ABC's Z. Byron Wolf Reports: For anyone who needed more evidence that Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) is out of favor with Democrats, it appeared that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) kicked him out of the Democrats' leadership walk on Tuesday.
As the new Senate leaders departed from the Old Senate Chamber on their way to the Ohio Clock Corridor to talk about their agenda, the election of the leaders, and Iraq, John Kerry -- not a member of the new leadership -- walked out of the room behind new Majority Leader Harry Reid, Majority Whip Dick Durbin, Caucus Secretary Patty Murray and Caucus Vice-Chair Schumer. It is, after all, a public hallway in the Senate.
This reporter was standing with a scrum of journalists as Democrats left their caucus. It appeared that when Schumer noticed Kerry behind him, he turned around said something to Kerry.
We obviously don't know what Schumer said, but Kerry stopped in his tracks, watched the four Democratic leaders walk on without him, and when then he ducked between two of the marble statues in the hallway, which leads from the old Senate Chamber to the new Senate floor. Someone trying to project might say that Schumer had told Kerry to get the heck out of the leadership shot and Kerry, after digesting the request for a moment, did it.
47. That blows the "war supporters walk" theory out of the water.
PS: It may actually have been Schumer looking out for Kerry. The media would surely have been all over Kerry "insinuating" himself into a photo where he didn't belong. And I'm not a Schumer fan, but this is a more likely explanation than Kerry's being persona non grata.
On the other hand, Kerry is not a member of the leadership in the Senate. If the Dems were trying to send a clear message about who was in that team, Kerry's presence would muddy that. It may seem petty, and believe me, I am not a Schumer fan, but this is not a simple case of Kerry being wronged.
85. That's sad. Senator Kerry's always had such class.
Can you picture Kerry telling another Democrat to get out of the shot because HE wanted a photo op? NEVER in a MILLION YEARS. Whatever the circumstances or what the exact words were, this showed poor manners and a lack of common decency. I like Kerry because he's never been about himself, but for his "mission" in the cause of Democracy. He simply doesn't play these silly, political games. Seriously, we have men and women dying in Iraq and a photo op rather pales in comparison.
And remember how Reid and Schumer pretty much demonized Kerry over the Kerry-Feingold plan to get out of Iraq? Now they are coming to nearly the same conclusion Kerry did, but they are a day late and a dollar short. There was also a good deal of resentment over the Alito filibuster because they had to put up with all those damn faxes. Poor Senators had to get off their asses and do their jobs.
92. When did Dems like yourself start instinctively worshiping your leaders?
Schumer engineered his present status as alpha-male and you treat his alpha-male status as something to be revered. Just like a bunch of chimpanzees.
Dean and Kerry got cast out of the pack and relegated to walking behind the beta-females in the march to the spring feeding grounds. Pure exercise of brute force to maintain social cohesion and elevate a ruthless politico like Schumer. And you think humans have evolved. :eyes:
17. I'm confused. That could describe Kerry and Dean too. Schumer helped of course
but I'd say it was an overstatement to say he was THE MAN who took back the Senate.
Dean and his 50 State plan had alot to do with it. And flubbed ststements notwithstanding, Kerry worked his ass off as well. His PAC gave much money, and he was all over the place campaigning for Dems. Rahm said that when no one else was there helping him, John Kerry was there.
Anyway, like the article said, it was a public hallway. If they'd wanted a shot free from other Senators, they should have put out the word to keep it clear.
71. Why in the world should Chuck have wasted money
in a state where the winner was guaranteed to caucus with Democrats regardless, as opposed to spending it somewhere it mattered, like let's say Virginia where Senator-elect Webb won by a few thousand votes.
There's a reason Chuck ran the DSCC and is now the Senate's #3 Democrat, and not you.
Thanks to Howard Dean and many hard-working Democrats, McConnell isn't going to be the Majority Leader in '08. Yes, Chuck was one of the many. Just one of the very many. But nothing will make up for lack of support where it was needed. Money is an excuse, not a reason. Joementum (and his "guarantee" :rofl:) is the stain left as a result of that excuse.
It's been a kick chatting with you, Chuck. :eyes: Give my best to Carville.
82. You can criticize Schumer and Rahm for some things
Edited on Wed Nov-15-06 01:02 AM by tritsofme
But if the DSCC went all out against Lieberman and he still emerged the victor, you can be assured that an angry Joe may not have been too keen to make nice when he held the balance of power, as he does now.
BTW, why does Schumer get credit for Lieberman and not the "many" that are also credited with taking the majority back?
113. If they'd gone all out against Joe, he'd've lost and been gone. But he and Chuck are buds.
Chuck owns the Joementum problem. When Joe flexes his self-absorbed muscle in the Senate and gives the VP the deciding vote, it will be his old pal, Chuck, everyone in the country will 'thank' for that. No one will forget. Not ever. Corporate money doesn't always make things go away. Asking why other people didn't do more doesn't, either. That's too much like what we've heard out of the WH for the last six years, unsurprisingly.
