The “Little People” Have Big Ears

Last month, Dickie Durbin expressed surprise that his Nazi-Soviets-Pol-Pot slander got noticed in the press. It hasn’t been very long since his surprise would have been understandable–an awful lot of stories involving left-leaning politicians didn’t get reported in the MSM.

As Dickie found to his dismay, the internet has changed all that. Thanks to Drudge, Chuck Schumer is getting a similar lesson today.

You don’t just have to worry about your pals in the press any more, boys. The “little people” are listening, too. And we don’t need to ask the permission of any ideology-addled editors before we report on what we’ve heard.

UPDATE: Just for the record, I’m neither shocked nor particularly offended by Schumer’s “statement”; it’s about what I figured his position would be… but I’m also reasonably sure that he didn’t want it publicized. Ten years ago, it wouldn’t have been.

Advertisements

28 Responses to “The “Little People” Have Big Ears”

  1. rbj Says:

    Watch for the Dems to be outraged over this eavesdropping of a cellphone call. They’re right, but their lack of concern over the eavesdropping of Newt’s cellphone call renders, to me, their outrage moot.

  2. Matt Says:

    rbj, there’s a big difference between someone overhearing Chuck Shumer speaking loudly enough to be heard on a train and someone using a radio to intercept Newt’s call. One is wiretapping, the other is just Shumer’s stupidity.

  3. Marie Says:

    On the up side, at least we now know what kind of threat it takes to get Schumer to support war. Too bad it’s against his fellow countrymen.

  4. knoxgirl Says:

    I think Shumer is a tool, but I don’t think he said anything that bad, especially compared to Durbin.

    Perhaps after Shiavo, Bolton, and everything else over the last 6 months, my expectations of Senatorial behavior have just been lowered too far.

  5. Dave Says:

    Matt said:

    rbj, there’s a big difference between someone overhearing Chuck Shumer speaking loudly enough to be heard on a train and someone using a radio to intercept Newt’s call. One is wiretapping, the other is just Shumer’s stupidity.

    In Schumer’s defense, he’s from New York, which means he just doesn’t know how to lower his voice below ’11’.

  6. bdawg65 Says:

    “In Schumer’s defense, he’s from New York, which means he just doesn’t know how to lower his voice below ’11′”
    Now now, that’s uncalled for!!
    Being a life long New Yorker I can safely say that’s not true….
    We CAN bring down the decibels to at least a 10 (if we try real hard)!! lol
    I was at a bbq this weekend with friends of mine that are heavy into NYC politics (With love in their hearts they tolerate my hardcore republican beliefs), the running joke among them is if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it………..
    Good old Chucky “Cheese” Schumer will be in front of a camera in five minutes making sure the world knows that he’s fighting for that tree and that the Republicans were behind it falling and they will pay.
    You do gotta love the set on the guy saying what he says and keeping a straight face the whole time!

  7. leaddog2 Says:

    Loud New Yorkers? Some are NOT, Dave.

    However, do you have an explanation for TERMINAL STUPIDITY? Shumer is a prime case.

  8. doug quarnstrom Says:

    This may not hurt them all that much. Like many centrists who voted for Bush, and I *did* vote for Bush, I kind of *want* the democrats to be hard asses about the supreme court nominations. I want a centrist court, not a conservative activist court.

  9. Will Collier Says:

    Just for the record, I’m neither shocked nor particularly offended by Schumer’s “statement”; it’s about what I figured his position would be… but I’m reasonably sure that he still didn’t want it publicized. Ten years ago, it wouldn’t have been.

  10. Redhand Says:

    I’m not at all surprised. The Democrats must “go to war” over any nomination just to remain relevant. I predict an all out attack on even a moderate, should Bush select one.

    Watch for a truly disgusting spectacle at the judiciary hearings, with Kennedy, Leahy et al stopping at nothing, alla Clarence Thomas, to discredit the nominee. I only home that the Republicans counterattack just as strongly.

    As to Chucky Cheese’s disparagement of the Gang of 14 deal, that was totally expected too. By definition the Demos consider a Supreme Couty nominee an “extraordinary circumstance.”

  11. Tim P Says:

    Why is anybody surprised at this type of behavior by the democrats.
    They who invented and perefected the politics of personal destruction.
    With a minority in the house and senate, a minority of governors and state legislators, with only two democrats elected president since Nixon, the democrats rely heavily, indeed almost entirely on judicial fiat to enact their agenda.
    Just think about Pelosi’s comments last week regarding the supreme court decision in the Kelo case. She likened it to the word of god.
    Ofcourse, they’re going to go to war because this is all they have left and as their relevance and influence decreases, they will fight ever more viciously.
    The republicans should just use the ‘nuclear option’ and ram through their nominee regardless of the crocodile tears and howls of outrage from the media. For this SC appointment and for the next one, which we all suspect is coming.
    What I worry about far more, is the damage done to the courts by this incessant politicizing of the legal system. Both sides are guilty on this count, but the democrats far more so.

  12. Mark in Mexico Says:

    Sen. Shumer – We are going to war over Supreme Cou

    According to Drudge, Senator Charle Shumer was overheard during a long cellphone conversation saying the following:

  13. byrd Says:

    Tim P:

    The democrats may have perfected the policitcs of personal destruction, but they’re taking it even further here because there’s no ‘personal’ to destruct.

    What Schumer has done is admit in plain english what we all already know–the democrats are motivated purely by partison politics. It doesn’t even matter who the nominee is! They’ll oppose and try to destroy that person simply because he or she is nominated by Bush. Period.

  14. Scott in CA Says:

    And now Bush is going to have Fred Thompson as point man on the confirmation process. Compare and contrast, class: Thompson, the former actor, then senator, now actor again – everybody’s favorite uncle. He’s seen on Law and Order by 20 million people a week. He’s low key and has a mild Tennessee twang. On the other hand, the Dems have Kennedy, Boxer, et al. You tell me who the public is going to like best. The Dems are going to look like psychotic, raving, alcoholic banshees (and that’ just Ted).

  15. E. Nough Says:

    I’m not so sure it’s such a bad thing that Schumer’s cell phone call wouldn’t have been publicized pre-Drudge.

    What we’ve got here is an unconfirmed, third-party retelling of an alleged private phone call that doesn’t even seem all that newsworthy. (Politician engages in politics! Film at 11!) There’s a certain National Enquirer/Michael Jackson vibe to the whole “story.”

    My humble opinion says that, unlike the Durbin and Rathergate stories, this particular incident does not raise the bar on journalism quality.

  16. Moe Lane Says:

    Amusingly, Gonzales? Qualified, according to Sen. Reid.

    I’m thinking that the pure internal rage generated by that statement was sufficient to shorten actual lifespan of at least twenty regular dKos readers, but never mind that for the moment; it’s more interesting to see how things are still chaotic for the Democrats on this one. They’ve had five days; surely they’re ready to form ranks by now?

  17. William Says:

    I second ENough, this is pure hearsay and will only serve to increase the partisanship of those so right that they’ll buy this stuff.

  18. Buddy Larsen Says:

    Fox reported this afternoon that the heiress/owner of WaPo had the Senator at a wkend party in the Hamptons. ABC sent a private plane, flew him in to an appearance on Sunday, then flew him back out to the party. Our champions of the masses.

  19. Sandy P Says:

    And of course Chuckles is submitting that to Senate bookkeepers and whicheverelse agency needs to know.

  20. Sharpshooter Says:

    “And now Bush is going to have Fred Thompson as point man on the confirmation process. Compare and contrast, class: Thompson, the former actor, then senator, now actor again…”

    Not quite; first, lawyer for 20 or so years. IIRC, his first acting job was to portray himself (or a characterization of himself) in a movie with Sissy Spacek, a movie about prison abuse and corruption in Tennessee.

  21. Neo Says:

    Rep. Jim McDermott’s D-WA case of the Newt phone eavesdrop is front and center with the House Ethics Committee, just ahead of Tom DeLay.

    Justice delayed .. is normal in the House.

  22. Media Lies Says:

    From the horse’s mouth

    Powerline reports on a captured cell phone conversation that reveals the Democrats true plans in the judicial nomination fight.

    <a href="http://www.drudgereport.com/f

  23. Reid Says:

    I’d love to fast-forward a few years and see if whatever outrageous behavior they tar the nominee with will then be repeated far more egregiously by the next Democrat President, whose outrageous behavior will then be greeted with a shrug, and a claim that “everybody does it.”

    The sexual harassment charges made against Clarence Thomas do look positively quaint in the post-Clinton era, don’t they?

  24. Sean P Says:

    I Completely agree with those who point out Schumer’s statement isn’t outrageous or indicative of unethical behavior.

    However, it should be noted that Schumer has been at the forefront of a number of judicial filibusters in the past. And Schumer has perfected the art of filibustering while denying your filibustering. Schumer’s MO is to demand an oppressive amount of information, documents, memos, etc. from prospective nominees and then using the failure to turn over said documents as his excuse for filibustering.

    And truth be told, his tactic has been pretty successful. Voters tend to dislike promiscuous filibusters, but after 15 minutes of listening to Schumer swear on TV that he really, really wants to vote for this nominee or that, and you start to think its the REPUBLICANS who are doing the filiibustering of judges. Pretty impressive. But not anymore. Now, if Schumer tries to justify a filibuster on the basis of a refusal to turn over reams of confidential memos, resumes, high school prom pictures, etc., his Republican colleauges can throw his quote in his face.

  25. R C Dean Says:

    I Completely agree with those who point out Schumer’s statement isn’t outrageous or indicative of unethical behavior.

    So you don’t think that a Senator promising to go to war no matter who the nominee is, is outrageous? Or that his statement that the recent deal on judicial nominations will be discarded is unethical?

    I hope we never do business with each other, Sean. Out here in the real world, rejecting offers before they are made and reneging on deals made last month is considered bad form.

  26. Sean P Says:

    Easy on the personal attacks. This is politics, not personal, and politics can sometimes get ugly. And there are plenty of things I would never do in my own personal life, but that don’t set me off when I hear a polician did them.

  27. DaveJ Says:

    “there are plenty of things I would never do in my own personal life, but that don’t set me off when I hear a polician did them.”

    The very definition of the reason that politics IS dirty business. Everyone expects it. Why not just shut done the ethics committees, since we don’t expect ethical behavior anyway?

    Ah, nevermind. Just quit wondering why honest and honorable people don’t run for office.

  28. Sean P Says:

    Oh, I quit wondering that a LONG time ago.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: