Senator Chuck Schumer is a leading figure in the Democratic Party, and is playing a key role in setting the terms in the 2006 elections as the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Schumer insists that we have to give up all our principles, hold our noses, and pour our energies into getting Democratic candidates elected who don’t actually oppose the Bush agenda. Moreover, Schumer’s critique of Bush comes down to the notion that the Democrats can wage the war on terrorism “stronger and smarter” than the current administration. Take a look at his words and actions, and ask yourself if you want your political activity confined by what Schumer tells you is okay:
-
In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
that Bush’s military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees are
unconstitutional, Schumer said on Meet the Press on July 2nd, “Had [the
Bush administration] come to Congress a few years ago on this issue, my
guess is they would have gotten most of what the wanted.”
-
Schumer and other Democratic Party leaders worked behind the
scenes to prevent Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran opposed to the war
and unafraid to speak bluntly about the Bush regime’s drive toward
theocracy, from running for Senator on the Democratic ticket in Ohio.
Despite Hackett’s popular support, Schumer offered “friendly advice”
for Hackett to drop out of the race, and told donors not to contribute
to his campaign. Hackett said “For me, this is a second betrayal.
First, my government misused and mismanaged the military in Iraq, and
now my own party is afraid to support candidates like me.” (“Popular
Ohio Democrat Drops Out of Race, and Perhaps Politics”, NY Times, 2/14)
-
So what’s Schumer’s model for a good candidate? None other than
Bob Casey, who Schumer hand-picked to run against far-right wing
theocrat incumbent Rick Santorum in the Pennsylvania Senate race.
Casey is vehemently anti-choice, supports the war, the Patriot Act, and
can accurately be described as “Santorum-lite”. While the right to
abortion hangs in the balance, Schumer, in the name of political
expediency, has justified running an anti-choice candidate who is
opposed to most of the things Democratic voters are for saying. “We
can’t afford to play games anymore . . . the day is over when a
candidate has to check 27 boxes before we support him.” (The New
Yorker, 11/14/05). -
This past August, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
(DSCC) put an ad on its website claiming they can wage the “war on
terrorism” and clamp down on illegal immigrants better than the
Republicans. The ad interspersed footage of illegal immigrants
crossing the border with footage of Osama bin Laden, thereby promoting
a climate of xenophobia and criminalization of immigrants. -
As John Bolton, the neo-conservative warmonger Bush has
appointed as ambassador to the UN, faces confirmation hearings in the
Senate, Schumer said that “I think that if you count the votes, a
filibuster is unlikely.” Asked why he now supports Bolton’s
confirmation, Schumer said on CNN’s Late Edition this past July,
“There’s a good part of Bolton. He’s been a staunch and very good
defender of Israel.” Note that this was at the same time Israel was
destroying the infrastructure of Lebanon, killing innocent civilians,
and displacing a large part of the Lebanese population, all with the
support of the US government. (“Schumer Says Bolton Won’t Face
Filibuster”, New York Sun, 7/31/06) -
On May 23rd, 2006 the New York Post reported:
Asked if U.S. military action [against Iran] should be considered, Schumer said, “You can’t take anything off the table.”
It should be clear by now just how out of sync Schumer’s views,
policies, and actions are with the support base of the Democratic
Party. Looking at the torture, the continued occupation of Iraq, the
threats of war on Iran, the Patriot Act renewed, moves to outlaw the
right to abortion, and indeed the whole ugly future of the Bush regime,
why would you let the likes of Chuck Schumer dictate what your
political activity should be? Doesn’t this whole Bush agenda need to
be brought to a halt? Given everything you’ve just read, how can this
be done any way other than stepping outside of the confines of what the
Democratic Party leadership deems are “electable” positions? And when
Schumer is playing a pivotal role in the 2006 elections, why would you
put your energy and money into Democratic candidates when clearly
what’s needed is mass political action independent of the “choices”
being given to you November 7?