The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Schumer vs. Rubio: Which One Looks Smarter?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Screenshot 2016-01-02 01.08.59

Back in 2013, I blogged quite a bit on the bipartisan Gang of Eight’s amnesty bill that was supposed to solve the GOP’s Hispanic problem forever, especially on the Chuck Schumer v. Marco Rubio matchup of strategy skills. As an electoral bill, Schumer-Rubio had to be a zero sum game: the beneficiaries at the polls would be either the Democrats or the Republicans. Looking at Schumer and Rubio, who do you think would have outsmarted whom?

Lately, that perspective has gone national. From the NYT:

Chuck Schumer Seems to Relish Role as Republicans’ Chief Villain
By ALEXANDER BURNS JAN. 1, 2016

Republicans have put his face in their campaign commercials and spat his name as an insult on the debate stage. Presidential candidates and talk-radio hosts have invoked him as a kind of comic-book villain, thwarting Republicans at every turn.

Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, has become the anointed target of Republican wrath.

For Mr. Schumer, it reflects a new stage in his career: Over the course of his four decades in politics, Mr. Schumer has steadily transformed himself from an overeager Brooklyn congressman and cable-television personality into one of his party’s chief political strategists and a powerful Washington deal maker. He is expected to take over as the Senate Democratic leader this year, after Senator Harry Reid of Nevada retires.

But Republicans say Mr. Schumer’s ballooning place in the conservative imagination is about more than his anticipated promotion.

He is increasingly seen as an avatar of Democratic craftiness and frustrated conservative aspirations: a wily tactician who has routinely defanged his Republican adversaries with ease, first as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and more recently as a lead negotiator on the issue of immigration reform.

Mr. Schumer is a potent symbol, said Kellyanne Conway, a Republican pollster, not because he is loathed, like Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, or Mr. Reid, but because he is feared.

“Chuck Schumer has more political skills, shrewdness and instinct in his pinkie than Clinton seems to display out on the presidential campaign trail,” Ms. Conway said.

… It is in the context of Mr. Schumer’s involvement with immigration reform that he has most frequently appeared in the firefights of the 2016 presidential election. Opponents of Senator Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican, have sought to punish him for backing a compromise immigration bill that the Senate approved in 2013; they have tied him explicitly to Mr. Schumer, who, along with Mr. Rubio, was among the eight senators who forged the deal.

… In a sense, Mr. Schumer’s incarnation as a conservative bogyman resembles the role Edward M. Kennedy, the longtime liberal senator from Massachusetts, played in previous Republican primary campaigns. In the 2008 presidential race, conservatives attacked Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, for helping write the McCain-Kennedy bill overhauling the immigration system. …

In 2015, Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas bragged of having opposed “Chuck Schumer’s Gang of Eight amnesty legislation.” Mr. Cruz and Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, have criticized the Rubio-Schumer bill, and influential conservative radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham have homed in on Mr. Schumer’s role in designing the legislation. …

Ms. Ingraham, the radio host, said Mr. Schumer’s prominence this time stemmed from both his designation as the Democratic leader-to-be and from the perception that he “completely snookered Marco Rubio” on immigration.

“It is very, very risky for the Republicans to nominate a presidential candidate who has already proven himself to be in over his head when it comes to dealing with the future Democratic leader in the Senate,” Ms. Ingraham said in an email. “And yet that is precisely what much of the G.O.P. establishment is proposing. And that helps to explain why conservatives are thinking a great deal about Chuck Schumer these days.”

Senator Schumer likes to claim he got a perfect 1600 on the SAT test while he was working after school for Stanley H. Kaplan, the future test prep tycoon.

 
Hide 77 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Schumer may be very smart, and Rubio may not be, but I question the use of the word “snookered” here. It’s not snookering when the other guy wants the same thing you do. If Schumer got Jeff Sessions to back the Gang of 8 bill, that would have been snookering. Getting Rubio onboard? That’s just collaborating on a shared goal.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @TangoMan
    Schumer snookered Rubio into believing that Rubio could sell the marvelous deal they had crafted to the Republican base. Remember, Rubio ran on No Amnesty, he already had gotten a taste of what the voters wanted but then after talking to the Republican establishment he went into the Gang of 8 and came out trying to sell immediate legalization with follow-on enforcement and thinking that this would pave his way to glory and the White House.

    Rubio is a rube.

    , @Steve Sailer
    Politically, the Schumer-Rubio bill was a zero sum game: it was going to help either one party or the other.
    , @Abe

    I question the use of the word “snookered” here. It’s not snookering when the other guy wants the same thing you do.
     
    Yeah, it's like praising Clockmed and his family for putting one over on the national media, or Sabrina Erdely for putting one over on ROLLING POZ. "Look at me, I'm the best dog trainer ever! Instead of expensive pet food, I can train your Labrador to happily subsist on nothing but cat turds and baby vomit!"
    , @The Z Blog
    Chuck Schumer is a smart guy who has been in the game a long time. He laid a trap hoping the GOP would jump into it as they so often do. This is a good example of a political gambit that has no downside to the person deploying it. Ted Cruz is a smart guy and figured out that it was a trap fairly early and largely stayed away from it. He filed some amendments that were never going anywhere so he could later say he tried to stop it if the thing ever got passed.

    Rubio is Ms. South Carolina with a penis so he did not see the trap. Instead, he thought he would be hailed as a hero for making a deal that his party elders thought was wonderful. I think what makes Rubio even dumber is that he had an easy way out of this mess back in the summer. He could simply have said he learned a valuable lesson about trusting the Democrats. That would have let him switch sides on immigration. Instead, he made it worse.

    The shame of it with Rubio is he is a helluva a pitchman. If he was on our side, pitching our issues, we would be talking about him as a great leader. The trouble is he is too dumb to be reliable.
    , @Anonymous
    Dave Pinsen makes the point well. Rubio hasn't been played. He was never on the American side to begin with.
  2. Schumer vs. Rubio: Which One Looks Smarter?

    Well obviously Marco looks like a dummy and he is one.

    But Schumer is hardly a threat to the Republican establishment. He’s with them on immigration, he can be intimidated to align with them on Israel…..

    Those aren’t trivial issues to the Republican establishment.

    He’s a New York Jewish Democrat. Is he surprising anyone with his position on most issues?

    So Schumer isn’t the problem. The problem is a party that is filled with the likes of Lindsey Graham and John Kasich and Jeb Bush and thinks a low IQ Latino simpleton like Rubio should be their President.

    As for Schumer being the Republicans’ “chief villain” – can I interest you in a particular Hitlerian/Fascist/Know Nothing/pro wrestler from New York who has made YUGE news lately?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Why does Rubio obviously look like a dummy? Not arguing with you, but we're talking about looks here. Are his eyes too close together? Forehead not high enough? Isn't this really a case of postjudice? I.e. hardly anyone's ever met a dumb Jew.
    , @SFG
    The Republican establishment likes immigration because it keeps them in cheap labor. They like being pro-Israel because it keeps evangelicals happy and keeps Sheldon Adelson and his buddies giving them money. It may even play a role in convincing the New York Times they are not Nazis and hence worthy of serious opposition.

    But those aren't their core issues. They're the issues that annoy you, and that's why they stick in your head. (I'm not saying you're crazy, I'm saying you're human. Look at the way I pop out of the box on stupid Jewish-related comments.)

    Schumer will fight them on things like climate change, healthcare, consumer regulation, and all sorts of things that could cost them money. However, as the Senator from New York, he's soft on hedge fund taxes, which is a lot more important to the Republican establishment in general.

    He's more likely to annoy the base with his stands on gun control and abortion.

    All IMHO, of course.
  3. @Dave Pinsen
    Schumer may be very smart, and Rubio may not be, but I question the use of the word "snookered" here. It's not snookering when the other guy wants the same thing you do. If Schumer got Jeff Sessions to back the Gang of 8 bill, that would have been snookering. Getting Rubio onboard? That's just collaborating on a shared goal.

    Schumer snookered Rubio into believing that Rubio could sell the marvelous deal they had crafted to the Republican base. Remember, Rubio ran on No Amnesty, he already had gotten a taste of what the voters wanted but then after talking to the Republican establishment he went into the Gang of 8 and came out trying to sell immediate legalization with follow-on enforcement and thinking that this would pave his way to glory and the White House.

    Rubio is a rube.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    "Rubio is a rube."

    That made me smile. About four years ago, I responded to a Daniel Larison blog on The American Conservative pertaining to Senor Rubio by inadvertently referring to him as "Rubeo." Larison responded, out of curiosity and amusement, whether my reference to "Rubeo" was "intentional or just a happy coincidence."

    I responded as follows:

    tbraton says:
    June 23, 2011 at 4:29 pm
    “Was the spelling of “Rubeo” intentional or just a happy coincidence?”

    Both. Actually, since my mother taught me never to lie, I must confess it was a typo, accompanied by sloppy proof reading. It is rather amusing, however, and I may adopt that spelling henceforth.
     
    I passed on the opportunity to vote for Senor Rubio when he ran for the Senate in 2010. He ran on basically two major issues, no amnesty for illegal aliens and a very aggressive, neoconnish foreign policy. As Senator, Rubio quickly broke his first pledge but has remained very faithful to his second pledge, which tells you a lot of where his true priorities lie.
  4. @Dave Pinsen
    Schumer may be very smart, and Rubio may not be, but I question the use of the word "snookered" here. It's not snookering when the other guy wants the same thing you do. If Schumer got Jeff Sessions to back the Gang of 8 bill, that would have been snookering. Getting Rubio onboard? That's just collaborating on a shared goal.

    Politically, the Schumer-Rubio bill was a zero sum game: it was going to help either one party or the other.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    I was under the impression that the interest of the country was to be involved somewhere in the undertaking.
    , @James B. Shearer
    "Politically, the Schumer-Rubio bill was a zero sum game: it was going to help either one party or the other."

