More on this later on, but if as is widely anticipated, Kristin Gillibrand is named today as the junior senator from New York, this is not a terrific outcome for progressive Democrats. Gillibrand, statistically speaking, has been one of the more conservative Democrats in the House. Moreover, she is a somewhat proud conservative, being a member of the Blue Dog caucus. In a state like New York, which is capable of electing and re-electing a very liberal senator, that's a somewhat underachieving result for the Democrats.
And I know the objection/counterargument: Gillibrand was representing a relatively conservative district in upstate New York; perhaps she will change her stripes and become more liberal upon representing the entire state. I don't doubt that's true to an extent. But Gillibrand's R+3 district wasn't that conservative by any means, especially since an upstate New York sort of conservative is different from an Alabama sort of conservative. I think, in other words, that her conservativism (or moderateness, really), is in substantial part a matter of her personal philosophy rather than merely an attempt to position herself politically.
I also don't doubt that she'll be effective, compelling and popular, and may turn out to be a very good senator for New York. I just don't know that she'll be an especially good senator for Democrats.
1.23.2009
Is Kennedy's Loss Conservatives' Gain?
@ 9:28 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
204 comments
I think any pick is ultimately a placeholder, as pretty much any candidate is likely to see a primary fight in two years.
Given the history of this appointment "process" -- if you can call it that -- I will believe it's Gillibrand when I actually see it. But if it is her, what irks me is that given her district it gives the Republicans a reasonable pickup opportunity. Seems to me there are plenty of other Democrats (and of course better Democrats) whose appointment wouldn't have that unfortunate side-effect.
I'm assuming you meant Kirsten Gillibrand? It's a pretty scary pick, considering her history with tobacco and how among her campaign promises was to avoid pork-barrel earmarks on bills and instead she's voted for a number of them and generated some of her own. She's competent and well-spoken and intelligent, but really I'd even rather have a Republican.
Time will see, and pretty soon, since Gillibrand will move pretty fast to establish herself in the right mold for a 2010 primary.
But as a resident of a neighboring district, I disagree with your intuition about her philosophy and the likely limit on her settling leftwards.
You'd have to see the devotion she has earned from progressives around here, and the extreme progressivism of many of the people she has surrounded herself with & whose political careers she has nurtured in her brief time wielding the influence of a member of Congress.
Nate is usually on to something, but ay evens prove him wrong and me right. Because this is no "placeholder." Gillibrand is a smart politician and a great fundraiser--she will benefit nicely from our nation's incumbent-protection racket, whether she's a real liberal waiting to blossom, or not.
For a first indication, watch her on tax cuts.
In a nutshell...
David Paterson just appointed Mary Landrieu to be the next junior senator from New York.... FUCKING NEW YORK!!!
If I were Kos or Jane Hamsher, I'd be feeling pretty shitty right now. Hillary's replacement could have been Caroline Kennedy or Andrew Cuomo. I'm not blaming Kos for this, as I'm sure both Chuck Schumer and the Clintons were pushing pretty hard for Gillibrand. But Kos in particular has lost credibility in pushing for better, more progressive Dems in the near future. Caroline Kennedy was to left of Hillary Clinton. Kirsten Gillibrand is to the right of Joe Lieberman on domestic and social issues. Even if she moves to the left as senator, this is still a blow to progressives.
Aravosis on Gillibrand:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/01/kirsten-gillibrand-chosen-to-fill.html#disqus_thread
I'm happy to say, I was for Caroline Kennedy being appointed to Hilary's seat from the moment she expressed interest. Sure she did herself no favors in terms of PR, but she definately would have been a strong ally of President Obama and the progressive agenda. That was the deciding factor, along with the FReeptards, who were paranoid Kennedy would torpedo Mooseburger's 2016 bid.
The irony of this, apart from another Blue Dog being in the senate, is that Caroline Kennedy may still end up being appointed as either placeholder or longterm successor to her uncle. And Caroline is quite possibly to the right of Teddy.
Very true about upstate NY conservatives being a different breed from our familiar southern evangelical conservatives. Having grown up in a relatively "conservative" suburb of Syracuse, I remember getting into heated political arguments with my "Republican" friends in school... only to find that by our 10th high school reunion, all of the ones who had been out in the wider world had discovered that they were, in fact, Democrats!
Upstate conservatives basically just care about three things: Taxes, Guns, and Sticking It To Those Bastards In NYC. Abortion is also still a fairly big issue for some communities up there, particuarly the Catholics.
But even in those, they're pretty moderate. Most of them will readily agree that well, sure, we have to pay taxes for Schools, Roads, and Health... They'll admit that assault weapons aren't really something you need for hunting or protecting your family.
Upstaters also tend to be some of the most environmentally-friendly Republicans there are. No small surprise, since we love skiing, hunting, and boating up there, and have a ton of Superfund sites left behind by companies that long ago moved out of the area.
Gillibrand's district probably won't exist after 2010 anyway. And if she loses in the primary because Democrats can't accept a senator who respects the Bill of Rights and understands that the central document of our civil liberties is not a Subway sandwich bar where you take the condiments you like and leave the rest to rot, that's shame on the New York Democratic Party.
I expect that Gillibrand will be an independent, forthright senator who won't just blindly vote the party line. If that inconveniences Democrats, too bad; I'd rather have a senator who votes for what's right than a senator who just votes to rubber-stamp the agendas of the president and the party leadership.
Positives about Kirsten Gillibrand:
She's young and relatively attractive... for a female senator. I also have no problem with the Clintons basically choosing Hillary's successor. Likewise Biden presumably wanting his son the succeed him. The NY senate seat was Hillary's for life, and she could easily have decided against giving that up to become Secretary of State.
The biggest concern nowfor Dems, other Giilibrand's social views, is NY-20.
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
Gillibrand may be more left-wing than you think. She supports gay marriage, for example.
I, a liberal Democrat, think this is an excellent choice.
The main argument seems to be that she's pro gun ownership. There's a reason the Obama camp went around swearing up and down that they wouldn't take people's guns. Biden, who is infamous among gun-rights advocates, went around talking about his Beretta. I think the gun rights issue is just brazenly wrong-track, and I think Gillibrand will be a fine senator so long as we understand that "progressive" isn't entirely defined by gun rights.
from polticalwire.com:
"Quote of the Day
"It was a complete surprise, completely unexpected. And just like the United States prevailed in that, we'll prevail in this."
-- Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), quoted by the AP, comparing his impeachment to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
"
I love the Gillebrand pick. Dems needs to have a big tent not to go the way of the way of "Contract with America" landslide for repubs in coming elections.
I'm under the impression that most officials who are designated rather than elected don't win when they have to run for the position they are given. Did I read that here?
While I prefer my democrats to be liberal, I also don't want to be like the GOP where everyone has to be a puppet and agree on every issue. See current makeup of House, Senate, and White House to see how well that has worked for them.
Why isn't rays242 banned yet?
eve-
Yes, you did read that here.
I live in Gillibrand's district. It might only be R+3, but I assure you, its more conservative than you'd think. It might not be Alabama, but these people love their God and they love their guns- it was a real coup when she won the seat two years ago, and really only made possible when it came out that the republican incumbent was beating his wife. In any case, while I'm hardly thrilled about her, I wouldn't be surprised to see her move leftwards in the senate.
Going to be very interesting to see if an anti-abortion senate candidate can win a Democratic primary in NY. My guess is no, unless there are more than three challengers.
I have to say that the record of her conservatism is, at most, limited to two issues: finances and guns. Now fiscal conservatism has, and continues to be, a big electoral winner in New York state and even in NYC, so it really isn't out of step with the state or the party on the whole. As for guns, it's a matter of what her district looks like: white, exurban, on the border of multiple state parks with hunting grounds, socially moderate and fiscally conservative. She's pro gay marriage, and pro-choice, so as far as litmus tests are concerned she fits the bill pretty well.
The biggest question in all of this, Nate, is how electable she is. Now, given the turmoil and general turpitude of New York state politics, the seat is probably safely Democratic but could easily flip if the Republicans can find someone better than Peter King to lead the ticket. As a formidable fundraiser, and someone with all sorts of ties statewide, Gillibrand is a pretty good choice as far as that's concerned. Additionally, the fact that she's from upstate is a big deal in all of this: since Joe Bruno retired, there has not been a single person from outside of the NYC metro area in a significant position of power statewide, and Paterson really needs to run up margins in Buffalo and other upstate cities if he wants to be reelected in 2010. At the end of the day, New York state, while very blue, is far less liberal as a whole than is thought, and this pick is pretty much right in line with that.
This, and Blago, are the reasons why I kinda wish we didn't have gubernatorial appointments at all.
An election would not have taken that much more time than this, and would have had legitimacy. No matter if you liked the outcome or not, you'd hate to admit that New Yorkers picked their own Senator and that's just how a democracy works.
Everone said, "Oh no! We can't do that! We NEED these fine governors to pick liberals democrats, and can't take a chance that a conservative will win."
Well, guess what? Your odds of getting a liberal would have been better with an election than with this appointment.
Gillibrand's good on GLBT rights. I fundamentally disagree with her on gun control, but she favors Equal Marriage, domestic partner benefits, voted for ENDA, I can't see her as an enemy.
If you wanted Tracey Brooks, then you should have had an election so Tracey Brooks could have run. Kennedy was not a solid candidate and would have made an extremely ineffective Senator. The press would have eaten her alive. Cuomo, well, I would have liked him to win more than Kennedy, but there,s still the primogeniture thing, and Gillibrand doesn't have that problem.
This was a good pick. If you don't like it, ditch the gubernatorial appointment process altogether in the future so New Yorkers can elect their own leaders to the Senate
Recap of my personal picks for senate appointments:
Illinois: Jan Schakowsky ousting Blago's bitch Burris (I originally wanted Jesse Jackson Jr. appointed) with Schakowsky retiring and the First Lady running for the President's seat in 2016.
Delaware: Beau Biden
New York: Caroline Kennedy (would've settled for Cuomo)
Colorado: Hickenlooper or Romanoff
And yet Senator-Elect Franken still hasn't been seated.
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
Obama's First Air Force One Trip
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/22/obamas-first-air-force-on_n_159977.html
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
KG's gun position is a natural fit for her district, and just not a big deal in the overall picture. What's more troubling is that her website issues section (http://www.gillibrand.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=140&Itemid=39) is largely about lowering taxes and providing health care through the private insurance system (incorrectly described as efficient). The environment appears (in drag) under 'energy independence', but with some good things in the fine print. I didn't see anything hinting at any awareness that ballooning economic inequality was a problem.
Let's hope she's not an impediment on health care, and that she does recognize that rich people must pay taxes.
Caroine Kennedy's rather incompetent "campaign" for the seat has sapped the credibility from arguments based on her supposed progressivism.
On the face of it, I don't much like the Gillibrand pick.
But would Kennedy have been a good pick for progressives? I still don't know...and after watching her in political pseudo-action, I got the feeling that neither did she.
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
fred said...
I love the Gillebrand pick. Dems needs to have a big tent not to go the way of the way of "Contract with America" landslide for repubs in coming elections.
In New York?!?!?
What I don't understand is why you would pick a Democrat who has been winning in a R+3 district. Now, not only does the Senate become more conservative, but the Republicans also have a chance to pick up a House seat.
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
She went to Dartmouth and UCLA law. Dartmouth can be fairly conservative, but UCLA is not. Just reading tea leaves.
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This is great. Very strong gun-rights advocate.
eve said...
While I prefer my democrats to be liberal, I also don't want to be like the GOP where everyone has to be a puppet and agree on every issue. See current makeup of House, Senate, and White House to see how well that has worked for them.
Problem is, even when Democrats are united, they hold together about well as uncooked rice. A Blue Dog from Nebraska is one thing. A Blue Dog from New York is something else entirely.
BTW, you can't fault the scum for being effective in getting their agenda passed over the last 8 years. What you can fault them for is for being utterly insane and effectievly destroying the country. That's what can be achieved when the party in power are in agreement and steamroll the opposition.
I wouldn't be calculating this as a gain for conservatives, UNLESS the Senatorial conservatives find a way to seek middle ground instead of cleaving toward the right edge. Gillibrand will, I think, clearly line up on procedural votew with the Dem Senate leadership; if she occasionally votes differently from the leadership or the president on substance it's not likely to matter.
In short, I doubt Obama or his team is losing any sleep over this at all.
This is probably a sensible move by Paterson not to commit to one of the previously widely mentioned front runners for the Senate race in 2010. If Gillibrand is successful in winning the nomination in 2010, more power to her. That's democracy for you.
Dear Secret Service:
You guys did an incredible job at the inauguration-- thank you for keeping our new President and Vice-President safe. It seems unlikely you'd have missed this, but in case you have, I'd like to draw your attention to a possible threat to our new President's life. As you can see from this blog, "rays242" is over the line when it comes to anti-Obama sentiment, and may in fact be dangerous. Please watch him closely, and if you have the time, harass him relentlessly.
