Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

Gillibrand it is

January 23, 2009 By David

Kirsten Gillibrand will fill Hillary Clinton’s now-vacant Senate seat.  At least, that’s what the current reports are.  As we know, anything can happen with this one, but it looks pretty definite.

For all the (entirely unnecessary) drama around filling the vacancy, this strikes me as a solid choice.  Gillibrand — whose district encompasses the entire western border of Massachusetts, and whom we are therefore pleased to deem an honorary Bay Stater — has already proven that she’s a tough, formidable campaigner and fundraiser.  There are reports that her relatively conservative stance on gun control will draw a primary challenge in 2010.  That’s just fine — exactly as it should be.  All the recent evidence suggests (at least to me) that a contested primary strengthens, rather than weakens, the ultimate primary winner for the general election.  So bring ’em on.

Congratulations to soon-to-be Senator Gillibrand.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0
0

Filed Under: User Tagged With: new-york

Comments

  1. laurel says

    January 23, 2009 at 10:55 am

    on key lgbt issues, since she recently stated that she supports marriage equality.  this is in contrast to her historical votes against the repeal of dadt, etc.

    According to the Human Rights Campaign, she voted against the repealing of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation, opposed legislation that would grant equal tax treatment for employer-provided health coverage for domestic partners, opposed legislation to grant same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and permanent residents the same immigration benefits of married couples and opposed legislation to permit state Medicaid programs to cover low-income, HIV-positive Americans before they develop AIDS.

    <

    p>a true evolution of a thoughtful soul, or a slimy politician available to the highest bidder?  she needs to demonstrate her sincerity on these issues through hard work and pro-equality votes.  her re-election will hinge on it.

    • sco says

      January 23, 2009 at 11:01 am

      I remember a hearing on DADT in the last session of Congress, but was there a vote?

      • sco says

        January 23, 2009 at 11:06 am

        HR 1246.  Last action was being referred to committee, but I can’t find any votes on it, even in committee.  Maybe I’m just not using the system correctly…

        • sco says

          January 23, 2009 at 11:25 am

          There was no vote on DADT — she just didn’t cosponsor the bill that never came to a vote.  Saying that she voted against it is a lie.  Maybe she lacked the courage to put her name on it, but she didn’t vote against it.  From Human Rights Campaign:

          Although Kirsten Gillibrand did not co-sponsor legislation to repeal DADT, her decision does not mean that Gillibrand supports the policy or would oppose the repeal.  In fact, in recent conversations with Kirsten Gillibrand’s office the Human Rights Campaign has confirmed Gillibrand is in favor of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and supports full marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples.

          • laurel says

            January 23, 2009 at 12:01 pm

            sorry, my mistake.  “lie” impoit is almost impossible for me to get web pages to load today (including ‘preview’ of my comments here).  don’t know if it’s my ancient computer dying, a virus, or something else.  anyway, because of my technical problems i still can’t check up on the source i quoted, which is usually quite reliable.  my apologies.

            <

            p>but doesn’t the fact remain that she was against marriage equality before being against it?  she still needs to be watched very carefully, lobbied hard and held to high standards.  empty lip service wins enemies these days, not hopeful little supplicants.  mark my words.

            • sco says

              January 23, 2009 at 12:27 pm

              I had to follow through a link chain four or five deep before I got to the source of that misinformation.  It was politickerNY that mischaracterized the HRC position.  Sorry if you got caught in the crossfire.

              • dcsohl says

                January 23, 2009 at 1:22 pm

                PolitickerNY was basing their article off of this PDF scorecard from HRC. House members start on page 15. The repeal of DADT is represented by column H (which is summarized on page 13).

                <

                p>The scorecard provides three symbols for each column: Supported HRC’s position, Did not support HRC’s position, and Did not vote. In column H you will notice that all the entries are either “supported” or “did not support”*. I don’t think that failing to co-sponsor a bill should be equated to voting against it. It’s more akin to “did not vote”, IMHO. There’s no real way to know how she would have voted (or if she would have voted).

                <

                p>I think PolitickerNY’s mischaracterization was an honest one based on what had to be a somewhat hasty reading of this chart, assuming that all the columns were based on votes and not on the hazier concept of sponsorship.

                <

                p>*Except for Nancy Pelosi who gets an “N/A” in this column. Anybody know why that might be? Is the Speaker not allowed to co-sponsor bills?

    • david says

      January 23, 2009 at 11:02 am

      but her words are surely welcome.

      <

      p>This, by the way, is hilarious:

      <

      p>

      New Yorkers are left with a sad irony: Battling corruption charges and staring down certain impeachment, Gov. Rod Blagojevich did a better job of picking a US senator than did David Paterson.

      <

      p>Hard to argue with that.  As I said, at the end of the day I think the pick is a good one.  But the day was a long, painful, and embarrassing one, and it revealed that the accidental governor of New York may not be ready for prime time after all.

    • kbusch says

      January 23, 2009 at 12:26 pm

      I suspect that the presence or absence of sincerity is unknowable — unless and until someone interviews her and those personally close to her. But do we even care? Don’t we just need her to vote right?

      <

      p>I think what we’re seeing is that an increase in blueness makes centrist politicians less afraid of embracing progressive positions. I say that with all sincerity.

    • stomv says

      January 23, 2009 at 2:52 pm

      So she may have been as liberal as she thought her district would allow.  Now that her district (NY) is much more liberal, she may move to the left because she doesn’t have to fear losing an election for being too liberal.

      <

      p>Or, maybe she’s just a Blue Dog to the core.  Then again, maybe she’ll leave her Blue Dog brethren on social issues to ensure that she keeps her senate seat.

      <

      p>Time will tell if she votes like Mary Landreau or like Hillary Clinton.

  2. petr says

    January 23, 2009 at 3:21 pm

    The situation continues to evolve.  It’s unclear, at this point, what, or who, wins.   I don’t think Patterson handled the whole thing all that well and thus, at best, he goes into the election cycle a couple of strikes down.  

    <

    p>Gillibrand seems to want to give the impression that she’s sortaa liberal representing a sorta conservative district but that doesn’t explain her strong anti-immigrations stance as well as  common cause with other “Blue Dog” Dems and her (initial) TARP vote (NO).  She seems to come from a politically connected family (fathers a lawyer/lobbyist and mothers a lawyer) and has the patronage of Chuck Shumer, so arguments used against Caroline Kennedy might be apropos here as well. Al Giordano is not pleased with the netroots on this… and thinks it’s a train wreck in the making.   We shall see.

    <

    p>I think Gillibrand will show us what she’s made of within 6 months, at least, that’s the time frame which, I think, will decide a lot of what the election will turn upon.   I honestly don’t know what that is… it could be good, it could be bad… we shall see.  I continue to think that C Kennedy would have been the optimal progressive choice, but Gillibrand will have a shot at proving me wrong.

    • stomv says

      January 23, 2009 at 3:36 pm

      Gillibrand has taken public stances on political issues in the past few years, and has demonstrated the ability to raise money and to win elections.

    • laurel says

      January 23, 2009 at 5:06 pm

      because we’ll never know how kennedy would have acted in office.  a timid progressive is little better than a conservative, and we have no idea whether kennedy would have been timid or bold, a tool or a trailblazer.  all we will learn in the coming months is what gillibrand is made of.  no inferences can ever be drawn to kennedy based on gillibrand’s performance.  time to leave the kennedy debate behind, as kennedy herself has done.

  3. z says

    January 23, 2009 at 5:48 pm

    Just a quick run-down of her Wiki page reveals she was a former Big Tobacco lawyer and was a fan of the Bush Tax Cuts.

    <

    p>Sounds like the kind of person who will be calling for more tax cuts in the stimulus plan- even if said tax cuts weaken it– and will then say the plan is too big (where were the budget hawks in 01 and 03??).

    <

    p>Politically, this is a stupid pick. It sounds like she is a relative unknown in NY and has little time to build a state-wide profile. A primary challenge by a fellow Congresswoman ain’t gonna help either.  

  4. lightiris says

    January 24, 2009 at 9:09 am

    Good grief.  So much for more and better Democrats.  Paterson has revealed himself to devoid of tact, leadership, and good common sense.  As this NYT story describes, he’s created a wholly unnecessary mess.

    <

    p>Personally, I’ll be watching Rep. McCarthy’s challenge closely.  I’ll throw her so bucks if she decides to give Gillibrand a run for it.  

    <

    p>Cuomo should also give Paterson a run.  He’s a dolt.  

Recommended Posts

  • No posts liked yet.

Recent User Posts

Predictions Open Thread

December 22, 2022 By jconway

This is why I love Joe Biden

December 21, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Garland’s Word

December 19, 2022 By terrymcginty

Some Parting Thoughts

December 19, 2022 By jconway

Beware the latest grift

December 16, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Thank you, Blue Mass Group!

December 15, 2022 By methuenprogressive

Recent Comments

  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftSo where to, then??
  • Christopher on Some Parting ThoughtsI've enjoyed our discussions as well (but we have yet to…
  • Christopher on Beware the latest griftI can't imagine anyone of our ilk not already on Twitter…
  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftI will miss this site. Where are people going? Twitter?…
  • chrismatth on A valedictoryI joined BMG late - 13 years ago next month and three da…
  • SomervilleTom on Geopolitics of FusionEVERY un-designed, un-built, and un-tested technology is…
  • Charley on the MTA on A valedictoryThat’s a great idea, and I’ll be there on Sunday. It’s a…

Archive

@bluemassgroup on Twitter

Twitter feed is not available at the moment.

From our sponsors




Google Calendar







Search

Archives

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter




Copyright © 2025 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.