T1B

Can you imagine the media firestorm if staffers for, say, Frist, had used Barack Obama's Social Security number to fraudulently obtain his credit report looking for stuff to derail his Senate campaign?

How do you know they didn't?

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:

Can you imagine the media firestorm if staffers for, say, Frist, had used Barack Obama's Social Security number to fraudulently obtain his credit report looking for stuff to derail his Senate campaign?

How do you know they didn't?

What evidence do you have that would suggest they did?

Or are you just talking out your ass?

I never said, or even implied, that they did.

How do you know that they didn't?

Mikey wrote:
How do you know that they didn't?

Irrelevant to the question the author is posing.

The answer to your question is. We don't. We don't know the shennanigans perpertrated by both sides until they're caught. That's a moot point.

But what we do know is that there is a lack of "outrage" typically pushed and inflamed by the press when a Democrat is caught doing this as opposed to when/if a Republican is caught playing dirty pool

When a Republican is caught engaging in dirty pool, the press triples their orders for paper. One order to print and publish, and the other two to fan the flames and to manufacture and stimulate outrage.

Oh, I see.

It's that Liberal Media Conspiracy thingy again.

Tom In VA wrote:When a Republican is caught engaging in dirty pool, the press triples their orders for paper. One order to print and publish, and the other two to fan the flames and to manufacture and stimulate outrage.

You're a fuckin riot Tom. You're the Twana Brawley of this board.

The Boy Who Always Cries Wolf wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:When a Republican is caught engaging in dirty pool, the press triples their orders for paper. One order to print and publish, and the other two to fan the flames and to manufacture and stimulate outrage.

You're a fuckin riot Tom. You're the Twana Brawley of this board.

:roll:

If that isn't deflection I don't know what it is.

Get a grip Pollyanna, I was breaking down the authors' points for Mikey who seemed more concerned with whether or not Republicans engage in shennanigans than the content of the post and article.



I don't expect either you nor Mikey to accept, acknowledge, or perceive the efficacy in the author's claim that the press would treat this situation much differently if it were a Republican perp and a Democratic victim. Denial ain't just a river in Eygpt but the two of you are drowning in it.


But seriously coming from a whitebread yanqui such as yourself who is always quick with the "racist" trigger and condemnation of an entire people in this country ....

The Boy Who Always Cries Wolf wrote:
You're a fuckin riot Tom. You're the Twana Brawley of this board.

If it wasn't such a blatant display of your ability to fabricate, skirt, and otherwise distort reality. It'd be funny.

Okay, it is kind of funny, in a laughing @U sort of way.

Tom In VA wrote:If that isn't deflection I don't know what it is.

I'll assume then that "deflection" isn't a defintion residing within your knowledge base.

Get a grip Pollyanna, I was breaking down the authors' points for Mikey who seemed more concerned with whether or not Republicans engage in shennanigans than the content of the post and article.

I don't expect either you nor Mikey to accept, acknowledge, or perceive the efficacy in the author's claim that the press would treat this situation much differently if it were a Republican perp and a Democratic victim. Denial ain't just a river in Eygpt but the two of you are drowning in it.

The author is either a liar or an idiot. And anybody who would think the press is conspiring to treat Dems easier than Republicans is a complete fucking moron.

The Clinton news coverage out front should have told you that.

BSmack wrote:And anybody who would think the press is conspiring to treat Dems easier than Republicans is a complete fucking moron.

l-r: Mike-objectivity

All of this, and nobody has called out Das Choads on the thesis of his topic? I'm surprised. Actually, I'm not surprised, given the political leanings of the overwhelming majority of this board.

Of course, Das Choads hasn't unearthed a scintilla of evidence that even suggests, let alone proves, that Schumer personally was in on this. And even if that weren't the case, Das Choads hasn't unearthed a scintilla of evidence that even suggests, let alone proves, that Steele was targeted because of his race.

