Chuck Schumer Gets a Challenge For Majority Leader

[epicurus]

@thunderclapnewman

They’re essentially the same age.

As a 71-year old, I can assure you that is far from true. A younger person would be better, true. A change is for the best.

[revjim]

Soooo….. tRump is blockading Cuba and planning an invasion as retribution for people who emigrated here over 60 years ago ? How many of those people are still around in either country ? The actual reason couldn’t possibly be that he & the oligarchs want to divide the place up while still in power

[eggrollian]

Steve & Jared’s ongoing theater with Putin signals a weakening of US security guarantees and degradation of NATO. This shift under Trump has been described as the privatization of US foreign policy, mainly to benefit select self-dealers. Putin’s “Ukraine negotiations” are merely a charade.

Meanwhile, both Kushner and Witkoff are awash in financial conflicts of interest while representing the U.S. government. Kushner’s venture capital firm, Affinity Partners—in addition to raising money from Gulf countries’ sovereign wealth funds—has a major investment in Phoenix Financial, an Israeli company with stakes in defense contractors that could profit from the proposed Gaza security arrangements. Witkoff, of course, co-founded World Liberty Financial (along with the Trump family), a crypto firm in which UAE National Security Adviser Sheikh Tahnoon has a 49 percent stake.

Privatization of foreign policy is about as foolish as eliminating central bank independence. What really happens in banana republics is that a larger central bank has to step in and administer national monetary policy. Similarly, all that happens under a “privatized” regime is that the US starts to follow the policy of the dominant state. The US, which has overseen 80 years of pax americana, now finds itself not so much subservient to Russia as accommodating China. So much for gutting of the State Department. Trump’s policies have done little to slow China’s export-driven juggernaut or comfort other Far East partners like Japan and South Korea, which now have to consider acquiring nukes and cyberwarfare capabilities to deal with life outside the security umbrella of the US. Maybe Steve & Jared see themselves as wheeler-dealers, but the reality is a dangerous rejiggering of the global balance of terror.

[eldonlazar]

@thunderclapnewman

I never claimed to know what went on behind the scenes.
@arrendis did.

No he didn’t. He was pointing out the effects of Schumer’s actions behind the scenes.

@thunderclapnewman

The lack of an intelligent response falls on your side of this—all you wanted to do ws insult me.

I haven’t insulted you. I pointed out your hurling of insults, and you treat it as an insult.
Just like TMF, every accusation is an admission on your part.

[arrendis]

@thunderclapnewman

Nice to know you were there and have firsthand knowledge of what went on behind the scenes—all the planning, all the discussions, all the weighing of what each possible outcome would do for the American people, the choices—bad or horrible—that had to be made, all while having no real power over the Senate and yet still trying to affect the outcome in a positive way.

What fatuous twaddle.

If Schumer were effective behind the scenes, he wouldn’t have had to approve the surrender caucus’s actions. I don’t have to be privy to the actual discussions to know that if he were effective behind the scenes, then he could have been effective there, rather than being reactive, and getting forced to ok a move that got him nothing.

You can sit there and declare ‘maybe all the options were bad’, and that’s fine, but that doesn’t make him effective. Effective leadership anticipates difficulties and avoids situations like that. It doesn’t let itself be boxed in.

Effective leadership that is ‘trying to affect the outcome in a positive way’ would have been leadership that got some positive effect. ANY positive effect. What did Schumer get in exchange for being publicly shown as weak by 6 Dems and an Independent?

He got a promise of a vote, which, as predicted literally the same day he got the promise, went along party lines and resulted in him getting NOTHING.

That is not effective leadership. We don’t have to be able to see the action behind the scenes to judge the action behind the scenes, because we can see the results.

And the results of Schumer’s leadership during the shutdown over the ACA subsidies was the Republicans getting literally everything they wanted, and the bill moving through, unaltered, after hundreds of thousands of Americans had to deal with their paychecks not showing up for over a month while Schumer postured… for nothing.

He got nothing. Exactly the same legislation got approved on the same exact party-line vote he was trying to hold up. IOW: no effect. Literally, the definition of ‘ineffectual’.

@thunderclapnewman

I never claimed to know what went on behind the scenes.
@arrendis did.

No, you just decided to put words in my mouth to claim the guy who got no effect was effective.

[thunderclapnewman]

@pb

Schumer’s AIPAC money is VERY important.