    It clearly wasn't a zero sum game between Schumer and Rubio personally. And the Democratic and Republican parties aren't coherent enough to have well defined interests. Suppose for example the Republicans could win a few more seats in Congress by abandoning some position. Different Republicans will disagree on whether this is a good idea depending in part on how important this position is to them. Who is to say which view is correct?
    , @Whiskey
    Steve, there you go again. Thinking that the Republicans and Democrats are different parties. They are not. They are the same group of people, who inter-marry, go to the same few HYPS schools, share the same political consultants, and share the same core political and social and cultural beliefs. The only difference is that Republicans want more tax breaks for the oil and gas industries. That's about it.

    If the Republican Party disappeared tomorrow, the Lindsey Grahams and Jeb Bushes and the McCains would simply be Democrats. They are one and the same.

    But while Schumer is shrewd on short term issues; he's stupid long term. There will be no more Schumers succeeding him. His niece Amy is about as far along as his family will get. Look at Chicago -- there is no room in a "diverse" America for White Democrats, ESPECIALLY Jewish ones. As NAMs ... hate hate hate Jews above all other Whites, for being smarter. If there is one thing lower IQ people hate, its higher IQ people. Rahm Emmanuel is toast, and likely the last White mayor there as the place slides into Detroit or Baltimore territory.

    Long term, the Schumers and Clintons and so on only have money when they have political power. They have no great landed estates bringing in money, no great ownership of massive corporate empires sprawling around the globe. They have high expenses, a big patronage machine, all of which depends on holding political power which is being destroyed by NAM population increase. NAM voters believe understandably they'd rather have a NAM representative than a Clinton or a Schumer or a Rahm running things.

    Smart?
    , @Glaivester
    "it was going to help either one party or the other."

    Which is only relevant if Rubio's main goal is helping his party.

    The point is, Rubio was already known to be a pro-amnesty guy from his record as Speaker of the House in Florida, whatever he said on the campaign trail. He wanted to pass an amnesty, the effects on his party or America be damned. Schumer did not have to snooker him at all - at least in terms of policy. Maybe he snookered him on how much this would turn the base against him, but Rubio did not need someone to trick him into being for hte Gang of Eight bill.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Yes, that's true in reality, but in the GOP establishment's dogma, it was win-win. So, there are three possibilities for everyone to the left of Sessions on immigration:

    1) They believed the dogma: that family values and capital gains tax cuts will win Latin American peasants over to the GOP. I think a majority of the GOPe actually believed this, and still do.

    2) They knew the reality, but supported Gang of 8 for other reasons (donors, ethnic affinities, to burnish their reputations with the MSM).

    3) They got snookered by Chuck Schumer.

    Of those, 3) seems the least likely.
    , @anonymous
    Steve, you're assuming that the Republicans care about winning. I don't think they do anymore. All they need is either or both of 1) control of the House and 2) 40 seats in the Senate. That's enough to enable them to negotiate deals for their donors, collect campaign and PAC contributions and look forward to lucrative lobbying jobs when they leave the Hill. They really don't care about getting the White House back or holding onto a Senate majority, much less getting 60+ Senate seats.

    Rubio may have been outsmarted by Schumer, but it's also quite possible he and Schumer were on the same side. As for the rest of the Republican establishment (McConnell, McCain, Graham, Boehner, et al.), it's not even a question: they wanted the amnesty and increases of legal immigration in the Gang of 8 bill as much as Schumer did. It was not arm's length bargaining, it was more like the NY state hospital workers union bargaining with George Pataki during his second and third terms, when he was giving away the store to every Democratic interest group in the state.
  5. Schumer is a far more appealing figure (personally) than the alternatives (such as Reid), especially for your average Republican:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/nyregion/senator-senator-make-me-a-match-for-staff-schumer-is-cupid.html?_r=0

    Stupid Party, example infinitum.

    • Replies: @Abe

    Schumer is a far more appealing figure (personally) than the alternatives (such as Reid), especially for your average Republican.
     
    But he's also the uncle of Amy Schumer, who the POZ establishment has lately been working overtime to convince us is the next hot, appealing "it" girl, and if you don't agree (and here's a penile plethysmograph to gauge your sincerity) you'll be exiled to work the Dakota oil fields with no other entertainment during your off-time than these GIRLS re-runs (specially edited to contain only Lena Dunham's nude scenes).
    , @SFG
    Affordable family formation for Democratic campaign staffers? Yeah, but they're the *enemy*. You don't want *them* breeding.
  6. @Steve Sailer
    Politically, the Schumer-Rubio bill was a zero sum game: it was going to help either one party or the other.

    I was under the impression that the interest of the country was to be involved somewhere in the undertaking.

    • Replies: @SFG
    This is Congress we're talking about. They're money hungry and power hungry, which is pretty much universal for politicians around the world. Thing is, they don't really have to care about us anymore.
  7. Abe says: • Website
    @Desiderius
    Schumer is a far more appealing figure (personally) than the alternatives (such as Reid), especially for your average Republican:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/nyregion/senator-senator-make-me-a-match-for-staff-schumer-is-cupid.html?_r=0

    Stupid Party, example infinitum.

    Schumer is a far more appealing figure (personally) than the alternatives (such as Reid), especially for your average Republican.

    But he’s also the uncle of Amy Schumer, who the POZ establishment has lately been working overtime to convince us is the next hot, appealing “it” girl, and if you don’t agree (and here’s a penile plethysmograph to gauge your sincerity) you’ll be exiled to work the Dakota oil fields with no other entertainment during your off-time than these GIRLS re-runs (specially edited to contain only Lena Dunham’s nude scenes).

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Probably a minor quibble but they are second cousins once-removed, although your mistake is understandable since less than 1% of people that distantly related share the family surname (if my math is right)
  8. @Desiderius
    Schumer is a far more appealing figure (personally) than the alternatives (such as Reid), especially for your average Republican:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/nyregion/senator-senator-make-me-a-match-for-staff-schumer-is-cupid.html?_r=0

    Stupid Party, example infinitum.

    Affordable family formation for Democratic campaign staffers? Yeah, but they’re the *enemy*. You don’t want *them* breeding.

  9. @Desiderius
    I was under the impression that the interest of the country was to be involved somewhere in the undertaking.

    This is Congress we’re talking about. They’re money hungry and power hungry, which is pretty much universal for politicians around the world. Thing is, they don’t really have to care about us anymore.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    This is Congress we’re talking about. They’re money hungry and power hungry, which is pretty much universal for politicians around the world. Thing is, they don’t really have to care about us anymore.
     
    I'll go way out on a limb here and say that you're exactly mistaken. These are the leaders We the People have duly elected to represent our interests. My representatives in Congress are far from perfect - one of my senators is a particularly dull D bulb - but their failings run toward cowardice, not avarice.

    It is the unelected bureaucracy who are money hungry and power hungry, before whom our elected representatives cower since they've been so wholeheartedly abandoned by a deluded citizenry.

    That way lies tyranny.

  10. Schumer strikes me as lumbering, not smart.

    • Replies: @SFG
    The SAT thing is probably BS (geniuses rarely do well in politics), but he probably is pretty intelligent. He seems to have gotten most of what he wants.

    Of course, he could be like Lady Gaga or Madonna, who have used IQ to excel in a not otherwise g-loaded field. (Look at the way those two constantly reinvent themselves, for example. Madonna's finally brushing up against the Wall, but she had a hell of a run.)

  11. Abe says: • Website
    @Dave Pinsen
    Schumer may be very smart, and Rubio may not be, but I question the use of the word "snookered" here. It's not snookering when the other guy wants the same thing you do. If Schumer got Jeff Sessions to back the Gang of 8 bill, that would have been snookering. Getting Rubio onboard? That's just collaborating on a shared goal.

    I question the use of the word “snookered” here. It’s not snookering when the other guy wants the same thing you do.

    Yeah, it’s like praising Clockmed and his family for putting one over on the national media, or Sabrina Erdely for putting one over on ROLLING POZ. “Look at me, I’m the best dog trainer ever! Instead of expensive pet food, I can train your Labrador to happily subsist on nothing but cat turds and baby vomit!”

  12. @Dave Pinsen
    Schumer may be very smart, and Rubio may not be, but I question the use of the word "snookered" here. It's not snookering when the other guy wants the same thing you do. If Schumer got Jeff Sessions to back the Gang of 8 bill, that would have been snookering. Getting Rubio onboard? That's just collaborating on a shared goal.

    Chuck Schumer is a smart guy who has been in the game a long time. He laid a trap hoping the GOP would jump into it as they so often do. This is a good example of a political gambit that has no downside to the person deploying it. Ted Cruz is a smart guy and figured out that it was a trap fairly early and largely stayed away from it. He filed some amendments that were never going anywhere so he could later say he tried to stop it if the thing ever got passed.

    Rubio is Ms. South Carolina with a penis so he did not see the trap. Instead, he thought he would be hailed as a hero for making a deal that his party elders thought was wonderful. I think what makes Rubio even dumber is that he had an easy way out of this mess back in the summer. He could simply have said he learned a valuable lesson about trusting the Democrats. That would have let him switch sides on immigration. Instead, he made it worse.

    The shame of it with Rubio is he is a helluva a pitchman. If he was on our side, pitching our issues, we would be talking about him as a great leader. The trouble is he is too dumb to be reliable.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    The Z Blog said, "....Rubio is Ms. South Carolina with a penis so he did not see the trap."

    Now -that- deserves a Gold Box!
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Rubio is Ms. South Carolina with a penis…
     
    Whose, Lindsey Graham's? And where does he keep it? In a Ball jar?
  13. @Luke Lea
    Schumer strikes me as lumbering, not smart.

    The SAT thing is probably BS (geniuses rarely do well in politics), but he probably is pretty intelligent. He seems to have gotten most of what he wants.

    Of course, he could be like Lady Gaga or Madonna, who have used IQ to excel in a not otherwise g-loaded field. (Look at the way those two constantly reinvent themselves, for example. Madonna’s finally brushing up against the Wall, but she had a hell of a run.)

    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    Monroe got mixed up with a shrink-monster (like Brian Wilson later-but he survived: she didn't), Nancy Sinatra had Daddy's money and pull, Debbie Harry was a hippie under the glam and didn't care about real success. Madonna isn't necessarily smarter than any of them, but she sure was determined and disciplined.

    I get a chuckle out of people who call her a has-been. When you have a billion dollars you earned yourself, you really don't care. In fact, a Madonna show will still fill pretty sizable venues, both overseas and here. I'd venture to say she could still pack a venue in any place in America as well as Taylor Swift. For a 57 year old female that's not too shabby.
    , @Evocatus
    Eliot Spitzer used to brag about his SAT and LSAT results. It didn't stop him from being a total dud in politics although it does say something about the veneration Ashkenazi Jews have for high test scores.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/nyregion/12spitzer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
    , @Pat Casey
    I take Schumer to be exactly what he looks like, proud son of abraham with lots of lines to read between on his head. Mr. Bugg below said craven, which rings true from my specular. Congress might be the most apposite example of the 80/20 principle, where ten percent more could be doing more but don't by estate of seniority. Sen. Ben Sasse from Nebraska would be among that ten percent. He's brilliant and personally very impressive from what I hear. I find myself growing both less and more cynical about politicians, in the sense of returning to the naive assumption that character obviously matters the most, and cynical that unintelligent means empty suit controlled by powers that enjoy the shadows behind the show. Which is the only reason I shan't curse Schumer.
  14. You don’t have to be all that smart if you have powerful friends.

    Rubio may look like he paid a price for betraying the American people with cheap-labor open-borders immigration, but the donor class loves him. He will be showered with publicity and support and cash and opportunities. He will be allowed to make gaffes that would sink a non-annointed politician. etc. If the donor class coalesces behind him to stop Trump, he may yet be our next president. And if not, he will do very well for himself in the meantime, and there’s always next time.

    Ditto with Schumer. If you have the big donors pushing for you and helping push your program, it’s easy to look like you are a tactical political genius. And if you are in a sailboat race, and the wind is at your back, and it’s blowing against your opponent, it’s pretty hard to lose too.

    Look at how McCain came out of nowhere to win the Republican nomination for president, ditto Bill Clinton. That wasn’t political skills. That was big money and the establishment press in action.

  15. “Senator Schumer likes to claim …”: if there’s no publicly available evidence, treat it as a lie.

  16. Schumer is ] pro israel, pro wall street, pro development, pro open borders and super ‘liberal’ on any nation-wrecking social issue. except of course, one nation and one issue:

    http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/abortion-organization-demographic

    Though Efrat only assists women in Israel, the group has garnered support from inside the beltway through its American partner. Senator Chuck Schumer, a noted pro-choice champion who has used the issue of abortion to secure his New York Senate, attended a 30th anniversary gala for Efrat –

    I used to think he was just nasty, now I think he is evil.

    • Replies: @Daniel H
    If the Israeli affiliate organization had been incorporated in California it seems that they would also have to advertise abortion availability, notwithstanding the fact that they are ostensibly a pro-life organization.

    http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Appeals-court-upholds-California-6730685.php

    Now this ridiculous and evil California law is not Schumer's handiwork but it is entirely in sync with his hysterical advocacy of abortion among the goyim.

    Schumer is behind any endeavor that brings about this country's ruin. He is an evil man. And it says a lot of bad about the state of New York that he is secure in his Senate seat.
  17. There’s a writer whose work I noticed recently on the this site who is awesomely smart himself, went to high school with Schumer, and says that he was always in awe of Schumer’s intelligence.

  18. @SFG
    This is Congress we're talking about. They're money hungry and power hungry, which is pretty much universal for politicians around the world. Thing is, they don't really have to care about us anymore.

    This is Congress we’re talking about. They’re money hungry and power hungry, which is pretty much universal for politicians around the world. Thing is, they don’t really have to care about us anymore.

    I’ll go way out on a limb here and say that you’re exactly mistaken. These are the leaders We the People have duly elected to represent our interests. My representatives in Congress are far from perfect – one of my senators is a particularly dull D bulb – but their failings run toward cowardice, not avarice.

    It is the unelected bureaucracy who are money hungry and power hungry, before whom our elected representatives cower since they’ve been so wholeheartedly abandoned by a deluded citizenry.

    That way lies tyranny.

    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    Sounds like willful naivete to me.

    Unelected bureaucrats in agencies like the EPA, OSHA, the BATFE, and dozens of others exist precisely to isolate politicians from the political consequences of their lawmaking. It gives them someone to blame.
    , @anowow
    Harry Angstrom ain't up to the challenge.

    I think a major problem (from the nation's pov), and central to the "success" of our elites , alongside revolving-door avarice or career ambition, is institutional loyalty. This has been an issue for decades, and goes a long way towards explaining the staying power of the alphabet swamp of parasitic acronyms that feed off the public.

    Who was Hoover more loyal to, the nation or his baby, the FBI? I think this is a problem intelligent, hard-working people are really susceptible to. Add in the in-group altruistic mentality of 'me and my bros against the world and all those "losers"' so many are susceptible to, and you have Washington. If only it were simply sociopath loners in high office.

    What is needed are continued, sustained blows to institutional morale and embarrassments like what happened in the 1970's. At that time the US was more cohesive culturally and the economic and societal rot hadn't proceeded as far apace. What would happen now? Maybe the lack of outrage at overreach and scandal that makes Nixon look like a piker is indicative of a Balkanized, atomized, infantilized, self-consciously degenerate society in which the best have given over to cynicism.

    , @TG
    There is truth to what you say, but…

    Suppose I give you a choice of pulling two levers. The first lever you die, the second you live. You pull the second lever - but I lied, you still die! But you pulled the lever so it's your fault.

    Yes we 'elected' these representatives - after having been given no choice, or a false choice, or having the truth hidden or obscured by a corrupt establishment press. There is no free choice when the choices are obscured, when a politician runs on one set of principles and then when elected does the opposite (and gets away with it because the corporate press no longer treats such dishonesty with contempt), or when key issues are not open for debate in public. So no I don't blame the people for electing cowards. I blame the elites for anointing them.

    The unelected bureaucracy greedy? Yes, that is so. But I really think the plutocracy is more to blame than bureaucrats. The bureaucrats would be just as happy collecting their paychecks enforcing the laws against illegal immigration as refusing to enforce them, it's the cheap-labor lobby that sets the agenda...
  19. @SFG
    The SAT thing is probably BS (geniuses rarely do well in politics), but he probably is pretty intelligent. He seems to have gotten most of what he wants.

    Of course, he could be like Lady Gaga or Madonna, who have used IQ to excel in a not otherwise g-loaded field. (Look at the way those two constantly reinvent themselves, for example. Madonna's finally brushing up against the Wall, but she had a hell of a run.)

    Monroe got mixed up with a shrink-monster (like Brian Wilson later-but he survived: she didn’t), Nancy Sinatra had Daddy’s money and pull, Debbie Harry was a hippie under the glam and didn’t care about real success. Madonna isn’t necessarily smarter than any of them, but she sure was determined and disciplined.

    I get a chuckle out of people who call her a has-been. When you have a billion dollars you earned yourself, you really don’t care. In fact, a Madonna show will still fill pretty sizable venues, both overseas and here. I’d venture to say she could still pack a venue in any place in America as well as Taylor Swift. For a 57 year old female that’s not too shabby.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @carol
    Also, even in medium-sized venues, age is not so obvious in a performer who is in shape and well made-up.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Her concerts are great too (have seen a couple on cable). I think she may have pioneered the particular genre of musical theater that Katy Perry and Pink exemplify as well in their concerts: dancers, acrobats, acting out motifs of songs, etc.

    And, yeah: she still packs them in. The last one I saw was from a few years back in Miami, in what looked like a 20k+ arena. She quoted the Lady Gaga song that rips off her "Express Yourself". I bet she could sell more tickets tomorrow than Gaga.
  20. @Desiderius

    This is Congress we’re talking about. They’re money hungry and power hungry, which is pretty much universal for politicians around the world. Thing is, they don’t really have to care about us anymore.
     
    I'll go way out on a limb here and say that you're exactly mistaken. These are the leaders We the People have duly elected to represent our interests. My representatives in Congress are far from perfect - one of my senators is a particularly dull D bulb - but their failings run toward cowardice, not avarice.

    It is the unelected bureaucracy who are money hungry and power hungry, before whom our elected representatives cower since they've been so wholeheartedly abandoned by a deluded citizenry.

    That way lies tyranny.

    Sounds like willful naivete to me.

    Unelected bureaucrats in agencies like the EPA, OSHA, the BATFE, and dozens of others exist precisely to isolate politicians from the political consequences of their lawmaking. It gives them someone to blame.

  21. @SFG
    The SAT thing is probably BS (geniuses rarely do well in politics), but he probably is pretty intelligent. He seems to have gotten most of what he wants.

    Of course, he could be like Lady Gaga or Madonna, who have used IQ to excel in a not otherwise g-loaded field. (Look at the way those two constantly reinvent themselves, for example. Madonna's finally brushing up against the Wall, but she had a hell of a run.)

