“Dead Man Walking:” Magic Numbers Nine and Four
I’d like to look at a few things that Chuck Schumer said in a wildly counterproductive interview.
After a squishy exchange about the horrible people running for NYC Mayor, Lulu Garcia-Navarro challenged Schumer for his focus on upcoming elections. Schumer noted that the courts are our best bulwark against Trump’s abuses (something that factored heavily in his decision to let the Continuing Resolution get a vote). But then Garcia-Navarro asked what happens when Trump starts ignoring judges, as he did Friday when deporting hundreds of mostly Venezuelans to El Salvador in defiance of an order from James Boasberg. Schumer said he hoped the five to six Senators who’ve spoke up in support of the courts would do so — but then suggested they might be more likely to do so in a few months, assuming Trump will become less popular.
You know, I’ve heard you and other Democratic leaders talk about the next election as if it’s just going to be another election like any other election. But there has been all of this discussion about Trump auguring the end of democracy. I worry about this. When I say we’ll win the election, I’m assuming democracy stays, but that we have to fight to make sure that happens. I think that Trump is destroying norms that have preserved our democracy for centuries, certainly for decades, and he’s destroying them, and he doesn’t care. What is our best bulwark? It’s the courts. And one of the things we were able to do, which is proving very, very good, is we put in 235 new judges. And they’re now hearing so many of the cases that attorneys general, private citizens, unions and others are bringing. We’ve had preliminary success.
Are they going to respect those court orders, do you think? That is the $64,000 question. So let us say the courts uphold this. And one of the people who will determine that more than any other is probably John Roberts, who is very conservative. I didn’t vote for him. But I do believe that he believes in the courts. And so I think that even at the highest level, if you get the Supreme Court upholding the law, it will matter. What if Trump keeps going? That’s the question everybody’s asking. And I worry about this a lot. I wake up sometimes at 2, 3 in the morning thinking about this. I believe this, and it’s a little bit in concert with what I’ve said to you before: I believe Republican senators, on this issue, will stand up. I’ve talked to some of them. About five or six have said publicly they will work to uphold the courts, and to uphold the law if Trump tries to break it. And we can do that legislatively if we have to. That’s my hope. That’s what we’ve got to work toward. And I think there’s a decent chance that that would happen, particularly if Trump, three months from now, is less popular. [bold NYT’s, italics mine]
Those five to six Senators have been silent since Trump’s open defiance was revealed on Saturday.
Then, later, Schumer again pointed to his confidence that Republican Senators would like some distance from Trump.
The Republicans would like to have some freedom from Trump, but they won’t until we bring him down in popularity. That happened with Bush in 2005. It happened with Trump in 2017. When it happens, I am hopeful that our Republican colleagues will resume working with us. And I talk to them. One of the places is in the gym. When you’re on that bike in your shorts, panting away next to a Republican, a lot of the inhibitions come off.
These passages were among those mocked by those prioritizing Schumer over Trump and Elon Musk. In the rush to condemn Schumer (who has canceled the book tour at which there were sure to be loud protests), people mocked the very idea that Republicans in the Senate would ever oppose Trump.
I think Schumer has earned a good deal of the criticism he’s getting, even if I’m certain it is distracting from the focus on Trump and Musk.
I part ways with the claim that Senators will never split from Trump.
To be very sure, Trump has garnered near-total fealty, from the House and Senate, since his inauguration in January. His grip on the GOP has tightened year after year since he first sold his grievance narrative in 2018. The reason the Senate had this no-win choice in the first place is because, for the first time in recent memory, the GOP House stood together on a funding vote. Many of these Senators are veritable cult members, spouting the craziest nonsense that Trump told him to say.
But to suggest Senators will never split from Trump is counterproductive for two reasons.
First, to suggest you can never get Republicans to break with Trump is to concede.
It is to give up on one of just a few theories of change available — with just (successful) mass protest and revolution left — and to give up on the one that could bring results most quickly. In the short term, at least, it would take just nine members of the House or four Senators to completely stall Trump’s agenda on a particular issue, and fewer members of the House to cause gridlock. There are that many members who oppose Trump on discrete issues (most notably, Ukraine and Medicaid funding), and exploiting that reality is a tool, however inadequate. Even if you think a mass protest movement would be more successful, pressuring the Senators who’ve enabled Trump so far is a necessary (and fairly easy) step to push back against Trump.
