Senator Schumer's remarks are slightly disturbing

[PJMcK]

Good for the Senate's Minority Leader for drawing the battle lines with Donald Trump:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/schumer-dems-are-done-with-trump_us_58b63a60e4b0780bac2e44f7?qlx1oq0pwkv6etgldi&

But he made this statement:

Schumer said it reminded him not so much of the tea party surge in 2010, or the Democratic wave of 2006, but the anti-war movement when Eugene McCarthy knocked President Lyndon Baines Johnson from office.

“I cut my eyeteeth in the Eugene McCarthy campaign of 1968,” Schumer said. “A ragtag group of grassroots activists, students and other assorted misfits toppled the most powerful man in the world, Lyndon Baines Johnson.”

He says that they toppled LBJ by supporting the anti-war movement of Senator McCarthy. How did that work out? LBJ didn't run for re-election, Hubert Humphrey ran as the Democrat and the country got Richard Nixon. Senator Schumer should reconsider how he phrases his opposition to the president.

[Hokie]

1. Schumer is just not a good leader

That statement shows he isn't a deep thinker.

[Cosmocat]

9. Yeah

He is the standard Peter Principle in politics.

[ananda]

14. Agree.

We could have done so much better with a more
liberal minority leader.

[Blue_true]

20. McCarthy was pretty liberal. Schumer is an example of the

problem with Senate seniority and our own party's behavior when we pick leaders, he waited his turn and our Senators gave it to him, despite better leader class Democratic Senators being available.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. Not sure it's the "right thing" to be proud of per se

I think that he was just making the point, however, of how a grassroots movement can bring down powerful figures.

[oasis]

3. Time to hand the mic over to the Dynamic Duo (Perez/Elison).

[still_one]

4. That analogy by Schumer isn't even applicable to Eugene McCarthy

[Warren DeMontague]

5. Sure--and to everyone whose universe still swings on the fulcrum of Vietnam, that comment may matter

However, the vast majority of people on this planet were born after R.E.M. left IRS for Warner Bros Records. They think of Vietnam the way you and I think of Wallace Beery movies. Most of the people who saw Paul McCartney play at the grammy's a few years ago were confused as to who that old guy was on stage with Rihanna.

Look, I'm old too. I know what it's like to want the lawn fresh and whippersnapper-free.

But, uh..... maybe it's time to stop framing every political question around the events of 50 years ago.

That said...

The reality is it was Johnson's own realization that Vietnam was his undoing, IMHO, that led him to not run. He gave up. Johnson could have fixed it, but he didn't have the fight in him anymore. . Or something. He knew the war was wrong. He'd known for a long time. If LBJ had stopped the damn war, there would have been no need for a McCarthy campaign, now, would there have?

Or maybe if Bobby Kennedy hadn't been shot, it would have been different. But suggesting that stopping an immoral war, or trying to-- wasn't worthwhile; I don't know how anyone can make that moral argument, even at this late date. Tens of thousands of Americans dead. Millions of Vietnamese. After 68, even. For what?

The moral failing was on those who continued the damn thing, especially well after it was clear we had no business being there.

[PJMcK]

10. Vietnam was filled with moral failings from top to bottom

Last edited Wed Mar 1, 2017, 12:27 PM - Edit history (1)

All war is immoral and the Vietnam War was rife with examples of wrongness. But that isn't really the lens through which I read Senator Schumer's comments.

My point was that his example of a political insurgency in the Democratic Party during the 1968 presidential campaign is a poor one because Democrats lost that election. In other words, the LBJ (and HHH) opponents- whatever their motivation- created such a chaotic division within the Party that they handed the election to the Republican Richard Nixon. Talk about an immoral administration! Like a gravitational wave, the Nixon years ripple through our political universe with long-term effects that we still feel today.

If only RFK had lived to be the Democratic nominee...

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Maybe it's a poor example, but I think some of the problem is also what I laid out, there.

The short answer is, our party DESPERATELY needs younger leadership. Boomers have monopolized the conversation for too long. It's time to hand the wheel over to the rest of us.

[PJMcK]

18. As an aging boomer, I completely agree

We need a new generation of leaders in the Democratic Party. The old guard really hasn't delivered as they've been forced into centrist positions for the last 30 years. For whatever reasons, and there are many, the Democratic Party has dulled its progressive edge and needs to hone it back.

One aspirant that I've followed is Jason Kander. He was the Missouri Secretary of State and he narrowly lost the election for the Senate seat held by Roy Blunt. He's very ambitious and will likely have a prominent career. Another man to watch is US Representative Tom Suozzi. He was a two-term county executive in New York as well as a small city mayor before being elected to Congress.

I know there are many others who can lead our party with new, invigorating ideas and solutions to our nation's problems. It's time to give them the reins.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. I hear you. I particularly like Gavin Newsom.

Another problem in my not-so-humble opinion is that the West Coast has been ignored for too long by the national leadership, and it shows in the lack of serious attention that has been paid to issues like cannabis legalization, which is actually a functional reality and a front-burner for those of us on this side of the country.

[Blue_true]

21. Gavin Newsome has had a real problem keeping his pants up, if you know what I mean.

That behavior has hammered Democrats on the national stage. I don't even think Newsome is the most impressive Democrat in California, that honor should go to the Mayors of Oakland California, San Francisco or Los Angeles.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Yeah, back in the day.

I'm not sure how much his infidelities of 10+ years ago would matter against President 3 Wives Pussygrabber, anyway.

Newsom has led on everything from gay marriage to marijuana legalization. That's what we need- leadership that isn't cowering in fear of what the conventional wisdom authoritarians among us say we're "allowed" to say, do, or think.


also it's "Newsom"- no "e".

[Zen Democrat]

6. You left out the part about Bobby Kennedy being murdered on the night he won California primary.

Bobby would have won the nomination and the presidency, without a doubt. That's why he was eliminated.

[a kennedy]

7. Exactly right....how did he NOT mention Bobby Kennedy??

He WAS going to be the nominee.

[NurseJackie]

8. Thank you.

[kcr]

11. I think it's worth it to point out that grassroots efforts can be powerful.

History isn't perfect and there are almost always events that follow that weren't possible to know at the time.

[PJMcK]

12. I entirely agree, kcr

Your line, "history isn't perfect" couldn't be a more perfect expression for our debacle on November 8th, 2016!

I think Senator Schumer could find a better analogy for the opposition he hopes to lead against Trump and the Republicans. His use of a failed election as his example of a successful insurgency weakens his point immeasurably.

To be clear, I support my Senator, Mr. Schumer, and hope he and other elected Democrats can impede this ridiculous course set by the idiot in the Oval Office.

[Blue_true]

23. History isn't perfect, but trouble can surely be predicted.

Liberal hectored out Johnson, didn't back Gore in 2000 and who didn't back Clinton in 2016, had their head up their asses, because the evilness of the republican option was rather clear.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Johnson could have stopped the war. He knew it was wrong, he knew it was a lost cause.

The Pentagon Papers proved how far back that knowledge went.

Hell, anyone with half a brain knew.

The failure was on LBJ, not the people who opposed an immoral war.

[karynnj]

13. I think you are looking too literally

I am rarely one to ever like Schumer or thinks he says, but I would take that on a different level.

While it is true that Johnson was a Democratic President, that huge wave of protests was a demand that the country change course. The McCarthy campaign - like the protests now - did not have the support of any of the strongest politicians when it started. What it did lead to was Johnson opting to both drop his quest for reelection and to redouble his diplomatic efforts to end the war.

You correctly state the history as leading to Nixon, but that did not have to be the path. In 1968, it could just as easily have led to the election of Bobby Kennedy, who had just won California when he was killed. Imagine that assination were prevented. The Chicago convention would have been more the triumph of Bobby Kennedy and an unambiguous call for a diplomatic end to the war. Kennedy's death led to dispare for many on our side and Humphrey, a solid progressive, was unfairly treated as almost illigitimate by many. (This even though we were not far from nominations really being determined in smoke filled rooms. The process actually changed after that.)

Also consider one thing, vaguely similar to 2016. Johnson knew that Kissinger pushed South Vietnam to not agree to what Johnson had worked out promising a better deal under Nixon. Given that the Republican peace terms were what everyone would have accepted in 1968, Kissinger and Nixon have the deaths of at least half of the Americans who died there on their consciences.

The point is that there was a wave and it was strong enough to pull down a President going in the wrong direction. 2006 was similar, but having lived through both, the intensity of 2017 is closer to 1968 than to 2006.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. i think you are making much ado about nothing

[Wounded Bear]

16. Excess concern over trivialities...

I think the lesson to take here is that the TEA Party is not the end-all and be-all of protest movements. He pointed to a time in our history when the left staged a protest movement that took down a President. IOW, we did it before, we can do it again.

In the special elections following every election cycle, we're about 4 for 6 IIRC. I intend to stay focused, and not waste a lot of time parsing words from our leadereship. Sure, we can complain about who the leaders are, but in the end, if we stay on the field, we'll get new leaders. They will emerge from the movement itself. Mayor Pete is a good example. Gov Inslee in Washington State has done well, though he is a bit old for a 2020 presidential run. There are numerous women rising in the Senate and House that will likely be leaders in the not to distant future.