Das Choads reminds me of the dittosheep who go to the racist card to attack Democrats who opposed confirmation of Thomas, Rice and Gonzalez. Of course, what those dittosheep ignore is the fact that no Democrats opposed them on the basis of their race; rather, they opposed them on the basis of their ideology, their track record (or in Thomas' case, lack of same), or both. Das Choads falls into the camp of those who say, "They're opposing a black person, so they must be racists." I guess that's what Rush tells him to think, at least when said black person is a Republican. :roll:

Das Choads would have been better advised to do a little more research on this subject before spouting off. If Democrats were targeting black Republicans because of their race, wouldn't it make sense that they would target all black Republicans in this matter? Yet, I've seen no allegation, let alone proof, that Democrats ever tried to pull an illegal credit report on Rice, Thomas, or J.C. Watts. In fact, if Das Choads had read Diogenes' thread on this subject (which technically puts this thread in "Glass Dick" category -- more on that later), he would have known that it was pretty well known that Steele had experienced financial problems. If Steele really was targeted (and that's certainly an open question at this point), isn't it logical that he was targeted because of those financial problems, rather than because of his race? Then again, I suppose it's easier for Das Choads to rehash the vile filth Rush spews than it is to actually do some research for himself on the issue. :roll:

And speaking of "Glass Dick," I noticed that this is the second thread devoted to this topic. If my count is correct, that's exactly two threads more than were devoted on predecessor boards to former Rep. William Janklow's (Republican) conviction for vehicular homicide, or to Connecticut Gov. John Rowland's (Republican) conviction on corruption-related charges in office. or to the Ohio coin scandal involving Gov. Bob Taft (Republican). And here all along I thought this board was populated by objective middle-of-the-road types. Silly me.

Terry:

Das Choads reminds me of the dittosheep who go to the racist card to attack Democrats who opposed confirmation of Thomas, Rice and Gonzalez.

I don't remember righties dropping the race card when hammering Dems for opposing Thomas...I do remember that the Dems were using the Senate confirmation process to prosecute a case that wouldn't have gone anywhere in court.

I do remember the vicious cartoons depicting Rice with big lips and as a parrot being controlled by Bush. Oh, and this includes the silence from the media and Dems when their boy Harry Belafonte ravaged her and other minorities in the Bush Cabinet as house nigg@rs.

And I don't remember the race card being payed re: Gonzales, but rather righties mocking the Democrats for alleging that Gonzales advocated "torture" and defining "torture" as varying the room temperature.

I do remember the Democrats, however, telling us that Estrada was not Hispanic enough. And righties appropriately lambasted Democrats for doing so...though nary a peep from the mainstream media about it. "roll:

Das Choads falls into the camp of those who say, "They're opposing a black person, so they must be racists."

Now who doesn't recognize that behavior as perfectly reflective of the Democrats? Come on, Terry.

DrDetroit wrote:I don't remember righties dropping the race card when hammering Dems for opposing Thomas...

I do.

I do remember that the Dems were using the Senate confirmation process to prosecute a case that wouldn't have gone anywhere in court.

Sadly, you're right. The Democrats dropped the ball on that one. Anita Hill was a distraction, nothing more, and she only caused the Republicans to circle the wagons around a disastrous nominee.

If the Democrats had kept their eye on the ball -- Thomas' qualifications, or more correctly, lack thereof -- his nomination would have been defeated.

Like who, Terry? Just curious...that's all. Are we talking about the fringe types or Republican members of Congress? In this instance we are talking about a Democratic Senator.

Sadly, you're right. The Democrats dropped the ball on that one. Anita Hill was a distraction, nothing more, and she only caused the Republicans to circle the wagons around a disastrous nominee.

And given that I am right about the Democrats motive and that the motive was so clearly empty, why wouldn't it be appropriate to question whether other motives (say animosity towards a conservative minority, i.e., not a real minority) were in play?

BTW - "Disastrous?" On what basis?

If the Democrats had kept their eye on the ball -- Thomas' qualifications, or more correctly, lack thereof -- his nomination would have been defeated.

Subterfuge. Bunk.

All this talk about "qualification" is a smokescreen. They are no quantifiable qualifications for justice. In contemporary times, the only qualification relevant to you lefties is whether the candidate will upshold Roe and Casey and agrees with the political policy preferences of the Democratic Party. For righties it's whether the nominee will rely only on the Constitution and interpret the Constitution according to it original intent. Two very different persepctives on qualification I'm sure that you will agree.

BTW - if you believe that Thomas should have been defeated, why not Ginsburg then? We'll see how honest you are about this?

DrDetroit wrote:Like who, Terry? Just curious...that's all. Are we talking about the fringe types or Republican members of Congress?

Rush Limbaugh, for one.

In this instance we are talking about a Democratic Senator.

As I pointed out, and you have yet to refute, there's not a scintilla of evidence to prove that Schumer even knew about this, let alone that race was the motivating factor.

And given that I am right about the Democrats motive and that the motive was so clearly empty, why wouldn't it be appropriate to question whether other motives (say animosity towards a conservative minority, i.e., not a real minority) were in play?

Uhhh, not what I said, and you know it.

BTW - "Disastrous?" On what basis?

Patently unqualified. The ultimate affirmative action hire.

But don't take my word for it. Here's a few comments on Thomas from your side of the aisle:

Robert Bork referred to Thomas and fellow Poppy Bush nominee David Souter as "stealth candidates." In other words, according to Bork, they were nominated for the precise reason that little was known about them, the Senate would be able to find out very little, if anything, about them, and would confirm them blindly.

James Buckley said on TV that he was "extremely disappointed" in the Thomas nomination, and as much as said that there were a number of better qualified candidates.

If the Democrats had kept their eye on the ball -- Thomas' qualifications, or more correctly, lack thereof -- his nomination would have been defeated.

Subterfuge. Bunk.

All this talk about "qualification" is a smokescreen. They are no quantifiable qualifications for justice. In contemporary times, the only qualification relevant to you lefties is whether the candidate will upshold Roe and Casey and agrees with the political policy preferences of the Democratic Party. For righties it's whether the nominee will rely only on the Constitution and interpret the Constitution according to it original intent. Two very different persepctives on qualification I'm sure that you will agree.

BTW - if you believe that Thomas should have been defeated, why not Ginsburg then? We'll see how honest you are about this?

Nice spin, Doc, but it matters not.

Bottom line is, Thomas was nominated for one reason and one reason only: he was a young (43 at the time), black, conservative, sitting judge (for one year) who had never written word one about abortion. Quite possibly, he was the only person in the country who met that description. And this is not the first time I've said this -- for you to even suggest otherwise shows either that you haven't been paying attention, or you're deliberately being disingenuous.

At Thomas' confirmation hearing, pre-Anita Hill, he was asked to name some important Constitutional law decisions that had been handed down since he graduated from law school. Now, I would consider that a "softball" question, but at a minimum, I think even you'll agree that that's a fair question for a nominee to the Supreme Court. Thomas named only one deicision: Roe v. Wade. I've been trying to wrap my mind around that answer for the last fourteen years (I could have provided a more complete answer to that question than that, and I'm not a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court, nor do I expect to be one anytime in the reasonably foreseeable future). The only possible explanation I can come up with for Thomas' answer is that it displays either:

• a single-minded obsession with Roe;
• a complete and utter failure of preparation;
• a fundamental lack of intellectual curiosity; or
• some combination of two or more of the above

In any event, not desirable characteristics for a Supreme Court Justice.

Again, not the first time that I've mentioned any of this.

Rush Limbaugh, for one.

And if I know Rush at all from listening to him I bet the commentary was something like...the Anita Hill issue was simply a disguise covering up the fact that Democrats couldn't stand having a conservative minority on the Supreme Court. And he'd be right. It was a disguise. Just as we saw with Estrada, Thomas was not the right kind of minority because he held views different than those he was supposed to according to Democrats expectation.

But, again, we're talking about Rush Limbaugh and not a Republican member of Congress.

As I pointed out, and you have yet to refute, there's not a scintilla of evidence to prove that Schumer even knew about this, let alone that race was the motivating factor.

So what? Republicans are indicted for even less without nary a concern from you.

Uhhh, not what I said, and you know it.

I'm simply extending my thought process by asking the question...I didn't ascribe it to you. But you did agree that that was a mistake and it was a mistake precisely because there was nothing there.

Patently unqualified. The ultimate affirmative action hire.

Again, based on what criteria?

But don't take my word for it. Here's a few comments on Thomas from your side of the aisle:

Robert Bork referred to Thomas and fellow Poppy Bush nominee David Souter as "stealth candidates." In other words, according to Bork, they were nominated for the precise reason that little was known about them, the Senate would be able to find out very little, if anything, about them, and would confirm them blindly.

That's not what a "stealth" candidate is and you know it. And, if even that was the case, knowing very little about the guy doesn't make him unqualified now does it?

James Buckley said on TV that he was "extremely disappointed" in the Thomas nomination, and as much as said that there were a number of better qualified candidates.

There were many who were disappointed with the Roberts nomination because they favored either one of the McConnels, Luttig, Jones, Alito, etc. That didn't make Roberts unqualified now did it?

Of course not. Come on, Terry, be honest.

Nice spin, Doc, but it matters not.

