Who Owes Schumer?

I always hate those "who owes Rahmbo" stories. The fact is no one owes Rahmbo anything. But if anyone does, it is the Blue Dogs. Let him go twist some Blue Dog arms. But it is good to see some "Senators owe Schumer" stories:

Sen. Charles Schumer has revived the prospect of a public insurance option in the Senate’s version of healthcare reform. Whether it ultimately passes may depend on a handful of first-term Democrats who owe their seats, in significant measure, to the support they received from Schumer (D-N.Y.) when he headed the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) in 2006 and 2008.

Is this true? Who cares. Just good to see some stories that give Schumer the juice, given the fact that his performance was actually stellar, as opposed to Rahmbo's lackluster work in 2006, which has been magically transformed by the Rahmbo PR machine into some political miracle.

Speaking for me only

< If You Must, How To Vote BaucusCare Out Of Committee | Najibullah Zazi Pleads Not Guilty, Detained Pending Trial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The Jason Voorhees quality of .. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 11:40:34 AM EST
    the public option is encouraging.  Despite repeated attempts to kill it, it keeps coming back.

    Schumer's "juice" is debatable but the fact that it's being reported is yet another sign that the public option isn't RIP ... yet.

    BREAKING: Rockefeller's Amendment failed 8-15. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 02:03:54 PM EST
    Democrats Baucus, Carper, Conrad, Lincoln, and Nelson voted no. FDL

    Disappointing! (none / 0) (#19)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 02:06:12 PM EST
    Robust vs. Incremental?  Not over yet.

    Even more disappointing considering that (none / 0) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 02:17:04 PM EST
    Rockefeller's amendment is not exactly robust. According to Sen. Bingaman, Rockefeller's amendment is only tied to Medicare for the first two years and after that it would be run similar to Schumer's plan (ie. must operate on equal footing with private insurance). Due to the pricing change, it is estimated it would start off with about 1/3 of the market in the first few years and slowly lose market share until it only has about 1/4 of costumers on the exchange. link

    A lot of Dems (none / 0) (#22)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 02:19:34 PM EST
    have stated they won't support Medicare payment parity in a PO.  

    Nelson will vote for the Schumer version (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 02:12:26 PM EST
    In order for the Schumer amendment (none / 0) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 02:29:55 PM EST
    to pass, three of the four remaining Senators of Baucus, Carper, Conrad, Lincoln would have to vote in favor. Don't have must hope of that happening with the group remaining.

    See my latest post (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:03:25 PM EST
    My thinking is different on this than yours.

    Yeah, mine too (none / 0) (#27)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 06:31:13 PM EST
    For what it's worth, being Pols,these guys are torn between their allegiance to their financial benafactors, and public opinion. It they sense public opinion is turning, which I believe it is, they'll dump their opposition to a PO in a heartbeat.

    Just today, Baucus made the statement that he's "personally" for a PO, but his job is to count numbers and report out a bill that stands a chance.


    Watching the hearing this morning... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by magster on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 11:53:01 AM EST
    ...and the debate about Rockefeller's amendment, there seems to be some momentum around Schumer's amendment at the expense of the Rockefeller amendment.

    Used to be much more talk about who owes (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 12:05:48 PM EST
    who for what.  Example, if you want farm subsidies in the next budget, you better vote for my bill--or else.  

    Ah yes! (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 02:39:06 PM EST
    Just as Obama planned!  The Rockefeller PO failed!  Now onto his next plan, the failure of the Schumer PO!!

    I am glad to see you agree with me (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 11:01:56 AM EST
    that Schumer was much more effective in '06. I think any objective analyst would have to agree.

    Good for him (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 11:02:28 AM EST
    I hope the public option works - we need it to.  However, Schumer might want to help us in other economic areas - but he is beholden to the financial industry. Seems like if his support of a public option might hurt the insurance industry (which will in turn hurt Wall Street), he may just back off.

    I hope not.

    That probably explains why I (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 11:04:56 AM EST
    initially read the post title as, "Who Owns Schumer?"

    Freudian?  No doubt.


    Money money money (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 12:23:21 PM EST
    You could put the total number of Congress people on a pin head that aren't beholding to one corporation or another. That's the major problem we have in government today.

    NT Times has article on ear marks in defense budget that reenforces the need for public financing of elections.

    They all owe their loyalities to one corporation or another.


    Public financing (none / 0) (#26)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 06:22:16 PM EST
    for elections is such a no-brainer that it's simply incredible, in the aftermath of the Wall Street/Washington, Financial/Economic implosion, that it's not topic #1 in the news.

    The issue is made simpler due to its totally non-partisan; what voters don't hate "bought 'n paid for" politicians? It would seem to me a first year advertising trainee could write copy knocking this issue into the stratosphere.

    Of course, that blow-faced, buffoon, Limbaugh, could rile up his 15 million knuckle-dragging "dildos" to support Billionaire Bansksters buying up Congressmen and Senators; so let'em have that fringe, big deal.

    What's the problem?


    You have to bribe them first... (none / 0) (#28)
    by mike in dc on Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 08:18:09 AM EST
    ...to get public financing.  We have to outbid the corporate interests, and it won't be cheap.

    I'm not a big fan of Rahm, but how was his (none / 0) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 11:33:56 AM EST
    2006 performance "lackluster"? I believe, percentage wise, that he oversaw more victories then Schumer.

    Percentage wise (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 12:32:43 PM EST
    Schumer picked up 7 seats with 33 races.

    Rahm won 30 with 435 races.

    I think this is a silly metric, but you chose it.



    How much did Schumer have to do (none / 0) (#13)
    by tigercourse on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 12:50:38 PM EST
    with Bernie Sanders' election?

    You might remember the guy he replaced (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 12:58:25 PM EST
    A former Republican name Jim Jeffords.

    I just meant that Sanders isn't a Democrat, so (none / 0) (#15)
    by tigercourse on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    I was wondering how much Schumer had to do with the election.

    They coordinated (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 01:02:47 PM EST
    Schumer arranged for Sanders to be on the democratic ballot and then refuse nomination so there would be no spoiler effect.

    Ok, thanks for the info. (none / 0) (#17)
    by tigercourse on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 01:04:46 PM EST
    Not to mention the mountain (none / 0) (#7)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 12:03:13 PM EST
    of cash which has already been donated to Schumer for the coming cycle.