| Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has heard plenty about her vote against an amendment that was put forth in the U.S. Senate Monday to prohibit Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds being delivered to ACORN.
The reason? Gillibrand was one of only seven senators to oppose the amendment. The amendment passed 83 to 7 and Gillibrand was one of the seven (all Democrats) to oppose it.
Since that point, Gillibrand's vote has been looked at as a shift to the left while also being attacked by conservatives. Politico's Glenn Thrush said that the vote divided Gillibrand and Senator Chuck Schumer while also adding that Gillibrand's vote was possibly due to the fact that ACORN is very active in New York City and it also has connections to the Working Families Party, a line that Gillibrand will certainly want in next year's election. The New York Post has an editorial in today's paper called "Sen. Jello-Brand" which argues that Gillibrand has shifted from being a moderate voice in the House to a "radical leftist" in the Senate and argued that the vote in support of ACORN proves that.
However, Gillibrand's backing of ACORN is not a new thing, nor is it an attempt by the junior senator to shift to the left. Here's the proof:
- On February 6, the Senate voted on an amendment put forth by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that would prohibit funds from being sent to ACORN. Senator Gillibrand voted against the amendment along with Senator Schumer. The overall vote featured 45 "Yea" votes, meaning the amendment failed to pass.
- On March 26, the Senate took up another amendment this time to the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. This amendment served a similar purpose to the others that have been proposed: Oppose any funds being sent to ACORN. Senator Gillibrand voted in favor of tabling the motion. The motion was tabled by a 53 to 43 vote.
- The came the vote Monday which received overwhelming support. Having 83 senators from both parties back an amendment is quite an accomplishment. But Gillibrand voted against the amendment, which is consistent with her previous positions.
In addition to her Senate votes, Gillibrand voted in favor of the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 which included $4 billion trust fund that was available to groups like ACORN.
After the criticism mounted against Gillibrand, her office issued this statement:
"While Senator Gillibrand finds the actions of certain ACORN employees to be reprehensible and will ask ACORN leaders for a full investigation and plan to prevent any further abuse, the truth remains that thousands of New York families who are facing foreclosure depend on charitable organizations like ACORN for assistance. Senator Gillibrand believes that eliminating funding for the important programs that ACORN provides would be harmful to the thousands of hard working New Yorkers who need extra assistance in the middle of this economic crisis."
There are two opponents in this instance: The media and the right-wing. The media is an opponent here for lazy reporting and a willingness to latch onto the opposition's talking points. ACORN, like anything, has its flaws. ACORN has some issues and I, like many others, agree that they need to address those issues. But ACORN also serves a purpose and in these tough economic times, ACORN has a place.
For the media to jump on the anti-ACORN bandwagon is irresponsible. In this case, they also fail to discuss what I think is the bigger story: Why so many Democrats have abandoned ship and jumped on that same anti-ACORN bandwagon. If Gillibrand is one of only seven Democrats who still support ACORN, why are the other 53 Democrats in the U.S. Senate opposed? What made them change their minds? Did this one incident scare them? If so, I think that's more of a question to ask than the alleged political convenience and opportunism of Gillibrand. |