    Eliot Spitzer used to brag about his SAT and LSAT results. It didn’t stop him from being a total dud in politics although it does say something about the veneration Ashkenazi Jews have for high test scores.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/nyregion/12spitzer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    • Replies: @EriK
    Spitzer, who I hated, was elected AG and Governor of NY. Hardly a dud. He also is highly articulate and a scoundrel. His problem was he forgot to not get on the bad side of a billionaire. Had he stayed away from that, my guess is none of the Client 9 details would have come out. Perhaps he would have given HRC an actual run. He obviously doesn't like her, he's supporting that other guy, what's his name? The one that's not from Brooklyn.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    Spitzer was the governor of New York State. How was he a "dud"?
  22. I don’t think is a matter of Schumer being smarter than Rubio, which is probably true. They both wanted the same thing for different reasons, Schumer for the partisan benefit, Rubio for the donors.

  23. Better than average looking people (Rubio for example) are on average smarter than average looking people. But as you go further out on towards the right on the IQ spectrum smarter people tend to look a little “off” (like Schumer, Bill Gates, etc., for instance).

  24. The most dangerous place in DC, between Schumer and a TV camera.

  25. Rube-io has never struck me as terribly bright. I know little about Schumer but those of his tribe tend to be significantly more intelligent than Spanish-Cuban-Miamians.

  26. Mr. Schumer is a potent symbol, said Kellyanne Conway, a Republican pollster, not because he is loathed, like Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, or Mr. Reid, but because he is feared.

    Oh, he’s loathed plenty.

  27. I recall Schumer’s first Congressional run in Brooklyn. He would day after day stand on the Kings Highway elevated subway platform obnoxiously gladhanding people and quite mindlessly yelling to morning commuters as they were getting upstairs onto the platform if an express or local train was coming. Anyone with eyeballs could look down the tracks and very quickly see for themselves, so such ravings were pointless. Struck me then that American politics was a crazy business, and nothing has changed my mind since. And that Schumer so debasing himself was a deeply disturbed person. He looked craven, deranged, unhinged. For all his book smarts, would not trust him with a coffee order.

    As it happens I took the Kaplan SAT prep class at their main office at that time, which was about 2 blocks from that station. Never had any class taught by Schumer, but do remember that the teachers were uniformly badly dressed, socially-inept housebound weirdos, mostly orthodox or conservative Jews.They all bragged about high SAT scores they had attained, and perhaps that job paid very well. But they also looked and behaved so odd no law firm, engineering company, bank nor investment brokerage would ever hire any of them. Later took their LSAT prep class too. Was helpful only because it showed how the questions of those tests were asked rather than giving any specific insight into the questions themselves.Which sounds just like Schumer, playing the game instead of doing anything substantive. In fact, this is the first time I have ever heard he held any paying job at all except political office.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    There's a newer test prep outfit, founded by a former teacher, called Manhattan GMAT (it's national now, despite the name). It only hires tutors who scored in the top 1% on that test. This is a part time job that pays about $100 per hour. A few of the women instructors were actually quite attractive, last I checked. But none of them has a corporate job. They are outliers.
  28. @Steve Sailer
    Politically, the Schumer-Rubio bill was a zero sum game: it was going to help either one party or the other.

    “Politically, the Schumer-Rubio bill was a zero sum game: it was going to help either one party or the other.”

    It clearly wasn’t a zero sum game between Schumer and Rubio personally. And the Democratic and Republican parties aren’t coherent enough to have well defined interests. Suppose for example the Republicans could win a few more seats in Congress by abandoning some position. Different Republicans will disagree on whether this is a good idea depending in part on how important this position is to them. Who is to say which view is correct?

    • Replies: @asdf
    "“Politically, the Schumer-Rubio bill was a zero sum game: it was going to help either one party or the other.”

    It clearly wasn’t a zero sum game between Schumer and Rubio personally. And the Democratic and Republican parties aren’t coherent enough to have well defined interests. Suppose for example the Republicans could win a few more seats in Congress by abandoning some position. Different Republicans will disagree on whether this is a good idea depending in part on how important this position is to them. Who is to say which view is correct""

    I see your point, but the Democrats certainly seem to know what's in their interest more than the Republicans. The Republicans aren't incoherent, they are upside down and backwards and inside out regarding the interests of their supporters, and ultimately the party.

    Fine by me though I guess. Stupid parties deserve to get snookered.
  29. Isn’t the relevant question “which one looks more demonic?” The answer to that is easy.

  30. @Desiderius

    This is Congress we’re talking about. They’re money hungry and power hungry, which is pretty much universal for politicians around the world. Thing is, they don’t really have to care about us anymore.
     
    I'll go way out on a limb here and say that you're exactly mistaken. These are the leaders We the People have duly elected to represent our interests. My representatives in Congress are far from perfect - one of my senators is a particularly dull D bulb - but their failings run toward cowardice, not avarice.

    It is the unelected bureaucracy who are money hungry and power hungry, before whom our elected representatives cower since they've been so wholeheartedly abandoned by a deluded citizenry.

    That way lies tyranny.

    Harry Angstrom ain’t up to the challenge.

    I think a major problem (from the nation’s pov), and central to the “success” of our elites , alongside revolving-door avarice or career ambition, is institutional loyalty. This has been an issue for decades, and goes a long way towards explaining the staying power of the alphabet swamp of parasitic acronyms that feed off the public.

    Who was Hoover more loyal to, the nation or his baby, the FBI? I think this is a problem intelligent, hard-working people are really susceptible to. Add in the in-group altruistic mentality of ‘me and my bros against the world and all those “losers”‘ so many are susceptible to, and you have Washington. If only it were simply sociopath loners in high office.

    What is needed are continued, sustained blows to institutional morale and embarrassments like what happened in the 1970’s. At that time the US was more cohesive culturally and the economic and societal rot hadn’t proceeded as far apace. What would happen now? Maybe the lack of outrage at overreach and scandal that makes Nixon look like a piker is indicative of a Balkanized, atomized, infantilized, self-consciously degenerate society in which the best have given over to cynicism.

  31. @Desiderius

    This is Congress we’re talking about. They’re money hungry and power hungry, which is pretty much universal for politicians around the world. Thing is, they don’t really have to care about us anymore.
     
    I'll go way out on a limb here and say that you're exactly mistaken. These are the leaders We the People have duly elected to represent our interests. My representatives in Congress are far from perfect - one of my senators is a particularly dull D bulb - but their failings run toward cowardice, not avarice.

    It is the unelected bureaucracy who are money hungry and power hungry, before whom our elected representatives cower since they've been so wholeheartedly abandoned by a deluded citizenry.

    That way lies tyranny.

    There is truth to what you say, but…

    Suppose I give you a choice of pulling two levers. The first lever you die, the second you live. You pull the second lever – but I lied, you still die! But you pulled the lever so it’s your fault.

    Yes we ‘elected’ these representatives – after having been given no choice, or a false choice, or having the truth hidden or obscured by a corrupt establishment press. There is no free choice when the choices are obscured, when a politician runs on one set of principles and then when elected does the opposite (and gets away with it because the corporate press no longer treats such dishonesty with contempt), or when key issues are not open for debate in public. So no I don’t blame the people for electing cowards. I blame the elites for anointing them.

    The unelected bureaucracy greedy? Yes, that is so. But I really think the plutocracy is more to blame than bureaucrats. The bureaucrats would be just as happy collecting their paychecks enforcing the laws against illegal immigration as refusing to enforce them, it’s the cheap-labor lobby that sets the agenda…

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    The unelected bureaucracy greedy? Yes, that is so. But I really think the plutocracy is more to blame than bureaucrats.
     
    I'm speaking of the higher-level bureaucrats who maintain a revolving door with the lobbying firms who serve the other plutocrats. It's all the same gang.

    The bureaucrats would be just as happy collecting their paychecks enforcing the laws against illegal immigration as refusing to enforce them, it’s the cheap-labor lobby that sets the agenda…
     
    The lower-level bureaucrats have been pretty well indoctrinated over a long period that enforcing laws against illegal immigrants (and other steps off of the PC reservation) is not the done thing for members of their tribe, that they would mutiny were they required to enforce a different policy. Nothing that would endanger those paychecks, mind you, but you'd encounter sabotage at every turn.
  32. @TangoMan
    Schumer snookered Rubio into believing that Rubio could sell the marvelous deal they had crafted to the Republican base. Remember, Rubio ran on No Amnesty, he already had gotten a taste of what the voters wanted but then after talking to the Republican establishment he went into the Gang of 8 and came out trying to sell immediate legalization with follow-on enforcement and thinking that this would pave his way to glory and the White House.

    Rubio is a rube.

    “Rubio is a rube.”

    That made me smile. About four years ago, I responded to a Daniel Larison blog on The American Conservative pertaining to Senor Rubio by inadvertently referring to him as “Rubeo.” Larison responded, out of curiosity and amusement, whether my reference to “Rubeo” was “intentional or just a happy coincidence.”

    I responded as follows:

    tbraton says:
    June 23, 2011 at 4:29 pm
    “Was the spelling of “Rubeo” intentional or just a happy coincidence?”

    Both. Actually, since my mother taught me never to lie, I must confess it was a typo, accompanied by sloppy proof reading. It is rather amusing, however, and I may adopt that spelling henceforth.

    I passed on the opportunity to vote for Senor Rubio when he ran for the Senate in 2010. He ran on basically two major issues, no amnesty for illegal aliens and a very aggressive, neoconnish foreign policy. As Senator, Rubio quickly broke his first pledge but has remained very faithful to his second pledge, which tells you a lot of where his true priorities lie.

  33. @SFG
    The SAT thing is probably BS (geniuses rarely do well in politics), but he probably is pretty intelligent. He seems to have gotten most of what he wants.

    Of course, he could be like Lady Gaga or Madonna, who have used IQ to excel in a not otherwise g-loaded field. (Look at the way those two constantly reinvent themselves, for example. Madonna's finally brushing up against the Wall, but she had a hell of a run.)

