Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate Democrats’ political guru, has a plan to poison the Tea Party by driving a wedge between its rich funders and its blue-collar rank and file.
Schumer, one of the Democrats’ most influential strategists, will argue in a major speech on Thursday that super-wealthy Tea Party donors have hijacked the grassroots movement that grew out of the economic anxiety of the 2008 financial collapse to suit their pro-big-business agenda.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) criticized New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for his gun control ads, labeling them ineffective.
“Frankly, I don’t think Bloomberg’s ads are effective,” Schumer told TIME Magazine in a report posted Thursday. “The Mayor of New York City putting ads against people in red states is not going to be effective.
So this video of a report on the news that people’s health premiums may be going up significantly next year (the number quoted was 10%: that will be important in a moment) is going around. It shows, in fact, Senator Chuck Schumer (D, NY) making what turned out to be a couple of fascinating comments along those lines:
Here’s the transcript of the relevant commentary from Sen Schumer:
“Our insurance department is empowered to protect families, and we’re going to watch them like a hawk to make sure that they do, because it they don’t these, these rates could go through the roof.”
“Is it because of Obamacare?”
“It’s in part because of Obamacare, but health care has been going up in double digits for years and years and years…”
Chuck Schumer is claiming that he’s going to pass legislation that will effectively neuter Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law if/when (and a lot of people are starting to say ‘when’) the Supreme Court upholds said legislation. Ann Althouse notes that the law is actually popular, and that even Latinos themselves are divided on whether or not it’s a good idea. I have a much more elemental take on this: Chuck Schumer has considerably less ability to dictate what or what does not get passed in this Congress – but if he really wants to get his legislation considered, there’s an easy way to do it.
Today in the Wall Street Journal we have a fairly caustic editorial about the EPA and its determination to make the city of New York pay for a 1.6 billion dollar cover for a Yonkers water reservoir, whether NYC wants to or not. Which the city of NYC does not want to do, partially because they don’t have the money, and partially because the specific problem that the EPA is demanding that NYC address isn’t actually a problem for the reservoir. And what is this specific problem?
Why, it’s the scourge of cryptosporidium (or ‘crypto’), of course.
I have a very quick question for Sen Chuck Schumer regarding his desire to create a list of people who are not allowed to go on Amtrak… no, really: the Senator from NY apparently got a little scared by reports that al-Qaeda was thinking about debating about targeting American rail lines. There’s no real indication that there’s an active terrorist plot to do that – not malignantly sexy enough, apparently – but, well, Democratic politicians panic easily.
Anyway, let’s set the scenario: I am in the Newark-Penn Station train station located in New Jersey. I wish to take an Amtrak train to the Trenton, New Jersey train station*. Please note that both locations are fully within the confines of one state: please also note that Amtrak tickets may be purchased with cash, which traditionally does not require providing ID. So here’s my question: under what authority is Congress allowed to either restrict or regulate my intrastate transportation? Please be specific, including the underlying Constitutional clause.
No, I’m being perfectly serious. Do-not-fly lists cover international flights, not national ones; if the need to regulate the latter ever came up, you could possibly stretch the Commerce Clause to fit (we do it for everything else involving interstate activities, apparently). But even then, the default domestic flight crosses state lines, except in the very largest states; Amtrak provides services to people who travel inside states, and I’d like to know precisely where the federal government would derive its authority to regulate such activity. Continue reading Chuckie Schumer’s Do Not Ride Amtrak plan.
Sourand not recognizing your greatness and not properly appreciative of all the wonderful things that your party has done to them. And you’re very, very, very indignant that they’re not running around singing your praises… and more importantly, that they’re not planning to particularly vote for most of your colleagues. So I guess that means that, instead of the voters not really caring about those little, porky amendments:
…what actually happened is that they didn’t really care for those amendments.
Anyway, Hot Air’s ‘looking forward’ to you running the Democratic side of the Senate next year; my hope that you won’t be able to do is not quite dead. After all, we’ve gotten CT-SEN down to single digits already and it isn’t even Labor Day yet. Hey: can’t win if you don’t bloody try…
…the notoriously chatty New York Democrat referred to a flight attendant as a “b[*]tch” after she ordered him to turn off his phone before takeoff.
Schumer and his seatmate, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), were chatting on their phones before takeoff when an announcement indicated that it was time to turn off the phones.
“The senator made an off-the-cuff comment under his breath that he shouldn’t have made, and he regrets it,” Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon told Shenanigans.
Just not enough to do so himself. Then again, the flight attendant was merely a woman who wakes up every day wondering Is today the day that they try to use my workspace as a bomb again? – and it’s an open question, of course, which half of that description is more instinctively scorned by Senator Chuck Schumer (D, NY). And if you think I’m being unfair… well. I suppose that if you’re likewise in the habit of muttering gender-based epithets to your female coworkers, you might have a different opinion than mine…
Everybody’s overthinking Chuck Schumer’s (D, NY) flip-flop from his 2001 stance on military tribunals:
…those who commit acts of war against the United States, particularly those who have no color of citizenship, don’t deserve the same panoply of due process rights that American citizens receive. Should Osama bin Laden be captured alive—and I imagine most Americans hope he won’t be captured alive. But if he is, it is ludicrous to suggest he should be tried in a Federal court on Center Street in Lower Manhattan.
…when asked by the reporter why Schumer now backs criminal trials over military tribunals, Schumer says he wants to see them executed.
You see, in 2001 there was a Republican running the government, and that Republican was taking the attitude that we were going to treat the 9/11 attacks as attacks. So Schumer went along with that. But now it’s 2009, and there’s a Democrat running the government, and that Democrat is taking the attitude that we are going to treat things like 9/11 as crimes. So Schumer is going to go along with that.
Wall Street has showered nearly $11 million on the Senate since the beginning of the year, and more than 15 percent of it has gone to a single senator: Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York.
Of the $10.6 million the industry has given to sitting senators this year, more than $7.7 million has gone to Democrats. Schumer got his $1.65 million; his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand took in $886,000; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada received $814,000; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut scored $603,000; Colorado freshman Michael Bennet got $401,000; and Agriculture Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas— who will have a big say on the derivatives portion of regulatory reform — got $336,000.
Mind you, it’s a perfectly rational decision on Wall Street’s part: paying protection money often is. Despite Yahoo/Politico’s somewhat disingenuous suggestion of ‘Stockholm Syndrome,’ what actually is happening here is a trade. Wall Street gives Schumer – and his new junior partner Gillibrand* – money, and Schumer makes sure that all those potentially fatal regulations and restrictions and investigations that Schumer says and talks about never happen. Remember, this is the guy who declared that the American people don’t care about “little porky amendments:” he’s about as populist as T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII. Continue reading Schumer, Gillibrand, and the Wall Street payoffs.