And I don't say that just because of my extended exposure to him and his political career.
The cloying, insistent need to render "constituent service"-even the most meaningless, and at times counterproductive-not out of any abiding faith in public service, but merely in order to perpetuate his own fetid political career, and accomplish his pernicious political aims.
This faux modesty, and incomprehensible compulsion to appear "objective"-even as he realizes that being an avowed leftist wouldn't cost him much popularity in a state like this-when even the most clueless lay observer can discern his base political objectives.
In fact, his whole modus operandi is partisanship above all else, which makes his ridiculous posturing appear even more absurd.
At least Feingold-as repugnant as his views are-is sincere in his beliefs.
You can understand where he's coming from, just as you could easily comprehend the beliefs of a Trotskyite, or Jehovah's Witness, or any other true believer, whose views don't hold any nuance.
If for some inexplicable reason-maybe the accidental ingestion of a batch of shrooms-President Bush were to nominate someone like Kathleen Sullivan, or Akhil Reed Amar, or some other doctrinaire liberal, Feingold would probably vote for that nominee.
Schumer-on the other hand-is a completely different beast.
His internal circuitry is such that the goal itself-even presuming for a moment that it reflects his genuine beliefs-is subordinated to the actors.
He's a Democrat, he hates Bush, therefore he must oppose everything that Bush suggests.
Even if Bush were to nominate Alan Dershowitz I'm convinced that Schumer would find a reason to vote against him.
It is such a fundamentally bizarre way of thinking that I can't even begin to comprehend it.
Chuck Schumer's like a two-year old -- Very negative and kind of bold. He can't say "Aye." He must defy a judge who's found to be pure gold.