Recruiting Republican-Lite Candidates For Senate-- Good Idea? Bad Idea?

Bredesen is like a moderate Republican; Blackburn is a neo-fascist

Schumer decided to try to win back the Senate by going the Republican-lite route. He hand-picked the single worst Democrat in Congress, Blue Dog chair Kyrsten Sinema, to run for the open Arizona seat, former Tennessee 2-term Governor Phil Bredesen, also a conservative, to run for the open seat there, and in Nevada chose Jacky Rosen, a multimillionaire but unproven right-of-center congresswoman with no accomplishments to her name, whose only chance to win is via a big anti-red wave. Recent polling shows Sinema and Bredesen consistency-- if narrowly-- ahead while Rosen lags incumbent Senator Dean Heller, also narrowly. Still, the FiveThirtyEight forecaster shows her slightly ahead (and Bredesen slightly behind):

One strategy the Democrats seem to have agreed on in Arizona and Tennessee is for Sinema and Bredesen to show their independence by vowing that they won't support Schumer for Senate leader, a silly proposition, but one that makes a point in red states. Neither is going to vote for McConnell and there is no Democratic alternative. Schumer doesn't need their votes. He may have even suggested the ploy-- and he certainly agreed to it.

Tennessee Democrat Phil Bredesen said at a debate Tuesday that if he is elected to the Senate, he would not back Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to continue as Democrats' leader.

Bredesen made the announcement during the opening statements of his first debate with the Republican nominee, Rep. Marsha Blackburn. Bredesen said Washington had become "hyperpartisan" and blamed current leadership in both parties.

"You've heard a lot recently of this campaign about me, about these crazy ideas about if somehow I'm elected and go to Washington, suddenly I'm going to turn my back on a whole lifetime of thinking for myself and being independent and suddenly become some kind of a political lackey," Bredesen said. "That's not going to happen for a bunch of reasons. One of them is that I think a lot of the problem in Washington is with the leadership that we have there now. Whether it be [Speaker Paul] Ryan or [Minority Leader Nancy] Pelosi or [Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell or Schumer, they're not doing the job.

"We need to get new leadership. I can tell you right now that if I'm elected, and when I'm elected and go to Washington, I am not going to be voting for Chuck Schumer," Bredesen said.

It's the latest effort Bredesen has made to show independence from national Democrats while running in solid-red Tennessee, which President Donald Trump carried by 26 percentage points in 2016. Bredesen has also played down his party's chances of winning the Senate majority in the fall, to try to keep crossover voters in his camp.

But the former governor's pledge to vote against Schumer is his largest break from the Democratic Party thus far. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona is the only other Democratic battleground Senate candidate who has pledged to vote against the party's leader.

The pledge is functionally useless-- unlike in the House, where the speaker is chosen by a majority of the chamber in a floor vote, Senate party leaders are chosen by a majority in a private caucus vote. While there might be enough Democratic House candidates to deny Pelosi the 218 votes she needs to become speaker again, there is virtually no chance of Schumer being dethroned by the Democratic Caucus after the election.

Blackburn brushed off Bredesen's vow to vote against Schumer, repeatedly attacking the Democrat as "bought and paid for" by the Senate minority leader. Majority Forward, a nonprofit organization aligned with Schumer, has spent more than $3.5 million on ads in the Tennessee race so far, according to the Federal Election Commission. The group has even more ads reserved for this fall.

"We know he will vote with Chuck Schumer because his vote is already bought and paid for, his campaign is bought and paid for by Chuck Schumer," Blackburn said.

"I do think we all know that Phil had a choice. He could have run as a Republican or independent. Probably didn't want to do that. He's running as a Democrat so he will be with Chuck Schumer if he were to go to Washington," she continued.

Back in July, Politico first reported that Sinema said she isn't going to vote for Schumer and about how deferential she is towards Trump. "I am not going to vote for him," she said matter of factly when asked about Schumer by a reporter, who reported that "Schumer privately backed her for the seat even before she’d announced, helping clear the field."

Her opposition to Schumer is just one example of how the three-term House member is carving out a center-left [they actually mean center-right but the reporter is too dull-witted to know it] Senate campaign in the Republican state, hoping it’s enough to inoculate herself from the national party’s baggage and land Democrats their first Arizona Senate seat in 30 years.

She is notably more deferential to Trump than most Democrats are. “He has challenges,” she responded when asked whether Trump is a good president. “Transitioning from a CEO position to a presidency is probably a difficult challenge.”

...Sinema is continuing her campaign against national Democrats, which started with her opposing Nancy Pelosi as the House Democratic leader.

“The Democratic leadership has failed Democrats across the country,” Sinema said. “I am unafraid to say what I believe about what I think our party needs to do and I think our party needs to grow and change.”

Sinema aligned herself early on with the centrist wing in the House Democratic Caucus, becoming a close ally of Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Pelosi’s No. 2 and longtime rival. She also forged close relationships with conservatives such as Reps. Tom Graves of Georgia and Trey Gowdy of South Carolina over a shared love of fitness.

...Sinema is a polarizing figure among House Democrats. Some members privately question whether her evolution from flame-throwing liberal to Blue Dog centrist is genuine or self-serving. And there’s no love lost between Sinema and Pelosi allies.

...At times, Sinema sounds more like a Republican than a moderate Democrat, a sharp contrast from Rep. Jacky Rosen of Nevada, another Senate candidate carving a far more liberal path [total Politico nonsense] against GOP incumbent Sen. Dean Heller.

Sinema gushes praise for Trump when it comes to veterans issues. Both of Sinema’s brothers are veterans, and that’s been a primary focus of her congressional career.

“President Trump has signed every single piece of veterans legislation we’ve sent him, including some bills that we couldn’t get to President Obama,” she said.

And Sinema defends her voting record on immigration, including support of controversial Republican proposals that most other House Democrats opposed. She voted for Kate’s Law last year, for example, which increases penalties for undocumented immigrants who are deported and try to re-enter the country.

“My leadership in that area,” Sinema said, “is about holding bad guys accountable and making sure that we have good security on the border.”

You know how worried everyone is now that some of the senators from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party may vote to confirm Kavanaugh-- particularly Manchin, Donnelly and Heitkamp? Sinema, Bredesen and Rosen will be worse for the Senate Democrats to deal with on a wide range of issues-- especially Sinema. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if she eventually jumps the fence and joins the Republican Party. She doesn't believe in anything at all but her own career and I'd say-- after spending far more time with her than I ever should have-- that she's clinically insane.

How Chuck Schumer And Jon Tester Screwed Up The Democrats' Best Shot To Succeed In The Senate

Because of the seats that are up in 2016, it is almost a foregone conclusion that the Democrats would take back the Senate regardless of the top of the ticket. Trump just makes GOP defense more difficult. Unfortunately, because of the seats that are up in 2018, it is almost a foregone conclusion that the Republicans will take back the Senate. In 2018, battlegrounds will be Democratic-held seats in red and purple states-- Indiana, North Dakota, Missouri, Montana, Florida, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania-- plus New Jersey, where Bob Menendez's corruption case will be coming to a head. So... the job for the DSCC this year wasn't just to win back a measly 3 or 4 seats to take back a bare majority, but to bank a bunch seats in preparation for a horrible 2018. Largely because of Chuck Schumer's philosophy that Democratic primary voters are too stupid to pick their own nominees, the DSCC has failed miserably already. I'll explain in a minute. First a little background on the head of the DSCC, Schumer sock-puppet Jon Tester.

I went to the same high school as Chuck Schumer, James Madison, in the early 1960s. He was just the same way he is now and not many people liked him. But I never met anyone who really hated him as much as Jon Tester did in 2006. At the time, Tester was a populist organic farmer and state legislator and he was one of the first Senate candidates who Blue America had ever endorsed. Schumer himself was the head of the DSCC and he recruited some Wall Street hack, John Morrison, the state Auditor, and the very wealthy former president of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association, He outspent Tester's grassroots campaign two to one-- and was being pushed by Schumer without regard to party rules about not interfering in primaries. At least once a week, Tester would call me and curse Schumer to high heaven. Fueled by hatred for Schumer, Tester slaughtered Schumer's puppet candidate in a massive 61-35% landslide and then went on to beat Republican incumbent Conrad Burns. It didn't take a week before Tester completely sold out to Schumer and became one of his minions. It's how things tend to work in Washington. I was stunned and sickened. Today Tester is a Schumer lap-dog and his rubber-stamp head of the DSCC.

New polling shows two of the most wretched of the candidates Schumer-- with help from Tester-- backed in the primary, poor old Ted Strickland and former fracking lobbyist Katie McGinty-- are failing miserably in races where PJ Sittenfeld and Joe Sestak would probably be trouncing Rob Portman and Pat Toomey now. In fact, Portman is crushing Strickland so decisively-- something that we predicted all of last year-- that the Senate Majority PAC, also controlled by Schumer, just "postponed" wasting $191,000 on Strickland TV spots.

Yesterday, Schumer's expenditure of several million dollars and a campaign of lies and innuendo against Alan Grayson paid off-- for Marco Rubio. Rubio, a weak and damaged incumbent, would have never been able to stand up to Grayson for two seconds. But in his rush to get talentless Wall Street pet Patrick Murphy the nomination, Schumer has all but guaranteed Rubio his unearned and undeserved reelection. First thing this morning, Rubio challenged the hapless Murphy to 6 debates. Murphy doesn't know how to debate and is probably hoping Schumer will think up some excuse for him. The race in Florida will be one where there is not even a lesser of two evils!

Even the most optimistic of the journalists who always buys into the most pathetic DSCC spin, Chuck Todd, predicts a miserable November performance: wins in Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana, which would give the Democrats bare control with the help of Vice President Kaine. That would be an easily thwartable majority, especially with Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Manchin, Tester and Joe Donnelly-- all petrified of 2018 defeat-- voting regularly across the aisle, probably with Evan Bayh. And then along comes 2018 and that's the end of any chance Hillary will have to accomplish anything at all that isn't on the GOP agenda.

Todd gives the Democrats a shot to win in 3 states if Hillary has big enough coattails: New Hampshire, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. I think New Hampshire is the most likely. He claims if every Greek god takes part in a concerted effort on behalf of the Democrats, the conservatives Schumer picked for Arizona, Florida, Missouri and Ohio could win too, but none of those are likely all I'm betting Mt. Olympus has other things on its plate right now. "So you if you're the Democrats," Todd adds, "you can realistically get to four pickups and control of the Senate, if Clinton wins the presidential race. But Nevada is key here, because a GOP win means Democrats will have to win another seat to win control." Chuck Schumer is about to be elected Democratic Senate leader, probably unanimously, by a Senate Democratic caucus that doesn't deserve anything better than what's coming its way.

Money Money Money Makes Chuck Schumer's World Go Round

Picture Chuck Schumer playing either Liza Minnelli or Joel Grey in this 1972 film, released while he was still in law school, earning a law degree he never used once, going straight into vacuuming up money from special interests to finance his grubby political career. And now, he's demanding that other Democrats do the same-- or else. In 2006 Schumer was a loyal Harry Reid henchman and ran the DSCC. One race I remember well was when he recruited a pointless party hack, John Morrison, a Wall Street puppet then serving as Montana state auditor. Progressives were all in on state Senate president Jon Tester who ran a populist campaign and cursed out Schumer, who proclaimed he was too liberal to win in Montana, daily. Despite all Schumer's efforts and sabotage-- including demanding all institutional money go to Morrison--Tester beat Morrison/Schumer overwhelmingly, 60.77% to 35.48%. Tester then went on to prove Schumer wrong in November by beating Republican incumbent Conrad Burns 199,845 (49.16%) to 196,283 (48.29%). Schumer was certain Tester would lose for two reasons:

1- Schumer hates progressives with all his being
2- Burns outspent Tester, $9,167,154 to $5,587,467

That easily describes Schumer's perspective in every Senate race since then. He recruits conservatives to and tells them the only thing that matters is money. He's often wrong, but being wrong has never stopped Chuck Schumer. Yesterday, writing for the National Review, Jack Crowe reported that Schumer has been up to his old tricks in North Carolina, working to make sure a conservative lackey gets the nomination in case an anti-Trump wave is big enough to take out Republican incumbent Thom Tillis. Ideas, character and values have no place in Schumerian electoral calculus-- just national trends and money for mass media. It's like he's still living in the era Cabaret won its 8 Oscars (Best Director, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Original Song, Best Art Direction and Best Sound. The Godfather won Best Picture, not a dishonorable loss. A leaked tape shows that Schumer, wrote Crowe, "has taken a heavy-handed, top-down approach to selecting Democrats to challenge vulnerable Senate Republicans this cycle, putting his thumb on the scale for candidates willing to shun grassroots outreach in favor of a smile-and-dial, fundraising-first approach."

In the recording, taken during a September 26 talk at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, North Carolina state senator Jeff Jackson describes the experience of courting Schumer while he was considering running for the Democratic nomination to challenge the state’s incumbent Republican senator, Thom Tillis, in 2020.

