Chuck Schumer for Majority Leader

Reid must go, but (4.00 / 2)

I'd prefer to see Carl Levin, provided only that he'd be willing to push for a energy and transportation policies that aren't geared toward the Detroit-based corporate headquarters of the American auto industry.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 01:26:10 AM UTC

Levin has great substance (0.00 / 0)

but I don't know if he has the personality to bully people into getting things done

---

by: Roatti @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 01:35:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reid, Reid... Where have I heard that name before? (2.00 / 4)

Oh... Yeah. I remember now:

Chuck Schumer's good friend, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, is backing Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand over her potential rival from the other side of the Hill, Rep. Carolyn Maloney.

Some of those establishment endorsements? Might come back to bite the endorsee in the ankle.

---

by: Hudson @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 03:53:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's telling that you found an excuse to bash (4.00 / 4)

Gillibrand even in THIS thread which has absolutely nothing to do with her.

It's like you have no other reason for being here.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 04:45:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I guess this means we have to primary every Democratic incumbent in the Senate... (4.00 / 3)

seeing as they're all endorsed by Harry Reid.

Oh, and the POTUS of course. No one endorsed by Reid can be trusted.

---

by: Kanamit @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 04:46:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

troll rated. (4.00 / 1)

You attempted to hijack the thread. You can't say you didn't.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 07:09:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure anyone will (0.00 / 0)

even Schumer...I can't think of any Majority Leader in history who was able to bully people into getting things done.

Even LBJ had to water down Civil Rights significantly to pass it.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 04:46:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

In the 50's, he did (0.00 / 0)

but as Prez, he strong-armed congress into doing substantive civil rights int he 60's.

---

by: Roatti @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 05:37:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

But even the 1964 act was watered down (0.00 / 0)

pretty significantly. but in hindsight what passed was strong enough for us to forget that.

---

by: nrafter530 @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 05:55:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not Schumer... (4.00 / 1)

Sorry, but Wall Street is too fresh in my mind. I think that Schumer has done some good things, but I want someone with more progressive credentials than Schumer.

That's why I would be willing to go for Dick Durbin. Unlike Reid and Schumer, Durbin voted against the Iraq War and has been more progressive than either of those men on issues that have come before the Senate. He also has a bond with President Obama from their days in the Senate together which would only help get key issues like health care reform brought to the forefront and not put on hold so that a certain someone can get back to Nevada.

Durbin is more of a leader in my eyes. Reid is soft and has caved one too many times for my liking.

---

by: robert.harding @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 02:54:46 AM UTC

Anyone but Reid... (4.00 / 2)

At this point I'd be more than willing to consider Ben "I worked with Republicans to eliminate Pell grant increases in the stimulus" Nelson over Harry "if only I had x + 1 votes" Reid (where x is the number of Democratic Senators).  

---

by: Kanamit @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 04:31:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not Ben Nelson either... (0.00 / 0)

Sorry, Reid is better than Ben Nelson. Ben Nelson, if such a coalition existed in the Senate, would probably be a Blue Dog. Can't say the same for Reid.

---

by: robert.harding @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 11:08:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well I was mostly joking about Nelson. (4.00 / 1)

But Ben Nelson actually seems to be halfway competent at what he does. It's too bad it's too often screwing us over.

What I'm trying to say is that I would gladly take a halfway competent moderate for majority leader over the Reid, who has proven his incompetence and spinelessness time and time again.

Schumer isn't perfect obviously: he's a tool of Wall Street, and isn't perfect on other issues either. But he's very good at politics, and as a bonus, he doesn't seem to be constantly worrying about what Republicans think. So while he might not always be with us, when he is I think he could actually get things passed.

That being said, I would gladly support Durbin, and most other Democratic Senators, for majority leader. Schumer just looks like he would be the most likely alternative.

---

by: Kanamit @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 04:12:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Durbin would also be good (0.00 / 0)

But Schumer could fund a lot of NY infrastructure projects.  Schumer's ties to Wall St are troublesome, but does Durbin really have no pet insdutries?

---

by: Roatti @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 05:56:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm sure Durbin has... (4.00 / 1)

Pet industries. They all do. It's all dependent upon what state they come from and what's big in that particular state.

However, Wall Street isn't exactly your average pet industry. We are talking about Wall Street here, not something like hydrogen fuel cell technology (which is a pet industry for Eric Massa and even a few other members of Congress). Wall Street is a beast. Schumer just happens to be very connected to that beast.

---

by: robert.harding @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 11:11:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Durbin is a wimp (0.00 / 0)

Remember when George "macaca" Allen was running for reelection in 2006 against Jim Webb?  Dick Durbin allowed Allen to steal his defense appropriation amendment to provide funding for veterans with head injuries.  Literally!  You can read my column detailing the disgusting, wimpy mess.

No, thanks.  Give me a majority leader who is ready to lead.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 13:05:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Personally (0.00 / 0)

I think the August deadline was unrealistic...this is the biggest domestic policy leglslation passed in like 40 years and we were going to do it in six weeks?

I had always had October as a benchmark...if we wanted to get it done in August, we shoulda started in April, not June.

---

by: nrafter530 @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 05:16:44 AM UTC

To be fair, this isn't exactly out of the blue... (0.00 / 0)

We've been talking about universal healthcare for almost 100 years.  

---

by: Adama D. Brown @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 05:42:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well yes (0.00 / 0)

but this bill, these ideas, are out of the blue...there wasn't a bill there when we started, we're drafting one to fit our unique position at this moment.

That takes time.

---

by: nrafter530 @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 05:56:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think (0.00 / 0)

that the August deadline was a way to get it moving at all, an anti-stall tactic.  Honestly, some of the push should now be coming from us, not some hyper-aggressive majority leader.  Make some calls!

---

by: robinia @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 12:41:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Schumer would be perfect. (0.00 / 0)

He was rumored to have had the votes in 2004 and again in 2006, but declined to go for it both times out of deference.

That needs to end.

CHUCK!

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 07:11:51 AM UTC

Can't agree (0.00 / 0)

Schumer shows an appalling amount of deference to local GOP electeds whenever he shows up around here. (We stand around like awkward step children.) What has he been willing to really go to the mat for?  

---

by: Historical Pessimist @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 14:07:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

YES!!! (4.00 / 2)

I have been promoting this for some time.  Power politics is not pretty, but it is necessary.  My son has been reading Caro's biography of LBJ, which we have been discussing.  A successful legislative leader requires 2 things: (1) access to power, and (2) a willingness to use it in order to influence other legislators.  In Washington, the simple reality is that power means money.  For LBJ, power derived from access to Texas oil money.  He used that power to accomplish a lot of great things.  Today, power in the Democratic Party comes from access to sources of money willing to support progressive causes.  Schumer has that, and he has shown a willingness to use that power.  Reid is really nothing more than a social director - he does nothing to implement party discipline and move legislation.  I think that a Schumer leadership would be a very different story.

---

by: prince nekhlyudov @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 14:18:12 PM UTC

Those Caro books are AMAZING (0.00 / 0)

some of the best reads I've ever enjoyed

---

by: Roatti @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 16:05:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Schumer would be perfect - he's got a pair of big brass (4.00 / 2)

'you know whats' and won't waste time trying to negotiate with the current Republicans.  Maybe Reid is tougher behind closed doors than he comes across in public, but I doubt it.

For all my annoyance with Mitchell, the Minority leader is a master of the soundbite and can utter the most ridiculous Republican talking point with a straight face.

I suspect Schumer has some on LBJ's blood in him - he knows how to cash favors for votes & when it's time to make it clear that if a Senator doesn't vote the way the Senate needs them to vote, s/he can kiss one of their favorite projects goodbye.

Yeah, Chuck!

HylasBrook

---

by: HylasBrook @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 18:51:57 PM UTC

The wife and I were just saying this the other day. (4.00 / 2)

We also thought last year that the wrong Senator from New York ran for President.  We're big fans of Chuck, and we believe that if he were the Majority Leader, we might actually get a few things done for a change.

---

by: Steaming Pile @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:48:53 PM UTC

No Thanks (0.00 / 0)

Schumer is a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs. No Thanks.

---

by: jwaggoner @ Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 18:22:28 PM UTC