Why? Why are AIPAC donations supposed to be so toxic and disqualifying? What makes accepting those donations mean that the candidate accepting them is somehow beholden to AIPAC’s agenda? Wouldn’t that also be true of a candidate accepting donations from a left-wing PAC? If not, why not?

I’m no fan of AIP{AC, but that group has had a PAC only since 2021. The left ascribes to them more power than they actually have.

I have never seen any proof that AIPAC donations have led directly to any legislation or statements by any politicians who have received those donations.

The criticism runs awfully close to antisemitism—and sometimes goes way over the line.

[eldonlazar]

@alyo

@thunderclapnewman

He’s also a very skilled fund-raiser, which is one of the most important jobs the Majority Leader has.

Which is to say, he’s was coopted a long time ago. Schumer is not fighting for Democrats, he’s fighting for his donors by promoting whoever they find acceptable for higher office; voters shouldn’t have a say.

Overturning Citizens United and working to establish publicly funded elections would put him out of a job. That would be one way to get rid of him, but he will never support that.

[alyo]

@thunderclapnewman

That doesn’t prove your accusations.

It just shows that Schumer didn’t endorse Mamdani.

That kind of suggests that nothing will convince you. Just think about how the Republicans have ended up with obviously horrible candidates for so many years – how does that come about? It is because the candidates are pre-vetted by the monied interests, before being presented to the voters. Nobody who prioritizes voter-interests (or the down-stream values of democracy, rule of law, etc etc) will ever be supported.

Democratic donors wanted that too; that’s why Biden had to go. If done well, you won’t see it. Mamdani is such a gifted politician with such obvious and enthusiastic support, that by not supporting him, Schumer made it pretty clear he’s a gate-keeper for the billionaires; he’s not a little d democrat.

[thunderclapnewman]

@eldonlazar

Overturning Citizens United and working to establish publicly funded elections would put him out of a job.

Chuck Schumer supports overturning the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision.

Schumer has repeatedly led and co-sponsored the Democracy for All Amendment, a constitutional amendment introduced alongside the Senate Democratic Caucus to overturn Citizens United and reform campaign finance laws.

[eldonlazar]

@thunderclapnewman

Why are AIPAC donations supposed to be so toxic and disqualifying?

Because Israel is NOT our friend. Israel is not even a reliable ally. They have repeatedly screwed the United States whenever they saw the slightest advantage for themselves.

The Jonathan Pollard case is just one example. They took his information about the US ability to track Soviet submarines and turned it over to Russia in exchange for them letting some Jews emigrate. AIPAC should be banned.

[llwillis]

@pb

Schumer’s AIPAC money is VERY important.

Now address the question of whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing. The whole debate about what the US relationships should be in the Middle East is a giant, snarled, convoluted, racially messy spoiler in US politics that this election did not much to resolve.

[thunderclapnewman]

@alyo

Schumer made it pretty clear he’s a gate-keeper for the billionaires; he’s not a little d democrat.

Patently false.

Schumer did not endorse Zohran Mamdani in the New York City mayoral race due to a combination of ideological friction, foreign policy disagreements, and national strategic concerns.

Schumer withheld his support largely because of Mamdani’s harsh and critical stance on Israel.
Mamdani ran as a democratic socialist with left-wing positions on the economy and governance that diverged sharply from Schumer’s mainstream congressional leadership style.

Try harder to be factual instead of predictably opinionated.

[alyo]

@thunderclapnewman

constitutional amendment

and a unicorn in every pot, too!

[thunderclapnewman]

@eldonlazar

AIPAC should be banned.

Nide to know you support violating the First Amendment rights of people who support Israel.

[thunderclapnewman]

@alyo

and a unicorn in every pot, too!

The only practical way to overturn the SCOTUC decision in Citizens United is to amend the Constitution.

[arrendis]

@thunderclapnewman

I’m no fan of AIP{AC, but that group has had a PAC only since 2021.

Just because they didn’t do direct fundraising until 2021 doesn’t mean they weren’t fundraising through ‘unaffiliated’ PACs.

Here, this is from 2014…

Friends of Israel

In 1980, AIPAC hired Thomas Dine, a former diplomat and congressional staffer, as its executive director. Dine set out to develop a nationwide network that would enable AIPAC to influence every member of Congress. This was a daunting challenge. Jews made up less than three per cent of the American population, concentrated in nine states, and they voted overwhelmingly Democratic. How could AIPAC, with such a small base, become a political force in both parties and in every state?

