Chuck Schumer's Imaginary Friends: The Baileys

So he has made a composite character to put a human face on what he thinks the median voter looks like. I'm not seeing the problem. It's awkward. It reminds me of Jeb Bush's friend Chaing, which was worth a few laughs but it was hardly the thing wrong with Jeb Bush.

My guess is that the Baileys started showing up in the late 1990s. That's when it suddenly became fashionable to name drop "ordinary Americans" in political speeches. They would invite these people to the conventions or State Of The Union addresses to put a human face on policies, I guess. I always found it tacky as hell. Might have been Clinton who started it, or Gingrich.

Anyway, there's a problem with this strategy, and that's "the other things that your illustration couple might believe." IIRC, there was a bit of political scandal when Joe The Plumber turned out to be a) not a plumber; and b) sort of a lunatic. That's why I think Jeb started talking about Chaing and Schumer apparently about these Baileys.
 
heel79 said:
Why? I mean why not find a real couple that fits his preferred profile.? Crazy.
Click to expand...
Because a real person's opinions can't be tightly controlled.

Trump doesn't name drop because he has no friends and that might put someone else in the spotlight. But he does the same thing with "many people are saying" -- which is funnier and more pathetic.

There's too much of the "let's put a human face on this problem" in DC. Fucking legislation named after single victims. That's really not the right way to do things. Both left and right are guilty of this nonsense.
 
This is hilarious. I'm not a huge Schumer fan and so maybe that impacts my view of this, but I really don't care. He used "the Baileys" as an easy way to explain his votes based on the fact that he wants to appeal to right of center voters who are attainable to Dems, it's almost certainly a composite based on polling or other information relevant to determining the mood of this slice of the electorate.

I also get why this might be very embarrassing to Schumer (or might not be at all).
 
Sounds a lot like the guy that’s always crying to Trump saying “Sir you’re sent from Jesus and my life has changed since you came into it!”
It’s bullshit because that’s politicians do.
Don’t recall Cal nor 79 upset about this?

Strange how you fellas forget that shit?
 
SmilingJack said:
Sounds a lot like the guy that’s always crying to Trump saying “Sir you’re sent from Jesus and my life has changed since you came into it!”
It’s bullshit because that’s politicians do.
Don’t recall Cal nor 79 upset about this?

Strange how you fellas forget that shit?
Click to expand...

I'm not upset. I find it strange. Seems unnecessary and he provided such detail he basically invited media to find Bailey's not to out him but to actually meet the Baileys.
 
superrific said:
So he has made a composite character to put a human face on what he thinks the median voter looks like. I'm not seeing the problem. It's awkward. It reminds me of Jeb Bush's friend Chaing, which was worth a few laughs but it was hardly the thing wrong with Jeb Bush.

My guess is that the Baileys started showing up in the late 1990s. That's when it suddenly became fashionable to name drop "ordinary Americans" in political speeches. They would invite these people to the conventions or State Of The Union addresses to put a human face on policies, I guess. I always found it tacky as hell. Might have been Clinton who started it, or Gingrich.

Anyway, there's a problem with this strategy, and that's "the other things that your illustration couple might believe." IIRC, there was a bit of political scandal when Joe The Plumber turned out to be a) not a plumber; and b) sort of a lunatic. That's why I think Jeb started talking about Chaing and Schumer apparently about these Baileys.
Click to expand...
That would be OK if he didn't repeatedly: (1) insist that they were real people - especially against allegations that he had imaginary friends, (2) insert numerous specific details of the Baileys' lives, which as John Oliver points out, had an almost JRR Tolken level of back story, (3) just lie to reporters like Ezra Klein about how the Baileys had voted.

There is a totally non-weird way for politicians to create and then talk about hypothetical people -- but Schumer didn't go that route. He went the pathological route.
 