    I take Schumer to be exactly what he looks like, proud son of abraham with lots of lines to read between on his head. Mr. Bugg below said craven, which rings true from my specular. Congress might be the most apposite example of the 80/20 principle, where ten percent more could be doing more but don’t by estate of seniority. Sen. Ben Sasse from Nebraska would be among that ten percent. He’s brilliant and personally very impressive from what I hear. I find myself growing both less and more cynical about politicians, in the sense of returning to the naive assumption that character obviously matters the most, and cynical that unintelligent means empty suit controlled by powers that enjoy the shadows behind the show. Which is the only reason I shan’t curse Schumer.

  34. My parents met when they were both working for the employment office in a western state. They had a coworker who would stay in every day at lunch and take one of the various editions of the Wonderlic Test. The office had a number of versions of the test, on which questions would be repeated randomly.

    One day my mother came back from lunch and her coworker ran up to her excitedly and exclaimed, “I did it! I’m a genius!” By taking the test enough times, a combination of familiarity with specific questions and general standardized testing principles, plus random variation had allowed her to obtain an IQ score of 160 or whatever she was aiming for.

    If Schmuck Chumer thinks taking a version of the SAT every day after school and eventually getting a self-scored 1600 makes him a genius, then I have a clerical job in the Arizona Employment Commission waiting for him in 1966.

  35. @TG
    There is truth to what you say, but…

    Suppose I give you a choice of pulling two levers. The first lever you die, the second you live. You pull the second lever - but I lied, you still die! But you pulled the lever so it's your fault.

    Yes we 'elected' these representatives - after having been given no choice, or a false choice, or having the truth hidden or obscured by a corrupt establishment press. There is no free choice when the choices are obscured, when a politician runs on one set of principles and then when elected does the opposite (and gets away with it because the corporate press no longer treats such dishonesty with contempt), or when key issues are not open for debate in public. So no I don't blame the people for electing cowards. I blame the elites for anointing them.

    The unelected bureaucracy greedy? Yes, that is so. But I really think the plutocracy is more to blame than bureaucrats. The bureaucrats would be just as happy collecting their paychecks enforcing the laws against illegal immigration as refusing to enforce them, it's the cheap-labor lobby that sets the agenda...

    The unelected bureaucracy greedy? Yes, that is so. But I really think the plutocracy is more to blame than bureaucrats.

    I’m speaking of the higher-level bureaucrats who maintain a revolving door with the lobbying firms who serve the other plutocrats. It’s all the same gang.

    The bureaucrats would be just as happy collecting their paychecks enforcing the laws against illegal immigration as refusing to enforce them, it’s the cheap-labor lobby that sets the agenda…

    The lower-level bureaucrats have been pretty well indoctrinated over a long period that enforcing laws against illegal immigrants (and other steps off of the PC reservation) is not the done thing for members of their tribe, that they would mutiny were they required to enforce a different policy. Nothing that would endanger those paychecks, mind you, but you’d encounter sabotage at every turn.

    • Agree: snorlax
  36. @Rifleman

    Schumer vs. Rubio: Which One Looks Smarter?
     
    Well obviously Marco looks like a dummy and he is one.

    But Schumer is hardly a threat to the Republican establishment. He's with them on immigration, he can be intimidated to align with them on Israel.....

    Those aren't trivial issues to the Republican establishment.

    He's a New York Jewish Democrat. Is he surprising anyone with his position on most issues?

    So Schumer isn't the problem. The problem is a party that is filled with the likes of Lindsey Graham and John Kasich and Jeb Bush and thinks a low IQ Latino simpleton like Rubio should be their President.

    As for Schumer being the Republicans' "chief villain" - can I interest you in a particular Hitlerian/Fascist/Know Nothing/pro wrestler from New York who has made YUGE news lately?

    Why does Rubio obviously look like a dummy? Not arguing with you, but we’re talking about looks here. Are his eyes too close together? Forehead not high enough? Isn’t this really a case of postjudice? I.e. hardly anyone’s ever met a dumb Jew.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    Why does Rubio obviously look like a dummy?
     
    Because Steve posted a picture where it looks like Rubio's a retardate playing with the balloon. To my eye, Rubio looked intelligent during the last debate. He's no match for Schumer, I'll grant, but he's probably a little smarter than, say, Trump.
  37. “Schumer vs. Rubio: Which One Looks Smarter?”

    A trick question, right?

  38. @The Z Blog
    Chuck Schumer is a smart guy who has been in the game a long time. He laid a trap hoping the GOP would jump into it as they so often do. This is a good example of a political gambit that has no downside to the person deploying it. Ted Cruz is a smart guy and figured out that it was a trap fairly early and largely stayed away from it. He filed some amendments that were never going anywhere so he could later say he tried to stop it if the thing ever got passed.

    Rubio is Ms. South Carolina with a penis so he did not see the trap. Instead, he thought he would be hailed as a hero for making a deal that his party elders thought was wonderful. I think what makes Rubio even dumber is that he had an easy way out of this mess back in the summer. He could simply have said he learned a valuable lesson about trusting the Democrats. That would have let him switch sides on immigration. Instead, he made it worse.

    The shame of it with Rubio is he is a helluva a pitchman. If he was on our side, pitching our issues, we would be talking about him as a great leader. The trouble is he is too dumb to be reliable.

    The Z Blog said, “….Rubio is Ms. South Carolina with a penis so he did not see the trap.”

    Now -that- deserves a Gold Box!

  39. @oh its just me
    Schumer is ] pro israel, pro wall street, pro development, pro open borders and super 'liberal' on any nation-wrecking social issue. except of course, one nation and one issue:

    http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/abortion-organization-demographic

    Though Efrat only assists women in Israel, the group has garnered support from inside the beltway through its American partner. Senator Chuck Schumer, a noted pro-choice champion who has used the issue of abortion to secure his New York Senate, attended a 30th anniversary gala for Efrat -
     
    I used to think he was just nasty, now I think he is evil.

    If the Israeli affiliate organization had been incorporated in California it seems that they would also have to advertise abortion availability, notwithstanding the fact that they are ostensibly a pro-life organization.

    http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Appeals-court-upholds-California-6730685.php

    Now this ridiculous and evil California law is not Schumer’s handiwork but it is entirely in sync with his hysterical advocacy of abortion among the goyim.

    Schumer is behind any endeavor that brings about this country’s ruin. He is an evil man. And it says a lot of bad about the state of New York that he is secure in his Senate seat.

  40. @Former Darfur
    Monroe got mixed up with a shrink-monster (like Brian Wilson later-but he survived: she didn't), Nancy Sinatra had Daddy's money and pull, Debbie Harry was a hippie under the glam and didn't care about real success. Madonna isn't necessarily smarter than any of them, but she sure was determined and disciplined.

    I get a chuckle out of people who call her a has-been. When you have a billion dollars you earned yourself, you really don't care. In fact, a Madonna show will still fill pretty sizable venues, both overseas and here. I'd venture to say she could still pack a venue in any place in America as well as Taylor Swift. For a 57 year old female that's not too shabby.

    Also, even in medium-sized venues, age is not so obvious in a performer who is in shape and well made-up.

    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    If Madge is anything, she's buff. As is Gwen Stefani, when she isn't pregnant.

    Looking at old pictures of screen and music hotsies-Marilyn, Barbara Eden, Nancy Sinatra, Jackie DeShannon (her face wasn't all that but her booty sure was) , the models on easy listening albums like the famous "Get More Bounce With Curtis Counce!"-you notice they were shapely, smooth, and fluffy-you saw no musculature. In fact, Monroe can be seen with overhanging arm flab in that famous poster of the billowing dress that was ubiquitous in video rental places in the eighties and nineties.

    Madonna wasn't the first female artist with visible muscle tone, but she sort of set a new standard. Joan Jett also had a pretty ripped midriff in the early nineties, and Gwen was always sporting a clearly defined six pack with No Doubt. The rocker generation of females either didn't have it or didn't show it, although Chrissie Hynde has always displayed well toned arms and covered everything else up with repurposed manwear. Pat Benatar has always played the pixie, Stevie Nicks covered herself with lace and gothic (in the original sense) wear, etc.
  41. You’re just jealous because you don’t have a balloon in your picture. You look like Schumer and he doesn’t have a balloon in his pic. Ergo you are jealous. Stop being jealous, Steve!

  42. @Evocatus
    Eliot Spitzer used to brag about his SAT and LSAT results. It didn't stop him from being a total dud in politics although it does say something about the veneration Ashkenazi Jews have for high test scores.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/nyregion/12spitzer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    Spitzer, who I hated, was elected AG and Governor of NY. Hardly a dud. He also is highly articulate and a scoundrel. His problem was he forgot to not get on the bad side of a billionaire. Had he stayed away from that, my guess is none of the Client 9 details would have come out. Perhaps he would have given HRC an actual run. He obviously doesn’t like her, he’s supporting that other guy, what’s his name? The one that’s not from Brooklyn.

  43. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    The Trump phenom isn’t just about immigration and nationalism. Closely tied to it is the CLASS WAR within the GOP. The donor class(the Adelsons and Koch Bros) vs the voter class.

    The paradigm of WIGFGMIGFA–what is good for general motors etc–is falling apart.

    For so long, esp because the Dems were seen as pro-labor, so many conservative voters thought that the rich are ‘conservative’. Also, in the past, there were more patriotic national capitalists, esp wasps guarding their power against the Jewish challenge.

    But things changed, and Clinton’s New Democrat policy won over the globolicarchs to the Dems.
    Jewish money and media permeates everything.

    And the cat is now out of the big. The rich are against the conservative white voter class.

    This is seismic in implication.

    It might lead to eventual merging of Sanderites and Trumpites. The National Left.