Jackson had grand ambitions: When he flew to Washington to meet with Schumer earlier this year, he told the minority leader that he was going to do “100 town halls in 100 days” and talk to as many North Carolinians as possible to get a feel for the electorate’s priorities. But Schumer, who had previously dispatched his staff to meet with Jackson at his home, had other plans.

“Wrong answer,” Schumer said when confronted with Jackson’s grassroots strategy, according to the account of their conversation Jackson gave at UNC Charlotte. “We want you to spend the next 16 months in a windowless basement raising money and then we’re going to spend 80 percent of it on negative ads about Tillis.”

Jackson explained that, while he didn’t technically require Schumer’s support to run, the minority leader’s control over the funds disbursed by major donors and the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), made running without his support an impossibility.

  “So, did I need his permission to run for that race? No,” Jackson said during his address at UNC Charlotte. “But talking to my family and seeing the opportunity we have-- sort of the obligation we have to try and take the majority to end gerrymandering in 2020-- and realizing that I probably wasn’t going to have the support of this group, which is important financially because I ain’t rich... I mean, they kind of tipped the scales in favor of not running.”

And if the lack of funding wasn’t enough, Jackson said he was turned off by Schumer’s insistence on running an entirely negative campaign against the incumbent, Tillis-- a preference that Jackson attributed to “artistic differences” between himself and the minority leader during his UNC talk.

Instead of Jackson, Schumer and national Democrats are throwing their considerable support behind Cal Cunningham, a former state legislator and Army veteran who, in apparent accordance with Schumer’s wishes, has given just three interviews since announcing his candidacy in June. Reached for comment, Cunningham’s spokesman denied that the candidate has eschewed public appearances and grassroots activism in favor of fundraising.

...A copy of Cunningham’s campaign schedule obtained by National Review lists 18 appearances at various barbecues, galas, and church services from August 10 to September 29. During his remarks at UNC, Jackson dismissed these appearances as meaningless window-dressing compared to the town halls he’d planned for his own campaign.

“Yes,” Jackson said when asked if Cunningham has been in “a windowless basement” since announcing his candidacy. “He hasn’t held a public event. He didn’t have a kickoff. This is like month three. He goes to Democratic-party events if you follow him, right-- places where they’re going to say, ‘And everybody, Cal Cunningham is here!’ And he gets to be like, ‘Hey!’” (Jackson did not respond to a request for comment, but announced his endorsement of Cunningham hours after he was contacted and learned of the existence of the audio recording.)

...Cunningham’s chief primary rival, state senator Erica Smith, who announced her candidacy roughly five months before him, has already taken note of the national party’s intrusion in the race.

“The special interest groups and big, wealthy donors out of New York are trying to buy this Senate seat, and it’s just shameful and it is embarrassing,” she told Crabtree. “I just worry about the people I serve in North Carolina. We don’t have the same demographics as New York, and this Senate seat is not for sale.”

Reached by phone, Smith lashed out at Schumer and the DSCC for being dishonest about their support for Cunningham, telling National Review that Schumer’s public and private stances on candidates were “diametrically opposed.” She claimed that shortly before she learned Cunningham was fundraising off of the DSCC’s email list, Schumer had assured her that he had not endorsed any particular candidate and would remain agnostic for the time being.

Smith also pointed out that in addition to avoiding appearances, Cunningham appears to be avoiding public-policy commitments altogether. The only information or interactive features on his website concern donations.

“We can’t find his policy positions either,” Smith tweeted in August in response to a message one constituent wrote about the difficulty she’s had in identifying where Cunningham stands on any policy she cares about.

The same pattern, in which Democratic leadership handpicks a preferred candidate to run against a vulnerable Senate Republican, is also playing out in Maine and Iowa. [Jack Crowe appears to have forgotten Colorado, where Schumer has decided the Democratic nominee will be Frackenlooper and has demanded that unions directly their contributions to him and not to Andrew Romanoff, who many working people prefer by a very wide margin.]

In Maine, incumbent Republican senator Susan Collins is sure to face a tough reelection amid the liberal backlash to her support for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Schumer and the DSCC have made clear that their preferred candidate is state House speaker Sarah Gideon. Like Cunningham, Gideon has carefully avoided the spotlight and policy commitments. And like Cunningham, she’s benefited from her deference to Washington: She raised more than $1 million in the first ten days after she announced her candidacy in June, and she’s reaped the high-profile endorsements that follow from being taken under Schumer’s wing.

Like Cunningham’s opponent, Smith, Gideon’s opponent, Betsy Sweet, has taken notice.

“An open letter to Democratic leadership,” reads an August fundraising email from Sweet’s campaign. “How many times. How many times are you going to interfere with primary races by picking an opponent before the people do?”

In Iowa, it’s Theresa Greenfield, a real-estate-development executive and first-time candidate, who has been chosen to follow the Schumer playbook. The DSCC endorsed Greenfield just three days after she announced her candidacy in June, shunning J. D. Scholten, who vaulted to national acclaim last year after nearly beating the racist Republican representative Steve King in the state’s fourth district.

“We don’t need a primary,” Schumer reportedly told Scholten on a phone call at the end of May.

Michael Franken is the best of the Iowa senatorial candidates-- but not Schumer's favorite. So Schumer is trying to destroy his campaign by telling donors to not give him any money and by working hard to get a candidate nominated who is only known for her own corruption, a candidate who can't win. "Iowans," said Franken, "are first-on-deck in choosing Presidential nominees, so we should be more than capable of picking the best U.S. Senate candidate, as well. I didn’t ask a party chief’s permission to serve my country for many decades and I shouldn’t need to ask permission to continue that record of service in the US Senate."

New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, a candidate for the empty U.S. Senate seat in her state, made a reputation for herself as a successful corruption fighter. That's a major turn-off for Schumer, who is more afraid of reformers than Dracula is of garlic. This morning Maggie told us that "The Washington establishment wants to keep big money in politics and keep progressive leaders out. That's not how democracy works. Voters-- not Chuck Schumer, not special interests, not corporations--choose their elected leaders. All the money in the world isn't enough to buy establishment leaders the bold vision and core values that voters want. I'm not running on big money or poll-tested talking points. I'm running to make sure every American has health care; to finally address the climate crisis; and to get big money out of politics once and for all."

The three billboards above-- in Colorado, Maine and North Carolina-- appear to be the work of the NRSC, even if they really look like they were designed and played by Little Chucky Schmucky. My dream for 2022: Schumer vs AOC. I pledge to max out.

You Like Little Chucky Schmucky? Here's Why You Shouldn't

Monday night Schumer addressed the wealthy Democratic donors who make up the Democracy Alliance. They were none too pleased when he announced he could work with Trump. He had to shush them more than a dozen times when they talked among themselves-- about what an asshole he is. He singled out campaign finance reform and tax reform (meaning tax breaks for Schumer's big campaign donors) and he also mentioned infrastructure. Pelosi followed and the crowd was much warmer to her, probably because she wasn't talking appeasement.

Little Chucky Schmucky and Trump have a lot in common. They see themselves as "two punks from the boroughs-- not even the city-- who now run the whole country." Yeah, I feel nauseous too. I bet Jon Schwarz does too. He's the guy who wrote The Intercept feature yesterday about Little Chucky Schmucky: Chuck Schumer: The Worst Possible Democratic Leader at the Worst Possible Time. Like DWT, Schwarz making Schumer the highest ranking Democrat in America is, in his words, "a terrible roll of the dice for Democrats, because Schumer might as well have been grown in a lab to be exactly the wrong face for opposition to Donald Trump."

• Schumer, who’s just about to turn 66, grew up in Brooklyn and went to the same high school as Bernie Sanders. Then their lives diverged: Schumer, the smartiest of the smartypants, got a perfect score on the SATs and then went to Harvard and Harvard Law School. He was elected to the New York State Assembly at 23, the U.S. Congress at 29, and the U.S. Senate at 47. He’s never had any adult job outside elected office.

• He possesses the same impressive political acumen as Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, sagely explaining “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

• Schumer’s done more than anyone except Bill and Hillary Clinton to intertwine Wall Street and the Democratic Party. He raises millions and millions of dollars from the finance industry, both for himself and for other Democrats. In return, he voted to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 and voted to bail out Wall Street in 2008. In between, he slashed fees paid by banks to the Securities and Exchange Commission to pay for regulatory enforcement, and eviscerated congressional efforts to crack down on rating agencies.

• Schumer has long been the Democrats’ point man in efforts to craft a bipartisan deal to slash taxes on multinational corporations.

• Schumer voted for the Patriot Act in 2001, and sponsored its predecessor, the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995. During a Senate hearing, Schumer explained that “it’s easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used. But when you’re in the foxhole, it’s a very different deal.” In certain cases, he said, “most senators” would say “do what you have to do.” Schumer also defended the New York Police Department’s surveillance of Muslims across the region, which Trump has cited as a national model.

• In October 2002, Schumer voted for the Iraq War by giving George W. Bush authority to invade. In a speech explaining his vote, Schumer warned of Iraq’s imaginary yet “vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.”

• Schumer voted against Barack Obama’s deal to limit Iran’s ability to enrich uranium and potentially develop a nuclear weapons program.

• Perhaps worst of all, Schumer gave Anthony Weiner his start, first hiring him on his staff, then encouraging him to run for office and then endorsing Weiner in the race for Schumer’s seat when Schumer was running for the Senate in 1998. Thanks, Chuck.

Are there any positive things about Chuck Schumer? Well…  he did vote against NAFTA in 1993, and while he’s supported other trade deals since, he made negative noises about the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Also, he’s a talented matchmaker with as many as 11 marriages to his credit. And he’s the second cousin once removed of Amy Schumer, which you might see as good or bad, depending.

Schumer and his two greatest hits of 2016: Ted Strickland and Patrick Murphy

Schumer Organizes Democratic Collapse on TPP

Chuck Schumer in the 1960s, competing for James Madison High School on the It’s Academic television quiz show (source)

by Gaius Publius

Here's the Washington Post's headline:

Schumer at Center of Democrats’ Trade Drama

But as the article makes clear, "Schumer is at the center of Dem trade drama" is easy code for "Schumer is lead perp for Dem trade collapse." Sen. Chuck Schumer, soon-to-be Leader, got his wish, a Fast Track bill that would pass the Senate, plus a separate currency bill that "pro–billionaire-controlled trade" senators can use for ground cover.

The telling quote:

Of course, the likely outcome is the separate measures will pass out of the Senate, but the currency-related measure faces a rough road in the House and at the White House.

Pro-trade Democrats, though, will be able to say they voted to get tough on trade even as they voted for a six-year fast-track trade bill.

Nice job, Mr. Schumer. Notice both pieces. First, as a separate bill the currency restrictions will pass, but can be vetoed separately from Fast Track. A win for Fast Track. Second, passing the currency bill allows pro-TPP Democrats to brag about how they "tried," useful fog for the campaign trail. Again, nice job, Mr. Schumer.

Now the rest of the Wash Post piece, which contains a fascinating look at the back-and-forth, and the lead architect of that back-and-forth, which will lead to Fast Track passing in the Senate. That lead architect is Chuck Schumer:

Senate Democrats’ epic trade revolt against President Barack Obama’s fast-track bill — and the furious efforts to salvage it — had one senator at the center of it all: Charles E. Schumer.

The New York Democrat, who has become the heir apparent to Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, found himself in an awkward position, to say the least. A provision he authored to get tough on countries that manipulate their currencies was threatening to bring down the White House’s entire trade agenda; its absence on the Senate floor was why Democrats filibustered Obama’s fast-track trade package Tuesday.

By the end of the day Wednesday, the crisis — what White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest kept calling a “procedural snafu” — had been averted, with Schumer helping to seal the deal.

Although the New Yorker has opposed the trade bills — he voted against fast track in committee — as the caucus’ future leader, he has to balance the anti-trade sentiment among the vast majority of Democratic senators with his loyalty to the White House and the desires of a sizable number of pro-trade Democrats, such as Sen. Patty Murray of Washington.

In short, it’s a sign of the kind of leader Schumer will be.

Don't forget to notice "progressive" Patty Murray's role in this. As a member of Democratic leadership, she seems to have had to choose between "following the neo-liberal leader" — in this case, Barack Obama on TPP — and standing with all other progressives in the "Democratic coalition," including every labor union. Murray is choosing to play ball with Senate leadership against progressives. Watch her carefully going forward. This looks a lot like the victory of careerism over principle.

Confirmation that Schumer is playing both sides — pro-billionaire, pro-"progressive" — comes later in the article:

Schumer all along — both in committee and at the microphones Tuesday — said his goal was not to use his currency proposal as a poison pill to kill fast track, which is why he offered it as an amendment to the separate customs bill last month.

The main reason for the explosion of popular joy after the vote that upheld the filibuster was that poison pill. Schumer and the White House (via its late-night meeting with 10 named Democratic senators) re-energized the pro-TPP senators, restiffened their pro-TPP spines. In the end, those ten plus four others (see below) should be more than enough to defeat the next Democratic filibuster.

Who Are the Pro-TPP Democratic Senators?

Wyden has claimed he has 14 senators on his side (Politico Pro; subscription required):

Sen. Ron Wyden, ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said earlier today that 14 Democrats were prepared to vote for cloture if there was a clear path for approval of the customs bill.

Ten Democratic senators were named in the White House's press announcement of its post-filibuster meeting. (Politico wrote up the importance of that action here. Note that Politico also serves to turn up that heat on those Democrats with this article as well.)

If Wyden is right, who are the other four? The Hill has named two senators, Feinstein and McCaskill, who were siding with Wyden on "trade." Their names didn't appear on the White House invitation. I think we can add two more names (explained below) to complete the TPP Gang of Fourteen.

So here are your 14 Democratic pro-TPP senators, as I see it. First, from the White House press report, "[t]he following senators attended the meeting":

• Michael Bennet (D-CO)
• Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
• Ben Cardin (D-MD)
• Tom Carper (D-DE)
• Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
• Tim Kaine (D-VA)
• Patty Murray (D-WA)
• Bill Nelson (D-FL)
• Mark Warner (D-VA)
• Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Second, from The Hill:

• Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
• Claire McCaskill (D-MO)

Finally, these two more-or-less obvious names:

• Cory Booker (D-NJ) — who declined to vote on the filibuster
• Chuck Schumer (D-NY) — who helped collapse the resistance

With 54 Republican senators voting Yes to end a filibuster, it would be hard to uphold it when 14 anti-progressive Democrats are willing to vote with them.

JUST IN: The roll-call vote for the second filibuster has been released. The filibuster was defeated 65–33 with two Republicans not voting.

New names on the pro-TPP list: Chris Coons (D-DE), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH). Since Fast Track proponents had five votes to spare (threshold: 60 votes), I take both as voting as they wished. Booker and Schumer voted No, but their votes weren't needed. Since the floor vote threshold will be a simple majority, I don't expect either to have to show his hand publicly yet.

GP

Reid Surrenders His Sword to Schumer; Caucus Concurs

Harry Reid (left, in red) surrenders control of Senate Democratic
caucus to Chuck Schumer (right, back to the camera)

by Gaius Publius

This is what happens when "party unity" or "caucus unity" trumps policy. We get Chuck "Wall Street" Schumer as the next Minority Leader — because Harry "But I promoted Elizabeth Warren" Reid helped put him there. So did "progressive" Patty Murray. And according to reports, so did nearly every other Democratic senator. (Does this mean Jeff Merkley? Sherrod Brown? Al Franken? Who knows — they haven't raised their heads.)

Washington Post a few days ago (my emphasis throughout):

Harry Reid endorses Chuck Schumer to succeed him as Senate Democratic leader

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has endorsed Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to succeed him after he retires at the end of 2016.

"I think Schumer should be able to succeed me," Reid said in a Friday morning interview at his home in Washington's West End.

Reid predicted that Schumer, the No. 3 Senate Democrat in leadership and a close friend, would win the Democratic leader post without opposition. He said that the other likely contender, Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), would stand down for Schumer. ...

But what about that "Warren Wing"?

Seemingly comfortable with his decision to not run for re-election, Reid said the liberal wing of the Democratic Party should have faith in Schumer, whose ties to Wall Street fueled his fundraising prowess and helped Democrats win the majority in 2006 and expand it to a super-majority in 2009. Those ties have some liberals questioning whether Schumer should lead the party, but Reid said that Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would serve as the torch bearers for the populist wing and hold the caucus's feet to the fire.

No snark from me; it's already in the quotes (look for the word "faith"). Reid wants to elevate the enemy of economic populists so the populists can be "torch bearers." But not to worry; they can "have faith" in Schumer while they hold those torches — and Schumer looks the other way.

Durbin and Murray Also Endorse Schumer

Dick Durbin is the ostensible number-two person in the caucus, after Reid, which means he's getting leapfrogged. Apparently he's fine with that:

But by mid-afternoon, Reid had endorsed New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, no. 3 in the current hierarchy, as his chosen successor — and Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin’s office made it clear that the Illinois senator would also back his colleague and former Capitol Hill roommate. ...

Durbin, according to his spokesman, also has the support of Reid to seek another term as the party’s whip.

What about Patty Murray? She's the only woman in the Senate in a strong leadership position, and a senator who sometimes votes progressive (and sometimes not; she's an anti–Glass-Steagall senator after all).

[D]uring the budget session, Reid, for a time or two, appeared to be looking on as his three longtime lieutenants —Durbin, Schumer and Patty Murray of Washington — worked through the process of wrangling over amendments.

Turns out Murray is also a Schumer-enabler; she endorses Schumer and will not run against him:

Patty Murray Backs Schumer for Leader

Having won the backing of the entire leadership team, New York’s Charles E. Schumer might become the next Senate Democratic leader by acclamation.

Conference Secretary Patty Murray, D-Wash., has joined in endorsing Schumer for the top job when Nevada Democrat Harry Reid retires at the beginning of 2017, according to a Murray aide.

“Senator Murray spoke to Senator Schumer several times over the past few days and told him that she planned to support him for leader next Congress and looks forward to continuing to be his partner in Senate Democratic leadership,” the aide told CQ Roll Call.

Murray has long had a large portfolio within the Democratic caucus, and she’s likely to only expand on those responsibilities in the next Congress.

Thus Murray makes three. Any objection from anyone else? Hearing none — done deal. Don't worry about Murray, though. She has "long had a large portfolio" within the caucus, is "likely to only expand on those responsibilities." So there's that. Fair trade perhaps? She'd likely say yes.

Where's the Rest of the Caucus?

But don't let the rest of the Democrats off the hook. The same piece linked at the top tells us that Schumer "might become the next Senate Democratic leader by acclamation." And the Post earlier told us that Schumer "already has secured overwhelming support of members of the caucus." So it's on them all until one of them raises her objecting head and says, "But ... wait."

Party Capture by Insiders, Thanks to Harry Reid

This is what we get when we vote for Democrats. Party unity and hyper-"collegiality" way too much of the time. Women and men eager to sell out progressives and play "Follow the Neo-Liberal Party Leader." So long as their "personal portfolio" is expanded, of course. Good for Patty Murray. Not so good for us.

Democratic Senator Patty Murray (WA)
playing "Follow the Neo-Liberal Leader"

Color me pained to be saying this, but there it is. Insiders helping insiders keep outsiders out — meaning us. It feels like progressives have just lost the Senate, thanks to Harry Reid. Is this "our" party? Doesn't look like it from here.

GP

Can Chuck Schumer Win Back The Senate?