SmilingJack said:
Sounds a lot like the guy that’s always crying to Trump saying “Sir you’re sent from Jesus and my life has changed since you came into it!”
It’s bullshit because that’s politicians do.
Don’t recall Cal nor 79 upset about this?

Strange how you fellas forget that shit?
Click to expand...

Schumer invented the Baileys to justify conservative political views/positions.
 
Calheel said:
There is a totally non-weird way for politicians to create and then talk about hypothetical people -- but Schumer didn't go that route. He went the pathological route.
Click to expand...
Whatever this is, it's not pathological. It might be pathetic. I suspect that the logic is a bit like a ponzi scheme. Once you start doing it, perhaps harmlessly at the beginning, you get committed.

This is the first I'm hearing of it. The extensive backstory would have been a red flag that they were fictitious. Definitely a protest-too-much situation.
 
Calheel said:
Schumer invented the Baileys to justify conservative political views/positions.
Click to expand...
So you knew/know that but started the thead? It’s kinder than just calling them the dolts they are I suppose.(conservatives I mean…felt like you might need clarification)
 
superrific said:
Whatever this is, it's not pathological. It might be pathetic. I suspect that the logic is a bit like a ponzi scheme. Once you start doing it, perhaps harmlessly at the beginning, you get committed.

This is the first I'm hearing of it. The extensive backstory would have been a red flag that they were fictitious. Definitely a protest-too-much situation.
Click to expand...
That is actually a good analogy. You get caught in a little lie and rather than come clean, you make the lie bigger and bigger.
 
SmilingJack said:
So you knew/know that but started the thead? It’s kinder than just calling them the dolts they are I suppose.
Click to expand...
Schumer is probably Ex. No. 1 for why the Democrats are polling at the record low of 30%. He said on the senate floor that he was responding to Trump by sending him a "strongly worded letter." He is about 10 years past his expiration date and should have released leadership to new blood long ago.

And then this story comes out that makes Schumer look like a complete loon. Hopefully, it gains some traction and encourages Schumer to step down from leadership and to reduce his public profile. Very doubtful, though.

The part of the video that didn't make the above cut has two actors playing the fictional Baileys (Bobby Moynihan and Edi Patterson). They tell Chuck that the reason why they keep voting for Trump is because they are Republicans. It was quite funny.
 
I think it's likely Schumer doesn't run for majority leader when Dems get control.

I've always liked him, and I still do. I don't contest that he's past his expiration as leader
 
Calheel said:
That is actually a good analogy. You get caught in a little lie and rather than come clean, you make the lie bigger and bigger.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is exactly what maga is doing with their unrelenting backing of trump. They know their vote for him in 2016 was a mistake, but instead of admitting the mistake they double down and convince themselves it wasn't a mistake at all... they've been right all along. But of course they aren't. Maga got caught in a little lie to themselves about dear leader and rather than come clean, they made the lie bigger and bigger. Now the monster is off the chain and totally unhinged. Maga is still riding that wave all the way to the bitter end of our country as we know it.

What Schumer did with the Bailey's is totally benign in comparison. It's a giant nothing burger.
 
Centerpiece said:
Exactly. This is exactly what maga is doing with their unrelenting backing of trump. They know their vote for him in 2016 was a mistake, but instead of admitting the mistake they double down and convince themselves it wasn't a mistake at all... they've been right all along. But of course they aren't. Maga got caught in a little lie to themselves about dear leader and rather than come clean, they made the lie bigger and bigger. Now the monster is off the chain and totally unhinged. Maga is still riding that wave all the way to the bitter end of our country as we know it.

What Schumer did with the Bailey's is totally benign in comparison. It's a giant nothing burger.
Click to expand...
I doubt MAGA thinks voting for Trump in 2016 (or ‘20 or ‘24) is a mistake.

Now, some tiny few of Republicans might regret supporting Trump; but, the GOP controls all three branches of the government and is implementing the unitary executive. They’ll have a majority on SCOTUS for the next 20-30 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top