I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but could you quote the proof you’re referring to from the article? The two paragraphs I think you’re referring to are (emphasis mine):
Here’s what occurred. It has been widely assumed that the group of eight mostly centrist Senate Democrats, who have been looking to broker a hollow deal on Republican terms, were freelancing. In fact, they were acting with the express approval of Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and were reporting to him daily.
The leaders of the proposed Democratic cave-in, Sens. Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen, both of New Hampshire, and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, then backed down. Only after that did Schumer go public with his proposal to reopen the government in exchange for a one-year extension of the ACA subsidies, along with a bipartisan commission to figure out a long-term solution.
Being “widely assumed” isn’t really solid proof, and having a proposal with an exchange of an extension isn’t capitulation on Schumer’s part. If anything, this whole thing shows Schumer’s incompetence to be able to lead the democrats, but this doesn’t seem supported or orchestrated on his part.
“Senator Chuck Schumer, your leader in the Senate, said ‘I cannot support a continuing resolution that fails to address health care, I am voting no.’ Did you do this outside leadership, and was there a big push for you not to join the others and break the 60 threshold?” Kilmeade asked.
“No, we kept leadership informed throughout,” Shaheen responded.
yes, these are the facts the other article is missing.
Shaheen’s comments also reveal one of two possible scenarios. Either Schumer was scheming to end the shutdown behind the scenes, only pretending to be against it while pinning the blame on the eight people who aren’t up for reelection anytime soon, or he has no control over his party. Either way, it proves the need for Democrats to jettison the minority leader.
Reread the passage again, the part that was widely asusmed was that the flip votes were operating on thete own. The sentence about Schumers approval was started with the phrase ‘In fact’ because that is what’s being reported as the truth. ‘Widely assumed’ is not even the same sentence with the allegations on Chuck so Im having trouble interpreting your comment in good faith.
I really don’t care to defend Schumer, but posting this article as substantiated proof of him supporting Democrats capitulation is not really convincing. The article doesn’t mention what changed between it being widely assumed and it being a fact? Just starting a sentence with “in fact” doesn’t make it true. There are many other, more recent sources with his quotes saying he doesn’t approve of their actions.
It’s equally possible that Schumer has no control of the situation and the Senators who are voting for reopening the government know Schumer is spineless, and will only craft a strongly worded letter condemning their actions. The fact he went public with a proposal after reports of senators defecting isn’t proof he is complicit in their capitulation, just that he was unable to convince all the Democratic Senators that his plan was a good plan they should remain consistent about. Is Schumer responsible as the minority leader of the senate and ultimately to take the blame for the Democrats fracturing over this; yes. But to say he is secretly supporting the capitulation as if he’s Palpatine playing both sides is not really substantiated and frankly giving him too much credit.
What i’m saying is the prospect.org article is speculation of the events that happened behind closed doors. It jumps to conclusions to make a point of Schumers ineptitude by implying he orchestrated and supported the no votes, but doesn’t provides any source for those claims. Other articles being reported on today outline plenty of reasons Schumer is unfit to lead without making things up. For example:
Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, said in a statement. "If he secretly backed this surrender and voted ‘no’ to save face, he’s a liar. If he couldn’t keep his caucus in line, he’s inept. Either way, he’s proven incapable of leading the fight to prevent health care premiums from skyrocketing for millions of Americans. The country can’t afford his failed leadership any longer.”
Again, unsubstantiated opinion.
Shaheen just came out and said that Schumer knew about the deal. In other words he approved it.
https://prospect.org/2025/11/08/why-does-schumer-keep-trying-to-cave-government-shutdown/
Poof, substantiation
I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but could you quote the proof you’re referring to from the article? The two paragraphs I think you’re referring to are (emphasis mine):
Being “widely assumed” isn’t really solid proof, and having a proposal with an exchange of an extension isn’t capitulation on Schumer’s part. If anything, this whole thing shows Schumer’s incompetence to be able to lead the democrats, but this doesn’t seem supported or orchestrated on his part.
From TNR: Democrat Who Caved on Shutdown Says Chuck Schumer Knew All Along
yes, these are the facts the other article is missing.
Reread the passage again, the part that was widely asusmed was that the flip votes were operating on thete own. The sentence about Schumers approval was started with the phrase ‘In fact’ because that is what’s being reported as the truth. ‘Widely assumed’ is not even the same sentence with the allegations on Chuck so Im having trouble interpreting your comment in good faith.
I really don’t care to defend Schumer, but posting this article as substantiated proof of him supporting Democrats capitulation is not really convincing. The article doesn’t mention what changed between it being widely assumed and it being a fact? Just starting a sentence with “in fact” doesn’t make it true. There are many other, more recent sources with his quotes saying he doesn’t approve of their actions.
It’s equally possible that Schumer has no control of the situation and the Senators who are voting for reopening the government know Schumer is spineless, and will only craft a strongly worded letter condemning their actions. The fact he went public with a proposal after reports of senators defecting isn’t proof he is complicit in their capitulation, just that he was unable to convince all the Democratic Senators that his plan was a good plan they should remain consistent about. Is Schumer responsible as the minority leader of the senate and ultimately to take the blame for the Democrats fracturing over this; yes. But to say he is secretly supporting the capitulation as if he’s Palpatine playing both sides is not really substantiated and frankly giving him too much credit.
Then stop doing it. You’re making yourself look foolish to put it as charitably as possible.
What i’m saying is the prospect.org article is speculation of the events that happened behind closed doors. It jumps to conclusions to make a point of Schumers ineptitude by implying he orchestrated and supported the no votes, but doesn’t provides any source for those claims. Other articles being reported on today outline plenty of reasons Schumer is unfit to lead without making things up. For example:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/10/progressives-call-for-schumers-resignation-after-shutdown-vote/87195871007/
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/10/schumer-is-no-longer-effective-dems-outraged-over-shutdown-deal-00644253
Is this Schumer’s fediverse alt?
I can only assume you don’t know what the whips job is.