Chuck Schumer is an interesting choice for Democratic Senate leader, no question. I like the guy, personally, but I think Democrats will get a lot of headaches from him over the next few years for his heterodox views.
Can we get back to the basic premise here? Is saying Kerry has emboldening extremists really strong language? Political opponents have called Kerry a war criminal and a traitor in the past. This sounds more like normal political discourse that’s being blown up for partisan reasons.
I’d say it’s strong language from the leader of a party’s delegation in the Senate to a sitting Secretary of State from the same party. I’m not sure it’s the end of the world, though.
Look at the comments that the Speaker of the House and the President Elect have said about each other; they’ve been a lot worse.
What about the Republican Party? Before the general election, a number of Republican congresspeople and other prominent Republicans refused to endorse the party nominee, or even to say they would vote for him. The GOP ticket was, essentially, hijacked by an outsider. Even today, some Republicans disagree with Trump’s insistence that the Russians were not responsible for the election hacking. Isn’t that infighting? What will the GOP do now?
Like I said, Schumer’s words are strong but not the end of the world. The animus between Ryan and Trump during the campaign is probably “unprecedented”, at least to my knowledge.
We won’t know for a while yet, their cooing in their love nest right now. The corporate wing of the Party is pretty happy with the elevation of the Prime Minister of Greater Exxon, so they’ll chill. For a while yet. Who knows, maybe they’re right, maybe they can control him, keep him focused on a “pro-growth” agenda. Better climate for business. Make America Kansas.
Might work.
It’s not like Schumer is burning any serious bridges. John Kerry will be Secretary of States for a couple more weeks. Challenging Kerry is about as dangerous as challenging Michael Dukakis.
If anything, Schumer’s smart for putting out some pro-Israeli statements. Not only does it play well with his base but it also is probably more in line with what the incoming administration feels.
Exactly. And the major tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest individuals will work as well as it did in Kansas:
As the article details, the same guys advising Trump are the architects of the Kansas failure. (It’s a long article, but there’s a lot there with bearing on what we will be facing after Trump and Co. get their hands on the US economy.)
But, hey, look over there! Some Democrats, infighting!
I agree with Obama in spirit but not in terms of tactics – too little, too late. I think Chuck Schumer was wise to call out the administration and take a pro-Israel position that is more mainstream. He’s not saying he supports settlements, just that the US shouldn’t be siding with Israel’s usual critics at the UN of all places. With an incoming GOP government that has long been hyper-critical of the UN and multilateralism, Obama probably would have done well to lower the profile of the UN.
If we don’t support settlements (and we shouldn’t) why not side with those who are also against the idea, even if some of them (but certainly not all) are “Israel’s usual critics at the UN?”
Also, why lower the profile of the UN?
Schumer was a horrible choice. He is basically Hillary with a penis but without the work ethic or charm.
Bad enough if they take this approach in economics. But it’s really scary if they apply this principle to demographics.