MyDD :: Schumer: Passage of Stem-Cell Bill Will Hurt Democrats

Schumer: Passage of Stem-Cell Bill Will Hurt Democrats

by Jonathan Singer, Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 09:04:25 PM EST

Chuck Schumer spoke with The Hill for the newspaper's e-News tip sheet. The topic: how the potential passage of a bill funding stem cell research might affect the Democrats at the polls this fall.

Schumer says stem-cell bill will harm Dems at the polls

Democrats say next week's Senate vote on research into embryonic stem cells -- and a promised White House veto -- will cut into their advantage on the campaign trail, particularly in Midwestern states.

"Our polling data shows this is a very prescient issue in Missouri," Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday.

"It's not just in Missouri," he continued, naming Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan as other states where the issue would help Democratic candidates.

I think I understand Schumer's logic. If the Republican Senate doesn't pass a stem cell bill, Democratic Senate candidates will be able to take them to task. However, if a bill does pass the Senate this summer, then the issue will be off of the table -- or at least less salient among voters.

While I think I get where Schumer is going, I'm not certain that I buy into his thinking. The issue of stem cell research is certainly on the table in a number of the closer Senate races this fall, but should President Bush actually veto a funding bill -- his first ever veto -- stem cell research would receive more media and public attention than any point at least since the 2004 election. An increased awareness of the issue could only help the Democrats at the polls, not hurt them.

What's more, it's not clear to me that many endangered Republicans will vote for a bill funding stem cell research. The Hill notes that Senators Mike DeWine of Ohio, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and Jim Talent of Missouri -- all of whom are in serious jeopardy this fall -- plan to vote against the stem cell legislation. With their position to funding on the record, rather than just in rhetoric, it will be much easier for their Democratic challengers to hammer them on the hustings.

Perhaps I'm excessively optimistic about this issue, but then again, maybe Senator Schumer is too pessimistic...

Tags: Stem Cell Research, Chuck Schumer, Senate 2006 (all tags)

Permalink :: 51 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Schumer: Passage of Stem-Cell Bill Will Hurt D (none / 0)

Schumer is a complete fucking idiot.

by Bob Brigham on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 09:12:46 PM EST

Re: Schumer: Passage of Stem-Cell Bill Will Hurt D (3.00 / 1)

Yes, we all know Schumer is Satan incarnate, but would you care to explain your logic there?

by dantheman on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 09:55:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Schumer: Passage of Stem-Cell Bill Will Hurt D (none / 0)

General observation after his actions in PA, OH, VA, and CT.

by Bob Brigham on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 11:58:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Schumer: Passage of Stem-Cell Bill Will Hurt D (none / 0)

Chuck is an SOB but he is not an idiot. In fact, as someone from NY and has watched the guy's rise, he is a very smart and astitute pol. Not likely someone's style, tactics or politics is very different from them being an idiot. I hate Newt Gingrich but the guy is smart as hell.

by John Mills on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 11:34:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Schumer: Passage of Stem-Cell Bill Will Hurt D (3.00 / 0)

It seems pretty idiotic to me when a Democratic leader goes on record as at least impliedly hoping for the defeat of a measure with strong popular support, in order to reap a political windfall. In no way does his comment help us, so far as I can see. Think it if you must, but don't say it out loud.

by rfahey22 on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 12:28:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Schumer: Passage of Stem-Cell Bill Will Hurt D (none / 0)

I am not sure it is a bad political strategy but it is not smart to talk with a reporter on the record about it. Of course, this is all inside baseball. The vote, or not lack there of, will be the main issue to voters.

by John Mills on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 01:02:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Schumer: Passage of Stem-Cell Bill Will Hurt D (3.00 / 1)

Gingrich isn't that smart. What did he accomplish as Speaker? He aimed too high, went after Clinton for adultery when he was an adulterer himself, and had to give up his leadership post within four years. How is this smart?

He also dismantled the House Office of Technology Assessment, a fairly low budget organization that produced high quality work, because he didn't want any dissenting voices to his own ideas about science. How is that smart?

by RickD on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 06:07:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Schumer: Passage of Stem-Cell Bill Will Hurt D (none / 0)

Sorry but Gingrich is very smart even if he is evil. He was the main architect of the 1994 Repub takeover, something that at the time most people thought was impossible. He had a mentality perfect for a besieged minority. He is talks like someone in the minority, 12 years after the Repubs became the majority.
He was never able to really adjust to being Speaker but that doesn't take away from his intellect and his political strategy that led to 1994. Few think it would have had happened if not for Gingrich.

by John Mills on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 02:48:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Shumer is not wrong, I think Singer made a mistake (none / 0)

I think in his title he meant to write "will hurt REPUBLICANS."

This has to be the case. Just look at the quote Singer later offered:

"Democrats say next week's Senate vote on research into embryonic stem cells -- and a promised White House veto -- will cut into their advantage on the campaign trail, particularly in Midwestern states.

"Our polling data shows this is a very prescient issue in Missouri," Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday.

"It's not just in Missouri," he continued, naming Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan as other states where the issue would help Democratic candidates."

Seems to me to be an honest mistake.

by dpANDREWS on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 09:17:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shumer is not wrong, I think Singer made a mis (none / 0)

That makes sense to me. Especially given that Dem incumbents can say, "We got this done, despite GOP control of Congress."

Running on accomplishments never hurts.

It doesn't do as much for Dem challengers, I guess, though if their opponents voted against the stem-cell bill, they can make hay out of that whether it passes or fails: it's an indicator that their opponent puts zealotry ahead of being of help to people.

by RT on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 11:10:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0)

"...will cut into their advantage on the campaign trail..."

By "their", I think it meant the White House (& republicans).

by dpANDREWS on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 01:31:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Schumer: Passage of Stem-Cell (none / 0)

Isn't Bush set to veto it anyhow so does it matter?

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 09:23:05 PM EST

Re: Schumer: Passage of Stem-Cell (none / 0)

In which case a lot of Republicans get to take a stand in favor of Stem Cells just before the election without actualy acomplishing anything. Given the popularity of Stem Cell Research, that can only help them at the polls.

by dantheman on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 09:59:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stem cell bill will hurt GOP. (none / 0)

A stem cell bill will not not pass without GOP votes.

And just as it demoralizes liberals when Democrats vote with the Reeps, so it will demoralize conservatives that their party can't stick together and support their important beliefs.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 10:39:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

PS.... (none / 0)

Doing the right thing is always the right political thing to do.

If NeoDem leaders understood that simple concept the Democratic party wouldn't have been in the ditch for the past 12 years.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 10:44:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PS.... (none / 0)

"Doing the right thing is always the right political thing to do."

If only that were true. I generally believe that good public policy makes for good politics. However, there are plenty of defeated pols to disprove this. Jim Florio, for one, comes to mind. He did the right thing by increasing taxes to help fund education in poor school districts and lost largely because of it.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it. I like seeing political courage since it is so rare these days. In this case I think Schumer is wrong on stem cells but it is not a given that always doing the right thing is good politics.

by John Mills on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 11:52:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PS.... (none / 0)

Granted, this is from Wikipedia.....

Florio served a single four-year term as Governor from January 16, 1990, to January 18, 1994. He supported a substantial tax increase once he gained office, after the perception that he had ruled out tax increases during his campaign.

A short 6 months after he was sworn into office, Florio asked for and the legislature passed the biggest tax increase of any state in U.S. history. The $2.8 Billion tax hike led to a grassroots taxpayer revolt in 1990, spearheaded by a citizens group named "Hands Across New Jersey" founded by John Budzash, a Postal worker from Howell, New Jersey.....

Directly as a result of the Tax Revolt, the Republican Party gained veto-proof majorities in both state legislative chambers in the 1991 midterm election, they did nothing to repeal the taxes as they had promised and Florio was subsequently defeated for re-election in 1993 by Republican Christine Todd Whitman in a narrow vote of 49% to 48%.

So Florio and (other N J Democrats probably) actually first did WRONG by misleading voters about raising taxes to fund education. Maybe THAT'S what got them beaten later?