In the interview, Schumer seems to too readily adopt James Carville’s theory of change, to do nothing to accelerate this process (note, Carville’s op-ed assumed House Republicans could not mount the unity to fund government). Perhaps he wants to avoid pissing off the men he’s panting away next to in shorts in the Senate gym.
There’s a great deal that people can do to make it more likely Senators will oppose Trump. I try to make a point of calling out Joni Ernst publicly every time Pete Hegseth disappears the accomplishments of women soldiers, or Thom Tillis every time Hegseth makes the military less safe, or Roger Wicker every time Hegseth has an embarrassing faceplant, or Bill Cassidy every time RFK Jr does something to exacerbate the measles outbreak, or Jerry Moran every time DOGE makes a stupid cut of VA benefits, or Todd Young every time Tulsi Gabbard repeats Russian disinformation, or John Cornyn every time Marco Rubio cuts back on PEPFAR, or Tom Cotton every time Trump does something that will help China. These people haven’t hidden their disagreement on key issues or appointees with Trump. Yet, in spite of those disagreements, these people have all done things to support people they knew were wrong. As the consequences of their cowardice pile up — as measles spreads across the country from Texas and veterans lose their jobs — their complicity should be front and center.
And while right wing members of Congress are not publicly confronting Trump, some of them are pushing back quietly, mitigating some of the damage Trump is doing — sometimes even in ways that extend benefits beyond their own jurisdiction. According to the NYT, for example, Deb Fischer was among those who pushed Trump to reverse some of the firings at National Nuclear Security Administration (though NYT also reports that NNSA lost many key experts nevertheless).
And GOP pushback will go largely unnoticed elsewhere. After succeeding in strong arming vaccine propagandist RFK Jr’s confirmation to lead HHS, Trump withdrew the nomination for vaccine propagandist Dave Weldon to lead CDC, minutes before his confirmation hearing this week, because Weldon didn’t have and wouldn’t get the votes.
That’s all we’ll see of GOP pushback until proof of consequences of their own complicity and pressure on them mounts. But in a world where any kind of friction can slow the march of authoritarianism, even that non-public pushback bit matters, and it could provide definitive down the road.
By all means, scoff at Carville’s outdated naivete and Schumer’s unwillingness to more directly confront those he pants next to on the exercise bike.
But don’t abstain from pressuring right wingers to show some courage against Trump’s outrages.
If Schumer were to be replaced as Senate Minority Leader, who are the best candidates?
I particular like some of the messaging I see from Chris Murphy and Sheldon Whitehouse. I don’t know how well they translate to leadership roles.
I think Warren or Murphy would lead the pack of acceptable replacements. I think Whitehouse might find a more productive way to broker unanimity.
Adding, All these discussions need to address that the way you get elected Leader is, in significant part, fundraising ability. None of the obvious replacements would replace that function.
Here’s Murphy on the Senate floor laying out the corruption that is endemic in the Executive right now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L30RNRAtMnY
I’d go for Liz, though. Senate Minority (as well as Majority) Leader is another glass ceiling that rarely gets attention as such, and Warren would be a powerful one.
yes, the fund raising is key and one reason among many that Nancy Pelosi was such an effective Speaker and leader.
Excuse me, when Pelosi ‘s and Schumer’s party lost over 1,000 seats in various elections while they were the leaders, Pelosi and Schumer were not effective Speakers and leaders.
Their fund raising did less than zero good.
xyxyxyxy, exactly which “1000 elections” are you talking about, and how, exactly, did “Pelosi’s and Schumer’s party” lose them?
re-Ginevra diBenci, March 17, 2025 1:53 pm
I wrote “1,000 SEATS”, NOT “1000 elections” and the way you lose seats is usually through elections.
From 2017 https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-insights/under-obama-democrats-suffer-largest-loss-in-power-since-eisenhower/ :
That’s only states.
There are local and federal elections as well.
Their fund raising did less than zero good.
xyxyxyxy, thank you for the correction (“seats” not “elections”). I regret the error. (You do seem to acknowledge that it’s a distinction without a difference.)
