Category Archive 'Charles Schumer'
02 Jun 2011
Senator Charles E. Schumer
The Wall Street Journal finds Senator Chuck Schumer’s recent criticism of the regulatory impact on New York City’s financial industry of the Dodd-Frank bill, which he himself supported, to be an example of a recognizable pattern of political deception.
[W]ith Mr. Schumer, who voted to inflict this burden on an economy still struggling with high unemployment and slow growth, this is an all-too familiar pattern of behavior that can be summarized as follows:
Step One: Vote for destructive law.
Step Two: Complain about said law, while doing nothing to repeal it.
Step Three: Raise campaign money by showing to business community the volume of said complaints.
It was almost easy to forget that Mr. Schumer helped enact the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley financial accounting law when he spent much of the rest of the decade complaining about the stifling burden of financial regulations.
Looking forward, we can expect Mr. Schumer to express at myriad fundraising events his sympathy for those living with the consequences of Dodd-Frank. It’s a good bet that he’ll also claim that, if not for his valiant efforts on Capitol Hill, the financial reform would have been so much worse. And expect New York’s financial elite to keep writing checks.
There’s a word for people who keep falling for this: suckers.
05 Jul 2010
Our leaders in Washington in action and thought.
Hat tip to Ronald Nadel.
11 Mar 2009
Former Saudi Ambassador Charles Freeman said he was throwing himself under the bus, as a form of protest against the nefarious domination of American foreign policy by the International Zionist Conspiracy.
Charles W. Freeman Jr. withdrew yesterday from his appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council after questions about his impartiality were raised among members of Congress and with White House officials.
Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair said he accepted Freeman’s decision “with great regret.” The withdrawal came hours after Blair had given a spirited defense on Capitol Hill of the outspoken former ambassador.
Freeman had come under fire for statements he had made about Israeli policies and for his past connections to Saudi and Chinese interests. …
In an e-mail sent to friends yesterday evening, Freeman said he had concluded the attacks on him would not end once he was in office and that he did not believe the NIC “could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack.” He wrote that those who questioned his background employed “selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record . . . and an utter disregard for the truth.”
Such attacks, he said, “will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues.” And he said he regretted that his withdrawal may cause others to doubt the administration’s latitude in such matters.
But, as Greg Sargent reports, Chuck Schumer is trying to take credit for pushing him.
Andrew Sullivan finds the process interesting. The debate was in the blogs, not the MSM.
There are a couple of things worth noting about this minor, yet major, Washington spat. The first is that the MSM has barely covered it as a news story, and the entire debate occurred in the blogosphere. I don’t know why. But that would be a very useful line of inquiry for a media journalist.
The second is that Obama may bring change in many areas, but there is no possibility of change on the Israel-Palestine question. Having the kind of debate in America that they have in Israel, let alone Europe, on the way ahead in the Middle East is simply forbidden. Even if a president wants to have differing sources of advice on many questions, the Congress will prevent any actual, genuinely open debate on Israel. More to the point: the Obama peeps never defended Freeman. They were too scared. The fact that Obama blinked means no one else in Washington will ever dare to go through the hazing that Freeman endured. And so the chilling effect is as real as it is deliberate.
Our own original 2/26 posting was one of the earliest.
02 Nov 2007
This kind of seriousness and honesty, his rising above cheap partisanship like this, represents a side of Senator Schumer I’ve never seen before.
via Glenn Reynolds.
28 Jul 2007
Charles Schumer promises the democrat base that Bush will get no more Supreme Court nominees through the Senate confirmation process, and apologizes for democrats supposedly being somehow deceived by Judges Roberts and Alito. And here I thought they just didn’t have the votes to block those nominees’ confirmations.
New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush â€œexcept in extraordinary circumstances.â€
â€œWe should reverse the presumption of confirmation,â€ Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. â€œThe Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.â€
Schumerâ€™s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bushâ€™s nominees â€“ Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito â€“ has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.
Senators were too quick to accept the nomineesâ€™ word that they would respect legal precedents, and â€œtoo easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,â€ Schumer said.
â€œThere is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,â€ said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer’s comments show “a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution” by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees.
“This is the kind of blind obstruction that people have come to expect from Sen. Schumer,” Perino said. “He has an alarming habit of attacking people whose character and position make them unwilling or unable to respond. That is the sign of a bully. If the past is any indication, I would bet that we would see a Democratic senatorial fundraising appeal in the next few days.”
Schumer voted against confirming Roberts and Alito. In Fridayâ€™s speech, he said his â€œgreatest regretâ€ in the last Congress was not doing more to scuttle Alito.
â€œAlito shouldnâ€™t have been confirmed,â€ Schumer said. â€œI should have done a better job. My colleagues said we didnâ€™t have the votes, but I think we should have twisted more arms and done more.â€
25 May 2007
Kimberly Strassel in the Wall Street Journal explains the game plan.
If there’s a smarter guy in Washington right now than Sen. Chuck Schumer, Republicans haven’t noticed. The New York Democrat is doggedly working to dismantle what’s left of the Bush presidency, with barely an ounce of pushback from the other side.
Mr. Schumer was the instigator of the Democrats’ probe into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, although note that the question of who fired which prosecutor is already yesterday’s news. The attorneys mess was just an opening, a hook that is now allowing Mr. Schumer to escalate into an assault on the wider administration, as well as presidential authority over key programs, such as wiretapping.
The ultimate goal? Surround the Bush presidency in a mist of incompetence and corruption, force Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to go, get a special prosecutor appointed to examine the many supposed misdeeds, and then sit back and ride the steady drip-drip of negative Bush headlines all the way to more Senate seats and the Oval Office.
Your are browsing
the Archives of Never Yet Melted
in the 'Charles Schumer' Category.