Did You Know...

   

Schumer: Surrender to one-party rule or else; Update: Against one-party rule before he was for it

Share
By Michelle Malkin  •  October 29, 2008 05:18 PM

Scroll for update…

Nancy Pelosi promises that total Democrat control will mean a Congress that is the most “bipartisan” ever. (link) Now, Sen. Chuck Schumer tells us that American cannot afford anything other than complete one-party rule.

Via CongressDaily:

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer of New York today argued that in the current climate a politically divided government is a bad thing. He was seeking to counter a closing GOP argument that voters should not give Democrats control of the White House, the House and a potentially filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. “They can’t win on domestic policy; they can’t win on foreign policy; they can’t win on sort of trying to tag our candidates; so the latest theme is, ‘Oh, let’s have some balance in government. Let’s have divided government,’ ” Schumer said at a press briefing. “Our view is very simple, and that is Republican senators, Republican incumbents aren’t for checks and balances. They’re for blocking change and backing [President] Bush.”

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has made an argument against a filibuster-proof majority in a handful of its races, and the theme is making its way into some of the closing TV ads for Republican senators, particularly in North Carolina and Kentucky, which have long leaned to the right. In Kentucky, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney sent a fundraising appeal on behalf of Minority Leader McConnell arguing that should Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama be elected president, Republicans need to preserve some semblance of control in the Senate. “We believe Americans don’t agree with Democrats that one-party rule is OK,” said a NRSC spokeswoman. “If Democrats control all branches of government, there are no checks and balances, there’s no debate and Democrats are beholden to radical liberal special interests.”

This is a “Kneel before Zod!” moment, people:

***

A reader notes:

So he does not stand by his earlier statement?

Chuck Schumer on a one party rule (FOX News Sunday, 4/10/05):

“And again, you can’t just have one-party rule here.”

“The point is that there have to be checks and balances here. A check and a balance does not necessarily always mean a majority vote. We have 60 votes before you can do certain kinds of spending increases. The Senate is always supposed to be, Chris, the cooling saucer.”

Shiv-alry is not dead: Hillary says WH hopes got shanked by Comey

October 16, 2017 09:49 PM by Doug Powers

A “shiv” made in Russia, no doubt

Jane Fonda, last month’s ‘feminist hero’ for slamming Trump, now sorry about something

October 15, 2017 10:14 AM by Doug Powers

Highly selective outrage

That’ll teach him! DNC gives away 10% of Weinstein’s donations (to Dem orgs)

October 8, 2017 12:52 PM by Doug Powers

From one pocket to the other

WaPo fact check rates Tim Kaine’s ‘silencer’ lie less untrue because of his ignorance

October 4, 2017 08:10 PM by Doug Powers

Talk about benefit of the doubt

Dems ‘do something’ by blaming NRA/GOP for nonexistent aspect of LV shooting

October 3, 2017 01:08 PM by Doug Powers

If only their mouths had silencers


Categories: Democrats, Guns