Chucky Schumer and “foot in mouth disease”

by Bill Claydon

Originally posted to Liberty Ink Journal and RedState

Chucky has an easy — and most importantly, GUARANTEED — job. As of 2009, he fully became the Senior US Senator from New York. Oh yes, he had that title since 2001, but let’s face it, it was in name only. He was lost in Hillary’s shadow after she parachuted in from Arkansas by way of DC. In 2009 she finally stopped pretending to represent New York (a mere intended stepping stone to the presidency) and moved over to the State Department. Her political future has been utterly ruined by being part of the Obama Regime. But, she was replaced by someone who can stand in Chucky’s shadow and serve as his “extra vote” 95% of the time. (On the rare occasions when Chucky’s rubber stamp wants to show “independence,” she gets into that very narrow place on the ideological spectrum —- to the left of him.)

Chucky is still learning the ropes of what it’s like to be a Senior Senator. So, don’t blame him when his mouth, uh, gets the better of him. Afterall, with all of the money Obama is wasting, the United States can evidently only afford ONE teleprompter — and that goes to the empty suit at the top. (Hmm, maybe a non-government grant could be found to buy Chucky a teleprompter to keep him out of trouble? I mean, this USUALLY works for Obama, so we’ve got some data to justify the feasibility.) Anyway, Chucky hardly needs a teleprompter. His constituents are in ultra leftist New York. He just won by a landslide in 2010 so he doesn’t have to worry about another election until 2016. But even so, he’s got that magic “D” after his name. He’d win again no matter what. A majority in New York would vote for a cartoon character if it had a “D” after its name. (And considering how overhyped Obama was…)

So, anyway, after a couple of humorous paragraphs, let’s get to the main point of this post. First, Chucky ran his foul mouth on a plane, rudely insulting a flight attendant because she asked an elitist such as him to abide by the rules. These rules should only apply to the American commoners who are beneath him. Then, on national television, he flubbed up the three branches of government. But now he admits he lets others do his thinking for him. Rather than have little snafus like this, can’t the Democrats buy him a teleprompter? Look, as one who doesn’t exactly agree with the Democrats’ plans, far be it for me to give advice here to help them. But really, Democrats at least ought to make sure the reporters aren’t on the line when they say stuff like that! Just a word of advice here.

One of my favorite lines in the article is: “After apparently realizing his mistake, Schumer fell silent.” Um, what? Schumer fell silent? That’s utterly amazing. I’ve never heard of anything that could quiet Chucky!

Chucky and his big government buddies want to continue spending like there is no tomorrow. Any attempt to put the brakes on runaway government waste is called “extreme” (though remember, if a conservative uses that word to describe what Chucky and his ilk do, it’s apparently “wrong”). They have no concern about enslaving several generations into the future with debt. As the article notes, the other Democrat Senators on the call marched to Chucky’s orders (like leftist zombies).

At some point, it’s going to be time to pay the piper. We cannot continue to spend money and mortgage future generations for the unsaitiable appetites of the present generation. We hear all about how the answer is merely to “tax the rich” while Obama hangs out with all the globalist corporate elite and hands out appointments to the likes of GE’s Jeffrey Immelt. Ah, but Chucky has no need to concern himself with what will happen to future generations. He gets elected in New York…..a state addicted to big government, despite having accidentally elected a Democrat governor who seems to “see the light” about runaway spending. (Or, he at least realizes that if he cleans up New York, he would be formidable in any future presidential election.) Basically, if Chucky is going to call the Republicans extreme for trying to clean up DC, he’s also calling Andrew Cuomo “extreme” for cleaning up the disgusting mess that is New York State.

But I digress. Chucky is useful for something. As one who is guaranteed reelection because he is an incumbent in a state that will vote for anything with a “D” after its name, he gives us a window into the elitist politician’s mindset. Whether it is true contempt for working people like flight attendants, or lack of interest in knowing what is in the Constitution, or considering fiscal responsibility to be “extreme,” at least we have someone like Schumer to use as a barometer of where the elite are coming from.

Reid, Murray, Boxer, Schumer, and Gillibrand

by Bill Claydon

Would I have been happy if any or all of the first three had been defeated on Tuesday? Of course. Obviously the last two were totally out of reach with them being Democrats from New York. If Jimmy McMillan with his useless platform (which accomplished precisely what it was designed for….to launch his entertainment career) had been the Democrat nominee for either US Senate seat in New York, he’d have won by a million vote margin too.

But is it really that bad that all five of these extreme leftists managed to be reelected? Not at all. Actually, let me correct myself. The first four are leftists and the last is a rubber stamp for leftist #4. The rubber stamp was independent during her days as a Congresswoman and is now mostly a puppet.

So why is it not so bad? Boxer (CA) and Schumer (NY) are utterly obnoxious. Reid (NV) might be less obnoxious than either of these two, but he still has his own level of obnoxiousness. Being the Senate Majority Leader, he has high visibility. Murray (WA) is fairly quiet but definitely extreme, and has high seniority within the Senate. Gillibrand is quiet too, because she generally just votes with Schumer. In that sense, he may as well be speaking for both of them.

So why should we not mind obnoxious and extremist types in the Senate? With the exception of Reid, these come from states that consistently elect these types. So, it’s a given that the Senate is going to have someone like Boxer from California or Schumer from New York. Washington is also fairly liberal too. The bulk of Democrats in the Senate are holdovers from the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Both Barack AND Michelle Obama campaigned for Harry Reid. Barack Obama campaigned for Patty Murray and Barbara Boxer as well. He’s associated with them. They’re his problem. Obama is up for reelection in 2012 (unless enough people “convince” Hillary to change her mind about not running in 2012). Any attempts to seem more centrist or reasonable as we get closer to the election can easily be matched with statements from the likes of Reid, Boxer, and Murray, who personally don’t have to worry about another election for six years. Boxer, after beating back a challenge from Fiorina where the polls occasionally put Fiorina ahead, may come out with another entertaining gaffe like “Call me Senator; I worked hard for that title.” In reality, she happened to be a Democrat and get nominated for US Senator from California. It’s California. So, whenever Barbara “Call me Senator” Boxer wants to be reelected, she will be. Maybe she had to “work hard” to push her way through other Democrats to get the nod way back in 1992. But after that, Boxer will continue to retain her job for as long as she wants it. Afterall, she has a “D” after her name.

Defeat would have meant that these people would step into history and eventually be forgotten. But now they will continue to be in the spotlight. Further, had Angle and O’Donnell been elected, they could have been lightning rods for Obama to play against in his reelection campaign. (Note: I did not include Coons in my title only because he is not an incumbent. But Obama campaigned for him too and I’m sure he will provide gaffes with which Obama can be associated.)

But let’s shift focus to the US Senate for the moment. In 2012, there are several Democrat Senators from centrist or right-leaning states (or states which just elected a Republican governor and/or Senator) who will be up for reelection including:

- Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
- Bill Nelson (Florida)
- Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
- Bob Casey, Jr. (Pennsylvania)
- Jim Webb (Virginia)
- Debbie Stabenow (Michigan)
- Jon Tester (Montana)
- Sherrod Brown (Ohio)
- Kent Conrad (North Dakota)
- Joe Manchin (West Virginia)
- Herb Kohl (Wisconsin)

Barring new scandals, Republicans have potential liabilities in the following:
- Scott Brown (Massachusetts) — likely will flip since it’s Massachusetts
- Olympia Snowe (Maine)
- John Ensign (Nevada)

The eleven Democrats can be tied to Obama and Reid. Just a few turnovers among them, even if Massachusetts and Maine are lost, could amount to narrow Republican control of the Senate. I’d suggest that Ben Nelson, Jon Tester, Sherrod Brown, Kent Conrad, Jim Webb, and possibly Claire McCaskill and Bob Casey, are ripe for defeat under current circumstances. Should Republicans keep their current seats, lose Massachusetts and Maine, and flip six of these Democrat held seats, they get narrow control of the Senate. Obviously if they keep Maine, they only need to flip five.

Reid, Boxer, Schumer, and other obnoxious Democrat Senators like Kerry, Durbin and Harkin, could be useful in this effort. They (especially Reid as Majority Leader) can be tied to these vulnerable Senators. If Al Franken wants to be loud too, that would make it even more fun. And if Coons mixes things up a bit, even better. In fact, one of the presumed “safe” Democrat seats up in 2012 could flip.

