I love Chuck Schumer, but he's too nice! I think he should be replaced by Michael Bennett

[LaMouffette]

or by another senator who has the innate ability to go OFF on people. As the saying goes, this is something you are born with; this cannot be taught.

Remember this righteous rant of Michael Bennett's when he went after Ted Cruz's "crocodile tears"?

[link:

|


Bennett was enraged, but it was a controlled rage, backed up with incontrovertible facts.

Chuck Schumer is a wonderful senator and a good, decent man, but it's like bringing a butter knife to a gunfight when it comes to his facing off with Mitch "The Grim Reaper" McConnell.

(Sorry, Chuck! I do sincerely love you.)

[hlthe2b]

1. That episode notwithstanding, Bennett is likewise known as a "nice" guy, so I don't quite

see that as a distinct difference. His having gone after Cruz in that one instance was unusual for him from what I can tell. (saying nothing against Bennett)

[CentralMass]

2. Tell that to Al Franken.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

3. agreed, that was a righteous rant...nt

[JI7]

4. Does he even want the job ? Do you know what Leadership of House and Senate

has to do ? There are many people who would have no interest in that job and that includes recent Presidential Nominees Gore, Kerry, Obama, Clinton , Biden and VP Harris.

And that is just one clip you showed where he responded because of something that personally affected his state . He is usually not like that and that's one of the reasons this got so much attention.

[still_one]

5. The problem Chuck Schumer is going to face, and I suspect some may not understand it, is

because of the 50-50 situation in the Senate, new rules need to be agreed on between McConnell and Schumer before the Democrats can exert their majority agenda. Until that happens the Senate rules are governed by the old rules, which were under republican control.

It is unfortunate that we could not have gained at least one more Senate seat. However, I am thankful that we have at least have what we have.

McConnell is saying he will not agree to any Senate rules unless Schumer says the filibuster will not be taken away. Schumer up to now has indicated he won't budge on that, but in order for the Democrats to control the agenda and move forward, I am not sure what he can do.

I am hoping beyond hope that there might be one republican Senator who goes independent, and caucuses with the Democrats, but that is even more unlikely to happen

At least as far as the stimulus is concerned, we don't need to get rid of the filibuster to make that happen, because we can achieve that through reconciliation

[Turin_C3PO]

6. Is there

any way a vote to change the rules could be brought up before the Senate and have Kamala as tie breaker? I’m not very well educated on Senate procedures.

[still_one]

10. If there is, I hope someone posts it, and we utilize it. I was thinking perhaps Schumer agree

to leaving the filibuster in-tack, and then perhaps later going back on his agreement with McConnell after the new rules are solidified, and the need to get rid of the filibuster is needed, but I don't know if that can even be done once the rules have been agreed upon

[LaMouffette]

8. Wow. Thanks for explaining that holdup over the rules. God, how I hate McConnell.

He knows that it's the tendency of Democrats to concede in order to get things moving, which is, I think, admirable, except that we always seem to be the ones giving in. So he's just going to dig in his turtle flippers and wait.

At this point, McTurtle has nothing to lose and everything to gain by not giving in and keeping the filibuster. I wonder if there is any kind of bargaining chip that Schumer could use to sway him.

[still_one]

11. My sentiments exactly

[True Dough]

31. I also agree with this notion

Time for the Dems to hold firm. Not give one damn thing more than absolutely to Moscow Mitch.

[tblue37]

37. Schumer should pull a McConnell: say OK, you win--and then ditch the filibuster anyway.

[ancianita]

40. Yep.

[FreepFryer]

7. I'm amazed DU permits such passive aggressive hit pieces on our new majority leader.

The OP offers zero substantiation for the critical frame of “niceness“ lain on Schumer, during our first week in the majority, no less.

I’m no fan of his (I’m a constituent, pissed since he backed Mukasey) - But without a shred of actual substantiation, DU really should be a little less trollable by posts like this.

[LaMouffette]

9. FreepFryer, I didn't mean it to be a hit piece. This is just my opinion, and I pray God that Schumer

proves me wrong and prevails against McConnell's tactics.

[still_one]

13. A lot of what you are suggesting may not be under Schumer's control until the rules are settled upon

[JI7]

14. But Michael Bennett is far more of a nice guy than Schumer is .

[Demsrule86]

15. There is little schumer can do.

[FreepFryer]

17. You didn't establish a rationale or justify your opinion, you just falsely characterized him. (Nt)

[LaMouffette]

24. Point taken! I will keep this in mind for future posts.

[SharonClark]

30. The poster established a rationale, you simply

didn’t agree.

