We Don't Want More Liberal Representatives, We Want Stronger Ones

There is this misconception in the press and in Washington that the netroots and other progressive activists want their representatives to be more liberal. The myth is that we want to drag the party all the way to the left and take them away from the center. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We don't need elected officials to be any more liberal or progressive; we just need them to be stronger. Is Senator Schumer's problem that he isn't liberal enough? I don't think so. His problem is that he caves in to the Bush administration on anything that might vaguely be in the "national security" realm because he's scared and miserably weak.

I know that the Mukasey confirmation is a little different because Schumer had parochial interests in mind as well. Well, how heroic! So, he's not only afraid of Bush on national security but also interested in putting his local political machine over his voters' interest. Very heart-warming.

But as we all know, it's not just the Mukasey appointment. It's not just Schumer. It's warrantless wiretapping, it's torture, it's Iraq, it's Iran, it's signing statements, it's the US attorneys firings, it's the Patriot Act, it's presidential secrecy, it's the Geneva Conventions, etc., etc. The list of Democratic cave-ins is so long that it's painful to think about. You could open up a buckle store with all these Democratic buckles.

Just this week, they caved in on Mukasey and Iraq funding. How many times are we going to hear these annoying bloviators talk about how terrible the war is going and then quietly fund the debacle anyway? They must think we're stupid. I like how Schumer and Feinstein coordinated their Friday press releases on Mukasey to take pressure off each other. And they released it on a Friday night. Did you think we wouldn't notice?

It's not that the Senators don't agree with us on the Iraq War, it's that they don't vote that way! I don't need them to be more liberal - I don't even know what the "more liberal" position on Iraq is. I'm not even sure what the so-called liberal position on Iraq is. I know that we should leave Iraq because George W. Bush is never going to figure out the right strategy there and the central government of Iraq is a fraud. Is that a liberal position?

If I thought the central Iraqi government was working, would that make me a conservative? I now think our negotiated deal with the Sunni tribal chiefs is a step in the right direction. Since I think this piece of the Iraq puzzle is working better, have I become more conservative overnight? Or is it possible that these labels are silly?

On many domestic and trade issues, Chuck Schumer is way to the left of me. I don't need him to be more liberal. I need him to have a spine. I need him to stand up for what he pretends to stand up for.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll confirms that a majority of the country is dissatisfied with the Democratic Congress not because they won't compromise with Bush, but because they will.

A majority of independents say that Democrats aren't fighting Bush enough (53% of independents say this, which closely matches 55% of all Americans who agree). Yet, our press tells us that we need Democrats who compromise more. God, do they have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

The press is obsessed with being centrists. I actually think this is a generally positive urge normally. But it needs to be combined with good judgment. You need to consider the circumstances on a case by case basis to see where the centrist position is. The mid-point between Democrats and Republicans is not always the center of the country.

The mid-point between this Congress and President Bush is way, way, way to the right of the mid-point between 1990 Democratic Congress and George H.W. Bush. So, let me ask these wise centrists of the press - which is the real center of the country?

Some can claim that the country has become a lot more conservative. There is only one problem with that thesis. It isn't true. The polls don't back it up at all. Democrats now enjoy huge leads in nearly every issue in the country. And I don't know if people noticed this, but the Democrats crushed the Republicans in 2006. They picked up 36 Republican seats and lost none. That's an amazing fact.

Why do you think this is? Has the country all of sudden gotten a lot more liberal between 2004 and 2006? Of course not. It is a realignment. It's the American people letting Washington know - you have slipped too far to the right, come back to the center!

The problem isn't that the country is too conservative (or too liberal, depending on the election you look at), the problem is Washington takes so long to adjust. The press and the politicians are still reacting as if we're in 2003 and Bush still has any sway on national security matters. The guy is at 24%. He doesn't have any sway over anything.

Even more importantly, the press is assuming the center of the country is between these Democrats and these Republicans when that isn't anywhere near true. These Republicans are grossly unpopular and these Democrats couldn't stand up to them if you put a wall behind them.

We're all so tired of the buckles. What we're even more tired of is the press telling us that we just want the Democrats to be more liberal because we are left-wing extremists. We're standing right in the middle of the country politically. The difference between us and the Democratic politicians isn't that they are standing to the right of us; it's that they aren't standing at all.

Watch TYT Here

Comments

[in Upstate NY]

Could you please elaborate on what special interests caused Schumer to cave?

I absolutely agree that the Dems are caving all over the place, and I am having trouble figuring out why. Clearly, they are being pressured, but how. The electorate is clearly behind the Dems on these issues, so the political zeitgeist has changed from 2003.

For a long time, I thought maybe it was because the corporate interests and the political funders were putting the pressure on the politicians. But only a small portion of the corporate spectrum is truly benefitting from Bush's policies: energy firms and defense contractors. And the corporatations are now beginning to fund the Dems, especially H. Clinton.

So where is the real pressure emanating from? Is Bush spying on everyone and we have really moved to a Potemkin republic, with Congress acting as a beard for Bush's tyrannical power?

Also, the television and radio media are hostage to the FCC. So don't expect any fairness from them ever.

The most interesting situation involves the newspapers. The Republicans have definitely co-opted the Washington Post and the NYT. (Without any special information, I suspect that the neocons have wined and dined the two publishers, Sulzberger and Graham, since young adulthood.) Of the national dailies, the further its location rrom Washington, the more independent its reporting.

