| I note this because New York has become a hotbed of quite horrific hate crimes against Latinos. I was frankly astonished to read that my earlier questioning of Gillibrand's "southern border" language was dismissed as being "silly." I'm not going to explain about "code language." My assumption is that everyone is conversant with that topic. Her statement is clearly an unambiguous xenophobic statement. It is shorthand for being anti-Latino and ignores the reality of the southern border and immigration. I'm assuming that the writer is in agreement with Gillibrand that the border has to be "closed." Nonetheless, Gillibrand's position is part of the know-nothing amen chorus that was cheering Steve Levy's vicious attacks on the Latino community in Long Island. I do not think that xenophobic pandering is what New Yorkers expect from members of our congressional delegation.
Gillibrand and Paterson are simply two politicians hopelessly out-of-step with what Obama's presidency means for this nation. It is absurdly ludicrous to suggest that installing an anti-immigrant patroon, who chose to have Al D'Amato standing to her right, means progressive change. I recognize that a number of TAPers have invested a great deal in Gillibrand. Nonetheless, her opposition to rational gun control feeds gun violence. The only one who profits in this process is the gun industry. The grotesque gun violence in upstate communities will only be quelled when we have rational gun control. I do not know how ANYONE who calls themselves a progressive can support a candidate who abhors the idea of rational gun control.
The Latino community is clearly looking at motives behind this nomination. We looked at Gillibrand's investiture and wondered what in heaven's name is Joe Bruno's pal Al D'Amato doing there? We looked at that assemblage of politicians and noticed a dearth of Hispanic politicians. We wondered why he selected Gillibrand when she apparently does not have any Latino or Latina staffers? The only thing that comes to mind is that Paterson selected the person that would give him the most money for his reelection. And that for that reason, Paterson's choice has a stench of corruptness -- and one, that unlike in Illinois, will never be investigated. As Special Agent Pilkus put it about Albany: "The ability to understand the legislative process is difficult at best. There are factors involved in which bills are passed, member items are approved, which never see the light of day. Many of you in the public have tried to get into that arena to see exactly where your money is going. And that, really, from our standpoint, from the F.B.I.'s standpoint, was the problem. We can subpoena. We can provide opportunities for individuals to come in and talk to us, but the legislative process was almost Byzantine."
The Latino community is looking at the man behind the curtain. We see in David Paterson a bumbling and inept politician. It is now becoming increasingly clear that he's more of a "W" than an Obama. He does not have the wherewithal to govern and his politics are regressive. I think we're willing to say this because we have taken Obama's message to heart. We want and demand REAL change we can believe in -- and that is not embodied the politics of a Paterson or Gillibrand. |