I suggest studying systemic racism, of which the loss of Democratic political power post-Obama was arguably a symptom. More easily, have you factored a little trick called gerrymandering into your analysis of Democrats’ supposed sins?
All the hundreds of millions she brought in and what did it get voters?
A: excuses: racism, gerrymandering,…
That’s the major failing of today’s Democrats:
Making those Democrats receiving the most Big Donor money their “leaders”.
I think Warren would be best since she would energize most effectively. Kind of like Bernie does, but Elizabeth Warren is somewhat more in tune with the world than Bernie was before recent events. When the Ds run as actual Democrats they beat the CW odds, every time. LGM and others dig into that in more detail so I won’t clutter things here.
Not only that, but Schumer has to address the clear threat from AOC for his Senate seat. She already has the scalp of one over-the-hill Representative (Celler) and she shows a lot of political savvy (like Zelenskyy does as well) from knowing what actual people do and worry about.
In my thinking, you’re living in a different universe as far as Sanders and Warren.
There is no Dem, or any other politician, that can energize more effectively than Sanders.
There are few Dems, or any other politician, that are more in tune with the world than Sanders and way before recent events.
xyxyxyxy says:
March 17, 2025 at 9:17 pm
Sanders is, and always will be, a back-bencher. He doesn’t understand how racism fuels inequality, and doesn’t want to know. (Also, he’s OLD.)
I didn’t vote for him last time. Or the times before that.
AOC has real potential.
This is probably a profoundly stupid question, so please be gentle, but is there value in calling the offices of senators and representatives that don’t represent my state?
I have made many calls to my senators and representatives over the years. They have some incentive to listen to me since I’m one of their constituents, but would it be counter productive to call some of these Republican senators or representatives from states that do not represent me?
My concern is that a call from a number that does not come from one of their constituents, especially one that does not vote for them or their party, would cause them to double down and think that “If these random Dems are calling and complaining, I must be doing something right.”
Or is this more of a numbers thing? Maybe the more people call with real concerns will help them steel their spines and do the right thing.
Thanks to anyone who responds!
Keep up the great work Marcy and all!
No. Stick to your MoCs.
Y9ou can scoff at my Crocs, but don’t MoC a sin.
Whenever I write to a politician not in my district I change my address on the form.
I usually use whatever number Main Street and a zip code from the area of that politician, googled previously.
I almost always get a reply.
Try that to get through.
I’ve used the address of a library in their district. It’s not going to show up as non-existent.
Outside of my MoCs, I call Rep. Jeffries and Sen. Schumer, as they are the leadership.
That said, I have called a few MoCs after they’ve done something effective, just to to let them know they’re being noticed from elsewhere in the country. I preface the call with an an acknowledgement that I’m not a constituent, but I’m calling to say “great job and more please” and consider working with my MoCs.
Yeah, that is probably appreciated.
I make similar calls, usually to a rep pertaining to work on a specific committee or issue. I try to highlight efforts by the reps who are more effective in getting a message across to the public, or even just make aware to the public what’s going on with the specific issue, and not just sitting back while bad faith actors control the narrative.
I do this as well, and usually with a $10 donation.
TY Marcy.
A snowball begins small
An avalanche washes over all
We wait unbalanced
for your call
Ben Wittes put it succinctly over the weekend:
“I can’t promise that if we all act like this problem is manageable, it will prove so. But I can promise that if we all act as though this problem is not manageable, it will not be.”
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-situation–the-full-scale-situation-two-months-in
The other place pressure against the GOP is having an effect is the way in which they by and large quit holding open town hall meetings. By all means, if your GOP senator is around for something — a town hall, a ribbon cutting appearance, or anything else — be sure to greet them warmly and register your concerns about what is happening.
I am reasonably sure that the GOP are also watching the growing protests at Telsa dealerships. The more Musk becomes a figure of ire, anger, disdain, and outright idiocy, the more the Senate GOP will be willing to stand up to him. They will try to thread the needle by saying “We support Trump, but Musk is a problem,” and if that takes hold, DOGE will really be slowed down.
That’s one reason Musk is there. That’s why it’s important to keep pulling back the curtain. In a sense, then, Musk isn’t doing anything. Trump is doing everything the world is blaming on Musk. Musk is a cut-out, to keep people from seeing that. In the same way, a passel of billionaires are behind Trump. They and their companies should be on the hook every bit as much as Trump.
Exactly.
Elon is just another layer of cover for Trump and his billionaire constituents. A distraction for the masses. And an extra layer of delay in court cases to stop the blitzkrieg attempt. Didn’t the government claim in court filings that Elon wasn’t in charge of DOGE? All the assaults on America are being done by Trump.
The GOP’s Fears About Musk Are Growing
Muskgivings, as it were. Elon-ger they wait, though, the bigger the Trumpster fire.
A little slow on the uptake, aren’t they?
My tagline for Collins is “She’ll always pick the non-fascist side when it won’t make any difference.”
On one level, Musk is indeed a cut-out for Trmp and on another level Trmp is a cut-out for Musk and the Broligarchs. Musk (and Thiel) bought the USAmerican government with Trmp (and Vance) and they bought it for their cohort of dotcom billionaires who are happy to work with Putin, XI, Trmp, and other authoritarians. I suspect that behind them all is an accelerationist mindset that is happy to see a major collapse because a) the broligarchs believe they will be able to sit it out in their bunkers and b) it will reduce the numbers of all those annoying complaining non-billionaires and shut them up… forever.
Stephen Miller is doing, I think trump is only vaguely aware of any of this.
I’m pretty sure he lives in a Marvel-style headspace, where he’s Thanos — in a good way.
With the government funded for the rest of the fiscal year, the legislative branch can go home. Trump will veto any bill he doesn’t like and then it will take, not 4 senators and 9 Reps, but a two-thirds majority to override. His agenda seems entirely focused on his rigid abnormal personality, devoted to revenge and domination, and all he needs for that is the DOJ, DHS, and DOD, to continue what they’re already doing. He will use his Executive Branch powers and then some to fuel his megalomaniacal fantasies of becoming an Emperor of North America from the Arctic to the Panama Canal . .
As Marcy says, one of the best things we can do is keep the pressure on. I appreciate her continued calling out of Republican members of Congress. But most Americans will never know what Marcy and other progressives are doing. The word doesn’t get to them. The horrible consequences of many of the things Republicans are now doing won’t get to them. Some will. Prices. Social Security problems. But many will not. Or it will be too late. That’s why I suggested a website that catalogs the Trump administration actions, consequences, and likely consequences. I have also seconded the idea of others to have effective Democrats run daily press conferences detailing the consequences.
I now want to combine those two ideas into a new one: The Consequences Tour. We already have Walz and Sanders and others visiting parts of the country to try to reach more people. I would like to see a rotation of effective progressive voices run a daily … something (rally, town hall?) where they target one or two actions and lay out the consequences in clear language. And take questions from the audience. One stop may focus on Ukraine and the destruction of the VOA. Another might tackle the likely disastrous consequences of making the tax cuts permanent. I’m not a good judge of what those actions/consequences should be, but I think such a “tour” could be an effective way to educate more people about the real consequences to their lives and their country and their world, given that our leaders and our media are doing such a poor job at it.
Great idea! What is the first step YOU can take, in the first hour and with the first ten dollars?
There’s the Trump Tyranny Tracker by Olga Lautman:
https://trumptyrannytracker.substack.com/p/trump-tyranny-tracker-day-55-56
«ἀπὸ μηχανῆς θεός» “deus ex machina”
When all tools become obsolete, there is always a hope from the “supernatural…but «Συν Αθηνά και χείρα κίνει»
A man fell in the water and was praying to Goddess Athina to save him, a passerby shouted ” Along with Athina move your hands !!!
Do something !!!
Democrats better stop blaming each other and work together, no option is a good option now except unity.
I really get the impression that when folks are going “Don’t just do something, STAND THERE!” (lil’ Alice in Wonderland snark for ya) that they imagine that Democrats are going to meet the incessant lawlessness with what? Incessant lawlessness? Anyone else see a problem with that mode of action?
Sorry Rayne, please advise what’s getting caught for moderation. Too many quotes?
I agree it’s unwise to assune no future dissent from the GOP Senate.
Caught a Tom Cotton Hoover Institute interview and he was not enjoying the circumlocutions required to praise Donald while discussing Ukraine.
I suspect very nasty events will be required to shake these Senators loose but I think such will, tragically,happen.
I just Googled around a little bit regarding the measles outbreak:
*According to USA Today, as of Friday, “301 cases of measles have been confirmed across 15 states since January, with 93% of cases being directly outbreak-associated. … 259 measles infections were reported in Texas … Most cases (174) in Texas were located in Gaines County.”
*According to Wikipedia, the population of Gaines County is about 23,000. So almost 1% of the people in the county had been infected, as of three days ago.
*According to the Austin American-Statesman, in 2024 Trump received 91% of the votes in Gaines County.
Apparently there’s a large community of home-schooling Mennonites in that area, and they don’t vax their kids. It’s hard to get through to that mindset.
I suspect some of it is that measles had become rare, so they thought it was safe to not get kids that shot.
And some is that they think it’s a kids’ disease, so “it can’t be that dangerous”.
You have to admit that Schumer’s position of “I’ve spoken to a handful of Republican Senators who are ready to break with Trump at some undefimed point, but I can’t name them for fear of repisals (as an aside I think the efficacy of death threats, both the political and actual, is underexamined). Trust me.” is less than compelling. Maybe the dual-track of condemning Trump while avoiding criticizing Republicans is a cold-eyed realist necessity, but Democrats need a much better organized messaging system than they have shown so far to pull it off.
EW, Five of the seven GOP senators you catalogue above as targets for messaging are facing re-election next year (Ernst, Cotton, Willis, Cornyn, and Cassidy); none of them has yet announced plans to retire. Trump’s full-on terrorist tactics in regards to keeping them in line have been implemented chiefly by Musk–both by social media harassment and the promise of millions spent to primary dissenters–but these senators are smart enough to know that Musk is in this aspect merely a lieutenant. Trump is the terrorist chief.
Congress members have made no secret of their fear of political retribution, but off the record they speak volubly of more visceral and existential fear. None of which is to say we should stop informing them that we are out here, still waiting for them to stand up for what is right, and reminding them of what that is if need be.
And yes, we should indeed be directing this at Republicans, who ARE in a position to do something if they only choose–instead of blaming Democrats, who are not.
Just a supportive aside. The end of Senators elected term bradly fits into three Classes – I II III – unless the Senator was an appointed.
See:
https://www.senate.gov/senators/Class_I.htm
https://www.senate.gov/senators/Class_II.htm
https://www.senate.gov/senators/Class_III.htm
The oligarchs control the narrative;
point of attack needs to be to change that; the only way to penetrate the right wing bubble is with messaging that isn’t controlled by the viewer, i.e., billboards and posters, inundating Facebook with cartoons and short clear stories of wrongdoing.
In the meantime, continue to prepare for battle.
IMHO, if posting to facebook is the road to victory, we’ve already lost the war.
Marcy, I respectfully disagree that hectoring congress critters will change our current crap situation. Their collective inertia is based on decades of rot and mild to egregious corruption. Some are idealists and believe in the quaint horse-trading of decades ago, others are too old and comfortable to risk the fight, and some are simply outnumbered. Trump, his handlers and his minions, are moving too quickly for even the courts to reverse. I’m not saying to give up, but I think that our country is going to have to endure extreme hardship and pain (bordering on constitutional death) and a really important generational change-out of our elected officers, who agree to limitations on their power.
I’m 62 and I’ve experienced a lot of good in this country. A lot of growth toward being a better country for all. I’m afraid that my last decades will be spent under the kind of boot heels that we saw in Europe in the 30’s and 40’s.
Agreed.
It’s going to come down to a different type of combat.
Does anybody really think Trump, Elon, members of Congress care about what the courts say, what his supporters or detractors say?
SCOTUS has ruled that he’s king.
They’re all armed thugs, armed with systems of information about everybody in the US and every country in the planet: We couldn’t even get classified documents and/or copies out of his hands when he was just someone, not president.
I’m shocked that they haven’t yet cleaned out my bank accounts.