It's all "spin," Terry.

Bottom line is, Thomas was nominated for one reason and one reason only: he was a young (43 at the time), black, conservative, sitting judge (for one year) who had never written word one about abortion. Quite possibly, he was the only person in the country who met that description. And this is not the first time I've said this -- for you to even suggest otherwise shows either that you haven't been paying attention, or you're deliberately being disingenuous.

What does it matter that Thomas didn't write a word on abortion? Like I said, that's the number one issue with you people and, besides, for righties, that issue ain't about abortion, per se, but about the abuse of the Constitution. If Thomas had not written a word, then how could it be assured that he vote reliably regarding this issue? That's why ^^^ doesn't make any sense, Terry. How could it be assured he would not "grow" as he considered the issue? Of course, in both cases, there was no assurance. hardly evidence that he was appointed for that reason.

BTW - a "stealth" nominee is one where the conservatism of a nominee is unknown or avoided. That's it. Because we know, for a fact, that conservatives need not apply according to the Democrats. And that almost also goes for Catholics.

At Thomas' confirmation hearing, pre-Anita Hill, he was asked to name some important Constitutional law decisions that had been handed down since he graduated from law school. Now, I would consider that a "softball" question, but at a minimum, I think even you'll agree that that's a fair question for a nominee to the Supreme Court. Thomas named only one deicision: Roe v. Wade. I've been trying to wrap my mind around that answer for the last fourteen years (I could have provided a more complete answer to that question than that, and I'm not a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court, nor do I expect to be one anytime in the reasonably foreseeable future).

So what? In many estimates he's become a fine judge, certainly one who does not abuse the Constitution nor rely on international law to formulate policy on the bench.

The only possible explanation I can come up with for Thomas' answer is that it displays either:
a single-minded obsession with Roe;
a complete and utter failure of preparation;
a fundamental lack of intellectual curiosity; or
some combination of two or more of the above

Fair enough. I won't argue your speculation because I don't know why he hasn't that way.

Nonetheless, it seems to me that you believe he was unqualified because he was characterized as a stealth candidate or his nomination disappointed some conservatives and that he didn't answer a question to your satisfaction.

Hardly what I would call a reasonable set of criteria. Whenever you're done "spinning," feel free to post a reasonable response.

What does it matter that Thomas didn't write a word on abortion?

It mattered to Poppy Bush, because he didn't want to give Senate Democrats a weapon to use against him.

Like I said, that's the number one issue with you people . . .

You people? Generalize much?

And for the record, abortion is definitely not the number one issue with me. For a number of reasons, some obvious, some not quite so, I'll never have an abortion.

My number one issue is free speech. As I said in response to TVO's post about the Bill of Rights in order of importance, I firmly believe, in light of the current Administration, that the First Amendment is the only thing standing between me and, if not a death sentence, then most certainly a lengthy prison sentence.

And having said the above on abortion, Roe v. Wade is, in reality, more about privacy than about abortion, at least in a constitutional setting. If Roe were overturned tomorrow, abortion may very well remain legal throughout the country (and probably would remain legal in certain parts of the country), but that decision would be left to the individual states. By contrast, if Roe were overturned, the right to privacy as a constitutional concern would be dead in the eyes of righties like you.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I firmly believe, in light of the current Administration, that the First Amendment is the only thing standing between me and, if not a death sentence, then most certainly a lengthy prison sentence.

Hyperventilate much?

After the Kelo decision, it's pretty clear the 1st Amendment isn't the one that's in danger.

But of course.

sin

Free Speech Zones and Loyalty Oaths

It mattered to Poppy Bush, because he didn't want to give Senate Democrats a weapon to use against him.

That still doesn't explain how Thomas was unqualified which is the question before you.

You people? Generalize much?

Yes, it is a generalization and like most generalizations I draw, an accurate one.

My number one issue is free speech. As I said in response to TVO's post about the Bill of Rights in order of importance, I firmly believe, in light of the current Administration, that the First Amendment is the only thing standing between me and, if not a death sentence, then most certainly a lengthy prison sentence.

Jesus Christ, get a paper bag and breathe...

How do people even rach this stage?

And having said the above on abortion, Roe v. Wade is, in reality, more about privacy than about abortion, at least in a constitutional setting.

Only to liberals and Democrats. And it's important to them only because a right to privacy relieves them of any obligation for self-control and restraint.

To conservatives and Republicans, this issue is about judges creating and implementing policy from the bench.

