Gillibrand's Record Shows She's True to the Blue Dog Creed
Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is headed for a big promotion this afternoon, with New York Gov. David Paterson expected to tap her as the state's next senator. But aside from her experience on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate run -- and her summer job in the office of very Republican former Sen. Al D'Amato (NY) -- what do we know about her?
Aravosis points out her less-than-stellar record on gay rights and stunning 100% rating from the National Rifle Association. But here are a few more votes where New York's new senator showed her centrist stripes as a House Blue Dog:
- Gillibrand split from the majority of fellow Democrats in 2007 to support a $100 billion Iraq funding bill without a timeline for troop withdrawal. (Clinton opposed the bill, along with President Obama.)
- Gillibrand was the only Democrat voting against Rep. Maxine Waters' (D-CA) proposal last year to help states purchase foreclosed homes and offer them at discounted rates to low-income families.
- She did stand apart from 41 House Democratic centrists in 2007 to oppose the "bipartisan" Protect America Act, which enabled the Bush warrantless wiretapping program to continue with minimal judicial oversight ... but Gillibrand voted last year to give legal immunity to telecom companies who had assisted the wiretapping regime, despite her earlier vow to oppose such a shield. (President Obama, it should be noted, flipped his stance in the exact same fashion.)
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Its a shame when we move backwards for any position, especially in the Senate. Hopefully she gets a primary challenge from a progressive, hopefully someone more to the left than Hillary was.
January 23, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please, give it a rest. Hillary clean is a far left liberal. Her records speaks for itself.
She has a perfect 100 pro-abortion score with NARAL Pro-Choice America. She received an 'A' (excellent) on the Drum Major Institute's 2005 Congressional Scorecard on middle-class issues. She is best friends with the gay Human Rights Campaign lobby. The League of Conservation Voters has given her a lifetime 90 percent pro-environment action rating through 2006. Americans for Better Immigration has given her a lifetime grade of 'D-' (very near failing) through October 2007 on their Immigration-Reduction Report Card. She gets an F from the National Rifle Association. On fiscal issues, she gets an F from the National Taxpayers Union, a 14-percent score from Citizens Against Government Waste, and only a 6.7 percent score from Americans for Tax Reform. Her lifetime American Conservative Union rating is 8 percent. Through 2006, she has an average lifetime 96 percent "Liberal Quotient" from Americans for Democratic Action. (Her numbers dropped in 2007 and 2008 because of missed votes in the Senate while running for President. Still, as a comparison, she received a 75% score in 2007, the same as President Obama. In 2008, surely missing even more votes, she received a 70%. Obama? Try 45%).
The point is, you don’t like Senator Clinton, fine. You were so in love with Senator Obama during the campaign that you deluded yourself into thinking Hillary was the enemy, Hillary was not a Democrat, anyone but Hillary, give me more, more, more Obama! You are crazy. Hillary has been called a lot of names, but being called a conservative is a bit ridiculous. In fact, many political pundits and strategists thought that Hillary might be a risky choice as a nominee because she was too liberal to win a majority of the nation.
Perhaps this is about the “one vote”—you know, that one vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Just for fun, a list of names of the 58% of Senate democrats who voted the same way:
Baucus, Max (MT), Evan Bayh (IN), Joseph Biden (DE), John Breaux, John (LA), Maria Cantwell, Maria (WA), Jean Carnahan, Jean (MO), Thomas Carper, Thomas (DE), J. Cleland, (GA), Hillary Clinton, Hillary (NY), Thomas Daschle, Thomas (SD), Christopher Dodd, Christopher (CT), Byron Dorgan, Byron (ND), John Edwards, John (NC), Dianne Feinstein, Dianne (CA), Thomas Harkin, Thomas (IA), Ernest Hollings, Ernest (SC), Tim Johnson, Tim (SD), John Kerry, John (MA), Herbert Kohl, Herbert (WI), Mary Landrieu, Mary (LA), Joseph Lieberman, Joseph (CT), Blanche Lincoln, Blanche (AR), Zell Miller, Zell (GA), Ben Nelson, Ben (NE), Bill Nelson, Bill (FL), Harry Reid, Harry (NV), John Rockefeller, John (WV), Charles Schumer, Charles (NY), Robert Torricelli, Robert (NJ).