Dine launched a grass-roots campaign, sending young staff members around the country to search for Jews in states where there were few. In Lubbock, Texas, for instance, they found nine who were willing to meet—a tiny group who cared deeply about Israel but never thought that they could play a political role. The lobby created four hundred and thirty-five “congressional caucuses,” groups of activists who would meet with their member of Congress to talk about the pro-Israel agenda.

Dine decided that “if you wanted to have influence you had to be a fund-raiser.” Despite its name, AIPAC is not a political-action committee, and therefore cannot contribute to campaigns. But in the eighties, as campaign-finance laws changed and PACs proliferated, AIPAC helped form pro-Israel PACs. By the end of the decade, there were dozens. Most had generic-sounding names, like Heartland Political Action Committee, and they formed a loose constellation around AIPAC. Though there was no formal relationship, in many cases the leader was an AIPAC member, and as the PACs raised funds they looked to the broader organization for direction.

Members’ contributions were often bundled. “AIPAC will select some dentist in Boise, say, to be the bundler,” a former longtime AIPAC member said. “They tell people in New York and other cities to send their five-thousand-dollar checks to him. But AIPAC has to teach people discipline—because all those people who are giving five thousand dollars would ordinarily want recognition. The purpose is to make the dentist into a big shot—he’s the one who has all this money to give to the congressman’s campaign.”

and look!

Robert Cohen, the president of AIPAC, justified Israel’s assault, agreeing with Netanyahu that Hamas was ultimately responsible for the deaths of its own citizens. At one point, Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, asked about conservative trends in Israel, a participant recalled. “He said that he supports Israel, but he’s concerned that Israel is headed toward a one-state solution—and that would be so damaging and dangerous for everyone involved.”

Charles Schumer, the senior Democrat from New York, interrupted. Turning to address the room, he said, “It troubles me when I hear people equate Israel and Hamas. That’s wrong, that’s terrible!” Kaine protested, “That’s not what I meant!” Cohen simply repeated that Hamas was to blame for everything that was happening.

There’s Chuck, casting legitimate concerns from another Democratic Senator, as ‘equating Israel and Hamas’, in a meeting to make sure AIPAC gets what it wants, because AIPAC was demanding more money from the Senate.

[lowtechcyclist]

• The agency has been without a permanent leader for the better part of a year. Now, Democrats warn, Republicans in the lame-duck Congress have belatedly woken up to that fact and are moving full-speed-ahead to get a Trump-friendly director atop the agency before they lose control of the legislature in a month and a half.

  What does it matter - can’t the Dems replace the GAO director in January if they want to?

[arrendis]

@thunderclapnewman

Nide to know you support violating the First Amendment rights of people who support Israel.

AIPAC was specifically founded in 1954 to get around FARA. It functions as an agent of the Israeli government, but does so in a circuitous enough way as to avoid having to register the organization or any of its employees as agents of a foreign government. That is not freedom of speech, that is foreign influence using a model of obfuscation first developed by the mafia.

[Scoutmom]

@lowtechcyclist

• The agency has been without a permanent leader for the better part of a year. Now, Democrats warn, Republicans in the lame-duck Congress have belatedly woken up to that fact and are moving full-speed-ahead to get a Trump-friendly director atop the agency before they lose control of the legislature in a month and a half.

  What does it matter - can’t the Dems replace the GAO director in January if they want to?

My question is, instead of begging the GQP to “meet together to select candidates”, why didn’t the Dems keep looking on their own? Then say “We have found X, XX, and XXX. Who do you think works best?”

That might have gotten their attention.

[eggrollian]

Alaska’s Permanent Fund, a sovereign wealth fund like Norway’s, provides over 70% of the state’s general fund revenues. The annual dividend. a big deal every year. was distributed this year at the end of September.

This year’s dividend was set at $1,000 by the Alaska Legislature in the state budget signed by Gov. Mike Dunleavy. A $200 bonus was included because oil prices reached a threshold needed to trigger it.

Both the Legislature and the Department of Revenue labeled the bonus an energy relief payment.

Unlike Norway, the Alaskan Permanent Fund has been poorly managed and routinely hijacked for political stunts. Its current value sits at around $89 billion. In comparison, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund (the Oil Fund), is around $2.5 trillion, over 28 times larger.

The fund's value | Norges Bank Investment Management