How Did Chuck Schumer Not Choke On His Own Tongue Saying This?

There are pandering and posturing politicians. And there's Sen. Chuck Schumer - a man in a pander league all his own.

Yes, we’ve had plenty of examples of it recently. Whether it was Bernie Sanders attacking Hillary Clinton by asking:

“Are you qualified to be President of the United States when you're raising millions of dollars from Wall Street whose greed, recklessness and illegal behavior helped to destroy our economy? Maybe the American people might wonder about your qualifications, Madame Secretary.”

Only to turn around a couple months later and say of that same Hillary Clinton:

“Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today!”

On the other side of the coin, we had Ted Cruz ripping Donald Trump as, “a pathological liar, utterly amoral, a narcissist at a level I don't think this country's ever seen” and “a serial philanderer.”

Just months later that same Cruz wrote a piece for Time Magazine praising Trump as a needed “flash-bang grenade” and described his bullying style as “not a bug but a feature.”

This is, of course, the kind of conviction-less compromising that makes people distrust politicians. For those of us who can – at least from time to time – remove ourselves from the frustration of it, it can also bring a great deal of humor to watch our leaders pretend to be stalwarts of principle as they bend and contort themselves like a pretzel in order to play the game.

And when it comes to that phenomenon, Cruz and Sanders can’t hold a candle to what just poured from the lips, or keyboard, of Senate Minority Leader, Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York. Announcing his plan to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level, Schumer thundered,

“It’s time we allow states, once and for all, to have the power to decide what works best for them. I have long believed states should function as their own laboratories of democracy.”

Surely he was cackling and giggling the whole time he wrote that. Surely even Chuck Schumer isn’t so dim that he was able to sincerely convince himself that this is what he’s really “long believed?” Seriously? Chuck Schumer a champion of states’ rights?

  • Does Chuck Schumer believe that states should be allowed to decide that abortion does not work best in their state?
  • Does Chuck Schumer believe that states should be allowed to decide that gay marriage does not work best in their state?
  • Does Chuck Schumer believe that states should be allowed to decide that Obamacare does not work for their state?
  • Does Chuck Schumer believe that states should be allowed to decide that flying the Confederate flag works in their state?
  • Does Chuck Schumer believe that states should be allowed to decide that affirmative action does not work in their state?

It’s just so absurd a claim that it’s astounding to consider that anyone could possibly believe him. Libertarian writer David Burge at least found a silver lining:

“I suppose we should celebrate the fact that after 78 years in office Chuck Schumer has finally discovered one aspect of human existence over which he does not consider the federal government Supreme Overlord.”

I’m not so sure. Schumer is a statist, and they don’t give up control – they merely pander and posture to make it look like they are sacrificing it as a means to an end of greater control…

You know, like decriminalizing marijuana so that they can then tax it heavily to provide for the continued growth of their influence and manipulation of your life.

Comments
No. 1-7
Jules
Jules

Peter Heck's bias is not just showing, it is overwhelming the article. He quotes Cruz's comments about Trump's character and then his comments about Trump's effectiveness as president, and postures that the second is a denial of the first. I don't think any of us are blind to Trump's amoral, if not immoral, history, no matter how stridently the Trump haters insist that we are. It is what it is. Cruz merely stated what so many of us believe----that in spite of that history, Trump's style is the kind of "flash-bang grenade" the country needed to jar it out of its death spiral. Cruz didn't defend any of the characteristics he had objected to. I don't see how conservatives can hope to make any progress when "our" writers fall back on the same deceptive writing tricks used by the Left.

mtnavarre
mtnavarre

I Inadvertently hit the enter key. The above statement by Cruz is true, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Trump can't be an effective leader.

mtnavarre
mtnavarre

"On the other side of the coin, we had Ted Cruz ripping Donald Trump as, “a pathological liar, utterly amoral, a narcissist at a level I don't think this country's ever seen” and “a serial philanderer.”

MarkBerwind
MarkBerwind

"This is, of course, the kind of conviction-less compromising that makes people distrust politicians." There is no real comparison going on. Shumer was, and still is, acting as the party to a deceitful transaction, by aiding and abetting Hillary Clinton in ridding a competitor: Bernie Sanders. Cruz's statements before, were part of a fairly bloody, though competitive primary campaign, one which he came back to support the nominee. I just don't see the comparison. Shumer is full bore to the left of even the Democrat base, as far as I'm concerned.

Cbkitys
Cbkitys

The last paragraph of this article sums up Schumer in a nutshell!

Stories