Get the hell out of the way Reid!!!

Senators buy loyalty from their peers? Say it ain’t so, Jane.
Did Schumer outspend Durbin in contributions because he has more money, or does Durbin spend his money in different/better ways?

Durbin. He is better on TV.

As a New Yorker, I kinda have to go with the local favorite, but frankly, either would be a HUGE improvement over Harry.

I cast one for Durbin. Not nearly as bad as Schumer.

Schumer is owned by Wall St. F him. As a NYer, I’d love it if someone primaried him.

Tough One.

Durbin will cave to Obama

Schumer will cave to Wall Street, DLC

Choose the lesser of the caves I guess.

I think Schumer has been far more corporate and he supported Klobachar in MN. It is painful to be in a room full of progressives talking about Amy. She does do a good sell job, but it would be safe to say, she is extremely disliked to the extent that people are willing to stand up and say what they think of her.

“None of the above.”

What A COUNTRY !!!

Bought politicians buying other politicians.

Collect the Entire Set.

By the way, your screen name was one of my favorite radio programs of my youth, and when my son was the right age, I found some tapes of the shows and we played them in the car.

lol, good one. I was trying to think of something punny to say about name brand dems.

We need something wash and wear.

Randy Credico, a progressive/libertarian, is challenging Schumer in the NY Primary.

http://www.13wham.com/content/blogs/story/Sen-Schumer-to-Face-Primary/GWTH9KAAhE-3j9zJNDrU7w.cspx

For me it’s a question of efficacy.

I like Durbin’s politics better–though I’m not crazy about having as ML the OTHER Senator from IL, who came out of the same political machine as him. It might make things a little too cozy with the White House.

But I want a ML that can control his caucus. And Chuck Schumer has several things going in his favor, there. First, Schumer can claim to have had a hand in the election of up to 16 sitting Senators (plus a lesser hand in Gillibrand’s appointment). That kind of thing can be tremendously powerful.

Furthermore, as problematic as the ties to Wall Street are, that is also a potential benefit. $$ = ongoing pull over these people.

Those two elements are things that LBJ used to tremendous effect when he was Majority Leader (he was DSCC and ML for a chunk of the time, and made funding contingent on discipline).

Now, as I said, I like Durbin’s politics a LOT better than Schumers. But Schumer is fundamentally an egotists. He cares, very very deeply, what others think of him. And that makes it possible to influence him with criticism.

Schumer went out on a limb for Mukasey. I am going to go with Durbin.

Is there a worse judge of character than Schumer?

Like the old SNL skits, Who Is More Macho? I’ll go with the one with the most power to control the caucus.

Oh, probably.

Here’s the choice: Wall Street of Chicago Board of Trade.

Didn’t know that. I looked over his site. I’ll certainly vote for him in the primary (i.e. against Schumer), but I doubt he has much of a chance.

Choosing between those two, I’d go with Durbin. But, neither of them seems all that tough. Too bad it depends on seniority. I’d love it to be Franken.

I don’t know. A choice between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

Durbin probably isn’t too happy with the email I sent him about the Bernanke re-appointment. I told him he shouldn’t be a rubber stamp for Obama.

What are my other choices? Anyone like LBJ the senator?

It would be more of a statement than the one from Massachusetts if DLC “Big Business” Schumer were to lose this fall.

AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

Oh my, who to choose…who to CHOOSE??!!! First of all Durbin is an Obama bot who isn’t vulnerable in Illinois unless he pisses off the Daley boys…he’s pretty undistinguished and a whimp if he’s confronted in broad daylight by an old lady on the street. Schumer the Bookkeeper, on the other hand, would slap the old lady down without takin his designer gloves off but only AFTER he made sure she’d already voted for him. Schumer has put himself at the head of the line of limo drivers for the Wall Street Banksters and I’m sure was leadin’ the applause for Elliot Spitzer’s demise AND he is a reliable vote for AIPAC.

So it’s a no brainer, if you want a reliable Senate leader for Obama, pick Durbin and at this point I’m in for a penney with Obama so I might as well put the rest of my retirement in his warchest. Schumer is a weasle of the worst kind ‘cuz he’s smart AND has deep pocket sponsors and he would sell Obama out in a hearbeat…besides he runs Mrs. McClinton now, what do ya think the prospects of a just peace in Palestine are if Schumer is Senate leader??!!

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE FUCKIN AMMUNITION, IT’S ALL ABOUT THE COPROATE WARS, STUPID!!

I think a person needs more than a lefty idealogue to be SML. Do you think Franken has been there long enough to develop the kind of relationships it would take?

Both are better than Reid.

I think Schumer is probably a tougher more partisan infighter so I would go with him over Durbin.

I don’t think there is an “h” in wimp.

I know how we can tell which one is worse: it’ll be the one they pick.

Neither.

How about Harkin instead?

I would write in Paul Wellstone.

Yes, I know he’s dead.

I prefer Durbin over Schumer but Schumer has a spine while I feel Durbin does not.

I VOTE FOR SANDERS
http://forwantofanail.com

Citizen Raven:

Thanx, Brother Freebird, as you are prally aware I don’t really give a shit about spellin and it’s even worse now that the old new software here doesn’t have Spellcheck.

Schumer sponsored Mukasey and voted for the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of US Armed Forces Against Iraq. Durbin voted against the Joint Resolution and had the candor to tell us “Banks own the place(Congress).”

What a choice, a wimp or a scheister.

Contributing to each others campaigns to buy leadership roles.

I’ll mimic 2010 and sit this one out.

I’ve been disappointed by both of these men. Schumer caters to Wall Street and then there is the Mukasey travesty. Durbin seems too ready to do what the WH- fellow Illinois boys- tell him to- even when he knows it’s wrong. I don’t have any good suggestions though. They all seem to have disappointed in one way or another.

Frankly, I can’t get excited about either. But, Schumer is a flat out neo-con/AIPAC mouthpiece, so I guess I’d vote Durbin.

I vote for Schumer. I know he is beholden to Wall St., but I feel he’d be a better Majority Leader. Neither of them have much gravitas. I just think Schumer has more. And that he’d be harder on the Bayh’s and Nelson’s of the world.

I am not a fan of either choice, but as a New Yorker, I find Schumer to be an insufferable egomaniac. I also do not like his politics. He is part of the problem.

If I had to choose, it would be Durbin (with strong reservations).

Too bad someone like Russ Feingold would never have the opportunity, although I am very disapoointed that no progressive Democratic senator put more pressure on this administration when it came to health insurance reform.

Who if either gave money to the likes of Bayh, Baucus, Lincoln, Nelson, Landrieu, Conrad or any of that bunch of corporate asslickers? If they both did, then it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference.

I just thought of one other thing. If Schumer helps Gillibrand crush Harold Ford, Jr., then he’ll get my vote. As others have said, the choices aren’t very good at all. I just think he’s be more of a fighter for the agenda overall.

Schumer went out on a limb for Mukasey.

He also stumped for Bernie Kerik to head the Department of Homeland Security. We must never, ever forget that.

Must disagree with Cynthia. As a New Yorker, I want to see Schumer retired, not promoted. (In a year he’ll be chief spokesmodel for AIPAC.)

I think Russ is actually 4th on the leadership totem poll. So he’s in line after Durbin and Schumer.

I don’t know whether Durbin has spine or not because he’s playing second fiddle to Harry Reid.

Hmmm… Douchebag #1 or Douchebag #2? Feh. I cast my vote* for Bernie Sanders.

*(Well, I would if I had a vote, anyway.)

Harry is over Cool! Nancy is next.

Politically they are both far to the right of me on a lot of things. As has been noted, they both have a lot of minuses. So it comes down to the one most willing to use the power.

I think Schumer is most likely. Working against Durbin in this is that he is currently the Majority Whip, yet he always seems powerless in pushing Reid to do anything correctly then makes the speeches about how the Banks own everything. They probably do own most of Congress. But that leaves me asking “Where are you, as the Majority WHip, in getting these things stopped?”

So the pair of brass that I think Schumer would bring combined with Durbin’s seeming powerlessness when he’s in such a powerful position already makes it Schumer.

The Golden Age of Radio somehow, not co-incidentally, co-incided with the Golden Age of Intelligence and the Golden Age of the U.S. Middle Class.

Indeed, Old Time radio listeners do indeed understand What Evil Lurks in the Hearts of Men.

It’s nauseating, isn’t it? Not only are congresscritters bought by the corporations, but then they turn around and use the money to buy their colleagues. How can those so purchased even look at themselves in the mirror in the mornings? Nothing matters but the money.

I for one was not favorably impressed in the slightest by Schumer’s clumsy intrusions in the past that resulted in the Lieberman disaster in CT, and which nearly cost Sherrod Brown his bid for the Senate in what easily could have ended in a Dem-on-Dem brawl in OH.

Thanks to a welcome burst of civility from Sherrod Brown and his primary opponent, Paul Hackett, that contest turned out for the good, albeit not without bruised feelings all around, AND with NO help whatsoever from Schumer’s heavy-handed meddling.

We definitely need more strength of character and leadership than Reid seems able to muster, but NO MORE self-aggrandizing king-maker-wannabes, PLEASE! It’s hard enough to have to cope with Rahmbo. NO NO NO to Schumer! jmho

Schumer Takes Credit For Getting Chas Freeman Ousted. When the neo-cons finally left office, realists were thrilled to have an honorable, non-ideological expert like Chas Freeman as National Intelligence Council chief to ensure we wouldn’t get mislead into new wars.

Schumer got him tossed, because Freeman had criticized Israel in the past. I guess if Freeman had gotten his appointment the odds of attacking Iran would have dropped significantly, and AIPAC (Schumer) couldn’t have that, now could they?

Will wonders never cease?

Obama is starting to (or at least appears to) get some backbone and taking on the repubs.

Could the Senate finally, at long last, but maybe much too late in the game, FINALLY get a real LEADER? I won’t hold my breath – but I sure hope Reid becomes the former majority lead – ASAP!!!

But it may still be way, way too late.

Dick Durbin has won my heart with this quote, “And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.” He understands the need to get banking reform through the Senate.

