Obama and his Dimocrats remain stubborn and will try to ignore Massachusetts and Scott Brown. Obama and his Dimocrats need to be politically hit on their heads, repeatedly, with a 2×4.
There is a lot of Obama boobery and skulduggery today but we want to talk Chuck Schumer and his potential defeat in true blue New York State.
Items in today’s news we will not focus on (today) include: John Edwards, like Darth Vader, belatedly admits his paternity. Barack Obama will try to bamboozle the American public today with fake populist talk about bad Big Banks – but Obama won’t discuss his mob banker friend (and Illinois U.S. Senate candidate) Alexi Giannoulias nor Michael “Jaws” Giorango (which we will continue to discuss). The Obama economy continues to lose jobs and more jobs. Obama wants to bust the debt up by $1.9 trillion. And the Supreme Court has opened up the money gates which will ensure Republicans will have plenty of money to rightly destroy Obama Dimocrats this November.
Let’s get back to Chuck Schumer. Think Chuck is invincible in New York State? Guess again:
The poll had Schumer’s negative rating at 42 percent, where it has been for months in Marist — but his approval rating was at 51 percent, one of his lowest in that survey in recent years, and down from 58 percent in September.
“We’re seeing some general erosion in his numbers,” said Marist pollster Lee Miringoff, “from what’s been a consistent mid- to high-50s. This is an electorate that’s increasingly unhappy.” [snip]
“There is a sense that …. his focus has shifted to Washington,” said one longtime New York Democratic insider. The insider acknowledged that Schumer is still doing as many small-bore Empire State pressers as he used to, but said there’s a growing sense that he’s focused on national issues.
New York’s senior senator is the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, and some believe he’s eyeing a higher position.
Longtime Schumer watchers were surprised his pro-Martha Coakley email to supporters calling his now-colleague Scott Brown a “teabagger” last week, using the dismissive term used for the conservative Tea Party activists by hard-core Dems. And he’d long shied away from fights like the one he’s now locked in to bolster Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand by pushing back hard on potential primary rivals.
51% is not good. It’s enough to squeak by, but it is not good. If a Republican challenger arises, Schumer is vulnerable. Massachusetts proved that every Obama Dimocrat is vulnerable. Chuck Schumer is very vulnerable in the deep blue state of New York. The New York State race will be a tough race. Kristin Gillibrand, a stranger to statewide politicking will likely make novice mistakes. Governor Paterson is a dead duck not helped by his latest budgets of cuts and taxes. Mario Cuomo has bad blood from past campaigns yet he is supposed to be the savior for New York Dimocrats.
Chuck Schumer’s poll numbers are already wobbly before a punch is thrown. There is also a little discussed lesson from the Scott Brown Mass-acre of Dimocrats in Massachusetts. We noticed, and questioned the wisdom of the many Dimocratic ads which attacked Scott Brown on the issue. What was the issue? Here’s our earlier discussion:
In advertisements Coakley allies and the Coakley campaign are tagging Brown as “pro-torture” because he wants military imprisonment for terrorists, not trials in civilian American courts. Whatever the merits of those positions as policy issues, the reality is that most Americans, even those in Massachusetts agree with Scott Brown. Why is Coakley’s campaign making this an issue? Is it to get out the alleged Democratic base? How does that work when a sufficiently significant part of the base too agrees with Brown? How does that help? The Coakley campaign needs a refresher course in the Paul Tully message box.
On terrorist trials 65% of Massachusetts voters agree with Brown. How does that help Coakley to make this an issue?
If this issue worked so well for Scott Brown in Massachusetts, what could it do to Chuck Schumer in New York? Senator Schumer has flip-flopped on the issue of terror trials in New York. Schumer supports Obama on the issue now. All Schumer has said is New York should be paid for hosting the terrorist extravaganza. Chuck Schumer is vulnerable on this issue.
At his victory speech Brown said:
And let me say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation — they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.
It was health care that nationalized the special election for what we now know is the people’s Senate seat. But it was national security that put real distance between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley. “People talk about the potency of the health-care issue,” Brown’s top strategist, Eric Fehrnstrom, told National Review’s Robert Costa, “but from our own internal polling, the more potent issue here in Massachusetts was terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants.” There is a powerful lesson here for Republicans, and here’s hoping they learn it.
Like Barbara Boxer and just about every other Dimocratic incumbent, Chuckie Schumer is vulnerable. Perhaps Chuck needs to take a ride with the Chappaquiddick Chauffeur and concoct more Hillary Hate plots from the grave.
Traitor Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama and the back-stabber Dimocrats have a lesson to learn. This from HillaryForTexas in our comments, a quote from the DailyKooks:
“Q: Where are the other potential Dem collapse areas this Nov?
A: Almost precisely the places Hillary carried in the 08 prez primary”
Larry Sabato has an incomplete list of “more shocks on the way” for Dimocrats.
* * * * *
Is Chuck Schumer a treacherous beast? We need to definitively find this out. Recently we wrote about the book Game Change: “Gossip is pernicious and vicious because you cannot tell truth from fiction because there usually is some truth in the fiction.”
We also wrote this about Chuck Schumer.
We have tangled with Chuck Schumer in the past so it is possible that our views are colored by that past. We’ve had friends who have tangled with Schumer too so our views are most definitely colored by that past. We hope Hillary is right and that Schumer did not stab her in the back as so many others have. But we wonder…
Many questions about Chuck have been raised.
“Game Change” by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin revealed that Schumer and other powerful Dems urged Barack Obama to run – knowing that Clinton planned to. The pair wrote that Schumer even told Obama pal Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) to “take a two-by-four” to Clinton in 2007.
Our days of doubt are near an end. We increasingly believe Schumer acted dishonorably and treacherously on behalf of Barack Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Chuck Schumer must answer the questions raised about his alleged back-stabs and treacheries. We must know, and soon, whether it is true or we must begin our moves against Chuck Schumer:
The book reported that many of Clinton’s Senate colleagues — including some who nominally supported her, such as New York Sen. Chuck Schumer — were secretly offering aid to Obama all along.
We demand a clear and compelling and honest answer Chuck. You must answer whether this report from Game Change is true, Chuck:
His friend and Illinois counterpart, Dick Durbin, was urging him to run, but that was to be expected. More intriguing were the entreaties he was receiving from New York’s Chuck Schumer. Schumer’s relationship with Hillary had always been fraught with rivalry and tinged with jealousy; though she was technically the junior member of the New York team in the Senate, she had eclipsed him in terms of celebrity and influence from the moment she arrived on the Hill. [snip]
The political handicapper in Schumer was fascinated by Obama’s potential to redraw the electoral map, a capacity Clinton surely lacked. In conversations with other senators and strategists in 2006, Schumer would make these points over and over. He made them to Obama as well, and repeatedly; in one instance Schumer even double-teamed him with Reid. Although Schumer was careful to signal that home-state decorum would prohibit him from opposing Clinton publicly—“You understand my position,” he would say—he left no doubt as to where his head and heart were on the question.
Senator Charles Schumer of New York, and many other Dimocrats up for election in 2010, are going to hear and feel the whack of a 2×4. It will be administered by Hillary supporters – nationwide. Barack Obama will be next.