« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
SCHUMER AVOIDS CAMERAS!
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was an early and vocal advocate for Michael Mukasey, which means that he's currently in the uncomfortable and, for him, novel position of being the least vocal of Senate Democrats.
Things have gotten so bad that Schumer, known as a legendary publicity hound on the Hill, is ducking cameras:
On Wednesday, Mr. Schumer was uncharacteristically reluctant to discuss his views. He avoided television crews waiting outside an unrelated news conference and refused to answer questions about the judge’s letter on waterboarding.“I’m not going to comment on Judge Mukasey here,” he said. “I’m reading the letter, I’m going over it.”
And Roll Call reports (sub. req.) that Schumer's early support for Mukasey has damaged "somewhat" his status in the caucus:
One senior Senate Democratic aide said Schumer’s credibility with the Democratic Caucus had been damaged somewhat by the issue, because many saw his status as a member of Judiciary and the No. 3 Senate Democratic leader as giving them clearance to praise the nomination when it was first announced.“That made a lot of Democrats think he must know what he’s talking about,” said the aide. “People followed his lead and now they’re having to dial it back.”
Schumer did not directly respond to a question about whether his early public support for Mukasey has put Senate Democrats as a whole in an awkward position, but said, “Everyone is looking at it and so am I.”
Comments (13)
phred wrote on November 1, 2007 10:53 AM:You know Schumer could regain a lot if he simply stood up and said, "based on the testimony we heard, Judge Mukasey is not the nominee I thought he was. I made a mistake in supporting his nomination. We can and must do better. I will vote against this nomination."
Wouldn't that be a refreshing change of pace? I can fully support a guy that admits a mistake and works to correct it.
ihatebeets wrote on November 1, 2007 10:56 AM:I would likew to hear Sen. Schumer deliver a mea culpa in the form of "it is regretable that this esteemed judge sought fit to sell his soul to become Attorney General. I cannot, in all good conscience, support him."
Karin Byars wrote on November 1, 2007 11:48 AM:Schumer also supported Lieberman when he was breaking away from Democrats and should have been kicked out of the party. Schumer just can't see past the end of his nose while gladhanding and grandstanding and endearing himself to losers at the expense of real Democrats.
nellieh wrote on November 1, 2007 11:55 AM:May I suggest reading the article on Mukasey, Giuliani, Kerik and the incestuous relationship between them in the 'Village Voice'? And why would Schumer want to endorse someone of Mukasey's ilk? Do they have pictures?
theswan wrote on November 1, 2007 12:06 PM:Come on Chuck, lets see just where you stand on torture. You seem to sleep all over the lot on too many issues. Might you be a democrat in sheeps clothing, along with several others? Just what club do you belong to?
ralphbon wrote on November 1, 2007 12:13 PM:Schumer has always been an unreliable actor with respect to torture.
Let me quote at a bit of length from Schumer's comments to John Ashcroft in June 2004, at a post-Abu Ghraib SJC hearing where other Democrats were raking the then-AG over coals regarding torture:
SCHUMER: ...I'd like to interject a note of balance here. There are times when we all get in high dudgeon. We ought to be reasonable about this. I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake.
Take the hypothetical: If we knew that there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is most Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say, "Do what you have to do."
So it's easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used. But when you're in the foxhole, it's a very different deal.
And I respect -- I think we all respect the fact that the president's in the foxhole every day. So he can hardly be blamed for asking you or his White House counsel or the Department of Defense to figure out when it comes to torture, what the law allows and when the law allows it and what there is permission to do.
(Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25211-2004Jun8.html)
phred wrote on November 1, 2007 12:18 PM:I know nothing about Schumer, so this is just a WAG, but he's never been within a 100 miles of a foxhole, has he?
Anonymous wrote on November 1, 2007 12:19 PM:Once again, I have to say, thank God for Sheldon Whitehouse being a competent questioner on the Judiciary Committee.
moondancer wrote on November 1, 2007 12:26 PM:I,m somewhat sympathetic to Schumers situation. After 7 years of lawlessness, the idea of someone that seemed to abide by the rule of law must have been exciting. I guess he didn't think about their need to protect themselves from their war crimes.
steambomb wrote on November 1, 2007 12:33 PM:Karin Byers (post above) just summed up Schumer in a nutshell. Thanks Karin!
Aaron G. Stock wrote on November 1, 2007 2:36 PM:Oh, Schumer, I don't see any reason why we can't any form of torture that we haven't already banned can't be banned now, and rely on our jury system and sentencing system laws to determine whether such a hypothetical use of torture would actually convict the torturer.
This hypothetical torturer would have the further protection of Presidential pardon. I don't understand why everyone's so concerned about whether such a torturer, who could be demonstrated to have saved millions of lives through torture, would be sentenced.
I have a hope and a feeling that, while we're still hypothetically speaking, that any agent wondering whether to torture an alleged perpetrator for quick information would have a very solid, immediate basis for doing so, and therefore this agent would decide on whatever was necessary.
Aaron G. Stock wrote on November 1, 2007 2:38 PM:Should have read:
"...I don't see any reason why any form of torture that we haven't already banned can't be banned now...."
Johann wrote on November 2, 2007 9:27 AM:It makes a person wonder what dirt the Republicans have have obtained concerning Schumer through their illegal wiretaps.