Gillibrand Visits Ithaca, Holds Roundtable on Agriculture and Economic Development

Thanks, Robinia (4.00 / 1)

Ithaca is about the most liberal place upstate. Did Gillibrand catch any grief for being not liberal enough, or is that just a one-borough thing?

---

by: devtob @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 01:07:39 AM UTC

Issue-oriented event (4.00 / 2)

The Roundtable was held at the Cornell Vet School, and the questions were all asked by invited Roundtable participants-- local leaders, Cornell Deans, etc.  Two students asked questions from the audience at the end, too.  So, no, there wasn't any "not liberal enough" grief at the event-- the subject matter actually made it such that Gillibrand and our ever-progressive Mayor were probably the most progressive voices there.

That said, there was some of the expected grousing about gun issues on Facebook in anticipation of her visit.  People do read the NYTimes and all.  I hope that she comes back and more people get the chance to see her in action.

---

by: robinia @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 01:48:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's all I ask (4.00 / 3)

is that folks give her a chance. Take advantage of the opportunities to meet her, hear her talk issues, and to ask her direct questions. Just give her a chance.

I am quite certain that the vast majority of folks will come away suitably impressed and pleased with her. She won't please everyone, no one will, but she is a high quality politician that we could use more of in elected office.

Peace,

Andrew

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 14:01:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

New York Times (4.00 / 2)

And today's NYT has a piece once again going after Gillibrand for her representation of big tobacco.  The piece makes a distinction bewteen representation of a client (no problem with that) and HOW she represented the client (NYT doesn't seem to like this part).  But isn't this the basic lesson of every cops and robbers show on TV, the bad guys have a right not only to representation but also vigorous representation no matter how despicable the client may be? I don't see anywhere an argument that Gillibrand has shown any favor to tobacco as a legislator - that's the key issue.  

After reading that 11th hour article in the NYT that trashed Murphy by tying him to wall street (Tedisco ranting point), I'm wondering what's up with the NYT? Have they got something against upstate Democrats?  I hope not.  

---

by: Jim in Holley @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 14:01:53 PM UTC

Bad media day for Gillibrand (0.00 / 0)

That times piece is very cogently and persuasively argued. Her staunchest partisans will dismiss it, but that is going to speak powerfully to the Times' large Democratic readership.

Newsday also has an article today about potential challengers feeling emboldened to explore a run (this despite Gillibrand's recent attempt to scare people out of the race with fundraising figures that were not really that impressive for a newly-seated New York Senator).

---

by: Hudson @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 14:31:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I guess if (4.00 / 2)

the institutional media and the high-contribution folks decide that rural upstate doesn't need representation, it won't matter what Gillibrand has done as a Congresscritter or will do as a Senator.  That's too bad.  

---

by: robinia @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 15:11:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's a very well done opinion piece by the NYT (0.00 / 0)

I think the motives of today's opinion piece are not so devious and they're not to different that what most good Democrats are doing, which is vetting an appointed official (as we couldn't do our vet Gillibrand during a campaign period). The Times is doing what all good Democrats should be doing, asking tough questions about their leaders. Being a good Democrat-or a good citizen for that matter-means that you question and analyze before you choose to follow.

Gillibrand, I must say however, did a very good thing by premiering her Sunlight Report recently. And the same press that many of you believe is dogging her, praised her for doing so (as they should).

P.S.: I see Gillibrand has dramatically reduced the price of her Question & Answer session in Nyack. She should take it down by another $50 because I, and many others, have questions. I'm interested to see if she would commit to banning the sale of the semiautomatic handgun-a 9 mm Beretta, that was used by Jiverly Wong to fire 87 shots in a little more than a minute. (The conventional .45 mm he used could only fire 11 rounds).  

---

by: cliffweathers @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 15:56:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cliff, all handguns are semi-automatic. (4.00 / 1)

Even revolvers. And the Beretta 9MM is no different in capacity from any other gun, including that 45. I suspect we're going to find out that the "one minute" figure was heavily exaggerated.

A better question is where did he get the guns--chances are that it was from an illegal source.

(Also, it's just a ".45," not a ".45 mm.")

---

by: Adama @ Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 02:02:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That Beretta (0.00 / 0)

Sorry, I knew it was 45 caliber. Cold medicine and switching back and forth between work and this site does that to me. I'm a former US Army Officer carried a Colt as a sidearm, so I know better.

I also understand that all revolvers and pistols reload themselves. Regardless, semi-automatic was not the operative word in my sentence.

Still, you're wrong about the Beretta. That Beretta had ammo clips of 30 rounds and is capable of pulling off shots as fast as you can squeeze your finger. I assume that the Beretta he used was either a PX4 or a 92, although they didn't identify the weapon. And yes, handguns that can handle ammo clips of 30 that you can fire more than a round per second should be banned. Not all handguns can match that kind of performance.  

---

by: cliffweathers @ Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 12:05:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ah. Sorry, it's just that a lot of people don't know anything about guns. (0.00 / 0)

I still constantly run into people who think that "semi-automatic" is the same thing as a machine gun.

Though if he had 30 round clips for that thing, those are illegal in New York unless manufactured before 1994. Or maybe it's '92, I can't quite remember, but magazines containing more than 10 rounds are banned here.

---

by: Adama @ Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 14:31:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Guns were bought legally (0.00 / 0)

He had a permit for two Berettas.  

---

by: cliffweathers @ Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 12:06:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now that's interesting. (0.00 / 0)

For those who aren't aware (not you, I'm sure), New York has some of the most stringent handgun laws in the country. Substantial fees for permit application, lag time of anywhere from 3 months to a year, approval by a law enforcement officer with the power to turn you down for any reason (including that he just doesn't like you, or because you're a minority, or a Democrat, and your only recourse is to hire a lawyer and sue), fingerprinting, and the requirement to document each gun purchased. It's not easy to get a pistol legally in NY, even if you're a sane person.

---

by: Adama @ Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 15:14:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I thought any handgun (0.00 / 0)

where you yourself physically have to cock it was not semi-automatic?

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 15:41:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, that's true. But they hardly make those anymore. (0.00 / 0)

Aside from a handful of revolvers, pretty much any handgun made in the last 100 years doesn't require manual cocking--they'll feature what's called "double action," meaning that pulling the trigger discharges the weapon, then the mechanism automatically loads another round from the magazine. You release the trigger, pull it again, and it fires again.

You may be thinking of chambering the weapon, which is what people are doing when they pull back the slide. That loads the first bullet from the magazine into the chamber. Until that's been done manually by the user, you can pull the trigger until armageddon and nothing will happen.

You can also manually cock some kinds of semi-auto pistols, mostly knockoffs of the Colt model 1911. However, this does not need to be done before the weapon can be fired, it just makes the trigger pull lighter.

---

by: Adama @ Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 17:31:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wonder... (4.00 / 1)

Haven't read it, but if it's as factually inaccurate as their last one it constitutes a hit piece. I wonder if you'd be as sanguine about a hit piece on an elected Dem if it were from, say, the Post instead of the Times.  

---

by: Adama @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 15:17:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wonder... (0.00 / 0)

Haven't read it, but if it's as factually inaccurate as their last one it constitutes a hit piece. I wonder if you'd be as sanguine about a hit piece on an elected Dem if it were from, say, the Post instead of the Times.  

---

by: Adama @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 15:17:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kudos for your great work (4.00 / 1)

on the NY-20 recanvass/absentee-review process in Columbia County.

But we'll have to agree to disagree on Gillibrand.

FWIW, Roger Stone was on Dicker's show this morning, and said that Mahoney, Maloney, Israel and/or Nadler will not challenge Gillibrand.  

---

by: devtob @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 16:14:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was looking at Progressive Punch scores (4.00 / 3)

today and noticed that Sen. Gillibrand has the 4th highest ranking in the Senate on Crucial Votes. Obviously it's a small sample seeings how she just got there but... so far, so good.

I took a look at House scores and couldn't help but notice that Carolyn McCarthy's Crucial Vote score is not so good. Also that her score vs. the strong democratic tilt of her district is in the negatives. Steve Israel's is a bit better though still not particularly impressive and still slightly negative in the score vs. district tilt category. Carolyn Maloney does better at 83.99% on Crucial Votes and a barely positive score vs. district of +0.66.

If New Yorkers want a truly progressive Congressman to challenge Kirsten Gillibrand then they are going to have to get Jerry Nadler to do it. He's the only one being mentioned at all that qualifies.

And by the way, Nadler is the guy that insisted Gillibrand's Sunlight reports were a bad idea. So even he isn't perfect.

Peace,

Andrew

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 02:38:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So the 15000 people (4.00 / 1)

who thoroughly read the NYT editorial page will be flabbergasted. And even if that number is 600000,  its still not enough to effectively derail her.

She's already raised many millions of dollars. She's safe from our side; unless a NYC mayor comes out of nowhere to challenge this will be pretty open and shut. And if that happened it would be hilarious to watch Upstate vote 4-1 Democrat and NYC vote 3-1 Republican.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 15:47:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]