Thanks!
I think that once you get to see Gillibrand in action, you will be pleasantly surprised by her.
She's smart, savvy, knows politics better than anybody else that as applying for the job, self-made, her positions on most issues are fairly progressive. Granted, there is the gun control thing, and I wish she were more in line with my own views on that. On the whole, though, she's pro-civil rights, she sees health care as a human right, she's more into getting us out of Iraq to save money than slashing social programs to do so, she's pro-peace, and she's pro-choice.
New York could have done alot worse than Senator Gillibrand. I personally find her to be very impressive, and I think she's going to be a remarkably good Senator. With a bit of luck, she's going to bring some of her very talented colleagues into federal-level politics as well, including Tracey Brooks and Mike Russo, two candidates that will do much to improve New York and American as a whole if either of them get into her Congressional seat once she vacates it.
So quit your frowning and smile. This isn't going to be as bad as you think it is
Hey Nate do you think you could calculate the percentage chance that Mule Rider will come back as a sock puppet like rays every day?
Right now I'd say it's about 100%
I'm really not sure why the media and liberal blogosphere are screaming that Gillibrand is a "DINO". She supports all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights rather than just nine of them. I think that's fantastic, and I don't think you have to be a right-winger to support people's constitutionally guaranteed rights. Natch. She supports lowering taxes, mainly for working- and middle-class households. So does President Obama - and who's calling him a DINO? She doesn't support the bailout and nationalization efforts, but neither do a lot of other Democrats (especially those who aren't fortunate enough to be in Congress).
Gillibrand lines up with her Democratic colleagues on hot-button issues like the war in Iraq, sustainable energy, labor laws, gay marriage, and abortion. Her vote will be in the left place on the issues that Obama was elected to solve.
So, what's all the fuss about?
Schumer Backed Gillibrand for Senate
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/01/23/schumer_backed_gillibrand_for_senate.html
For Chuck the Schmuck's sake, Kirsten Gillibrand better be an outstanding senator, because his judgement is for shit (Michael Mukasey).
Porridgegun-
It would be nice to hold the whole state of NY, instead of just the city. Upstate NY is a lot like MO, rural IA, etc. We need to keep gaining, and gains in the pro-abortion, anti-gun areas are a bit difficult at the moment - we already own them. I have no problem having a few NRA approved dems in the tent.
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Rays242 getting banned on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his time here was was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
WV: gnist: a follower of gnism
OFF TOPIC:
rays242: Any reason why you have 2 accounts with the same username? After all, you're not the least bit concerned about the authorities tracking you down...
I'm under the impression that most officials who are designated rather than elected don't win when they have to run for the position they are given. Did I read that here?
Nate did post on appointee's election prospects. I remember it was much worse than incumbants, but I don't believe they lost more than won.
This is extremely frustrating to me. I understand the political calculus makes it seem like appointing someone from upstate who is notably conservative on a couple of specific issues. And I am somewhat heartened by the comments of other folks on here that say that Gillibrand is liberal on a lot of issues. However, the key point is the one that Nate made: this is New York and there is no reason we should settle for someone who is not a full-on liberal/progressive. We have a deep bench of great House Reps and other important state Dems (Cuomo, etc.).
I think this virtually guarantees an all-out primary fight in two years. Maloney or Nadler would have been much better in my opinion.
My predictions are unreliable, but regardless, I predict that if Gillibrand doesn't vote a clear liberal line as Senator, there will be a primary, and she may lose. Regardless of whether she wins or loses, the Democratic candidate will be a heavy favorite in the 2010 election. I simply don't agree that primaries are gloom and doom, as long as whoever loses supports the winner and not the Republican.
As for Caroline Kennedy, she ran a ham-fisted campaign for selection and has done nothing to clearly merit such a high position as her first. If she wants to go into electoral politics, she should run for City Council or the State Assembly or something. I have no regrets that she wasn't picked.
fred said...
Porridgegun-
It would be nice to hold the whole state of NY, instead of just the city. Upstate NY is a lot like MO, rural IA, etc. We need to keep gaining, and gains in the pro-abortion, anti-gun areas are a bit difficult at the moment - we already own them. I have no problem having a few NRA approved dems in the tent.
Then you take out a wingnut like Peter King by running someone like Kirsten Gillibrand. You don't appoint someone to right of Hillary Clinton to represent the entire state, which is strongly liberal, and which no wingnut has any chance of winning.
She got a 100% rating from the ACLU in 2007. And the American Conservative Union gave her an 8%.
Maybe liberals should calm down.
I don't like Maloney. I used to live in her district, and I remember when she voted against Clinton's first budget without offering a substitute. I sent her a letter lambasting her for nihilism. To her credit, after she got plastered with outraged reactions from her constituents, she changed her tune on this. But then, she showed her stupidity by voting for the Iraq War Resolution and, as I recall, making a statement showing that she was totally confusing Iraq with Al Qaida. As a former constituent of hers, I think she is not smart and would be a worse senator than Clinton - who I have never forgiven for voting for the Iraq War Resolution and making a really insulting statement trying to justify the vote.
I currently live in Jerry Nadler's district, and I agree with him on almost everything. He is one of the most liberal congressmen in the House, and also really intelligent and knowledgeable and able to argue any point about any issue. I would have loved for him to have been selected but always considered that a long shot.
"Not good for Democrats?" Well, she is a Democrat. Maybe you mean't not good for left-wing Democrats. As a Democrat that has voted for her all along (I live in Dutchess Co. NY), and a moderate Democrat, I am proud that she has been chosen.
After reading the comments about Gillibrand's positions, she seems fine to me, a much better pick than Kennedy. My most important qualifications are (1) loyal Democrat--will support leadership on procedural issues and not talk bad about the party or its leadership; (2) electable--she's a great fundraiser, attractive, and must be a good campaigner to have won her district and she should easily crush any Republican in NY; her biggest problems will be a primary but with Schumer's (and Clinton's?) support she shouldn't have any problems here; (3) supports Obama's agenda--from the comments she seems like she's on board with all the important issues like health care, taxes, labor, environment, and Iraq; I don't really care about gun control because that's not on the agenda anyway; and (4) qualified--unlike Kennedy she made her own way, can speak publicly, smart, networks, independent, and is reputed to an effective legislator. Being a center-left moderate, she'll also act as a brake on Democrats trying to run the country with a 50% + 1 strategy that Bush utilized and thus help us avoid the partisan mistakes the Republicans made that led to such terrible corruption, mismanagement, and eventual electoral defeat. Being a woman is a slight bonus. All in all, she seems like a great pick. I've yet to hear a single reason not to like her.
Note to rays242...
I have a cousin who works with the Secret Service in DC. (it's a big world in the blogispher... you must have guessed someone would be connected)
He has been informed of your posting.
I guess you never figured that in this day and age a posting could be traced back to you. Hint: every computer has it's own fingerprint.
Too bad for you.
Is that a knock on your door pal?
As for NY and conservative Senators, true they are rare.
But do a little Wikipedia on Senator Alphonse D'Amato if you want to see what is possible even in NY.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_D%27Amato
Three freakin' terms!!
wv: scalyto (true) - what you get when Justice Scalia has his dick in Justice Alito's ass??
I think this virtually guarantees an all-out primary fight in two years. Maloney or Nadler would have been much better in my opinion.
I very much doubt it and tend to agree with Ben Smith who says "the notion that a serious Democrat in New York would cross Chuck Schumer and mount a primary is . . . farfetched." http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/
Besides, if she does get primaried from the left, so what? Primaries are usually good for the winner's general election prospects, especially if the winner doesn't have universal name recognition.
"Dear Secret Service:
You guys did an incredible job at the inauguration-- thank you for keeping our new President and Vice-President safe. It seems unlikely you'd have missed this, but in case you have, I'd like to draw your attention to a possible threat to our new President's life. As you can see from this blog, "rays242" is over the line when it comes to anti-Obama sentiment, and may in fact be dangerous. Please watch him closely, and if you have the time, harass him relentlessly.
Thanks!"
No amount of anti-Obama sentiment is over the line That does not exist.
I have done nothing wrong, but even if I have, I really doubt the Secret Service patrols the comment section of random articles in random blogs, looking for people to send them messages.
"Hey Nate do you think you could calculate the percentage chance that Mule Rider will come back as a sock puppet like rays every day?
Right now I'd say it's about 100%"
Why are you mocking my serious request? If enacted, the feature would be a great reason to return to the site daily, as it would have exclusive content I could not find anywhere else!
"OFF TOPIC:
rays242: Any reason why you have 2 accounts with the same username? After all, you're not the least bit concerned about the authorities tracking you down..."
The authorities cannot do anything, since I have done nothing wrong.
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
Then you take out a wingnut like Peter King by running someone like Kirsten Gillibrand. You don't appoint someone to right of Hillary Clinton to represent the entire state, which is strongly liberal, and which no wingnut has any chance of winning.
Unless of course, we selected a total empty shirt like Carolyn Kennedy, who's never won an election in her life, completely lacks campaign skills, and number one qualification is her surname. King was certainly chomping at the bit to run against her and I suspect he would have had a very good shot of winning.
We can't say it enough: Big-Tent, Big-Tent, Big-Tent. Find a spot where 2/3 of Americans can relatively agree (just left of center). Jolting to the far-left is a political blunder that blood-thirsty Republicans are DREAMING the Democrats make. Want progressive solutions in Washington for a generation or more? Then don't piss off the centrists!
"We can't say it enough: Big-Tent, Big-Tent, Big-Tent. Find a spot where 2/3 of Americans can relatively agree (just left of center). Jolting to the far-left is a political blunder that blood-thirsty Republicans are DREAMING the Democrats make. Want progressive solutions in Washington for a generation or more? Then don't piss off the centrists!"
So 2/3 of Americans are liberals? Epic FAIL!
Despite holding all three branches of government for the first time in years, and a President with 80% approval rating, you'd think the Democrats were on the defensive. Why is Obama even giving the likes of Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor and Jon Kyl the time of day? Why is the Prez asking these morons for their input on the stimulus package? They're only interessted in more tax cuts for the rich and less job creation. Also, did you see Kyl hamming it up at the Geithner hearing? Fuck 'em, they've been disrespectful from day one. They shouldn't have a say in ANYTHING for the next 4-8 years.
Inexplicably, the scum may actually have a shot at making some gains in 2010, what with the appointment fiascos and overall lack of vision. Apart from both being young, there's not a whole lot to get excited about with Gillibrand and Bennet.
Like I said the other day, if Dems lose any seat in 2010, Tim Kaine should step down. And I like him taking over from Dean.
So 2/3 of Americans are liberals?
Nope. Thats why liberals can't make a big mistake here and lurch far to the left. They'll just alienate the rest of us. They need to stay near the center (to bring liberal republicans and centrists on-board). Take it nice and slow and work toward solutions that a big majority of Americans can live with (i.e. 'Big-Tent').
I wonder.
Do we care about what's good for the democrats or do we actually care about what's good for the nation. And while, during the Bush years, I believed that was mostly one and the same, as the power balance has shifted, I think doing the country good is good for the democrats, and doing the democrats good is not what is always best for the country.
Case in point: If she's a reasonable conservative who is dem leaning on most issues, but fiscally conservative, maybe that's best for the nation, though it might get Harry Reid's panties in a bunch. Do you worry more about the country, or Reid's panties? If you are worrying about Reid's panties, you got mad issues, or you work for the DSCC and the DNC. Ultimately, it's about the country.
PorridgeGun, I normally agree with a lot of what you say, but I have to say I think you've gone off the rails. Obama and the Democrats playing tit-for-tat and morphing into the left's version of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, DeLay, Hastert, and Lott would be the worst, the most divisive thing for our country right now. We elected Obama because we're tired of politics as usual, and we're tired of one party dominating the political agenda and disrespecting any dissenter as "unpatriotic" or "mentally disordered".
Methinks you need to go back and reread Obama's 2004 convention speech.
I don't know this woman from a hole in the ground, but as far as I can see Statler has this right - she will be progressive. He is the only one to have provided proper evidence for his view - her voting record. It looked pretty socially progressive to me. I can't judge where she stands fiscally, but she voted for some regulation in the past, so she is unlikely to be a wild free marketeer. As for gun control, well as a Brit I think you guys in the US lost the plot on that a long time ago, so being pro- or anti- gun is not a deal breaker for me.
Off thread, but great great news in Obama's first couple of days. Not only signalling the closure of Guantanamo but the end of all the secret camps around the world, future observance of the Geneva Conventions and the end of torture. And what's more, the guys from the military and CIA appear to be saying amen to that. Suck on that Bush and Cheyney.
Despite holding all three branches of government for the first time in years, and a President with 80% approval rating, you'd think the Democrats were on the defensive. Why is Obama even giving the likes of Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor and Jon Kyl the time of day? Why is the Prez asking these morons for their input on the stimulus package? They're only interessted in more tax cuts for the rich and less job creation. Also, did you see Kyl hamming it up at the Geithner hearing? Fuck 'em, they've been disrespectful from day one. They shouldn't have a say in ANYTHING for the next 4-8 years.