[MrsCoffee]

21. And yet it was.

[mtnsnake]

22. It was far from being a hit piece. nt

[onenote]

12. Apparently, your opinion is not shared by a majority of Democratic caucus

[Demsrule86]

16. Well that is because some don't understand how the Senate works.

This is why they think with 50 votes...a bare minimum,we can play hardball. I dont know how this gets resolved.

[Hortensis]

18. But Schumer would only be replaced by another principled Democrat.

I suppose someone else could be a better bloviator, but that person would still fight with the weapons of our democratic republic. Because we are its protectors and must.

Our opponents would still be viciously unprincipled traitors to that republic and thus willing to destroy it because their only goal is winning.

Isn't it worth noting, though, both that we win more often than not and that we're currently winning? Don't want to forget that one!

That's in spite of our greatest weakness: Weak citizens whose understanding and commitment are easily corrupted by mind-fuckers, who don't understand the power of our principles and institutions and are too easily discouraged from voting, or even turned.

[jcboon]

19. Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"

I like Michael Bennet and Chuck Schumer.

[mtnsnake]

20. I couldn't agree more

that Chuck should be replaced, and yes, Bennett would be a better choice or someone like Amy Klobuchar. I like Schumer as one of my NYS senators, but as the House majority leader? No.

[Maxheader]

23. He can be schooled by Joe and his crew...

With obama there too...the democrats don't need to take any shit off the senate minority leader.

None-what-so-ever.....

[Billytee]

25. It's ironic but seated behind Bennett during his speech is..

Senator Doug Jones of Alabama who lost his seat in the last election. This is after his repeated request for help from the DNC during his campaign. If his seat were retained, we would have 51 members to their 49 and not have to put up with Moscow Mitch.

[jcgoldie]

38. Doug Jones was not going to keep that seat in Alabama

This is absolutely not a criticism of him I think he was a great senator, but you have to allocate resources where they can do the most good and the reality is the only way Jones won in Alabama the first time is his opponent was a child molester.

[MrsCoffee]

26. Less than a week in....

Under the bus in record time!!!

That would teach ‘ol McConnell a lesson, eh?



You think the Republicans wouldn’t see replacing Schumer as a win for them? Yeah let’s project no confidence in our leaders and really fuck this up. That’s the ticket.

Ffs.

[FreepFryer]

35. +1. (Nt)

[ananda]

27. Agree. Schumer definitely needs some bite with his bark.

...

[BeyondGeography]

28. Rec'd

Because any OP that highlights the quality of Michael Bennet’s takedowns of Senate Republicans works for me. He’s the best we have in that department.

Link to tweet

[Squinch]

29. I agree. He's my Senator, and I'll always vote for him. But this is just not the time for

"Gentleman Legislators" who expect their opposition to be the same.

[Dem4Life1102]

32. Michael Bennett doesn't have the seniority

If Schumer were to step down Dick Durbin is nexts in line for leader.

[Bucky]

34. Durbin is more of a fighter than Schumer. But his sucession is not guaranteed

He would have to run for that position and he might be challenged for it.

[Dem4Life1102]

36. True

but more times than not those challenges are unsuccessful.

[Bucky]

33. He might be like Pelosi, who acts like a sweet grandma right up to the gut punch

But Schumer's a creature of the Senate. A leadership doesn't belong to the fiercest fighters. Let Bennett do his thing from his position. Schumer's job is to keep the left side of the aisle unified and parse a few words or slip in the occasional compromise in order to peel off a vote or two from the right side of the aisle.

That's an entirely different skill set than what it takes to throw the toughest punches and seem to "win the argument". Governing is about winning votes, not winning arguments

[Paladin]

39. I completely agree.

The last thing we need right now is polite Democratic leadership. As anybody who's been paying attention knows, good manners have been wasted on Republicans for decades, now---they knee-cap us, every fucking time.

Our time to right the wrongs of the trump regime is extremely limited. We need the toughest and most aggressive Democratic leadership possible. We barely managed to salvage our democracy from the rabid mob a few days ago---next time we may not be so lucky. Schumer needs to toughen up, or we need new individuals at the top.

[ancianita]

41. To pull a McConnell on the filibuster will make all the difference in the next four years.

Deep down, McConnell will respect him for it.

And in case he makes a public fuss, he can be publicly reminded of all the times he went back on his word for the sake of winning, not for the sake of Americans.