Here are the POS all lined up in a row.
- Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia
- Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois
- Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire
- Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania
- Senator Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire
- Senator Angus King of Maine
- Senator Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada
- Senator Jacky Rosen of Nevada
Dick Durbin is the minority whip. There is no chance that the whip votes against the wishes of the senate minority leader. Despite Schumer’s no vote, he supported the capitulation.
Again, unsubstantiated opinion.
I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but could you quote the proof you’re referring to from the article? The two paragraphs I think you’re referring to are (emphasis mine):
Here’s what occurred. It has been widely assumed that the group of eight mostly centrist Senate Democrats, who have been looking to broker a hollow deal on Republican terms, were freelancing. In fact, they were acting with the express approval of Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and were reporting to him daily.
The leaders of the proposed Democratic cave-in, Sens. Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen, both of New Hampshire, and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, then backed down. Only after that did Schumer go public with his proposal to reopen the government in exchange for a one-year extension of the ACA subsidies, along with a bipartisan commission to figure out a long-term solution.
Being “widely assumed” isn’t really solid proof, and having a proposal with an exchange of an extension isn’t capitulation on Schumer’s part. If anything, this whole thing shows Schumer’s incompetence to be able to lead the democrats, but this doesn’t seem supported or orchestrated on his part.
Reread the passage again, the part that was widely asusmed was that the flip votes were operating on thete own. The sentence about Schumers approval was started with the phrase ‘In fact’ because that is what’s being reported as the truth. ‘Widely assumed’ is not even the same sentence with the allegations on Chuck so Im having trouble interpreting your comment in good faith.
I really don’t care to defend Schumer, but posting this article as substantiated proof of him supporting Democrats capitulation is not really convincing. The article doesn’t mention what changed between it being widely assumed and it being a fact? Just starting a sentence with “in fact” doesn’t make it true. There are many other, more recent sources with his quotes saying he doesn’t approve of their actions.
It’s equally possible that Schumer has no control of the situation and the Senators who are voting for reopening the government know Schumer is spineless, and will only craft a strongly worded letter condemning their actions. The fact he went public with a proposal after reports of senators defecting isn’t proof he is complicit in their capitulation, just that he was unable to convince all the Democratic Senators that his plan was a good plan they should remain consistent about. Is Schumer responsible as the minority leader of the senate and ultimately to take the blame for the Democrats fracturing over this; yes. But to say he is secretly supporting the capitulation as if he’s Palpatine playing both sides is not really substantiated and frankly giving him too much credit.
I really don’t care to defend Schumer,
Then stop doing it. You’re making yourself look foolish to put it as charitably as possible.
I have a bad feeling this might actually be bait.
Like they know the progressives are going to burn it down now, and do everything they can to block this deal. And what that does is let them blame the Democrats more clearly for the shutdown.
If ending the shutdown actually leads to the Epstein files being released, it might actually work in the Democrats’ favor. I can’t see them letting the files get released, so this is the only thing that makes sense to me.
Yeah but people are sick of the dems consistently just letting republicans control the government. That’s a decent chunk of frustration with them, and it’s a regular propaganda tool of the republicans