I'm not sure Obama is your best bet for that. He's showing a willingness to work above partisanism. Why would he repeat Bush's mistakes of alienating a vast block of the American electorate? Thats not any better than what we've already had the last 8 years. Are you really wanting a huge population of the country to have no voice whatsoever? Is it revenge the president is suppose to seek?
Rather, Obama is showing Bush and the R's how it SHOULD have been done the last 8 years. Hopefully, this next generation of politicians will catch on, and start working for the nation...instead of just red and blue. Then maybe one day our government will work again.
Bollocks. If the Dems move any more to the center, they'll never get anything done (See: Harry Reid). The only way to get anything done is by drawing a line in the sand, sticking together and marginalising obstructionists like Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, John Cornyn, David Vitter and James Inhoffe.
BTW, there is no such thing as "liberal republicans" anymore. If there were, they would have quit the party by now amd become moderate Democrats.
I really hate to interrupt all the mutual masturbation between you conservatives, but the majority of people in the US are nether conservative nor liberal. The average American really just doesn't give a shit about anything that doesn't affect their life personally. Most don't invest the time or effort it takes to consider political issues not directly relevant to them, and think people who do to be idiots with too much time on their hands.
Which is why the economy was so decisive. If most Americans were conservative, as you say, they would have been so concerned with Obama's Keynesian approach that they would not have elected him.
Only, they did elect him. By one of the largest electoral margins for a non-incumbent ever.
So they're not conservatives.
They're not liberals either, nor are they centrists. A centrist would have elected Clinton. They did not elect Clinton. Despite the name recognition and the money and Bill Clinton-maybe because of Bill Clinton-they did not elect Clinton.
They're not centrists.
And they're not liberals because it actually took an economic implosion to get them to trust Obama fully.
Most Americans belong to the 'I Don't Give a Shit' Party, also known as the Beer Party. Which advocates for, well, more beer.
That,s where I'd say about 80% of America is. They're concerned with their kids and their spouses, they're worried about car payments and the mortgage, they'd like to retire to someplace warm when they're old, and they would rather somebody competent and not prone to freaking out or having senior moments be at the helm so they can concentrate on their 401K and the tuition bill for their kids and can they get dental insurance.
He's showing a willingness to work above partisanism. Why would he repeat Bush's mistakes of alienating a vast block of the American electorate?
You miss the point. The aforementioned McConnell, Cantor, Kyl, Vitter, Cornyn and Infoffe, in addition to the FReeptards, FOX and Limbaugh, have no intention of acting in a bipartisan manner. They can't afford to let Obama succed in the next couple of years. They've made that perfectly clear. As for Bush, he alinated Democrats even as they bent over backwards and acted bipartisan.
RAYS242-
You id threaten Obama with death when you first appeared. That is all it takes for a Secret Service visit.
There's only one thing uglier than an angy, stubborn, and radical political party out-of-power...an angry, stubborn, and radical party IN-power.
I do hope we all rise above the petty party conflicts and soon address the moment before us. Regardless of who has what letter next to their name, their voice should be at least HEARD. Not ignored. Especially during these times. For they may just have a good idea to help get us out of this mess. Doesn't mean the White House or Congress has to follow the minority's policies. But I'm encouraged they are at least listening to their views.
Like you said, Bush and Republicans have failed terribly in that regard for a generation. It was their way, or no-way...dissenters be damned. Its a tragic historical lesson for the rest of us to learn from.
To Stat...
Amen, brother, AMEN!!! After 15 years of Fox News and conservative radio, most Americans have been caught up in being labeled one side or the other. Well, after the massive screwups of the Bush Adminitration most people just don't give a DAMN. They don't care about political party or ideology - they just want a government that works, a government that will protect them, and a government where their children and loved ones will prosper. Too bad the conservatives don't realize that.
From the last post, brought forward for obvious reasons
DNFTT
Do Not Feed The Trolls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
The text below is copied UNEDITED (sections) from the WIKI above and is used as reference.
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]
Usage
Application of the term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem.
Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives. Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities. Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen warning: "Please do not feed the trolls".[11]
Frequently, someone who has been labelled a troll by a group may seek to redeem their reputation by discrediting their opponents, for example by claiming that other members of the group are closed-minded, conspirators, or trolls themselves.
PorridgeGun: For Chuck the Schmuck's sake, Kirsten Gillibrand better be an outstanding senator, because his judgement is for shit (Michael Mukasey).
I think that's an unfair assessment regarding Mukasey on process grounds. I'm not crazy about Mukasey either, but what was the alternative? If the Senate turned down Mukasey, W could have made an "acting" appointment that would have required no Senate approval. And that would likely have been even worse.
Being against Mukasey wasn't going to get a better person to show up instead; in the end, the president has the power of appointment. I think Mukasey was the best we were going to get with this guy, so I would have voted yes too. Unless someone has an idea of how to force the president's hand in such situations?
ON TOPIC
I have little knowledge of Kristen Gillibrand or her politic view. I do know that she spent a term in the House of Representatives and that she was legally and apparently ethically named to fill the vacant senate seat by the duly elected governor of New York State. It is true that Governor David Patterson was elected Lieutenant Governor, but that is the process in New York State.
At the end of the day, whether she survives the next democratic primary or the next general election is up to the people of New York.
Michael: I don't like Maloney...
I currently live in Jerry Nadler's district, and I agree with him on almost everything. He is one of the most liberal congressmen in the House, and also really intelligent and knowledgeable and able to argue any point about any issue.
I agree on both points; I have found Maloney, who I am sure is a very hard worker, not to be terribly impressive, while Nadler (based on my admittedly few encounters with him) is one of few people who I feel operates on a whole other level than myself. He seems to have a deep understanding of the policy, politics, and procedural aspects of just about any issue.
But while I admire his liberalism (he does represent the Upper West Side, after all), I think he's one of the few candidates who might be vulnerable to a moderate Republican in a statewide election, so I don't think he would have made a good pick.
But the larger point to me is that this process sucks. There is little reason to deny the will of the voters until November 2010. If we had a special election in three months, then Paterson's 3-month appointment wouldn't carry so much weight. Also, sitting House members wouldn't have to give up their seats to run. And while it's not cheap to have a statewide election, I think the long-term consequences of a nearly two-year appointment (the appointee has the inside track for holding the seat for possibly decades) are far outweighed by the need to uphold fundamental democratic principles. We the people of NY should decide, not one person.
Gillibrand is from a district near me, the first elected Democrat in decades from that area, and only won in the first place because her opponent made himself look like a wife abuser.
Yes, she's somewhat conservative, but the last two congressmen from her district included a man who tried to physically disrupt the vote counting in Florida in 2000 (literally -- he led a group that stormed the people trying to count votes in order to prevent them from doing their job) and by Gerald Solomon, who, among other things, originated the Solomon Amendment that forced colleges to accept military recruiters on campus or else.
That is her district. It's certainly the most conservative in New York, and pretty much to the right everywhere. Gillibrand had to represent the district, and clearly made sure she stayed on the right.
Her replacement in the House will almost certainly be a Republican.
WNYC-FM had a good deal of discussion of Kirsten Gillibrand this morning on the Brian Lehrer Show, which any of you can listen to from wnyc.org. There was a Village Voice reporter who mentioned two votes that concern me: (1) She voted to extend the Bush tax cuts for millionaires; (2) She voted to approve continued funding for the Iraq War in 2007, when most Democrats in the House voted against.
As for Obama meeting with Republicans, including those furthest on the right: I'm glad he is. Remember that he expressed willingness to meet with Ahmadinejad, too. Doesn't mean he'll stray from his principles. But he's a community organizer who believes in inclusion and if Inhofe actually has a good idea, he'll be happy to acknowledge it. By the way, if you want examples of how liberal Democrats acknowledge the contributions of Republicans, I hope some of you heard Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy giving introductions of each of the other senators on the committee during the Eric Holder hearings. He may disagree with them on lots of things, but he shows them respect and is happy to collaborate with them on anything of mutual interest.
Chuck:
NY-20 is more conservative than the districts still represented by Republicans?
wv: booke. If they asked me, I could write a booke...
I've seen this a couple of times before on past posts, but where is the root of the assumption that the more liberal you are, the better it is for Democrats? Perhaps the biggest strength of the Democratic Party over the Republican Party is its inclusiveness and diversity. Many Democrats, such as myself, are actually moderates and are a little frightened of people like Michael Moore and Arianna Huffington, so in our eyes the more moderates in office the better. I just don't understand the idea that a 'moderate' Democrat might be good for New York but not very good for Democrats.
Peter King announces that he has reservations about running against Gillibrand
Peter King, once enthusiastically announced his bid to run against Caroline Kennedy, has not announced that he will not decide whether to do so against Gillibrand until after the summer. He has expressed sentiments of trepidation, this before Gillibrand's first day in office.
For those of you that have doubts about her, may I present to you Gillibrand as prize-fighter; she can handle herself politically in the ring, and nobody has to hold her hand or fight for her.
The Toreadora has entered the ring, and already the bull is cowering rather than charging as it once was against Mz Kennedy.
Olé!
Statler
I usually like your comments, but I ALWAYS appreciate your panache!!!
Joe,
Thanks!
Viva la Gillibrand! Viva, viva!
I'm with Nate on this one.
"In a state like New York, which is capable of electing and re-electing a very liberal senator, that's a somewhat underachieving result for the Democrats."
To replace Hillary Clinton - this is the best he could do ?
While Kirsten is far from terrible, she sure did get the proverbialleg up somehow...
apparently this may have been more about an 'Albany insider' thing since her family is known to be politically connected [like Paterson]
She has 2 whole years in Congress - big whoop in terms of being effective & discerning her true political leanings through extensive voting over time.
But since she is a proud Blue Dog - how does this bode for Obama in needing a united DEM caucus to push his agenda ?
Not well imho - unless she moderates her conservative financial & some legislative/social stands that she has campaigned on in NY-20.
Worse, but is it just me or has Team Obama been shut out on each & every senate appointment made so far ?
they got shut out in NY now, as well as their preferred in IL of course, plus CO - and DE, well...
How come the DEM governors so far appear not to want to show Obama any luv in their appointments...
No indication that they deferred at all to the WH/DNC
Nate,
I can't remember a time that I've been on opposite sides of the fence from you before, but you are wrong on this one, my sexy blogmaster.
She has already started moderating her views on GLBTI issues and on gun control. And she scores in the high 90s among /all/ the labour unions and organizations.
So her district makes sure she votes for guns and against immigration? I think there's plenty of proof that she's going to lose the 'Dog' part and just end up being 'Blue'.
SergeantSuj posted thusly:
"I've seen this a couple of times before on past posts, but where is the root of the assumption that the more liberal you are, the better it is for Democrats? Perhaps the biggest strength of the Democratic Party over the Republican Party is its inclusiveness and diversity.[...]"
Yes, we embrace conservative Democrats like Bobby Bright when they run in heavily Republican districts, because they're far better than the alternative. But this isn't Alabama. That said, Gillibrand is nowhere near as right-wing as Bright, and I reserve judgment on her as Senator. I will judge her in 2010 based on her work in the Senate, and also by comparison with whomever runs against her in any primary.
What do the appointment dramas in NY, IL & CO show us so far ?
That leaving the choice up to one politician is not the best way to resolve the situation,imho.
This cycle sure makes the states look good where the state legislature are empowered to produce a list of approved candidates from the same political party which the governor must choose.
That seems to produce better appointments & is certainly a much more democratic [small 'd'] process [Blago could not have conspired to 'sell' the seat then]
leaving it solely in the hands of a Governor [who could also appoint themselves or their family member ala AK] is just plain fraught with problems & uncertainty especially when the Governor is of another party
time to throw that old relic out along with the electoral college
I live in the NY 20th CD and have voted for Kirsten twice. I am also extremely progressive. However, the thinking that her Blue Dog conservative Dem credentials are a waste of NYS' progressive bent run the risk of cannabalizing the party, much the way the Republicans have done. Primarying and platforming out the moderates. Dems are a big tent party, we need to learn to work with and vote for the conservative members of our caucus. This is the paradigm that President Obama is trying to resurrect in America. Maybe you need to be young to get it. I don't know.
PS: I saw Rep. Caroline McCarthy on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell and she vowed to challenge Gillibrand in the Democratic primaries in 2010. Now I'm not going to hit this too hard, as I know Rep. McCarthy has personal reasons to being opposed to NRA members (founded or not), but this illustrates the fault lines of our coalition and the dangers of polarization.
Why don't you just have special elections whenever a seat becomes vacant? The only reason I can think of is because it costs so much to run an election. Is there some historical reason?
Are there any other countries that fill vacancies by appointment rather than election?