The eleven named Democrats will need to be more centrist and some would even need to be “fake conservative” to meet the leanings of their states. They will not be able to just march in lock step with the likes of Reid, Boxer, and Schumer, all of whom won reelection and don’t have to worry about another election for six years. None of these eleven want to be the next Russ Feingold (WI). And if they start to see the handwriting on the wall, they could be the next Byron Dorgan, meaning that the Democrat running in their place would likely face defeat.

But if the obnoxious colleagues of these eleven were not enough, then there is Obama. He’s not popular in most of the states represented by these eleven Senators. His name will more than likely be on the ballot in 2012….along with these Senators. He could be problematic for down ballot candidates. 2012 could indeed be another year of “change we can believe in.”

Scott Murphy making same mistakes as Tedisco Campaign did in 2009

by Bill Claydon

New York's 20th congressional district has a huge Republican advantage in party registrations compared to Democrats. The 2006 election season was largely a Democrat year. Combined with the fact that all sorts of negative news came out about sleazy ex-Congressman John Sweeney, Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand was able to take the seat. In 2008, Gillibrand easily won reelection. In early 2009, then New York Senator Hillary Clinton was given the consolation prize of Secretary of State since she lost the Democrat primary to the so-called "hope and change" candidate. While Caroline "y'know" Kennedy was assumed to be the frontrunner to replace Hillary, ultimately the seat went to Kirsten Gillibrand. With the departure of Hillary, Chuck Schumer then TRULY became New York's senior Senator, even though he had held that title on paper since 2001. Gillibrand provided him with an extra perk in my view: she has basically given in to him for at least 90% of her voting decisions.

Anyway, in the race to fill Gillibrand's seat via special election, the Republicans nominated then New York State Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco. The Democrats had to pick through a bunch of no-name candidates. It was expected that Tedisco would handily win, and a Democrat had to run as the sacrificial lamb.

Scott Murphy, who had lived in Glens Falls for around three years by the 2009 race, happened to have a lot of money. He was chosen over nearly three dozen other candidates --- many of whom likely lived in the district far longer --- because of money.

While Tedisco spent years in the NYS Assembly and had a long record of accomplishments, the Republican National Committee came along and basically ran ads simply bashing Scott Murphy. Murphy was a nobody in the area....until the RNC gave him all sorts of free publicity. They created sympathy for the man with their attack ads. Even among conservatives, there was disappointment with these kinds of ads.

When Tedisco finally asserted control over his campaign and ran some positive ads, it was too late. The damage was done. Murphy had been given name recognition by the other side and generated sympathy.

What should have been a landslide victory in a heavily Republican district turned out to be too close to call. After seesawing for weeks, Murphy won by a few hundred votes and Tedisco conceded.

Fast forward to 2010. Despite Murphy's claims that he is a business man, cares about small business, wants to get the government out of the way, blah blah blah, he has established a record of voting nearly 90% with Nancy Pelosi to expand the federal government. District residents have felt he ignored them and instead listened to his union DC Democrat masters. His campaign war chest is loaded with donations from "safe" Democrats, Wall Street, big unions, trial lawyers, etc.

Murphy started releasing ads. Some ads were positive about himself, though they did not talk specifics about his extensive DC record supporting Pelosi's agenda. Other groups released ads touting the fact that Murphy has Sunday dinners with 52 family members as some sort of reason why he belongs in Congress. (Maybe if he is retired from Congress he could eat with those 52 family members every night of the week?) Another one touted the jobs he created, except they forgot to mention that many were in India.

But then Murphy started releasing attack ads against his opponent, Colonel Chris Gibson. One ad has a wild accusation about Gibson cutting Medicare by 75% when the Colonel has never been in Congress! Another one showed Gibson riding an alligator, gobbling things up. Murphy's ads tend to mention Gibson's name. Even in the "I approve this message" part of the ad, Murphy has been shown mentioning Gibson's name. He should have been saying "My opponent" if he had to reference Gibson at all. Strategically, it is just foolish for the incumbent to provide free publicity for the challenger.

Did Murphy learn anything from the 2009 campaign which greatly benefitted him?

Evidently not. Murphy's poll numbers are down into the final week of election season. Murphy needs to be "rescued" by Bill Clinton on the day before election day. (Bad idea to have such a high profile candidate this late into the race.) It just doesn't look good.

Should Murphy be toppled, some of this will be due to his advertising mistakes, along with ignoring many in his constituency and false statements about Colonel Gibson such as the Medicare accusation.