January 23, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its lunacy to claim that Hillary Clinton is a "far left liberal." She may back some liberal issues, but she's no liberal.
January 23, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Evidence?
January 23, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your "opportunistic-of-center" gal lost. Maybe instead of trumpeting your idolatry, you should do whatever you can to make she she does not foul up as Secretary of State.
January 24, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't assume she'll vote so conservatively as a Senator. As a front page Daily Kos diary noted today, Gillibrand is representing a district that voted twice for Bush (albeit not by blowout margins), and she HAD to come off as not-too-liberal to satisfy enough constituents not to threaten her reelection. Now Gillibrand will represent a much more liberal statewide constituency, and she might move left in her votes. It helps that the agenda is driven entirely by our side now, so that she doesn't face the discomfort of deciding how to cope with a Republican agenda; voting for Obama's and Congressional Democrats' priorities will feel easier.
January 23, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good points, I hope you are right.
January 23, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her district was not hugely conservative. Conservative, to be sure, but not like deep south conservative. We're talking New York State. I would be cautious of expecting her to suddenly change her ideology because she's in the Senate.
January 23, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've seen more Confederate flags currently in upstate New York than in any other part of the country. New York is the ceiling of Appalachia. It was the least Union-minded of any northern state during the Civil War. New York City had draft riots and blacks were lynched on lamp posts. Check out the Peekskill Riot.
January 23, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check the 2008 election results while you're at it.
January 24, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check the 2008 election results while you're at it. Obama won her district.
January 24, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The DailyKos FP'ers are in full-on apologism at the moment because they have a massive stream of egg running down their face. In typical hardline ideologue fashion, they're passing the buck instead of taking responsibility for the birth of this blue puppy.
January 23, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's really a shame when our best hope is to bet that none of Gillenbrand's votes or positions are based on principle. I really think my state could have done a damn sight better.
January 24, 2009 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I had the water running this morning when I first heard the NPR news reader announce that "Kirsten Gillibrand" would be named as senator from NY. Over the sound of the water, I could not hear quite right and (having never heard of Rep Gillbrand) thought that I had just heard that Gov Patterson was naming "Kristin Chenoweth." I thought "I am sure she is popular in New York and all, but is that really a smart choice?"
The result of that mistake is that I am so relieved that it is not Kristen Chenoweth that I am not much distressed at the thought of a blue dog senator.
January 23, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not that I'd be upset at the opportunity to see and hear a lot more from Kristen Chenowith. I've had more than a bit of crush on her since her "West Wing" days.
January 23, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that I'd be upset at the opportunity to see and hear a lot more from Kristen Chenowith. I've had more than a bit of crush on her since her "West Wing" days.
January 23, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good job on the "better Democrats" M.O., netroots. You dedicated your resources to smearing a progressive and so you get Giuliani in his Marilyn Munroe costume as your prize. Congrats!
January 23, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha, pretty much. Caroline Kennedy was certainly not perfect, but I think people went over the top in their opposition to her. Hell, we are still hearing about it...I'm sick of it...let it go.
January 23, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please, don't feed the (bomb-throwing) trolls.
January 23, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better than an incompetent Caroline Kennedy who can't even gracefully withdraw her name from contention. And thankfully she has a record that we can all look at an analyze. She has a record Yes she has a strong NRA rating. 80% LGBT rating for a blue dog is bananas - unheard of anywhere other than NY. 100% ACLU & NARAL ratings indicate Republican to you?
Certainly less progressive than I would have liked but news alert - SO IS OBAMA! We like moderates and compromise now. Sorry you didn't get the memo.
She has also shown that she had political chops, can win a tough campaign against a 4 time incumbent in a conservative district, and can represent lower Canada as Seantor (even though she is more conservative on immigration than I would have liked).
Would not have been my choice, but she's a good choice for NYS.
January 23, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haha, twisting and spinning to try to justify your participation in this shameful fiasco. Pathetic. I'll remember this the next time DailyKos and the rest of the borderline-PUMAs moan about Lieberman, Feinstein, etc.
And like I said, Giuliani is great on choice and LGBT rights. Lots of "experience" too! It's mystifying to me why you spinning hypocrites didn't back his presidential campaign.
January 23, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Possibly because he is (1) an egomaniac; (2) a sleazeball; (3) a liar; (4) a flake; and also because he couldn't campaign his way out of a wet paper bag.
January 24, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, there's a difference between being willing to work with moderates and actively undermining your own side. It's obvious that you and the rest of the bitter Clintonistas still don't get it. I just wish you'd let us run things for a while instead of insisting on fucking up the country and the party like you did in the 90's.
January 23, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and by the way, lots of those bitter Clintonistas that you want to go away so "you" can run the country for a while? They're in Obama's cabinet helping to run the country :) Obama is not a Clintonista hating ass, unlike some of his more rabid and clueless supporters. Obama could not have gotten elected without us. Too bad his disagree without being disagreebale tactics never filtered down to folks like you.
January 23, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, how's that "incompetent, inexperienced" Obama did?
You losers have been rebuked by history, so don't peddle your Clintonista smear bullshit here. Nobody is buying it.
January 23, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never said Obama was inexperienced or incompetent. I said Hillary was more experienced and ready now. I was all for Obama 2016. And the day Hillary was eliminated, I was behind Obama. I liked them both, as opposed to the rabid Clinton Deranged folks like yourself :) He is less progressive than I would have liked, still have issues with somethings from a more progressive tack - which you always defend him on.
I don't just bow down to whatever Obama says like some folks (you namely - on FISA, Rick Warren). You're not a progressive you're an Obama stamp. And an asshat.
January 23, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, not an Obama stamp. You can check my Kos diary from yesterday to see my argument against his decision to waive in Lynn as deputy secdef. Unlike you, I don't self-identify by support for a candidate and I don't spew bile at fellow progressives to "avenge" failed candidates.
Of course, as we saw during the primaries, you guys can dish it out, but you can't take it. If people had treated Hillary the way you hypocrites treated Caroline, your vacuous arguments about "sexism" actually would have had some substance.
January 23, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary had campaigned for appointment to VP as imperiously as Caroline campaigned for appointment to Senator, you would have demolished her. But because she's a Kennedy it's okay. My criticisms of Caroline had nothing to do with gender - she was not the best woman available! By any measure! And I didn't support Hill because she was a woman. I supported her because of policies and positions and her ability to be a forceful fighter - something Caroline Kennedy is LACKING!
Grow up. The primary is over. My principles are the same. You are a hypocrite. It's NYers who gave Caroline the benefit of the doubt but were turned off by her incopetent, entitled non-campaign and the out of state pressure in general, not bitter Hillary folks. Most folks wanted Caroline because 1. she supported Obama and 2. she's a Kennedy which are really weak bases to give someone a Senate seat.
January 23, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of revisionism happening here today. Just goes to show what spite'll get ya.
Now it appears Idaho's new congressman is more progressive than NY's new Senator. At least he isn't on the blue-dog website!
Good lookin out!
January 23, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Minnick right? ... sounds familiar... oh yeah that's the guy who accepted an endorsement from the Blue Dogs in Congress right? He isn't on the Blue Dog website yet - hold your horses. And FYI a NY moderate Blue Dog is equivalent to a North Dakota raging liberal. I'd be shocked if Minnick's views are anywhere near as liberal as Gillibrand. But why look at actual people and positions? Just stick a label on everyone and have that be all you look at to determine who they are.
Just clueless.
January 23, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now you are saying being endorsed by Gillibrand's caucus is a reason to be looked down on ... But yet the selection of Gillibrand is a good thing?
One thing you were right about is that Minnick has joined the Blue Dog Caucus dammit (I got a nice letter of apology from him about the issue a while back that I hadn't read yet). Of course that seems a better fit for Idaho than NY.
Apparently he's also a member of the Northwest Caucus and the Sportsman's caucus. And he plans to join several more. His explanation for throwing in with their ilk:
When I gave the NRA crap for his low rating, it was his support for regulating armor piercing ammo that got him bad marks despite being an avid hunter and skeet shooter. So I still think he's more progressive than Gillibrand 1.0 (who MUST have opposed such regulations to get her NRA rating). Maybe with her new software, Gillibrand 2.0 will be more liberal, but that raises a whole host of questions about how solid her real beliefs are.
