Questions for Schumer at 3 Today
As I noted yesterday, Senator Schumer will be joining us for a live chat this afternoon. At 3 (note your calendars, it was originally scheduled for 2:30), the Senator will jump into the fray and answer your questions for an hour.
We've got a good list of 26 questions to choose from already, but the more the merrier. What are you going to ask?
Do you have thoughts on his book?
update (3:10 pm): The Senator is running a little bit behind but the thread will be up soon.
Advertisement
Question for Andrew, Senator Schumer, and the TPMC community: does this do any good? It seems to me that:
(1) for the most part, Senators don't even listen to letters from their own constituents
(2) when Senators do listen to letters from their constituents, it is only when said constituent agrees with the Senator's preexisting opinion
(3) the Senate Democrats have basically determined how they are going to handle the next two years: a cautious, conservative, "prevent defense" in which they make no move to upset the applecart and wait hopefully for Bush/Cheney to make some big mistakes. They aren't going to confront the Administration, aren't going to do anything that would get them branded as "weak" on Iraq or Iran, and are generally closer to Sen. Leiberman's position than Senator Feingold's. The plan (hope) being to pick up the mushy middle in the 2008 elections.
So what does this sort of forum accomplish? Just to leave the Senator annoyed for being questioned and the questioners angry for being ignored?
sPh
January 30, 2007 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. Please explain the need to increase the Army size. This seems to be a reaction to the situation we are in in Iraq rather than a hard headed assessment of the possible threats over the next 30 years. Please explain why this money would not be better spent on the Coast Guard, INS, FBI, and state and local police for the specific purpose of controlling gang operations, including Muslim gangs.
2. The world currently has 21 airraft carriers operated by 9 countries. 7 of these carriers are very small and carry only helicopters. 2 are mediuim size. These 9 are operted by 8 countires. And then there is the US. We operate 12 carriers, each twice the size of the next largest.
The Navy says it needs to replace all of these carriers with newer and better. No other country has plans to build a new carrier. Can you explain why we need these new ships. Note that the situtation in the Air Force is the same - they have the best and most planes but say they need more and newer. Things are a little different in the Army because of the use of equipment in Iraq, but this should not have happened.
Can you explain why this massive procurement is good for the US. Is there not better use for this money than repalcing what is already by far the best equipment in the world?
January 30, 2007 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I won't be around, but I would ask the Senator why they won't force the Republican's hands and make them to filibuster the minimum wage bill. The political theater of forcing the Republicans to hem and haw all night (nay weekend) to try and stop legislation popular with the vast, vast majority of Americans would have paid dividends in many aspects in my opinion. Imagine the press coverage, as most Americans have never seen a real filibuster.
Instead the very threat of filibuster stopped the bill from coming to a vote in it's simple form without amendments.
January 30, 2007 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
My first question to the senator is what the heck happened to New Orleans? We have a disaster city in our country, in fact, a whole disaster area. And that disaster was in big part a result of a failure by a federal agency to properly do its job - the Corps of Engineers. So, why are we not going full steam ahead in rebuilding that area of our country? Any senator who is not pushing for this to occur is a disgrace to our nation. I am not interested in any rebuilding of Iraq, any further aid to Iraq, until we at least start to take care of our own disaster area.
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 30, 2007 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wanted to add this question emailed in from a reader:
"I just officially registered so can't post comments yet. If I could, I would say, "I was at the March on Saturday with my sister and her 12-year-old daughter. Where were you?" I was very disappointed that so few members of the House, and I think not one Senator, showed up."
January 30, 2007 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't we get Congressional Research Service reports directly online from the Library of Congress?
January 30, 2007 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you want to punitively tax the porn industry and, given that it will drive some sites out of business, how does your idea not amount to using the tax code as a tool for censorship?
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 30, 2007 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Based on what the Senator posted on his proposed censorship of pornography on the internet in an "effort to protect children", I would like to know...
1) What is his views on consitutional rights (especially our 1st amendment rights) and what, if any, threshhold must be met as justification for those rights to be infringed upon? His proposed limitation of 1st amendment rights in an effort to limit children's access to porn seems to set the bar very low in terms of a threshhold...
2) His concerns, if any, of the current adminstration's disregard for the constitutional rights of the American people? And does he have any plans to more vigorously protect our rights to privacy and the rights granted to us under the 5th amendment?
January 30, 2007 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the thread about Senator Schumer's book, I stated that Democrats stood for honest government. But now I'm thinking, do we really? Both parties seem to be in a thrall created by lobbyists and dependent on money from special interest groups. One of the most effective things the Democrats could do to ensure success in '08 (thinking on a purely strategic level, although the benefit to the country as a whole would far outweigh the partisan issues) would be to finally pass campaign reform laws with real meat in them - not window dressing and not partial measures, but something that really gets at the root of the problem. Total public financing might be one idea, if such a thing is really possible. Democrats running for office would be able to point to their courage in fighting for campaign reform and a grateful country would be sure to respond with votes at election time.
The campaign finance reform idea is especially important because no matter what is done in the quagmire that is Iraq, it's likely to be a failure, which is another thing I'd like the Senator to comment upon. GWB has placed our country in a no-win situation, so Democrats looking to get votes from any stand on Iraq should tread carefully, as no matter what the stand is, it's bound to be wrong. I'd be interested in the Senator's thoughts on this, too.
Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery
January 30, 2007 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
.> Both parties seem to be in a thrall
> created by lobbyists
As a resident of a flyover state, I also get the impression that the key politicians of both parties hold average voters who think their government and legislators should not be for sale in a fair amount of contempt. "Naive", "goo-goos", etc.
sPh
January 30, 2007 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Naive goo-goos unite! Demand campaign finance reform now!
Seriously, although I don't consider myself a "naive goo-goo" - a term that is entirely new to me, btw - I think there are an awful lot of us who are sick of the situation as it stands now...it seems to violate the principle of "one man, one vote" when big money is calling the shots.
Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery
January 30, 2007 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew, how will we access this chat? Will there be a thread associated with it? Has it been postponed a bit? I presume the 3PM was EST, and it's after that now and I don't see it. (I'm not certain I'll participate anyway, but I'd like to watch it.)
Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery
January 30, 2007 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Senator is a little delayed but a post will go up soon.
January 30, 2007 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without getting into the details of my proposal, which I hope you'll read, I call for more lean, fast, effective special forces and a phasing down of large weapons programs designed to fight the last war, not aimed at thwarting terrorism.
January 30, 2007 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not call for censorship or the prohibition of these sites. What I do is advocate a fully funded system for keeping the dangers of pornography away from our kids. A tax on pornographic websites to do that, seems to be a fair balance. Remember, every economic activity creates negative externalities. It is often appropriate to account for those externalities in government policy. In this case, the imperative to protect our kids is overwhelming and the first amendment is protected.
January 30, 2007 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew,
I think for the next round, it might be better for you go to go through the previously posted questions, pick out the best ones (either your judgement, by ratings, or both), and either have them pre-set-up in the "live blogging" area or sent to the interviewee as text files so they can be cut-and-pasted. I think previous posters do not know if they should repost their previous questions, or not.
That, plus don't schedule an interview at the same time Judith Miller is testifying in the Libby trial!
sPh
January 30, 2007 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points both!
January 30, 2007 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure that this format works very well, for a number of reasons. As someone remarked, everyone who might visit with us hasn't necessarily learned at the feet of Mavis Bacon, and if someone isn't particularly good at typing or thinking fast on one's feet while typing two fingers fashion, we cannot really expect the answers given to be detailed, well-argued, and specific. Given the fact that many of us here take time with what we do, editing and revising our posts until they are as literate and convincing as we can make them, our guests may come off looking superficial and shallow, whether thy are or not.
I worry about that effect more with those with whom I agree than those with whom I disagree. A bad showing on TPM Café can have something of the effect of a "botched joke."
How about this as a possible format:
I don't think this is too cumbersome, though I admit I may be talking through my hat concerning the technological possibilities (through ignorance, not malice). :-)
aMike
January 30, 2007 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Over in Cafe Management, Josh has posted a thread for discussing the format of the Senator's visit. I copied your comment over so your ideas would get a bit more play. If you'd prefer to post it, let me know, and I'll gladly edit it out.
January 30, 2007 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to ask half a question.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 31, 2007 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bump to the top -- to move up over the Friday night spam dumper....
~OGD~
February 1, 2007 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink