I have to say, I don't get the criticism that Gov. Patterson's pick of Kirsten Gillibrand is inadequately progressive. I know she calls herself one of the “Blue Dog” Dems. I know she's thought to be more conservative on guns than most/some lefties, although even that issue seems to be evolving on the left these days. (At the very least, many lefties are coming to feel it's a rural vs. city cultural conflict, not a binary yes/no.)
But look at her votes at ontheissues.org. Read through the questions. Mostly you'd say she's a pretty solid liberal. And here's where they place her on their ideological map: a “populist-leaning liberal.” That's not “hard-core liberal”, as Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton were both identified on the site's map, but it's not that far away.
Gillibrand is known for being a smart and very responsive Representative: For instance, her office went out of its way to help constituents secure federal grants, a preferable approach to earmarks. Considering that she succeeded the DeLay-zombie John Sweeney (who succeeded 10-term Reaganaut Gerry Solomon), her record is quite progressive. Her enviro credentials are reasonably solid; she's now “come out” as pro-marriage-equality.
When we're putting together a governing coalition, I think it's wise to keep in mind that there's a lot more to being a great, useful Senator than a simple voting record. One of the great things about the Dems this time is that they've been willing to move themselves around to committees and policy areas where they can achieve the most good, and step on each other's toes the least. In the House, they voted to move John Dingell off the environment committe in favor of global-warming hawk Henry Waxman; and Rick Boucher and Ed Markey swapped committees to keep out of each other's way on environment and communications. If a similar spirit exists in the Senate, I seriously doubt that Gillibrand will pull a Lieberman and start putting the brakes on the most important progressive priorities — remember those?
- Economy
- Iraq
- Health Care
- Global Warming
I'm willing to be told differently, but right now I don't see any strong reason why she wouldn't be a team player on these issues.
And my friends in Hampden, Hampshire, and Bershire Counties uniformly call her a good legislator, responsive, and a “honorary” resident of Massachusetts because the majority of her district is adjacent to Western Mass counties. Many of these friends live closer to New York City then to Boston. To them Gillbrand is not an unknown at all and uniformly, she is viewed as both pragmatic and progressive. So while this is second-hand information, these are savvy folks whose opinion I tend to trust.
I’m not thrilled by her gun voting record, but gun control is a battle that we’re not fighting right now. On the battles we are fighting, she’s on our side. If absolutist progressives want to primary her, all the better for Democrats and democrats.
<
p>That said, a world where she receives a strong primary and Bennet and Burris don’t makes no sense to me….
Have you heard otherwise? A lot of people want that seat, and Burris will be eminently beatable. If he even runs — he’ll be 73.
in eastern Rensselaer County, NY, about 5 miles from my home in Vermont, we often disagree politically. But when we heard that Gillibrand was appointed to replace Senator Clinton, we were all very pleased. We’re delighted to have a senator who understands upstate NY. For us it was not politics as usual – jockeying for power – but the appointment of a person who will represent us.
My heavens, in a democracy, we might have a voice?!?!?
<
p>I agree about the gun issue being a conflict between rural and city culture. We need to find new ways to talk about it.
<
p>
You are right – Gillibrand is mostly fine. I lived like a 1/4 of a mile from her district and know it well as my grandparents lived in it. She represents the district the way she would have to to get re-elected.
<
p>She also will represent upstate NY which is chronically neglected by downstaters. It isn’t just a city vs. rural thing. There are plenty of cities in upstate NY, but they don’t come close to pulling the punches NYC, LI, and the Hudson Valley counties do.
<
p>I wonder though how effective she’ll be at bringing upstate the attention it needs where it counts – $$$. The Senate after all doesn’t appropriate the $$$.
<
p>NY is one messed up place and if a pol doesn’t play their cards right and ascend the ladder the way machines say they should they’re essentially toast in my view. She is a nobody in terms of NYS Democratic politics. For the most part she went up and out of NYS to get her laurels to come back to her district and make a run, needing few in NY to get her elected.
<
p>She was in fact a tremendous long shot until Sweeney starting beating his wife and the press got wind of it – which was only a week before her first win in ’06. Getting re-elected in ’08 was not actually that difficult with all the anger against any Republican on top of running against a snoozer Republican hack who the last of the Pataki breed (Pataki left the Republicans in shambles with no statewide offices held and a diminished control of the Senate).
