Recently, in a speech that did not get the coverage it deserved due to so much other news, Chuck Schumer made an astounding political move on 2016 which was immediately misunderstood by Republicans/conservatives and twisted by Big Media into what it was not. Schumer’s speech was portrayed as a boost for Hillary Clinton 2016. But Schumer’s speech was really a move to propel Elizabeth Warren and hurt Hillary Clinton 2016.
The incorrect analysis of the Schumer speech goes like this: Chuck Schumer made a speech about ObamaCare designed to help Hillary Clinton 2016 as it makes the necessary move to distance Hillary and the party from the Obama disasters which have led to the decimation of the party at local, state, and national levels.
In 2008 Chuck Schumer played the same game. In public Schumer was a Hillary Clinton supporter. In private, Schumer advised Obama to mercilessly “take a two-by-four” and smash it into Hillary’s head. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Rahm Emanuel, Donna Brazile, all pretended to be neutral in 2008 but they were all helping Obama behind the scenes and doing everything to destroy Hillary Clinton. Yesterday’s Howard Dean endorsement of Hillary Clinton is another ploy… but we’re getting ahead of ourselves.
Back to 2×4 Schumer and what he is up to. The New York Times‘ Tom Edsall wrote a good article about Schumer’s speech:
Is Obamacare Destroying the Democratic Party?
Charles Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, has forced a debate over fundamental party priorities out into the open. Should Democrats focus primarily on the problems of the poor or should they first address the economic struggles of the working and middle classes? [snip]
Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem – health care reform. The plight of uninsured Americans and the hardships caused by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed. But it wasn’t the change we were hired to make; Americans were crying out for an end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs; not for changes in their health care. This makes sense considering that 85 percent of all Americans got their health care from either the government – Medicare or Medicaid – or their employer. And if health care costs were going up, it didn’t really affect them. [snip]
There were also adverse political and policy consequences to the emphasis on enactment of Obamacare:
Had we started more broadly, the middle class would have been more receptive to the idea that President Obama wanted to help them. The initial faith they placed in him would have been rewarded. They would have held a more pro-government view and would have given him the permission structure to build a more pro-government coalition. Then Democrats would have been in a better position to tackle our nation’s health care crisis.
Read what Schumer is saying carefully. Schumer’s pique is not against Obama nor ObamaCare. Schumer wanted Obama to deceive with greater skill so that once the middle class was gulled into support for Obama it would have given “the permission structure to build a more pro-government coalition.”
Schumer in 2008 bought into the “coalition of the ascendant” hogwash peddled by kooks such as Ruy Teixeira. Schumer’s goal is to realize the fool’s gold new coalition to supplant the FDR coalition (which Schumer must forget actually won elections and built the party for 40 years).
After Schumer’s speech the usual Obama henchmen went into Obama protection mode. Their goal is Obama worship not political strategy or how to build a party so these Obama thugs (Tommy Vietor, Jon Lovett, etc.) did not have the intellectual heft to understand what Schumer was saying. The Obama thugs attacked Schumer out of reflex because all they care about is their love bug Obama.
Edsall noted that public opinion sides with Schumer because public opinion is against ObamaCare. Edsall writes that the consequences have been dire for those interested in party building. Edsall writes that “there were huge white defections from the Democratic Party; in 2010 and 2014, there were comparable defections of senior voters.”
The only way for Democratic Party leaders to stop the hemorrhaging, in Schumer’s view, is to take on the task of using the government to intervene in the private sector, pushing to raise wages and revive job opportunities for working men and women.
“Large forces – technology, automation and globalization – are not inherently malign forces,” Schumer said, but the burden is on Democrats “to figure out ways for the middle class to adapt to these new forces – to be able to thrive amidst these forces.” The only counterweight “that can give you the tools to stand up to the large tectonic forces, that can mitigate the effects that technology creates on your income, is an active and committed government that is on your side.”
Standing in the way of activist intervention is the fact that “the American public is so cynical about government that a Democratic, pro-government message would not be immediately successful.” To restore credibility, Schumer argued, the “first step is to convince voters that we are on their side, and not in the grips of special interests.” He specifically suggested the prosecution of bankers for “what seems, on its face, blatant fraud” and tax reform designed to ensure that C.E.O.s paid higher rates “than their secretaries.” In effect, he said, “an element of populism, even for those of us who don’t consider ourselves populists, is necessary to open the door before we can rally people to the view that a strong government program must be implemented.”
The ability of the Democratic Party to convince middle-class voters that it is on their side is by no means guaranteed. In mid-November, 2008, just after Obama first won election, 55 percent of voters had a favorable view of the Democratic Party. In the immediate aftermath of the recent election, according to Gallup, the favorability rating of the Democratic Party had fallen to a record low of 36 percent. [snip]
By shifting the public focus to the party’s pro-work and pro-wage policies, Schumer wants to transform the negative association of the Democratic Party with Obamacare. Even as his speech has provoked an intraparty rift, Schumer’s argument has won support from some surprising quarters.
