Schumer and Feinstein: These are our Senators? UPDATED

The past 24 hours have been really depressing for me. Sure, it's wonderful that we've passed, with what appears to be a veto-proof majority, and expansion of insurance to an additional 3 million uninsured children. It's about time, and that's precisely what a Democratic majority in congress should be doing.

But you know what a Democratic majority shouldn't be letting happen? We shouldn't have prominent Democrats voting to confirm judges who think children should be taken away from gay couples. This was a nomination that was apparently all but dead without Feinstein's support. Now he has a crack at sitting on the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

We shouldn't have Democratic Senators fighting for tax breaks for hedge funds. But that's exactly what Chuck Schumer is doing. You and I, we have to pay 28% for anything we make over 26,000 a year and as much as 35% as our incomes rise higher. But hedge fund billionaires? The poor dears need a break. So they get their personal income taxed at the same rate-- 15%-- as capital gains.

Our majority needs to be keeping far right ideologues out of important judgeships. Please contact Senator Feinstein and let her know what you think of her decision to vote in favor of confirming Leslie Southwick:

Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
TTY/TDD: [phone]

Our majority needs to close up unfair loopholes. If we do for hedge funds what the Bushies have been doing for the energy companies, how can we claim any moral highground? Please contact Chuck Schumer and let him know what you think:

Washington, DC
313 Hart Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
TDD: 202-224-0420

UPDATE:

Chamonix notes that Leslie Southwick is also a big old racist. This nomination never should have gotten out of committee. We need to demand accountability from Feinstein.

Also, Paul Krugman has an op-ed in today's New York Times on Schumer.

•  Tips

  for trying to make sure our party really represents us.

  by dedmonds on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:29:56 PM PDT

  •  And lots of cash...

    ...so we can buy them off from the corporations?

    by Ken in MN on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:34:32 PM PDT

    •  Government of the multinational corporations

      by the multinational corporations
      for the multinational corporations......

      by deepsouthdoug on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:59:41 PM PDT

      •  Corporations have more...

        ...rights of personhood that real, living human beings.  How f-ed up is that?

        by Ken in MN on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:13:15 PM PDT

  •  These two are an embarassment

    Feinstein's from my state, and I'm ashamed of her.  She was even mayor of my town, and she sucked then too.

    by baba durag on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:22:50 PM PDT

    •  baba..please read my comment below and CALL

      DiFi's office NOW. Please. They are being flooded.

      by Chamonix on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:28:35 PM PDT

      •  Will do

        On your tag line - I think Stewart's response is worth adding "The administration is taking US Government pass/fail."

        Priceless.

        by baba durag on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:32:12 PM PDT

        •  thanks...

          about the sig, I wish there was room to ad the JS quote. Love it. Call DiFi NOW. Friday afternoon and this is gonna be lost if it doesn't make the recommend list and it will be to late to call her office. UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

          by Chamonix on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:34:56 PM PDT

          •  Got the number handy?

            I'm soooo lazy :)

            by baba durag on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:37:58 PM PDT

            •  numbers are on her webpage...

              http://feinstein.senate.gov/...

              CALL NOW EVERYONE.

              by Chamonix on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:42:40 PM PDT

              •  duh

                it's also in this diary.  Did I mention my laziness?

                I've dialed, and am hitting send...now.

                by baba durag on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:47:28 PM PDT

                •  love it...

                  hahahaha. I don't mind putting it up for others that are reading so when they get to our comments they will instantly pick up the phone and CALL. CALL NOW PEOPLE. DiFi supports Racist Judical Nominee's.

                  by Chamonix on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:51:52 PM PDT

                  •  Done

                    I spoke with a helpful young man in DC.  Expressed my extreme displeasure over the vote.  Then I said I thought she'd spent too much time inside the Washington bubble and no longer understood the needs of her constituency.  That her constituents were the Democrats, the party of the people.  Not the party of the Republicans.  And I said I was now going to be actively searching for her replacement.

                    He seemed a bit taken aback (though I somehow doubt that), said they'd gotten a lot of calls and that he would pass along the message.

                    There you go, teach.  My report.

                    by baba durag on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:00:29 PM PDT

                  •  On the nominee

                    Here was the spin I got from DiFi's office:  DiFi met with Southwick and determined that she was constitutionally qualified (whatever that means).  Then he stammered out the phrase that he wasn't sure if DiFi would vote for her on the floor, only that she'd voted yes in committee.

                    weasely.

                    by baba durag on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:17:06 PM PDT

                    •  but yes in the committe switched the vote

                      DiFi had the one vote that broke party lines. Bush has been trying to get this Guy on the bench for a long time. Difi blew it. This is an activist judge that does not treat all equal and should not even been put up again for a vote. Chip..chip..chip..what's that I hear, oh, Bushco chipping away at the Constitution. Good job calling though Baba.

                      by Chamonix on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:21:48 PM PDT

                      •  I report, you decide

                        I agree with you.  Everything he said sounded like crap to me.  That's when I told him I was fed up and would be looking for her replacement.

                        by baba durag on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:28:32 PM PDT

            •  I posted numbers...

              in the diary!

              by dedmonds on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:55:06 PM PDT

              •  thanks

                I finally noticed, after I asked Chamonix.

                And thanks for the diary.

                by baba durag on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:13:54 PM PDT

                •  I was mad, had to do something!

                  So you're welcome.

                  by dedmonds on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:15:56 PM PDT

                  •  good on ya

                    we home sitting, non-YKos-ing, layabouts are good for something, aren't we?

                    by baba durag on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:18:35 PM PDT

  •  Unfortunately!

    Sad, but true.

    by ShaShaMae on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:06:37 PM PDT

•  Schumer is up in 2010.

  DiFi in 2012.

  Who would be good candidates to primary them out with if they keep this up?

  by Eternal Hope on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:34:55 PM PDT

  •  Don't know much about California

    There are a lot of strong Democrats in New York; the question is how many of them can we be certain aren't too beholden to the buckets of hedge fund money flying around Manhattan. It's well worth investigating.

    by dedmonds on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:38:17 PM PDT

  •  Against Chuck, Christine Quinn?

    Christine Quinn, Council Speaker in New York, is possible.  I doubt Anthony Wiener would oppose Schumer.

    by dunderhead on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:38:27 PM PDT

    •  Quinn's running for mayor

      No way she'll run for Senate.

      Also, Schumer is pretty powerful in the state and in the city.  I don't think you can primary him at all.

      by TheSilence on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:39:53 PM PDT

      •  Well:

        People thought that Lieberman was powerful as well. If NY does not have a sore loser law, then it can be done if he keeps this up.

        by Eternal Hope on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:43:55 PM PDT

        •  Not gonna happen

          Lieberman was not a Democrat - he's basically a Republican.  Schumer doesn't play that way at all, especially in NY.

          by TheSilence on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:24:46 PM PDT

          •  Senator Schumer may not be a safe as you think

            Senator Schumer appears to be helping hedge fund managers keep a big tax break.  I think that and his perchant to help corporations over people will hurt him, at least with this primary voter.

            by dunderhead on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:50:38 PM PDT

            •  Maybe

              But upstate is pretty conservative, and downstate has a large part of the population employed by the financial industry (including myself).  Unless he's attacking an illegal practice (like Spitzer did), I really don't see him pissing too many of his constituents off  by keeping the taxes on hedge funds low.

              by TheSilence on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 04:39:08 PM PDT

  •  Primarying someone over hedge funds?

    I dunno--NY depends heavily on the financial services industry.  Not so different from Western state Senators favoring mining companies.

