NY-Sen: Poll Paid For By Maloney Says Maloney Is Winning

Maloney hired Penn, Schoen and Berland (4.00 / 3)

I worked for Doug Schoen for a short time in 2006...I can attest that they are among the scummiest of organizations in poltiics. They have been known to hire people and fire them after a week without any reason and holding back paychecks from those people.

I witnessed them planning a scorched earth campaign on behalf of Henderson, Nevada mayor Jim Gibson in the 2006 Democratic primary for Governor of Nevada...I made copies of memos that openly said that they were seeking to Titus in the General Election if she were to beat Gibson in the primary.

Maloney may be a progressive, but hiring Mark Penn and Doug Schoen to be part of a primary campaign just leads to me to question if progressive politics is why she's doing this.

PSB also sucks btw, I don't remeber the last time they actually WON an election for someone.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 20:00:04 PM UTC

That's pretty much everything I've ever heard about PSB. (4.00 / 2)

And completely consistent with their/Mark Penn's involvement in 2008.

It's a real disappointment that Maloney is going this way.  

---

by: Adama @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 20:50:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maloney seems to be getting (4.00 / 1)

in the gutter early, considering this bit from the poll's "presentation" cited in the Politico post:

Gillibrand is too conservative, pro-gun, anti-immigration, and pro-tobacco, working on the side of the tobacco companies and lying about it.

In the House and the Senate, Gillibrand's voting record is 100-percent anti-tobacco. Her work on behalf of a tobacco company, in her first job after law school, ended a decade ago, so it's a lot less relevant.

Sandy Treadwell spent $1M or so of his kids' inheritance on this "issue" last year, then gave his oppo research to the New York Times, which did a hit piece on the "usurper" (in Pinch's view, anyway) earlier this year.

Treadwell lost by almost 2-1, and the Times hit piece was seen by many for what it was.

Regarding guns and immigration, Gillibrand has modified her positions to be more in accord with her new, statewide constituency.

Whatever, these are secondary or tertiary issues -- No. 1 is the economy, stupid, and Gillibrand has supported Obama's popular programs to bring us out of the Bushite Recession.

Voters will come to understand all of this, and nominate Gillibrand (if there's a primary) and then elect her next November.

---

by: devtob @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 20:24:34 PM UTC

That's your idea of "the gutter"? (0.00 / 1)

Please, Dev, replace your white gloves with something from Carhartt and put some rubbers over those fine calfskin loafers you don't want to get dirtied, because that statement that apparently has you so aghast is pretty tame stuff.

False outrage is the stock in trade of thin-skinned GOP hypocrites in our district. They're always demanding an  apology for even the most sober and legitimate critiques. You really want to play the next 14 months out their way?

---

by: Hudson @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 20:34:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Given that it's mostly false or spun out of context, it could certainly be considered the gutter. (4.00 / 2)

In the larger picture, though, it signals that Maloney is apparently choosing to start off with a negativity-based campaign. Not surprising given who she hired to help run it. But really, it speaks a lack of confidence that voters would prefer her over Gillibrand on the true merits.  

---

by: Adama @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 20:41:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not false just because you say it is. (0.00 / 0)

1. Gillibrand has indeed been pro-gun: Top marks from the N.R.A. during her time in Congress.

2. Gillibrand has indeed been anti-immigration: Mass-mailing nasty flyers calling for a "crackdown" and "expedited deportment" of alleged "illegals."

3. Gillibrand has indeed worked on the side of the tobacco companies: See the detailed and damning New York Times piece.

But I guess by Dev's definition, when you slammed the statement as "false" you were getting in the "gutter."

---

by: Hudson @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 21:12:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

False (4.00 / 3)

Her votes do not lie with NRA principles and btw Howard Dean got top marks from the NRA too, is he a conservative?

I happened to think Gillibrand is too liberal on immigration now and btw, have you not talked to New Yorkers on immigration? In my neck of the woods, Queens, a "crackdown" is considered liberal.

The Times piece has long been discredited.

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 21:21:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's What Lawyers Do. So What? (4.00 / 3)

Gillibrand has indeed worked on the side of the tobacco companies: See the detailed and damning New York Times piece.

I thought the NY Times piece was pretty much a hack job. She worked for a big firm. This was a big case. So she was a zealous advocate for her client--as the lawyer ethics codes require. Just because lawyers do whatever they can for their clients doesn't mean they endorse what their clients do.

What's next: public defenders are pro-crime?

As for the immigration issue, she discussed it on today's Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. It seemed to be to be a thoughtful response. Whether one believes it is up to the listener.

---

by: dsimon @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 21:22:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hudson's Talking Points (4.00 / 1)

Here's Hudson again, pushing the same talking points to attack Gillibrand every time there is a post about her--despite facts. Re: guns: Gillibrand's favorable rating with the NRA was based on only 3 votes over the course of a single congressional term. She said critics are "up in arms that I am supported by the NRA. And so they equate me with the NRA. I do not support the NRA's agenda. I support my constituents' agenda."

You make this claim about the flyers, but ignore the present reality regarding her position on immigration, and the limited relevance of the issue in the 20th District. And the NY Times hit piece was so riddled with inaccuracies and exaggerations, to cite it makes it more obvious that you are eager to imbibe and disseminate anything negative about Gillibrand.  

---

by: fran20 @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 18:51:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is far below the gutter (4.00 / 2)

this is the sewer, but you've been in there ever since Gillibrand was elected, so.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 20:42:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pardon me, but... (0.00 / 0)

I was one of the earlier donors to Gillibrand's campaign, and grew increasingly discouraged and dismayed by her slide to the right during her first campaign and first six months in office.

It is intellectually dishonest and slimy for anyone who supports Gillibrand to tar all who dislike her politics as "in the gutter," etc. It bespeaks a real fear of rational dialogue.

But I guess nothing but 100% loyalty is enough. Is this the GOP?

---

by: Hudson @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 21:15:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Disliking her politics is one thing Hudson (4.00 / 2)

blatanly lying about her is another...that's gutter/sewer politics. That's where Maloney is going and that's where you have been. All of this is a complete lie, especially tobacco crap, Gillibrand has been more anti-tobacco than anyone.

I'm sorry you have been disappointed by Gillibrand's "slide to the right" but Maloney has hired a team that is only interested in sidelining people like you in the Democratic Party.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 21:18:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pardon me, Hudson (0.00 / 0)

I DID NOT "tar all who dislike Gillibrand's politics" are "in the gutter."

I DID say that "Maloney seems to be getting in the gutter early," by publicizing a poll commentary that called Gillibrand pro-tobacco, when she has always voted the other way.

So, who's really being "intellectually dishonest and slimy" here?

And who cast the first ad hominem stone?  

---

by: devtob @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 22:26:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rational? (4.00 / 1)

What is rational about ignoring facts and the present reality to repeat discredited talking points and lines of attack? Her work as an associate in the tobacco industry a decade ago--really? Painting her as a gun advocate is also ridiculous. She is working very hard, listening to new constituent groups, and proposing a lot of legislation to meet their concerns and needs. Maloney's determination to attack a fellow Democrat with these dishonest critiques speaks to her own motives more than Gillibrand. As a woman, I am especially disgusted by her hypocrisy regarding her book, "Rumors of Our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated," which argues for the need for more women in government, and the need to support young candidates. Unless, of course, they threaten your own career ambitions, I guess.

---

by: fran20 @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 18:55:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gillibrand is obviously not "pro-tobacco," (4.00 / 1)

and it's gutterish to suggest she is when promoting a push poll.

I'm not wearing white gloves, nor demanding an apology, just pointing out some pure BS from Maloney's questionable pollster.

---

by: devtob @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 20:44:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Pro-tobacco" is a kind term, considering. (0.00 / 1)

The Times piece showed in damning and careful detail how KG worked very closely with Philip Morris to cover up the research conducted in their German lab that proved they knew how dangerous their product was, and constructing with them both their legal and p.r. spin for plausible deniability.

Having no conscience is even worse than being pro-tobacco.

---

by: Hudson @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 21:17:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Times piece was a lie (4.00 / 2)

I'm sorry, everything said in that piece has been proven to be untrue.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 21:19:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lawyers Aren't Supposed To Have A Conscience (4.00 / 1)

The Times piece showed in damning and careful detail how KG worked very closely with Philip Morris to cover up the research conducted in their German lab that proved they knew how dangerous their product was, and constructing with them both their legal and p.r. spin for plausible deniability.

If those actions were within the law, then that's what lawyers are ethically obliged to advise their clients to do. Lawyers can't allow their clients to lie. But there may be leeway with how to handle certain kinds of evidence, depending on the stage of litigation. If what she did was illegal, then I'd be surprised as to why she wasn't disbarred for it.

Lawyers are hired guns. They're not supposed to have a conscience. And most of us would want our lawyers representing us the same way.

---

by: dsimon @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 21:28:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, and Gillibrand nevvver released any internal polls before. (0.00 / 0)

Oh, wait... except those times that she did:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talk...