I don’t think Schumer will even try to reform Wall Street banks.

heh. you’re counseling that we lowly progressives pretend to choose the opposite to what we want, just to throw ‘em off stride? you tend to your ulcer and i’ll have to tend to mine. ooogh!

I hope your lil’ new trees are coming through the winter well eCAHN. That’s something we can believe in. If our state would just quit pumping acid clouds over your way. Pardon for that. I hate it too.

Some predicted that with the end of the Bush/Cheney behind the large curtain regime, comedians and satirists would run out of material.

Who could have imagined that health Care Reform would have caused the ENTIRE Curtain to drop to the stage, and, there, for all to see, the Republicans and Democrats holding hands and high-kick stepping to their corporate angels tune in a unison that would have done the Rockettes proud.

Too bad it’s all freakin’ true.

sounds like they both suck, what a surprise

What is your problem with Nancy Pelosi? She’s pushed most of Obama’s agenda through the House, and there is nothing she can do about the bottleneck in the Senate. And if she leaves the position, who will take her place? Steny Hoyer? God save us!

brain bleach here please, STAT!

Citizen Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle:

But Feingold’s grip on Wisconsin is very loose…he’s never taken any real PAC money so his elections have been much closer than they should have been and this time Tommy Thompson is thinkin’ about a run against ‘im…though I think that Thompson has outlived his usefulness to the fascists, the polls show ‘im beatin’ up on Feingold at the moment. No Russ needs a good big chairmanship, NOT the Senate leadership where he’d attract big money opposition like stink on bad stuff…he’d get Daschled.

better have those spectacles checked bud.

As long as we aren’t discussing who would make the better minority leader, I guess there’s still some hope.

So, who should it be? Schumer or Durbin? Discuss.

So who will continue the proud Democratic Senate tradition of keeping our powder dry? Whose correspondence can sound more sternly worded?

On Feb 2, 2010 I truly miss the presence of Ted Kennedy in a palpable way. We need someone to the left of these jokers with the salt and the time in the seat to move this debate to the left. Schumer and Durbin both will fly to the center-right to get the nomination, assring us another “Harry Reid with a new haircut”.

Christ, can’t we just start a progressive 3rd party and get it over with? I don’t care if it works or not, it’ll be better for our health to no longer live holding our noses.

This is a win for us we were complaining about Harry since forever. The Dem strategy of surrender is discredited if it did work Harry as Senate leader should be winning easy.
Apparently even all the pork a Senate Leader can bring in can’t buy him votes. The GOP must be worried issues not money seems to drive the election.

every silver lining has a dark cloud?

is this an open-book exam?

She could have stood up straight once during the Bush years and made a stand on the war, the debt, torture etc. We gave her control of the House before Obama got elected we elected her to do something instead she played it safe.
We need leaders.

Dennis as House Leader!

I still haven’t forgiven Durbin for apologizing for the factually correct statement he made about Gitmo.

Cowardly.

tough choice. i think I have to lean schumer, because he seems to be a bit more of a hardass with the GOP.

i do not like his pro-AIPAC record though. at all.

Who has Rahm’s support the Banker’s Senator or the fellow Daley Hack that is a tough question.

People picking Durbin make absolutely no sense to me.

Schumer fought for a public option in the Senate, Durbin did not

therefore I pick Schumer.

Who would we want as Senate Leader if given a choice?

He’s come a long long way since his days as Cleveland Mayor, but, oh golly, um… the memories still sting a bit… your call. i must need new glasses. I like him right where he is, frankly. He makes a dandy gad-fly!

We might be… the DLCers have 8 more months to screw us over while they can.

That settles it then. Durbin will be the pipeline for lobbyist cash and hence the new Senate Leader.

Door #1:

Investment Banking
Wall St. Puts Its Campaign Money on Schumer

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, seems to be the most popular senator on Wall Street. He has managed to collect $1.65 million in donations from people in the industry since the start of the year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/wall-st-puts-its-campaign-money-on-schumer/

Door #2:

Dick Durbin: Banks “Frankly Own The Place”

“And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place,”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/dick-durbin-banks-frankly_n_193010.html

Let’s try “Schumer” for a thousand Alex.

Anybody I’d like would never be in contention. That’s the point, only those owned by powerful interests would ever be considered for such a position.

Personally, I’d like Russ Feingold.

I am open to suggestions

I agree on that.

Some day they’ll notice they’ve got our addy on multiple lists. At least, they know they’ve got one impressively cranky customer in our neighborhood.
No money, not even a stamp, to answer the obvious…

We are only one financial crisis away from either us or the tea baggers taking charge and given the current dorks running the economy I would bet sooner rather than later.

one quote and a donation list?

Go do some actual research. Schumer may be a corporate schill, but so is Durbin, he just earns less money.

Yeah, it feels like the ship is set on autopilot and we’re heading for calamity, but are powerless in this two party, entrenched interest-owned ship to do anything about it, but sit tight and wait for it to happen.

Nice job, Obama! Ya fraud!

The day can’t come soon enough.

Durbin voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. On Guantanamo, he compared us to the Khmer Rouge.

On the other hand, he seems to be in Obama’s pocket.

I vote for Bernie Sanders.

Likewise here. It just seems actual rock-solid power has a distressing tendency to sour the leadership product, in so-o-o-o many situations. Is it THAT hard to fight for just causes and count money at the same time?!
ooogh!

