Chuck Schumer's Imaginary Friends: The Baileys

superrific said:
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...
Schumer invented these folks in the late 80s based on the clips Oliver showed. Joe the Plumber is a creation of the late aughts.
 
Schumer is 74...he's past his expiration for serving in any role as an elected official. Goddamn, will we EVER figure out that people who are a full decade past the accepted retirement age of middle class Americans cannot and should not be in elected leadership roles trying to shape the future of the nation? The average age of the Founding Fathers when the Declaration was signed was 44 years. Most of the actual thinkers outside of Ben Franklin were a LOT younger than that.

I get that lifespan has increased significantly, but the ability of the human brain to function at full capability has not increased all that much. Certainly the ability to empathize with others decreases as the age gap between someone and those others increases. I'm 47 and I work daily with people from all adult age groups. My students range from 17 to 80+. Even at my own age, I see my connection with the younger ones increasingly harder to maintain despite my efforts to do so. I purposefully listen to current pop music and pay attention to their trending topics so I can stay somewhat relevant. In spite of this, I know I won't be able to do that a lot further into the future. It's just not possible. I can assure you that those who are 70+ have nearly nothing in common with those under 30. They basically inhabit different planets.

We all need to stop voting for people who are 60+ for long term office holding. We just do.

At 74, the discussions need to begin to center around whether this person can be trusted to drive at night, not whether they can make decisions for the world.
 
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...

From my perspective we know trump is full of shit, that's why there are no names, because it's made up in his word head. But to make up a fictional couple and add the names seems to be attempting to mislead. Most are going to assume this is a real couple.

I don't think it's ok or a good look. I believe had someone on the right had done this we would have an issue with it.
 
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...
I dunno man. Did you watch the whole piece? It's one thing to talk about the hypothetical median voter, or to even put a face or a name on that hypothetical voter. I get that, from a political perspective. It's another thing to repeatedly insist that they are real, to talk about granular details of their life like how they discipline their kids and what they do in their free time, to write a book and mention them by name 250 times, and to talk abut them as guiding your own political philosophy. Especially when you're the face of the Democratic Party and you essentially make them into Trump voting Republicans! I find that more than weird or quirky. Frankly it's the kind of thing that makes me want to bring Paine back and tell him he was right about everything he said about "establishment" Dems. This man simply cannot continue to be a face of the Democratic Party. He can't. I've thought that criticism of him and party leadership was overblown in the past (and still think much of it was overblown, in the sense that people were often demanding that he do things that are legally, politically, or practically impossible). But the combination of his advanced age, complete ineffectiveness in fighting Trump or improving the party's image, and now this whole thing that makes it look like he's basically a Republican sympathizer, and a liar to boot - he's gotta go man. Sooner rather than later.
 
rodoheel said:
I dunno man. Did you watch the whole piece? It's one thing to talk about the hypothetical median voter, or to even put a face or a name on that hypothetical voter. I get that, from a political perspective. It's another thing to repeatedly insist that they are real, to talk about granular details of their life like how they discipline their kids and what they do in their free time, to write a book and mention them by name 250 times, and to talk abut them as guiding your own political philosophy. Especially when you're the face of the Democratic Party and you essentially make them into Trump voting Republicans! I find that more than weird or quirky. Frankly it's the kind of thing that makes me want to bring Paine back and tell him he was right about everything he said about "establishment" Dems. This man simply cannot continue to be a face of the Democratic Party. He can't. I've thought that criticism of him and party leadership was overblown in the past (and still think much of it was overblown, in the sense that people were often demanding that he do things that are legally, politically, or practically impossible). But the combination of his advanced age, complete ineffectiveness in fighting Trump or improving the party's image, and now this whole thing that makes it look like he's basically a Republican sympathizer, and a liar to boot - he's gotta go man. Sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
Super doesn't watch video, he reads. So I doubt he watched the whole video.
 
Zoo_View said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I shouldn't say "maga". But I think there are/were some who voted 2016 - saw it was a mistake - voted Biden in 2020 - but then switched back to trump in 2024... for reasons. I still think there are some of those who know it was a mistake, but are afraid to admit it and as long as their bottom line on Wall st hasn't taken a hit (yet), they'll still convince themselves they didn't make a mistake. But you're correct, the tried and true maga voted all 3 times for trump and they don't think it's a mistake, true enough.

There are some on this board who are Republicans and voted trump in 2016 - but they saw the error of their ways. Sadly, not enough of those types around the nation.

But let's not derail the thread in that direction. Schumer's version of "Joe the Plumber" - the Bailleys - is not that egregious in comparison to trump and his B.S.
 
rodoheel said:
This man simply cannot continue to be a face of the Democratic Party. He can't. I've thought that criticism of him and party leadership was overblown in the past (and still think much of it was overblown, in the sense that people were often demanding that he do things that are legally, politically, or practically impossible). But the combination of his advanced age, complete ineffectiveness in fighting Trump or improving the party's image, and now this whole thing that makes it look like he's basically a Republican sympathizer, and a liar to boot - he's gotta go man. Sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
I agreed that he was past his expiration as leader. I just don't see this as particularly consequential.

I find it impossible to believe that Schumer lets the tail wag the dog here. He imbues the Baileys with what he wants on policy. He doesn't let his creation backstory influence what policies he pursues. I mean, I guess I don't know that for sure, but Schumer is a smart guy. He's not going to be wacky kooky like that.

So we have a guy who got carried away with a fictitious creation. I'm guessing it was probably a matter of overcompensation. He probably felt uncomfortable with it at first, and he worried about the lack of believability, so he created the backstory. And then, it's like the ponzi scheme as I argued above: once you commit to that, you can't get yourself out. So he gets increasingly uncomfortable, and he rachets up the backstory in response and it becomes this sort of weird self-destructive doom loop. I just can't get too worked up over it.

Would this be enough, independently, to doom Schumer's leadership? I mean, sure. I don't know if I would vote against Schumer on this basis, but if you did I wouldn't fault you. And you could probably convince me that the optics were bad enough to make the change worthwhile. I don't know how much "leadership" actually matters in the Senate. Like, if Schumer was replaced by Durbin or Murray or Booker, would the Dems policies be much different? I doubt it, though concededly I don't actually know. And if not much rides on it, there's little cost to overreacting, if that's what it would be.
 
superrific said:
I agreed that he was past his expiration as leader. I just don't see this as particularly consequential.

I find it impossible to believe that Schumer lets the tail wag the dog here. He imbues the Baileys with what he wants on policy. He doesn't let his creation backstory influence what policies he pursues. I mean, I guess I don't know that for sure, but Schumer is a smart guy. He's not going to be wacky kooky like that.

So we have a guy who got carried away with a fictitious creation. I'm guessing it was probably a matter of overcompensation. He probably felt uncomfortable with it at first, and he worried about the lack of believability, so he created the backstory. And then, it's like the ponzi scheme as I argued above: once you commit to that, you can't get yourself out. So he gets increasingly uncomfortable, and he rachets up the backstory in response and it becomes this sort of weird self-destructive doom loop. I just can't get too worked up over it.

Would this be enough, independently, to doom Schumer's leadership? I mean, sure. I don't know if I would vote against Schumer on this basis, but if you did I wouldn't fault you. And you could probably convince me that the optics were bad enough to make the change worthwhile. I don't know how much "leadership" actually matters in the Senate. Like, if Schumer was replaced by Durbin or Murray or Booker, would the Dems policies be much different? I doubt it, though concededly I don't actually know. And if not much rides on it, there's little cost to overreacting, if that's what it would be.
Click to expand...
I agree with you and Centepiece that the Baileys are pretty insignificant. It is just weird. But in 2025 politics, it is not even a rounding error on political scandals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top