Montana organic wheat farmer and State Senator Jon Tester had an unexpected advantage against his big money, city slicker primary opponent, John Morrison, when he ran for the U.S. Senate. America's quintessential city slicker, Chuck Schumer, had recruited Morrison, the state auditor, and told Democrats far and wide that Tester was a bumpkin who coudn't raise money (which in SchumerSpeak means the guy doesn't know Wall Street banksters or K Street lobbyists) and that he would be unable to beat Republican incumbent Conrad Burns. That was 2006... so, so much water under the bridge!

The more of his toxic, signature poison Schumer spread about Tester, the worse Morrison looked-- at least out in Montana. In NY and DC, Tester didn't have a chance. By primary day, Schumer and his slimy Wall Street and K Street cronies had made sure Morrison was able to outspend Tester twice over. $1,668,766 was what Morrison raised with Schumer's assistance. But back in Montana, there were only 38,394 Democratic voters (35.48%) who thought what the state needed was a Chuck Schumer puppet representing them in DC. Tester racked up an impressive 60.77% of the votes. Do you think folks in Miami, Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville, Tallahassee and Fort Lauderdale are any more interested in Schumer pulling their senator's strings for Wall Street than the Democrats in Missoula, Bozeman, Helena, Great Falls, Kalispell and Butte were?

For the odious Schumer to become Majority Leader, the Democrats will need to hold two seats where Democrats are retiring, California and Nevada, plus fend off a campaign against one of their weakest and least attractive members (Michael Bennet of Colorado, a worthless DINO with little grassroots support) and not lose any other seats they hold and take 5 Republican-held seats, the likeliest bring Illinois (Mark Kirk), Wisconsin (Ron Johnson), New Hampshire (Kelly Ayotte), Florida (open-- Marco Rubio), Pennsylvania (Pat Toomey), Ohio (Rob Portman), although a really good years with a competent DSCC could bring blue victories in Arizona (McCain), Missouri (Blunt), North Carolina (Burr), Iowa (Grassley), Indiana open-- Coats) and Georgia (Isakson). Now we're really stretching. And in any case, the DSCC is at the weakest it's been in years. Ironically, Tester, who has thrown his values to the winds and thrown his lot in with Schumer, is the chairman and happy to be Schumer's puppet. Their recruitment spells disaster, and makes what should be a cinch something that will take a miracle.

Schumer is working full-time to make sure nominations are won by right-wing DINOs loved by Wall Street (his base) and hated by the party base. He seems perfectly fine undermining excellent Democratic shots in Pennsylvania and Florida by aggressively sabotaging Joe Sestak and Alan Grayson. And he's working hard to drive young, vital independent-thinker P.G. Sittenfeld out of the race to usher in dull, elderly DINO Ted Strickland. Bad start. They still don't have viable candidates in New Hampshire and North Carolina against weak Republican incumbents.

Despite Schumer's jihad against Grayson, the unaccomplished and worthless "ex"-Republican he's recruited, Patrick Murphy, looks unlikley to get through the primary, just drain lots of Democratic money from the primary. Although Schumer used every bit of clout he had to prevent it, on July 9 the Central Florida Building and Construction Trades Council (AFL-CIO) unanimously endorsed Grayson over Murphy. The organization's president, Henry "Wes" Kendrick, and Secretary-Treasurer Larry Kidd, wrote that "the Central Florida Building and Construction Council is very proud to endorse our friend Congressman Alan Grayson for United States Senate. Congressman Grayson, you are a fearless leader and fighter for all working people. You have a proven track record of getting things done even when it was not easy." It was pretty fearless of Kendrick and Kidd to disobey Schumer, who has been bragging that he has labor in his pocket for Murphy and that he could even get Elizabeth Warren to endorse Murphy if that is needed.

Even if Schumer doesn't, Florida grassroots Democratic voters understand the difference and Grayson is leading in the primary polls. The most recent general election polls show Grayson beating any Republican who gets through what is surely going to be a GOP donneybrook of a primary. But Schumer has pledged to the banksters that there will be no more Elizabeth Warrens. Patrick Murphy is as far as you can be from Elizabeth Warren and still call yourself a Democrat (even a New Dem). And Grayson... Wall Street is afraid his encyclopedic knowledge of their business, his fearlessness and they fear his prosecutorial zeal will be even worse for them than the good-natured Warren has been. Contribute here or... if you want to help the other progressives Blue America is backing for the Senate as well, here.

Saturday Afternoon With Little Chucky Schmucky-- Wall Street's Cat's Paw In The U.S. Senate

You can't imagine how hard Chuck Schumer pushed to win the Florida Senate nomination for not-Grayson. It helped that the hapless boob he put up has rich, ruthlessly corrupt parents willing to spend whatever, and that he had already proven himself an unquestioningly devoted Wall Street shill, voting with the GOP on the House Financial Services Committee to do whatever it took to disarm Wall Street oversight and reform. But Schumer shepherded $1,930,542 in Financial Sector cash into Murphy's coffers, more than any other House member other than Speaker Paul Ryan (even more than House Majority Leader/bribe vacuum cleaner Kevin McCarthy and even more than Financial Services Committee go-to-whores chairman Jeb Hensarling, vice chairman Patrick McHenry and 2016 stooge of the year Ed Royce. In fact, Murphy got more from the banksters than any non-incumbent from either party running for the Senate. And considerably more than endangered Wall Street allies like Ron Johnson (R-WI), John McCain (R-AZ), Richard Burr (R-NC), Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Roy Blunt (R-MO). All 5 have been setting their hair on fire in banksters' offices and begging for more money to stave off defeats in November. But for the last 12 months, Wall Street only had eyes for a hapless little worm from West Palm Beach, Patrick Murphy or-- more to the point-- Congressman Not-Grayson.

Schumer promised Obama a flood of cash for his presidential library from Wall Street and from "others" to get Obama to help defeat Grayson, probably the smartest and most committed progressive in the House of Representatives. Obama did what he was asked to do and that was the end of whatever chance Grayson had to get the nomination. He won his part of the state-- central Florida around Orlando where he is well-known-- and 5 or 6 counties in the northern part of the state where he managed to out-spend the cash-laden Murphy. But Grayson got wiped out by the $7,770,908 Murphy had spent by August 10, by $1,461,426 spent by a SuperPAC run by Schumer and Reid, $441,350 spent by Murphy's family's PAC and by immense sums of Saudi money, much of it illegally funneled into the political system through shadow donors and the kinds of donor swaps that put Ami Bera's father in prison and forced Steve Israel to announce his retirement from Congress.