    I like capitalism but only when it is National. If capital goes Global, we must take up left politics.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    I was not exactly encouraged by Coulter's line that, "if you give me 20 to 1 odds, I'm definitely betting Trump." As I recall, Sonny Liston was a 7 to 1 favorite over Cassius Clay (as he was then known) back in 1963, and I had a college friend who was from Louisville, Ky. and he cleaned up betting on his home-town hero. If you are asking for 20 to 1 odds to bet on Trump, you can't be that confidant he is going to win.
  44. @Dave Pinsen
    Schumer may be very smart, and Rubio may not be, but I question the use of the word "snookered" here. It's not snookering when the other guy wants the same thing you do. If Schumer got Jeff Sessions to back the Gang of 8 bill, that would have been snookering. Getting Rubio onboard? That's just collaborating on a shared goal.

    Dave Pinsen makes the point well. Rubio hasn’t been played. He was never on the American side to begin with.

  45. @Steve Sailer
    Politically, the Schumer-Rubio bill was a zero sum game: it was going to help either one party or the other.

    Steve, there you go again. Thinking that the Republicans and Democrats are different parties. They are not. They are the same group of people, who inter-marry, go to the same few HYPS schools, share the same political consultants, and share the same core political and social and cultural beliefs. The only difference is that Republicans want more tax breaks for the oil and gas industries. That’s about it.

    If the Republican Party disappeared tomorrow, the Lindsey Grahams and Jeb Bushes and the McCains would simply be Democrats. They are one and the same.

    But while Schumer is shrewd on short term issues; he’s stupid long term. There will be no more Schumers succeeding him. His niece Amy is about as far along as his family will get. Look at Chicago — there is no room in a “diverse” America for White Democrats, ESPECIALLY Jewish ones. As NAMs … hate hate hate Jews above all other Whites, for being smarter. If there is one thing lower IQ people hate, its higher IQ people. Rahm Emmanuel is toast, and likely the last White mayor there as the place slides into Detroit or Baltimore territory.

    Long term, the Schumers and Clintons and so on only have money when they have political power. They have no great landed estates bringing in money, no great ownership of massive corporate empires sprawling around the globe. They have high expenses, a big patronage machine, all of which depends on holding political power which is being destroyed by NAM population increase. NAM voters believe understandably they’d rather have a NAM representative than a Clinton or a Schumer or a Rahm running things.

    Smart?

  46. @Abe

    Schumer is a far more appealing figure (personally) than the alternatives (such as Reid), especially for your average Republican.
     
    But he's also the uncle of Amy Schumer, who the POZ establishment has lately been working overtime to convince us is the next hot, appealing "it" girl, and if you don't agree (and here's a penile plethysmograph to gauge your sincerity) you'll be exiled to work the Dakota oil fields with no other entertainment during your off-time than these GIRLS re-runs (specially edited to contain only Lena Dunham's nude scenes).

    Probably a minor quibble but they are second cousins once-removed, although your mistake is understandable since less than 1% of people that distantly related share the family surname (if my math is right)

  47. @Rifleman

    Schumer vs. Rubio: Which One Looks Smarter?
     
    Well obviously Marco looks like a dummy and he is one.

    But Schumer is hardly a threat to the Republican establishment. He's with them on immigration, he can be intimidated to align with them on Israel.....

    Those aren't trivial issues to the Republican establishment.

    He's a New York Jewish Democrat. Is he surprising anyone with his position on most issues?

    So Schumer isn't the problem. The problem is a party that is filled with the likes of Lindsey Graham and John Kasich and Jeb Bush and thinks a low IQ Latino simpleton like Rubio should be their President.

    As for Schumer being the Republicans' "chief villain" - can I interest you in a particular Hitlerian/Fascist/Know Nothing/pro wrestler from New York who has made YUGE news lately?

    The Republican establishment likes immigration because it keeps them in cheap labor. They like being pro-Israel because it keeps evangelicals happy and keeps Sheldon Adelson and his buddies giving them money. It may even play a role in convincing the New York Times they are not Nazis and hence worthy of serious opposition.

    But those aren’t their core issues. They’re the issues that annoy you, and that’s why they stick in your head. (I’m not saying you’re crazy, I’m saying you’re human. Look at the way I pop out of the box on stupid Jewish-related comments.)

    Schumer will fight them on things like climate change, healthcare, consumer regulation, and all sorts of things that could cost them money. However, as the Senator from New York, he’s soft on hedge fund taxes, which is a lot more important to the Republican establishment in general.

    He’s more likely to annoy the base with his stands on gun control and abortion.

    All IMHO, of course.

    • Replies: @neutral

    But those aren’t their core issues.
     
    Actually those ARE their core values. Have a look at how Trump is endlessly attacked, its really only because of his immigration views, because on guns and abortion Trump is not actually ever mentioned regarding those issues.

    As for pro Israel, if the Republicans were concerned about evangelicals then they would show more interest in things like Christians being sent to jail in America because of gay activism. The reason that both parties have to be pro Israel is pretty obvious, and its not to please Muslim, gay, black, etc. voters. Its meant to please a specific group of people that actually are not significant in voting terms but significant in the sense that they give lots of cash to polticians, I wonder who this group could be ?
  48. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Please iSteve,

    You are asking me to discriminate again … you know, asking me if someone is smarter than someone else. You know that is not PC and, indeed, might even be illegal in some jurisdictions. Peter Frost is in a similar perdicament. The solution, privy tell, is for you to stop asking questions.

  49. Since you ask: Schumer looks crafty rather than intelligent and Rubio looks like a stupid asshole.

  50. @Evocatus
    Eliot Spitzer used to brag about his SAT and LSAT results. It didn't stop him from being a total dud in politics although it does say something about the veneration Ashkenazi Jews have for high test scores.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/nyregion/12spitzer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    Spitzer was the governor of New York State. How was he a “dud”?

    • Replies: @Evocatus
    He was a dud. People were making predictions about him being elected the first Jewish President back when he was still the Attorney General. The problem was, despite his obvious intelligence, he was essentially an arrogant entitled rich boy who used his father's money and influence to get elected without developing any kind of political instinct or tact. He managed to squander his reputation as the crusading AG reformer and all his good press by pissing off everybody in Albany with his "f***in steamroller" act, well before the Client # 9 stuff came out. His tenure as governor lasted a little over a year (took officer January 2007, resigned in March 2008) and his comeback bid for New York City Comptroller in 2013 failed miserably. Simply put, he was too arrogant and politically tone deaf to succeed in politics, especially New York State politics. Contrast him with someone like Cuomo, who while probably not being as intelligent as Spitzer IQ-wise, is politically shrewder and far more adept at getting what he wants done in Albany.
  51. @James B. Shearer
    "Politically, the Schumer-Rubio bill was a zero sum game: it was going to help either one party or the other."

    It clearly wasn't a zero sum game between Schumer and Rubio personally. And the Democratic and Republican parties aren't coherent enough to have well defined interests. Suppose for example the Republicans could win a few more seats in Congress by abandoning some position. Different Republicans will disagree on whether this is a good idea depending in part on how important this position is to them. Who is to say which view is correct?

    ““Politically, the Schumer-Rubio bill was a zero sum game: it was going to help either one party or the other.”

    It clearly wasn’t a zero sum game between Schumer and Rubio personally. And the Democratic and Republican parties aren’t coherent enough to have well defined interests. Suppose for example the Republicans could win a few more seats in Congress by abandoning some position. Different Republicans will disagree on whether this is a good idea depending in part on how important this position is to them. Who is to say which view is correct””

    I see your point, but the Democrats certainly seem to know what’s in their interest more than the Republicans. The Republicans aren’t incoherent, they are upside down and backwards and inside out regarding the interests of their supporters, and ultimately the party.

    Fine by me though I guess. Stupid parties deserve to get snookered.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    It clearly wasn’t a zero sum game between Schumer and Rubio personally.
     
    Checkmate!

    Rubio's rise to prominence depended on his softness on migration. Would he have gotten anywhere except by pandering?
  52. Schumer is smarter, but not by as much as you imply, Steve. I’ve watched all of the GOP debates. Rubio can think on his feet. The puppy look is a facade.

    • Replies: @Bugg
    Completely disagree. Rubio has a passing talking points degree of knowledge, like the famous nuclear triad.In Florida, with a strong Cuban voting block, that's been enough.He's pleasant, polite, easy on the ears. But there isn't much going on between the ears except Rubio would like a cooler job. Every debate exposes more and more he's not very sharp. He's been verbally smacked around badly in every exchange with Rand Paul especially . Rubio to in fact be a rube who loves invade/invite/borrow from, though not sure he grasps that. We aren't going to war with Russia over Syria. Proposing doing so as he has done often is either insane or unthinking.
  53. @SFG
    The Republican establishment likes immigration because it keeps them in cheap labor. They like being pro-Israel because it keeps evangelicals happy and keeps Sheldon Adelson and his buddies giving them money. It may even play a role in convincing the New York Times they are not Nazis and hence worthy of serious opposition.

    But those aren't their core issues. They're the issues that annoy you, and that's why they stick in your head. (I'm not saying you're crazy, I'm saying you're human. Look at the way I pop out of the box on stupid Jewish-related comments.)

    Schumer will fight them on things like climate change, healthcare, consumer regulation, and all sorts of things that could cost them money. However, as the Senator from New York, he's soft on hedge fund taxes, which is a lot more important to the Republican establishment in general.

    He's more likely to annoy the base with his stands on gun control and abortion.

    All IMHO, of course.

    But those aren’t their core issues.

    Actually those ARE their core values. Have a look at how Trump is endlessly attacked, its really only because of his immigration views, because on guns and abortion Trump is not actually ever mentioned regarding those issues.

