NY-Sen: Maloney's mudslinging continues

In her own clumsy way, Maloney is doing what Sweeney did in 2006, (0.00 / 0)

attempting to disqualify Gillibrand in voters' minds before she becomes better-known.

Didn't work then, won't work now.  

---

by: devtob @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 21:49:55 PM UTC

Maloney's position is entirely fair. (0.00 / 0)

We all know, Dev, that you consider anything short of fawning admiration for Kirsten Gillibrand to be "mudslinging."

But the plain fact is that KG has shown weak "character" during her political career:

1. Interning with Al D'Amato -- twice -- then standing closer to him than to any Democrats at her appointment ceremony;

2. Immediately after entering Congress, securing funding for a defense project which would have gone to the company her father-in-law ran, then spinning it as an innocent "mistake";

3. Avidly helping Philip Morris cover up its knowledge of the dangerousness of its products;

4. Using her bully pulpit as U.S. Rep to bash vulnerable immigrants in an ugly and gratuitous way;

5. Pandering needlessly to the more extreme elements of the gun lobby.

6. Not supporting marriage equality until the moment before she realized she had to change her position to have a shot a winning a 2010 primary.

7. Being the only Democratic member of the New York Congressional delegation in 2007 to vote to give Bush more no-strings-attached money for the war.

Yes, "character" is a legitimate issue to raise. But we know that any and all doubts about Gillibrand, no matter how well-founded in fact, are vicious and unfair in your hyperpartisan book.

---

by: Hudson @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 21:16:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even for you, Hudson, this is kind of pathetic. (4.00 / 1)

More and more you're refusing to let facts get in the way of your personal jihad against Gillibrand.

1. Standing near somebody is now "weak political character?"

2. Provide proof.

3. Debunked.

4. Gross exaggeration.

5. Debunked.

6. You mean October 2008, before there was even a hint that a Senate job would be open?

7. False.  

---

by: Adama @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 14:56:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gillibrand certainly is an interesting character (0.00 / 0)

the more I find out about her.

Her House record doesn't  make me happy. It is "one of the most conservative in the state, " as she said herself.

According to Wayne Barrett of the Village Voice, a journalist I'm very familiar with and respect: she opposed any path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, supported renewing the Bush tax cuts, and voted for the Bush's FISA bill;  she was one of only four Dem freshmen in the country (and the only NY Dem) to vote for the Bush administration's bill to extend funding for the Iraq war in 2007. She also missed the vote to override a Bush veto of the Democratic bill with Iraq timetables.

That said, FiveThirtyEight.com reports that ratings compiled by ProgressivePunch.org, indicate that Gillibrand has done a huge turnabout in the Senate: she has so far compiled a progressive score of 98.45% in the 111th Congress, and 94.12% on critical votes. She's been among the most liberal of the all the 11 freshman Dem Senators.

All that tells me she's a very flexible pol, reinforced by the fact that she found herself able to work for for both Al D'Amato and Andrew Cuomo.

The only really disturbing thing I've learned about her is that her father is a big-time Albany insider and lobbyist who has close ties to Joe Bruno, George Pataki and Al D'Amato. Barrett reports that the real-estate deal that Bruno is being federally investigated for involves her father.  

---

by: JohnS @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 18:40:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Her Senate record isn't a turnabout. (0.00 / 0)

As I've pointed out before, she had around a 93% party line voting record in the House. Digging up a few out of context sound bites, and some things which are out and out fabrications, doesn't change that.  

---

by: Adama @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 02:30:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dismissing my research (0.00 / 0)

as "out of context sound bites, and some things which are out and out fabrications" does little to advance your case. Gillibrand may have voted with the Dems 93% of the time, but some of her crucial House votes indicate the possibility that she may have a set of values at odds with a majority of Democrats in in this state. Are you saying that Barrett is lying about her House votes? Please elaborate...I'm willing to listen.

---

by: JohnS @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 14:50:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Alright, if you're really curious. (4.00 / 1)

"she opposed any path to citizenship for illegal immigrants"

The phrase used on her website was "amnesty," which is not the same thing.

"supported renewing the Bush tax cuts"

Please provide a cite of that coming out of her own mouth. Nobody seems to be able to. What she HAS said, after being attacked during her 2008 reelection for allegedly supporting a huge tax increase in the form of the Bush tax cut expiration, was that she wasn't going to let taxes go up for ordinary people.

"voted for the Bush's FISA bill"

Are you referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008? Because that tightened restrictions on the use of FISA, not loosened them.

"she was one of only four Dem freshmen in the country (and the only NY Dem) to vote for the Bush administration's bill to extend funding for the Iraq war in 2007."

After the Democratic bill with timetables had been defeated.

"She also missed the vote to override a Bush veto of the Democratic bill with Iraq timetables."

Which would have failed anyway.  

---

by: Adama @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 00:24:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Please provide a cite of that coming out of her own mouth." (0.00 / 0)

Congress's budgets have assumed that the Bush tax cuts will expire in 2010 because that's how legislators are required to write the budgets, [Gillibrand] explained.

"I have no intention of letting the tax cuts expire."

http://www.dailygazette.com/ne...

On her support of the FISA Amendments Act. You're kidding me, right?  Russ Feingold and Glenn Greenwald would disagree strongly with your description.

No Amnesty? Here's what she was opposing: illegal immigrants would have to pay fines and fees of more than $9,000. They'd have to prove they're working and have no criminal record. They'd have to learn English and American civics. They'd have to return to their native country to apply for legal residence here. Getting a green card would take about 8 years, citizenship about 13.

Yikes.

---

by: JohnS @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 15:33:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A lifetime in politics (4.00 / 2)

will pass before the election in 2010. At the rate Gillibrand is going, she will be well-known Statewide, and her consistent advocacy for NY will impress, just like it did in the 20th District. Dems will be really turned off by the spectacle of Maloney attacking Gillibrand personally--it will backfire. It's really disappointing.

---

by: fran20 @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 23:43:07 PM UTC

You must be with Schumer (0.00 / 0)

fran20 has been posting a suspiciously high number of posts on Gillibrand/Maloney recently. Perhaps she's in with either Gillibrand or Schumer.

The two are best buds, apparently. Schumer has definitely taken an interest in Gillibrand (which is curious for such an untested candidate). From the Village Voice:

Schumer has been so persuasive, Rahm Emanuel, and the president himself, cajoled Congressman Steve Israel to get out of the race. Joe Biden even recently dialed up Carolyn Maloney, the last of a once wide field of Democrats in the House still considering a run, and added to the pressure she's feeling about taking on Gillibrand.

---

by: ny democrat @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 22:48:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm (0.00 / 0)

And everyone knows Kirsten Gillibrand doesn't know where she stands on the issues... apparently neither does Schumer!!

"Her votes in the Senate matter far more than her votes in the House," Schumer said. "People have to take into account the whole picture." Schumer stressed that she was also pro-labor, pro-choice and pro-gay rights and "had some ability to take a stand" even before her recent Senate elevation (actually her rating on gay issues was the lowest among New York Democrats in the House and Senate). Schumer said he was unfamiliar with her pro-war record. His staff offered no response when I reminded them that she'd said herself that her House voting record was "one of the most conservative in the state."

Woops...

---

by: CuseDem09 @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 23:07:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

By that logic, you must work for Maloney. (0.00 / 0)

Since you, after all, are a very new member who has been vocally bashing Gillibrand at every opportunity, just like CuseDem09 below. However a wiser and more tempered person will realize that throwing around unprovable accusations really does nothing to further the discussion.  

---

by: Adama @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 00:07:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gillibrand, the progressive choice (4.00 / 2)

Kirsten Gillibrand is a worthy successor to Hillary Clinton as recognized by the growing group of endorsements from public officials, opinion leaders, progressive groups and unions. Any one of the endorsements may not mean much, but taken together it is an impressive array of statewide support.

As with Hillary Clinton, the more voters get to meet and talk with Gillibrand, the greater her support.

Why Maloney is willing to risk her career and reputation is puzzling.  Political ego is indeed blind.  And the risk of turning the seat over to the Republicans is no academic matter.  Think D'Amato and Buckley.  

---

by: UES @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 00:34:38 AM UTC

There is little to no risk of turning over her seat to the GOP (0.00 / 0)

Dan Garodnick would be an excellent replacement for Maloney, for one. And what about "fresh blood" that people down thread are going on about?  

---

by: JohnS @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 22:39:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think s/he was talking about the Senate seat (4.00 / 1)

---

by: nrafter530 @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 03:38:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you're right. (0.00 / 0)

I reject the notion that a hard fought Dem primary risks handing the seat to the GOP in 2010. What's with all the hand-wringing? Politics is a blood sport, remember?

---

by: JohnS @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 11:27:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

McCarthy lol (4.00 / 1)

"She has a great gun bill and we're going to be working closely together on that," said McCarthy. "I have been gratified to see her position on the issue has been evolving. We all have the right to change our opinions on issues... If she's going to be the Senator, I'm going to work with her... I'm a realist."

Honestly though...I tend to judge things by the mom, who is incredibly clueless and apathetic but always tends to be a great bellwether when it comes to politics. She's voted for the winner of every statewide election I can remember except for 1992 Senate (Abrams over D'Amato)

She absolutely destroyed Maloney at the dinner table tonight and she barely knows who Gillibrand is. This really shouldn't be the first impression Maloney gives to New York Democrats.

If she wanted to, Gillibrand could have gone on a character assassination campaign the moment Maloney hinted at a primary challenge...she didn't, for good reason...people like my innocent middle-aged mother.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 03:07:19 AM UTC

Maloney is... (4.00 / 2)

Running a campaign against Gillibrand instead of for the U.S. Senate. That seems to be, at least right now, her only goal.

I have said this before, but I don't mind primaries. I know my tone doesn't necessarily give that way, but I don't mind primaries that are solely based on issues and pit two (or more) strong candidates against one another. I do, however, mind primaries that are only conducted for the sake of having a primary.

This idea that ALL primaries are exercises in democracy is a joke. Some are, but not all. This primary is looking more and more like an attempt to diminish Gillibrand instead of show why someone else (i.e. Maloney) is more qualified for the post. That is how some primaries turn out.

With all of Maloney's attacks, I have yet to hear anything of substance from her on why she would make a better senator than Gillibrand. All we have heard are the same attacks on Gillibrand. That tells me that Maloney is more of an opportunist who is trying to label Gillibrand as some defender of conservatism. Yet, Maloney has her own questions about just how progressive she is.

I would like to hear more from Maloney on why she makes the better candidate instead of all this non-sense about Gillibrand. If you try and run on someone else's weaknesses, you are a fool. You need to show why you are the better candidate, not why the other person makes a poorer candidate.

---

by: robert.harding @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 13:19:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If that's the kind of only challenge Maloney can muster, (0.00 / 0)

then she's toast. And if Gillibrand can't handle Maloney saying the very same things her GOP opponent obviously will be saying, than G's toast.

You may not mind primaries in general, but I get the impression you have a big one with this one in particular, though I may have you mixed up with others here who have been squawking about Maloney since it was announced she was even considering running.

---

by: JohnS @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 22:53:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gillibrand can handle it fine (4.00 / 1)

it just doesn't make any sense from Maloney's standpoint...I mean does she really want to go out like this?

---

by: nrafter530 @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 03:46:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Gillibrand was a freshman in Congress last year, and is just five months into her Senate career." (0.00 / 0)

Geez, I can't think of two better reasons for NYers to welcome a primary challenge!

---

by: JohnS @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 15:39:33 PM UTC

Do you really mean that? (4.00 / 2)

What, you don't like to have a little fresh blood in the system every now and then?

---

by: Hyde @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 16:32:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fresh blood in the system? (0.00 / 0)

You might try looking at it this way, Hyde.

Maloney's in her 60s, so she might wind up as only a one termer, were she elected. That might pave the way for "fresh blood" 6 years from now. On the other hand, Gillibrand is only 42. If she's elected, she'll probably be our Senator for the next 30 years! So much for fresh blood. This primary may be our only opportunity to get this one right. So, yes indeed I really mean that.

---

by: JohnS @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 17:13:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Um (4.00 / 2)

that's a really convulted way of looking at it...throw out fresh blood so that we can get fresh blood in six years?

---

by: nrafter530 @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 20:00:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was being a a bit of a wiseguy (0.00 / 0)

I thought the other commenters "fresh blood" comment was kind of silly. Of course we want fresh blood in the system. But is introducing it the way you and your two Gillibrand-tub-thumping-raters want it introduced the right way to go about it? Gillibrand is VERY fresh, like Obama was VERY fresh last year, and needs to be tested just like he was in a proper primary.  

---

by: JohnS @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 22:32:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

True (4.00 / 1)

but Obama had never faced a competitive election before in his career...in every election it was either a cakewalk or he was going to lose bad (his 2000 congressional primary race).

Gillibrand won two very competitive elections.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 03:48:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That may be. (0.00 / 0)

But not all of us were witnesses to Gillibrand's two campaigns. I personally know little about her, and though I understand that I'm expected to just take people's word for it that Gillibrand is all that and more, I'd like to see for myself, thank you. And that will require other primary candidates.  

---

by: JohnS @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 11:34:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Other candidates (4.00 / 1)

I hope you find the candidate you're looking for to challenge her.  I don't know Maloney very well, just as you don't know Gillibrand very well, but from what I've seen the last couple of weeks, I don't think she's the issues-focused, consistently progressive alternative it sounds like people want. Indeed, so far she seems rather disingenuous.  
 

---

by: Hyde @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 20:49:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's not really true. (4.00 / 1)

Obama had competitive primaries in both his original State Senate bid and then the US Senate run.  

---

by: Adama @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 15:46:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmmmm. (4.00 / 1)

Persuasive argument against Gillibrand, there, comparing her to Obama.  

There clearly is going to be a primary. And it looks like that primary is going to be nasty and either not based on the issues or based on distortions of the issues.  Let's check in when it's over and see if this one is our proudest moment.  

As to fresh blood... I was responding to a comment that the reason to throw her out was that she was a freshman in Congress last year and is now in her first year as a Senator.  It remains an odd concept - that one should automatically challenge the new kid on the block, and look to tenure rather than to capacity or positions.  Are we going to see a race of slick attacks on inexperience rather than substantive debate?

---

by: Hyde @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 20:45:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You know as well as I (0.00 / 0)

that the comparison only extended to the "freshness" factor. And who knows how the primary is gonna be run? You're gonna predict a "nasty race" based on these two interviews?  

---

by: JohnS @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 22:40:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd like to see something else from those interviews (4.00 / 1)

It's how she has chosen to introduce herself to NY. Do we have any other data points?

Hudson's new post above is a good example of what I think we can expect.  And I don't think that is good for the Democratic Party or progressive politics as a whole.  Of his long list of points, the last is the only one that is worthy of real, substantive debate.  But it's the first one's that are forming the flavor of this campaign so far.

I know, the negativity is there to tear down the presumptive leader, and soften them up, and the challenger hopes to switch at some point to a positive message, or to mingle a positive message with the negative.  That, at least, is the Rove playbook.

---

by: Hyde @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 18:05:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Michael Bloomberg (0.00 / 0)

I may be paranoid, but I feel very strongly that Bloomberg is behind the anti-Gillibrand agitation.  He pushed Kennedy for the seat, and he does not like to be thwarted.  The same Bloomberg operatives who pushed Kennedy are now with Maloney.  The negativity coming from Maloney is typical of the way Bloomberg's people operate (ask Weiner).  Maloney's husband is a conservative Wall Street type (college chum and political supporter of Kit Bond) and I would not be surprised if there are Bloomberg connections there.

---

by: prince nekhlyudov @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 17:37:45 PM UTC

I don't think so, prince. (0.00 / 0)

Bloomberg was pushing Kennedy to seal an alliance with Paterson (making his way to term three even easier). Paterson saw in the deal  a lucrative source of potential campaign $$$ via the Bloomberg/Kennedy marriage.  

---

by: JohnS @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 18:05:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gillibrand is not a real progessive (0.00 / 0)

Please, don't insult my intelligence.  Why can't you Gillibrand defenders try explaining her past record on gun control, tobacco and immigration reform.  She had CONSERVATIVE views on all three issues (both as a Congresswoman and before that as a high-priced corporate attorney for Big Tobacco).

Gillibrand is going to have a very hard time convincing Democratic primary voters that she's always been a progressive.  Talk about flip-flopping!

On the other hand, Gillibrand's two most likely primary challengers, Carolyn Maloney and Jon Cooper, have consistent records as progressive elected officials.  Cooper is less well known but has a very impressive legislative record. He has a reputation for thinking out of the box and not being afraid to take on special interests. Check out his websites at www.cooperfornewyork.com and www.legislatorcooper.com.

If anyone truly thinks that Gillibrand is as progressive as Cooper or Maloney, I've got a bridge to sell you.

---

by: Lisa P. @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:53:00 AM UTC

Nobody can explain something to a closed mind. (4.00 / 1)

The fact that you're cherry picking and using the same discredited attack lines that the Republicans have against Gillibrand strongly suggests that you're defending a decision you've already made rather than inviting open dialogue on the merits of a candidate.

---

by: Adama @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 04:03:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]