Schumer was the brains behind the operation. Murphy doesn't have a brain. But now, Wall Street-- and their boy Schumer-- don't care all that much who wins in Florida. Oh, of course, Schumer would like to see an easy-to-control puppet in a blue tee-shirt in there, but it doesn't matter to him which candidates in blue tee-shirts win in November-- as long as there are 4 of them. Schumer sees Murphy as-- at best-- a long shot against Rubio and the DSCC has backed away from supporting their candidate. It doesn't matter to Wall Street because Rubio is at least as much of an unquestioning robot for them as Murphy is. For them Florida, post-Grayson, is a win-win. Grayson would have been another Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders-- on steroids. Murphy and Rubio... order-takers. In fact, of any Senate incumbent running for reelection this cycle, Wall Street has been most generous to Rubio, primarily because of all the money they spent on his aborted presidential race-- $6,607,150. But since ending his presidential race, so just for his Senate campaign, Wall Street has given Rubio $1,941,011, almost the exact same amount they gave Murphy.

The banksters are more interested in keeping their own Pennsylvania and Ohio pets, Pat Toomey ($2,777,384) and Rob Portman ($2,601,630), in their seats, than caring which Florida puppet-- now that threat of Grayson is out of the way-- wins. The Schumer-Wall Street connection has been a major theme at DWT for several years. We never get tired of reminding everyone that Schumer has taken more-- far more-- in Wall Street bribes than anyone who hasn't run for the presidency... and more than many who have. As of the last FEC reporting deadline Schumer had been lavished with $25,985,466 from the Finance Sector, more than the two next highest non-presidential candidates combined, Republicans Mitch McConnell ($11,810,276) and John Boehner ($12,218,198)!

Last week, Michael Sainato, jumped in on this as well. Reporting for the New York Observer, he went where no Beltway publications have ever or would ever dare-- right to the heart of Schumer's blatant corruption of our government. Sainato points to how Schumer has consolidated power for himself inside the Democratic Party with Wall Street's money, spreading it around and directing it, the way he did for Murphy this year in the primary. "In order to secure this lofty position [Democratic Leader]," Sainato wrote, "Schumer is busy spreading the wealth from years of dubious campaign contributions as a means to buy support from fellow Democrats who have the means to grant Schumer the power he desires. Politico reported on September 20 that Schumer has transferred $6.2 million from his campaign cash on hand to various Democrats in order to assist their upcoming election bids."

Given Schumer’s record advocating for Wall Street and tax breaks for the top one percent, working and middle class Americans should be alarmed. Further, the country should be wary of how much further into oligarchy Schumer’s leadership-- coupled with Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine in the White House-- will take the Democratic Party.

In July 2015, Schumer teamed up with Sen. Rob Portman to propose giving multinational corporations a massive hand-out in tax breaks. The current standard corporate tax rate is 35 percent, which multinational corporations have avoided paying by claiming profits are earned in overseas tax havens. Schumer and Portman advocate imposing a tax earned outside of the country at a much lower rate-- at least lower than President Obama’s proposed 14 percent.

“The obvious consequence if the Schumer-Portman scheme becomes law is that businesses based solely within the U.S. would be at a permanent disadvantage,” wrote Jon Schwarz for the Intercept. “Multinationals could earn profits in the U.S., get their armies of lawyers and accountants to make these profits appear to have been ‘earned’ in the Cayman Islands, and get taxed at the overseas profit rate. Meanwhile, purely domestic companies would either have to pay the higher domestic rate, or turn into multinationals themselves.” Essentially, Schumer wants to grant multinational corporations a permanent tax holiday.

Schumer’s modus operandi in the Senate has been to favor Wall Street over his constituents. In the wake of the 2008 economic recession, Schumer attended fundraisers with finance executives, pushing against efforts to regulate the industry. This included helping kill a progressive bill, with some bipartisan support, to break up big banks.

Wall Street rewarded Schumer, with 15 percent of their Senate donations in 2009 going directly to him-- nearly twice as much as any other senator received. Under Schumer’s leadership of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, donations from Wall Street to Democrats increased by 50 percent as he led his party’s efforts to deregulate the financial industry. While progressives like Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were building a coalition to rein in Wall Street over the past decade, Schumer served as one of its biggest congressional allies.

“Wall Street welcomes expected Chuck Schumer promotion,” read a CNN headline from 2015 immediately following Reid’s announced retirement.

The Republicans, happy to cooperate, aren't running anyone against Schumer. The GOP candidate, Wendy Long, a silly Trump supporter, ran in 2012 against dull centrist Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand who beat her the largest margin for any statewide candidate in New York history, 4,822,330 votes (72.22%) to 1,758,702 votes (26.34%). She spent raised $784,778 to Gillibrand's $15,735,457. No Republican challenged her for the nomination this cycle. So far she's raised $160,195 and as of the June 30 FEC reporting deadline she had $53,525 cash on hand compared to Schumer's $27,517,363, the most, thanks to Wall Street, of any member of Congress (even though he has no contest at all).

Help good Democrats, who aren't part of Schumer's garbage heap world, make their care to the public this year:

Chuck Schumer-- Patently Unfit To Be Democratic Senate Leader-- Joins GOP In A Deranged March To War Against Iran

Although most Democrats in the House voted against Bush's catastrophic attack against Iraq-- 126 plus Independent Bernie Sanders voted NO, while 82 (39%) voted YES-- the Senate was much more war-minded. 58% of the Democratic senators (29 out of 50) voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution along with all the Republicans but one (Lincoln Chafee). Only 6 of the Senate Democrats who voted for Bush's war are still in the Senate: Dianne Feinstein (CA), Tom Carper (DE), Bill Nelson (FL), Harry Reid (NV), Maria Cantwell (WA) and, of course, top AIPAC whore Chuck Schumer (NY). Other pro-war senators have moved on to bigger jobs: John Kerry (MA), Joe Biden (DE) and Hillary Clinton (NY). History has proven the senators who voted yes wrong, disastrously wrong. Yet few have paid any political price at all.

The fact that they paid no political price encourages them to vote now for war with Iran. And last night-- under cover of the spectacle of the Republican presidential debate circus on Fox-- Chuck Schumer, the presumed next leader of the Senate Democrats, announced that he will oppose President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. He declared, "I will certainly share my view and try to persuade them [his Senate colleagues] that the vote to disapprove is the right one." Obama needs 34 votes in the Senate to prevent his veto from being overridden.

A veto override would be an enormous blow to the president’s prestige. It would torpedo an agreement between Iran and six powers-- Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States-- but it would not necessarily lead to the reimposition of crippling economic sanctions on Iran, supporters of the deal warn. With the other world powers supporting the agreement, the international sanctions regime would be likely to crumble, leaving the United States with far less effective tools to cripple Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

With so much on the line, Senate Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee like Mr. Kaine had hoped to not only rally the 34 senators needed to sustain a presidential veto, but also to possibly keep enough Democrats behind the president to filibuster a resolution of disapproval next month. To do that, they most likely could lose only five Democrats. Mr. Schumer’s break with Mr. Obama will make that far more difficult.