And it is that simple.

If Roe were overturned tomorrow, abortion may very well remain legal throughout the country (and probably would remain legal in certain parts of the country), but that decision would be left to the individual states.

As it should be. As much as Democrats talk about the separation of powers these days, you have to be surprised that they have no problem with the Judicial branch overstepping its role in this system.

By contrast, if Roe were overturned, the right to privacy as a constitutional concern would be dead in the eyes of righties like you.

You're absolutely right. Roe is an abomination. Look what it has done to the courts and to this system of government. Rather then merely seeking to determine whether an individual possesses the skill, ability, temperament, resilience, etc., to be a judge, the Democrats requires the nominees satsify their policy preferences. We have unelected judges creating and implementing law. We have the will of the voters being undermines by unelected judges. It's bullshit.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I firmly believe, in light of the current Administration, that the First Amendment is the only thing standing between me and, if not a death sentence, then most certainly a lengthy prison sentence.

Hyperventilate much?

No, just commenting on the current state of affairs as I see it.

After the Kelo decision, it's pretty clear the 1st Amendment isn't the one that's in danger.

It's abundantly clear that protecting the 1st Amendment rights of citizens, at least of citizens who disagree with the Bush Administration's policies, isn't real high on the Bush Administration's list of priorities. Perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with them on that count, but we don't know yet.

DrDetroit wrote:We have unelected judges creating and implementing law. We have the will of the voters being undermines by unelected judges. It's bullshit.

Don't like judicial review, I see?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:We have unelected judges creating and implementing law. We have the will of the voters being undermines by unelected judges. It's bullshit.

Don't like judicial review, I see?

No, not all that much. There's a fair point to be made that the Court simply grabbed this extra-constitutional authority. On the other hand, I acknowledge that the government has accepted this and that we must work within this structure.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:It's abundantly clear that protecting the 1st Amendment rights of citizens, at least of citizens who disagree with the Bush Administration's policies, isn't real high on the Bush Administration's list of priorities.

Before you shove this abortion of a take straight up your ass, why don't you go ahead and link us up to some 1st Amendment abuses perpetrated on citizens who disagree with his policies.

Last time I checked he had some batshit lunatic and her carnival of freaks camped out on his driveway for a month.

Dumbfuck.

RACK and Terry, please don't cut and run from this one. Provide some evidence of these "1st Amendment abuses perpetrated on citizens who disagree with his policies"


Futhermore check out ......

http://www.copvcia.com/


Are these people in jail ? Have they had to take down their website ?


Provide some evidence or admit you were wrong. You claimed Bush wasn't intelligent enough to do so, I trust you are.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:All of this, and nobody has called out Das Choads on the thesis of his topic? I'm surprised. Actually, I'm not surprised, given the political leanings of the overwhelming majority of this board.

Said thesis being....

Das Choads wrote:Or thats what the headlines would be if this scumbag had an "R" by his name. Is this guy going to rival Robert "KKK" Byrd soon? Time will tell!

Also, isn't this guy a self proclaimed champion of privacy rights? Apparently not if you're black and want off the Liberal Democrat plantation.

The point isn't whether Schumer personally conspired to target Steele illegally or whether he did so because of his status as a rising balck republican candidate but his actions after said illegal activity was uncovered and the underwhelming media attention and non-existant attention in the "cival rights" community.


And the fairly obvious proposition that if the Republican Senate Campaign had had a couple of morons pull shit like this, the same hypocrites and hacks who consider this a nonstory would be calling for heads to roll on the frot page of the WaPo and NYT.





Nice diversion, though.

At least it works on dumbfucks like DrD. and company.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:It's abundantly clear that protecting the 1st Amendment rights of citizens, at least of citizens who disagree with the Bush Administration's policies, isn't real high on the Bush Administration's list of priorities.

Before you shove this abortion of a take straight up your ass, why don't you go ahead and link us up to some 1st Amendment abuses perpetrated on citizens who disagree with his policies.

Last time I checked he had some batshit lunatic and her carnival of freaks camped out on his driveway for a month.

Okay, here you go.

http://www.turnyourbackonbush.com/index2.html

Dumbfuck.

I know you are, but what am I, might not be the most mature take in the world, but it's startlingly appropos here.

Diogenes wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:All of this, and nobody has called out Das Choads on the thesis of his topic? I'm surprised. Actually, I'm not surprised, given the political leanings of the overwhelming majority of this board.

