Should Schumer Stay Or Should He Go?
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is in the Democratic doghouse right now, after he (and a few other Democrats) recently voted with the Republicans to keep the government open, rather than forcing a shutdown which would have allowed Elon Musk to shift his efforts to eliminate the federal government into warp speed. It was a real "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for Schumer, but his performance and leadership have been heavily criticized (and denounced) by other Democrats ever since. Which isn't a good place for the highest-ranking Democrat in the entire federal government to now be. So should Schumer stay in his Senate leadership position, or should he go?
Personally, I find myself with mixed feelings about the situation. I understand both sides' arguments, to put it another way, and sympathize with certain points both sides are making. Schumer was faced with a choice of "bad" or "much, much worse," so he chose the merely bad one. Which I tend to agree with, since his logic for doing so made the most sense. A government shutdown would have been a huge gift to both the White House and Elon Musk. They would have abused it horrifically. And there simply was no endgame for the Democratic side. What were they demanding? What hill were they going to die on? If you ask different Democratic politicians, you'll get different answers, but most of them don't fully acknowledge how powerless the Democrats truly are right now in Congress. Arguing that Democrats would have had the upper hand and thus been able to force both the Senate and House Republicans into accepting some Democratic demand is fairly delusional. Ask the Tea Party Republicans how entering into a government shutdown with a limited amount of power and no cohesive demand or Plan B all worked out for them, if you don't believe me.
So like I said, I come down on Schumer's side of that argument. I thought he did the right thing by agreeing to fund the government for the rest of the year. If he had killed the bill and shut the government down, then the only tactic the Democrats really had was: "Things will get so bad so fast that the public will somehow rally behind our side." Well, things might have gotten bad incredibly quickly (we all know now that Musk is fully capable of this), but it's doubtful the public would even be paying attention to the Democratic demand -- they'd just want things to reopen again and for the drama to be over. Which is a losing political hand for Democrats, realistically-speaking.
But having said all of that, I also agree with the House Democrats who are now furious at Schumer (and other Democratic leaders, by extension) for "not fighting hard enough." That is a very good point. And for me, it comes down to charisma and personality.
Schumer simply isn't all that charismatic. He tends to fade into the background a lot. Remember Donald Trump's first term as president? And how Nancy Pelosi would regularly eat Trump's lunch in negotiations? Schumer was also present for those negotiations, but he was in the distant background compared to Pelosi -- who was an absolute firebrand.
What I am saying is that Schumer doesn't seem to be the leader the Democrats need right at this particular moment in time. Even putting aside his budget vote, Schumer just isn't the right guy to lead the fight against Trump. Democrats need a very visible presence who is saying all the right things and forcefully making the case against Trumpism -- and doing so with emotion and passion and some heartfelt rage. Which doesn't exactly describe Chuck Schumer.
So I think it would be a good thing if Schumer decided to voluntarily step down from his leadership position in the Senate. He wouldn't have to retire altogether -- he could still keep his seat (he isn't up for re-election until 2028), but he'd move into the same "emeritus" role that Nancy Pelosi now inhabits -- "a mere backbencher, but one worth listening to," is how I'd describe it.
By doing so, Schumer could open the Democratic Senate caucus up to new leadership. Which is precisely what they seem to need right now. As mentioned, the Democratic leader in the Senate is now the de facto leader of the Democratic Party (since it's the highest-ranking position currently available to any Democrat right now). And up until now -- ever since the election, really -- there's been kind of a Schumer-shaped void in this position. Democrats haven't rallied around a single strategy (or even a single tactic, for that matter). Nobody sees Schumer as out there fighting the good fight and making the Democratic case to the public better than any other Democrat right now. He's about as boring as dry toast, and that's even "on a good day."
What Trump and Musk and all their minions are doing right now is worth fighting against -- and worth fighting hard. There are Democrats attempting to do this, but they don't get a whole lot of media attention (for instance: how many mainstream news stories have been highlighting what Bernie Sanders is out there doing?). In the Senate, as far as a strong media presence is concerned, I would have to say that right now Chris Murphy is the most prominent Democrat who shows some actual fire in the belly. Maybe he would be a better leader for the Senate Democrats right now?
We need a passing of the baton. Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have had a number of months since the election to show some real opposition leadership, and so far their efforts have been pretty underwhelming. So I certainly do understand the rage being directed at Schumer right now from rank-and-file Democrats. It's not so much for his handling of the budget vote as it is for not successfully being a dynamic leader the rest of the party can rally behind. Schumer seems to not be capable of leading this fight, and that's being charitable.
So far, Schumer has been resisting calls for him to step aside. Which is understandable (nobody enjoys giving up power in Washington). But him doing so, at this point, seems like the best path the Democratic Party could take. Democrats need somebody who can show that they're just as angry as the base voters currently are. They need somebody who can rally a crowd. They need somebody who passionately is seen as out there fighting, tooth and nail, everything Trump and Musk do. They need somebody who can forcefully make the Democratic case to voters. And (to me, at least) none of that describes Chuck Schumer.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Thanks for this thoughtful expansion on your ambidextrous "Most Disappointing Democrat" column of last week on the same subject, which we also debated a bit in this forum.
I would say that I missed a more developed, and politically realistic and informed, discussion of just who you had in mind to provide this 'charismatic, angry, passionate, and crowd-friendly' Senate leadership should Schumer actually step aside in the near future.
You mention Sanders. Unlikely to be voted leader of the Senate Democrats, given that he isn't one. And you mention Chris Murphy, my own Connecticut Senator whose public denunciations of the Trump/Musk coup d'etat I've been admiring greatly.
BUT. Chris W., do you have reason to think that Chris M. has a lot of support in the Senate Democratic caucus? If so, tell us in more detail. If not, why mention him at all? And also if not, who else on earth are we talking about here.
It's one thing to call for the leader's head. It's another to think 'ahead' about who will be the next leader, in particular the next leader who will address the deficiencies that led to the previous leader's political demise.
Who do you think should be, and can be, the next Senate Democratic leader?
klobuchar maybe?
Cory Booker is another possibility I think. My criteria would be:
1. at least somewhat charismatic
2. willing to put energy into getting earned media coverage
3. from a state that occasionally elects republicans or independents to statewide offices, but isn't so purple that their senate seat is vulnerable.
Thanks, nyp for [2-3].
I see that Klobuchar is currently the No. 3 Senate Democrat and Booker is currently No. 4, as of the last December caucus votes. Durbin of Illinois is the current whip, the No. 2 spot.
All three of them have numerous hits on Google of colorful denunciations of Trump and Musk's sedition of the US government in the past two months. But so does Schumer... hmmm...
Is that enough? Speaking out in press releases that the general public doesn't see or hear? Which of these politicians has what Chris W. seems to want - the 'charisma' to dominate the news feeds with watchable and viral defiance of Trump's and Musk's actions, that would unite Democratic and disaffected Republican sentiment against the upending of the Constitution in favor of authoritarian one-man rule?
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is in the Democratic doghouse right now, after he (and a few other Democrats) recently voted with the Republicans to keep the government open, rather than forcing a shutdown which would have allowed Elon Musk to shift his efforts to eliminate the federal government into warp speed.
Maybe this is nitpicky, but to define the 9 Democrats and and 1 of the 2 Independents that caucus with Democrats as "a few other Democrats" seems to me like a glossing over of the fact that more than 20% -- twenty percent -- of the 47 Senate Lefties voted to advance the GOP's bill to keep the government open: 21.2766% (rounded) if you want to get seriously technical. Over 20% is not exactly nothing, you know, particularly in the highly partisan times we live.
What that generally basically tells us is that if they had needed additional Senate Dem votes to advance the GOP bill -- but they didn't, since it advanced 62-38 -- they more likely than not would have received them. A decent-sized chunk of the Senate Lefties did see the handwriting on the wall.
Everything else you wrote, in my opinion, is generally dead-on accurate... all that and a bag of chips.
Charles Ellis Schumer should definitely go... but for a whole laundry list of other reasons.
It’s not that Schumer made the wrong choice it’s that the Dems as a whole gave the impression that they would use this situation to do something, anything, rather than rolling over.
I like the list y'all got going with the added comment of: NOT Durbin.
If were talking current Senators, add in Sheldon Whitehouse:
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/16/sheldon-whitehouse-senate-cr-schumer-00232304
End the gerontocracy. He should go.
FPC
I dumbed it down a lot so that brain dead woke progressive Democrats can understand it..
The Alien Enemies Act is a law that was made a long time ago, in 1798. It says that if there is a war between the United States and another country, the President can take special actions against people from that country who are living here. But here’s something important: this law doesn’t only work when there is an active war going on.
Even if there is no war or battles the law can still be used. This means that if PRESIDENT Trump thinks that there is a national emergency (such as the national emergency that Basement Biden created) and it’s necessary for safety of Americans, he can still invoke the ALIEN ENEMIES ACT and decide what to do with people from any country, even if there isn’t a war going on at that moment.