    Besides, it would be a suicide run.

    by Geekesque on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:38:56 PM PDT

    •  There are a lot more grocery store clerks....

      to use but one example, than hedge fund managers in New York.  When Schumer makes sure these people are taken care of, then maybe he can start worrying about the poor overtaxed multimillionaires.

      by cometman on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:41:17 PM PDT

      •  What makes you think Schumer doesn't

        care about them?

        by Geekesque on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:41:51 PM PDT

        •  I like virtually everything Schumer does

          But I really hope he can be convinced to change his position on hedge funds. It's an outrageous loophole, and it needs to be closed.

          But I agree with you, Geekesque, that he's (a) done enough good that we probably shouldn't primary him and that (b) such an attempt would likely fail.

          That doesn't mean we shouldn't be sending him a very clear message now that what he's doing doesn't cast a particularly positive light on the Democratic party.

          by dedmonds on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:45:22 PM PDT

          •  DiFi's vote was far worse, imo. eom

            by Geekesque on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:46:20 PM PDT

            •  I think they're both quite bad

              You don't consider it something of a betrayal of the purported values of the Democratic party that Schumer is defending tax breaks for the ultra-rich? We're talking about (mostly) men who make tens of millions of dollars a year. We're talking about billions in lost tax revenue from people who can well afford to be paying it.

              So while I think DiFi's vote was awful, I'm not prepared to make judgments about the relative awfulness of what I consider two pretty damn bad moves.

              by dedmonds on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:50:54 PM PDT

        •  I'm not saying he doesn't.

          but when I see things like this it becomes apparent that the others are not his top priority.  

          When you give tax cuts to the wealthy, someone else has to pick up the slack to make ends meet.  That someone is the poor and middle class these days.  And that is why this nation is around 8 trillion bucks in the hole right now.

          If Democrats were smart, they would make people aware that somewhere around 25% of our taxes goes to pay off the national debt each year.  So if instead of giving the rich tax breaks, we should be taxing them more to pay off the debt, or at least bring it down to a dull roar.  

          Then everyone could have a 25% tax cut, rich and poor alike.

          by cometman on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:58:58 PM PDT

  •  The case against Schumer is less clear....

    His argument was that hedge funds shouldn't be "singled out".

    Which could easily be an argument for restoring taxation of all capital gains to the same rate as earned income.

    by neroden on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:59:21 PM PDT

  •  DiFi will NEVER be defeated.

    Not in a primary, not in a general election.  She's far too popular (not that I'm saying I support her decision here).  

    I'm really worried about Boxer...she's by far my favorite senator, but good ol' SS officer in training Arnie will be done with his governership (hallelujah) in the same year Boxer is up for reelection...he'll give her a hell of a fight.

    by Raumfahrer on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:06:36 PM PDT

•  If only we could buy them with snark

  They'd all be ours. All of them, I tells you!

  by dedmonds on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:35:53 PM PDT

  •  Hmmm this was meant to be a reply to Ken in MN

    Oh well

    by dedmonds on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:36:39 PM PDT

•  some free links

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by Ferrofluid on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:36:49 PM PDT

•  What Schumer is defending

  More on what Sen. Schumer is defending in today's Washington Post:

  At the heart of the dispute is the way the fund manager's profits are taxed. Known as carried interest, or the Carry, those profits are taxed as capital gains, for which the rate is usually 15 percent. That is less than half the 35 percent rate paid on regular income.

  Unchallenged by lawmakers, it swelled into a benefit that, by one back-of-the-envelope estimate, spares a small band of the country's richest and most powerful financiers $6 billion a year in personal income taxes.

  I wrote about it in an early morning diary, WaPo: How Wall Street Screws You, Me, and Everyone We Know.

  by Magnifico on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:39:09 PM PDT

  •  And why is the capital gains rate 15%?

    Because of the Bush tax cuts.

    Under late-period Reagan, Bush I, and most of Clinton, it was 28%.  For a short period at the begnning of the Reagan administration, they were taxed at full levels.  Before that, they were taxed at half the level of regular income.

    (Edwards' tax plan involves restoring the 28% rate.)

    Frankly, it's not the "hedge fund loophole" that's the evil part here, it's the existence of lower tax rates for capital gains than for other income.  It will always be possible to recharacterize wages as capital gains through financial trickery of one sort or another; different schemes have existed since the 1950s.

    by neroden on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:04:11 PM PDT

•  OT, Roll back the Reagan Tax Cuts

  Thom Hartmann said this on his radio show today.

  by LNK on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:12:18 PM PDT

•  because Republicans never do that

  by PrivateJohnWick on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:12:35 PM PDT

•  Schumer's office is taking a tally!

  I phoned and had a good quick chat.

  I said I'm happy to pay my fair share of taxes, but my head explodes to think that people with far more disposable income don't have to.

  by LNK on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:15:53 PM PDT

•  "A GOOD OLE NIGGER" Call Feinstein NOW.

  I just read this shocking news about Judge Southwick at CivilRights.org

  In Richmond v. Mississippi Dep't of Human Services, Judge Southwick joined a 5-4 ruling upholding the reinstatement of a white state social worker who had been fired for calling an African-American co-worker "a good ole nigger." The ruling he joined had declared that, taken in context, this slur was an insufficient ground to terminate the white plaintiff's employment in part because it "was not motivated out of racial hatred or racial animosity directed toward a particular co-worker or toward blacks in general."

  Nothing like another Bathshit Crazy Bush Appointee, but I live in Los Angeles and called Feinstein's office and raised HOLY HELL. More from the article

  The reasoning offered by Judge Southwick and his colleagues in the majority is nothing short of baffling, and it was fortunately unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court of Mississippi. As two dissenters in the 5-4 decision rightfully pointed out:

  The word 'nigger' is, and has always been, offensive. Search high and low, you will not find any non-offensive definition for this term. There are some words, which by their nature and definition are so inherently offensive, that their use establishes the intent to offend

  More shocking than this judical nomination is that When I called Senator Feinstein's office to read this and ask them if she was aware of it, they said SHE WAS. I told them California is not Mississippi or Alabama and that she has a lot of explaining to do here in California. I also suggest that her vote may have been bought by big business because I could think of any other reason to have approved this crackpot Bush Nominee. The girl who answered the phone was shocked that I was so up on the Judge and Senator Feinstein's vote. She was really shocked when I read the "A Good Ole Nigger" quote, and by Senator Feinstein's vote Yea for the Judge that means that she approves of this kind of language. I also let her know that this was reversed when it made it's way to the Supremes of Mississippi. In ending the call I told her that unless Senator Feinstein does an interview with the LA Times and/or other California and explains her vote and the explanation is acceptable (no way it could be) that I would let everyone I know that she approved of using the phrase "A Good Ole Nigger" in the work place as acceptable.

  by Chamonix on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:24:45 PM PDT

  •  I'm calling too.

    You handle the "n" word issue and i'll handle the offense to the Constitution and any sense of decency this judge has show towards LGBT Americans. Exactly how many crackpots can Bush find that don't understand that at the grassroot level we have proven politically that LGBT love is healthy and natural?

    by kevinspa on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:27:43 PM PDT

    •  I would have done the gay issue too but

      this diary didn't include the "N" word quote that she approves of. The Horror. I guess with just getting re-elected she feels she can vote for her self interests and not the State of California's.

      by Chamonix on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:30:17 PM PDT

  •  was shocked !

    "The girl who answered the phone was shocked that I was so up on the Judge and Senator Feinstein's vote."

    Do they think they are secret government, working in a vacuum !

    by Ferrofluid on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:46:31 PM PDT

    •  It is really unbelievable...

      This item must be noticed by all here at Dkos. DiFi Must NOT get away with this. Most Kossacks are at the convention and this is going to slip away. Difi defending and approving of the racist "Good Ole Nigger" Judge is really Shocking. This could really be her undoing. This is her Lieberman moment. We are in California for Christ's sakes. WTF is she thinking?  

      by Chamonix on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:50:29 PM PDT

•  Southwick??

  I confess i was caught sleeping at the wheel with this judicial nomination. I wish we had been mobilized as we were decades ago when we successfully lobbied the APA to change their scientific postion with our grassroots political efforts.

  Why in the world would Sen. Feinstein support this bigot that goes against everything we are as kossacks? There is no more fundamental right in our Constitution than to participate in loving, natural and healthy LGBT relationships. And NOW we have a federal judge who does not understand that basic Cosntitutional principle as a federal judge? Terrible!

  It's bad enough that this judge uses the term "homosexual" in a demeaning manner when we have also been so successful at the grassroots political level in law schools, universities and the press to stress that for strategic and marketing reasons, we prefer gay or lesbian or LGBT.

  This is awful and I apologize for being asleep on this one. I wish we could have mobilized politically as we have successfully  in other quarters.

  by kevinspa on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:24:48 PM PDT

  •  I Hope this diary get Recommend I really want

    her office to be flooded with non stop calls. She represents CALIFORNIA and was MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO. She has lost her mind.

    by Chamonix on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:32:34 PM PDT

    •  I'm afraid it's slipping away without

      making the Rec list. I hope it gets rescue-rangered; I think both these issues are important and we need some action on them.

      by dedmonds on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:00:09 PM PDT

    •  I would think she's lost SF and California

      I am SURE she has lost us as kossacks because nothing is more fundamental to us that LGBT rights. I was talking to a "moderate-left" friend of mine the other day who has not experienced our site. She asked me if we were LGBT friendly. I told her that we were more than friendly, it is what makes us who we are. It it the most important issue facing us as kossacks.

      by kevinspa on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:52:34 PM PDT

      •  Don't know about most important issue

        But almost certainly the most important civil rights issue.

        by dedmonds on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 03:00:29 PM PDT

        •  I am confident Iraq will be solved soon

          And then we can concentrate fully on the issue that brings us together, people powered fundamental LGBT rights. Governor Dean gave us our voice that started this forum, we will achieve victory!

          by kevinspa on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 03:18:28 PM PDT

  •  I for one

    had no notion there was any real danger of his being confirmed. I heard about him a month or two back, but foolishly thought we were safe from him with a Democratic majority, however slim.

    by dedmonds on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:17:26 PM PDT

    •  most here would have thought so too.

      I hope your diary gets more attention. I am so temped to write one up just based on the DiFi and "Good Ole Nigger" Judge approval. She should never voted this racist, homophob out of Committe. The Schulmer thing I don't get, but the Difi thing is as clear as the nose on my face. DiFi supports him so she supports racist/homophobic judges. Nuff said.

      by Chamonix on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:25:57 PM PDT

      •  Go for it

        Write up another diary. Maybe yours will get the attention mine didn't.

        I only ask that you pimp mine somewhere in yours :-)

        by dedmonds on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:40:26 PM PDT

        •  I will if I do, I am just hoping this one get's

          the attention it deserves. I will pimp it if any open thread ever comes up. Perhaps a front pager will take on the duty to expose Difi for the racist/homophob that she really is. I want her office swamped with email and calls. She cannot get away with this, especially being from San Francisco and from California. Being from Ca I have always kinda stuck up for her in the past. Always felt most here gave her a bad rap...NOT ANY MORE.

          by Chamonix on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:44:56 PM PDT

•  Schumer

  His New York state constituency is confined to a few blocks of lower Manhattan.  Everyone else in the state can eat cake.

  by Paleo on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:31:08 PM PDT

  •  Call, and raise hell

    Make it abundantly clear that you think he no longer represents you, and you plan on acting to find his replacement.

    by baba durag on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:36:26 PM PDT

•  Schumer

  Needs money for the DSCC to run and win campaigns, then scratches the back of the big money brokers with a tax break.  Politics as usual in a country where money = free speech.

  by marcvstraianvs on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:38:36 PM PDT

•  Read THIS....

  http://www.civilrights.org/...

  Then call DiFi's office NOW.

  http://feinstein.senate.gov/...

  by Chamonix on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:47:02 PM PDT