“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute,” Mr. Schumer said.
The following paragraph tells you everything you need to know about Senator Charles Schumer (D, New York) and his Democratic compatriots:
“Let’s say you’re a person who doesn’t believe in undisclosed money; let’s say you’re a person who doesn’t want to go to a 501(c)(4) because you’re worried maybe there’ll be an IRS investigation sometime down the road,” Schumer told reporters. “You can write one check to a joint committee of 232 House members and give them each the maximum.”
Please take note of this. Democratic Senators are a funny bunch, sometimes. Point out that they’re mandated, Constitutionally, to pass a budget every year? They yawn. Remind them that it’s rank hypocrisy to lecture people on fiscal responsibility when they won’t show any? You get a shrug in response. Observe that shenanigans like Senate Democrats not doing a budget since 2009 is one major reason why people hate Congress more than Nickleback? They’ll just chuckle and smirk.
The Senate’s third-ranking Democrat said Sunday that the upper chamber will pass a budget this year, something House Republican leaders have insisted as they’ve agreed to hold a vote on a short-term increase in the nation’s borrowing limit.
Admittedly, he’s currently up more or less two-to-one against a hypothetical Kudlow candidacy. Currently. As I noted last week, Schumer wasn’t exactly challenged in his last election, and his current relationship with Wall Street threatens to clash badly with the President’s unfolding plan to demonize that institution. How well his supposed invulnerability will hold up under a real political assault has yet to be seen. Aggressive, ambitious New York Republicans, please note…
Which is great for a Democratic Senator, these days; but what it is not is the kind of numbers that make an actual electoral challenge a self-evident absurdity, particularly in an election cycle where Republicans can win statewide in New Jersey and Massachusetts.
Don’t get me wrong: he’s got a fearsome reputation as a retail politician. But I can’t help but notice that Senator Schumer’s a two-term Senator whose last election was against someone who nobody outside the NY GOP leadership actually wanted. Did you know that they didn’t have a Republican primary in 2004? Or that they went over the head of the guy who actually raising money via the grassroots? Or that the eventual Republican nominee didn’t get the nod from NY’s Conservative party? You probably already know that Schumer’s an exceptionally arrogant man who talks as if God Himself signed over the title to his Senate seat, but then, so does everybody else*.
So. If you’re wondering why Larry Kudlow seems to be at least thinking about this, that would be why. It’s not actually impossible to take the Senator down… particularly if the President really does try to play the faux-populist card against Wall Street, which by the way absolutely loves Schumer (or at least keeps their protection payments up to date with him). The American political graveyard is full of people whose careers came to an abrupt end after somebody said “Define ‘unbeatable.'”
Moe Lane
*Remember this?
Still think that the American people really don’t care, Chuckie?
The Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday striking down limits on corporate and union spending in elections is “un-American,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday.
Schumer, a top Senate Democrat who formerly ran their campaign committee, said he would hold hearings on the decision in the coming weeks.
“I think it’s an un-American decision,” Schumer said at a press conference Thursday. “I think when the American people understand what this radical decision has meant they will be even more furious and concerned about special interest influence in politics than they are today.”
Democrats have responded quickly to rebuke the court’s 5-4 ruling in the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case, handed down Wednesday. The decision essentially kills a sizable portion of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as the McCain-Feingold Act for its high-profile sponsors.
Remember, folks: this guy is what the Democratic party thinks a populist looks like. To wit: a rich lawyer from Harvard who has never held a real job in his life. I’d also love to hear what he was planning to have hearings on. The inconvenience of having an independent third branch of government? The insensitivity of the American people in expecting its legislators to have a working grasp of Constitutional theory? The tragic lack of ego-affirming public exposure for Chuckie Schumer right now? Anything is possible in these halcyon times.
WASHINGTON – In a slap at President Barack Obama, former President Bill Clinton will headline a fundraiser for a New York congresswoman challenging White House-backed Sen. Kristen Gillibrand in the state’s Democratic primary.
Clinton has not endorsed in the race, but his efforts to help Rep. Carolyn Maloney could be seen as a snub to Gillibrand and the Obama White House. Matt McKenna, a spokesman for Clinton, said he will be attending a July 20 fundraiser in New York.