    As for pro Israel, if the Republicans were concerned about evangelicals then they would show more interest in things like Christians being sent to jail in America because of gay activism. The reason that both parties have to be pro Israel is pretty obvious, and its not to please Muslim, gay, black, etc. voters. Its meant to please a specific group of people that actually are not significant in voting terms but significant in the sense that they give lots of cash to polticians, I wonder who this group could be ?

  54. @Anon
    https://youtu.be/B5MbQWo8uzE?t=47s

    The Trump phenom isn't just about immigration and nationalism. Closely tied to it is the CLASS WAR within the GOP. The donor class(the Adelsons and Koch Bros) vs the voter class.

    The paradigm of WIGFGMIGFA--what is good for general motors etc--is falling apart.

    For so long, esp because the Dems were seen as pro-labor, so many conservative voters thought that the rich are 'conservative'. Also, in the past, there were more patriotic national capitalists, esp wasps guarding their power against the Jewish challenge.

    But things changed, and Clinton's New Democrat policy won over the globolicarchs to the Dems.
    Jewish money and media permeates everything.

    And the cat is now out of the big. The rich are against the conservative white voter class.

    This is seismic in implication.

    It might lead to eventual merging of Sanderites and Trumpites. The National Left.

    I like capitalism but only when it is National. If capital goes Global, we must take up left politics.

    I was not exactly encouraged by Coulter’s line that, “if you give me 20 to 1 odds, I’m definitely betting Trump.” As I recall, Sonny Liston was a 7 to 1 favorite over Cassius Clay (as he was then known) back in 1963, and I had a college friend who was from Louisville, Ky. and he cleaned up betting on his home-town hero. If you are asking for 20 to 1 odds to bet on Trump, you can’t be that confidant he is going to win.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    In her defense, not that she needs it from the likes of me, she's basing her number on the fact that, unlike the situations of the other candidates, BOTH parties are working to defeat Trump.
  55. @Anonymous
    Why does Rubio obviously look like a dummy? Not arguing with you, but we're talking about looks here. Are his eyes too close together? Forehead not high enough? Isn't this really a case of postjudice? I.e. hardly anyone's ever met a dumb Jew.

    Why does Rubio obviously look like a dummy?

    Because Steve posted a picture where it looks like Rubio’s a retardate playing with the balloon. To my eye, Rubio looked intelligent during the last debate. He’s no match for Schumer, I’ll grant, but he’s probably a little smarter than, say, Trump.

  56. How smart does Steve Sailer look in his Santa costume?

  57. @Bugg
    I recall Schumer's first Congressional run in Brooklyn. He would day after day stand on the Kings Highway elevated subway platform obnoxiously gladhanding people and quite mindlessly yelling to morning commuters as they were getting upstairs onto the platform if an express or local train was coming. Anyone with eyeballs could look down the tracks and very quickly see for themselves, so such ravings were pointless. Struck me then that American politics was a crazy business, and nothing has changed my mind since. And that Schumer so debasing himself was a deeply disturbed person. He looked craven, deranged, unhinged. For all his book smarts, would not trust him with a coffee order.

    As it happens I took the Kaplan SAT prep class at their main office at that time, which was about 2 blocks from that station. Never had any class taught by Schumer, but do remember that the teachers were uniformly badly dressed, socially-inept housebound weirdos, mostly orthodox or conservative Jews.They all bragged about high SAT scores they had attained, and perhaps that job paid very well. But they also looked and behaved so odd no law firm, engineering company, bank nor investment brokerage would ever hire any of them. Later took their LSAT prep class too. Was helpful only because it showed how the questions of those tests were asked rather than giving any specific insight into the questions themselves.Which sounds just like Schumer, playing the game instead of doing anything substantive. In fact, this is the first time I have ever heard he held any paying job at all except political office.

    There’s a newer test prep outfit, founded by a former teacher, called Manhattan GMAT (it’s national now, despite the name). It only hires tutors who scored in the top 1% on that test. This is a part time job that pays about $100 per hour. A few of the women instructors were actually quite attractive, last I checked. But none of them has a corporate job. They are outliers.

    • Replies: @27 year old
    the "splitter", the slacker who aces the high-G tests but had low GPA, "could do anything" but can't or "doesn't want to" fit in to the mold is an extremely popular archetype in america. on tv, they often make their living tutoring others, or, as in "suits", outright taking the tests for others.

    also, have you had a corporate job? corporate jobs really suck.
  58. @Glossy
    Schumer is smarter, but not by as much as you imply, Steve. I've watched all of the GOP debates. Rubio can think on his feet. The puppy look is a facade.

    Completely disagree. Rubio has a passing talking points degree of knowledge, like the famous nuclear triad.In Florida, with a strong Cuban voting block, that’s been enough.He’s pleasant, polite, easy on the ears. But there isn’t much going on between the ears except Rubio would like a cooler job. Every debate exposes more and more he’s not very sharp. He’s been verbally smacked around badly in every exchange with Rand Paul especially . Rubio to in fact be a rube who loves invade/invite/borrow from, though not sure he grasps that. We aren’t going to war with Russia over Syria. Proposing doing so as he has done often is either insane or unthinking.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/679838783194443776
  59. @Steve Sailer
    Politically, the Schumer-Rubio bill was a zero sum game: it was going to help either one party or the other.

    “it was going to help either one party or the other.”

    Which is only relevant if Rubio’s main goal is helping his party.

    The point is, Rubio was already known to be a pro-amnesty guy from his record as Speaker of the House in Florida, whatever he said on the campaign trail. He wanted to pass an amnesty, the effects on his party or America be damned. Schumer did not have to snooker him at all – at least in terms of policy. Maybe he snookered him on how much this would turn the base against him, but Rubio did not need someone to trick him into being for hte Gang of Eight bill.

  60. But Schumer is hardly a threat to the Republican establishment. He’s with them on immigration, he can be intimidated to align with them on Israel…..

    I am fairly certain that Schumer’s pro-Israel stance is not due to his being forced by the GOP.

  61. Schumer=Genius

    that is the propaganda they’ve pumped for years…

    Chuck Schumer is going to have his hands full with Trump in the White House after a landslide election.

    Good luck, Chuck.

  62. @The Z Blog
    Chuck Schumer is a smart guy who has been in the game a long time. He laid a trap hoping the GOP would jump into it as they so often do. This is a good example of a political gambit that has no downside to the person deploying it. Ted Cruz is a smart guy and figured out that it was a trap fairly early and largely stayed away from it. He filed some amendments that were never going anywhere so he could later say he tried to stop it if the thing ever got passed.

    Rubio is Ms. South Carolina with a penis so he did not see the trap. Instead, he thought he would be hailed as a hero for making a deal that his party elders thought was wonderful. I think what makes Rubio even dumber is that he had an easy way out of this mess back in the summer. He could simply have said he learned a valuable lesson about trusting the Democrats. That would have let him switch sides on immigration. Instead, he made it worse.

    The shame of it with Rubio is he is a helluva a pitchman. If he was on our side, pitching our issues, we would be talking about him as a great leader. The trouble is he is too dumb to be reliable.

    Rubio is Ms. South Carolina with a penis…

    Whose, Lindsey Graham’s? And where does he keep it? In a Ball jar?

  63. “Looking at Schumer and Rubio, who do you think would have outsmarted whom?”

    I guess if you’re saying that Schumer’s raw IQ is much greater than Rubio’s raw IQ I’d be hard-pressed to disagree, but ultimately they are both pressing to turn America into a Third World hellhole, and therefore the intelligence of both, whether high or low, is being used to undermine and ultimately destroy the country their descendants will inherit. In light of that, neither appears all that smart. To hell with them both. I will not be voting for a President Rubio, not under any circumstances.

  64. @Former Darfur
    Monroe got mixed up with a shrink-monster (like Brian Wilson later-but he survived: she didn't), Nancy Sinatra had Daddy's money and pull, Debbie Harry was a hippie under the glam and didn't care about real success. Madonna isn't necessarily smarter than any of them, but she sure was determined and disciplined.

    I get a chuckle out of people who call her a has-been. When you have a billion dollars you earned yourself, you really don't care. In fact, a Madonna show will still fill pretty sizable venues, both overseas and here. I'd venture to say she could still pack a venue in any place in America as well as Taylor Swift. For a 57 year old female that's not too shabby.

    Her concerts are great too (have seen a couple on cable). I think she may have pioneered the particular genre of musical theater that Katy Perry and Pink exemplify as well in their concerts: dancers, acrobats, acting out motifs of songs, etc.

    And, yeah: she still packs them in. The last one I saw was from a few years back in Miami, in what looked like a 20k+ arena. She quoted the Lady Gaga song that rips off her “Express Yourself”. I bet she could sell more tickets tomorrow than Gaga.

    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    Gaga is more of a NYC/college/gay/Euro phenomenon, much like Blondie, although Gaga has done somewhat better in flyover country. Blondie was a rock band with a kick-ass over the top drummer and guys with guitars and a girl singer that was thought hot in the UK and elsewhere but not here, not a Vegas show, which is what Madonna basically brought to the pop touring world.

    When Madge showed that Vegas style shows could fit modern female pop music (and make big money) , Britney, Katy, Christina, Pink, and all the rest came out. Gaga started out as more of a Pop Art commentary on it and became more mainstream.

    Yeah, I think Madonna could make even more money if she wanted to: I mean, look at the Rolling Stones, who at this point are a caricature of a caricature and the people still pack in to see the old geezers. I think at this point she has decided that since she isn't going to be a movie star and her kids will be out of her hair shortly to just have fun being Madonna.
  65. @Bugg
    Completely disagree. Rubio has a passing talking points degree of knowledge, like the famous nuclear triad.In Florida, with a strong Cuban voting block, that's been enough.He's pleasant, polite, easy on the ears. But there isn't much going on between the ears except Rubio would like a cooler job. Every debate exposes more and more he's not very sharp. He's been verbally smacked around badly in every exchange with Rand Paul especially . Rubio to in fact be a rube who loves invade/invite/borrow from, though not sure he grasps that. We aren't going to war with Russia over Syria. Proposing doing so as he has done often is either insane or unthinking.

