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 $7.5 million. We tried the honey approach rather than the vinegar approach, and it worked.”
--SNIP--
I agree. Keep the faith and stand proud because we are conservatives and have a vision for our great country, unlike the democrats. God bless and God speed with your excellent translations.
Absolutely!
They can always say that they voted for their conservatives because of what they said they would do. And of course, they don't know what they'll really do anymore than we know what ours will do.
The only thing we can say for certain is that these conservatives are new dogs with an uproven record.
Our "conservatives" have a proven record, and many are unworthy.
Hopefully we have cleaned out many of the unworthy but as a previous poster many clear, there are still plenty more.
Memo to Mr. Schumer: Pride goes before destruction.
The amount of weight one throws around dictates just how much damage he sustains when he hits the inevitable Wall.
Evad,
Again, you're right on the mark.
I confess: I wanted one f*g Senator to lose even if it means losing the Senate, Chaffee! What a smug, in-your-Repub./Conserv.-face ba$tard that was!!
How long did we have to kiss his a$$ and for what???
You don't need to feel bad for that one. If we had to lose, his leaving was a perk.
I'm trying to look at this in a positive sense.
It ain't easy...but I'm trying.
It's terrifying to have RATs in control during wartime but I'm hoping that the remaining pubbies and the Dog Dims will keep 'em in check. And, after all, the majority is razor slim in the senate..49-49-2.
I saw that list of dem senators and here is my thoughts on possible players to run against them:
Pryor - Arkansas versus Mike Huckabee (solid R)
Biden - Delaware versus ??? (move in from another state?)
Durbin - Illinois versus Mike Ditka (considered it before)
Harkin - Iowa versus ?????
Landrieu - Louisiana versus (some sports figure as political figures are idiots in that state!)
Kerry - Massachusetts versus Mitt Romney (not presidential)
Levin - Michigan versus Jeff Daniels (actor - no jokes pls)
Baucus - Montanta versus Marc Racicot
Lautenberg - New Jersey versus ???? (move)
Reed - Rhode Island versus ?????
Johnson - S. Dakota versus (former gov?)
Rockefeller - W. Virginia versus Rick Santorum (move in)
That's my 2 cents worth!
Hey Princess,
I have no problems with your picks. You correctly had problems with my state-picks because you didn't find conservative names for them which is exactly my point.
You can discuss your picks with the #140 poster. What I am saying is: there are some states that will not elect a Conservative Republican in my lifetime.
For our party's sake, I hope I don't have long to go!
Time to pull the same tactics the leftists have used against GWB's nominations and while doing so, remind the public that if it was fair for the rats to do it, then it's fair for the GOP to do it. Maybe we can get our own "gang of 14" together.
I am writing a book, about how to build a permanent—a long-term majority,” Mr. Schumer said
_______________________________________________________
"Mein Kampf" has already been written
Heheh----and so was "Daydreams of a New York Politician."
It looks like they're starting to do just that.
I do apologize and I don't want it back. I'll not even attempt to draw you into the fray any further.
Thanks anyway! :-)
Woohooooo!
I wasn't complaining!
Nah, they'll Murtha Alcee. But don't expect these folks to govern from the center-right, Liz. They lied to win the election. The agenda in DC will swing violently to the left,. no matter what these scumbags said at home.
Your take is very reassuring----centrist voters will soon know they've been bamboozled.
I'm sure Schmucky's colleagues will be thrilled to hear that all the money is now going to New York.
I still don't understand how some 'conservatives' hated Santorum so much for helping Specter that they were willing to let Casey won.
Ohoooooooooo! Is that what happened to Rick Santorum? And here I've been thinking it was excessive voter fraud in Philly and Pittsburgh!!
Takes some of us longer to get it than others.
Or, it could have been that Casey's agenda was completely unknown...or...it could have been that few voters really know next to nothing about much of anything....
I'll have to think about this some more and get back to you!
Nancee
Liz, the "centrist" voters are the same people who take up two lanes on the freeway, voted for Perot, went 50% for Kerry, elect Teddy, Murtha, Boxer, and Joe Biden, then shop in Wal-Mart wearing sweat pants.
Your faith in their ultimate redemption and their ability to figure this out is heartwarming. But next time you're in the Library, look at a 1955 Readers Digest, and then compare it to the latest issue. There's an awful good chance that our electorate has been dumbed-down past the point of being rationally analyzed.
I don't read the RD but I surmise it excerpts selected articles, while the info-world has been drastically altered by the i-net. Can't underestimate the power of the internet to deliver torrents of information in a nanosecod with a few clicks of the mouse. A dumbed-down electorate can also be attributed to liberal schools imposing NJEA-Planned Parenthood-type social change education, rather than basic learning.
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.