Brian Schatz Knows If You Put Careerism Before Core Values You Turn Out To Be Chuck Schumer

And That May Be Just What He Wants

For an establishment Democrat, Brian Schatz is a pretty good one. ProgressivePunch rates his lifetime voting record the 8th best in the Senate, maybe not as good as Mazie Hirono’s but better than establishment creeps trying to maintain some semblance of progressive cred, like Cory Booker (NJ) and  Alex Padilla (CA). When Bernie introduced a bill to halt offensive arms sales to Netanyahu last year, the only co-sponsors were Jeff Merkley, Peter Welch and Schatz. But neither Booker nor Padilla joined Schumer and the other 9 Democrats who voted for the Trump CR last week. Schatz did— and his name stood out like a sore thumb among that crap-list of corporate-aligned, right-of-center Democrats.

What the hell was Schatz doing on a list of Benedict Arnolds with careerist garbage like Jeanne Shaheen, John Fetterman, Kirsten Gillibrand, Maggie Hassan, Chuck Schumer and the rest— a list that not even Elissa Slotkin, arguably the worst Democrat in the Senate, Chris Coons, Mark Warner, Mark Kelly, Ruben Gallego, Tim Kaine, Jacky Rosen or Michael Bennet wanted to be part of? I’ve been puzzling over it all week, asking around and not getting any satisfactory answers.

This morning, though, Andrew Desiderio got to the bottom of it: leadership ambitions. To be a leader among the Senate Dems, do you need to show you’re willing to sell out the base? Apparently Schatz thinks so. Desiderio  reported that he “was agonizing over his vote more than most Democrats… That vote, which has prompted a ton of backlash from activists and the party base, was one of the clearest signs yet that Schatz is angling for a prominent leadership role in the Senate Democratic Caucus. It’s an open secret in the Senate that Schatz, 52, has leadership ambitions. If Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin doesn’t seek reelection in 2026, Schatz would be a top contender for the job.”

Desiderio’s sources made it clear that the way the Democratrtic establishment sees it is that “being in leadership means taking difficult and sometimes unpopular votes, so this situation in particular was an opportunity for Schatz to show he’s willing to do that— and take the arrows that come with it. ‘I know that this was a really hard choice for him,’ said Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN), who’s close with Schatz. ‘When you’re in leadership, your job is to think not only about your own political future but about the good of the whole…This is something Brian can see.’”

So, muddying up the Democratic brand and making voters wonder what the difference is between the two corporate parties? Is that the goal?

Schatz bills himself as “a staunch progressive who isn’t known to back away from a fight. He was sympathetic to the arguments being made by those who wanted to see Democrats use their leverage even if it meant forcing a shutdown. Schatz said it was ‘a difficult and close call’ for him. After the vote, progressive social media accounts expressed shock and dismay, assuming Schatz would be on their side. But Schatz’s vote was more a message to his colleagues than it was to the party base, leaving some to believe it was self-serving despite the skewering he’s received from liberals.”

“Brian knew there were many in the caucus who wanted to vote for this terrible bill simply to avoid shutting down the government, but didn’t want to deal with the inevitable reaction we got from the left,” said a Democratic senator who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “He was speaking for them. And I think they appreciated that. But I have little doubt there was some political calculation of his own built into this.”

There’s also a sense that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who’s taken the brunt of the criticism for the decision to allow the GOP funding bill to pass, put Schatz in even more of a bind. By threatening to filibuster the GOP bill and then saying just 24 hours later he’ll help pass it in order to avert a shutdown, Schumer ensured that the backlash would be even more intense, according to one Democratic senator.

“The leader also put [Schatz] in a very difficult position,” said this Senate Democrat. “The sense within the caucus was…that we never really had a plan for dealing with this, never really had a strategy emerging from this, an understanding we were never going to be [all] on one side or another.”

Schatz ended his Friday statement with this line:

“We’re in a fight for democracy itself. We can’t let disagreements about strategy and tactics divide us. We need to focus our energy on the real villain here: Donald Trump.”

…Democrats also say Schatz has close relationships with all of the different factions of the caucus. This was particularly evident during the negotiations surrounding the Inflation Reduction Act, when Schatz helped bridge some of then-Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-WV) concerns. Schatz is also a frequent go-between with GOP leadership.