Now, let’s talk about a big decision made by the Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the United States. In a case called Ludecke v. Watkins, a man named Ludecke was told he had to leave the country because he was from Germany, and the President thought he might be dangerous. Ludecke didn’t think that was fair, so he asked the court to help him. But the Supreme Court said something very important: they said that the President’s decision about who should leave the country because of the Alien Enemies Act cannot be checked or changed by the courts. This means that once the President makes a decision using this law, the judges can’t say anything about it or change it. This is established law, established by the SUPREME COURT which is the highest court in the land
So, even if some America Hating judge thinks the President made a mistake, the courts can’t step in and interfere with the President's decision. This is a big deal because it means the President has a lot of power when it comes to this law. It’s like if you had a toy that only you could decide how to play with, and no one else could tell you what to do with it, even if they thought you were playing wrong.
So, little one..
The Alien Enemies Act can be used even when there isn’t a war, and the Supreme Court has said that the President’s choices about this law are not something the America hating judges can change. This shows how important it is to think about safety, but it also means that the President has a lot of power over people from other countries, which can be a little scary for brain dead ignorant people like Democrats..
You people REALY need to step back and really look at what ya'all are doing..
Ya'all and your fellow brain dead woke progressive Democrat morons are **FIGHTING TO KEEP TERRORISTS, MURDERERS, RAPISTS AND DRUGGIES IN THE UNITED STATES!!!***
What a totally and utterly moronic position for you brain dead morons to take!!
PRESIDENT Trump has finagled ya'all into the position that ya'all are FIGHTING to keep terrorists, murderers, rapists and druggies here in the US..
BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Once again, PRESIDENT Trump is forcing brain dead Democrat morons to take the 20% side of a 80/20 issue...
And YOU morons fell for it!!! :D
It's no wonder your brain dead Democrat Party is so bad off.. :D
With zero proof. You are the moron who fell for it.
The most important lesson here is really really simple..
No matter HOW MUCH ya'all hysterically whine and cry and stamp your feet..
PRESIDENT Trump will STILL be your President..
:D
Given the FACT that brain dead woke progressive Democrats are actively fighting to keep murderers and rapists and terrorists and druggies in the United States, it should come as no surprise that those same brain dead Democrats are also supporting terrorist acts committed against political opponents..
The recent surge of violence and intimidation against individuals and businesses associated with Donald Trump and his supporters is a stark reminder of the troubling acceptance of such behavior by the brain dead woke progressive Democrat Party.
The silence from brain dead woke progressive Democrats in the face of escalating leftist violence is not just alarming; it is complicit.
SILENCE GIVES ASSENT...
The firebombing of Tesla dealerships and the harassment of Tesla owners are not isolated incidents; they represent a broader trend of domestic terrorism aimed at silencing dissent and instilling fear.
The attacks on Tesla vehicles, described as acts of terrorism, are emblematic of a political climate where violence is increasingly normalized. The definition of terrorism “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims” fits these actions perfectly. Yet, instead of condemning this behavior, many brain dead woke progressive Democrats and their allies in the media choose to remain silent or even mock the victims. This is not merely a failure to act; it is an endorsement of a culture that prioritizes violently pushing political agendas over the safety and rights of individuals.
The rise of “swatting” incidents, where individuals are falsely reported to law enforcement to provoke dangerous confrontations, further illustrates the reckless disregard for human life that has permeated political discourse from brain dead woke progressive Democrats.
The fact that these actions are often met with laughter or indifference from prominent figures in the brain dead Democrat Party is a damning indictment of their lack of moral compass. When the targets of such violence are political opponents, the response is often muted, revealing a double standard that undermines the very principles of justice and equality.
Moreover, the lack of a federal anti-swatting law highlights a significant gap in our legal framework, one that Congress must address urgently. The Anti-Swatting Act, which received bipartisan support in the past, should be reintroduced and prioritized to protect all citizens from this dangerous trend.
The brain dead woke progressive Democrats’ failure to condemn these acts not only emboldens the perpetrators but also sends a message that such behavior is acceptable in the pursuit of political goals.
If the roles were reversed, and right-leaning individuals were the targets of similar violence, the outcry would be deafening. It is time for all political leaders to unequivocally denounce violence and intimidation, regardless of the political affiliations of the victims. The safety and freedom of all Americans depend on it.
It's gotten so bad that the last FTP commentary here in Weigantia actually GLOATED about the domestic terrorism that is plaguing our country..
2010 CW would have been HORRIFIED to see 2025 CW gloating about domestic terrorism..
THAT is a perfect example of how bad Trump/America hate and PTDS has permeated all aspects of Weigantia in particular and the brain dead Democrat Party in general...
Brain dead woke progressive Democrats have totally forgotten the very first rule of political operations..
When in a deep deep hole... STOP DIGGING..
The current state of the brain dead woke progressive Democrat Party is dire, and the evidence is mounting that they are in a deep hole from which recovery seems increasingly unlikely. The party's favorability ratings have plummeted to historic lows, with a recent CNN poll showing only 29% of voters viewing the Democratic Party favorably—down ten points since the 2024 election.
This is the lowest rating since the poll's inception in 1992. Even more concerning is the fact that PRESIDENT Trump's approval rating, while negative, is still significantly higher among working-class voters than the brain dead Democrats' favorability.
In other words, brain dead Democrats WISH they had PRESIDENT Trump's approval ratings..
The brain dead Democrats' strategy of simply opposing PRESIDENT Trump without offering a clear, compelling alternative is failing. Polls indicate that two-thirds of voters believe the party lacks a workable strategy to respond to PRESIDENT Trump, and many feel that the brain dead Democrats have no coherent message beyond their opposition to the former president. This lack of identity is a significant liability, as voters are increasingly disillusioned with a party that seems to stand for nothing but resistance.
Moreover, the trend in party identification is alarming. For the first time in nearly a century, Republicans have led in party identification for three consecutive years. This shift is not just a fleeting moment; it reflects a deeper dissatisfaction with brain dead Democrat governance, particularly in key swing states where Republicans are out-registering Democrats. The demographic shifts are equally troubling, with blue states like California and New York losing residents to red states like Florida and Texas, which are gaining both population and political representation.
The implications of these trends are profound. As more people choose to leave Democrat states, the party risks losing electoral power and influence. The projected loss of House seats in states like California and New York, coupled with gains in Texas and Florida, signals a significant shift in the political landscape that could have lasting effects on national elections.
Additionally, the brain dead Democrats' failure to connect with moderate and conservative voters, including Hispanics and younger generations, is a critical issue. The party's ideological polarization is pushing these groups away, as evidenced by a dramatic decline in support among Hispanic moderates and a surprising shift of younger voters toward conservative views.
So, children, let's recap...
The Democrat Party is facing a multifaceted crisis characterized by a lack of clear messaging, declining favorability, and a troubling demographic shift. If the party hopes to regain its footing, it must undergo a significant transformation to reconnect with the "normal American" and redefine its brand. Without such changes, the Democrats risk remaining mired in a deep hole, unable to mount a credible challenge to the Republican Party.
Funny, I would think the “hysterical” one would be the person posting page long posts after page long posts saying basically the same thing…
SILENCE GIVES ASSENT...
even in boldface italics ALLCAPS, it still doesn't. in fact, that particular logical fallacy has a name: quietism
- and is highly likely to be compounded by another fallacy; tu quoque i.e.appeal to hypocrisy, or literally "you too" - meaning that because some other person here once claimed that someone's silence equalled consent, now that fallaceous rule must apply to everyone.
it's all just sophism and trolling; you know it's meaningless and are just doing it to annoy people.
Michale
9
I dumbed it down a lot so that brain dead woke progressive Democrats can understand it..
You obviously "dumbed it down a lot" so it would match your self-admitted ignorance regarding said Act. Here, let me help you again by quoting excerpts of the actual Alien Enemies Act:
The Alien Enemies Act is a law that was made a long time ago, in 1798. It says that if there is a war between the United States and another country, the President can take special actions against people from that country who are living here.
Kind of obvious.
But here’s something important: this law doesn’t only work when there is an active war going on.
You seem to be attempting to redefine "declared war" as specifically stated in the Act. Your quote above is obviously the part where you definitely "dumb it down" by adding in your right-wingnut rhetoric bullshit that isn't actually contained anywhere in the Act.
Even if there is no war or battles the law can still be used.
"Declared war" isn't a complicated concept, and a foreign country or government attempting war on the United States also isn't that hard a concept to grasp. So, again, your definition of "dumb it down" is obviously to add a right-wingnut interpretation of the law that isn't actually contained in the actual simple English words written into the Act.
This means that if PRESIDENT Trump thinks that there is a national emergency (such as the national emergency that Basement Biden created) and it’s necessary for safety of Americans, he can still invoke the ALIEN ENEMIES ACT and decide what to do with people from any country, even if there isn’t a war going on at that moment.
So by this admittedly "dumbed down" logic of yours that I quoted verbatim above, if any president thinks that there is a national emergency and it's necessary for the safety of Americans, that president can invoke the Alien Enemies Act and remove whomever they choose even if there isn't a war going on at that moment? So where in the Act did you find the words "national emergency"? Let us all know.
Did it perchance cross your "mind" that the president is allowed to make those decisions because there actually is a "declared war" (obviously the authority granted to Congress via the United States Constitution) or because an "invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government"? Because that's actually what the Act specifically actually states. So which foreign nation or government has "perpetrated, attempted, or threatened" the United States at the current time? Or do you think individuals can be classified as foreign nations and/or governments? All rhetorical questions.
Now, let’s talk about a big decision made by the Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the United States.
The fact you're classifying that case as a "big decision" is more proof that you did seriously "dumb this down." I could produce a list of "big decisions" of the SCOTUS, and that one definitely ain't one of them and not even close to a "big decision." *laughs*
In a case called Ludecke v. Watkins, a man named Ludecke was told he had to leave the country because he was from Germany, and the President thought he might be dangerous.
Incorrect. A self-described Nazi named Ludecke was arrested on December 8, 1941 (a not insignificant date unless you're ignorant of history), and after proceedings were held before an Alien Enemy Hearing Board in January 1942, the Nazi was interned in February 1942 by order of FDR's Attorney General of the United States. Fast forward to December 1945, when an entirely different president signed a proclamation to deport alien enemies under the Act and left the decision up to the Attorney General of the United States to make the decision whom to remove.
Ludecke didn’t think that was fair, so he asked the court to help him.
The self-proclaimed dumb ass Nazi proved how stupid he truly was by acting as his own attorney in a Court of law. Imbecile. It's public record, you know.
But the Supreme Court said something very important: they said that the President’s decision about who should leave the country because of the Alien Enemies Act cannot be checked or changed by the courts.
Boy, you really did dumb it down; you left out the decisions of the lower Courts and ran it straight up to the SCOTUS. *laughs* That was a decision that was already made, actually, which you'd know if you had any ability to read and comprehend simple English words.
Also, you've "dumbed it down" to the point where you're basically misinforming others regarding what the SCOTUS actually said:
The SCOTUS at that time made it abundantly clear that the president's decision was not something they could review because the president -- Truman -- was exercising his "war powers" because war had previously been declared by Congress and hadn't been declared over by anyone. You will note in the case that the SCOTUS obviously define the Alien Enemies Act at the beginning of the decision, and the United States had previously declared war on Germany.
This means that once the President makes a decision using this law, the judges can’t say anything about it or change it.
*laughs* Courts can obviously review -- indeed, they have a duty to review -- whether or not any president has violated any statute via Executive Order and/or the constitutionality of any decision made by any president.
You should probably read the dang Act and the case you keep citing until the words actually therein (and not the words you're claiming are therein) permeate. Read them both versus just spewing the mindless drivel you're being spoon-fed by right-wingnut liars.
You should really read these SCOTUS opinions before you post them. If you had done that (not that you could understand it, obviously, due to your ongoing reading comprehension issues), you would have obviously found the reason that the SCOTUS found the president's power could not be reviewed:
This is established law, established by the SUPREME COURT which is the highest court in the land.
Read it. A lower Court's decision was affirmed. That not big case basically gave the president the right to send a self-described Nazi out of the country years after he was arrested on December 8, 1941 (connect the dots *laughs*) because the United States had declared war against Japan and only a few days later Hitler/Germany et alia declared war on the United States and then the U.S. Congress declared war on Germany et alia the same day.
So, I reiterate: Unless you are quite content to keep spamming the board with the repetitive proof of your regurgitation of misinformation, you should seriously educate yourself by reading the actual laws and ignoring Fox "News" or whatever various other assorted right-wingnut bullshit propaganda echo chambers that are playing American citizens for rubes.
^^^ EDIT TO [17] ^^^
You should really read these SCOTUS opinions before you post them. If you had done that (not that you could understand it, obviously, due to your ongoing reading comprehension issues), you would have obviously found the reason that the SCOTUS found the president's power could not be reviewed:
``````````BEGIN EDIT
REMOVE ENTIRE BLOCKQUOTE AND REPLACE WITH
Congress had not only declared war previously, as obviously outlined in simple English in the Alien Enemies Act (thus giving the president war powers), Congress had also authorized funds specifically for the removal of said alien enemies as ordered by proclamation of President Truman.`````````` END EDIT
BashiBazouk
15
Funny, I would think the “hysterical” one would be the person posting page long posts after page long posts saying basically the same thing…
What is commonly referred to as "stuck on stupid."
I sure appreciate the deep dives, Kick.
:)