Tom Edsall is surprised but we are not. The entire Schumer speech sounded to us very familiar. We’ve heard it before. We’ve heard it a lot. The first time we heard the Schumer speech we understood immediately that Schumer was not out to help Hillary Clinton 2016. What “two-by-four” Chuck Schumer was up to was to clear the path, as in 2008, for a candidate other than Hillary Clinton.
Chuck Schumer still resents Hillary Clinton from his first run for office. Schumer could not have won against an incumbent senator if it was not for First Lady Hillary Clinton’s campaigning for him. Later, when First Lady Hillary Clinton used her New York campaign experience (and data acquired from the first Schumer campaign) on behalf of Smuck Schumer to become New York Senator Hillary Clinton, the senior senator was not happy.
Schumer resented Hillary Clinton because although she was the “junior” senator from New York it was Hillary that got the attention. Chuck Schumer was downsized to “announcements” and public relations stunts on Sundays when there was no competition for news to get play on TV. Those Sunday morning pressers were often mocked by Big Media and campaign professionals.
The every Sunday morning “announcements” by Chuck Schumer brought laughs to one and all because for years Schumer observers originated the jibe “there is no place more dangerous than between Chuck Schumer and a television camera”. To watch Schumer crawl for publicity, his most craved commodity, brought mockery and more humiliation to Schumer and he has never forgotten.
Chuck Schumer is not about to see Hillary eclipse him again. Harry Reid will be gone as soon as Nevada votes for Senate again and Chuck wants the throne. Hillary in charge with Chuck as water-boy is a humiliation he does not want ever again. So Chuck Schumer gave a speech which sounded very much like Elizabeth Warren.
It was no surprise to us that almost immediately, almost as if it was planned, Schumer got some strong support from… Elizabeth Warren:
A spokesman for Senator Elizabeth Warren told reporters that Warren “agrees with Senator Schumer that there was an urgent need in 2009 and 2010 to help middle-class families who were struggling to get by, and that more should have been done.”
Schumer’s speech was the Warren playbook. Chuck Schumer is making the case and plowing the road for Elizabeth Warren. Recall Schumer’s attack against bankers? Lizzie Warren has her tomahawk out for banker scalps as she smartly attacks Obama from the left:
The Massachusetts Democrat is using the president’s choice of Lazard banker Antonio Weiss to be undersecretary for domestic finance to stir a debate within the Democratic party over whether it is too cozy with Wall Street, particularly when filling top finance jobs in government.
Speaking at the liberal Economic Policy Institute, Warren cast her opposition to Weiss as part of a bigger battle against the influence of the finance industry in Washington.
That Chuck Schumer is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the finance industry due to the fact he is from Wall Street New York is not the focus of Warren’s ire. What Warren/Schumer are up to is an attack on Hillary whom the left is portraying as the bankers’ choice.
But…but…but Howard Dean just endorsed Hillary some will say. It’s just a 2008 style ploy from Howard Dean. Want proof? Here:
Progressive groups move to draft Warren
Two prominent liberal groups are moving to draft Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) as a liberal alternative to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton.
On Tuesday, MoveOn.org announced its members would hold a vote on whether to spend $1 million to boost Warren in the Democratic primaries. The vote is expected to pass, with the group already saying it’s poised to throw its “full weight” behind the Massachusetts Democrat.
Democracy For America, a group founded by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, announced shortly after it would join MoveOn’s efforts. [snip]
Still, some on the left are clamoring for a progressive challenger to Clinton in the primaries. They believe Warren’s populist message is a stark contrast to Clinton’s close ties to Wall Street.
If Howard Dean was really #ReadyForHillary the organization he fully controls would not be #ReadyForWarren.
“Warren’s populist message is a stark contrast to Clinton’s close ties to Wall Street.” Remind you of anything? Remember the Schumer speech? He said, “an element of populism, even for those of us who don’t consider ourselves populists, is necessary to open the door before we can rally people to the view that a strong government program must be implemented.”
Elizabeth Warren’s latest move is to attack Obama from the left just as Schumer did:
During a meeting with nearly 50 of her top Boston-area donors Sunday night, Sen. Elizabeth Warren strongly criticized President Barack Obama’s Treasury Department pick Antonio Weiss and said Hispanic and African-American families were “targeted” during the mortgage crisis, according to people who attended the event.
The get-together, which was not a fundraiser but instead a chance for the Massachusetts Democrat to tend to her donor supporters, came as some Democrats continue to plead with Warren to launch a 2016 presidential campaign. [snip]
Beeuwkes, a Concord, Massachusetts, pharmaceutical executive, told POLITICO, “She spoke with passion about things like income inequality, but I’m not going to give you an interview.”
Beeuwkes has contributed to #ReadyForHillary but the moment Warren announces he will likely be #ReadyForWarren. Warren is the model candidate straight out of the Schumer speech.
Tom Harkin one of the most leftist members of the senate joined Schumer and Warren in the feint against ObamaCare and sly trap against Hillary Clinton 2016 designed to force Hillary further toward the Obama kook left. Harkin’s argument is that it was three “centrists” that blocked a full takeover of the health care system and that because of these moderates the mess of ObamaCare was born. Harkin does not understand that it was Obama’s allegiance to the insurance companies, just as he was loyal to them in Illinois, that led to ObamaCare.
