Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
July 13, 2005
POLITICS: Crybaby Chuck?

Is it just me, or has Chuck Schumer given the GOP a golden opportunity? You've doubtless seen Schumer's latest demand, from the floor of the Senate, on the White House:

"For consultation to work, and we all want it to work, the president should suggest some names and get the opinion of those of us in the Senate," he said. The senator also suggested the president convene a summit at Camp David or "a dinner at the White House" to privately discuss the nomination.

Now, during the Clinton years, Newt Gingrich was ruthlessly lampooned by the NY Daily News as a "Cry Baby" over the charge that the 1995 government shutdown was partly motivated by Newt's pique over not getting a good seat on Air Force One. That was doubtless an oversimplification, but isn't Schumer opening himself up to similar charges here when he inevitably leads the charge to filibuster Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court: Schumer wanted Bush to wine and dine him before announcing the nominee, and now he's pitching a fit and shutting down the Senate because he didn't get his ego-stroking dinner invitation. Is it really such a good idea to hand your opponents such an obvious talking point?

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:54 PM | Politics 2005 | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Compare your "You've doubtless seen Schumer's latest demand..." with the report's "The senator also suggested...."

In any case, I agree that it would be a shame if Schumer decided to shut the government down because he didn't get invited dinner. Thankfully for beleaguered Republicans, Schumer probably doesn't enjoy the congressional constituency Gingrich enjoyed back in his heyday.

Posted by: Strange Doctrines at July 13, 2005 2:19 PM

Gringrich's "cry baby" has little do with Schumer's comments.

A better comparison would be when Clinton asked the Republican leadership for suggestions and advice when he nominated his supreme court justices.

Posted by: dave at July 13, 2005 2:51 PM

Clinton made it clear he wanted someone who would uphold previous liberal decisions. That's what was suggested to him in Ginsburg. If the liberals in the Senate are willing to suggest to Bush strict constructionist judges for the SCOTUS, then it would be a legitimate comparison. If they don't, it isn't.

Posted by: Richard at July 13, 2005 3:14 PM

I think the President should submit a list of 3 candidates to the Dems with the stipulation that one of them will be the nomine. The list should include Alberto Gonzalez, the candidate the President really wants and John Ashcroft. The Dems would go nuts, but not be able to argue that they were not consulted. If they attempted to fillibuster, the Constitutional Option should immediately be invoked.

Posted by: Terry Kelly at July 13, 2005 4:25 PM

I know Schumer's a loudmouth and all, but come on. It's not a demand, there's no threat. He's merely over-posturing on the "advice" part of "advise and consent."

Posted by: Mr Furious at July 14, 2005 11:46 AM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg