainstream" but Chuckie, who supports partial birth abortion, is "normal". He is a sick bastard and there, I said it! He repels me.
They are NOT MODERATE. They reined in the crazies but watch how they vote.
There is a huge distinction between circuit judges and a potential USSC vacancy.
Circuit judge confirmations will either be buried under Leahy or slow to a crawl for confirmation. The media will keep this obstructionism under the radar, in their continued role as handmaidens for the Democratic party.
This scenario is not true, however, for a USSC vacancy, particularly if it comes in 2007. Everyone on this thread is too pessimistic. The media cannot and will not play cover for RAT obstructionism for a USSC vacancy. The stakes are too high, and the controversy is too delicious for the MSM to ignore. First, Bush can play the diversity card and nominate a superb strict constructionist woman or Hispanic. RATS want to filibuster that nominee in committee? Nope. Even if they report the nominee to the floor with a negative one-vote recommendation, we can and would win that floor fight. Senator Pryor is up for re-election in 2008; so is Mary Landrieu and a few others. We can win a Senate confirmation vote for the right nominee.
I agree with your analysis.
I was disagreeing with the person(s) who said this Freshman group of Senators took the Senate more right. Brown is as liberal as you can get.
BTTT
Christian news and commentary at: sacredscoop.com ...
I understand your animus, which I share in part, but the GOP did match the RATS vote for vote. We lost the independents in '06 by a margin of 3:2, and with them went the close races in MT, VA, MO, etc + several dozen House races.
We lost the women, particularly suburban women, and Catholics, mostly over Iraq and in localized areas due to corruption.
Concur. The Senate is much more liberal. What is more conservative is simply the GOP caucus, because Chafee is gone.
Very true! That was one seat I was happy to lose!
In the Chuckster's world, Alito and Roberts are "out of the mainstream" but Chuckie, who supports partial birth abortion, is "normal".
-----
Yes, in the faux world view of socialist liberals, anything not wreaking of anti-Constitution is "out of the mainstream". Liberals have to tag reality with deceptive names and descriptions. Deception and lies are their backbone. It is the only way they can slide their socialist, anti-Constitution agenda in under the radar.
Welcome to the corrupt, anti-American liberals that were handed our country by a mindless, stupid voting public.
chuck don't like dem dere eye-talian boys, do ya chuck.
'specially dem dere eye-talian boys what claims ta be american.
you do whateva you can ta screw up dem sumbit%4es, dontcha.
(why is that, fella?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.