For full scale Obama style sycophancy on behalf of Warren Juan Williams weighs in:
Juan Williams: Warren towers above
The 2014 winner of my annual award for “Member of Congress of the Year” goes to the politician who had such a good year she now defines her party’s future — Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). [snip]
The Massachusetts senator could become the Barack Obama of 2016, able to grab the Democrats’ presidential nomination from the favorite, Hillary Clinton, by coming at her from the left. The defining issue for Democrats in 2008 was Iraq. In 2016 it will be the economy. Warren is much more in step with the party on this issue than is Clinton.
Warren’s economic populism also defines the party’s present. After losses in the midterms, the Democrats have concluded that it is time for them to go on offense, utilizing Warren’s issues — raising the minimum wage, cutting better deals on student loans and supporting equal pay for women.
The new political direction set by Warren led Senate Democrats to add the first-term senator to their leadership team. They created a position just for her: “Strategic Policy Adviser to the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.”
That means Warren will be at the table shaping the identity of Democrats in the Senate, as they become a loud, defiant minority beginning in January.
But Warren looms largest over the 2016 race.
Democratic strategists are openly worried that with President Obama leaving the stage, the base of their party — women, unions, young people and racial minorities — will lose interest in politics and splinter. That could allow a unified GOP to retake the White House. Warren’s focus on economic inequality is proving to be the glue holding the Democrats together.
Warren’s surprising power is evident in her ability to force Clinton, the former senator from Wall Street’s home state and a well-paid speaker for top brokerages, to go on the attack against income inequality.
“I love watching Elizabeth give it to those who deserve to get it,” she said at a late October rally in Boston. Clinton was referring to Warren’s calls for increased regulation of big banks and Wall Street brokers who have “tried to trick and trap and cheat our families.” Clinton also echoed Warren’s rhetoric when she said at the same rally: “Don’t let anybody tell you that, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) struck a Warren-like note last week, when he said the Democrats lost the midterms because they spent too much time on the healthcare law when they should have been working on improving the economy for the middle class.
The resonance of Warren’s economic populist agenda was evident in a recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll. [snip]
But a poll taken this month by the progressive group Democracy for America found Warren to be the most popular choice for party activists asked whom they wanted to see run. Warren drew 42 percent support, overshadowing Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) 24 percent and Clinton’s 23 percent.
Warren also gave the political speech of the year. [snip]
“These are American values,” she said, “and these are the values we are willing to fight for. … Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement. … We believe in science and that means that we have a responsibility to protect the earth. … We believe no one should work full time and still live in poverty. That means raising the minimum wage. And we will fight for it …
“We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt. And we are willing to fight for it,” Warren continued as the cheering grew and grew. “We believe that, after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare and pensions. … We believe – only I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014 – we believe in equal pay for equal work, and we are willing to fight for it.”
Warren also backed immigration reform.
It’s easy to mock wide-eyed Obama lover Juan Williams and his bombast for Warren. But understand this key point that Williams makes and which Schumer and the Obama Dimocrat Party establishment believes wholeheartedly: The reason, they say, Obama Dimocrats lost in 2014 (and 2010) because they did not go far left enough.
Let’s repeat that because it is something that Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton 2016, #ReadyForHillary do not understand but is the key to 2016: Obama Dimocrats lost in 2014 (and 2010) because they did not go far left enough. When the election autopsy from the Obama Dimocrats is written early next year by the party establishment do not be surprised when that group concludes that the problem in 2010 and 2014 is that Obama Dimocrats were not sufficiently pro-Obama and not sufficiently too far to the kook left.
Schumer finally understands (we have been correct in our analysis all along) that the “coalition of the ascendant” cannot overcome the FDR coalition which once won elections for the Democratic party:
Democrats have a lot going for them in presidential years. Nonetheless, at the moment you’d have to say that they have their work cut out for them.
Even though midterm elections favor Republicans, the 2014 results show middle- and working-class dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party rising to dangerous levels, which threatens the party’s growing demographic advantages.
Perhaps most notably, Republican House candidates in 2014 won 37 percent of the Hispanic vote, their highest percentage since Republicans rejected immigration reform in 2005, and a slight majority, 51-49, of Asian-American voters, who had been moving decisively in the Democrats’ favor. Asian-Americans and Hispanics are crucial to future Democratic presidential victories.
In combination with the growing Republican allegiance of whites, these trends raise the possibility that the Democratic plan for victory by demographics could implode, which would make the case for a full scale re-evaluation of its strategies and policies glaringly obvious.
The “plan for victory by demographics” has already imploded. In order to try to resuscitate the “plan for victory by demographics” Obama Dimocrats will import new voters via illegal immigration. But that will not be enough to shield Obama Dimocrats from disaster.
Chuck Schumer is leading the way to disaster by saying one thing and meaning a whole ‘nother. Schumer is #ReadyForHillary in the sense that he has laid his traps.
Hillary, watch out. They’re ready for you.