Ryan Lizza has a very positive article on Schumer and the DSCC

[Mass]

I dont like particularly Schumer, but the article is comprehensive and well written. You can make your own conclusion on the man and what he does.

The article was written by Ryan Lizza and it is good to know that, if the Democrat is not too liberal, Lizza can forget the snarkiness reserved to Kerry. In fact, it is clear that, while he finds some things that could be improved in Schumer's operation, his tone is overwhelmingly positive.

The funny part, however, is that some blogs like mydd seem to think that the article was against Schumer. I do not get it.

http://mydd.com/story/2006/4/3/122950/9380

How did Stoller get from the Lizza article to this BS.

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/politics/16584/?imw=Y

The man orchestrating the Senate takeover is New York’s senior senator, Charles Schumer, who is the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and has already managed the unlikely task of out-fund-raising his Republican counterparts.

It gives a great perspective of some of the Senate reaction this year.

Part of the reason Schumer took the job is that he was able to join Minority Leader Harry Reid’s Senate leadership team, which allows him to craft the party’s message with an eye toward the Senate races. He has embraced that job as if he’d spent his career representing Dubuque rather than Brooklyn. He is obsessed with the health of what he calls his “marginals,” red-state Democrats who live in fear of being too closely associated with, well, New York liberals like Schumer. He treats the marginals like fragile vases in constant danger of being knocked off their pedestals.

Schumer considers every Washington debate in terms of how it will affect the marginals. “There were some in our caucus that wanted to let the Patriot Act lapse,” he tells me. “I said that I think we got to change it, and I’ll work to change it, but to let it lapse would be a disaster, particularly for our Democrats in red states. You know, when I go to a drawing room in Manhattan and they say, ‘You got to appeal to our base!’ I say, ‘There is no base in North Dakota!’ ”

When Schumer took the helm of the DSCC last year, he became personally immersed in the weeds of the operation, hiring his own team, messing around in primaries, recruiting candidates, and personally lecturing them about how to run a campaign using what he calls the Schumer Method. That’s his secret recipe for his own New York victory, and he is now franchising it out. He instructs his candidates to very carefully define the prototypical swing voters in their home states—for him, it’s the imaginary Joe and Ilene O’Reilly from Massapequa—and then craft a campaign to meet their needs. To reach these local Joes and Ilenes regularly, he also coaches his candidates to get home and hit every media market in their state at least once a month. “The head of the DSCC used to be just a fund-raiser,” says Schumer’s communications director, Phil Singer. “He’s become more of a strategist and tactician.”

These red-state political moves aren’t just helping Democrats this cycle. They are serving as a road test for the potential platform of the party’s 2008 presidential nominee, whoever that turns out to be. Democratic victories in red states this year will be seized upon by party strategists as pointing the way forward for 2008. In that way, Schumer is helping the party define a kind of centrism that, if successful, could also help win the White House.

Some Democrats, however, have been flirting with a slightly altered version of the dream. Wouldn’t it be better, they wonder, if they came close to winning back the Senate this year, but accomplished the task only in 2008? After all, a slim Senate majority would make it difficult to govern, perhaps giving Bush the opportunity to turn the new Senate leadership into a useful foil, just as Bill Clinton did to Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole, and thereby revive his presidency. Furthermore, this alternate dream scenario goes, in 2008, there are 21 Republicans up for reelection and only 12 Democrats. Wouldn’t that be the moment for Democrats to come sweeping back into power?

It would be unusual, but people who have watched Schumer over the past year and a half as he has become increasingly consumed by his DSCC work believe that he would be willing to stay in the job for another two years if he falls short this year. Aides close to him agree. Asked about that scenario, Schumer will only say, “Let’s see how I do this time.”

I guess we'll see in November if the strategy works.

[sandnsea]

1. Good article

Nice to know the strategy, and that we have one. So I guess there won't be a massive anti-Bush campaign burning across the country, probably what Stoller is complaining about. But I think people like Clare McKaskill know their people, I imagine Brian Schweitzer similarly has alot to do with the Montana election. We're just going to have to trust them.

[kerrygoddess]

2. It's definately

BS from Stoller he says of Schumer...

"a portrait of the most extreme version of a Reagan Democrat, a Senator whose core characteristic is a weird sort of intense and narcissistic cynicism."

