What can one say when the best argument for continuing in leadership is almost literally "I got outplayed"? 

That seems to be Chuck Schumer's argument yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press. Kristin Welker points out the avalanche of criticism Schumer has received since bowing to reality and letting Republicans pass the CR that avoided a government shutdown. With the progressive caucuses of both the House and Senate agitating for Schumer's removal as Minority Leader, Schumer explained that he had no real choice -- which is true, as far as it goes:

Kristen Welker: "Leader Schumer, are you feeling pressure to step down?"

Chuck Schumer: "Look, I'm not stepping down." pic.twitter.com/ifTRfOJcC8

— Julia 🇺🇸 (@Jules31415) March 24, 2025

WELKER: All right. Well, I do want to move to some of the discussions on Capitol Hill. Because of your decision, Leader Schumer last week, to clear the way to pass a Republican funding bill and avoid a government shutdown, you have faced calls from outside groups, even members of your own party, to step aside as minority leader. When asked about your future at a town hall, Senator Michael Bennet said, quote, "It`s important for people to know when it`s time to go." Leader Schumer, are you feeling pressure to step down?

SCHUMER: Look, I`m not stepping down. And let me just say this, Kristen. I knew when I cast my vote against the C -- against the government shutdown that it would be -- that there would be a lot of controversy. And there was. But let me tell you and your audience why I did it, why I felt it was so important. The CR was certainly bad, you know, the continuing resolution. But a shutdown would be 15 or 20 times worse. 

Under a shutdown, the Executive Branch has sole power to determine what is, quote, "essential." And they can determine without any court supervision. The courts have ruled it`s solely up to the executive what to shut down. With Musk, and DOGE, and Trump, and this guy Vought, V-O-G-H-T (SIC) I think is how you spell his name, as the head OMB, they would eviscerate the federal government. 

On day two, they could say, "Oh, SNAP? Feeding hungry children? Not essential." On day four, "Mass transit? All transit? Aid to the states? Not essential. We`re cutting it." On day six, "Medicaid? We`ll cut that by 20%, 30%, 50%, 80%. We`ll go after Social Security. We`ll go after the veterans."

All of this is true. However, it was obviously true as soon as the House passed the CR. Schumer hadn't counted on the House GOP to unite behind a 6-month CR; he expected Mike Johnson to need Democrat votes to avoid a shutdown. If Johnson refused, then Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries could blame Trump and the GOP for a shutdown, and if Johnson did negotiate a CR with Jeffries, then he would be crippled for the session by internal revolts. 

When Johnson got the CR passed, Schumer's strategy lost all of the leverage it needed to succeed. At that point, Schumer had the choice between a Democrat-caused shutdown -- with all of the risks he outlined to Welker -- or a quick resolution to keep the government open and take some small credit for responsible governance. So why did Schumer choose the worst of both worlds in his first Senate speech by rallying Democrats to shut down the government, only to cave in less than 24 hours?

For those who don't recall, this was the speech Schumer gave to rally progressives to -- as Schumer acknowledges -- put the government into Russ Vought's hands:

Much of the progressive anger at Schumer comes from his rational decision that Democrats would be fighting on the worst possible political grounds in a shutdown. However, a large part of that anger is in how Schumer marched them onto the government-shutdown limb at first, and then cut the limb off as he himself retreated from his call to battle. Even the anger coming from the La Résistance 2.0 fight-at-all-costs factions might have been significantly mitigated by a strategic approach at the beginning. Raising expectations and then abandoning them is such a basic political failure that it's stunning to see it at this level of politics. 

The truth is that Schumer is a terrible strategist, just like his mentor Harry Reid, and his lieutenant Dick Durbin. Their nuclear-option detonation in 2013 is what put Russ Vought in position to run a government shutdown in the first place. Reid at least won a short-term benefit from that blunder; what has Schumer ever won on his own as caucus leader? 

Thus the people who should be happiest about Schumer's declaration aren't moderate Democrats, but Republicans. Schumer is a poster child for today's Democrat Party: All tactics, no values or strategy.