Don’t care for either one, just sayin’ if I was to make a bet on which of those two it would be Schumer….to say why even discuss it….Durbin’s mouth rules him out, and besides he apologized to the thugs – Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) yesterday offered a tearful apology on the Senate floor for comparing the alleged abuse of prisoners by American troops to techniques used by the Nazis, the Soviets and the Khmer Rouge, as he sought to quell a frenzy of Republican-led criticism. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101654.html

Smelling blood the sharks will circle and he’ll be as helpless as Reid.

Yeah, I’d guess Schumer is probably all for torture — so he’ll probably get the job based on that alone.

I’ll say Schumer for the reasons Emptywheel lists.

Leadership isn’t necessarily about the leader’s politics. It’s more about the ability to control the caucus, something that Harry Reid lacks utterly.

Nancy Pelosi is a progressive member of the House, but as a leader, her progressive credentials have done nothing to shape policy.

no soup for you.

NEXT?!

Good question, but Kerik, Mukasey, Freeman, Wall Street, AIPAC + self-aggrandizing — all make me vote against Schumer.

Could either Schumer or Durbin be persuaded to campaign for the ML position on the platform of repealing the 60-vote cloture requirement?

Thanks. I’d trust EW’s judgment and credentials to make a call.

Oh my! I did a quick google on Schumer torture, and I learned that Chuck Schumer supports torture: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/lawmaker-news/35713-schumer-on-torture-2004-do-what-you-have-to-do

Well, at least he’s consistent as a neo-con.

Thanks, Jane, for all this and so much more.

We at our extended household send greetings to you and yours.

You give us reason to hope, and to dig deep to work harder. ;->

Speaking as an upstate NY resident I’d rather that it weren’t Schumer. His assistance as always been focused on NYC, which I have nothing against, and Wall Street. Giving him a bit more leverage to help those corporations least in need won’t help anyone else. Durbin is marginally better because it might take him more time to come up to speed and every once in a while at least makes better noises.

None of the above is probably the better choice.

a ringing endorsement. heh. thanks for being honest.

Heh! Majority Leader. Dem boyz might be getting ahead of themselves!

Would someone please tell me where Senator Whitehouse has gone? He was around and doing things for awhile and now has vanished.

Schumer’s vote on Mukasey bothers me a lot.

Has it occurred to anyone that there might actually BE a good choice on Reid’s replacement?

Leadership isn’t necessarily about the leader’s politics. It’s more about the ability to control the caucus, something that Harry Reid lacks utterly.

Might be better to have a weak ineffective senate leader.

Obama’s policies and legislation are crappy. Better he’s a lame duck than cutting SS, Medicare and increasing our military presence everywhere.

This is like the choice between Lite Beer and Swiss Miss Cocoa made with water. Neither is particularly appetizing, but wither would be moderately better than the present. I polled for Durbin, but agree that Shumer might be more influential.
One thing few remember is that Durbin actually voted against the the first Authorization for the Iraq War. Not spoke, but cast a vote at personal risk. You can find dozens of votes to agree or disagree with in any long time Senator’s record, but that one stands out for me.

No kidding. Majority Leader Too-Tan?

We’ve tried that. Harry Reid.

Both are slimy. I am so sick of having to accept the “best” of two but with no choice in selecting someone who may actually be qualifiied.

Thanks, Jane.

I was going to say neither. Before reading. And after reading. I know it is a hierarchy and besides I can’t think of ANYONE I want.

NOT-Reid is a helluva long-awaited start. I will say that. Re-arrange the deck chairs for us out here in the peanut gallery. Gives us something to exercise our brains about.

However, education strikes again (thank you Jane), so I have *decided.*

NOT-Schumer: because of Wall Street, Mukasey, torture, and AIPAC … long list of disappointments.

Give Durbin a go: benefit of the doubt for Gitmo and AUMF. Durbin might be a good pairing with Pelosi.

Besides, I don’t expect Schumer would modify Obama in any *good* way.

Where were these guys on Alito, Roberts, and Bernanke … ?

Good point. I agree.

Though by accident, it has thwarted the horrible hcr. Neither Schumer or Durbin will legislate Wall Street reform, etc.

This is why I love Progressives- they get to the point. ;]

Have hought about this for months, here’s my take:

1. A big NIX on Schumer or Durbin.
-If Inquisitr @71 is right, No on Durbin.
-Schumer is a bigger NOO! because he’s a hard line pro-Wall Street, pro-Patriot Act guy. As past head of the DSCC, he was also responsible for the re-introduction of Joe Lieberman and other Moderates, while also starving candidates Lamont and Hackett of Ohio -both solid Progressives. In several Hill articles he bragged about using the DSCC purse to push votes towards the donors interests.
He many be worse than Reid.

2. Reid beat Dodd as ML, by working the Moderates over to his side. We need to encourage the majority of solid Lefties to support a Lefty and not another Mod.
For that reason I suggest finding Senators who are bold, vote most often with the Democrats, but who appeal to the Moderates. (And who, as ML, could boost the home state support for Dems!)
For the reasons above, my faves are the following three:
-Sherrod Brown*** of Ohio -97.3 voting record.
-Jack Reed* of Rhode Island -97.3
-Tom Udall** of New Mexico – 95.3 -**(Also was the only to come out publicly who intends to change the Senate filibuster rules at the beginning of the next session!)

