Based on your interview on Meet the Press, I have to say that your book thesis sounds like it was written back in 1990, if not earlier. The Democratic party needs to reach out to Reagan Democrats and middle America and stop being beholden to the "special interests." Does this thesis really hold water in the party that elected and continues to revere Bill Clinton?

The Democrats-are-captive-to-the-special-interests line of argument has long been a coded way of saying that the party is too concerned with civil rights and the needs of African Americans. I assume that you aren't sending this coded message yourself, but why allow yourself to be used by the people who are?

Senator

Are you prepared to tell the "Baileys" that the world has changed and no amount of tarrifs, quotas, or other efforts to turn the clock back with undo the effect of technology and the rise of former Third World Countries?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Well, for one thing I'd like to thank him for all the hard work he's done over the past several years trying to keep right wing judges off the federal bench. It's been an uphill battle with two terms of radical right wing president, and some of his colleagues tend to be a bit timid in opposing presidential nominees. But as far as I can tell Schumer works his butt off on this one.

Ask him what we can do to reverse the damage once we have a Democratic president.

To a layman out here in flyover country, there doesn't seem to be any really strong support in the Senate for civil liberties and Constitutional rights. When push comes to shove, the Senate seems quite willing to sign away Constitutional rights to avoid confrontation with the President. Is that an accurate perception? Why do you think this is so?

sPh

Senator, why are you going around and saying that the Democrats don't have a platform? Why are you saying that Democrats have "lost the middle class"?

The Democrats, all through these past 6 years of being a confused, muddled, minority have had a very good, and solidly popular platform. Why not just bring it around with you and read it off of a piece of paper when asked about it, instead of playing into right-wing talking points by saying there is no platform?

"Lost" the middle class? No. You and a handful of others got scared after 9/11 and lost the will to resist the Republicans. Now that the Democracts have been voted into power once again, and now that it is obvious, once again, that they have not in fact "lost" the middle class, but are actually directly representative of it, will you stop doing the Republicans' work for them by being such a defeatist and generally ashamed of core Democratic values?

Since you are an influential leader in the Senate on financial and budget matters, what is the Democratic plan for handling the AMT, expiring tax changes and the budget deficit?

You and Senator Clinton both voted to authorize the war in Iraq. While it was not technically a vote to invade, two dozen of your colleagues and millions of Americans knew viscerally it was a war vote. It remains an important issue because we need party leadership that will not make this mistake again (when the Iran authorization comes up, for example). Were you and your NY colleague merely naive, or was there a political calculus or other motivation that led to this disastrous vote?

I think the code is generally assumed to include women's groups, unions, and environmentalists, as well as trial lawyers in some versions.

Why that is supposedly worse than being captive to anti-choice groups, big corporations, big corporations, and big corporations I've never understood.

Sen. Schumer,

The proliferation of non-binding resolutions in the Senate regarding the Iraq War and the Bush/Cheney administration's proposed escalation/surge/troop increase are diluting the ability of the majority of Senators to deliver a clear message to the administration, in many cases purposely so.

What can Senators who oppose the escalation/surge/troop increase do to make the strongest statement possible as quickly and effectively as possible? From my perspective, this step should have already taken place, but in any event, it must now be handled with all possible dispatch in order to prevent any further loss of momentum.

Following that step, it is already clear that Bush/Cheney administration will do nothing when confronted by Senate disapproval. Will the Senate majority opposed to the escalation/surge/troop increase then begin circulating drafts of funding bills narrowly tailored to prevent funding for sending additional troops to Iraq?

Will the Senate majority opposed to the escalation/surge/troop increase then bring such a bill to the floor in order to force those opposed to such a bill to go on record as opposed to taking the only possible step to rein in the Bush/Cheney administration and their continued reckless prosecution of the Iraq War?

Following the likely filibuster of such a bill, which should be allowed to play out to further illuminate the differences on this issue between the parties, will the Senate majority then circulate and prepare to bring to the floor other narrowly tailored funding bills which deal with drawing down our troops in a phased withdrawal?

This is the only viable solution to the mess in Iraq that I see as available to you. Waiting another six months to see what happens is not an option, as you will quickly lose credibility with the public and your position of strength will slowly dissipate, not to mention the moral unconscionability of continuing to allow our troops to die in Iraq for no good reason.

Please comment.

This is an excellent idea Ernest. One suggestion: when the foreign policy people and domestic policy people get together, they shouldn't just assume that "everyone knows" what needs to be done, and it is just a matter of of hammering out a platform, finding the right "framing" and slogans, etc. They should actually listen to each other, and learn more about what kind of world ordinary Americans want to live in, and then design policies that achieve the goals people have.

Here, it seems to me, is a typical kind of disconnect between popular desires and professional prescription:

Voter: I support our troops and am proud of our military. But I wish our economy offered more opportunity to ordinary Americans, so my kid didn't have to sign up for the military just to get out of this dead-end town and see the world.

Policy Pro: We need a bigger military and need more kids to sign up for it!

Senator Schumer, a two part question:

What is the future of S. 295, your bill to impose 27.5% tariffs on Chinese imports?

You voted in favor of PNTR - permanent MFN status - for China in 2000 and the US-China trade deal which your proposed legislation would violate in principle and specifics.

China's currency has already appreciated by half a percent since New Year's Day. Do you think the Chinese are doing enough?

Apart from rather old-fashioned (and discredited) methods such as tariffs, what do you think can be done to protect American manfacturing?

"Where the bulk of the population cannot read, true democracy is impossible." -- Bertrand Russell

I watched a few minutes of MTP yesterday. That was all I could stomach. I hate to say it but sounded to me like you were spouting the RW meme.

The Democrats had a damn good platform before the '06 elections that helped us to win.

So, my question is...why are you going on national TV and sounding like a Republican?

Mr. Schumer, do you approve of human torture, and if so, do you support a Constitutional Amendment specifically allowing human torture? If not do not approve of human torture, do you support a Constitutional Amendment specifically prohibiting human torture?

Senator Schumer, why did you draft and support a candidate for Senate in PA who:
-- Supports the Military Commissions Act.
-- Opposes woman's right to abortion. Feels Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
-- Opposes embryonic stem cell research.
-- Supports a "defense of marriage" amendment to the Constitution.
-- Supports the death penalty.
-- Supports posting the Ten Commandments in government buildings.
-- Opposes increased regulation on firearm ownership.
-- Supports the USAPatriot Act.
-- Opposes censuring Bush for domestic spying.
-- Supported the confirmation of Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice.
-- Supports warrentless wire-tapping.

As you know, almost any Democrat would easily have defeated Rick Santorum. In fact, 60% of Bob Casey voters told pollsters that they were voting against Santorum, not for Casey.

Why didn't you run someone who could be described as holding Democratic principles?