MATT
but Kirsten can fend off the primary challenge from McCarthy & others IF she proves in the next 2 years that she is willing to represent the views of the entire state electorate on the issues that matter by moderating her positions
she has about 16 months or so to show her true colors on the job before the primary season
That whole PVI value of R+3 is based of the Presidential elections for 2000 and 2004. When you drop 2000 and factor in 2008, I suspect that R+3 number will be like R+1 or just straight even.
And then just after 2010 elections, redistricting is going to happen. NY is going to lose some seats but also the State house is now completely held by the Dems, so with gerrymandering I doubt there will be much left of the NY GOP after the 2012 election.
DCM,
I can understand your trepidation. We've both been in the position of target for conservatives since 2004, when Bush/Rove decided to demonize the gay man as the source of all evil in America. It is not easy to trust anyone that comes with the label of conservative.
It is easy however to see all members of the BDC as traitors. I know for myself, when I go walking through the French Quarter and pass Rodrigue's studio a smile amount of bile always appears on the back of my tongue.
Although they do vote as a bloc, they are individuals nonetheless. And we do have to live with the Blue Dogs, most of whom aren't the rabid homophobes the GOP are. The majority of them are more concerned about economics than they are social conservatism.
And in any event, we have better odds of working with them than we do with the GOP. Gillibrand can destroy Peter King easily. He knows this, which is why he has backed away from Gillibrand. Kennedy, you would have had a nice liberal there for two years, max. Then, you'd have Senator King to contend with. Now, you will have Senator Gillibrand for many years to come. And she is friendly to GLBTs like you and me. Peter King is not.
May I therefore ask you to accept her for now, and at least offer her the chance to prove herself before beating your chest in anguish over this appointment? After all, Paterson's not going to reconsider his pick just because we don't like it anyway.
This is a Blue Dog with liberal stripes. And I would rather have her than some half-mad elephant with a penchant for stomping all over civil rights like Peter King.
Actually Gillibrand will be tough for any New York republican to take out. She is a woman, pro choice and pro gun so that keeps the wingers happy.
She will stay pretty moderate until she can win a full term in 2012 and at that point she can move left. If Rudy or King ran against her she is to the right of them on guns and is about the same on the military and social issues.
Almost any democrat will hold their nose and vote for her as opposed to some lame goper with similar views who will fight against Obama.
It was actually a shrewed pick by the Governor.
I'm on LI, and I can tell you that I will NEVER vote for Paterson or Gillibrand. The way Caroline Kennedy was treated was shabby and I have a long memory.
Nate,
Your forgetting that Gillibrand was originally a Kos favorite during the '06 race. Yes, she then joined the blue dogs but she first reached out to the liberal online base. I think that shows more where she lies.
And rays242... your an idiot and Nate please ban him from this site
p j
politics is a rough old game. Ms Kennedy put herself somewhere she wasn't prepared for, and found it tough. You think she was shabbily treated? Imagine her in an election up against someone like Coleman or Chambliss. She's better off out of it.
PJ,
Okay, here's the way I look at it.
When i was a kid somebody took me to go see Lilith Fair. Lots of female musicians, some great acts, alot of them doing the fragility thing. Alot of it seemed they were being cheered on because they had two X chromosomes. Frankly, some of them sucked.
Went to go see the Pretenders when I was older. Got close to the stage, and during one of the slower numbers, somebody called out to Chrissie Hynde some kinda thing about girls gotta stick together and you go girl we support you girl power forever that kinda thing. She leaned into the mic and said, "shut the fuck up, I'm concentrating here"
There,s two kinda of political woman. One is fragile like Sarah Palin, and when the media gets rough with them, as they must do since that's the media's role with politicians of any gender, their supporters freak out over how they were 'handled'. These are Lilith Fair candidates.
Then there are the Kristen Gillibrand candidates, that don't feel like they need anyone to defend them-they can fight their own battles themselves. Anything but fragile, they do their job very very well, and they don't need or want you to cry for them.
That's the Chrisse Hynde kinda candidate.
Guess what kinda music I prefer to listen to?
Listen, politics like alot of life is rough stuff. You don't get the kid glove treatment no matter what your last name is. Kennedy is a good person, someone whom I personally admire, but even she knew politics wasn't the kinda game she wanted to play. I'm kinda surprised you don't support her enough to respect her decision in that.
Gillibrand knows how to fight, and likes the political arena. She isn't asking for any concessions and isn't playing like she's weak and defenseless to get anyone's sympathy. She is very, very good at what she does, and she is confident not because of who she can manipulate into being sympathetic to her, but because she's better at this than anybody else.
So, ummm... shut the fuck up. She's concentrating.
Mrs. B, I agree with your premise, but Chambliss couldn't win election for any district in New York, let alone statewide, nor would Coleman be likely to win, even without legal problems.
In answer to your question about special elections, the reason there's no uniform rule on how U.S. senators are replaced when they don't complete their terms is that it is left to each state as part of the federalist system here. I also agree that it's ridiculous not to have a standard system including special elections everywhere. But I also consider the Electoral College an abomination that should be abolished, and would support eliminating the U.S. Senate in favor of a unicameral legislature, consisting of the House of Representatives. It's possible that my advocacy of democracy over federalism in terms of popular representation is informed not only by my principles but also because, as a New Yorker, I resent the fact that Wyoming, with approximately the population of the Upper West Side of Manhattan, has the same number of U.S. senators as New York state.
This just in: Obama has dispatched George Mitchell to New York to negotiate a cease-fire between the Paterson and Kennedy factions.
Bob X - I like it.
Michael, I didn't mean Chambliss himself, I meant a nasty negative campaign. Thanks for the response on the appointment / electoral college system. Strange isn't it that you have a system where one person's vote is actually worth a lot more or less than another person's vote, depending on where you live. But as, like the UK, you have majority voting (first past the post), actually most elections are usually decided by a few swing states anyway! Hum, this democracy stuff gets more complicated the more you go into it.....
Statler N Waldorf: Gillibrand can destroy Peter King easily. He knows this, which is why he has backed away from Gillibrand. Kennedy, you would have had a nice liberal there for two years, max. Then, you'd have Senator King to contend with. Now, you will have Senator Gillibrand for many years to come.
That may be true, but I don't think it's the right analysis because one could say the same thing about many of the other candidates. For instance, substitute Steve Israel for Gillibrand and I think the statement is still true.
So the question isn't whether Gillibrand can hold the seat. The question is whether she's the best person who can hold the seat ("best" being an admittedly very subjective criterion). And that's why some people are skeptical about Paterson's decision.
Kennedy might have had a harder time defending the seat because no one knows about her political and campaigning abilities. Nadler might have had a harder time because he's more liberal and might be vulnerable to a challenge from a moderate Republican. But there were several other candidates who meet all the qualifications that are touted about Gillibrand.
I'm not saying that Gillibrand won't do a good job. She could be terrific. But the existence of so many good candidates says to me that the decision should have been left to the voters, not to one person.
LOL,
The Westminster system is pretty different than what we have here in the States. I'm more familiar with the Canadian variation than the UK version, but my understanding of your system is that it is better in some respects and worse in others. For one thing, the no-confidence vote is awesome-we could have ditched Bush back in 2003 with that. I also like the PM just being the head of the party with the most seats in Parliament and there being more than just two parties like what we've got.
The Canadians have an upper chamber that's totally unelected with a lifelong term, and I definitely don't like that. Their Governor General is a little strange to me too, but I guess having the head of state separate from the head of government has it's advantages-someone has to be able to boot the bastards if they get out of hand.
And of course there's the primogeniture thing, but, as you have seen, we still have that problem, even without an official nobility class or a monarchy like what you've got.
Aside from that, I think the Westminster system is pretty awesome. I especially like that you can call an election for just about any reason at any time. Great way to keep in touch with the popular will.
dsimon,
I agree wholeheartedly. I don't like gubernatorial appointments at all. I think an election adds an air of legitimacy that does not otherwise exist.
SnW
Political Wire just posted this, which sums up my persoanl trepidation about Ms G
'Gillibrand Chosen to Replace Clinton'
As expected, New York Gov. David Paterson (D) named Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) as his state's newest U.S. Senator, replacing Hillary Clinton.
However, the most interesting thing about [her] acceptance speech was that former Sen. Al D'Amato (R-NY) was standing just to her right.
Ben Smith: "It's intended, perhaps, as a visual mark of her electablity and crossover appeal; it's also a mark of how wired she and her family are on both sides of the aisle, with her father a major Republican lobbyist close to the last GOP governor, George Pataki."
==================================
see that encapsulates my own fears
I thought that was Alfonse standing next to her with his lizrd tongue snaking about
BUT I could not believe they would feature ol' AL in a position [to her right] on stage TODAY !!! WTF
this is Hillary's seat we are talking about
apparently it all boiled down to incestuous family pol connections once again
Paterson appointing someone in the mold of Pataki/D'Amato
sorry, I aint buying this - it sucks & is hypocritical & pandering
even if she is moderately OK on LGBT issues, there is more to a good candidate [and she is far from great on the issues]
why pander to the NRA & GOPers in NY state ??? come on...
this would be a fine Blue Dawg appointment in NC or MT but not there
"Note to rays242...
I have a cousin who works with the Secret Service in DC. (it's a big world in the blogispher... you must have guessed someone would be connected)
He has been informed of your posting.
I guess you never figured that in this day and age a posting could be traced back to you. Hint: every computer has it's own fingerprint.
Too bad for you.
Is that a knock on your door pal?"
I know that they can find me anytime they want.
What I am saying is I have done nothing wrong, so nothing will happen to me.
"RAYS242-
You id threaten Obama with death when you first appeared. That is all it takes for a Secret Service visit."
I never threatened him. Learn to read.
BTW - ALfonse D'Amato was featured so prominently that he stood in front of her husband
and he proceeded to turn around several times as I recall to talk to Ms G's husband - like he was telling him what to do or giving him advice
that is apparently what NY state politics is still all about
Obama got dissed again by a DEM governor...
just like he found room in DC for Valerie Jarrett, I suppose he will find something to appoint Caroline to
Blago on TV talking about rights & fairness, herding cattle & stealing horses
the Kirsten & Rod shows - Rod is more entertaing for sure !
"Off thread, but great great news in Obama's first couple of days. Not only signalling the closure of Guantanamo but the end of all the secret camps around the world, future observance of the Geneva Conventions and the end of torture. And what's more, the guys from the military and CIA appear to be saying amen to that. Suck on that Bush and Cheyney."
And America just sinks lower and lower...HOW can you end all the secret camps?
Do you think the threats are just going to ANNOUNCE themselves to the US?
"Most don't invest the time or effort it takes to consider political issues not directly relevant to them, and think people who do to be idiots with too much time on their hands."
Oh yes, because voting intelligently is a TERRIBLE thing! /sarcasm
"By one of the largest electoral margins for a non-incumbent ever."
Aren't Democrats the ones who hate the Electoral College?
If so, he won by 3%.
"That,s where I'd say about 80% of America is. They're concerned with their kids and their spouses, they're worried about car payments and the mortgage, they'd like to retire to someplace warm when they're old, and they would rather somebody competent and not prone to freaking out or having senior moments be at the helm so they can concentrate on their 401K and the tuition bill for their kids and can they get dental insurance."
I am glad I am not part of that 80%. Anyone who moves to Florida or anywhere on the Gulf Coast is a freaking retard. They think they are going to live in a calmer climate, but the southeast gets much more destructive hurricanes on a yearly basis, tornadoes on a monthly basis, and excessive humidity for 4 straight months out of the year, which rarely happens farther north!
With a bit of luck, she's going to bring some of her very talented colleagues into federal-level politics as well, including Tracey Brooks
Now, that's just crazy. Tracey Brooks is an empty suit and only a candidate because of corrupt machine support. Fortunately, Kirsten Gillibrand's candidate against Tracey Brooks, Darius Shahinfar, really is the sort of progressive who deserves a leg up--Gillibrand's support for people like that is a good sign.
rays: your little charade is up. Any regular user knows who you are. How many "rays242" accounts are you up to now? I count 4. There's no retracting or re-contextualizing your heinous remarks now. They are all over the site for everyone to see, not least of all the Secret Service. Do yourself (and everyone else a favor) and leave.
I will not retract any of my comments because I have said nothing wrong.
It is just that the majority of this site thinks of Obama as the Messiah, so you want anyone who bashes him in any capacity, to be arrested.
Hmmm, are you not as bad as me?
and may turn out to be a very good senator for New York. I just don't know that she'll be an especially good senator for Democrats.
Who cares?
As a New York Senator, he responsibility is to her constituents, not to the party.
Many of the founding fathers feared political parties so much they nearly banned them in the Constitution. Too bad that they didn't do it.
Of course, most of them divided into two groups and eventually formed parties because of fear of the other side.
I guess things don't really change that much over time.
***********************************
Sometime last September, I told Ass Rider that his handle is irrevocably damaged, and if he wanted respect, to create a new one and start posting rationally.