Unfortunately, I voted for Durbin before I read this. Thanks Marcy.

x2

Feingold bold …no?

;->

When you dig deeper, you’ll be glad you did. ;)

I’ve always liked Durbin for a few reasons.

First he is a very smart and articulate guy who for the most part forms his arguments on facts. Second he seems to be less beholden to the Jewish lobby whose effect on foreign policy is disastrous. Thirdly he is a true partisan who is willing to engage in battle and is not afraid to take a stand.

All these qualities far outshadow any appeal that Schume rmay have, although frankly I see Schumer as in the pocket of the Jewish lobby and beholden to the big banks. For me it is no contest, Durbin is by far the better man to lead the Senate and might actually be able to enact legislation.

It will be a breath of fresh air to be rid of Reid.

Why should progressives care who the next Democratic Majority Leader is? They aren’t going to represent us or our issues. There remains still this kneejerk reflex among progressives that we are or should be connected to the Democratic party. We have to break this bond or rather we have to recognize that Democrats broke it long ago.

Democrats didn’t fight Bush when they were in the minority. They didn’t fight him when they gained control of Congress in the 2006 elections. They are continuing Bush’s policies now that they control everything. Even with a massacre shaping up in the 2010 elections, they continue along this path.

So Durbin or Schumer? Who the f*ck cares!

Shhhh …. We’re supposed to pretend it matters. :)

Durbin. Definitely not Schumer. OMG!

x3

Wasn’t it Durbin that said, in a fit of candor, “the banks own the place”?

If these two are the only realistic choices, Durbin.

Ideally, I’d like someone who would 1) reform the filibuster/cloture rules (or force the R’s to filibuster all the time but that aint’ gonna happen because the D’s would have to hang around all the time); 2) go against Obama every now and then, if just to remind BO that the legislative branch is supposed to be a third and equal branch of government; 3) purge the place of the 10-12 DINO’s that are really R’s on anything significant and progressive. Preaching to the choir, I know…

First, Schumer can claim to have had a hand in the election of up to 16 sitting Senators (plus a lesser hand in Gillibrand’s appointment). That kind of thing can be tremendously powerful.

It wasn’t Schumer. It was the Bush/Cheney Debacle.

Russ Feingold? :D

Durbin. Only because he’s less of a sell out to bankers than Schumer.

But seriously, I vote for Durbin. If only because I know one of the lawyers on his staff, and he’s brutally honest. A trait I deeply appreciate.

“I like Durbin’s politics better– [...]

But I want a ML that can control his caucus.”

This defies logic to me.

WHAT’S WORSE?:

Someone who has better control of his caucus and can more effectively push policies through which I disagree with? i.e. Schumer

OR

Someone who perhaps may be a bit less effective at pushing policies — but is pushing policies which I actually agree with? i.e. Durbin

If I disagree with someone’s policy agenda, and he’s very effective at pushing it through, then I could think of no one worse for the job. :) Otherwise, we may as well put Tom Delay back in office, since he’s better at whipping up votes than Pelosi. :)

As I New Yorker, I know Schumie. Let’s have Durbin.

I don’t understand why Schumer is a contender, even. He’s your garden variety DLC cutout. There are already too many of those in leadership positions to keep the misery index in the stratosphere. And then there are the 12 reasons not to trust him.

A good choice, I believe.

I agree. Schumer could get a lot done. If he had been ML, we would have passed HCR.

You mean “Minority Leader”, don’t you? I see Delaware, Arkansas, Illinois, North Dakota, and Nevada as going Republican, with Indiana, Pennsylvania, Colorado and possibly even New York as possible pickups. Think Florida and New Hampshire are going to turn Democrat? I wouldn’t count on it.

Only it wouldn’t have actually been health care reform.

Schumer easily.

He was the force behind getting some kind of public option onto the floor of the Senate, and did so against the White House’s wishes.

He was the only one speaking out for reconciliation in September.

If Schumer had been the Leader, that Sunday night meeting with Rahm in December would have gone quite differently.

Me too. I just know it’ll never happen. :/

I agree. The indictments of Schumer continue to grow. Voted for the AUMF. AIPAC sellout. Big Bank sellout. Mukasey sellout. Torture sellout. No one has mentioned his role in the Charles Freeman hit.

Charles Freeman is a political realist who doesn’t speak in sound bites and was nominated by Obama to head the National Security Council. He doesn’t speak in sound bites, and says things like this: Before 9/11 …”Our values were everywhere accepted and advancing, albeit with some lingering resistance in a few out-of-the-way places. Our policies would speak for themselves through the White House and State Department spokesmen.

“That was, of course, before we suffered the trauma of 9/11 and underwent the equivalent of a national nervous breakdown. It was before we panicked and decided to construct a national-security state that would protect us from the risks posed by foreign visitors or evil-minded Americans armed with toenail clippers or liquid cosmetics. It was before we decided that policy debate is unpatriotic and realized that the only thing foreigners understand is the use of force. It was before we replaced the dispassionate judgments of our intelligence community with the faith-based analyses of our political leaders. It was before we embraced the spin-driven strategies that have stranded our armed forces in Afghanistan, marched them off to die in the terrorist ambush of Iraq, and multiplied and united our Muslim enemies rather than diminishing and dividing them. It was before we began to throw our values overboard in order to stay on course while evading attack. It was before, in a mere five years, we transformed ourselves from 9/11′s object of almost universal sympathy and support into the planet’s most despised nation, with its most hateful policies.”

Schumer painted a target on his back, then took aim. For AIPAC and neocons.

What’s the point in having someone who’s going to be effective at supporting the rise of fascism at home, eternal war abroad, and the sovereignty of the Masters of the Universe? I’d rather have someone ineffective.

Durbin voted against AUMF, spoke vociferously against the Bankers, and generally has been good on many issues. Many above say he would be ineffective, is weak, and is in Obama’s pocket. I can’t argue. But if these are the choices I vote for gridlock.

We’re toast.

Obama could have gotten all that if he wanted it. I don’t blame Reid. I blame Obama. Obama just used the Blue Dogs for cover to get exactly what he wanted.

With Blue Dogs getting support of the White House, they had no incentive to listen to Reid.

Oh lets go with Durbin, he has a smaller nose.

I’m guessing Durbin is bettter since he at least was honest once (his banks on the place quote); both will roll over for their corporate masters at the countries expense.

Same as it ever was…

Durbin was certainly muy macho when he tearfully walked back his gitmo criticism. Based on that alone, I wouldn’t want him. You’d never know when he might break out into a full-on blubber fest on MTP

As for Schumer – sleazy weasel, yes. But I could live with that if he knew how to get things done. Unfortunately, he is like 99.9 percent of all elected democrats in that he talks pleasingly in the early stages but caves to republicans when it counts. Anyone who writes a book about a fictional long island family to whom he must cater in order to get elected shares another fault with 99.9 percent of other democrats. The word “persuade” is not in their lexicon.

I’ve always respected Ron Wyden from Oregon and his seat is safe in his state. He fights and is out spoken. Durbin seems to have integrity, but caves easily. Schumer is a corporate shill.

up until Denver, I would have guessed Durbin – but will never forget his going all Sammy the Bull on Pachacutec when asked about Lieberman staying in the caucus – if aristocrats aren’t going to look out for one another, who will :D

Durbin also raised cash and built email lists on the PO – just like Harry

not saying he’s worse than Schumer, just saying there’s no difference – also, Schumer brought us James Comey – thank dog

Prefer Durbin, but consider Schumer more likely. Why? Because as another stick-up artist famously said, ‘that’s where the money is’. Money is the ultimate rule in the senate.

Schumer would have had Mukasey on the SCOTUS, then later, on a Meet The Press appearance, agitated for him to become AG.

Yeah, politics aside, schumer has more fight in him.

I think that’s what needed here.

Durbin may lack leadership skills, but these can be learned especially with an honest person who has values they would perhaps be willing to fight for given the opportunity to put some power behind those values.

If you would like to see someone else as leader, Durbin would be a good choice because there is a pecking order and if Schumer gets in he will be there until the end of time while Durbin *may* not last very long if he is as bad as some people seem to think. Meanwhile Schumer may leave the scene, especiaally if he is *passed* over.

With Schumer you know exactly what you are getting and I see no opening for anything progressive. With Durbin there is a chance.

LBJ style is impossible in this day and age – too many back room deals that never see the light of day. Don’t get me wrong I admire and appreciate what LBJ accomplished, but I think a new century need a new approach – and no I’m not sure what that would be????
I vote for Durbin’s populist light versus a Wall Street kiss ass.

can i change my vote? cus i want to vote “neither.”

they both suck ass, like the other 98 worthless sacks of shit in the senate.
well, make that 97: sanders is ok.

yeah, ok, me too! LOL.

Keep in mind -a new kick-ass ML ready to dump the Senate filibuster rule is the one most important bit of news needed to fire up the base.

Knowing we have a new and gutsy leader in the Senate who can buck both Obama, the Moderates and the Right when necessary will give us a singular chance to push through more progressive policies – or block the more regeressive ones.

Feingold or Whitehouse I love, Durbin and Schumer are too weak and just more of the same.

WE have to find the one the majority of others Senators love too, and start campaigning for that replacement now. If we push hard now, Harry may step down now.

Durbin, hands down. Schumer is good on a lot of issues, but he’s been in the pocket of Big Business his whole career.

“You can not fight with the Majority Leader you wish you had, or would like to have…”

I completely agree with your position that we that aspire to leftist positions should not feel compelled to identify with Democrats. Our positions seldom coincide.

It is better to maintain an independent position and play the role of swing bloc that will follow its own interests in collaboration with whomever we agree with.

The big problem with Schumer is that he is wholly owned by Wall Street. They provide the $$$ he needs to run in the expensive NY media market. So what happens if he allows legislation detrimental to Wall Street pass? His $$$ will vanish and he will face someone like Harold Ford the next election who will be using that Wall Street $$$ to beat Schumer. As a result, there would be zero chance of reigning in Wall Steet with Schumer as Majority Leader. Remember how he managed to kill off a tax on hedge funds in the middle of the biggest financial crisis since the Depression? So, a big NO to Schumer as far as I’m concerned because the big battle in society today is between moneyed corporate interests and the middle/lower classes.

Durbin is not completely controlled by Wall Street like Schumer is, but he is a Chicago Machine politician. The same political machine that produces Dems like Rahm Emanuel and Dan Lipinski and Blago. He will never, ever stand up to Obama on anything, which means more “bipatisan” GOP policies instead of rational ones.

But faced with a Morton’s Fork dilemma, I choose Durbin over Schumer because at least he isn’t completely owned by enemies of the people.

Can I do a write-in vote for Russ Feingold?

I supposed I’d prefer Schumer because he’s mentally tougher. But when the chips are down, he’s just another corporate sell-out, as Congressional Democrats tend to be.

Well said. I should have read your post before I voted.

Knowing now that Chuck Schumer has been vying for Reid’s position as Majority Leader, I guess this article by Jon Walker now has new relevance:

Schumer Raises the Stakes: If Final Bill Has No Public Option, Blame Harry Reid

Schumer spoke support of Israel at the Party in the street in NY during the Gaza Massacre
Max Blumenthal’s Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjAInOYiWw

I could never get over this.

I think you need to be the majority party to be the majority leader. Who’s to say that Schumer or (write in candidate Feingold c/o bluewombat above)will be a Senator next year? Who’s to say the Dems will hold on to the Senate? http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2010/02/dick-morris-you-want-prediction-now.html

Well, since Schumer and Feingold are not up for election this year, the odds are pretty good that they’ll be senators next year.

And thanks for the link. Dick Morris is always good for a laugh.

I’m really surprised with some of the posters here not exposing some of Schumers more egregious NEOCON tendencies?

Yes, we’ve all heard about about him [1] “…confirming Judge Michael Mukasey as Attorney General [even after Mukasey] stumbles and somersaults over defining what is and is not torture…”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/benchmarking-schumer-on-j_b_70910.html

Also, we’ve all heard about [2] his part taking down Chas Freeman:

“…Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), … taking credit for the withdrawal, according to Greg Sargent of the Plum Line blog.

“Charles Freeman was the wrong guy for this position,” Schumer’s statement read. “His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration. I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing.”

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/beta/articles/display/Freeman_Withdrawal_Marks_Victory_for_Conservative_Israel_Lobby/

But there seems little mention of [3] his association with the Neocon funded shop:

– The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and its spin-off organization, Defense of Democracies, are nominally nonpartisan advocacy organizations that promote a hawkish and neoconservative line in U.S. foreign and domestic affairs.

[nb: only when the organization and its operations were exposed by the progressive blogosphere did he and a couple of others neocon democrats (being the two-faced beings they are) felt the need to resign]:

“…Within days of the ads airing, nearly all the Democrats who had served on FDD’s board of advisors quit, including Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, Rep. Jim Marshall of Georgia, and Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s former campaign advisor.

Asked about the resignations, FDD’s May told Newsweek, “I’m disappointed that the political pressures have been such that several Democratic members of FDD’s board of advisors—including several who I’m pretty sure agree with us on the substance of the issue—have decided to resign.

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/beta/profile/Foundation_for_Defense_of_Democracies/

But what I haven’t seen mentioned is [4] Schumer trying with all his might to WHIP UP VOTES FOR JOHN BOLTON, yes that John Bolton!

Steve Clemons [The Washingtonnote]:

“…Every time I get an email from Senator Schumer, I am reminded of his support of John Bolton’s confirmation in the 2nd push the administration made on Bolton during the Israel-Lebanon conflagration. Several — yes more than three — U.S. Senators told me personally that Schumer was telling them “a vote against Bolton is a vote against Israel.”

One heavyweight Democratic donor who tried to encourage Schumer to do whatever he needed to do on Bolton but stop lobbying the caucus was so frustrated with Schumer’s hyperventilating support for Bolton and enthusiastic conflation of the unconfirmed Ambassador and Israel that the donor told me, “that call just saved me a lot of money” — meaning he wouldn’t deal much with Schumer or his designs any longer.

Fortunately, Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Christopher Dodd undid the damage done by Schumer in a Democratic Caucus Luncheon and Dodd got the Dems to stand strong on Bolton despite Schumer’s lobbying against Democratic Party and American national interests.

That allowed Senator Lincoln Chafee — and behind the scenes Senator Richard Lugar — to deploy the final coup de grace to the Bolton confirmation effort.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/benchmarking-schumer-on-j_b_70910.html

– Question, is this really the guy you progressives want leading the Democratic Party in the Senate?

PS: Please support Marcy Wingorad against Jane Harman — who IMHO is Schumer’s mini-me — Thanks.

Senator Schumer disqualified himself, as far as I’m concerned, because he voted for the Iraq war resolution and to confirm Mukassey as the new Attorney General.

Therefore, he does not merit consideration.

After all the destruction brought on by eight years of Bush foreign policy, I can’t imagine how anyone from the Left could support one of their fellow neo-cons for Democratic Majority Leader.

As far as foreign policy is concerned a vote for Schumer is a vote for the Iraq War, torture, John Bolton, Mukasey, and AIPAC. I mean THAT is an extreme ideological foreign policy platform for the Left to support.

It looks like Durbin is actually winning this poll 60% to Schumer’s 40% which is awesome — helps to restore my faith in my fellow liberals.

Phew!

Thanks for bringing up the Bolton connection. You place Schumer firmly in not just the neocon camp, but the nasty son-of-a-bitch camp as well. I wonder if Marcy would reconsider.

Maybe he would trade reintroducing single-payer for invading Iran. He just yesterday upped the ante on Kyl-Lieberman: “Today, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer announced that the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2009 has unanimously passed the Senate….Schumer is vowing to fight to ensure the stronger Senate language prevails….giving the administration the capability to impose crippling sanctions on Iran….Two weeks ago, Schumer signed onto a letter from Senator Evan Bayh urging President Obama to consider using sanctions on the books.” Bayh/Schumer? There’s a match made in heaven.

Let’s back the Iran regime into a corner. Just like Iraq. Where’s the yellow cake and aluminum tubes?

I’ll bet Jane Harman can find them. BTW, everyone should say “hi” to Jane next time you use your cell phone.

Okay, eCAHN–you just made me chuckle out loud to myself with that remark. Excellent quip.

You bring up a good point, Adams. FDL often seems to focus A LOT on domestic issues (which is great — it’s good to become known as the expert site on crucial domestic initiatives like health care, etc.), but I fear readers here sometimes overlook the crucial aspects of candidates’ foreign policy ideologies.

After George W. Bush we should NEVER forget to take a serious look at politicians’ ideological imperatives in foreign policy. Many more lives were lost in the illegal war of Iraq than were lost in 9-11. The debt from that quagmire alone will saddle us for many generations to come, and will probably hamper our ability to pay for decent health care for all.

The same guy who might claim to bring you a public option, may instead invade Iran and send energy prices through the roof, and send us into a depression. It’s not ALL about health care.

This is a tough one, that’s for sure. I’ve been reading the discussion, hoping that I’d be reminded of something that makes one of the two better than the other. Sadly, I’m as undecided as ever. Neither has a political stance I like. As folks have mentioned, Durbin has a habit of folding on the issues. Schumer, at least, is fairly progressive on things like health care. He’s in the pocket of Wall Street, but I doubt that Durbin would be any better, given that Wall Street has so much power to either keep his party in the majority or spend it into minority status.

I’ll go with Schumer, because at least on the issues where he and I do agree, he has a chance of being effective.

As someone once said, you don’t go to Washington with the Senators you want. You have to go with the Senators you have.

I’d be chuckling more if it weren’t true.

Son-of-a-bitch club AND a war-monger working FOR escalation/action against Iran. That’s NO different that John McCain!!!!! John McCain for Majority Leader!!!!

Perfect. Lovely. Schumer FAIL. He cannot escape his *true* nature.

Durbin and Pelosi might be able to shore each other up and shift the landscape against the war-mongers. Wouldn’t that be a better scenario?

Schumer talks tough on a lot of things ~ and gets in front of the cameras. But he never ever ever *delivers* on any of it. Has he had any *positive* effect (in our terms) on the health care discussion beyond posturing? I can’t recall anything.

I think Schumer would be just like Reid with slightly more colorful language. And he would probably be more biased towards Wall Street and endless wars.

Reminds me of our presidential choices…which one is the lesser evil of the two. I feel good about sitting this one out since we cannot vote anyway.

Someone is in a primary w/Schumer and he seems pretty cool.

http://randycredico2010.org/

I haven’t checked, so perhaps I don’t remember properly. I seem to remember that Schumer’s amendment to the Baucus health care bill was one of the more progressive ones, though less so than Jay Rockefeller’s. It was voted down, that much I do remember.

Schumer is slimy. Durbin is at heart a coward. Neither!

Durbin would be Reid all over again and Schumer is nothing but an opportunist. If this is all that’s on offer, can we get Hillary back in the senate?

Durbin’s a likable pussy, so no. Yes, Schumer’s an asshole opportunist, but I believe we need a strong asshole right now. Lyndon Johnson was an asshole Senate majority leader back in the late fifties, and he got. things. done. During a Republican administration he brow-beat, cajoled, bribed, threatened, and cussed out any and everyone in his way. He didn’t have the numbers we Dems have now. (Of course, Republicans weren’t then the anti-intellectual, dick-slobbering, corporate organ grinder’s monkeys that pass for Republican representatives these days.)

It takes balls (and I do believe that Hillary has enough figurative balls to have done this job well if she had remained in the Senate). Harry ain’t got no balls. I’m going with Schumer.

ditto

Knowing the Democrats they’ll compromise and choose Lieberman.

No preference.

Franken or Feingold, preferably the former.

Definitely Durbin. Schumer would be a catastrophe equivalent to naming someone like Rahm Emanuel or Heath Shuler Speaker of the House. Durbin would be a vast improvement over Reid.

That guy from Gernamy that started with an H (or Bush, DeLay, etc) was a strong asshole who got (shitty) things done – but I would Valkry his punk-ass, not vote for him (the H guy).