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--
Schmuckie's right on one thing: with a Dem majority they rule the judiciary committee, led by that 'rat Leahy. If they stick together they can stymie any Bush nominee in committee. A nominee will have to be a superlative legalist to get through (e.g. would Roberts and Alito get through this new senate?). Look what they did to Estrada for two years.
There is thread on here talking about this.
That's exactly right, they ran as GOP lite, especially in the Hosue, but they will vote the radical left pelosi/schumer line.
Sitting on some circuit nominee is one thing. Sitting on a Supreme Court nominee is a whole new ballgame.
You're not alone I feel the same. And now to read that this arrogant ass is 'writing' a book! Aaack!
I predict that in the coming years the term "schumer" will take on the same meaning as "clymer".
Look for several leftie retirements on the court soon with Bush forced to choose moderates.
Pride comes before the fall. Chucky should take a look at what just happened to his Republican buds.
It was either AntiGuv or Torie (forget which) who pointed out that senate rules require that all Supreme Court nominees get a floor vote. Despite the partisan atmosphere in DC, most senators still have friends on the other side. Bush could name Ben Nelson's conservative golfing buddy to the court, for example.
Nope, there won't be a fight at all. They simply won't schedule a vote.
Recall how hard it was to get Alito and Roberts to a vote and that's when the Republicans had a clear and arguably filibuster-proof coalition.
Frist and his fellow incompetent traitors had their chance to take the issue to the mat and settle it once and for all via "the nuclear option" or "the Constitutional option", as you prefer, let the Dems stamp their little feet, declare them Out Of Order, and make it official that delaying tactics and refusing to vote was not an option, and they refused to do it.
So we're all screwed.
And this is news? Did he vote to confirm Alito? Answer - Schumer (D) No
Thank you---I was waiting for an astute FReeper like you to come up with that insight.
There's no going back. Not only do the Dims have to look more rightish---but they have to be as pure as the driven snow. No less a liberal than Newsweak's Eleanor Clift said that if the Dims give a leadership position to, say, Alcee Hastings, an impeached former judge, they will have a two year majority.
Thus the dustup over Murtha's elevation has nothing to do with Iraq---but with his past dealings.
The Dims swinging right also drives Republicans even more rightward. Repubs cannot win without churchgoing conservatives. The Pubbies lost Tuesday b/c their base could not stomach the foisting of pro-abortion liberals like RNC's Mehlman and Guiliani on the party.
OK, Chuckie, let's rock & roll. Who are the 2 members of the USSC most likely to croak or be unable to continue? Stevens, 86, and Ginsburg, 73 and with cancer. Both big libs. Fine, deadlock the Senate, the SC can pump out 4-3 decisions in favor of the original interpretation of the Constitution for a long time.
unless there is some health related incident, I don't think Bush 43 will get another appointment.
"Power is the most important, " said Mr. Schemer. There, fixed it.
We understand you just fine, comrade.
Stevens is 86 and Ginsburg has had cancer and is 73. I don't wish these people ill (no pun intended), but statistics say that people with these characteristics don't tend to live a long time.
If there's a vacancy on the court, wouldn't that most likely occur if they lost a Leftist?
I think Schmuckie Schumer may find out we'll have little incentive to correct that if so.
we didn't need to use the "nuclear option" to get Roberts and Alito through - and the delays were minimal, mostly due to Specter wanting to be "agreeable". now I will agree, that kindness got us nothing.
Look at all their ages. The 4 liberal judges average 15 years older than the 4 conservative judges. Liberals are going to have to pull out every stop to keep the court from going right.
Basically, it came down to Montana.
Those folks in Montana who either voted libertarian, or stayed home and didn't vote for Burns - are the reason Roe v Wade will likely never be overturned now.
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.