  66. @Steve Sailer
    Politically, the Schumer-Rubio bill was a zero sum game: it was going to help either one party or the other.

    Yes, that’s true in reality, but in the GOP establishment’s dogma, it was win-win. So, there are three possibilities for everyone to the left of Sessions on immigration:

    1) They believed the dogma: that family values and capital gains tax cuts will win Latin American peasants over to the GOP. I think a majority of the GOPe actually believed this, and still do.

    2) They knew the reality, but supported Gang of 8 for other reasons (donors, ethnic affinities, to burnish their reputations with the MSM).

    3) They got snookered by Chuck Schumer.

    Of those, 3) seems the least likely.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Yes, that’s true in reality
     
    How so? Was Apollo zero-sum? Which party gained more than the country? Did either lose?

    If you believe this, what's the point of having a legislative body at all? Merely war by other means?

    You're no better than the horse race MSM.
  67. Have Senator Rubio and Senator Palpatine ever been seen together in the same room at the same time? Just askin….

  68. @Dave Pinsen
    There's a newer test prep outfit, founded by a former teacher, called Manhattan GMAT (it's national now, despite the name). It only hires tutors who scored in the top 1% on that test. This is a part time job that pays about $100 per hour. A few of the women instructors were actually quite attractive, last I checked. But none of them has a corporate job. They are outliers.

    the “splitter”, the slacker who aces the high-G tests but had low GPA, “could do anything” but can’t or “doesn’t want to” fit in to the mold is an extremely popular archetype in america. on tv, they often make their living tutoring others, or, as in “suits”, outright taking the tests for others.

    also, have you had a corporate job? corporate jobs really suck.

  69. @Dave Pinsen
    Her concerts are great too (have seen a couple on cable). I think she may have pioneered the particular genre of musical theater that Katy Perry and Pink exemplify as well in their concerts: dancers, acrobats, acting out motifs of songs, etc.

    And, yeah: she still packs them in. The last one I saw was from a few years back in Miami, in what looked like a 20k+ arena. She quoted the Lady Gaga song that rips off her "Express Yourself". I bet she could sell more tickets tomorrow than Gaga.

    Gaga is more of a NYC/college/gay/Euro phenomenon, much like Blondie, although Gaga has done somewhat better in flyover country. Blondie was a rock band with a kick-ass over the top drummer and guys with guitars and a girl singer that was thought hot in the UK and elsewhere but not here, not a Vegas show, which is what Madonna basically brought to the pop touring world.

    When Madge showed that Vegas style shows could fit modern female pop music (and make big money) , Britney, Katy, Christina, Pink, and all the rest came out. Gaga started out as more of a Pop Art commentary on it and became more mainstream.

    Yeah, I think Madonna could make even more money if she wanted to: I mean, look at the Rolling Stones, who at this point are a caricature of a caricature and the people still pack in to see the old geezers. I think at this point she has decided that since she isn’t going to be a movie star and her kids will be out of her hair shortly to just have fun being Madonna.

  70. @carol
    Also, even in medium-sized venues, age is not so obvious in a performer who is in shape and well made-up.

    If Madge is anything, she’s buff. As is Gwen Stefani, when she isn’t pregnant.

    Looking at old pictures of screen and music hotsies-Marilyn, Barbara Eden, Nancy Sinatra, Jackie DeShannon (her face wasn’t all that but her booty sure was) , the models on easy listening albums like the famous “Get More Bounce With Curtis Counce!”-you notice they were shapely, smooth, and fluffy-you saw no musculature. In fact, Monroe can be seen with overhanging arm flab in that famous poster of the billowing dress that was ubiquitous in video rental places in the eighties and nineties.

    Madonna wasn’t the first female artist with visible muscle tone, but she sort of set a new standard. Joan Jett also had a pretty ripped midriff in the early nineties, and Gwen was always sporting a clearly defined six pack with No Doubt. The rocker generation of females either didn’t have it or didn’t show it, although Chrissie Hynde has always displayed well toned arms and covered everything else up with repurposed manwear. Pat Benatar has always played the pixie, Stevie Nicks covered herself with lace and gothic (in the original sense) wear, etc.

  71. @JohnnyWalker123
    Spitzer was the governor of New York State. How was he a "dud"?

    He was a dud. People were making predictions about him being elected the first Jewish President back when he was still the Attorney General. The problem was, despite his obvious intelligence, he was essentially an arrogant entitled rich boy who used his father’s money and influence to get elected without developing any kind of political instinct or tact. He managed to squander his reputation as the crusading AG reformer and all his good press by pissing off everybody in Albany with his “f***in steamroller” act, well before the Client # 9 stuff came out. His tenure as governor lasted a little over a year (took officer January 2007, resigned in March 2008) and his comeback bid for New York City Comptroller in 2013 failed miserably. Simply put, he was too arrogant and politically tone deaf to succeed in politics, especially New York State politics. Contrast him with someone like Cuomo, who while probably not being as intelligent as Spitzer IQ-wise, is politically shrewder and far more adept at getting what he wants done in Albany.

  72. @Dave Pinsen
    Yes, that's true in reality, but in the GOP establishment's dogma, it was win-win. So, there are three possibilities for everyone to the left of Sessions on immigration:

    1) They believed the dogma: that family values and capital gains tax cuts will win Latin American peasants over to the GOP. I think a majority of the GOPe actually believed this, and still do.

    2) They knew the reality, but supported Gang of 8 for other reasons (donors, ethnic affinities, to burnish their reputations with the MSM).

    3) They got snookered by Chuck Schumer.

    Of those, 3) seems the least likely.

    Yes, that’s true in reality

    How so? Was Apollo zero-sum? Which party gained more than the country? Did either lose?

    If you believe this, what’s the point of having a legislative body at all? Merely war by other means?

    You’re no better than the horse race MSM.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Legislation in general isn't zero-sum, but that immigration bill was.
  73. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Politically, the Schumer-Rubio bill was a zero sum game: it was going to help either one party or the other.

    Steve, you’re assuming that the Republicans care about winning. I don’t think they do anymore. All they need is either or both of 1) control of the House and 2) 40 seats in the Senate. That’s enough to enable them to negotiate deals for their donors, collect campaign and PAC contributions and look forward to lucrative lobbying jobs when they leave the Hill. They really don’t care about getting the White House back or holding onto a Senate majority, much less getting 60+ Senate seats.

    Rubio may have been outsmarted by Schumer, but it’s also quite possible he and Schumer were on the same side. As for the rest of the Republican establishment (McConnell, McCain, Graham, Boehner, et al.), it’s not even a question: they wanted the amnesty and increases of legal immigration in the Gang of 8 bill as much as Schumer did. It was not arm’s length bargaining, it was more like the NY state hospital workers union bargaining with George Pataki during his second and third terms, when he was giving away the store to every Democratic interest group in the state.

  74. @tbraton
    I was not exactly encouraged by Coulter's line that, "if you give me 20 to 1 odds, I'm definitely betting Trump." As I recall, Sonny Liston was a 7 to 1 favorite over Cassius Clay (as he was then known) back in 1963, and I had a college friend who was from Louisville, Ky. and he cleaned up betting on his home-town hero. If you are asking for 20 to 1 odds to bet on Trump, you can't be that confidant he is going to win.

    In her defense, not that she needs it from the likes of me, she’s basing her number on the fact that, unlike the situations of the other candidates, BOTH parties are working to defeat Trump.

  75. @Desiderius

    Yes, that’s true in reality
     
    How so? Was Apollo zero-sum? Which party gained more than the country? Did either lose?

    If you believe this, what's the point of having a legislative body at all? Merely war by other means?

    You're no better than the horse race MSM.

    Legislation in general isn’t zero-sum, but that immigration bill was.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Legislation in general isn’t zero-sum, but that immigration bill was.
     
    Seriously?

    Isn't the whole reason Steve's been raising such a stink these past few years is because it was undoubtedly negative-sum?

    My allegiance is to the country, not the Republican Party. If Rubio will consistently get suckered into helping the country at the expense of the Rs, go Rubio.

    Likewise, the converse.
  76. @asdf
    "“Politically, the Schumer-Rubio bill was a zero sum game: it was going to help either one party or the other.”

    It clearly wasn’t a zero sum game between Schumer and Rubio personally. And the Democratic and Republican parties aren’t coherent enough to have well defined interests. Suppose for example the Republicans could win a few more seats in Congress by abandoning some position. Different Republicans will disagree on whether this is a good idea depending in part on how important this position is to them. Who is to say which view is correct""

    I see your point, but the Democrats certainly seem to know what's in their interest more than the Republicans. The Republicans aren't incoherent, they are upside down and backwards and inside out regarding the interests of their supporters, and ultimately the party.

    Fine by me though I guess. Stupid parties deserve to get snookered.

    It clearly wasn’t a zero sum game between Schumer and Rubio personally.

    Checkmate!

    Rubio’s rise to prominence depended on his softness on migration. Would he have gotten anywhere except by pandering?

  77. @Dave Pinsen
    Legislation in general isn't zero-sum, but that immigration bill was.

    Legislation in general isn’t zero-sum, but that immigration bill was.

    Seriously?

    Isn’t the whole reason Steve’s been raising such a stink these past few years is because it was undoubtedly negative-sum?

    My allegiance is to the country, not the Republican Party. If Rubio will consistently get suckered into helping the country at the expense of the Rs, go Rubio.

    Likewise, the converse.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS