If You Don't Like Gillibrand, Tell Us Who You Support And Why

What about those of us who don't have an opinion yet? (4.00 / 2)

I feel like I still don't know Gilibrand. I think she still has work to do to "introduce herself to voters" (and, for that matter, members of local committees).

In her favor, she seems to be working hard.

She also seems to be taking positions I support.

On the other hand, her previous positions-- as a member of Congress-- were less progressive. Which is the real Gilibrand?

Also, the spectacle of her selection was not pretty. While not her fault, she can't help be tainted by it.

Finally, the names I've heard mentioned (including Maloney) are good, strong progressives. Why should I dismiss them out of hand for a sitting Senator who was not elected to that office?

I think the main argument for her is: "she's a good campaigner and fund raiser who has traditionally won in red districts who now that she is statewide is taking more or less progressive positions". Is that really enough?

In the end, I suspect she'll get my support. But I don't feel she has earned it yet.

---

by: davesnyd @ Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 21:50:32 PM UTC

I respect that stance too... (4.00 / 2)

I know that she is working on meeting all local committees and setting up those introductions. With summer right around the corner, she will surely be out and about.

I wouldn't worry too much about her previous positions. There is a real reason why she held such positions. Her evolution on many issues has been helpful to her profile. She has been able to become a much stronger candidate now that she can reach a statewide audience. She can open up on certain issues and evolve on others that she wasn't able to do in NY-20.

I don't see her tainted by the selection process. You admit that it wasn't her fault, so I don't know how she can be tainted by it. The only one who was tainted by it was Paterson. But that wasn't his only error and it certainly won't be his last.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. If you are undecided, which I suspect many New Yorkers still are, so be it. But I wrote this to tell those who are continually uttering negative things about her to tell us who they propose as an alternative and why.

---

by: robert.harding @ Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 22:02:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Does Personal Conviction Matter? (0.00 / 0)

On the other hand, her previous positions-- as a member of Congress-- were less progressive. Which is the real Gilibrand?

Let's say two candidates vote identically on all issues. One does it out of personal conviction, the other does it out of political expediency.

Does it matter? One could argue that the former is more "genuine." But should that make a difference if they take the same positions and advocate the same views with equal effectiveness? If so, why?

---

by: dsimon @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 04:04:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

It matters because one suspects that the "personal conviction" views are more likely to be long-lived than the "political expediency" based ones.

It also provides a better window into future decisions-- is the person agreeing with principles that make sense or holding up their finger in the political wind?

In short-- views held for "personal conviction" are more likely to be expressed in decision making down the line than those of "political expediency", if the political climate changes.

---

by: davesnyd @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 12:28:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That Works Both Ways (0.00 / 0)

It also provides a better window into future decisions-- is the person agreeing with principles that make sense or holding up their finger in the political wind?

Then again, if the "political wind" moves even more in your favor, then the representative would have still more positions that you agree with, not fewer.

---

by: dsimon @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 14:49:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I support Maloney (0.00 / 0)

Gillibrand supports the death penalty.   Maloney is opposed.  This is a serious issue.  We should be able, in one of the most progressive states in the nation, to have a senator who is not in support of a punishment that has been abolished in virtually every other industrialized democracy on the planet.

Maloney supports single payer health care.   Gillibrand does support a public option, which is good, but I think we need an advocate for eliminating the insurance companies from the equation.  

---

by: MichaelC @ Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 21:59:25 PM UTC

I am unaware that Gillibrand supports the death penalty (4.00 / 2)

I've followed her pretty closely since 2005, and do not recall the issue ever coming up.

But even if she does, the death penalty is so much more a state than a federal issue that it hardly matters what Senators and Members of Congress think about the issue.

Re: health insurance, Gillibrand has supported Medicare for All, which is essentially single-payer.

But since that is unlikely to pass and evidently is not supported by the Obama administration, the next best thing is a public option with no trigger, which she also supports.

The policy differences between Rep. Maloney and Sen. Gillibrand are negligible.

So the real reason Maloney would challenge Gillibrand is presumably much more based on geography than on policy.

---

by: devtob @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 01:15:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re. (0.00 / 0)

I am troubled by your repeated assertion that those who support Maloney are only moved by the desire to block representation for upstate. That seems to be an unfair and somewhat insulting indictement on the motivation of those who are expressing their skepticism about Kirsten Gillibrand.

I think one point on which there is disagreement is that the skeptics (and I am certainly one of them) refuse the argument "her Senate record is very progressive." Yes, the Gillibrand of the past four months has been quite good - but how am I supposed to be sure who is the "real" Gillibrand? Does she believe what she says on health care, gay marriage and immigration - in which case she had taken more conservative positions in the House to fit her district? Or is the "real" Gillibrand the House one, with her recent move leftward dictated by primary considerations? My fear, of course, is that once the 2010 cycle is over Gillibrand will realistically never again be vulnerable in a Democratic primary - so she can then do whatever she wants with little consequences. And I am not willing to take that risk as we already have enough moderate-to-conservative Democratic Senators from blue states as it is (Lieberman, Carper).

Also, you say that there are no policy disagreements between Gillibrand and Maloney. I agree that Maloney is no leftist icon and stuff like her vote on Iraq will make it harder for her to run from the left. But to say that there are no policy disagreements is simply not true.

One example which I think is very important: the FISA bill from last June, a really crucial legislation. Maloney voted no, Gillibrand voted yes. Another example: the vote to repeal DC gun laws, where they once again split - a vote that I think is not just about guns but also about a legislator's willingness to interfere in DC affairs (especially when they are not from an urban district and thus do not have as much familiarity with DC issues). A third example: Gillibrand supported requiring Section 8 Housing recipients to provide proof that they are legal residents, while Maloney voted against that.

Once again, you can say that Gillibrand voted for or against those things because she was in NY-20 and she is actually more liberal than that. I am deeply skeptical of that (since when are moderate Democrats secretly committed liberals?), but I am certainly willing to admit it's possible. But why would I take that risk when she has no reason to guard herself from her left starting in a few years?

(Nor do I think As for Maloney's support for single-payer or opposition to the death penalty should be dismissed as it shows a comfort with liberal rhetoric/positions.)

---

by: DanN @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:17:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Several items (0.00 / 0)

First, thanks to folks for answering some of the questions I kept posing on the other thread - I really do want to know where people think Maloney is better.

On the upstate thing, geography is a stalking horse for a wide range of concerns and differences, not the least of which relate to where consitutent services get focused.  Gillibrand understands issues like what's important to the state's agricultural economy, and much of the state remains agricultural, and to upstate tourism and development, and to some of the environmental issues that hit home much more when you're looking out across the Hudson at the 'gunks than when you're looking out across the Hudson at Newark.  These are areas where someone coming out of the city running for Senate may well give some attention, and may well have some academic interest, but they just won't get them in the same way. Hillary may have gotten them more than most coming out of a few decades spent in Arkansas, but I don't think Schumer really gets them. Gillibrand has also spent plenty of time in the City, but I'd be one of the first to suggest that she probably doesn't understand the ins and outs of the concerns of someone whose kids attend the NY public schools as well as someone who has spent their whole life in Queens or Manhattan.  So I don't discount geography as an issue, but Dems in the city should also realize that all those city priorities are going to be a lot easier to achieve with a blue upstate, and that is a very recent development, and keeping that in place frankly means putting up with folks like me who may be lefty vegetarian nutty crunchy types on lots of issues but who still have nothing against folks with guns and gun racks and think of gun control as a civil rights issue as well as a crime issue.  

So I know the downstate resentment to having someone in the Senate who owns guns does have some resonance. But remember, she also worked in a fancy Manhattan law firm and really grew up more in Albany than in the boonies.

On the issues, I was not familiar with Gillibrand being in favor of capital punishment, and just spent ten minutes on google looking for it.  I do remember during the campaign in the 20th there being some surprise at how vocal Scott Murphy was against the death penalty, and some suggestion that opposing the death penalty for the Sept. 11 terrorists might go against something Kirsten said, but I couldn't find it.  

On immigration, I do worry about Kirsten.  I don't like her attitude toward immigrants.  It's the biggest worry I've got about her.  But if you're looking for a politician without flaws you're trying to find a toad without warts.

On guns, I think she's someone who is sincerely in the middle, who understand both the crime issues and the civil liberties issues. I think that makes her uniquely qualified to be very productive on gun control.  I'm expecting her to have the ability to swing votes in a way someone who sees only one side of the equation can.  Now, when you're running in the 20th in a close election, you tell people about the fact that you own guns and understand their issues, and when you're running statewide you let people know you understand their issues.  But realize that understanding both sides to this one is an asset, not a liability.  Watch what she does here. And, please, don't keep crucifying rural liberals on the gun issue - it has cost Democrats an awful lot of elections.

Sorry for the length of the post.

---

by: Hyde @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 13:53:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re (0.00 / 0)

I do not mean to suggest that geography is not an important discussion to have, and I think you phrase the argument for having a Senator from upstate very very eloquently. I find it convincing (not enough to offset other concerns I have, but that's a balance for everyone to decide) and I expect it should be a major argument in Gillibrand's campaign.

I was just objecting to some people's assertion that people who oppose Gillibrand do so because they are biased against upstate. It's probable that some people are motivated by that (just as many people are biased against politician from urban areas) but I think such an attack just lowers the level of discussion for those who have more policy-based reasons to oppose the Senator - reasons I tried to outline in my original comment.

I am not particularly moved by the issue of guns. I favor gun control, but it is not enough of a priority for me to oppose Gillibrand based on that. But things like her immigration votes and FISA vote (see above) do trouble me a great deal.

I am happy that Gillibrand is in favor of a public option and that she has no statement on the record supporting the death penalty. That's great, so those aren't reasons I will oppose her. But I can also have reasons to be enthusiastic about Maloney rather than to oppose Gillibrand, right? And as I said above I think Maloney's support to come out against the death penalty and in favor of single-payer health care indicate a level of comfort with center-left politics that I find heartening.  

---

by: DanN @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 11:16:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

DanN... (4.00 / 1)

You can be troubled by the assertion that is being made, but it is hard to ignore it when the top New York City publications had this very strong bias against Gillibrand in the days after her appointment. That bias still exists to some degree, but not as bad as it used to be.

I don't think that is why Maloney is seeking this seat. Maloney was actively seeking the appointment and that desire to become a senator is still there. I think Maloney would make a good senator, but I believe Gillibrand is and will continue to be a great one.

I have to disagree with on the D.C. vote. You seem to insinuate that Gillibrand was willing to interfere in D.C. affairs with her vote, but that whole vote (no matter who voted for or against it) was meddling in D.C. affairs. Whether it is Gillibrand voting for it or Maloney voting against it, merely having the vote was interfering in D.C.'s business.

And, for the record, rural senators are forced to vote all the time on New York City issues in the New York State Legislature. Are they supposed to abstain because they don't come Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany or New York City?

---

by: robert.harding @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 14:29:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re (0.00 / 0)

As I noted above, I just meant to say that since the post was meant to get the discussion past people "spew[ing] anti-Gillibrand rhetoric," indictement the motivation of Gillibrand skeptics like that won't help elevate the debate.

Sure, some people might be moved by that (though let's remember that in most states like Colorado not to mention national politics being from the city is a liability) but we can try to move past those biases here.

I disagree with you on the DC vote. Once the vote is being held, there is a lot of room for someone who opposes gun control to say: "I disagree with the DC laws but I think it should be up to DC to decide that" and thus vote no. I also do not agree that this is comparable to rural lawmakers voting on legislation that affects cities: The point is that DC decisions are overridden by conservatives and I think that's a game Democrats have no business playing.  

---

by: DanN @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 11:21:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dan... (0.00 / 0)

Being skeptical of Gillibrand means you probably think someone else would be better (or is better) for the job. I believe you make your argument much better if you put forth an alternative to what we already have.

In other words, instead of people coming here to slam Gillibrand, slam those who support her or both, push for an alternative. I have heard criticisms that we haven't written about Maloney or other candidates. And as I have said in the past, no one has reached out. If I was getting something, I would post it. But I have received nothing.

You are entitled to your view on the D.C. vote. You can also disagree with me on my comparison. But you said, "Another example: the vote to repeal DC gun laws, where they once again split - a vote that I think is not just about guns but also about a legislator's willingness to interfere in DC affairs (especially when they are not from an urban district and thus do not have as much familiarity with DC issues)." That was clearly a reference to Gillibrand being from a rural district. So how's that any different from Darrel Aubertine or Joe Griffo voicing their views on mayoral control in New York City?

D.C.'s decisions, as a municipality, should be up to D.C. Congress, whether conservatives or Democrats are the problem, have no business interfering in that.

---

by: robert.harding @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 18:00:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

offering positives (0.00 / 0)

Robert, I did offer a number of positives in my comments in comments above, defending Maloney as a better choice on a number of issues.

---

by: DanN @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:34:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I need more... (0.00 / 0)

Than a mention that Gillibrand supports the death penalty without any supporting evidence. Tom Robbins in Village Voice did the same thing. He stated with certainty that Gillibrand was a supporter of the death penalty, but I have yet to see where they proved this.

I have looked all over and have tried to find something that shows where Gillibrand provides a position on the death penalty. I don't even know if she is against it. I don't know if she is for it.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 14:40:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gillibrand DP position (0.00 / 0)

I read it in Tom Robbins column.   If I am wrong and she is opposed that would do a great deal to allay my concerns.  She does seem to be better on the public health plan than Schumer so that is encouraging (schumer is proposing a public plan that would have to adhere to private insurance rules, defeating the purpose of a public plan entirely).

The Federal Death Penalty is relevant since it is used frequently to prosecute suspects in non-death penalty states.   If you can find any more info on her position I'd love to know.  I'll keep looking as well.

---

by: MichaelC @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 23:45:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Michael... (4.00 / 1)

That is where everyone has read it, but Robbins didn't back it up with a link (or a quote) and nothing I have found has shown that she has given any sort of indication where she stands on the issue.

According to On The Issues, she has never given a view in favor of or in opposition of the death penalty. That was as of February 2009. I have looked far and wide for anything on her death penalty record. All of it leads back to one place: Robbins' column.

Now, I don't know where Robbins got his info, but based on everything I have read, it's something that she has never given an opinion on. Maybe she said something once that was never recorded or archived online. It's possible, but we would know it by now.

---

by: robert.harding @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 00:44:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Robert, I think you have this backwards (4.00 / 2)

Robert, I appreciate you starting this discussion and always enjoy your posts. But I think you have the argument backward here: you are placing the responsibility on the challenger, instead of the incument.

As you know, one of the greatest problems with the electoral system today is the power of incumbency. Placing the responsibility on the challenger, instead of the incumbent for why they deserve our vote is at the heart of the problem. And is why 98% of elected offices in NY are re-elected with ease.

I support Maloney based on her record. Some dismiss Gillibrand's record with the excuse that she represented a rural district before. However, records do count. Maloney is unquestionable progressive; she is a pro-choice champion, is nationally recognized for her fight for women's rights. Furthermore, she led the effort to protect rape victims, passed one of the largest overhauls of protections for credit card users, and, people forget, also took out a long-time Republican incumbent at a time when the UES of Manhattan was a GOP stronghold.

That's why I support Maloney.

Gillibrand may support some of these things now, but conviction matters. Darrel Aubertine opposes the death penalty in a district that strongly supports it, based on conviction. Liz Krueger supports fair taxing on the wealthy, and her district is the wealthiest in the country, based on conviction.

Gillibrand's ever evolving positions is no rationale for why she deserves to remain the incumbent.  

---

by: demlonnie @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 23:42:09 PM UTC

Lonnie, what do you object to in Gillibrand's record? (0.00 / 0)

This isn't somebody who's been in office ten or twenty years who's using inertia on their side. This is somebody who didn't hold elected office until 2007. Maloney is much more the political insider than Gillibrand.

Please, somebody explain to be what there is in Gillibrand's record--her actual record, not the one that people have made up in their heads--that is so objectionable. You mention women's rights as a reason, but you don't seem to acknowledge that Gillibrand has a perfect record with NARAL and their endorsement despite having sat in a much harder district to make that case.  

---

by: Adama @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 23:51:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I support Gillibrand based on her record... (0.00 / 0)

If Maloney was the junior U.S. senator from New York, I would have no problem with it. She would be a good senator. I have said that time and time again. But to date, she hasn't shown she wants it.

Gillibrand has shown that not only does she want the job, but she wants to do it well. I have heard mention two pieces of legislation that were inspired by stories she was told directly by individuals from her congressional district. I have seen her work very hard on building ties with New York City leaders, upstate leaders and members of the diverse communities in this state.

You say I'm placing the responsibility on the challenger instead of the incumbent. The responsibility is on both. The incumbent must show why they are deserving of election. Remember, Gillibrand, while technically an incumbent, is an appointee. She was never elected and that is why we have this election set for 2010. If Gillibrand is responsible to show why she is deserving of election (and she is), Maloney and any other possible primary opponents need to show why they are a better option.

We like to rail against incumbents. We like to criticize the system that allows incumbents what some may consider a free pass. But we can't make that point while giving primary opponents a free pass. I have not given Gillibrand a free pass. I have given her a shot. I was told by friends in the district that I needed to hear her out and see her at work. I am impressed.

And this isn't totally about issues. If it was, I wouldn't want Darrel Aubertine as a state senator. He is anti-choice and opposed to marriage equality.

Gillibrand is no Aubertine, but is she the most progressive? No. I do not look for the candidate who agrees with me 100 percent of the time. I look for the candidate who agrees with me most of the time and who can be a leader, while listening to his or her constituents on what matters to them.

Gillibrand fits that mold. I don't agree with her on some things. But I don't see Maloney anywhere close to the leader Gillibrand has already shown to be and will continue to prove to be.

---

by: robert.harding @ Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 01:00:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gillibrand's progressiveness (0.00 / 0)

538.com has a statistical analysis showing that Gillibrand's voting in the Senate is among the most progressive; she's taking strong progressive leadership positions in the areas of education and healthcare, even challenging (very collegially of course) Schumer on the public option issues, and she is one of already one of the real leaders on issues relating to autism, an area where I have a really strong interest as a result of a friend having a child with similar problems and being involved in starting a school for children with autism and similar disabilities.

I'm glad to see others are enthusiastic about different people, and not just anti-Kirsten (because much of what I've seen on other threads has been just anti-Kirsten). I just don't want to see some of the big pros for Gillibrand lost in the process of focusing on her weaknesses and other peoples strengths, even though I know that the question presented focused on the pros of Kirsten's challengers.

---

by: Hyde @ Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 14:08:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]