The Kirsten Gillibrand campaign has just released an internal poll which claims she's closing in on GOP Rep. John Sweeney.

I say if you care about issues, then stop coming up with spurious reasons to carp about Maloney and read up on their records and statements, and present us with some useful info.

When/if Maloney announces, maybe you could "give her a chance" (as Gillibrand partisans endlessly lecture us to do) and comment on how she actually performs.

---

by: Hudson @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 20:29:26 PM UTC

I won't give her a chance (4.00 / 1)

if she hired Mark Penn and Doug Schoen to work for her...not now. I'm sorry, they are two complete scumbags who have been the anthesis to progressive change. Maloney clearly doesn't care about issues otherwise she wouldn't have hired those clowns.

Sorry, but if Maloney wins the primary, I'll be happy to skip NY-SenB on the ballot in 2010.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 20:37:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As much as I like Gillibrand, (4.00 / 1)

I'm a Democrat, so I always vote for the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate.

You should, too.  

---

by: devtob @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 20:50:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe (4.00 / 1)

but I made a promise after working for PSB that I would never support a candidate who hires them...they're that scummy.

I really had a hard time with Hillary Clinton when she ran for President when she hired Mark Penn because I really wanted Hillary Clinton to be President, but I made a promise.

Right now, I just can't see myself supporting anyone who hired PSB, especially someone who's supposedly running to the LEFT of the other candidate. PSB stands against everything Maloney supposedly stands for. Why would she do this? What is her campaign really about? It's obvious not issues.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 21:02:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and btw (4.00 / 3)

Mark Penn was the deciding factor that pushed me to Obama over Clinton in the primaries...and I personally told her that after the fact. She, classy as she always is, smiled and said "thank you for your honesty" and I hearsay that she regrets the decision to hire Penn.

If it weren't for Penn and Schoen, she might actually be President of the United States today and that frustrates me even more than the fact that I might have had to rescind a promise and risk hypocricy. Not that I'm displeased with the outcome, Barack Obama is great.

Still, I feel that strongly about PSB...and can honestly say if Kirsten Gillibrand had hired PSB, I would definitely thrown my support behind a primary challenger.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 21:12:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't believe Berland is with the firm anymore. (0.00 / 0)

At one point Penn and Schoen were suing Berland for helping set up a rival firm.

I did some polling through Berland a long time ago and while underwhelmed by the service (there was nothing they were offering that any first-time poller wouldn't think of) he was reasonably professional with me.

---

by: Hudson @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 21:23:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then they're really in the gutter (4.00 / 1)

because Penn and Schoen, whom I knew personally, were scumbags. If Berland was a resonable professional and they got rid of them, then that's a hell of a lot worse...THEY are directly responsible for the Republican Governor of Nevada. I was there, I saw what they did. If Jim Gibson would not win the primary, which he was losing, they vowed to make sure Titus lost the general.

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 21:26:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm with Dev--a non-vote is the same as supporting the Republican. (4.00 / 1)

Believe me, I despise PSB too. But I think you'd feel different if it came down to November 2010 and were watching Maloney running against Pete King.  

---

by: Adama @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 00:50:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That Depends On The Race (4.00 / 1)

I understand the argument that refusing to vote for someone in your party is a vote for the opposition. But that's not always the case.

I withheld my vote in the last Senate race because I was unhappy with what I felt was a lack of leadership by Clinton on a variety of issues and equivocation on other issues. If it was going to be a close race, I would have voted for her. But since it was clear she was going to win by a large margin, I could safely refuse to add to the difference.

---

by: dsimon @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:50:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay, I'm going to eat my words a bit--you're right. (4.00 / 1)

There are some circumstances under which one can safely lodge a protest non-vote. However, a vicious primary resulting in the unseating of a party-endorsed nominee 9 weeks before the general election is NOT one of them.

---

by: Adama @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:08:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nothing wrong with releasing internal polls (4.00 / 1)

Something wrong with lying when you do it.

---

by: devtob @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 20:45:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So, back in 2006... (0.00 / 0)

Did you post a diary at Kos snarkily entitled, "NY-20: Poll Paid For By Gillibrand Says Gillibrand Is Gaining"?

I thought not.

---

by: Hudson @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 21:28:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Probably (4.00 / 1)

I see them posted at Swing State Project all the time "New poll, but it's an internal poll, so that it with a grain of salt"

Do you look around often, diaries on DailyKos and Swing State Project that include internal polls are always included with a warning; "This is an internal poll, so..." and if it's not, someone usually points it out.

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 21:32:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And I didn't post (0.00 / 0)

this diary, either.

---

by: devtob @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 22:16:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Internal polls... (4.00 / 2)

Hudson, I never said that Gillibrand had never released an internal poll before. But that internal poll came during a race (notice the use of the word "campaign") and not for use as a reason why she should run for office. This poll Maloney conducted was merely a gimmick. It was to raise some awareness before she - eventually - declares.

I have said it before: If Maloney's Senate campaign reaches out, I will offer them a platform and I will post their info just as I post Gillibrand's. But that hasn't happened yet.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 11:56:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Silly versus Gutter (4.00 / 1)

The poll is just silly, as are so many polls of a similar sort.  The fact that its run as a push poll just puts the whole thing in even greater question.  There are good internal pollsters who produce polls worth paying attention to, but this doesn't sound like one of them. But using an internal poll, of course, isn't gutter politics, just normal old PR.

The language and the charges do have that feel of the gutter to them.  The tobacco piece especially.  I'm a lawyer.  I don't always like my clients, and that was especially true when I was a young lawyer at a big firm. The idea repeated throughout the Times piece that she was one of "a small group of lawyers" that did X or Y tells me nothing about her responsibility - was the "small group" 10, including 4 partners and 6 associates, and she had responsibility for carrying a bunch of files and knowing what was in them, or was it 2, with a partner who knew little about the case but whose client it was an an associate who ran the matter.  Something tells me, given the size of the case, that it was more the former. There are lots of other items in the Times piece that limit its credibility.

And this is why we should avoid a primary.  Because this woman looks like she's going to take it to the gutter and we've got enough of that going on right now in Albany. Because once she's there, the mud will start getting thrown in all directions.

I did check Maloney's ratings, and she seems to rate in about the middle of the pack for both Democrats and the NY Delegation.  Gillibrand in the House ranked on the conservative side of both, but in the Senate is ranking, thus far, considerably to the left of each.  No one's come close to selling me on Maloney having anywhere near the leadership skills of Gillibrand.

---

by: Hyde @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 13:54:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There ya go again (4.00 / 1)

Sweeney?! You are talking about a four-term GOP incumbent from when--2005? By the way, Gillibrand went on to beat Sweeney, in a traditionally conservative district. That was not a primary battle between fellow party members based on manufactured issues. You are really reaching.

---

by: fran20 @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 18:58:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Blind ambition (4.00 / 2)

Isn't Maloney silly?  But the expensive fawners will line their pockets if anyone is foolish enough to give Maloney money.  But maybe like Bloomberg, she'll use her own.

And they had better get paid up front because after the first debate, if there is one, Maloney will be toast.  

Upside - Maloney's district might come out of this with a new young Representative, at long last. But what a selfish loss to New York - Maloney does have impressive seniority which apparently she does not value.

---

by: UES @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 21:23:38 PM UTC

Is Bloomberg pushing her? (4.00 / 1)

Maybe he's pissed because his hand-picked candidate didn't get the job?

---

by: Cliff Hendroval @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 00:12:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not publicly, yet. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: devtob @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:06:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My own internal polls show me ahead (4.00 / 1)

I have been thinking about running for the U.S. Senate myself, and have commisioned a poll, which surprisingly shows me leading both Gillibrand and Maloney.  The poll shows me in the lead with 32%, with Gillibrand and Maloney tied at 22% each.  23% of the voters were undecided, with 1% chosing "other".  The poll methodology is complicated as 99.7% of those polled had never heard of me.  Just the same, it was gratifying to pull off an early lead.    

---

by: NYTrialman @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 22:18:21 PM UTC

I don't want to simply repost an old comment... (0.00 / 0)

... but since you are asking for a positive and specific case for a Gillibrand rival rather than just insults, I tried my best to offer just that in my comment and follow-ups to your request last week.  

---

by: DanN @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:37:00 AM UTC

I have a request. (4.00 / 1)

Will one of the pro-Maloney boosters here please present some actual EVIDENCE to show that she is actually a "progressive" candidate?

I ask this because there was a lot of talk over the past few months about Steve Israel being a "progressive" choice.  But that is of course false, given that he supported the Bush tax cuts, voted for the Iraq war, and was a Blue Dog Democrat.

So what, exactly, makes Maloney so liberal/progressive?  Does she support single-payer healthcare?  Did she vociferously denounce the Iraq war and torture during the last 8 years?  Is she particularly involved in poverty issues?  Or what?

(And please don't cite immigration.  I don't consider it "progressive" to ignore the law.)

---

by: GallatinDan @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:04:22 AM UTC