DWT: Kirsten Gillibrand Choice Exposes How Weak And Unqualified David Paterson Is To Be Governor

"In 2006 Blue America http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v61E0eLOrec">helped Kirsten Gillibrand defeat bumbling reactionary incumbent John Sweeney and she beat him-- in a Republican-leaning district (PVI-R+3)-- 117,799 (53%) to 104,157 (47%). http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2006/10/kirsten-gillibrand-ny-20-making-move.html">She presented herself to us as a grassroots progressive reformer but immediately upon taking her seat she joined the pro-business/anti-working family Blue Dogs and has amassed a http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?newsdate=1/4/2009&navigation=nextprior&category=REGION&storyID=726680&TextPage=2">sickeningly reactionary record since her election. Just looking at substantive issues that divided members of Congress along partisan lines, Gillibrand has been one of the members most likely to abandon the Democrats and vote with the GOP. Only http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?search=selectScore&chamber=House&scoreSort=lifetime_close">12 House Democrats have been worse than Gillibrand: Joe Donnelly (IN), Travis Childers (MS), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Heath Shuler (NC), Jason Altmire (PA), Chris Carney (PA), Dan Boren (OK), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Zack Space (OH), Gene Taylor (MS), Gabrielle Giffords (AZ), Collin Peterson (MN). Her record is actually worse than arch-reactionaries like Jim Marshall (GA), Henry Cuellar (TX), Mike McIntyre (NC), John Barrow (GA), Allen Boyd (FL) and Jim Matheson (UT), the Democrats who have done the most to help the Republican leadership build an effective conservative ruling coalition.

Pelosi has taken a http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/06/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4701336.shtml">dim view of Gillibrand's propensity to cross the aisle on key issues, even voting to keep the war in Iraq going and to allow Bush to put through his http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml">FISA policies, and for a moment it looked like Pelosi's antipathy would prevent Gillibrand from being able to push her bid for the New York Senate seat. Many of her colleagues have a http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17877.html">low opinion of her as well. In the end it didn't mean anything and http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/nyregion/24senator.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss">Gov. Paterson chose her. ..... "

READ MORE: http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2009/01/kirsten-gillibrand-choice-exposes-how.html

what happened to Cuomo?

Here's the facts on Gillibrand:

Pro-gay-marriage.
Pro-Medicare-for-all.
90% lifetime rating from the ACLU (Compare to 73% for Clinton and 87% for Obama).
Voted to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 90 days.
Voted to close offshore corporate tax loopholes.
Voted to restore habeas corpus to detainees.
Voted to require warrants for all FISA wiretapping.
Voted to expand SCHIP.
Supported lobbying reform.

She also won reelection by 24 points against a Republican former NY SecState who dumped $6 million on the race, mostly out of his personal fortune.

http://www.ontheissues.org/NY/Kirsten_Gillibrand.htm

I think she's an okay choice, but I also recognize the gripes some people have about her, none of which are listed in your list.

Patterson could have picked Cuomo or Malloney. I agree that the current pick makes him weaker with Democrats in the primaries in his next run to stay as Governor.

she can get Patterson votes in her predominantly Republican district.

or at least he thinks so.

:eyes:

Honestly - why bitch and moan about the Democratic party? They've never been and never will be what you want them to be.

Jeez, are you serious? What else do you and the rest of your DU Gun Nut compatriots do here, 24/7, year after year, other than bitch and moan about the Democratic Party? Unbelievable.....

1. The Democratic party isn't and never has been the "progressive utopia" blogs like "downwithtranny" think.
2. The Democratic electorate passes judgement on "progressives" election cycle after election cycle.
3. Many Democrats have had a long good relationship with the NRA, including Harry Truman, Howard Dean.

"I am pleased to accept Life Membership in the National Rifle Association and extend to your organization every good wish for continued success."

-John F. Kennedy, March 20, 1961

4. Being that the Democratic party isn't and never has been what "progressive" blogs think it should be, I believe their time would be better spent tearing down the GOP or building their own party where they can install "progressive" litmus tests to their heart's content.

Sorry to inform you, but the most liberal senator won the presidency in 2008. That should tell you something
about how progressive this country really is. Also, progressive bloggers drove the national debate on so many
then fringe issues years ago (Gitmo, Iraq War, anti-Bush feeling) that has become mainstream today. Face it,
the DLC is only good nowadays for being mouthpieces ordered around by Team O to do the latter's progressive
bidding. Watching co-opted DLCers obey and laud the wily President Obama is a joy to see.

Earth to wyldwolf: Nothing's wrong with being liberal. Even Rahm Emanuel described himself as one on
his last Meet The Press. And I love our liberal Obama Is 44...

:)

It hasn't had a lot of influence on the platform, yet progressives have forced the party left at important times, like with Roosevelt and LBJ, and now possibly with Obama. Foreign policy wise, we haven't made as many inroads - see McGovern. But Obama opposed the majority of the party on the Iraq War.

I do believe that President Obama will make a big difference in foreign policy, too, as he turns decisively away from
patented Republican-lite/DLC saber-rattling @ Iran and Syria to the 21st c. progressive stance of meeting our
enemies to enact diplomacy without preconditions.

Barack's opposition to the Iraq war from before the beginning of it signals to me that he was,is, and will always be a
man of rare personal integrity and even rarer political courage, thus I trust him to do what's needed in the Middle East
with a balanced approach that stresses respect for all sides in the issue but takes into account that anti-Israel forces
must change their ways in order for peace to occur.

because the progressive left holds their collective noses and votes for the DLCers because we often don't have any other choice......

Obama as most liberal Senator.
He was deemed so by the National Journal in an open-to-criticism overview of certain votes from 2007 only.
why is voting for ethics reform and funding for port security and veterans considered the liberal position?
Many times when votes are cast against one's own party, they are cast for completely opposite reasons than those on the other side of the aisle.
If one looks at voting records more broadly over the whole 210 congress, there are several Senators who voted the more liberal position more frequently than Obama.

I guess I get annoyed that people accept the National Journal study as fact.
Obama is definitely liberal, but here is a link to a 538 article describing why another study is more thorough, and where that study places Obama ...
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/liberal-conservative-rankings-done.html

Thanks, but I know about the National Journal gimmicky ranking already. I love Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight, too. :)

Amazing how you can slime centrist but whine when "prooogreeesssssivvveesss" get it returned to them.

Sorry to inform you, but the most liberal senator won the presidency in 2008.

based on one year - primary candidates usually run left.

That should tell you something about how progressive this country really is.

And a Republican president with a less than 30% approval rating was no factor - and winning independent votes that have typically swung right means nothing. :rofl: you display a typical "progressive" simplified black and white thought process.

Face it, Obama used the left, then appointed DLC members and promoted their policies.

Earth to clarkUSA: Nothing's wrong with being liberal. Even Rahm Emanuel described himself as one on his last Meet The Press. But there's plenty wrong being "progressive." Thank God Obama is a centrist.

Yer either with us or against us.

You are either "progressive" or you are a conservative.

Obama is anything but a centrist; his executive decisions prove that. He has been coming from the left all his life.
He's just great at co-opting DLC and Republicans into following his progressive/liberal policies, as he did in IL.
Note that Hillary isn't rattling her DLC saber at Syria or trying to "Obliterate Iran" anymore as SoS. Why? Because
she is following Obama's orders on foreign policy to meet our enemies without preconditions.

Now tell me again what DLC policies he's promoting?

Closing Gitmo? Progressive cause. Check.
Funding abortions abroad? Progressive cause. Check.
Restoring habeus corpus? Progressive cause. Check.

He was the most liberal senator which DLCers and Republicans never stopped reminding Americans and the
country still loved his policies enough to give him the largest popular vote victory since LBJ. That's how progressive
this country really is. That's how progressive Democrats really are, too, because he won the majority of their votes,
too, during the primaries.

You can split hairs all you want, but the truth is progressive bloggers are the most powerful political voice on the
Internet in this country, much to the continuing chagrin of the DLC and Republicans alike. DLCers like you should
get a clue from Vilsack, Salazar and the Clintons and fall in line, because liberals/progressives finally have the
president we always wanted. So far, he has kept his promises to us and there is more to come. There won't be
any pandering to the right or triangulating for Barack. Enough is enough.

The best part? Obama is a wonderfully wily liberal/progressive who has co-opted the leaders of the DLC into doing
his bidding and making DLCers like you and Republicans like Bill Kristol think he's a centrist because you guys are
in denial that the candidate you were lambasting as a liberal/progressive chas turned out to be the most popular
president in post-modern history after four days in office. Gotta love it. I'll be chuckling for the next eight years.

:rofl:

Obama is anything but a centrist; his executive decisions prove that.

So anytime a Democratic president undoes a Republican policy, that makes that Democrat a "progressive?" No, it makes him a DEMOCRAT.

Obama has been coming from the left all his life. He's just great at co-opting DLC and Republicans into following his
progressive/liberal policies.

Welfare reform, private social security companion accounts, a rebuke of "progressive" identity politics, classic third way rhetoric,


He was the most liberal senator

So says every rightwing source. :)

You still can't link to any DLC policies of his, eh? Figures.

Every executive decision he's made has been lifted from the wish list of every progressive since 2003. I am sure
anything else he does will please progressives, too, as what he is doing is for the good of the nation's economy (as
he said, we all have to sacrifice, which is a wonderfully progressive way to think) as well as for the sake of unity
(again, progressive pragmaticism to get policies passed in Congress and to win popular opinion).

President Obama and progressives understand "means to an end" and all that, with the means pleasing DLCers
and Republicans and the ends making progressives happy (meeting with our enemies without preconditions, closing
Gitmo, restoring habeus corpus, ending torture, etc.).

And from my previous post, as it bears repeating:

"He was the most liberal senator which DLCers and Republicans never stopped reminding Americans and the
country still loved his policies enough to give him the largest popular vote victory since LBJ. That's how progressive
this country really is. That's how progressive Democrats really are, too, because he won the majority of their votes,
too, during the primaries.

You can split hairs all you want, but the truth is progressive bloggers are the most powerful political voice on the
Internet in this country, much to the continuing chagrin of the DLC and Republicans alike. DLCers like you should
get a clue from Vilsack, Salazar and the Clintons and fall in line, because liberals/progressives finally have the
president we always wanted. So far, he has kept his promises to us and there is more to come. There won't be
any pandering to the right or triangulating for Barack. Enough is enough.

The best part? Obama is a wonderfully wily liberal/progressive who has co-opted the leaders of the DLC into doing
his bidding and making DLCers like you and Republicans like Bill Kristol think he's a centrist because you guys are
in denial that the candidate you were lambasting as a liberal/progressive chas turned out to be the most popular
president in post-modern history after four days in office. Gotta love it. I'll be chuckling for the next eight years."


:) :woohoo: A Progressive Is 44!! :party: :)

But everything's fine now under liberal/progressive President Obama. I can't wait until the SoS meets with our enemies
without preconditions! Now that's why progressives voted for Obama in the primary and the general election, as well
as so many left-leaning independents who like that kind of progressive talk!

:woohoo: Progressive Obama Is 44 :party:

Go check the archives here and at CNN and MSNBC since you seem to have amnesia. :eyes:

CNN and MSNBC has plenty of footage from the election year and which of Obama's opponents and their surrogates
said so.

Hint: Some of them are in his cabinet today, co-opted into following his progressive policies with a smile.

:woohoo: Progressive President Obama Is 44 :party:

LOL!

:woohoo: Progressives rule! Obama Is 44! :party:

:shrug:

Oh, and I can't wait until President Obama's co-opted DLC SoS meets our enemies without preconditions,
just like a good progressive should. :)

Get used to it, because the progressive bloggers you hate so much rule the American political blogosphere.
For the next eight years, it will be a progressive heyday in this country, as liberals rejoice in the President
we worked so hard for during the past two years.

You'll never win any elections without the support of progressives. That's because voters prefer progressive policies to Republican-lite,
as President Obama many victories prove.

Now run along and hate on progressives as is your DLC wont. :rofl:

As I am sure you recall.

:eyes:

Slimy. Really slime. Fat ugly bastard.

don't you, that the vast majority of DUers who supported another candidate in the primary season were/are not "anti-Obama"? We were "pro other candidate"....There is a difference.

A very small percentage of people purporting to be "Pro-Obama!" were actually anti-Clinton.

as well as, may I add, the poster.....



With this particular poster, anyone who supported Hillary was not pro-Hillary, but was an anti-Obama DLCer. It is just simply not true!

You put it so well --> My thoughts and sentiments MUCH better than I could have written. :thumbsup: :hi:

:shrug:

So I don't think that Harry Truman and JFK's association with the organization are comparable. That said, the uproar over Gillibrand is a bit ridiculous IMO.

willing to give her a chance, but this report is indeed disturbing and alarming. Governor Paterson, again, like I have been saying all along, is unqualified and is one of the worst Governors in America. I believe only Blago is worse among Democratic Governors.

And having been state senate minority leader makes Paterson unqualified?

Oh wait, your profile says CT. I'm sure your governors and lt. governors have been fantastic.

Democratic Governors, mostly Republicans and Independents. Nonetheless, they have not been incompetent (Rowland was a crook, but did some good things for the stete before his greed toppled him). Spitzer was a qualified and competent Governor until his romp with the call girl, Paterson is not competent (and he has his own pecadillos, too) just like Betsy McCaughey was not, either. Senator-designate Gillibrand will get a fair deal and it is up to her to clarify and solidify her positions otherwise Robert Kennedy, Jr. or one of the Downstaters will topple her in the primaries. Paterson is history, everyone knows it.

It's completely contradicted by reality:

http://www.ontheissues.org/NY/Kirsten_Gillibrand.htm

http://www.insideouthv.com/Features/gillibrand.html

example #1: "sickeningly reactionary record" links to an article that doesn't say anything like that at all.

I think I will live with her 96% rating from the AFL-CIO and her 100% rating from AFSCME.

And the fact that Pelousy has a problem with her makes me even more optimistic.

And I love this little quip:

Only 12 House Democrats have been worse than Gillibrand: Joe Donnelly (IN), Travis Childers (MS), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Heath Shuler (NC), Jason Altmire (PA), Chris Carney (PA), Dan Boren (OK), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Zack Space (OH), Gene Taylor (MS), Gabrielle Giffords (AZ), Collin Peterson (MN).

Of that group, only Taylor, Boren and Peterson have been in the House longer than Gillibrand. Donnelly, Ellsworth, Sculer, Altmire, Carney, Mitchell, Space and Giffords were elected in '06 along with Senator-designate Gillibrand.

Gillibrand has Kennedy's to fend off--they'll get behind somebody else. Is Paterson incompetent? or off his meds?

after nincompoop Paterson. It will not be a boring 2010 and the race starts in about 3 to 4 months, little time for Gillibrand to get going.

He seems to have forgotten.

As I posted previously, Limpballs was singing her praises. Makes one wonder. I don't think much of Patterson after his blind backing of Israel. I sure wish Spitzer had kept his pants zipped up.

She presents as a very immature individual.

...hopefully, she'll surprise.

The candidates promised to support a progressive agenda. She wasn't the only one who double dealt. I phoned banked for her and a number of others through Move-On who did just that. Lesson learned. Hence she will never have my vote. The same for Patterson. He has bungled the entire process to end up with a less than satisfactory choice. RFKjr. was long rumored to want the seat if HRC won the nom. I hope he runs. It was very telling, to me, that one of the people standing behind her was D'Amato.

The guy has balls.

that has ever stood up to the Bushlers and their clients, and he didn't have the guts to appoint a Kennedy. So I disagree. Appointing Caroline really would have required some guts, and he flaked.

It has been suggested this choice works for some (who pushed Gillibrand) in a demented place-holding scheme tantamount to a shopper squatting on two lines in a grocery store to see which line moves first.

edited for link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8133946

Balls? Nah. It was mismanaged political expedience that will bite him in the ass in 2010.

Gillibrand's record is superb, if anyone bothers to actually look at it.

http://www.ontheissues.org/NY/Kirsten_Gillibrand.htm

She's more liberal than Hillary Clinton, votes with the Dems 93% of the time, has a more progressive record than some of New York City's representatives, and voted to begin pulling troops out of Iraq within 90 days. In other words, she's only "bad" in made-up bullshit designed to lie to people who can't be bothered to take the time to find out the truth.

For those of us who follow this stuff, NY politics is extremely complicated (and fun), and this whole affair has been very illuminating for seeing where the fault lines lie.

This pick was all about two competing ideas -

1 - Helping Paterson get himself elected. He was not a well-known figure when he ran on the Spitzer ticket. NY voters vote for Governor-Lt. Governor together, like we did with Obama-Biden. Andrew Cuomo wants the job. Paterson would never have given Cuomo Senate because it gives Cuomo tons of free publicity for two years leading up to either a run for the full term (with little opposition) or a switch to run for Governor. Either way Paterson would get into a popularity contest or a numbers contest. It's a no-brainer he would go for someone who is a relative unknown. It would draw competition to the Senate primary in 2010 and that makes it easier for Paterson to get re-nominated.

2 - Caroline Kennedy may be wonderful in speeches and gala events and Boards of organizations, but in NY you have to be popular in both upstate and NYC to get elected. She showed that she has a very thin skin to criticism and very little knowledge of the issues in NY. I personally believe that she was offered a chance to show her stuff by the Obama administration because they were looking to develop a succession plan for her as a possible VP in 2012 and Pres in 2016. Caroline Kennedy proved she was a lightweight in her attempts to be a politician, and picking her would have been a disastrous two-year experiment gone wrong. People thought the same thing about Hillary in 2000, but she surprised everyone by showing herself to fit right in, to learn about the issues, makes tons of speeches, connect with the audience everywhere in the state. Plus she did it in an election primary and campaign. She was incredibly tuned in to all of NY state and she didn't shy away from anything. What a huge contrast with that upstate tour Caroline did. Her performance on that tour practically sunk her chances to be anything but a two-year Senator. It was clear that she didn't like the routine.

So you see why a Kennedy pick might have been good for Paterson, and indeed all indications were that he was going to pick her. There was a high probability that she would have proven out to be a lightweight and that would lead to a wide-open primary. But making that pick would have shown him to be a poor judge of talent. He couldn't bring himself to make it because, frankly, the writing was on the wall that there wouldn't even be a honeymoon period with her being in the Senate. He would have looked bad from the start. Better to pick someone from the "B" list who at least knows how to run a campaign. And Gillibrand is a good campaigner, has a lot of appeal to upstate, and given two years she likely will not embarrass the governor, whether or not she wins the Senate primary.

very illustrative.

happy with her selection...would have preferred either Maloney or Mario Cuomo.

You reap what you sow.

The Chamber of Commerce got their way.

except that she voted against the bailout.

Paterson and Gillibrand.

of course you are going about it in the most amateurish way. your links should back up what you say --they don't.

I am not thrilled that she is 100% NRA rated, because while I accept that people should have a right to own firearms I reject that the right is absolute. I don't consider this a dis-qualifier, though.

The place where I have a serious concern, however, is on the immigration issue. She is wrong. I don't have any problem with people who want to secure our borders, although I don't believe the border fence is the answer for a whole host of reasons. But she is on the wrong side of the issue to deny all illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.

That said, Gillibrand gets quite high ratings from gay rights advocates, Emilys list, NARAL (100), ACLU (100), NAACP (96), NEA (gave her an 'A'), AFL-CIO (96), and NOW (100).

She voted for expansion of SCHIP, to require warrants for all FISA wiretapping, to restore habeas corpus to detainees, and to close offshore corporate tax loopholes. She favors medicare for all and gay marriage. All in all, she looks a little more progressive than either Secretary Clinton or President Obama.

Look, I'm in Oklahoma and I know what a Blue Dog looks like. Gillibrand isn't one and it isn't even close.

And I am in Texas. They would either call her a San-Francisco liberal or a communist with that voting record.

a New York minute!

I share the same sentiments, only you worded it perfectly.

I'm not a hundred percent high on Kirsten, like the NRA associations or the border thing, but she's got so many positives if only people would consider her plusses as much as they dwell on her few negatives. Only on internet message boards are politicians completely written off by some people if they're not 100% perfect in their view.

No, people like us won't win any DK purity awards (I like DK, I just don't agree with him on everything), but there are more of us common sense democrats here than might be apparent.

vitriol on? You've been on a rant since before the choice was even official ... and it turns out she's NOT the demon you've been portraying.


As 'Still Sensible' noted:

"...Gillibrand gets quite high ratings from gay rights advocates, Emilys list, NARAL (100), ACLU (100), NAACP (96), NEA (gave her an 'A'), AFL-CIO (96), and NOW (100)."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8136302&mesg_id=8137333


I think I'll go with facts.

Tweety had Congresswoman McCarthy on, who referred to Gillibrand as a tool of NRA. McCarthy is already fund raising to challenge Gillibrand in 2010.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/28818243#28818243

One of the worst corporations on earth, who target children, kill their own customer base by design, and use the money made from such mass murder to fund the Republican party.

Why would any "Democrat" want any part of them?

In 1988, while running for president, he defended tobacco farmers while campaigning in Southern tobacco states. He accepted contributions from tobacco companies as late as 1990.

Gore claimed that "emotional numbness" led him to defend and profit from the tobacco industry.

Sadly, he learned all he needed to know about that industry when it killed his sister :(

You'll notice he doesn't defend them anymore.

his sister died in '88.

He was still defending and taking money from the tobacco industry in the '90s.

I'm not defending it. I'm just saying we should hold people to the same standards.

"Six years after Vice President Al Gore's older sister died of lung cancer in 1984, he was still accepting campaign contributions from tobacco interests. Four years after she died, while campaigning for President in North Carolina, he boasted of his experiences in the tobacco fields and curing barns of his native Tennessee."

It confirms what I previously wrote.

You don't get to choose the cases you work on when you are a young associate at a huge firm.

This is the same BS line of attack that her opponent used against her last fall.

http://timesunion.com/ASPStories/Story.asp?StoryID=729940&LinkFrom=RSS

"Gillibrand says she is independent and not influenced by money from the Altria Group, Philip Morris's parent company.

In fact, the Columbia County Democrat, now seeking re-election, has voted in favor of all three bills pushed by anti-tobacco lobbyists and passed by the House of Representatives."