Chuck Schumer Melodrama at Politico

Excuse Manu Raju and Burgess Everett from the designation as ‘reporters’! I found this report on the internet without any real effort: in regards to how American Likudnik Chuck Schumer might vote on the Iran Deal:…
Dated April 23, 2010

‘Senator Chuck Schumer is receiving a lot of attention from an interview he gave yesterday to a Jewish radio show for some very sharp criticisms of how the Obama administration has handled its recent dustup with Israel. Schumer called the tough talk delivered to Israel by Hillary Clinton and a State Department spokesman “counterproductive,” and
revealed that he told the White House, “If you don’t retract that
statement, you are going to hear me publicly blast you on this.”
Politico’s Ben Smith calls Schumer “the highest-ranking Democrat to object to Obama’s policies in such blunt terms,” while the Washington Note’s Steve Clemons suggests
that “Schumer’s screed gets to the edge of sounding as if he is more a Senator working in the Knesset than working in the United States Senate.” Meanwhile, Jennifer Rubin at the blog Contentions points out one other intriguing remark from the interview, one which, she suggests, would drive the media bonkers if uttered by Sarah Palin instead of a liberal like Schumer.’

But here is what is essential to the question of how Schumer will vote, sans the maladroitly cobbled together melodrama that Raju/Everett have concocted!

‘Near the end of the interview, this is how Schumer reiterated his devotion to the cause of Israel:

“You know, my name …. comes from the word shomer,
guardian, watcher. My ancestors were guardians of the ghetto wall in Chortkov. And I believe Hashem actually gave me that name. One of my roles, very important in the United States senate, is to be a shomer — to be a or the shomer Yisrael. And I will continue to be that with every bone in my body … ” ‘

StephenKMackSD: Almost a reporter!

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.