Said thesis being....

Das Choads wrote:Or thats what the headlines would be if this scumbag had an "R" by his name. Is this guy going to rival Robert "KKK" Byrd soon? Time will tell!

Also, isn't this guy a self proclaimed champion of privacy rights? Apparently not if you're black and want off the Liberal Democrat plantation.

Uhhh, no. Said thesis was encapsulated nicely in the title of the thread:

Senator Schumer -- Vicious racist

In other words, the point of Das Choads' entire post was that Schumer targeted Steele because he was black. I completely refuted that with the part of my post you deleted:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Of course, Das Choads hasn't unearthed a scintilla of evidence that even suggests, let alone proves, that Schumer personally was in on this. And even if that weren't the case, Das Choads hasn't unearthed a scintilla of evidence that even suggests, let alone proves, that Steele was targeted because of his race.

Das Choads reminds me of the dittosheep who go to the racist card to attack Democrats who opposed confirmation of Thomas, Rice and Gonzalez. Of course, what those dittosheep ignore is the fact that no Democrats opposed them on the basis of their race; rather, they opposed them on the basis of their ideology, their track record (or in Thomas' case, lack of same), or both. Das Choads falls into the camp of those who say, "They're opposing a black person, so they must be racists." I guess that's what Rush tells him to think, at least when said black person is a Republican.

Das Choads would have been better advised to do a little more research on this subject before spouting off. If Democrats were targeting black Republicans because of their race, wouldn't it make sense that they would target all black Republicans in this matter? Yet, I've seen no allegation, let alone proof, that Democrats ever tried to pull an illegal credit report on Rice, Thomas, or J.C. Watts. In fact, if Das Choads had read Diogenes' thread on this subject (which technically puts this thread in "Glass Dick" category -- more on that later), he would have known that it was pretty well known that Steele had experienced financial problems. If Steele really was targeted (and that's certainly an open question at this point), isn't it logical that he was targeted because of those financial problems, rather than because of his race? Then again, I suppose it's easier for Das Choads to rehash the vile filth Rush spews than it is to actually do some research for himself on the issue.

Btw, no one, including you, has yet refuted this.

The point isn't whether Schumer personally conspired to target Steele illegally or whether he did so because of his status as a rising balck republican candidate but his actions after said illegal activity was uncovered and the underwhelming media attention and non-existant attention in the "cival rights" community.


And the fairly obvious proposition that if the Republican Senate Campaign had had a couple of morons pull shit like this, the same hypocrites and hacks who consider this a nonstory would be calling for heads to roll on the frot page of the WaPo and NYT.

Wrong. But nice try at spinning nonetheless.

Combining the thread title and his initial post...


Senator Schumer -- Vicious racist

Or thats what the headlines would be if this scumbag had an "R" by his name.

Seems fairly obvious, but nice diversion.

BTW, Chucky needs to come up with some new cliches...


No sooner had [former] Senators [Connie] Mack and [John] Breaux unleashed their ideas on making the federal tax code more simple and fair than Senator Schumer unsheathed his rusty old dagger, describing the idea of eliminating the federal deduction for state and local taxes as "a dagger to the heart of the people of New York." Voters might be inclined to listen -- except for the fact that Mr. Schumer sees a dagger virtually everywhere he looks.

A 2003 plan for flexible work schedules instead of overtime? "A dagger to the heart of the middle class," Mr. Schumer said, according to the Associated Press. A 2002 plan by federal regulators to urge Wall Street firms to establish backup facilities outside New York City? A "dagger pointed at the heart of New York," Mr. Schumer said, according to the Daily News. High gas prices? "A dagger at the heart of our economy," Mr. Schumer said in 2000, according to the New York Times. A unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood would be "a dagger through the heart of the peace process," Mr. Schumer said in 2000, according to the Agence France Presse.

Hate crimes "put a dagger in the heart of what America is all about," Mr. Schumer said in 1999, according to USA Today. A proposal to change the federal transportation funding formula was "a dagger pointed at" New York and California, Mr. Schumer said in 1999, according to the Washington Post. School vouchers? "Daggers that plunge into the heart of what is the American way," Mr. Schumer said in May 1999, according to the New York Post. Cuts in federal student aid? "A dagger to New York's college students," Mr. Schumer told Newsday in 1995.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Mr. Schumer sees daggers more often than a four-eyed knife thrower looking through a kaleidoscope.

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFi ... &Mode=HTML