"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"
Thomas Jefferson

Friday, January 23, 2009

Gillibrand In As Senator?

We will know the answer to that question at noon today when Governor David Paterson is expected to announce his choice for US Senator to replace Hillary Clinton.

By many media reports Kirsten Gillibrand for the neighboring congressional district is the front runner. Will the appointment of a Blue Dog Democrat such as Gillibrand create tension in the party?

Long Island Representative Carolyn McCarthy is reportedly said she will challenge Gillibrand, presume that means primary her for the seat in 2010.

Whether or not McCarthy poses a serious threat is yet to be seen, but the larger story here is what the subject matter will be in the forefront of the race - gun control - and its division of upstate and downstate. Gillibrand, who is supportive of gun owner rights will be well received upstate while getting a cool response in and around New York City.

McCarthy, a fierce advocate for gun control and having a personal narrative for it, will not be well received upstate. McCarthy may not even be the choice for a challenge, but as New York turns deeper blue (liberal, not blue dog) someone may give Gillibrand a serious primary challenge and dust up in 2010, and possibly give a slight opening to a centrist Republican.   

22 comments:

RWiley said...

Ms. Gillibrand's appointment was announced early this morning and she will be introduced as Senator at noon, provided the Gov. does not change his mind.

Anonymous said...

She looks just like Addie Jenne Russell. Are we sure she isn't Addie Jenne Russell? Same hair, same face, same limited experience. Same age, same baby. I think she's really AJR.

Danny Francis was right to point out the outside money deal, but other than that, I would rather see her in there than Maloney or Cuomo or certainly that Kennedy twit. Cuomo would have been my second choice, right after JLo.

hermit thrush said...

doesn't the selection of gillibrand kind of put the lie to this idea that those dastardly downstate dems don't care about upstate? according to reports i've seen, she was the preferred choice of both clinton and schumer. and i know a lot of nyc-area liberals aren't very happy about the pick.

Dan Francis said...

Sen-selectee Kirsten Gillibrand and her money are officially documented here from the FEC Click Here for those who may have missed it.

Interesting stuff; esp her PAC's from outside NYS and her District.

Political IV said...

HT,

It does not take a doctorate to figure out the Clinton's and Schumer supported her.

#1 They were not about to support Kennedy after she supported Obama over Hillary.

#2 Even if she was not their first choice, they would not say it publicly.

Go Fish!

TourPro said...

Things are happening quick huh?

Here's a few tidbits...

I don't care about her sketchy fundraising in Europe.

She pissed of Pelosi when she voted against the first bailout. Those are both good things.

Pro-gun and NRA's endorsement. That really screws with some people. Again, more good fun.

She dragged her feet with Rangel and Jefferson. Bad.

She clears the deck for a potential Congresswoman Little. I've had my doubts about Betty, but clearly this is a step up from a minority NY senator.

Duprey and/or Sayward move up. Plus. I like Theresa.

Paterson dodged a huge bullet and was able to make a decent pick. The spotlight is no longer on the decision, but on the person.

Schlossberg's fun is just beginning. That was simply the most inept attempt at anything I've ever seen in politics. I've coined a new phrase - "To Pull a Schlossberg".

Cuomo has bigger fish to fry in the future and I'm actually impressed with what he has done so far.
a
The Rutnik thing could be interesting.

Did I miss anything?

hermit thrush said...

have a look at this, iv:

According to the sources, Gillibrand, now in her second congressional term, was favored by both Senator Churck [sic] Schumer and Secretary of State Clinton.

in other words, they were pulling for gillibrand behind the scenes, before the decision was made. and look, it's based on anonymous reporting (as any reporting of this nature would have to be), so maybe it's wrong! though i've seen lots of other reports that schumer, at least, has been pulling for gillibrand all along.

if it makes you feel better, then go twist yourself around and explain this away. but the fact remains that there were lots of other downstate dems paterson could have chosen.

Anonymous said...

She is a lightweight and Paterson should be embarassed!Of course, she puts up a pro-gun, pro-hunting front - how the hell else would she get elected up here? Let's not forget she in just another lawyer who did her time in DC. She will say and do anything to get elected. Now the blind gov has seen the light to appoint her and I'm sure a bunch of the liberal, lapdog feminists will line up behind her in 2010. They should be ashamed.

Anonymous said...

Well maybe, hermit, the gov has heard us little upstaters gripe about what has been going on, with no upstate representation, and responded in a positive way.

For whatever reason, I'm glad it happened. Lowey, Kennedy, Cuomo, I'd take an upstater over them.

Just cause something good happened doesn't mean there wasn't, and isn't, a problem for us. But it's a good thing at this point. You're not going to go nuts on this one too, are you?

hermit thrush said...

i promise not to go nuts if you promise not to go nuts, ok?

Anonymous said...

Oh c'mon, I'd expect better from a man/woman like you. Someone with your education and experience should come up with some more words than that.

Anonymous said...

Again Riley says nothing, no substance, just windmill fuel. Get a life Wiley. Get a blog.

Anonymous said...

The more I think about this, the better I like the appointment. I hope our Gov doesn't take too much of a beating from the downstaters for making this decision, because we will need him to be strong during the budget debate. That is, if there is one.

I read Carlos Slim's newspaper account (NYT), and it is predictably negative. They wanted someone from Manhattan, or within a few miles anyway. And they also resent any questioning whatsoever of fruitcake Caaaroline. Hey, it's not like she had that many. Three that, ya know, I can remember.

I like this Gillibrand choice.

Anonymous said...

Hey, in the spirit of Wiley, I have one more thought. Just cause I like the Gillibrand choice doesn't mean I don't see Danny's point that she broke in with outside money. He's right on that.

Anonymous said...

TourPro said. "Cuomo has bigger fish to fry in the future.." I agree. He ain't fried PIV's local choice, Renzi yet.

Dan Francis said...

Mrs. Gillbrand raised and spent over $7 million on two House runs / wins -- most of it from outside NYS and her 20th CD --

As a Senator, there is no limit ot that "fund" raising.

"It's the money, stupid!"

* 2010 would be a good year to put a stop to that mindset: that huge amounts of money is all that matters and believe me, if you listen to people, they don't care about the money or where it comes from as long as they don't have to contribute, I guess?

A lot of issues; but big money ranks #1 in my book as serously need change.

I ask but seldom receive an answer to the question: "Who do they represent if 75% of their money comes from outside the district and/or state?"

Dan Francis said...

Look at it this way:

1. If a group, any group, gives a candidate $100,000 and then asks them to advocate a position, will they or not?

2. You give the max, $2300 ($2400 in 2009-2010 cycle btw) and then call the Senator's office at the same time the aforementioned group calls, who are they likely to respond to? LOL

3. If a certain position and vote(from that $100,000 group) favor that group and they are from DC or Calif or Texas or VA, and not the district or NYS, then why should we be concerned if our Rep. or Senator votes their way and takes their money, too, right?

See my point? Some probably do not.

~ dmf

Anonymous said...

I do see your point, Danny. But if we get a Maloney (one issue, wrong) or a Cuomo (another Schumer grandstander)or a Lowey (again, one issue, wrong) we have a NYC fool who never will care about what goes on north of the city. And where do you think their money will come from?

I see your point Dan, but just don't know what to do about it in this case. Gillibrand looks good to me when compared with the other dolts. I like the Gov and I like his choice. Carlos Slim's paper be damned.

Dan Francis said...

Anon: 1:52 pm:

It's not just Gillibrand -- it's all of them: only difference is the size of the wallets they rake from.

In her case, though, my point is simply this: she's a one-termer in the House and raised and spent some $7 million -- that is about more than dairy issues in Warren county -- you can bet on that!

Anonymous said...

Well Daniel, educate me. With the McCain/Feingold law didn't we move in a direction that was to help seperate these pols from outside money? But Bama was able to step outside, after saying he wouldn't, and raise even more on his own. Have we stepped back after stepping forward? Where should we go from here on this? I respect your opinion. We have to deal with this on a state level as well as the national level.

Dan Francis said...

Clean elections - yes, but how?

The USSC has ruled that "Money, even with ceiling on individual limits, is free speech."

All sorts of loopholes exist...

If Money is indeed "speech," then I guess the Bill Gates' of the world have the largest vocab, right?

Big money does not always win, we all know that, but it sure keeps out small money.

That's my point. I say: restrict (and I hate that word), but limit (damn, I hate that word, too), make sure that money for a congressional seat comes ONLY from within the district, or in the case of a statewide seat, only in that state.

Look, my simple view: If you can't vote for them, then you can't give them money.

Anonymous said...

I think that's good thinkin' Dan.

We should do that on a national level too. If you aren't an american citizen, thusly can't vote for a prez candidate, your money is unwelcome in the campaign.

But you're right, if you can't vote, you can't spend. Sounds good to me. Sounds enforceable too.

Sometimes I wish you were a girl, and better looking.

Live Blogging