Interestingly, now Democrats once again control all branches of NJ government and have just increased taxes in the name of fiscal responsibility. I guess we'll see this fall if doing what's right will hurt them politically.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 01:02:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PS.... (none / 0)

No politician since Mondale has run on a raise taxes platform. Hell, Mondale was right but that doesn't necessarily win elections. Florio would have lost in the first place if he came in and said he was going to raise taxes. He did the right thing but it cost him his second term. I am watching Corzine closely to see how it turns out. I think he did the right thing but that isn't always popular.

I agree that about 90% of the time good public policy makes for good politics. A lot of it depends on how hot button an issue it is and how skillful the pol is at handling it.

by John Mills on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 01:13:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PS.... (none / 0)

Once we accept the principle that lying , misleading, or even prevaricating are necessary evils in order for our politicians to win, we might as well hang it up as far as being good citizens goes.

If a tax increase is logical and necessary in order to fund vital programs like education or defense, or create fiscal responsibility, then it can and should be explained so that enough voters will support the candidates who wish to enact it.

One thing's for sure....misleading voters about what's going to be done and then getting tossed out after one term because of it is no way to run a political party.

Democrats need to have not just sound and principled positions for the good of the people, but believe in them enough to first campaign and then govern by them as well.

Just because Republicans lie and sometimes win -- while their supporters accept and apologize for it -- is no excuse for Democrats to do the same.

The day I stop believing that enough voters will reward forthright honesty and best intentions is the day I'll throw in the towell on participating in the political process.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 05:46:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PS.... (none / 0)

Amen and thank you!

I am so frustrated with the notion that Dems have to lie to win. We must not succumb to the conservative notion that the masses are as dumb as sheep and if we offer them platitudes they will be thrilled.

We must educate the voters about the issues and why liberal/progressive solutions are right.

Then we will win. Maybe not in the first vote, but in the end. America is seeing now how wrong Bush's policies were....

by daninvirginia on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 09:07:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PS.... (none / 0)

I am not for lying to win elections and never said that. However, there are some things you can't say in a campaign - I plan to raise your taxes is one of them. Name me the last candidate that won on that message. That doesn't mean you have to say I WILL NOT RAISE YOUR TAXES. Winning campaigns craft good messaging and strong policies with enough room for the winner to do what they need to govern and enact their preferred policies.

My point is while I generally believe that good policy makes for good politics but that is not always the case. I used Jim Florio as an example because I think he was right on the policy but it killed his career. There are lots of Cong Dems from 1994 who did the right thing on the Clinton budget and lost in large part because of it.

This ended up on a tangent about how campaigns should be run when the point I was trying to make is that the right public policy is not always the right thing politically. However, that does not mean it shouldn't be done.

by John Mills on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 10:25:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PS.... (none / 0)

I am not for lying to win elections and never said that. However, there are some things you can't say in a campaign - I plan to raise your taxes is one of them.

Then you'd better not raise taxes once elected. Failing to tell voters you will in misleading -- and that's lying in my book.

This ended up on a tangent about how campaigns should be run when the point I was trying to make is that the right public policy is not always the right thing politically.

You used Florio's tax increase as an example. I countered by pointing out that it may just as well have been Florio's and Democrats' having mislead voters about their intentions in the first place, in order to get elected.

The premis that not enough voters will support a good and necessary policy even if it is properly explained to them is just too cynical for me -- and it's yet to demonstrated in this thread.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 02:26:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PS.... (none / 0)

In all fairness, most politicians do not come into office with a plan to raise taxes but circumstances dictate they must. A downturn in the economy, an expected event, fiscal irresponsibility by your predecessor, etc usually leads to it. How do you account for all of that in a campaign? An example of unexpected issues was 9/11. Members of Congress who campaigned in 2000 could not state how they would vote on all the post 9/11 issues because they couldn't see into the future. What about all the Mayors and Govs who had to cut services and raise taxes when the economy tanked in 2002? They couldn't have told the voters about that unanticipated event in a campaign.

I am all for going to the voters and explaining your positions. I am not for lying to get elected but there are lots of unanticipated events that occur in the world and politicians can't explain everyone to them voters in campaigns. It is lying if you state your unequivically for one thing and then do the opposite. It is not lying if you take no position on something or say you will only do something in certain circumstances. That maybe cynical in your book but I think it is being realistic.

And to restate where I stared, I think that good policy is generally good politics but that rule doesn't always hold. Regardless, I admire politicians who are willing to take political risks to pursue worthy goals. They are so rare. I have tremendous respect for Jim Florio and the Cong Dems that lost in 1994. They did the right thing despite the fact it cost them their political careers.

by John Mills on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 03:22:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PS.... (none / 0)

And I would reassert that we don't know whether raising taxes, or not not telling voters they were going to do it, is what cost them their political careers.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 05:32:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Reagan Lie (3.00 / 1)

Ronald Reagan somehow convinced voters that he could cut taxes and vastly increase expenses at the same time. Unfortunately, this belief has become Republican orthodoxy and enough of the public thinks it is possible that it has become hard to combat. Government waste? Seems like it increases exponentially when Republican Tax-cutters are placed in charge. That is because there are other words for waste: earmarks, pork, no-bid contracts, military procurement, reduction of needed maintenance and repairs.

FDR increased taxes during WWII not because it would pay the whole bill but because paying some of the bill was the right thing to do. George W. Bush, of course, cut taxes multiple times while piling up expenditures in Iraq. Character, as we all know, means a lot more than simply remaining faithful to one's spouse. George W. Bush lacks character. FDR had it in spades.

Republicans lack the character to govern. It is just that simple.

by David Kowalski on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 11:05:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Reagan Lie (none / 0)

Agree 100% with everything you said. Unfortunately, the Reagan Lie doesn't mean it isn't a political reality that has be dealt with until we can convince the public otherwise. Changing the public's opinion on this is going to take time.

by John Mills on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 11:25:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Leaders not Careerists (none / 0)

Your mention of Florio points out that there are two paths for politicians to take once elected.

A typical path is that the politician determines they will do whatever possible to maintain their power, real-world consequences be damned. That means compromising principles and avoiding positions contrary to current popular opinion.

Alternately, they can do what they believe is best for their constituents, and let their careers be damned if need be in the trying.

Jim Florio, for one, comes to mind. He did the right thing by increasing taxes to help fund education in poor school districts and lost largely because of it.

Florio lost an election but how are those kids doing in the schools he helped fund?

by Curt Matlock on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 09:01:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaders not Careerists (none / 0)

"That doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it. I like seeing political courage since it is so rare these days."

This is from my original response to Sitkah who said the right policy and politics always converge. I admire what Florio did. My point is that the right policy does not always mean a good political outcome. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it but the two don't always converge and we shouldn't kid ourselves that they do.

by John Mills on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 10:30:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaders not Careerists (none / 0)

I was agreeing with you not disputing your point. Not knowing much about Florio I don't know whether he should get credit for altruism but if he funded schooling for poor kids at the cost of his career then that is something to be admired.

by Curt Matlock on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 10:45:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaders not Careerists (none / 0)

Sorry. I misunderstood your post.

It was a combination of things with Florio. Part of it was a court decision, part of it was his background having grown up poor and his educational opportunities giving him the chance to succeed. He definately believed in it.

I live in NYC and we have a court order to increase school funding for urban schools and every year the Gov and legislature ignore it. So court orders can be ignored.

by John Mills on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 10:54:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Passage of Stem-Cell Bill Will Hurt Democrats (3.00 / 1)

I see Schumer's points too, but even publically stated them is really ill-advised. Passing the stem-cell bill is good for America. Schumer is acting just like a flip-flopping, poll-watching, Democratic stereotype. Do your damndest to pass the bill, let candidates explain to their constituents as best the can the importance of stem-cell research and then let the chips fall where they may.

The truth about John McCain.

by Jawis on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 09:37:32 PM EST

Re: Schumer: Passage of Stem-Cell Bill Will Hurt D (3.00 / 2)

I agree that this looks like something that could hurt dems, though once you get down to the individual races the impact is mostly positive or a wash.

In PA, Santorum votes no (and hopefully makes a wacko floor speech) and reminds voters how crazy he is.

In Rhode Island, Chafee takes a socially moderate stance, which will help him in the general but increases the chances that he loses in the primary. Since a Chafee loss in the primary means a Dem win in the fall, I call this a wash.

In Ohio, Mike DeWine seems to piss off moderate voters by voting no, but he also shores up his conservative base, a perennial problem for him. Again, a wash or a plus for the Dems.

In Missouri, Talent votes no, and it hurts him, especially because the salience of this issue will be increased by the Missouri stem cell ballot initiative.

I'm assuming Burns votes no, and that helps him, but not a lot. Social conservatives aren't abandoning Burns because they don't think he's socially conservative enough.

In none of these races will "taking the issue off the table" lessen the impacts, since none of the incumbents who are endangered by this issue will be voting yes. Those who vote no will have to explain voting against a popular compromise bill on a popular issue, making them look even nuttier.

by dantheman on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 10:13:10 PM EST

Missouri (none / 0)

In Missouri, Talent votes no, and it hurts him, especially because the salience of this issue will be increased by the Missouri stem cell ballot initiative.

Bingo!

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 06:54:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Schumer: Passage of Stem-Cell Bill Will Hurt D (3.00 / 0)

Since he's already publicly stated that we should consider not passing it for political reasons (how much you wanna bet the GOP & their groupies will exploit that quote?) They might as well just pass the thing. I'm as a big a fan of cynical political strategy as the next political junkie but we need to do the right thing here.

by Epitome22 on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 10:13:21 PM EST

Schumer: Passage of Stem-Cell Bill Will Help US (none / 0)

It's a the first veto coming that can't be overidden with a republican congress. It divides the GOP. Big Bussiness v. wingnut faux Christians. It'll help almost all of us democrats. It divides them and popular bill with large bi-partisan support. It's the President of Castle, Shays, Santorum,unites us. A perfect wedge issue.

It's thier President veto a Dewine, and Talent among others.

I'm tired I put together hundreds of Spivack for Congress signs. I also made 100 or so phone calls about The Democratic Reunion July 29th. goto www.DNC.org for more.

Are their any democrats in the Senate who are voting against it NO! On June 7th 2004 58 senator sent a letter to the president.
http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.or g/WhatsNew/58SenatorsLetter.htm

Anyway it's a winner. I don't want more of the same. I want change a new direction. No matter what Schumer says. Embroyonic stem cell reseach is good for democrats and good for the country. worked for Corzine alright.

Joe Biden for President! Wes Clark for Secretary of Defense!

by Joshua Sperati on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 10:44:25 PM EST

Re: Schumer: Passage of Stem-Cell Bill Will Help U (none / 0)

I had heard that Congress is positioned to override a veto on this issue. Dunno if that's true or not, but i've heard it more than once from conventional media.

by Lucas O'Connor on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 12:28:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Schumer: Passage of Stem-Cell Bill Will Help U (none / 0)

I have also heard this. We shall see.

by rfahey22 on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 12:30:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Stop playing under their rules (3.00 / 1)

The obvious solution is for the Democrats to write up, and push, a bigger and better stem cell bill. Make the Republicans look like a bunch of wishy-washy obstructionists, who are clinging either to anti-stem cell positions or make mediocre compromises.

If the old bill passes, the Dems say they were pushing for even more research funding. If the old bill doesn't pass, the Dems say they held out on principle, but were willing to negociate.

"It was, ultimately, the divided GOP that killed this bill and doomed millions of Americans to slow and painful diseases." Plain. Simple. Emotional.

Either way, the Dems come out smelling like roses, and we get the set-up for a better stem cell bill next year (hopefully with a house or two back on our side).

by Geogriffith on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 10:50:46 PM EST

Re: Stop playing under their rules (none / 0)

I like this strategy. It is much better than being purely obstructionist.

Why should we enable a Repub compromise on an issue the Dem Party wholeheartedly supports. Make the Repubs oppose the real thing.

by John Mills on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 11:54:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Schumer is a tool and doesn't know MO (3.00 / 0)

An overwhelming majority of Missourians support stem cell research with only the Radical Religious Right of the GOP theocrats opposing it. The support comes from a wide range of advocates including former Senator John Daforth, Co-Chair, Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures.

From a poll three weeks ago in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

STEM CELL:

QUESTION: Missouri voters may face a ballot proposal this fall dealing with stem cell research. The proposal would allow all types of stem-cell research allowed under federal law, including an embryonic stem-cell procedure known as somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), which uses an unfertilized human egg. Supporters say such research may be the only way to provide cures for diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's and cancer, and is not human cloning. Opponents say that embryonic stem cells have not yet provided cures, and that SCNT creates a cloned human embryo. Do you favor or oppose the ballot proposal?
    FAVOR     OPPOSE     NOT SURE
ALL     62%     35%     3%

MEN     64%     34%     2%
WOMEN     60%     36%     4%

DEMOCRATS     83%     16%     1%
REPUBLICANS     40%     58%     2%
INDEPENDENTS     64%     28%     8%

Schumer needs to stop contemplating his naval with the triangulation of voting strategies and start standing up for issues that matter instead of just incumbancy for incumbancy sake only.

by Disgusted in St Louis on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 11:08:16 PM EST

Re: Schumer: Passage of Stem-Cell Bill Will Hurt D (none / 0)

1/2 of all calendar years are election years. Should the Congress stop passing legislation in these years to prevent giving any perceived advantage to the opposition? Pass the bill and do a better job arguing your views to the people. You get elected to govern, not to get re-elected.

"Nothing seems to embarrass the political class today." - Bill Moyers

by joejoejoe on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 12:24:06 AM EST

What I don't understand... (3.00 / 1)

...is why Schumer is telling this to the reporters? It's one thing to privately decide this, but if you just put it out there, then it looks really crass.

by MNPundit on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 12:43:38 AM EST

I thought of that too (none / 0)

and then decided that Schumer was actually being smart.

Schumer's just trying to convince Republicans that the stem-cell issue will hurt Democrats. Rove tried the same thing recently with Iraq---remember, that Iraq was a winning campaign issue for Republicans? Then the Democrats put together an ad which dares to mention that we have soldiers dying there, and Republicans start crying about it.

So yes, it would be dumb to tell a reporter what would hurt your party. Unless you're trying to misdirect the other side as to that issue.

Saxby Chambliss

by bosdcla14 on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 03:41:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Help or harm? (none / 0)

The headline says one thing ('harm'), the comment on Missouri is ambiguous, and the last sentence says the opposite of the headline ('help'). Is that a typo?

I clicked on the link but the story does not appear to be in the latest version, before we praise or blame Chuck can we claify what exactly he was saying here?

by Bruce Webb on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 06:06:53 AM EST

Help me out here (none / 0)

This article from The Hill, datelined today (Friday 14th) has one ambiguous reference to stem cells in the last paragraph, and doesn't indicate if if is a net winner for Dems or not:
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/T heHill/News/Campaign/040606.html 'Schumer: Election is about Bush'

by Bruce Webb on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 06:15:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What? (none / 0)

In the Senate, there's going to be more than 60 votes for the stem cell bill and less than 67, right?

Bush is gonna veto (HUGE news coverage of the issue), and then we get to stage (I hope), and lose, an override in the Senate. Then we get to point our fingers at Santorum, DeWine, Talent, Burns, Kyl, and Allen, and tell the country "look, defeat these six Republicans and we can override the veto and cure deadly diseases!"

Of course, we can't override in the House at present, but if we do well in that chamber in the Nov elections maybe an override is reachable there too. I think there's 50 Rs signed up in the House? ...The problem is, the only Rs we can defeat are the ones who are already voting for stem cells. We beat people like Charlie Bass and Heather Wilson a lot more often than we beat Marilyn Musgrave and John Hostettler. Still, these elections should allow us to replace ten or maybe fifteen solid conservatives. That probably still won't be enough to override a veto in the House.

As far as Schumer's comment though, a veto and a failed override look GREAT for our Senate candidates.

by texas dem on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 07:58:56 AM EST

You mean hurt republicans, right? (none / 0)

It will help dems. From your post:

"It's not just in Missouri," he continued, naming Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan as other states where the issue would HELP Democratic candidates."

by dpANDREWS on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 09:13:31 AM EST

Re: Schumer: Passage (none / 0)

Not necessarily, the Bush is still going to veto it and that will be remembered by the public that republicans are in part responsible for not wanted stem cell research still. Bush is still a republican.

by olawakandi on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 09:14:29 AM EST

Schumer and the failure of leadership (none / 0)

What I guess some people are missing here is that Stem Cell is a test issue for many republicans...in antichoice states which the DLC and the Democratic fund raising establishment thinks can make the difference with regard to getting back a majority.

For women, Schumer is saying, in code which is unmistakable, is that Democrats are going to continue to retreat on on choice and science, because of fear of people who would never vote for them anyway.

Of course, the young men who inhabit blogs like this don't give a damn about abortion, and are willing to trade away rights they don't think they will never need, because they play a strategy game.

Because Democrats have never actually jumped on stem cell because of their terror of risking losing people who would never vote them anyway, they have missed yet another opportunity for leadership and opinion making....rather than following blindly down the alley they their consultants have taken them.

by nanorich on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 09:36:14 AM EST

Front Pagers, is YOUR Senator on this list? (3.00 / 1)

THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE SENATORS ON THIS LIST, PLEASE SEND THEM A FAX TO SUPPORT HR 810

SENATORS WHO HAVE NOT YET SHOWN SUPPORT OF HR 810 -

The debate and vote on HR 810, The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, will happen this coming MONDAY AND TUESDAY. Please take a few minutes now and do the following:

FIRST: Check the list below for the names of your Senators. If they are included, call or fax them a letter immediately and urge them to vote in favor of HR 810. Tell them the following:

HR 810: The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is extremely important to me, as a voter, and to over 100 million Americans who stand to benefit from stem cell research.

Please note: Two other bills (S 2754 and S 3504) are also being considered as part of a package with HR 810. Stem cell advocates agree that these two other bills are irrelevant and that Senate votes for these bills do not equal support of stem cell research. It is only by voting YES on HR 810 that your Senators can prove that they are listening to their constituents, and to over 70% of Americans polled, showing true support for the advancement of stem cell research in the United States.

State - Senator

AK - Lisa Murkowski

AK - Ted Stevens

AL - Jeff Sessions

AL - Richard C. Shelby

AR - Mark L. Pryor

AZ - Jon Kyl
AZ - John McCain

CO - Wayne Allard

CO - Ken Salazar

DE - Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

FL - Mel Martinez

FL - Bill Nelson

GA - Saxby Chambliss

GA - Johnny Isakson

IA - Chuck Grassley

ID - Larry E. Craig

ID - Mike Crapo

IN - Richard G. Lugar

KS - Sam Brownback

KS - Pat Roberts

KY - Jim Bunning

KY - Mitch McConnell

LA - David Vitter

MD - Paul S. Sarbanes

ME - Olympia J. Snowe

MI - Debbie Stabenow

MN - Norm Coleman

MO - Christopher S. Bond

MO - James M. Talent

MS - Thad Cochran

MS - Trent Lott

MT - Conrad Burns

NC - Richard Burr

NC - Elizabeth Dole

ND - Kent Conrad

NE - Chuck Hagel

NE - E. Benjamin Nelson

NH - Judd Gregg

NH - John E. Sununu

NM - Pete V. Domenici

NV - John Ensign

OH - Mike DeWine

OH - George V. Voinovich

OK - Tom Coburn

OK - James M. Inhofe

OR - Ron Wyden

PA - Rick Santorum

SC - Jim DeMint

SC - Lindsey Graham

SD - John Thune

TN - Lamar Alexander

TN - William H. Frist

TX - John Cornyn

TX - Kay Bailey Hutchison

UT - Robert F. Bennett

VA - George Allen

VA - John Warner

WV - Robert C. Byrd

WV - John D. Rockefeller, IV

WY - Michael B. Enzi

WY - Craig Thomas

HR 810 is the best chance for our country to vigorously pursue research that experts agree offers the potential for better treatments and cures for over 70 diseases and injuries. It offers hope to millions of Americans who are suffering today, and millions more who are at risk in the future.

by Blue Waters Run Deep on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 10:18:40 AM EST

Re: Schumer: Passage of Stem-Cell Bill Will Hurt D (none / 0)

Bush is not going to veto. Give me a break. After dozens of completely empty veto threats, you all suddenly want to take this one seriously?

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 11:17:14 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.