So what did Gillibrand say when you asked her about her participation in the Blue Dogs?
January 23, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude - I am not looking down on the Blue Dog Caucus for endorsing Minnick. I am saying that you are being ridiculous when you say NY's new Senator is less progressive than your new congressman based soley on inclusion in a group. Not all Blue Dogs are alike. She's a Catholic who is staunchly pro-life. She never voted on bullet piercing armor in the Congress so how can the NRA rate her on that? She did vote against the DC gun ban and registration - which I strongly disagree with her on. That's enough to win an NRA endorsement. Rural voters love guns, not so popular in handgun restriction places like NYC. And now that we are part of her constituency, she will have to take our concerns under consideration and I will appeal to her when those issues come up.
And Caroline Kennedy had no RECORD to agree or disagree with which is my reason for opposition. I never criticized her when she endorsed Obama. But I don't think handing a Senate seat to someone based on views that you ASSUME she hold based on her last name is appropriate. Her strongest supporter in NYS was Bloomberg - a Republican.
Bottom line she is not a progressive, but she is not a Republican-lite either. She's a liberal everywhere else but NYS. She has two years to prove herself to reelection for me. And she has demonstrated the smarts and politcal knowhow that I think will enable her to be an effective Senator from NYS, despite the efforts of the Caroline because she's a Kennedy crowd to criticize based on a very flimsy understanding of who she is.
January 23, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's all for armor piercing ammo. You can't pander any more than that.
January 23, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
you keep saying this, i keep agreeing, but some people just won't let it die:
to most people, opposition to kennedy had exactly zero to do with hillary. i don't see where the obsession comes from.
January 23, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know. Gillibrand's a solid choice, but not the progressive I had hoped for. She has two years to prove herself and I think she will. And I am THRILLED it's not Cuomo - who as I recall was a strong Hillary supporter :) Paterson did better than I hoped.
January 23, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a much needed voice of reason on this thread, dijamo. Seeing you give Gillibrand a chance in your comments makes me want to give her a chance too.
January 23, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I'm only defending Senator Gillibrand because she has Hillary hair. And sorry about Fran Drescher, but I would have had to mute her on C-Span hearings with that voice :)
January 23, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. If anything, favorable NRA ratging puts her in the same category as eight-times endorsed Howard Dean.
January 23, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, don't feed the trolls.
January 23, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
nonsense.
January 23, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's MONROE, you f*cking imbecile. Just as smart in your spelling as your politics!
January 23, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The progressive blogs were so obsessed with denying Caroline -- a serious progressive -- the seat that we overlooked what was really important about the pick - that it be occupied by a progressive. Instead, we focused on bloodline, legislative experience, some stumbling in comments against a hostile press. Now, we're stuck with a blue dog Democrat from one of the 3-4 most liberal states in the country.
I had hoped that either Caroline or Cuomo got the pick. This choice was a real downer by the unelected Patterson.
January 23, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm so sick of this notion that Democrats running in conservative districts have to be Republican-lite. Do the events of this past week not disprove that twisted theory? And what is "centrism," as it's commonly defined, but an appeal to a K Street, anti-populist agenda? How does that get you anywhere with blue collar conservative/Reagan Democrat types? Gillibrand strikes me as a Washington Consensus Kool Aid-drinking hack who lucked out by running against a clown.
As for Kennedy, sorry, but the notion of plucking a dynastic Upper East Side richie from the firmament and plopping her down in a Senate seat is a recipe for a return to Republican dominance. Love her politics, but do we really want to conform to the GOP's pseudo-populist "elite-effete-latte-sippin'-arugula-eatin'-New York-San Fran blah blah blah?" It's wrong on the merits and the optics, and she wasn't up to it anyway.
January 23, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her 100% rating from the NRA guarantees that she'll have a strong primary challenger. However it also seems that she'll have the right political support and a lot of money to keep her in the Senate. She's a DLC'er and a Clintonite with strong political connections to the New York Republicans as well.
The Caroline Kennedy feeding frenzy, I believe was Clintonites extracting a measure of revenge. The reason why Paterson waited so long was that he was stuck between a rock and a hard place between two political powerhouse factions pushing rival options.
January 23, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right about bitter Clintonites looking for revenge. You just have to look at people like dijamo to see that this was just a petty opportunity to ply the same failed and invalidated arguments they used against Obama. As always, it's Clintons before party, Clintons before country.
January 23, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this will hurt gov Paterson in two years when he's trying to get elected... so do we know WHY he's nominanting someone so conservative?? I don't get it..
January 23, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
She also supports gay marriage, which is more than I can say for the Senator from Wall Street. Let's not pigeonhole the woman. I see people on this thread consigning her to mediocrity and hoping for a "progressive" challeger in 2010. That's jumping the gun in a big way. No pun intended, though remember, her district includes places where guns aren't only in the hands of criminals and cops.
January 23, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
And this is Caroline's fault, by the way. Who the hell withdraws the day they are about to be named to the US Senate?
January 23, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody knows what happened, but somebody was using leaks to ravage Caroline Kennedy in the media. Somebody from the Gillibrand faction - either her Republican connections or her Dem connections - was leaking like an old faucet.
The GOP didn't want Caroline when they could have had a very moderate Democrat with strong Republican connections, and the rival Dems didn't want Caroline because she was a Kennedy, who backed Obama early in the primary process.
January 23, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, it was the Clinton smear machine in full spin mode and all their vindictive little supporters came along for the ride. If only these losers would turn their petty hatefulness on a Republican for once...
January 23, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blow it out of your ass Stroszek so we have the sound warning that goes with the smell of your hateful screeching.
Thank heavens Obama is ten times smarter than his supporters.
January 23, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed hollywood and djamo - blow it out your ass haters.
ZOMG SHE WUZ ENDORSED BY TEH NRA! Yeah, so was Howard Dean, as has been pointed out already. A real Giuliani in drag that guy.
You people are postmodern parodies of yourselves. Grow up and worry about something important for a change - like, oh I don't know, our COLLAPSING F#@KING ECONOMY. You know, like our President is doing.
Thank god there are still adults left who want to commit to public service. Makes me want to go out, smoke a cigar and shoot some skeet.
That's something you do with a shotgun, btw, for those of you who don't know what the f#@k I'm talking about.
January 23, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, not even the democrat from Idaho has a 100% NRA rating. She had to to oppose regulating armor piercing ammunition (among other things) to get that rating - are you telling me there's a corner of upstate NY that has an equivalent level of gun ownership with Idaho?
The fact that she announced her switch to supporting gay marriage just today isn't a plus. Do you really think she's had an epiphany?
January 23, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only Democrat from Idaho in the last fifteen years, Rep. Walt Minnick, was just sworn in a month ago, they don't have enough votes to rate him yet.
January 23, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wanted Louise Slaughter to get the Senate seat. She's a liberal and she's from Upstate NY which will help when she runs for election.
Enough with the God....ned Blue Dogs.
January 23, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't feed the troll!
January 23, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, give it a rest. Hillary clean is a far left liberal. Her records speaks for itself.
She has a perfect 100 pro-abortion score with NARAL Pro-Choice America. She received an 'A' (excellent) on the Drum Major Institute's 2005 Congressional Scorecard on middle-class issues. She is best friends with the gay Human Rights Campaign lobby. The League of Conservation Voters has given her a lifetime 90 percent pro-environment action rating through 2006. Americans for Better Immigration has given her a lifetime grade of 'D-' (very near failing) through October 2007 on their Immigration-Reduction Report Card. She gets an F from the National Rifle Association. On fiscal issues, she gets an F from the National Taxpayers Union, a 14-percent score from Citizens Against Government Waste, and only a 6.7 percent score from Americans for Tax Reform. Her lifetime American Conservative Union rating is 8 percent. Through 2006, she has an average lifetime 96 percent "Liberal Quotient" from Americans for Democratic Action. (Her numbers dropped in 2007 and 2008 because of missed votes in the Senate while running for President. Still, as a comparison, she received a 75% score in 2007, the same as President Obama. In 2008, surely missing even more votes, she received a 70%. Obama? Try 45%).
The point is, you don’t like Senator Clinton, fine. You were so in love with Senator Obama during the campaign that you deluded yourself into thinking Hillary was the enemy, Hillary was not a Democrat, anyone but Hillary, give me more, more, more Obama! You are crazy. Hillary has been called a lot of names, but being called a conservative is a bit ridiculous. In fact, many political pundits and strategists thought that Hillary might be a risky choice as a nominee because she was too liberal to win a majority of the nation.
Perhaps this is about the “one vote”—you know, that one vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Just for fun, a list of names of the 58% of Senate democrats who voted the same way:
Max Baucus(MT), Evan Bayh (IN), Joseph Biden (DE), John Breaux(LA), Maria Cantwell(WA), Jean Carnahan(MO), Thomas Carper(DE), J. Cleland, (GA), Hillary Clinton(NY), Thomas Daschle(SD), Christopher Dodd(CT), Byron Dorgan(ND), John Edwards(NC), Dianne Feinstein(CA), Thomas Harkin(IA), Ernest Hollings(SC), Tim Johnson(SD), John Kerry(MA), Herbert Kohl(WI), Mary Landrieu(LA), Joseph Lieberman(CT), Blanche Lincoln(AR), Zell Miller(GA), Ben Nelson(NE), Bill Nelson(FL), Harry Reid(NV), John Rockefeller(WV), Charles Schumer(NY), Robert Torricelli(NJ).
January 23, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummmm Clinton isn't a senator any more. She's SOS. She's not really the topic of discussion. There is a side discussion if those who were the most violent Clinton supporters - who turned into the most violent anti-Kennedy haters - ended up shooting themselves in the foot. I think yes.
As you mention, Clinton (for all her divisiveness) was indeed a full on liberal(but hardly FAR left). Gillibrand isn't. Hence the amusing outcome that in destroying Kennedy the Clinton avengers got someone likely to thwart many of the progressive ideals for which Clinton stood.
January 23, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm not thrilled with the appointment, either. I was just posting the information about Hillary Clinton because of all the negative postings about here on this very thread. (see: Stroszek)
However, I would still say she is far left. Year in and year out, she has been ranked among the 10 most liberal senators. That's some pretty good company. Perception (though lies) isn't the reality here.
January 23, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, just the "one vote" that lead to tens of thousands of deaths. Who cares about that! Not blue dogs, that's for sure.
January 23, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your "opportunistic-of-center" gal lost. Maybe instead of trumpeting your idolatry, you should do whatever you can to make she she does not foul up as Secretary of State.
Duplicate reply to your duplicate post.
January 24, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw a video on the daily dish today where all these celebrities made trite pledges in an attempt to get others to pledge something they will do to change the world.
I tell you this because Caroline Kennedy said the same thing when she was promoting her book on the Constitution a few(many?) years back.
It is easy to take a pledge or urge others to step up. But when it is time to "walk the walk" look who blinked. Now, because Kennedy has the luxury of kickin it while others make the sausage, the citizens of NY find themselves with a conservative Democrat as their Senator.
And what exactly was wrong about choosing Andrew Cuomo instead of Kennedy? Someone who has worked hard helping people instead of a lightweight daughter of a beloved President?
January 23, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's take a look at Gillibrand's overall voting record, which is what really matters in this situation. Here are her 2008 scores from several liberal interest groups:
100%-NARAL/Pro-Choice America
100%-American Civil Liberties Union
95%-Americans for Democratic Action'
100%-Children's Defense Fund
95%-League of Conservation Voters
96%-NAACP
89%-SEIU
96%-Mean Score
I wouldn't exactly call someone with those kind of numbers a conservative...
January 23, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the Google Cache of her old website (The Online Office of Congresswoman Kristen Gillibrand):
Link to Source
I wouldn't exactly call someone with those kinds of views a progressive.
January 23, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
That sounds an awful lot like Barack Obama's views on immigration. From his campaign website:
Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan
Create Secure Borders
Obama and Biden want to preserve the integrity of our borders. He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.
Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
Obama and Biden will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.
Bring People Out of the Shadows
Obama and Biden support a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.
Fix the Bureaucracy: Obama joined Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) to introduce the Citizenship Promotion Act to ensure that immigration application fees are both reasonable and fair. Obama also introduced legislation that passed the Senate to improve the speed and accuracy of FBI background checks.
That sounds pretty similar to what Gillibrand said...
January 24, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink