Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"12 Reasons Not to Trust Schumer" (must read)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
AnnInLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 12:34 PM
Original message
"12 Reasons Not to Trust Schumer" (must read)
not meaning to contribute toward the debate about Progressives v.s. Centrists, however, this is a very interesting read: hope it's not a duplicate:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pachacutec/12-reasons-not...

"Sources said Schumer has agreed to Senate Majority Leader-in-waiting Harry Reid's request that he stay on as head of the Democratic campaign committee for another two years, partly to counter the growing influence of liberals like Sen.
Ted Kennedy and Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

Reid and other party bosses believe Schumer's middle-of-the-road strategy in recruiting a fistful of moderate candidates to knock off GOP incumbents in red states is the only way for Democrats to hold onto or increase their power.

"You have to save the party from not drifting too far over," Schumer told The Post yesterday."

more at the above link

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. Sounds like the writer has a grudge against Schumer. I disagree.
Nobody is perfect and we are in a great transition here. I think that the writer's perspective is too simplistic and seems to be a litany of what they consider wrong doing on the part of Senator Schumer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. Another thing I think this is more Dem against Dem infighting and
it's too bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ps1074 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. Schumer did a great job recruiting candidates
If you think you can run Kerrys and Kennedys in MO, MT, VA, TN and win, then you're wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. Why not let the people decide, Chuck?
Edited on Sun Nov-12-06 01:17 PM by longship
You DC insider pols are going to become increasingly irrelevant. The Internet is rapidly becoming the "inside" of politics. The thing with this is that DC does not and can not control it. I know that this is stressful to you, but that is entirely fine with us. If you don't like it, that's just too f*cking bad for you.

When you finally realize that your sole job is to represent your constituency in Congress and *not* to jigger with the politics in the hinterlands maybe our party can begin to unite under a single banner. Democrats stand for many things, but the main principle under which we are united is one of respect for the principle that the people rule, and Congress critters govern.

In the meantime, you'll forgive us all if we continue to suppress your ability to rule in our stead. We do not need your help. We don't want your help. If you don't stop, we will stop you. This is our government, not yours.

Stick to your job, and quit trying to do ours for us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Righttttt..... You DC insider pols are going to become increasingly irrelevant
what DU'ers who say crap like this is, YOU want to become the DC insider.

Some one has to be the 'DC insider' cause that's where the fucking Capitol and government seat is.

'You DC insider pols are going to become increasingly irrelevant'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
18. Look, it'll all be fine.
In the next election, the netroots will run their candidates against Schumer and Rahm in the primaries and save all of us from being dominated by the corporations and Israel. The netroots plan will save us all:

1) Run an inexperienced and incompetent candidate against one of the most powerful and entrenched senators in the country.

2) ???

3) Profit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. counterproductive argument
The Internet is rapidly becoming the "inside" of politics.

No it isn't. It's an integral component, just like the leadership in Washington, local party organizations, and grassroots volunteers.

When you finally realize that your sole job is to represent your constituency in Congress and *not* to jigger with the politics in the hinterlands maybe our party can begin to unite under a single banner.

Actually, in his position part of his job IS to jigger with the politics in the hinterlands. As for uniting the party under a single banner, it's best not to start by telling people on your own team that they should fuck off.

We do not need your help.

Yes you do. This hubris will be the undoing of the netroots movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slaveplanet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. Is that why Schumer
meddled in Ohio and submarined Hackett for Sherrod Brown?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Well, why complain about that?
Sherrod Brown is pretty progressive. NARAL gives him a 100 rating and NAACP 96. American Public Health Association give him a 100 rating and so on.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slaveplanet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Who's complaining?
Reid and other party bosses believe Schumer's middle-of-the-road strategy in recruiting a fistful of moderate candidates to knock off GOP incumbents in red states is the only way for Democrats to hold onto or increase their power.

"You have to save the party from not drifting too far over," Schumer told The Post yesterday."
-----------------------------


The article claims claims Schumer was out picking moderate candidates to replace rethugs in red states...If that were true in all cases, he would have let Hackett continue, Hackett would qualify as more moderate than Brown would he not? and Ohio would qualify as a red state in the last few election cycles, would it not?

He did not, I clearly remember Hackett grousing about being asked by Schumer to back off because Brown was his guy.

This article would make more sense if they had substituted Establishment for Moderate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Uh, I think he was looking for candidates that could win.
And Ohio is not the monolithic red state you're making it out to be. Obviously, given our recent success in Ohio, his choice was right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slaveplanet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. No, he was out looking for candidates
he approved of and then convince others to get lost ...big difference.

And how do you know who would win, shouldn't that be left up to the democrats of Ohio to decide in a primary election?

That choice was taken away from the voters of Ohio.

That aside, I'm more of a Brown person anyway, and was happy to cast a vote his way...It's Schumer's tactics, and the article's assertion's I have a problem with.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Well...
The national party funds candidates in primaries. Always has. Depending on who is managing the allocation of funds, this can be either good or bad. But it isn't going to change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainscents Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
11. I DO NOT TRUST HIM!
When I see him talk on teevee, he seems lack of grassroot issues. Now I know why, he is DLC!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Since when is Schumer associated with the DLC?
Someone so concerned with trust wouldn't make up something like that...


...would they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lurking Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. They're just bored
from making up shit about Rahm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I heard that Rahm said liberals eat babies and kill puppies.
That IS a DLC position, you know:

http://www.dlc.org/eatbabiesandkillpuppies.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lurking Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. LOL!
Rahm and Chuck are going to get together with Howard's Jewish wife and kids and bake matzah with the blood of left wing bloggers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
19. The Party Bosses know best. So just bend over and smile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
20. An interesting bill here
SCHUMER, KYL TO INTRODUCE MOUSSAOUI-FIX

Senators to introduce bill that would give FBI new surveillance powers to watch foreign nationals suspected of plotting terrorist attacks

Legislation would fix problems that kept FBI from obtaining intelligence about Sept 11 plot by modifying the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

US Senators Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) announced plans today to introduce legislation that would give the FBI expanded surveillance powers over foreign nationals suspected of plotting terrorist attacks against the United States. The legislation would ease the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to allow the FBI to conduct surveillance over non-US citizens suspected of planning terrorist attacks.

Recent disclosures regarding Zacharias Moussaoui the so-called 20th hijacker have suggested that even though the FBI had reason to be suspicious of him prior to September 11, it did not believe it could link Moussaoui to a foreign power, one of FISA's three requirements for granting warrants for national security-related surveillance. As a result, it did not search his laptop and apartment for evidence that may have unraveled the terrorists' plans before the September attacks occurred.

Specifically, Schumer and Kyl's legislation would eliminate the FISA warrant standard requiring the government to show a link to a foreign power. US citizens and permanent residents would not be subject to searches. The proposed law would only impact non-citizens and non-green card holders suspected of plotting attacks against the US. It would keep FISA's other requirements for obtaining a search warrant in place The FBI would still have to show that the proposed target of the surveillance is engaging in or preparing to engage in international terrorism and that a significant purpose of the surveillance is foreign intelligence gathering.

http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom...

By the most peculiar device of defining non-citizens as foreign powers and thereby eliminating the requirement of probable cause that an individual be acting as a agent of a foreign power, the Schumer-Kyle amendment in essence assumes that the Fourth Amendment simply doesnt apply to government searches and seizures in the United States directed against non-citizens. Such an extraordinary evisceration of Fourth Amendment protections is without support in the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. The bill does no such thing.
Where do you get "defining non-citizens as 'foreign powers'" in that article? The only thing this bill does is eliminate the requirement to demonstrate that the person in question is linked to a foreign government - a requirement that is obviously not very applicable to terrorists with no links to foreign governments. This is a much more reasonable approach than anything the Bush administration has done on this subject. I can understand why this would be objectionable to a lot of people, but not for the reason you cite, which I don't quite understand. Perhaps you can elaborate. I have no dog in this fight one way or the other, as I know little about this legislation beyond what I've already said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. I've read the bill
in it's entirety. Used to study that aspect of our government in painstaking detail. Not fun.

Anyway I have no dog in this fight either. I'm pretty indifferent to both of my state Senators. They've got alot of baggage and tons of cash not to mention boundless political ambition. I'd rather the party swing with the likes of Feingold and Waters. The American public is ready.

And to confuse the issue further read this:
The Schumer NSA Bill and the Feingold Censure Resolution

Marty Lederman

There's a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee today on Senator Feingold's censure resolution, dealing with the NSA's extra-legal electronic surveillance program. As I explain below, I think the legal substance of the Feingold Resolution is unassailable, and the emergence of the censure resolution certainly plays a valuable role in keeping the issue in the public eye. Beyond that, I don't have enough information or political acumen to calculate whether the Feingold Resolution is a politically astute tactic -- but the one thing I'm fairly certain of is that, although it's well-intentioned, it will not lead to cessation of the NSA program, or to any serious and effective assertion of congressional war-powers prerogatives.

Accordingly, I return to the question I asked two months ago: What can Congress do about this conflict, anyway? I continue to think that what I wrote then was correct: The only way for Congress to prevail in this important war-powers stand-off is if the Supreme Court declares the President's conduct unlawful. Assuming that's correct, the only worthwhile thing for Congress to do is to pass a statute such as that proposed by David Barron, establishing statutory standing for parties reasonably chilled by the NSA program, and facilitating expedited Supreme Court review.

Enter Senator Schumer's new bill, S.2468, which would do just that. This is the bill that should be the top legislative priority. The bill is very simple:

Most importantly, it would create a statutory cause of action -- and thus statutory standing -- for certain persons with a "reasonable fear" that their communications are being intercepted, authorizing them to file an action asking a court to enjoin or declare unlawful the NSA program. A reasonable fear would be established by evidence that the plaintiff either has regular wire communications from the U.S. to Afghanistan, Iraq or Pakistan, in the course of paid employment involving research pertaining to terrorism or terrorist groups, or commercial transactions with a bank or financial institution in those countries.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006_03_26_balkin_archive.ht...

If you are up to studying these things in detail I highly recommend Lederman's (above link) website. Very thorough and no nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 25th 2014, 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC