Discussion for article #230582
The pity is that being a New York City Democrat, Shmuck Chumer’s Senate seat is unchallenged, even by another Democrat, for as long as he wants it.
did not sit with with Obamaworld.
Translation?
Schumer: only a third of uninsured registered to vote. Why give them all that attention, when we can be helping the BANKERS.
Imagine if Obama did what Wall St. Chuck suggested and began with prosecuting the banksters who engineered the 2008 financial implosion.
He’d be saying, “You know, Obama should have started with healthcare.”
In 2009, the middle-class woes Schumer references were overwhelming due to the Great Recession. Democratic congressional leaders like Schumer (D-Wall Street) were warning the administration to stay away from the dreaded T-word (trillion) in cobbling together the emergency stimulus package. Thus, the stimulus was about half what the ecoonmy needed. And what the economy needed – and still needs! – was what the middle-class (and poor working people needed, desperately. If Schumer wants to flap his mouth, early 2009 was when he should have done it.
Hey Kirsten? Can you smack him?
Pretty happy that some of the people who were at the table at the time with Schumer are calling him out on this asshattery.
What I can’t figure out is what does he gain by doing this now? All it comes across as is sour grapes and hypocrisy seeing as he had his opportunities to make these kinds of pronouncements back in 2009. Not to mention that you VOTED FOR THE GOTDAMN BILL, CHUCK.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/111-2009/s396
Even if he DID make his feelings known in 2009 and the President said “all valid points Chuck, but this is the way I feel we should go”, then at that stage you put your shoulders behind the President and you stand by the party leader’s choice on project, while at the same time telling everyone you support your party and your President.
Why is it so hard to be loyal to this President for some of these shitlords?
Sahil Kapur is trying out as a writer for FOX; he needed to throw a little mockery of the President and his supporters into the article.
In a word: AIPAC.
Unintentionally or not, Schumer and Gruber are giving political cover to Chief Justice John Roberts to side with the other four ultra-reactionary justices on the King v. Burwell case.
Right-wing talking point: “By the Democrat’s own admission, healthcare should never have been taken up by the legislature. And besides that, the American people were lied to about ObamaCare. The Chief Justice had no choice but to scuttle it.”
Ladies and Gentlemen. This is our democratic party. No wonder we lost.
You have been sorely missed. Glad to see you back
What is that supposed to mean? I didn’t know AIPAC took a position on the ACA. Is the implication that Schumer’s disloyalty to the President stems from his being Jewish? If that is what you mean to imply (hopefully it isn’t) then you are an ignorant asshole.
Boot brigade for Chucky tonight. Who’s with me!
I forget who said it (Bill Maher perhaps, unfortunately) but the Democratic party IS the coalition party in our two party system. Thus it never can seem to decide just exactly where it stands on some issues.
Senator Chuck Schumer is Mr. Wall street.
“Obamaworld”??? Seriously Kapur? Is that sarcasm I sense, or just unnecessary derision? Very unprofessional imo. Keep your opinions to yourself or properly label your articles as op-eds or editorials.
What make’s Schumer’s comments so perplexing is simply this: What could Obama possibly have done differently that would benefit the middle class more than what he did.
If you answered “Not a damn thing” then you can move to the head of the class.
Based on Kapur’s articles to date, it was clearly derision. There is no question that Kapur is the most unprofessional writer at TPM. He has no clue about the difference between reporting a story or throwing in his anti-Obama themes. Looks like he is auditioning for Fox.