Schumer’s Silence

February 18, 2013

As a New Yorker I sure hope Schumer will at least bring our state some pork in return… It ain’t kosher, but I’d at least like to know I got dinner before I was f***ed in the ass

(NYSUN) It’s too soon to say whether Senator Hagel will ultimately be confirmed when the Senate gets back from its vacation. It’s not too soon to suggest that the big loser in this affair looks increasingly likely to be Senator Schumer. He has long cast himself as a guardian on the Jewish front in our vast array of national interests. This was pointed out in a column by John Podhoretz that was issued Friday in the New York Post. It casts in sharp relief the fact that the senator crumpled in the case of Mr. Hagel.
Crumpling is a pattern with Mr. Schumer. We remember watching him in the mid-1990s, when he was in the House and the issue of Jerusalem came to a head. There came a moment when the Congress was going to mark the point by insisting that the American embassy in Israel, situated at Tel Aviv, be moved to Israel’s capital city. It was a favorite issue of Senator Moynihan, who once visited the offices of the Jewish Forward newspaper voicing indignation over a State Department telephone directory that had a listing for Jerusalem as not being in Israel.
The Democrats were being put on the spot by the Republicans, who had swept to power in both houses of Congress and were, at the prodding of Senator Dole, agitating to make an issue of Jerusalem. Mr. Schumer was among those boasting that the Democrats and the Clinton administration were finally going to fix the situation. At the 11th hour, however, the Democrats watered down the Jerusalem Embassy Act, proposing an escape hatch in the form of a waiver by which the president could evade the requirement to move the embassy.
It was, as we recall it, Dianne Feinstein who first advanced this dodge, which was promptly used by President Clinton. Senator Schumer stood silent. It wasn’t a party problem. President George W. Bush and President Obama also used the waiver, and Mr. Schumer stood silent then, too. The result is that although the act of 1995 set a goal of moving the embassy by 1999, we are coming up on a generation since the law was passed and the embassy hasn’t been moved. What reason is there to think that Mr. Schumer might have gone to the mat this time?
Mr. Schumer started cheering on the Republican opposition when Mr. Hagel was first advanced as a potential defense nominee. The minute we heard of Mr. Schumer’s bravado, we made a bet that he would reverse himself. It’s not a bet on which we got rich, and we’d have rather lost it. The fact, in any event, is that Mr. Schumer has been put to shame on his own boast by such stronger senators as Lindsey Graham and James Inhofe. New York’s senior senator could regain his reputation in a fell swoop were he to stand up on what he knows in his heart to be a tragic error by Mr. Obama. It’s unlikely, though we’d be happy to be proven wrong.


What it will take to defeat Hagel

December 21, 2012

If President Obama decides to nominate Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary, here’s an idea of what it will take to defeat him.

Defeating a Hagel nomination, however, will be more difficult than mounting a vocal opposition, in large part due to the Senate’s tradition of collegiality. Tradition indicates the Senate would extend a former senator — one whose Senate colleagues would be directly involved in his confirmation — considerable latitude. Sources say that, in order for the opposition to have a real chance at defeating a possible Hagel nomination, a sitting senator — around whom others can rally — must be willing to mount a battle against him. A founder of the non-partisan national security organization Secure America Now, Allen Roth tells National Review Online, “If nobody takes the lead in the Senate,” it’s unlikely the Hagel foes will be able to get much traction. “We’re at the early stages of this,” says Brooks. “My sense is obviously that there will be somebody that emerges. I just haven’t heard of anybody yet.”

Who will take the lead? Jim DeMint is gone. Joe Lieberman will be gone. John McCain? Don’t make me laugh. I’d bet on two Senators, from opposite sides of the aisle: Marco Rubio (because he’s impeccably honest and pro-Israel and won’t just hold his nose and vote in favor) and Chuck Schumer (because New York voters will destroy him in 2016 – when he’s up for reelection – if he doesn’t take action to stop Hagel). 
And it’s not just about Israel. It’s also about Iran:

The concerns over a Hagel nomination extend beyond the former senator’s views on Israel. A senior congressional aide tells me that it is the former senator’s views on Iran that may ultimately prove to be the major roadblock to his confirmation. “That’s the biggest question that will be asked,” he says. The RJC’s Brooks echoed this, noting, “The next secretary of defense is going to have to deal with [Iran’s drive for a nuclear weapon] on Day One.” Hagel’s views on the matter, says Brooks, “put him at odds ostensibly with the administration position, with the Senate, with the Congress, and with the American people.”

In the Senate, Hagel consistently voted against imposing sanctions on Iran and has for years advocated unconditional negotiations with the regime. “Isolating nations is risky,” he has said. “It turns them inward, and makes their citizens susceptible to the most demagogic fear mongering.” He has also suggested that he may not be opposed to Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon. “The genie of nuclear armaments is already out of the bottle, no matter what Iran does,” he wrote in his book. “In this imperfect world, sovereign nation-states possessing nuclear weapons capability . . . will often respond with some degree of responsible, or at least sane, behavior.” Hagel “comes from a growing school of thought — I guess Ron Paul is one of the godfathers of this,” observes Roth, “that if we have enough free trade and talk to our enemies enough, they’ll leave us alone.”

Could we see another Kirk-Menendez tag team?


Senator Chuck Schumer calls for restrictions on the First Amendment

July 18, 2012

Chuck Schumer: There Should Be Limits to the First Amendment
Katie Pavlich – While debating the DISCLOSE Act last night on the Senate floor, New York Senator Chuck Schumer called for restrictions on the First Amendment, citing other laws and regulations already in place in the United States that do so.

I believe there ought to be limits because the First Amendment is not absolute. No amendment is absolute. You can’t scream ‘fire’ falsely in a crowded theater. We have libel laws. We have anti-pornography laws. All of those are limits on the First Amendment. Well, what could be more important than the wellspring of our democracy? And certain limits on First Amendment rights that if left unfettered, destroy the equality — any semblance of equality in our democracy — of course would be allowed by the Constitution. And the new theorists on the Supreme Court who don’t believe that, I am not sure where their motivation comes from, but they are just so wrong. They are just so wrong.      More


New York State Begins to Hurt Dems

September 20, 2010

Richard Baehr

Good news for the GOP in the first post-primary poll in the New York governorship: Andrew Cuomo’s lead over Republican Carl Paladino is only 54% to 38%.  This may not sound all that encouraging, and  Cuomo is still very likely to be elected the next Governor of New York.  But in pre- primary polls, before a GOP candidate was named, Cuomo ran 30-40 points ahead of all of  his potential opponents.

Since New York voters know pretty much everything about Cuomo and Paladino is a virtual unknown, Paladino has room to grow his numbers (or of course shrink them, if he proves a disastrous candidate).  

The significance of a close  race at the top of the ticket, even if Cuomo wins, is that it will help the GOP in many of the close  House races in New York State in which the GOP has a chance to take back seat lost since 2004.  After the 2004 election, the GOP held 10 of New York’s 29 House seats. Now they hold but two. Seven of the seats that were lost  in the last six years are now regarded as tossups or slightly leaning to the Democrat  this cycle, including: NY 1, NY 13, NY 19, NY 20, NY 23, NY 24, and NY 25, and the GOP is considered to be  ahead  in the open seat race in New York 29.

There have not been any post-primary polls taken yet for the U.S. Senate race between appointed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who has never run statewide before,  and GOP nominee Joe DioGuardi. Gillibrand led DioGuardi by 20 points in pre-primary polls, but this lead may be cut in half now that the GOP has a nominee, rather than a potential opponent for Gillibrand.

While the GOP remains a long-shot to win the governor’s race or either of the two Senate races in New York this year (Chuck Schumer is also running for a full term, Gillibrand to complete Hillary Clinton’s term),  if the Cuomo and Gillibrand races are close enough, it forces the Democrats to spend money in an expensive state for media buys,  that could have been better used in much closer Senate  races like Wisconsin,  Nevada , Washington State, Illinois and Colorado, or close Governors races in Georgia, Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Texas.  And if the GOP is to take over control of the House,  picking up a bunch of seats in New York has to be part of the package. Having reasonably competitive races for Governor and the Gillibrand seat  is a big plus for the GOP in New York and other states as well.

let’s just say that things are going well enough that New York is seriously thinking about it’s values. a good sign, but we are still in hell.