The only thing I admire about the Tea Party is that it challenges incumbents for ideological reasons. By doing so, it has shifted the entire party to the right.
Why don't progressives do the same? Take New York for instance, a solid Democratic state.
How can a pro-Wall Street, pro-bank Dem like Schumer go unopposed? Yes, he has lots of money. But his money (special interest money) could be used against him. I imagine that a good 40% of Democrats would happily vote against Schumer in a primary. A challenger might even win. At the very least, Schumer would be terrified into moving leftward.
In the 70's, New Yorkers defeated incumbent Democrats in primaries and replaced them with Bella Abzug and Liz Holtzman, to name just two.
Why should Schumer (or Gillibrand) go unopposed.
What is wrong with progressives? Or, in fact, are we not progressives at all. Just yellow dog Democrats.
Because potential challengers don't think they'll win? Dems are much more tolerant of politicians as long as they support the Party and keep their personal lives relatively clean (Weiner was a pol to far).
And why do you dislike Schumer so much? He did vote for the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 (Frank-Dodd).
It shifted the GOP into cuckoo land. Not to the right. There is not much that is "right" about what the Tea Party does. The original GOP just fed it crack and claimed it. They are just crazy.
Is that what you want on the left? People who have zero concept about what CAN be done, and just hold out completely for the most bizarre things imaginable?
Because New York's tax base is overly dependent on the financial services industry. Any senator in NY has to be aware of this and walk a very fine line. It is not just about the politics and the money, it is about state revenues. A Senator in NY has a primarily responsibility to his/her constituents. On the ideological spectrum he/she can be all for Dodd Frank or any better reform that comes along. On the practical side, he/she has to hope that financial services continues to fund the state coffers with the taxes they pay, at least until we come up with something else to replace the revenues.
Sure Schumer could be primaried, but even if someone were to succeed in defeating him, that person would then be faced with the same conundrum.
Or maybe a pole too far.
Yeah; isn't that one of the things that DeBlasio says he wants to work on? More diversification in the NYC economy, and less dependence on finance? That sort of reform could have some wide-ranging ripples.
Of course this is not something that happens overnight, over a mayor's term, or two terms. Deblasio has to be careful the same way national office holders from NYS have to be. He certainly wants to keep the coffers full, or he will be powerless to enact any reforms whatsoever.
Absolutely not something that happens overnight.
Schumer was the #1 opponent of Democratic efforts to regulate the derivates industry and he still is its #1 protector as can be seen here. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/opinion/the-latest-assault-on-bank-reform.html
As for defending Wall Street and the financial services industry, no, that is not part of the job description of a senator from NY. Schumer invented that rationale to justify his sucking up to Wall Street for campaign money. Considering that the interests of Wall Street fly directly against the interests of millions of working people, he can let Wall Street lobbyists fend for themselves while he fights for the people of the outer boroughs and upstate.
Additionally, he is the #1 hawk on all matters that touch on Israel, undermining Obama's attempts to reach a deal with Iran. He loudly supported the Iraq war.
Apparently Israel, like the financial services industry, is part of his portfolio.
Sorry, it's all about raising money from the fat cats.
He is no Democrat and should be primaried.
NY deserves a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren not a Wall Street boy.
As a New Yorker, the thing that strikes me about Schumer is his aptitude as a retail politician.
It is impossible not to trip over Schumer at any high school or community college graduation ceremony in the downstate area.
Between AIPAC, et al, and Wall Street, he's also a cash cow.
Anyone more progressive and less beholden to those interests won't be able to navigate the machinery to a nomination.
Are you ready for this fight?
If you are a senator from West Virginia you do not attack coal. If you are senator from California, you do not attack Silicon valley. If you are a senator from Texas you do not attack petrochemicals or - prisons! I love Elizabeth Warren and all that she is doing, but note that the industry she is going after is based in another state. You have a valid argument that in defending Wall Street Schumer is padding his own war chest. But the argument is equally valid that he is padding the coffers of Albany. It would be irresponsible of him to do otherwise and would also cost him his seat. Let Warren go after derivatives.
I am in agreement with you about Wall street, not so much about Israel, but remain very wary of what I call the Nader trap - sacrificing the possible in quest of the perfect.
I would be very happy to have either of them as my Senator. But they are from small liberal states and could not be elected here.
Schumer...like most politicians, go where the winds blow them. Schumer is very good at reading the environment. If he thinks its in a progressive direction...my guess is he will move that way as well. Instead of primarying (so last year TP), I'd say a better strategy is to create the winds of change and an environment that makes politicians in the Democratic party move.