Like many Jewish Democrats, Mr. Schumer approached the agreement under pressure from his constituents, the administration, and his own personal history and faith.

And his close relationship to AIPAC, the Israel lobby. They have given Schumer over a quarter million dollars and bolstered his slimy political career. Schumer is the first Democratic senator to go over to the Republicans on this. 16 have announced they would back the deal: Tammy Baldwin, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Kirsten Gillibrand, Martin Heinrich, Tim Kaine, Angus King, Patrick Leahy, Chris Murphy, Bill Nelson, Jack Reed, Bernie Sanders, Jeanne Shaheen, Tom Udall, Elizabeth Warren. And 29 remain "undecided." The list of senators backing Obama includes several Jews, among them two-- Bill Nelson and Dianne Feinstein-- who realize what a grievous error they made in 2002 when they backed Bush's attack on Iraq and are going to do the right thing this time.

Neo-fascist Texas Senator Ted Cruz couldn't be happier. "I think it is fantastic news that Sen. Schumer has come out against the Iranian deal and has done so publicly and early. For several weeks now, I have been saying that I hope we see the re-emergence of Joe Lieberman Democrats, the re-emergence of Scoop Jackson Democrats..." MoveOn and other progressive organizations pushed back quickly against Schumer. This is the powerful statement MoveOn issued last night:

Diplomacy has yielded an agreement between the world’s major powers and Iran that will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The only other means of limiting Iran’s nuclear program is war.

While not unexpected, it is outrageous and unacceptable that the Democrat who wants to be the party’s leader in the Senate is siding with the Republican partisans and neoconservative ideologues who are trying to scrap this agreement and put us on the path to war.

Risking American lives in wars of choice isn’t leadership, it’s small and backward.

Our country doesn’t need another Joe Lieberman in the Senate, and it certainly doesn’t need him as Democratic leader. The vast majority of Democratic voters-- the people who elected President Obama in part because of our shared belief that war must always be a last resort-- will not stand for it. Frankly, we thought Senator Schumer and other Democrats in Washington had learned their lesson after being misled into supporting a misguided war of choice in Iraq.

No real Democratic leader does this. If this is what counts as “leadership” among Democrats in the Senate, Senate Democrats should be prepared to find a new leader or few followers. This is not what the volunteers, activists, small-dollar donors, and voters who actually win elections spend their time and money to support.

In response to Senator Schumer’s decision to side with partisan war hawks, MoveOn.org’s 8 million members are immediately launching a Democratic Party donor strike. We will organize grassroots progressives across the country to withhold campaign contributions from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and from any Democratic candidate who succeeds in undermining the president’s diplomacy with Iran. Our goal will be to secure commitments to withhold $10 million in contributions within 72 hours after this campaign launches.

CREDO, dubbing him "Wall Street Chuck" and "Warmonger Chuck," told its members:

Chuck Schumer was wrong on Iraq and he is wrong on Iran. Schumer's decision to join Republicans in attempting to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal once again shows that he is unfit to lead senate Democrats.

And Stephen Miles of Win Without War said:

It's deeply disappointing but not surprising that Senator Schumer has come out in opposition to the Iran Deal. Let's remember, he also supported the Iraq War back in 2002. History has shown he was wrong then and history will show he is wrong now. The question going forward is how someone so out of sync with the vast majority of his party is going to be its future leader.

In a statement of support for the Iran agreement this morning, Senator Tammy Baldwin made a lot more sense than Schumer:

I’m proud that America led six countries toward an historic international agreement with Iran. I believe we are right to choose a path of international diplomacy to achieve our goal of verifiably preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I have carefully reviewed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), attended numerous classified briefings, heard from experts and constituents, and examined detailed arguments for and against the agreement. I have also been guided by the hard lessons that should be learned when America chooses to engage in military action and war in the Middle East. Simply put, I do not believe that rejecting this agreement is in our national security interest. For that reason the choice is clear, I will support this international agreement because it will best serve America’s national security interests and it is built on verification with a robust inspections and compliance regime that will cut off all of Iran’s potential pathways to a nuclear weapon.

Yesterday, Reuven Rivlin, the President of Israel and a right-winger himself, joined a growing number of Israeli military and intelligence higher-ups who think Netanyahu is making a serious blunder by throwing in his lot with the Republicans against the deal. He said Netanyahu has been overzealous in opposing the Iran nuclear deal, opening a "battlefront" with Washington and isolating his country. He told the newspaper Maariv:

I am very worried about the battlefront that has opened up between Obama and Netanyahu and the [state of] relations between the United States and Israel. The prime minister has waged a campaign against the United States as if the two sides were equal and this is liable to hurt Israel. I must say that he understands the United States better than I do, but, nonetheless, we are largely isolated in the world.

Rivlin told Haaretz: "I have told him and I'm telling him again, that struggles, even those that are just, can ultimately come at Israel's expense."

Schumer, as we've been saying for months, is not fit to be the leader of the Senate Democrats, and not just because he's a warmonger and a shill for AIPAC. The same way he puts Israel's extreme right Likud party ahead of America's interests, he also puts Wall Street's interests ahead of America's, something we've been demonstrating in terms of his jihad against Alan Grayson and his support for "ex"-Republican Patrick Murphy in the Florida Senate race. Today Bernie Sanders, in an interview taped for Face the Nation Sunday, told host John Dickerson that the U.S. should take every necessary step to "make sure that we achieve that goal of Iran not having a nuclear weapon without going to war... I'm not going to tell you that this is a perfect agreement. And every agreement can be better. This is what I saw recently in the Republican debate. It's so easy to be critical of an agreement which is not perfect. But the United States has to negotiate with, you know, other countries. We have to negotiate with Iran.And the alternative of not reaching an agreement, you know what it is? It's war. Do we really want another war, a war with Iran? So I think we go as far as we possibly can in trying to give peace a chance, if you like. Trying to see if this agreement will work. And I will support it."

Many Democrats-- if not Senate Democrats-- are still angry that Schumer called Obamacare a mistake. Meanwhile, please withhold any contributions you may be contemplating giving to the DSCC until the Senate Democrats rescind their decision to make Schumer leader after Reid retires. If you want to help the Democrats take back the Senate with progressives, you can do that here. And please, if you have a Democratic senator, let him or her know that you oppose Schumer becoming Senate leader.