<
p>Her plus is that she can rake in the money which she’ll need as the primary threats are mounting. In fact her and Patterson should run together to fend off their inevitable primary opponents.
<
p>Patterson is a sitting duck with his horrible track record on the managing the ballooning deficit and all around negatively criticized State of the State address which failed to address anything critical. He continually is bucking the calls for increased Millionaire’s Tax and instead proposed a myriad of use taxes which will hit working and middle class families while not at all bothering the rich as they won’t notice anyway. Plus everyone’s mood is souring further over the way Gillibrand’s appointment was handled.
<
p>So yeah, while she’s not bad per se – she won’t stick around. I have little faith in the electorate of Upstate coming together in a primary and mounting a defense against a downstate opponent. There are just too many people that were hoping to run in 2000 that parted way for Clinton and were hoping to get picked by Patterson for me to think that she’ll be safe.
<
p>So I just hope in her two years she’ll get something for upstate done and represent NY well. NY really needs a decent politician who is really there for the people and not looking upwards towards higher aspirations, or is totally in bed with Wall Street, or just plain dirty (most of the Assembly and Senate).
<
p>Enough with NY for me – now that I’m a Mass resident I have to do a crash course and figure out if its as good as my NPR station with a Berkshire Bureau made it sound.
She’s a fan of Tom Tancredo’s immigration policies.
<
p>She’s a gun nut.
<
p>She’s anti gay.
<
p>She has practically zero Democratic Party support (she is not liked).
<
p>That’s enough for me to suppport a primary challenge from a more progressive Dem, her expedient shift to the left notwithstanding. I don’t care if she inhabits the seat for two years. If a better Dem comes along, that’s great. Besides, her views on the above issues are toxic to Big Apple voters, and they will still carry the clout and the state.
As you allude to, and as I mentioned, she’s come out for marriage equality. How is that anti-gay? If she’s changed her mind, she’s changed her mind.
<
p>Do you still refer to Robert Byrd as a Klansman?
<
p>I’ve never referred to Senator Byrd as a Klansman in my life.
<
p>Her expediency on gay issues is problematic in my view. In fact, her worldview on this issue is approximately 72 hours old. Comparing Sen. Byrd’s years of service to hers is insulting to Senator Byrd.
<
p>Why the hostility? I think there are better Dems out there for the seat. Isn’t that okay?
“Practically zero Democratic Party support” would have to exclude Chuck Schumer, who carries a lot of weight, so that might need revision.
<
p>”Anti gay” is also inaccurate, as has been discussed at length in another thread.
<
p>”Gun nut”? Maybe.
<
p>I don’t know much about her on immigration. I doubt she’s actually a Tancredo-ite, but feel free to prove me wrong.
There’s public statements and the scuttlebutt.
<
p>And the fact that some people kicked her views on gays around on another thread does little to mitigate her previously stated views on gay marriage, even though she seems to have experienced an epiphany on the topic.
<
p>As for her hardline immigration views, I suppose she will distance herself from those views, as well. Certainly this isn’t much of an issue for an upstate NY congressional rep to be out in front on, so I’m not sure why she even bothered to get so strident about it, but she did.
<
p>Maybe she doesn’t like Canadians?
<
p>Whatever, my feeling is that Paterson blew it. She’s hugely disappointing given her historic views, but, gee, give her a week, and she’s likely to fully morph into, well, Louise Slaughter.
<
p>If the people of New York like her, they’ll elect her in two years. I suspect she’ll be forced to the left in order to be a viable state-wide candidate, so it may all be a moot point in the end.
color me unimpressed with the “upstate is underrepresented” whining.
<
p>Upstate represents well less than half of the population of NY. Of course it’s underrepresented in the Senate. Of course it’s precisely represented in the House.
<
p>Frankly, I doubt it’s a geography issue. My instinct is that (a) it’s a heck of a lot easier to raise senate-level money if your connections are near NYC, and (b) upstate Democrats aren’t as liberal as the median Democratic primary voter, which means that they end up rejected for a more liberal Democrat, who’s more likely to be from the NYC area.
<
p>Given that upstate NY has only since 2006 made a habit of electing Democrats to the House in numbers similar to the NYC area, why are you surprised that Democratic senators are coming from downstate?