He took part of the advice, but forgot the most important part. I guess that what happens when one stops taking necessary medication.
At least he doesn't threaten Nate much anymore. I suppose that is progress.
"And rays242... your an idiot and Nate please ban him from this site"
Why do we not ban YOU from this site!
Did you hear something?
No, I don't think so...
For a moment, an irritating noise
Time to pay attention to it?
Think it's not worth bothering.
Robin Gibbs as PR flack for the WH...
not impressed so far with this Press Sec
he looks & sounds like a Bushie
snarky & snake oil salesman imho
his 'sausage' making analogy today will be endless fodder for Colbert & Stewart & Leno & Letterman
he aint no Tony Snow at the podium...
more like a Scott McClellan - out of his element...
Robin = Robert, oops
but Robin suits him better imho...
I fell in love with KG when she was a super-long-shot contender for the seat then held by the heavily favored John Sweeney by way of an interview/article on her in the Albany arts rag, Metroland.
Her position on the Iraq occupation was clear (withdraw at all possible haste, absolutely no permanent bases), and in clear contrast to her opponent and presumably the residents of her conservative district. Word was she didn't stand a chance.
Sweeney however melted down, and Gillibrand won, even then to everyone's surprise, by a slim margin.
During her first term, she proved herself extremely capable of bridging ideological divides. Earning the respect and admiration of constituencies as diverse as the progressive Vets for Peace and the reactionary Capital Regional Vietnam Vets.
This Obama-lover could not be happier with the choice.
And America just sinks lower and lower...HOW can you end all the secret camps?
Do you think the threats are just going to ANNOUNCE themselves to the US?
Do you think that lowering ourselves is going to do anything? Besides, it is impossible to go lower than Bush.
It is possible to keep our ideals and humanity, while successfully stopping terrorism.
That is what Bush in his infinite idiocy could never grasp.
Torture doesn't work, it is a fact. Even those who talked did so after the torture stopped and they were treated nicely for a time.
Torture robs us of our humanity and steals any moral authority we might have.
You can't crawl into a sewer without getting shit on you. And unlike sewage, you can't clean yourself up after crawling through the moral sewer.
Those who tortured and let it happen, are no better than the terrorists.
Now, we have a chance to make things right and so far Obama is taking advantage of it.
That doesn't mean we are not as safe as we were last week. It means that people have less reasons to dislike and hate us.
Iran had reason to fear the US under Bush, in terms of an attack without provocation. And if they had bombed the US, snuck in and kidnapped citizens who publicly were against Iran and held them without charges indefinitely and tortured them, well Bush would have had no moral authority to complain.
Because he did the exact same thing to Iraq, and citizens of other nations.
Who knows, if Bush is ever held legally accountable for his criminal acts, then maybe we will see his driver arrested as well.
DCM
back in October / November you were so upbeat and excited, and it seems that now you are just so deflated and disappointed with every aspect of this presidency. I am so sorry you are so let down, and I really hope that Obama will do some of the stuff you are waiting for.
I don't know how to type a hug, but consider one sent to you. Hope you don't mind - I mean well by it.
If so, he won by 3%.
Obama won the popular vote by about 7%.
It was roughly 52%-45%.
"DCM
back in October / November you were so upbeat and excited, and it seems that now you are just so deflated and disappointed with every aspect of this presidency."
The excessive false "hope" of Obama is starting to wear off.
First, it will happen to those who heavily invested in the campaign or closely followed the election.
But by the end of the year, it will be lost on everyone and Obama's approval rating will drop below 50%, if someone does not kill him by then.
David,
A not unrelated issue to this terrorism/torture thing came up yesterday in the UK. Some soldiers contacted the media to say they were unhappy that Taliban fighters were being treated in field hospitals in the same wards as UK troops who they had injured. And the head of the army medical corps (probably not his exact title) came on and said that well, he could understand why they were upset, but actually the difference between us and the Taliban is that we treat enemy combatants with humanity and according to the Geneva Convention, and always had done, and that was not going to change.
Quite right too. How would there be any victory if we won by descending to same behaviour as the people we claim to be defending our way of life against?
MRS B
no, not every aspect
but all along I call 'em as I see 'em
only way to keep them on their toes
I still support Obama BUT not blindly like most are doing
when he flubs, he should be called on it [and Gibbs is a flub - remember how he dirty tricked Dean to torpedo him in 2004 v?]
but so far, Obama's appoitnments have failed to 'whelm' me
very much same old same old
he has done a few nice touches - the pay freeze & ethics stuff & Gitmo [except letting it drag on for a year]
Gitmo bothers me because shutting it down asap is not gonna happen - is that what Iraq will turn out to be ? the endless drawn out withdrawal ?
but I remain hopeful
my problem is that people on her & elsewhere seem to have put too much stock in BHO's apparent popularity & margin of victory
it is shortsighted not to realize that for a huge chunk of the electorate the 'enthusiasm' & votes were more AGAINST Bush than FOR Obama
to assume otherwise is to ignore reality
Obama has 2-4 years to prove his creds cuz he will not have Bush to kick around in 2012
in the meantime, he is a big improvement over Bush & better than McCain - but no messiah
What is disappointing about Obama:
1. He is so bipartisan, that he comes off as fearful of making a strong stand.
2. He packed his administration full of Clinton-ites. If we wanted Clinton part 2, we would have elected Hillary.
3. His choices on people who have a say in IP matters is frightening. Nothing but RIAA, MPAA, and SBA shills.
4. His appearance announcing the closure of Gitmo(an excellent decision, that does give me real hope), was scarily bad. He came off very unsure of himself, constantly asking questions to someone off camera.
_________
He needs more training to stop the umms and the stuttering. But at least his command of the English language is what you would expect of a president.
Sadly, the comedians and satirists are going to have to do their own work. They don't have a president who does it for them anymore.
I thought it was 52-46?.
If he lost 3%, McCain would gain 3%, making it 49-49.
That is not 3%, it is a 6% lead. If it was 52-46, the difference is 6%.
If Obama lost 3% of the vote, that doesn't necessarily mean McCain would get that 3%. It could end up 49-47, or 49-48, and yes, McCain's numbers might not have changed at all had Obama lost 3%.
Your idea on this is as warped as anything else you have ever posted.
DAVID
thanks for the common sense rational analysis
I agree, and then some
he needs to stop being so GRIM
I mean, lighten up a bit because this stern public countenance is just getting tiresome
maybe he is just worn out - and that is understanable, but then cut back on the public appearances
did you see him poke at Biden when Joe made the little jest about Roberts flub when he was giving the admin staff their oath ?
I like Joe & it was harmless [and just a few hours before BHO retook the oath too]
but that poke & sneer from BHO at Joe was bad body language and very off-putting to me
I sure hope that is not the real BHO...
There's an argument here in which some are asking for a Sen. who follows the liberal positions on all issues to the extent possible given electoral constraints vs. others who praise non-partisanship, big-tent, etc. Neither capture the core point.
On some really big issues (most immediately the economy,then long-term the environment) actions have to be taken to avoid terrible consequences. Voters will punish politicians who fail regardless of whether the failure comes from partisan inflexibility or non-partisan adaptability.
Obama is (see Krugman's latest) leaning into the danger zone of muddling conventionality on the economy, which needs some drastic moves along the lines of large, environmentally sensible infrastructure projects. Some of his key appointments (Summers, Geithner) are not going to help.
Some new senators, e.g. Merkely, seem likely to push for actions that will succeed and ultimately help the country. With Gillibrand, we're not sure but there's some indication that reflexive economic conservatism will lead her to support positions that will fail. By fail I don't mean fail to rally a partisan base but rather fail in an objective material sense. We'll see.
And, speaking of objective facts, it's hard to believe that there's a big argument on this site, of all placs, about what the election results were!
Wikipedia: 52.9% to 45.7%.
DCM, glad you are not as gloomy as I feared.
I'd swap Brown for Obama any day.
general election results within the #'s:
Obama 45% + Anti-Bush 8% = 53%
McCain 40% + Anti-Obama 6% = 46%
give a take a little
Obama just came across very poorly in dealing with the reporters who dared to ask him some Q's after he made his brief appearance before them
not flattering at all the way he refused to answer & grumpily threaten not to come down to see them in the future
he needs another vacation or something, cuz that is how the Bush/Cheney WH would have scolded the press...
also, is BHO still cold-shouldering the NYT in favor of the con press ?
Looks like Gallibrand is *very* pro-labor, though. http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/1/23/82846/8703/4#c4
Ledbetter passed today with 61 votes, including 'yea' votes from Snowe, Collins, Hutchison, Murkowski, and Specter. No other republican voted 'yea,' and no Dem voted 'nay.' Not quite sure what this means for bigger battles like EFCA (of which there was an anti-EFCA ad on this blog! ha! the BS-ers have tons of money to attack this thing), but those might be the senators to try to persuade, particularly Specter and the two senators from Maine, as Nate has pointed out earlier.
Gillibrand has been my congresswoman for the past 2 years, and except for the unfortunate fact that we are likely now to lose this seat to a republican in the upcoming special election, I think this was a fine appointment. She has tailored her politics to this very conservative rural district, but representing the entire state, I think she will be moderately progressive in the same way Hillary has been. But don't underestimate Gillibrand's sharp political skills. I have seen her in action; I predict she will handily defeat any challengers in a primary in 2010.
has everyone seen the new Shameless Self Promotion post? Only Part II. Let's hope for many more of these!
I lived in New York when D'Amato was a senator.As a senator and as a human being he was a total piece of shit.Gallibrand''s appearance with him on the same stage is deeply upsetting. (Yes,I know she started her career working in his office.Even so.)
for New York residents:JOSEPH BRUNO HAS BEEN INDICTED ON EIGHT COUNTS!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/nyregion/24bruno.html?hp
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090123/pl_nm/us_obama_abortionObama finally got off his ass and issued the long-promised executive order abolishing the vile "global gag order:
Opus123, you are crazy. The man hasn't been on the job 3 whole days and you on here hollering about President Obama to get off his ass. Why don't you go soak your head and calm down.
DCM,
I really would not worry so much about Gillibrand. I think you will soon see her as a good Senator, even though right now you have justifiable fears.
Not that any of this matters. I mean, I doubt all of our hand wringing here on 538 will stop this appointment from happening, no matter how impassioned it may be.
That said, I think this whole thing is much ado about nothing. These last few appointments and the Franken-Coleman affair represent the last gasps of the electoral season. In a few weeks, we will have nothing to kvetch about, and it will be back to making projections over who will win what Senate seat in 2010. Which is to say, it will be boring.
Gillibrand is not the monster everyone is making her out to be. If this were not one of the last remaining loose ends that needs tying up, I rather doubt anyone would even notice. I mean, come on, Kay Hagan was more controversial given her complete lack of comment on GLBT issues and the gay guy she defeated in the primary. At least we know from Gillibrand's voting record where she stands on the issues.
So the aristocratic families of New York and New England did not succeed in elevating one of their 'inevitable' heirs to the Senate. Why are you bemoaning this? Kennedy was preferable because she had zero experience, can't handle the media, and has alot of money and a powerful family? Cuomo is any better because he's related to the former governor?
Gillibrand's very very good at politics. Her family name will not be found in the Senate rolls from fifty years ago. She's qualified and her voting record is one of a moderate liberal on most issues. She's conservative in one issue, ONE issue. And it's not even the issue that should concern you as a gay man the most. On the issues regarding your equality, she SUPPORTS you. More than Clinton did. Clinton said she doesn't support Equal Marriage, but Gillibrand DOES. Do you get that? Gillibrand thinks you're a human being and deserve the same rights as everybody else. Remember what we wnt trough in 2004 when politicians were debating whether to ban your civil rights on the state level or if they needed to pass a federal Constitutional Amendment to do the job and threatening 'activist judges' lest they dare debate the question of are you a human being or not?
Don't you WANT a Senator that will stand up for you? Maybe you can quibble if she's liberal enough for you, or if the HRC has rated her at only 80% and is that good enough for you, I'm happy to have someone there that voted FOR ENDA, supports Equal Marriage, and supports domestic partner benefits. She's not Rick Santorum, so will you please stop painting her as if she were?
Save the big guns for our real enemies, because we do have them, even now. David Vitter has an office just down the road from here, and I have to live with a REAL homophobe. I would LOVE someone with an 80% from the HRC in Louisiana. That would be fucking miraculous.
Is she perfect? No. But she's good enough for me.
I see a lot of comparisons of Gillibrand to Hillary Clinton. I thought Clinton was way too much of a war-monger to properly represent New York. New Yorkers were overwhelmingly opposed to attacking Iraq, yet our two senators voted for the war, and Hillary particularly insulted our intelligence by claiming she wasn't giving a blank check to Bush when she was and saying that because she represented a state that had been attacked by Al Qaida, she had to be more warlike in general. And Gillibrand looks to be to the right of Hillary, so I think that's bad but will nevertheless reserve judgment depending on how she actually votes as Senator.