Texas. Schumer. One row of seats. Any day. Because he's earned it.
Kerry apparently upset a lot of people in the Senate when he arrived in the 1980s. He didn't socialize or mix with them, except for the Vietnam Vets. He also launched into investigations like BCCI and Iran-Contra, which also wound up snagging some high-up Democrats like former Defense Secretary Clark Clifford. Which, in the process, upset several people (including Dems) in Washington.
In response to these complaints, he retorted, "I was elected to do a job, not make friends."
There was this great piece about Kerry's early Senate career in the Boston Globe prior to the election. Really makes you think about what this country missed out on 2 years ago.
55. I agree - and most of these things are why we like Kerry
The corruption implicit in BCCI - that top party people were bought off by a shady group linked to drug laundering and terrorism - needed to be brought to light and eliminated. Kerry put propriety, law, and country over cronyism - even when called by Jackie Onassis.
If you think of it Kerry took a outsider position on Iraq and he clearly was more in consort with Dean on building the party. KAP, his Pac to help others was parallel to official organizations.
This will make him more able to run as an outsider with the knowledge and experience of an insider.
Kerry would be less than he is if he were the typical politician like Schumer.
16. Harsh, but it was obviously aimed at getting a leadership shot
Edited on Tue Nov-14-06 09:26 PM by liberalpragmatist
Kerry isn't in the leadership.
Of course, Kerry has never been known for being exceptionally close to his colleagues. He's close with Ted Kennedy and has in the past been close with a few, mainly veterans. Otherwise, he's always been seen as kind of a maverick within the caucus. That's why the whole image people had during the campaign of Kerry as a "Washington insider" wasn't really accurate.
45. Hopefully get the Admin to cough up more money
for innovative programs that acutally foster Small Business. And hold hearings that expose the big corporations that are setting up dummy small businesses in order to get the SBA money. And help Small Business in the Gulf area recover from Katrina. And about a million other things that Rethugs didn't do in a lot of years because they don't give a flying fig about small business.
The more interesting sub-committee is that one on Commerce. This sub-committee is sponsoring some innovative legislation on teaching math and science. That sub-committee has jurisdiction over the internet, btw. Might be nice to have someone in there who knows the internet is not a series of trucks or whatever the hell it was that Sen. Stevens said the internet was not like. Sigh!
70. But some interesting things just happened on that.
I read an India press report that Kerry and other Democrats slowed down the process of ratifying the treaty. I'm not sure what's going on there (and you are right that he said he was in favor of it), just wanted to let you know that.
He was a member of the Banking comittee when he first came into the Congress in 1/85. It was under that committee and the Foreign Relations Committee that allowed Kerry to investigate and help take-down the BCCI. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Credit_and_Commerce_International ) I have actually talked to a Senate investigator who worked on that, very interesting how all that came about, btw.
Sen. Kerry waited 16 years for that appointment to the Finance Committee. He rewrote a lot of banking law in this country and tried to implement new rules on money laundering and tracking drug money and so forth. (Somewhat successful. The Rethugs in the Dark Years of Rethug control argued that the things Kerry wanted to put into the regulations would constitute an unnecessary burden on the banks. You know, the old Rethug dodge that what this economy needs is less oversight. Needless to say, this was before 9/11.) Kerry earned that seat on Finance.
Sen. Schumer got that seat on Finance because Sen. Reid wanted him to take over the DSCC in 2005 and not run for Gov of New York. Sen. Schumer wanted the enormous power of the FinComm and the billions in pork he can send back to New York that comes from being on FinComm. That's how he got the seat. (And you can look it up in the NY papers.)
SENATE DEMS' $$ PITCH TO SCHUMER The New York Post, (11-11-2004) By VINCENT MORRIS Post Correspondent
WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats yesterday offered Sen. Charles Schumer their top fund-raising job - but sources say he's afraid to say yes because doing so slams the door on a possible run for governor, The Post has learned.
To sweeten the offer, Democrats promised Schumer a seat on the powerful Senate Finance Committee - a stunning gesture that would put him in line to direct federal pork to New York.
But Schumer would have to give up a 2006 run for governor if he accepts the Finance Committee gem because he would have to promise to stick around - effectively barring a grueling campaign for the governor's mansion.
Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, who is set to become senate minority leader following Tom Daschle's election loss last week, met with Schumer yesterday and pleaded with him to take the post.
(Price, N.C.) when inquiring what the meaning of is is, whereby I requested he tell others to quit the infighting and power games. It took everybody to win. There's nothing to blame anyone on since we won.
24. Kerry's not bought and paid for, so he can't be in the Kool Kids Klub
The "Senate leadership" doesn't like Kerry because he forced their hand on Iraq, which didn't please the equivocating "I disagree with Bush but also don't think we should withdraw" crowd.
The "Senate leadership" doesn't like Kerry because he's not owned by anybody, so that means he's not accountable to any larger master besides his own conscience. That makes him "dangerous" in their eyes.
The "Senate leadership" doesn't like Kerry because, as his past investigations have proven, he will not cease digging for the truth even if it means stepping on "important" toes. This frightens many of them, who have had their fingers in many unsavory pies throughout the years and do not want anyone peeking too closely into their closets.
Well, I have a message for the "Senate leadership." The Democrats won in 2006 because Americans are sick and tired of corruption and "politics as usual." What the "Senate leadership" is apparently too stupid to understand is that voters will be just as sick of it from Dems as they are from Republicans - if they think their shit won't stink just as bad, they are in for a rude awakening.
That is why anti-corruption, maverick Democrats like John Kerry, who are not bought and paid for and serving their corporate masters, are the only real solution to the plague that ails our government.
91. You do realize Kerry and Feingold were the first senators to call for withdrawal?
Schumer and Reid were NOT pleased about Kerry/Feingold, and that is not a secret. They, more than Durbin or Murray, wield the Senate leadership power, and it is to them I refer. They resent Kerry's refusal to fall in line, and his withdrawal bill forced many like Reid and Schumer who were perfectly content to not have to go on official record as having a position one way or another about Iraq. I don't recall seeing Dick Durbin in that photo.
33. We are talking about the Senate aren't we? It isn't play school.
Edited on Tue Nov-14-06 09:50 PM by wisteria
I doubt any of this happened the way it is being suggested. And, I will continue to believe this until someone produces something other than innuendo and gossip as proof of a snub. What happened was not the end of the world. It certainly was blown way out of proportion and made worse by Dem's that decided to side with the Republicans rather than one of their own. Being that Kerry had a right to defend himself, and had worked so hard to get other Dem's elected, I would think this is a bunch of bull shit. BULLSHIT I TELL YOU, SIMPLY BULLSHIT! Trying to continue a nothing story about a flub.
Oh, and this is from ABC News, not exactly friendly territory.
88. True, he is not part of the group, but consider this:
assuming something was said to Kerry by Schumer (as it appears it was) regarding the photo, turn it around and imagine if Kerry were in the group and Schumer were not. Could you imagine him turning to Schumer and saying something that would cause Schumer to slink away?
but I tell you, the lack of support Kerry got from the party after his failed joke business had me SEETHING!! They knew damn well what he meant, and they should have immediately backed him up in outrage the next day when he forcefully shot back at the 'swiftboating'. Instead, they allowed the bastards to slime a man who has done more for vets than all of them combined. I hope this isn't more of the same, but even it's not, they've already shamed themselves sufficiently in my book!
*** sorry, I really promised myself I wouldn't bring this subject up here EVER EVER again. :blush:
What happened is obvious and any 3rd grader would have gotten it and not made a mess about it. Not surprisingly, ABC does not...
Schumer wanted a photo of the leadership to be taken and Kerry happened to be right behind them, or Schumer was in a hurry to go to the leadership press conference (you can see that Reid is rushing). Who knows, but it is clearly nothing. You have to be moronic or to hate Kerry not to get this one.
Here is the photo, btw. (who knows what they were saying each other. Only ABC could make a story about this one, ...)
104. McCaskill was running for MO Gov in 2004. She had a great chance, but
lost (by not very much) to Roy Blunt's punk son.
Kerry/Edwards pulled out of Missouri about a week before the election, and there is some speculation that this ultimately hurt McCaskill's campaign (Kerry/Edwards was a big part of the MO Coordinated Campaign).
122. Oh and why is that. He gave generously to McKaskill and he help out
many others who were running. The last time I heard the suggestion that he was not liked making the rounds it was by some Republicans and by some others who had an interest in making him appear unlikeable. Personally, I have seen the man in person, and I have seen how well his actually liked. This is nonsense. Remember, it was the Republicans that came out and lied to try and attack him. He was defending himself. Anyone would of done that with any sense of honor or courage.
99. Only question here is to know whether Schumer is intelligent or not.
He spent the last week of the campaign answering questions about Kerry of his own making by not holding his caucus together.
Does he want to have to spend 2 more years answering questions about Kerry because he is not able to make clear to the reporters that there is no there there? Does he really think it is useful to show a divided caucus? It would not have taken a lot to make these stories disappear: just do what Dean did in his FOX interview? Well, he is the one who is going to have to answer stupid questions by reporters, but it is NOT good for us. Not solving the question is going to muddle the message.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.