[joebhed]

Dear CY
I agree with all you are saying at liberal vs. strong ideals.
But, as for Shumer, Fienstein and Mukasy, well, excuse me, but aren't they all supported by AIPAC?
And isn't that the definition, and the limit, of their politics?

[NavyMom]

Dems don't seem to know the meaning of strength. Was Ghandi weak when the Brits beat him up? Was Thoreau weak when he went to jail? Or MLKing? Or Nelson Mandela? Being strong is standing up for what's right, losing some battles until you win the war. The sure way to lose is to refuse to fight at all.

[zjr909]

The other day I read in a Glen Greenwald column that, according to a recent poll, 52% of Americans approve of bombing Iran to keep it from getting nuclear weapons. So, let's see: we have 74% who want out of Iraq - and 52% who want into Iran. Face it: the American people are the biggest bunch of idiots in the world. They can be talked into (or out of) ANYTHING ANYTIME. So, please, put the Democrats' spinelessness in that context. They know the electorate. And, as they say, you go with what you know. I think if I were a Congressperson, I too might be afraid to do anything because the a-holes might decide tomorrow to throw away their "give peace a chance" cloak and don their red-white-and-blue "give 'em hell" cloak. With such an electorate, who needs enemies?

[LindaJay]

I really couldn't believe it when I heard Feinstein's excuse for giving in on Mukasey. According to her, Bush said that if they didn't like him, he wouldn't give them anyone else. So the only choice she had was to vote for him. Think about what a stupid, stupid comment that was. If he had suggested Satan as Attorney General, would she vote for him since he wouldn't offer anyone else? I guess good ole DiFi would!

[charlietuna11]

CENK,I'M MORE CONVINCED THAN EVER THAT PELOSI AND REID WERE HAND PICKED BY THE WHITE HOUSE. THESE TWO SQUIRELLS CAN'T COMPETE WITH ONE OF OUR NATIONS WEAKEST AND MOST DISLIKED PRESIDENTS.THEY REFUSE TO GIVE INDEPENDENTS LIKE MYSELF A REASON TO SUPPORT THEM.THEY ARE BOTH SPINELESS.WHAT IS THE PARTY ABOUT WHEN THESE TWO ARE CONSIDERED THEIR BEST.THEIR LIKE HILARY,,THEY TALK LIKE DOVES AND VOTE LIKE HAWKS.THERE ALL YOURS,I CERTAINLY DON'T ANY THING TO DO WITH THESE PHONIES.

[NickfromCali]

If Feinstein is a liberal, I'm Hubert Humphrey.

[larry278]

Schumer could be called cave man for he caves in to W constantly. The Senator is a coward like me. NY may not deserve anything better than Schumer & Clinton but the USA doesn't deserve S, C & the rest of the cave-in crew in the senate.

[BearCountry]

When you have gwen awful being such a good buddy with kindasleazy, you can bet that you are not going to get an unbiased look at what the DoS is doing if gwen awful is doing the reporting.

I also heard that some important TV news anchorguy was partners with a big politicion in a ranch in New Mexico. How many other combinations are there in which the news reporter is totally compromised?

[itmaybetoolate]

Conservative? Liberal? Moderate? fuggitaboutit! Let's try supporters of the Constitution and the rights contained therein. How is that? Once we are back to government that reveres and respects the Constitution, and people who actually take their Constitutional duty seriously, then we can talk about right, left, and center. There is no right, left and center when it comes to supporting and defending the Constitution. For example, both Feinstein and Schumer violated their Constitutional duty when they sent Mushy's name forward. They knew it when they did it - that's why they tried to low ball the announcement. Where is the shame?

[jmpurser]

Agreed. For the last nearly 40 years "Conservative" has been assumed to mean republican and "Liberal" has had the same relationship to democrat. Neither is true in my opinion.

Approving Attorney Generals who are "soft on torture" is neither. It's UnAmerican in the best sense of the word.

[demigod]

You can lose battles and still win the war. This stew is taking a long time tos season, but did anyone ever think the Republicans would be held in so low esteem, all over the country, when until very recently they held the Senate, the House and the White House ? It's really quite remarkable that they are almost universally despised, and they may nominate a pro-choice candidate for President, not because they want to, but because even they know their own positions are not what the majority wants. None of their candidates differs one iota from George Bush, the most despised and ridiculed American President in generations. Even Virginia, red as a state can be, may elect a SECOND Democratic Senator next year, that's is STUNNING. We all want change yesterday, but the change is coming and it's going to be huge.

[FearlessFreep]

"It's not that the Senators don't agree with us on the Iraq War, it's that they don't vote that way!"

You are how you vote.

[heckleNjeckle]

Woo hoo!
Cenk Uygur for Majority Leader!
Congress needs a leader.

[BuckarooBanzai]

You have to understand that to the press, centrism isn't the midpoint between liberal and conservative or even the midpoint between Republican and Democrat. Centrism, to the press, is that combination of political positions and spin that gets you invited to the largest number of cocktail parties.

The elite media are not going to risk their position on the "A" list by actually doing their jobs and faithfully reporting what is going on outside their closed social circle.

Face it...For the press, if its a choice between a canape at Barbara Walter's party and the constitution, the canape will win every time.