@ Buckeye
Crazy,no.Impatient because I'm passionately pro-choice? You bet.
Remember,one of the very first things Bush did was to re-institute the "global gag order" (overturning Clinton's banning of it,which was one of the first things he did).
OPUS
he will continue to parcel out those executive orders at the rate of 2 or so a day rather than front load them
same way they did it during the campaign - control the message with a steady stream
plus this one was released to get buried in the MSM on a Friday to be less noticeable for right [to-lifers] to be able to pitch a fit...
wondering if Bush really did issue those 'secret' broad torure pardons but has them buried until if needed later [although they will not help with international law]. my bet ? yup, they are back-dated in Bush's pocket...
@ Buckeye
P.S.Are you aware of the tremendous significance banning the "Global Gag Order" has to millions of pro-choice voters who supported Obama?
Apparently not.
OPUS
D'Amato is still a real piece of 'work'
the jarring visual of Kirsten sharing the stage front & center with Alfonse featured is just wrong on so many levels
what, Cheney wasn't available ?
so it was a reporter from Politico that got under Obama's skin today by asking a Q about an 'ethics' issue on his staff...
BHO sure handled it poorly & petulantly today imho
now tonight Politico ledes with:
'Gillibrand unpopular among peers'
Within New York’s gossipy Hill delegation, her nickname is “Tracy Flick” -- an unflattering nod to the viciously competitive character from “Election.”
ouch, as I recall 'Tracy' was played by Reese Witherspoon & she was such the ice queen be-atch...
Senator Durbin of Illinois was a somewhat-conservative downstate congressman from the Springfield area who has (arguably) moved to the Left since being elected to the Senate in 1996.
The FEC posted a 2008 Presidential General Election Results spreadsheet this week. [They issued their full 2004 General Election report in May of 2005 so we're probably still a few months away from a final count.] Around 20,000 third-party/write-in votes (most from Pennsylvania) have been added to the latest wikipedia.org totals. Other states were votes were added are Georgia, Kentucky, Montana and Rhode Island. The vote total fell a bit in Texas. Barack Obama received 9,522,083 more votes than John McCain. That's 7.254515344% of the total votes cast.
My impression, DCM in FL, is that you're posting what you're posting here because you're still upset that the outrage here and most everywhere over the selection of Warren was not anywhere near what you believed and hoped it would be. Obama was and is a man with superior political skills who is now the President of the United States of America. I hope it turns out that he also has superior leadership skills. Time will tell. Why not tell me and my ilk to go fuck ourselves? Maybe you'll feel better. It certainly seems to have worked for Statler.
Much as I am enjoying the general liberal panic-in-the-streets response to the Gillibrand pick, I'd like to point out the following:
1. Howard Dean also had an "A" rating from the NRA.
2. Gillibrand held Obama's position on gay marriage until the last two weeks when she came out in favor.
3. You say the district is "only" +3 Republican, but she beat the former Republican Secretary of State Sandy Treadwell 62-38 in that district in the last election even though he outspent her by millions. She is one tough cookie and you heard it here first, she will defend this seat in the primary and the general in 2010.
She favors gay marriage, so that's good enough for me.
and by Gerald Solomon, who, among other things, originated the Solomon Amendment that forced colleges to accept military recruiters on campus or else.
He also got into a shouting match with Patrick Kennedy over the assault weapons ban debate.
My wife lives by herself in a small town in upstate NY she has the right to defend herself and don't you forget it.
Loner,
Don't assume I've forgotten about the Warren thing. I said I forgave Obama conditionally-he promised us alot on whitehouse.gov, and I intend to hold him to that.
Now, Gillibrand is not Obama and the Senator for New York is not the President. Gillibrand supports GLBT rights pretty far. There are people who promised us alot less who received no scrutiny from the GLBT community. Jim Martin was opposed to Equal Marriage, but Gillibrand is for it. I gave alot of money to Jim Martin because even if he wasn't willing to go the whole way with us, he was willing to support us on hate crimes, civil unions, ENDA and he opposed the FMA. Gillibrand is all that and more, and I can see a powerful, effective and responsible ally in her.
Would it be nice if all 100 Senators were Democrats? Yes. Would I be happier if they were all Liberals? Absolutely. Is that realistic? Fuck no.
Gillibrand is a member of the BDC, not the GOP. I see everyone here painting her as if she were Jim DeMint. I think that's unfair.
I would rather have a pro-GLBT Blue Dog that can hold the seat int he next election than a weak liberal whose going to lose to a raging homophobe. Caroline Kennedy would lose to Peter King in 2010. That means we'd get a weak, ineffective liberal with good intentions and no ability to fight for two years followed by a raging homophobic Republican for god knows how long. I don't see why Kennedy seems like a better option to anybody, least of all a gay man in America who knows damn well that the GOP hate us to the point where they would rather cut their own throats than see us walk down the aisle together.
You gotta look down the road a bit to get it. 2010 is not that far away. In politics, that's like next week. Gillibrand can hold that seat. Kennedy can't. Gillibrand is liberal enough. And she's tough, effective, smart, cunning, savvy- when the GOP comes up with a scheme to screw us out of our civil rights again, Gillibrand has the nerve to walk up to them and put a knife to their balls. Kennedy doesn't. Which one do you want in your corner when the shit hits the fan?
Also, why is everyone so intimidated by a tough woman? What, unless she's a fragile waif that needs protecting you don't want her? In politics? Fuck that, I don't want Shrinking Violet to be the one fighting for my freedom. I want Joan of Arc.
That's what I call sexism, you see. It's not whether you use a gender neutral pronoun or the word 'womyn' or the title Mz that makes someone a feminist and someone who doesn't a sexist. Misogyny is the idea that fierce women are something evil, that we only feel safe if a woman is this submissive little mouse like thing that agrees with us 100% of the time. Like when Clinton cried and everyone voted for her because they felt sympathetic. That's real sexism. Real feminism is when you're willing to accept a diesel dyke with a blowtorch for public office because you know she'll scare the bejeezus out of Mitch McConnell and she's not afraid to bleed during a fight. If it comes down to it, she'll rip his fucking spleen out and take a bite on the Senate floor.
Did I mention she favors Equal Marriage?
Rep. Gillibrand's appointment to fill Secretary Clinton's Senate seat is an amazing choice. She is a young, educated and energectic woman who has done a lot of good for Upstate New York in the two years she has served in The House of Representatives. Is she as liberal leaning as other New York politicians? Nope. However, she has been representing a relatively conservative district (for New York standards). Yet, I am very optimistic that some of her positions will evolve over the next few months.
Unfortunately, there will be those who will not be happy no matter what Ms. Gillibrand's views are. But, there is a difference between being a representative of one conservative district and being a representative of the entire state.
One thing to keep in mind if another Democrat would like to challenge her in a primary, is that a drawn out primary fight could very well make it easier for a Republican to take that seat away. I would not be surprised to see Guiliani or Pataki go for a run at this seat.
I think that progressives need to take a deep breath and relax and see what the new Senator does in her new job. And, lets remember that Sec. Clinton was not a "progressive" candidate either, yet she did great things while she was a Senator from New York.
But, that is just the opinion of an Upstate Liberal.
Oh and one more thing: Most people who have a problem with this appointment are from New York City. There is more to New York than just NYC. It is about time that people understand that. So, and I hate using this phrase, the New York Liberal Elite need to take a pill and relax.
Ms. Gillibrand will be a great Senator.
Where I stand on the issues
My score
LONER
you are entitled to your opinions, as am I
Obama gets kudos from me when he deserves them
same as anyone else
does he deserve them today for already granting a waiver from his well-intentioned 'ethics' rule to let a lobbyist back into the front ranks of the pentagon ?
how can he already break his own hard & fast rules ???
that is not real change - just more of the same old same old pol gamesmanship
are you really so delusional that you want everyone to ignore conflicts of interest & double-dealing from BHO & our side of the aisle ???
I want the DEMs including Obama [this is not just about Obama btw] to succeed - but not at the cost of their souls & ideals again
got to protect & protest again absolute power ["I WON" per BHO today] which corrupts absolutely...
and I hate to say it, but the stimulus package of close to 1 trillion $$$ is starting to look more like appeasement & pork pie
tax cuts figure prominently & now the share directed toward infra-structure is down to the low teens or maybe even less [depending on how you define infrastructure projects]
sorry, but where is the outrage ? hope it will not be more of the same old same old
it is abundantly clear that things are better than last week under Bush
BUT Geitner is another bad selection & a terrible role model for the nation under these circumstances
and your childish personal attacks directed at me are inane & reflect poorly on your personal character
It remains to be seen what gain they will acquire. Surely, her seat in the house is vulnerable. The wingnuts are already spewing lots of hate and may in fact not benefit. People are worn out and really want the president to succeed. With retards like Rush the comedian and Hannity trying their best to present phony issues already I doubt they will do anything other than become more and more insignificant. I hope someone sues Hannity for his latest BS about the responsibility of a solidier's death....as far as the comedian saying he hopes the president fails....he will certainly kill any ounce of creditability that he has left with everyone except the real racist right...and who cares what those wingnuts think!! This might in the end turn out to be a smart pick....only time will tell.
Leave it up to a liberal to define a Conservative.
SnW
I am in no way a one issue voter
that is not my personal objection to Kirsten
but she is marginally qualified when Paterson had a deep pool to choose from
is she a terrible pick ? no, just more of a poor compromise because he boxed himself into the whole upstate/female demo during this endlessly extended interview period.
but on LGBT, Kirsten is just OK with an 80% rating from HRC so I am not sure why you think she is the bomb because she is OK with gay marriage
I mean - do you recall that Al D'Amato was considered a good friend of gays back in the day, and HRC even endorsed Al in the race against Schumer
big picture - Schumer or D'Amato ? not a contest - I go with Chuckie [even if he is not perfect & maybe luvs the camers way too much]
I look at the entire range of issues
same for Obama - he is a huge improvement on Bush, BUT in no way is BHO infalible or the second coming
Kirsten will hopefully turn out to be better than her 'record' & family/political connections
or else I hope the voters of NY will toss Gillibrand to the curb in 2010 like Burris will probably end up [or in 2012]
I saw Gillibrand on CSPAN today--was very impressed by her, especially in her long answer on why she voted against the TARP bill. She was a securities lawyer for 15 years and it showed--she gave an extremely detailed analysis of the whole bank/bailout and the problems she correctly foresaw re accountability, etc. I think she will be a very strong senator. And I note that the people blogging in who actually know her speak highly of her.
More broadly--why do you think there is so much knee-jerk hostility on the blogs? It really concerns me. Is it that many people have just a free-floating anger and the blogs are a place to vent? I'm searching for a term for angry bloggers--"Blog Nazis?" I'm not talking about the real nuts, I just mean the people for whom almost no Democrat is pure enough.
They'll admit that assault weapons aren't really something you need for hunting or protecting your family.
While arguably correct, that alone is not justification for a federal ban on such firearms.
The "assault weapons ban" was a fundamentally irrational and unreasonable legislative act. It is encouraging to see that at least one New York Senator is unlikely to support the reinstatement of a prohibition on the most popular civilian sporting rifles in the United States.
Whether you think of Gillibrand as George Bush in a skirt or Sarah Palin lite, someone better mount a successful primary challenge, or this lady is going to be a thorn in the side of President Obama for the next eight years.
At least Blagojevich had enough sense left to appoint a genuine Democrat. You know, one who will actually VOTE with the Democrats. Patterson, for all intents and purposes might just as well have appointed Karl Rove. The conspicuous prominence of Al DaMato at the announcement podium said it all.
Patterson is regretably emerging as the most clueless executive we've seen in this state since Abe Beame.
Actually, D'Amato was before my time, I think. I know a little less than jack shit about him.
But I do know Gillibrand. And I am here to tell you that after four years of being demonized in state ballot initiatives, Fox News and from even the White House Press Room, I WANT to be free. Maybe you don't, and that's okay.
Just realize that when you vote against GLBT freedom, you're not just harming yourself. You're hurting everybody in the community, all of us. It's not like the ban on marriage just applies to you but not me here. If you cannot support a champion for GLBT rights, will you at least get out of the way, so the rest of us who would very much like to be free in our own country can enjoy the benefits of having such a defender in the Senate to protect our liberty?
I want Gillibrand to be Senator. I think any gay man that realizes just how fragile liberty is would want that. Unless we have someone there to protect us, the GOP hate machine will chew us up and spit us out. Someone has to stand up and say "You will not legislate your bigotry at the expense of Americans".
Remember the FMA, DCM. Don't ever forget that. Remember what they tried to do to us. And if you will not stand up to defend your own rights, then get the hell out of my way so I can defend my own.
I like how DCM is pushing 3-month old general election numbers to conceal the fact that "pro-Obama" sentiment is now sky high, more than it ever was after the Warren microscandal. DCM is the embodiment of what the President referred to as "petty grievances," and his penchant for deception and aversion to facts are a testament to that.
Notice for example, how he defines 8% as a "HUGE chunk of the electorate" and conveniently ignores the fact that the number of people who voted FOR Obama well exceeded the number ofpeople who voted FOR his opponent. He also ignores that Obama's share of the number and number of total votes exceeds anything we've seen since Reagan.
But again, facts don't matter when DCM is trying to spin his alternate reality where his petty grievances are shared by anyone outside the crucial StatlerNWaldorf demographic.
Well, Statler, take it from someone who remembers D'Amato's entire senatorial career: New York would never elect a raging homophobe to a major statewide office like U.S. Senate or Governor. The proof of that is that both Al D'Amato and Governor George Pataki were supporters of gay rights. And New York state is more liberal today than when D'Amato - an anti-abortionist - was in office.
Dimensio, you'll do better for your argument if you inform us about what was "fundamentally irrational" about the assault weapons ban, so I hope you do. Mere assertion does not constitute an argument.
This is the first time I have participated in the comments.
So first, I love FiveThirtyEight.com!!!!! And Nate and Sean, ...
I started following 538 after hearing about it on Olberman several
moonths before the election. Thanks so much Nat and all for incredible
unbiased accurate blogging from a progressive perspective (No, I don't
think there is a contradiction there).
In fact, I think my comment will support that. I am also a faithful
reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog and HUGE supporter of gay rights.
So is Ms. Gillebrand!!!!!
I think she will end up being a most effective supporter of Obama
policies.
Much more so than some of our current senators: Feinstien, Schumer, et
al (think Alioto/Roberts, bankruptcy, Wendy/Phill gram legislation,
etc.).
David O. Hansen
MICHAEL makes several good points. The choices open to Paterson were many & varied - but it was always going to be a DEM - just which one & how well qualified.
Was Caroline Kennedy the perfect candidate ? no - but she was Obama's preference [like that helped] & she would be OK or else she would get dumped in 2010
same for Kirsten - is she a terrible choice ? nope, just not the best available unless getting an unscrupulous pitbull is the end-all be-all.
she very well maqy turn out to be a good senator over time [but with 2 years in the house & no state level creds she is under-qualified imho]
the whole matters just suffers from a poor 'process' rather than the actual result/choice - it is inherently undemocratic [since she is so politically connected as was Kennedy & Cuomo]
same in IL- is Burris bad ? no, but the process was undemocratic & tainted
don't shoot the messenger
Kirsten is no D'Amato
those like APE who continue to attack me [a true progressive liberal] for posting truths backed with reason [which are not unfounded attacks] are showing the Ugly unamerican side of the party
what, we are all to march in lock-step & not question authority ?
ugh - leave that to freepers & Bush/Rove who preached you are either with us or against us - you actually can be BOTH depending on the circumstances
speaking truth to power, but APE get over your pathetic defensiveness - the DEM party is not monolithic or pure but it is sure better than you or the GOPers in general
DEMS - while the GOPers are making hay with Obama already going back on his admirable ethics rules by granting a waiver for his 2nd in the defense department
doesn't this concern the progressives that this is a blatant do-over and why ?
just like Geitner - who is a chump imho, and we are told to believe that even though he is an insider on the entire NY financialmarket collapsing that Tim is THE only man for this job ? comeon
Obama going back on his ethics reform in the first 2 days just because it is a guy that Gates wants next to him despite the fact that he is a connected lobbyist - and we are told to believe that this is the only person who can do the job ?
sorry, Obama can do better than that - this is how the GOPers played games fast & loose & the rules do not apply to them for the past 8 years
IF the new admin starts breaking & then keeps rewriting their own rules in the first week - what will we get later ??? more of the same
more transparency with fewer excuses or shutting out the press is what is needed [not exemptions]
I haven't read all the comments in this thread, so forgive me if this has been said before.
I live in Gillibrand's district and it went for Obama, so it's not that conservative.
If Obama (painted as the "most liberal" U.S. Senator) can win here, so can another Democrat on the congressional level.
Gillibrand was outspent in her last campaign and still won by a HUGE margin.
Upon further review most lefty congress watches give her marks in the high nineties. I think this is getting overblown.
I am still concerned that they are jeopardizing a hard-won blue house seat, But will relax, wait and see.
Checking her ratings on liberal congress watches, especially on social issues, She averages a 96% rating. I'll take blue dogs that vote that way anytime...
DCM,
This will sound very surprising, but I see your argument as lacking nuance.
You would describe Gillibrand as an unscrupulous pit-bull, and the thrust of your argument is that she has 'only' an 80% rating from HRC. Even that rating was probably applied before she recently announced that she WILL champion Equal Mariage, a major plank int he HRC platform.
It is funny how quickly you will attack our allies. We have so few of them, and so many enemies. So she is not 100% liberal-so what? Does everything have to be all or nothing for you? Is it 'either you are for us or against us'? And what defines 'us' anyway?
Everyone has to decide what the deal-breakers are for them. For many liberals just a few years ago, Chuck Hagel was worthy of laurel wreaths for opposing Iraq. He was anything but liberal on every other issue, but that man was seen as a hero for agreeing with the liberals on that one issue. We could appreciate nuance with our enemies, but not with our friends? Gillibrand is way more liberal than Hagel will ever be. And yet he is exemplary while she is demonic?
Why is it that you could have the most right wing, frothing at the mouth homophobic Republican go tot he mic and say, "well, maybe we should not be in Iraq" and you will cheer that, but if you have a GLBT-friendly Democrat WITH A PRETTY LIBERAL VOTING RECORD come to the mic and say, "I do not support gun control" and you will disown her completely?
Perhaps for you the only issue that matters is gun control. In which case you are the one-issue voter you would accuse me of being. That is your deal-breaker issue.
For me, the deal breaker is GLBT rights. Others issues are very important to me, including gun control. but nothing takes precedence over the issue of whether or not I am to be seen as fully human in the eyes of the law or not. I got the shit scared out of me four years ago when my countrymen began to see me less as a citizen of this country and more as some Satanic force that had to be contained. I live in a place where extreme violence is still practiced against GLBT people, and the police will nothing to help you. They may even participate int he beating. And I want it to stop, I want all of this violence and inequality to end. I want to feel safe in my homeland, and not feel like I should flee it to feel like I am welcome someplace.
If that seems so radical or one-sided to you, fine, I don't care. I will continue to support candidates that will protect the human rights the GOp wants so desperately to deprive me of, and you can sit there and tell me how wrong I am to do that. I will ignore you, as I ignore the same people who in prior threads were so quick to insult me for wanting to be free in America.
As I said before, if you will not fight for your own rights, then kindly get out of my way and let me defend my own.
You have to from where Gillibrand's Congressional district has come. It elected Jerry Solomon, who is best described as the east coast's answer to Dana Rohrabacker, for years; then Sweeney, who was little better. It includes Dutchess County, FDR's birthplace and life-long home -- which never gave him more than 1/3 of its votes. When I first moved there in 1983, I was advised to register Republican if I wanted to get any building permits for home repairs.
It has now changed radically. Obama won Dutchess County and most of the river towns now have Democratic governments. This is largely because of an influx of commuters from NYC's financial community. The eastern and northern ends of the districts remain very rural and still vote Republican, which is why Gillibrand has come off as a blue dog.
But she lives in Hudson -- a river town which went from living off a local prison to a bedroom town with framing shops and art galleries in the last twenty years. In other words, the water she swims in every day is mainly liberal. And I think her quick move to announce her support for gay rights tells us that she understands that she doesn't need to cozy up to the rural voters anymore.
As for gun control, yeah, I'd like to see some common sense measures passed that the NRA opposes. But I think a lot more crime will be prevented by feeding the poor and decent health care and better schools than by trying to prevent criminals from getting the guns that they're always going to be able to get anyhow. If I have to choose between guns and butter or no guns and no butter, give me the former. If her gun control record is the worst thing that can be said about Gillibrand, I have no problem with her.
@Mrs B:
has everyone seen the new Shameless Self Promotion post? Only Part II. Let's hope for many more of these!
Yeah; I saw it, and I voted.
I also noticed that their Word Verification comes with a purpose. It's part of a project, which uses words which come from scanning of books for public consumption. They use word that have problems--extraneous lines and the like, which cause trouble for Optical Character Recognition. So those of us who want to vote in their poll do their work for them: we tell the computers what that word was.
One word at a time, with millions of websites and millions of users, is a great way to get something like this done. You can read about it here.
Nate: is there any chance you can hook up with this project? It'd remove the "wv" parts of posts, which are kinda a "538 special," but I think it's worth it.
Dimensio, you'll do better for your argument if you inform us about what was "fundamentally irrational" about the assault weapons ban, so I hope you do. Mere assertion does not constitute an argument.
Actually, the fundamental flaw of the "assault weapons ban" was a lack of any rational justification for it. It primarily affected only rifles, which themselves are the class of firearm least likely to be involved in any homicide (in fact, more individuals die from beatings administered with bare hands and feet than die from being shot by a rifle). Further, the ban itself targetted only cosmetic features. The law listed a set of common rifle features, and declared that no semi-automatic rifle fed through a detachable magazine could possess any two of these features. Manufacturers simply changed their production lines so that rifles that the produced only possessed one of the listed features (most commonly a protruding handgrip) and continued to sell rifles capable of the same rate of fire and kinetic force per round as the rifles that had been "banned". Few explanations have been offered regarding the rationality of prohibiting those features (especially when they were only banned when in the presence of others); the Brady Center offered a number of incorrect claims (It was claimed that a pistol grip allows for "spray-firing" from the hip, which is simply not true, it was claimed that a "flash hider" will conceal a shooter at night when in fact a flash hider merely prevents a shooter from being blinded in low light conditions from a flash that will still be visible for quite a distance away).
Representative Carolyn McCarthy, in 2008, authored an attempt to reinstate and expand the Federal assault weapons ban. In so doing, she attempted to expan the ban to cover many very popular civilian sporting rifles (such as the AR-15, which is one of the most popular centerfire target rifles in the country) and to cover features so common that it would have effectively banned nearly every semi-automatic rifle in existence, while giving the United States Attorney General full authority to declare any of the few remaining firearms as lacking a "sporting purpose" which would essentially grant one individual the unrestricted ability to ban any rifle he or she so desired. Most importantly, Representative McCarthy was unable to define one of the physical features that she sought to ban; in a televised interview, she acknowledged that the does not know the definition of a "barrel shroud". It is quite interesting that, in spite of not knowing the function, purpose or appearance of a "barrel shroud", Rep. McCarthy saw fit to have them banned.
Essentially, the ban was irrational because it targetted firearms that are very rarely misused. Since the ban, that class of firearm has become even more popular amongst both hunters and recreational target shooters. Many of these individuals do not hunt at all, meaning that an assertion that "hunter's rights" will be protected demonstrates a lack of understanding of civilian firearms ownersihp. It is obvious that at least one significant proponent of a reinstatement and expansion of the ban has so little firearms knowledge that she should not be authoring any firearms-related legislation at all. No one has provided any explanation of how maintaining the right of citizens to own a subset of rifles -- keeping in mind that all rifles combined are the least commonly misused class of firearm, and that they are responsible for fewer homicides per year than are knives, or fists and feet -- based solely upon certain model names or entirely cosmetic features creates demonstrable societal harm. The ban was irrational and unreasonable, and a reinstatement of it will be no less so.
@Mrs B:
"I don't know this woman from a hole in the ground..."
Hmmm...not a turn of phrase that I'd use...
wv: rhineter: Person who catches rhinos with a seine.
Can we get a new thread going? This issue has been done to death.
Thanks for the detailed explanation, Dimensio. I get your points, and I see why you consider the "assault weapons ban" irrational.
I'll stipulate that no language that permits the outright ban on all rifles should be permitted, nor do I think such language would be Constitutional, based on the recent Supreme Court decision. But aside from that - and it may be a very important point - I fail to see is why it's very important to oppose a ban on semi-automatic rifles, per se. So if you'd be so kind as to further instruct me: Why is it essential for people to own semi-automatic rifles, even if they're popular? Couldn't people hunt with manual rifles? And for those who want to shoot semi-automatic rifles for target practice, couldn't the shooting range own the weapons by special permit and just rent them out on premises? (I would have no problem with even fully automatic weapons being available for rental at shooting ranges with special security clearances.) Are semi-automatic rifles needed for protection, when other types of firearms would remain legal? I live in Manhattan, have never shot a gun, and don't know much at all about firearms.
Nate, since I know you're reading this, would you like to revisit President Obama's "The Price is Right" strategy, in view of the fact that the stimulus package under consideration hasn't risen over $825 billion so far?
DCM in FL posted thusly:
DEMS - while the GOPers are making hay with Obama already going back on his admirable ethics rules by granting a waiver for his 2nd in the defense department
doesn't this concern the progressives that this is a blatant do-over and why ?
just like Geitner - who is a chump imho, and we are told to believe that even though he is an insider on the entire NY financialmarket collapsing that Tim is THE only man for this job ? comeon
I couldn't agree more, and I'm approximately as far left as Bernie Sanders and Jerrold Nadler. I have no confidence in Geithner and want Obama to pick another Assistant Secretary of Defense.
Damn, this other Michael always agrees with me so there's no need to distinguish.
Anyway, for those who think our apprehensions about Gillibrand come from some sort of perfectionism and dissatisfaction with any real Democrats, here's a reminder (clipped from Kos) about how good Democrats from much tougher states than NY behave:
"Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Sherrod Brown focused on their desire to create "green manufacturing" jobs. This is quite understandable, as there are quite a few unemployed in their respective states of Michigan and Ohio - green manufacturing will put thousands of people to work, aside from its environmental benefits.
Brown said that if he could do just one thing in the next Congress, it would be to pass universal health care. He spoke about his 83-year-old mother, currently nearing the end of her life. "My mother is dying. I'm fortunate enough that we're able to take care of her - I have a Senator's salary" and she has a pension.
He also spoke of how universal healthcare would relieve much of the burden on employers currently handicapped by legacy costs - the auto industry being a recent prominent example of this.
Brown said outright, "We WILL past universal health care. The Republicans will not be able to stop us"."
Mary Landrieu's strange new employee
MICHAEL
thanks, I am glad to see that at least one other true progressive is able to discern when something is not correct.
that doesn't mean you can't support Obama & the DEMs - it just means that we want to hold them to their own principles & no backsliding or call them on it.
SnW - there is no way that Paterson was going to appoint any senator that would not be a decent ally on LGBT issues since that is NY state political consensus
so how does Kirsten being a moderate at best on the issues make her THE best candidate ?
your logic is warped on this & you are talking in circles, talking in circles...
it is a fait accompli so WTF - but just because the deed is done don't make it smell good. Kirsten is a 'connected' in Albany as anyone & has a meager political resume with strong GOPer ties.
and that doesn't bother you on principle ? but she has 1 1/2 years to prove her worthiness - she ain't no Franken or even a Clinton ! Paterson's process produced a dud - but at least she is not a turd...
Here's my problem:
Due to the way things are set up there are more states capable of electing very conservative republicans than very liberal/progressive democrats.
New York, California, Vermont, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Maryland, Illinois Connecticut and maybe New Jersey are the only states that can easily elect a liberal/progressive democrat for a senator.
However Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Texas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah and maybe North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Indiana are ALL states that could EASILY send a VERY conservative republican to the senate. All of these states ether have 2 ultra conservative republicans (I.E. DeMint, Coburn, Cornyn, etc.) and if they do have a democrat they're so conservative that they could be a republican in some states (Landrieu, Bayh, Baucus, lincoln, etc.)
So thats 9-10 states that can easily send a progressive to the senate compared to 15-19 states that could easily send an ultra conservative republican to the senate.
New York is one of the handful of states that could give us a Feingold and while we're not getting a Landrieu we're just getting a Webb or Casey.
Oh yeah, we need assault rifles on the street, to keep us safe. When's the last time one was used inappropriately? Maybe yesterday?
Unfortunately, gun rights advocates never work to improve gun control legislation, they simply try to get it killed. They point out flaws and loopholes, and do everything in their power to overturn any legislation that DOES get passed. Any 'improvements' they propose to laws tend to either create new loopholes, or they become effectively unenforceable.
The United states has a much higher murder rate than the majority of the western world. Why? Certainly guns are a big part of the answer.
Can you imagine a gun in the hands of the likes of Mule Rider? Why do we work so hard to make guns readily available to everyone? Guns kill more people than terrorists, yet we spend a fortune and thousands of American lives in our war on terror, and throw out liberties right and left, but are unwilling to give up ANY rights for gun ownership.
Its interesting that Gillibrand should be the pick. I think that in the end, Paterson has chosen a placeholder, whether or not Gillibrand chooses to run in 2010 will be interesting to see, and it might be interesting to see if Caroline Kennedy and/or Andrew Cuomo run in the primaries. (don't forget that whoever wins faces reelection in 2012 again, and therefore is under some immediate pressure.)
It occurs to me that this incident has shocking parallels with an infamous episode from classical history...
Confusion, furor over Caligula appointment of horse to vacant Senate seat
Thursday, April 2, 792
ROME – Emperor Caligula's surprise appointment of his horse to fill a Senate vacancy Thursday left political opponents crying foul.
The appointment, which the Roman emperor has deliberated over for almost two months, came on the heels of the abrupt withdrawal of the horse's most prominent human rival for the seat.
Still, the appointment of Caligula's horse outraged human members of the Senate, including Rome Rep. Epiditus, who vowed to challenge the horse in a primary to be held next year.
“I cannot in good conscience allow Rome to be represented by a senator who has hooves and can't even stand on his hind legs,” said Epiditus.
The Caligula camp fired back, claiming critics of the pick were “against animal rights.”
“The lynching of Caligula's horse by these jealous rivals is indicative of an unacceptable bias against animal rights...and a prevailing attitude that senators should be qualified by their abilities to speak and walk on two legs,” said Caligula spokesman Eusero.
While Caligula had hinted for several weeks that he would prefer a non-human candidate to fill the Senate vacancy, the pick still surprised many observers.
“It's clearly a highly calculated political move,” said analyst Gaius Diodum, who has followed Caligula's imperial career for over a decade.
“In addition to belonging to Emperor Caligula, the horse hails from the largely rural pastures of central Italy, which is a region Caligula failed to capture in his recent bid to defeat the marauding barbarians. By putting his horse on the ticket, Caligula hopes to shore up his support among rural populations, especially those consisting of horses and other livestock.”
Marcus Tirisus, the former front-runner for the appointment whose withdrawal from consideration sent shockwaves through Rome on Wednesday, was “furious” over the selection of Caligula's horse to take the seat for which he had formerly vied, according to friends.
“Marcus feels like the emperor treated him very badly,” said an anonymous man close to the political debutante.
“Of course, he would never give voice to that opinion publicly, or else the emperor would probably have him executed by trampling,” the friend added.
Caligula's horse, who is now considered the senator-designate for Rome, is expected to take office on Sunday. Upon his swearing-in, he will assume the full responsibilities of the senatorial office, which under the imperial reign of Caligula consist of virtually nothing.
Copyright The Roman Tribune, Circa the Year Seven Hundred Ninety-Two Ab Urbe Condita. All Rights Reserved. Violation of this Copyright Carries Penalty of Fine not to Exceed Five Hundred Aurei or Execution by Sawing from Groin to Skull.
History really does repeat itself!
Oh yeah, we need assault rifles on the street, to keep us safe.
I made no comment about "assault rifles". I was speaking entirely of "assault weapons", which is an entirely arbitrary class of firearm that is intentionally nebulously defined so that politicians may propose prohibitions on the sale of any firearm that they wish. I also made no mention of any firearm "on the street"; firearms should be stored properly when not in use, and should only be used in appropriate venues, such as target ranges.
When's the last time one was used inappropriately? Maybe yesterday?
Can you explain this statement?
Unfortunately, gun rights advocates never work to improve gun control legislation, they simply try to get it killed.
Your statement is demonstrably false. "Gun rights advocates" of the National Rifle Association have no objection to many federal firearms regulations, including the current prohibition on possession of firearms by felons. They also worked with Congress to craft legislation to strengthen currently federally mandated background checks, so that individuals prohibited from owning firearms are less likely to be overlooked during such a pre-sale investigation of the NICS database.
They point out flaws and loopholes, and do everything in their power to overturn any legislation that DOES get passed. Any 'improvements' they propose to laws tend to either create new loopholes, or they become effectively unenforceable.
Can you provide specific examples in support of your assertion?
The United states has a much higher murder rate than the majority of the western world. Why? Certainly guns are a big part of the answer.
I believe that it may be more appropriate to examine differences in culture -- such as investigating the demographics of individuals most likely to be victims of homicide -- rather than to blame inanimate objects for the crime rate. Note, for example, that the United States murder rate where firearms are not involved is often higher than the total murder rate of many other countries; it is difficult to suggest that the availability of firearms is responsible for this disparity.
Can you imagine a gun in the hands of the likes of Mule Rider?
I do not understand what relevance that has to the current discussion.
Why do we work so hard to make guns readily available to everyone?
Please explain, exactly, how this is being done.
Guns kill more people than terrorists, yet we spend a fortune and thousands of American lives in our war on terror, and throw out liberties right and left, but are unwilling to give up ANY rights for gun ownership.
If you are suggesting that I am in agreement with the violations of the United States Constitution committed for the claimed purpose of the "war on terror", then you are mistaken. I do not believe it appropriate to sacrifice any Constitutional rights on the basis of any moral panic, whether that irrational panic relates to terrorism or to violence caused by individuals who misuse firearms.
@ Mark
Nicely done!
"The United states has a much higher murder rate than the majority of the western world. Why? Certainly guns are a big part of the answer."
.I believe that it may be more appropriate to examine differences in culture -- such as investigating the demographics of individuals most likely to be victims of homicide -- rather than to blame inanimate objects for the crime rate. Note, for example, that the United States murder rate where firearms are not involved is often higher than the total murder rate of many other countries; it is difficult to suggest that the availability of firearms is responsible for this disparity.
I get it.It's the fault of the victims not the shooters.
"When's the last time one was used inappropriately? Maybe yesterday?"
Can you explain this statement?
I guess your NRA talking points don't cover this.
Opus, you said:
"I get it.It's the fault of the victims not the shooters."
So, someone makes the thoughtful, well-reasoned point that we should take into consideration differences in culture between the U.S. and the rest of the Western world - which, by the way, are huge - and you interpret it as blaming the victims?
A lot of gun crime in the U.S. occurs as a result of gang warfare, particularly in impoverished areas. People living below the poverty line are, IIRC, several times more likely to be killed by gun crime than someone in affluent suburbia.
BTW, it's been proven that bans on personal gun ownership cause an INCREASE in gun violence rather than a decrease. People who are willing to break the law in order to commit an act of violence with a gun (i.e. bad people) will still be willing to break the law in order to obtain a gun in the first place. People who respect the law can still be killed by violations of it.
I get it.It's the fault of the victims not the shooters.
I have made no such suggestion. I am unable to discern how any rational or honest interpretation of my statements could be used to derive the conclusion that you have derived.
I guess your NRA talking points don't cover this.
I possess no "NRA talking points". You made mention of "assault rifles", however I had been discussing "assault weapons", which are an entirely different and mutually exclusive class of firearm. You referenced a news story regarding a shooting in which an unidentified rifle (while the news reports and police claim that the firearm used was an AK-47, this cannot be considered reliable without actual examination of the firearm, as there exist a number of different firearms that accept the same caliber ammunition as the AK-47 rifle, and some of these -- such as the Chinese-made SKS, which was never affected by the now-expired "assault weapons ban" -- have been mistaken as AK-47 rifles in previous news reports). Your reference, however, was as part of a strawman argument, as I had never suggested that "we need assault rifles on the street"; I am unable to respond to a reference used in support of an statement that attempts to address a claim that I did not make.
Are you able to address any of the other responses that I provided? For example, can you address the fact that you are demonstrably wrong in your assertion that " gun rights advocates never work to improve gun control legislation, they simply try to get it killed"?
And just to be clear i would have been thrilled to have Gillibrand in a deep red state like Idaho, a pink state like Missouri, or even a purple state like Ohio. She would have been OK in a light blue state like Michigan or PA. But she is NOT acceptable in the deep blue state of New York.
Mark posted the following:
"BTW, it's been proven that bans on personal gun ownership cause an INCREASE in gun violence rather than a decrease."
Tell me more. Gun violence has decreased drastically in New York City since the 1980s. Has it become easier or harder for average citizens in the city to purchase legal firearms since then? I think it's gotten harder, at least within city limits. (Mayor Bloomberg will tell you that it's easy for firearms to be legally purchased in Virginia or Georgia and then imported to New York to commit crimes with.) I want to know more about these studies, and how they control for other variables, like the end of the crack epidemic and community policing, not to mention the ease in smuggling weapons from other states. To give an even clearer example, even if DC's effective ban on gun ownership had been sustained by the Supreme Court, it wouldn't have mattered to criminals, because all they had to do was take the Metro to Virginia and take advantage of its lax gun laws.
Some examples of what I'm talking about:
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
Gun violence has decreased drastically in New York City since the 1980s.
Crime rates have decresaed significantly nationwide since the 1970s. Crime rates are more frequently tied to social and economic conditions in which they are correlated than to legal availability of firearms.
I agree, Dimensio, but that points to the difficulty in reliably claiming that a decrease in gun ownership increases gun violence.
Thanks, Mark. Interesting stuff; suggestive, though not quite proof.
Post a Comment