This is more of the netroots being out for blood andhaving it their way. FDL uses the article and Stoller's piece to demand the DSCC drop their support of Lieberman - http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/03/the-inconvenient-netroots/

And Digby calls the interview "narcissistic premature chicken counting" from Schumer and says "It's disturbing to see that Shumer cares more about big donors and moving the party ever rightward than fulfilling the Democratic vision" - http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114411517633153324

At least Steve Soto gets it - http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007271.php

[JohnKleeb]

3. Schumer a Reagan Democrat?

I am not a fan nor do I detest Schumer but from what I've read on him, he's not a Reagan Democrat, I have Reagan Democrats in my family some what and a guy like Schumer who is pro choice, pro gun control, basically moderate-liberal overall in the scheme of things isn't a Reagan Democrat. Maybe its not accurate to call any of my relatives Reagan Democrats because I don't think any of them went for Reagan however the profile of a Reagan Democrat is generally a white ethnic blue collar democrat who likely has some union experience, and is socially conservative but more economically ot the left and hawkish on foreign policy. Its mind boggling how a guy like Reagan would get their votes because he was such a union buster and so forth if anything a guy like Nixon would have been more favorable for them since Nixon did have some moderate policies in regards to economics. Hopefully Schumer can work hard and get us a democratic majority in the senate.

[ProSense]

4. The problem is

the amateurish perspective---it's no longer just idealism---these bloggers present on everything. I'm still waiting for Kos to answer the $5 to $11 million charge. They see themseleve as shrewd, but politics is more shrewd than even they are willing to admit. They present themselves as the voice of the grassroots with connection to "the people," and savvy enough to know the intricate workings of political deal making. Which is not entirely true.

Nearly 180 million or more potential voters in this country and 100 senators. The amount of coalition building that is required to stay in power totally escapes these people. Throw in all the other parties out there, from the Green Party to the fringe parties, and this is no easy task. The process will never be black and white, even though they believe that a certain type of candidate, the most progressive, will make it so. Yet, half the candidates they're flipping over aren't even progressive. With 100 Senators and at least 50 seats required to smooth the legislative process for our side, what Schumer is doing is trying to make that possible.

I remember when Schumer visited my former employer's office during the first year of Bush's term in office. If you have any insights into how Schumer works the political scene in NY, you'll understand that what he is doing is imperative, and it's not about moving the party right.


JMO

[beachmom]

5. If you recall, Schumer was angry when Kerry called to filibuster

Alito, because he thought it would hurt the "marginals". I hope he now knows the filibuster attempt HELPED the marginals, because they carved out a centrist position of voting yes for cloture and no against Alito. True that I am mad the filibuster didn't succeed, but I'm mature enough to get that my passion against Alito was not matched by the American people across the country. They simply were ignorant and not paying attention, and Alito seemed very mild mannered. That was not the fault of Kerry but of the Judiciary Democrats for a bad P.R. setup. I guess what I'm saying is there is an idealistic side to me as well as a realistic side, and Schumer definitely is a realist, and will hopefully have great success in '06.

[ProSense]

6. IMO, that was more

rumor than fact given Schumer's position that Alito would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, his opinion about the filibuster, his statement leading up to it, his support of it, and how the blogs have twisted the censure.

SCHUMER: ABANDONING FILIBUSTER UNDERMINES CHECKS AND BALANCE SYSTEM

Schumer says Founding Fathers never intended any automatic right to consent, majority or otherwise - there should be no rubber stamp for judicial nominees

http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01674.html

The final decision will be made after the hearings, said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and one of the senators who will question Alito.

"If he's a mainstream conservative, if he doesn't use a court to impose his views on the American people, he's likely to get approved. Some people may vote against him because they don't want someone that conservative on the court," Schumer said. But at the same time, Schumer added, "If he is out of the mainstream and will use his tremendously powerful position as Supreme Court judge to impose his views on the American people, then there's a potential for a filibuster, and no one really knows that until the hearings."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010506Q.shtml

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) is there anything that you know now that (OFF-MIKE)

SCHUMER: It's too early to tell.

SCHUMER: Nothing is on the table and nothing is off the table. Let's learn more about Judge Alito.

The one thing we do know is that the president was at a decisive point. He could have chosen a unifying nominee or he could have chosen somebody who would please the very extreme groups who didn't like Harriet Miers. And he chose the second course.

I don't think that's good for America. And, frankly, I don't think that's good for the president, whatever the outcome of the vote here.

QUESTION: Senator, can you compare the political climate if there were to be a filibuster, nuclear option, today versus June or July? Is the president's weakened state perhaps with some of the issues in the news these days something that gives you more hope if there were a filibuster (inaudible) nuclear option?

SCHUMER: Well, you know, again, I'm not going to get into speculating on into the future.

I think that the initial reaction of myself and most Democrats is the president missed a real opportunity here to unify the country. And the one thing we insist on is that we really get to know who Judge Alito is, that this not be rushed. And then we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

As I said, nothing is on the table, nothing is off the table.

QUESTION: Senator, have you talked to any of our Democratic colleagues who signed on to the compromise that staved off the nuclear option last time and got...

SCHUMER: Well, I've talked to them a lot of times. Not this morning but, again, I think that was a very good thing because it staved off the nuclear option but it probably has 14 interpretations. And we'll have to see how each person decides to interpret it.

Thank you. Last question.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) you're kind of bracing and getting ready for the nuclear option, sir?

SCHUMER: No. I mean, I've been talking about judicial philosophy, judicial ideology for three years. I've said it's important for every judge, Democrat, Republican and on into the future.

You know, maybe we'll come to a day when neither the left or right will seek to use the judiciary to make law.

SCHUMER: We're not there now and that's why ideology is important. And the president himself has said ideology is part of his test. And so I think it's only fair for it to be for everybody else too.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

SCHUMER: It was much too early to tell. Obviously, there were troubles but -- I just remind you -- not a single Democrat said they were voting against her, not a single Democrat called for her withdrawal.

When Harriet Miers stepped down, it was because the hard right did not want her. And the president should not be governing simply by listening to a small group of people at one extreme.

Thank you.

END


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103100707.html

BLITZER: Senator, on this whole notion of a filibuster, you know that you're very familiar with your colleagues, so-called "Gang of 14," seven Democrats, seven Republicans, the threat that the Senate Republican leader, the majority leader, Bill Frist, has made of triggering a so-called nuclear option. At this point, would you be inclined to push for the filibuster which would basically need 60 votes to overturn that filibuster?

SCHUMER: It's a good question, Wolf, but it's premature to answer it. I think I have to wait until the end of the hearings and then go back, read the transcripts, look at Judge Alito's history, talk to my colleagues and come to a conclusion. I would say it is certainly not off the table at this point. But I would also say that I don't think anyone on the committee, certainly myself and anyone I've talked to, has said we definitely should. It's a question of, first, hearing completely from Judge Alito and coming to a determination, and that is, he so far out of the mainstream that he doesn't belong on the court?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/11/schumer.access/?section=cnn_allpolitics

http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/2006/PR20.Alito%20Committee%20Vote.012406.html

[karendc]

7. It's an ongoing discussion

ProSense, you are absolutely correct, and beachmom, you are too. The 100 Senators need to work with each other, with their base, and with the marginals. It is never easy, and Schumer is doing it the way he thinks it needs to be done. That does not mean he cannot LEARN as he goes.

It is true that the blogosphere does not understand the complexities of Senate politics (which are unlike anything in the known universe anyway). But the blogosphere plays an important role in informing the insulated Washington insiders about what the fringe and the centrists think, and brings to consensus what would otherwise be snarky posturing among the wannabes.

Kos is an exception of course, being a snarky wannabe much of the time ( ooh, someone hit me on THAT one!), but the general areas of agreement among the progressives/Dem/liberals/greens/whatevers are important to note. The blogosphere, overall, builds consensus on critical concerns, like the war and Katrina.

The more we talk, the more we all know.

[TayTay]

8. I like Schumer

He seems like 100% politician to me, but not in any bad way. He just seems to be one of those people who is born with a sort of people meter embedded in him and he just breathes this stuff. He really is a good choice for the DSCC role, and has done a great job at fundraising. God knows what it all means going forward into '08. But, for '06, he is doing a pretty good job.

I don't know what happened with the PAul Hackett situation in Ohio. I don't know both sides. If half of what was said online is true, then somebody screwed up. However, I have no way of telling if the screwup was equally divided stuff. (It appears that there were problems on both sides. It got in the news a lot. That was bad. Can't anyone ever do anything quietly?)

[ProSense]

9. I agree with

your assessment. I also agree with what Beachmom said, just pointing out that I don't believe Schumer was angry about the filibuster.

My defense of Schumer is as you say: he's doing it the way he thinks it needs to be done.