Charlie Schumer - does he get it?

[SWJED]

Not much left to say following this
Jeez, hope he never gets elected !

RTK, why do you get to vote twice ?

... because he is from Chicago .

I don't know how he did that - Bill and I can't vote twice and we have full admin control on the site. Will see if we have a glitch here or if Ryan is the hacker we all suspected he was.

[RTK]

... because he is from Chicago .

I don't know how he did that - Bill and I can't vote twice and we have full admin control on the site. Will see if we have a glitch here or if Ryan is the hacker we all suspected he was.

Cause I marked it as a multiple choice poll. You can have more than one answer the one and only time you vote.

I'm not from Chicago, but I am fluent with their way of politics and business...

[SWJED]

Cause I marked it as a multiple choice poll. You can have more than one answer the one and only time you vote.

I'm not from Chicago, but I am fluent with their way of politics and business...

I feel foolish, not for missing the multiple choice option, but for listening to Stan .

[Adam L]

Being from New York I am sick that we can not get a single descent candidate Republican or otherwise. The GOP just wants a protest, no shot in hell, candidate. They aren't willing to support a real candidate. They forget that New York isn't a heavy blue state. On a state level if Pataki hadn't hit a term limit he'd still be in office. Republicans control the state assembly. The GOP just refuses to get along with NY Republicans. We're Conservatives. Not neo-conservative, not progressive conservatives not post-conservatives. All I can say about Schumer is that he used to be a decent senator. Also, atlest he isn't Hillary. She is not a New Yorker neither in the state of city sense. If Guilliani hadn't had prostate cancer he would have been the candidate and she wouldn't have had a shot in hell. Sorry, I'm on a soapbox. For your information I'm acually an independent. Atleast for now.

Please, don't blame all New York's people for our senators?

[Watcher In The Middle]

Chuck Schumer is not stupid by any means. He's just "doubling down" on the bet he's already placed.

Schumer is head of DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee), and he's busy recruiting potential candidates to run in 2008 and beyond. He won his bets in 2006, and in his view, the situation has not changed enough to alter his approach, so let's keep the same game going heading into 2008, only let's "double down" on the bet. Smart move IMO (even though I don't agree with him).

Now, he wants to get out ahead on this whole September report (that's why he was first in line). If he's your "face" guy for recruiting candidates, well, got to establish his street creds.

Say what you will, Schumer is one very smart pol. Ethical and all the other stuff - I'll leave that alone. Ask yourself - who's he going with for Democratic presidential candidate. That alone right there should tell you how smart this guy is.

[MattC86]

I was a Congressional intern last summer (sorry, SWAdmin, but probably the source of those Capitol Hill site hits you were getting . . .I was a bad boy at the office), and Schumer's rep (besides being the worst camera hog in Washington - he has staff assigned to scour the media for references to him) is, as watcher said, a very smooth political operator. He's going to hammer the surge as long as it continues - you can contrast his reaction with other Democrats like Durbin or Levin who are vacillating and acknowledging some progress. Schumer is guns-blazing on Iraq and he has a vested interest in this point at downplaying any success, whether legitimate or illegitimate.

That said, we would be remiss if we didn't examine the Senator's charge and address it. The al-Anbar miracle is far and away the Surge's biggest success, at least as touted by the administration and many of Petraeus' remarks. Yet I think it's valid to ask if the transformation that took place there was the result of what the US did, or what al-Qaeda did to turn the local tribes against them.

I know we engaged with the sheiks and all that stuff, but it's true that during much of 2003-2006, we could provide little or no security to the locals in al-Anbar. Now, with the tribes' help, we are doing well there. I think it's fair to ask if we really deserve as much credit as we give ourselves for that turnaround.

My .02.

Matt

[RTK]

I was a Congressional intern last summer (sorry, SWAdmin, but probably the source of those Capitol Hill site hits you were getting . . .I was a bad boy at the office), and Schumer's rep (besides being the worst camera hog in Washington - he has staff assigned to scour the media for references to him) is, as watcher said, a very smooth political operator. He's going to hammer the surge as long as it continues - you can contrast his reaction with other Democrats like Durbin or Levin who are vacillating and acknowledging some progress. Schumer is guns-blazing on Iraq and he has a vested interest in this point at downplaying any success, whether legitimate or illegitimate.

That said, we would be remiss if we didn't examine the Senator's charge and address it. The al-Anbar miracle is far and away the Surge's biggest success, at least as touted by the administration and many of Petraeus' remarks. Yet I think it's valid to ask if the transformation that took place there was the result of what the US did, or what al-Qaeda did to turn the local tribes against them.

I know we engaged with the sheiks and all that stuff, but it's true that during much of 2003-2006, we could provide little or no security to the locals in al-Anbar. Now, with the tribes' help, we are doing well there. I think it's fair to ask if we really deserve as much credit as we give ourselves for that turnaround.

My .02.

Matt

I'm waiting for CavGuy to show up. He was there in Ramadi when 1/1 AD got the tribes to flip. I'm sure he has an opinion on this.