In the six-plus months since her appointment, very little has changed from that aspect. In recent days, Jason Horowitz of the New York Observer has authored two columns (here and here) that paint Gillibrand as a political opportunist and as a puppet for the all-powerful Sen. Chuck Schumer. Liz Benjamin also played along today, using a post about Rep. Jerrold Nadler's endorsement of Manhattan DA candidate Richard Aborn to point out that Nadler has yet to endorse Gillibrand. Of course, he hasn't endorsed Rep. Carolyn Maloney either, but that's not how the point was framed.
This approach by members of the New York City media is becoming so blatant that it is really hard to take them serious, especially if this ends up being a legitimate primary with no possible candidates but an actual candidate in Rep. Maloney running against Sen. Gillibrand. They have treated Gillibrand as an outsider and even though we are all New Yorkers (as in the state), Gillibrand is not a "New Yorker" (as in the city).
I am a supporter of Gillibrand's. That I will disclose. Those who write for some of the above publications have read here in the past and will continue to read in the future. My message to them isn't that they kiss Gillibrand's feet and paint some fake picture of her. All I am asking for is balance. There needs to be a level of equality in their reporting. The continued "criticize Gillibrand" approach is getting tired. It is one thing to criticize an elected official where criticism is necessary. But it's another to pile on just because you don't know too much about them other than they aren't from your city.
Again, I'm not looking for special treatment. All I am looking for is a level of fairness and balance. There have been certain opinions of Gillibrand that aren't necessarily written, but are shown in the writing approach of these reporters. Sen. Schumer has been the beneficiary of plenty of positive media coverage from New York City publications in the past, but they have also critiqued him just the same. That same principle can be applied to Gillibrand, but we have yet to reach that point.
Is it the New York City media being disappointed that it was Gillibrand and not media darling Caroline Kennedy that was appointed to the seat? Possibly. And since Kennedy received just as much (if not more) media coverage than Gillibrand when Gillibrand's appointment was announced, it's hard to debate that point.
But that was a long time ago, at least in political terms. Caroline Kennedy is an afterthought at this point. We have a possible U.S. Senate primary and we have a senator that New Yorkers are trying to get to know. It is the media's responsibility to fairly distribute the news to show New Yorkers (whether in upstate or downstate) what their senator is doing or isn't doing. So far, that isn't being done.
We deserve better from our journalists. It's time we got the full story instead of the story they want to tell us about Sen. Gillibrand.
I have heard all of the arguments why Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand should face a primary. There are those who have argued that primaries promote democracy. I agree with that. There are also those who argue that because Gillibrand was appointed by Governor David Paterson (who doesn't have the best of approval ratings right now), she should face a challenge as part of some sort of challenge to Paterson's leadership. I don't agree with that line of thinking because, well, picking Gillibrand was one of the best things Paterson has done.
But in terms of the Democratic Party, one of the key theories is that a primary makes for a stronger candidate, no matter who ends up the victor. In Gillibrand's case, there are those who argue that a primary will put her to the test. Can she win the progressive vote? Can she win the downstate vote? Can she still appeal to those who are on the conservative side of the party?
That raises a good question: If we are asking these questions of Gillibrand, who will face a primary in 2010, why aren't we doing the same for Sen. Chuck Schumer?
Those that argue for a primary would surely agree (based on the arguments that they are currently making) that the same principles should apply to Schumer. Gillibrand and Schumer have a lot in common. They both enjoy strong party support. They both are incumbents (Schumer moreso than Gillibrand).
If I had to make the case for a primary, I could make a stronger case for Schumer than for Gillibrand. His connections to Wall Street and the money he has raked in (or helped rake in for the DSCC) raises a lot of questions about his independence. He also supported Michael Mukasey for Attorney General after Alberto Gonzales resigned, even though Mukasey wouldn't say publicly whether or not waterboarding was torture.
Schumer, however, has proven to be a strong Democrat. He led the DSCC to victories in 2006 and 2008 and the reason why we have 60 votes in the U.S. Senate can be largely attributed to Schumer.
But is he the most progressive senator there is? Maybe not. Is he bad enough to primary? In my view, no. But if there was a serious challenge to him, I would consider my options.
The point is that a lot of the arguments made against Gillibrand could be applied to Schumer. One argument is that Gillibrand is going to bully other opponents out of the race with her money and party support. What do you think Schumer has done and will continue to do? Schumer is a force to be reckoned with. He would be very difficult to beat in a primary unless he had a serious challenger with strong support.
Primaries are good for democracy. They are also good for making good candidates better candidates. A primary for Schumer wouldn't be a bad thing. In New York, Republicans aren't strong enough to seriously challenge our opponents. Giving Schumer a serious primary challenge would put him to the test. And that would be a good thing, not only for us, but for Schumer.
With only 18 days left in the Senate session we write regarding the impending vote on the Marriage Equality Act, Senate Bill S.4401-, sponsored by Senator Tom Duane (D-Manhattan). As you know, the New York State Assembly passed a same-sex marriage bill last Tuesday by a margin of 89 to 52. Five other states - Iowa, Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, and Vermont - have now adopted similar measures and a number of court cases in states across the land will also likely, over time, rule in favor of full marriage equality.
Equal protection under the law has always been a hallmark of the American political and legal system, and in this instance we believe this principle should be extended to all those in our state who seek the civil contract of marriage and the numerous legal rights and protections that come with it.
We have expressed our support for full marriage equality in New York and for a reworking of federal law that denies full federal legal equality to anyone who is lawfully married in any state. Passage of this bill will be a vital step to achieving that goal.
We appreciate the sincere and deliberate effort you put into this, and other, legislation and we thank you for the job you do representing your constituents. As always, please do not hesitate to reach out to us on this or other matters that are of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Schumer and Kirsten E. Gillibrand
The letter speaks for itself. It is a strong move by both senators to write to the state senate calling on them to pass this important legislation. It will be a tough vote (and a close vote) but those voting in favor of marriage equality will be voting in support of equal rights. That cannot be ignored in this debate and that shouldn't be forgotten going forward.
As one, the GLOW Democrats have been a strong voice for Democrats in Genesee, Livingston, Orleans and Wyoming counties.
Today, the chairs from the four Democratic committees in the GLOW region wrote a letter to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Sen. Chuck Schumer thanking them for their support of the economic stimulus package.
The GLOW Democratic Committees have released the following open letter to our Senators, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand.
Dear Senators Schumer and Gillibrand:
We, the Democratic Committees of the GLOW region (Genesee, Livingston, Orleans, and Wyoming Counties), are writing to congratulate you on the successful passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We are grateful that you successfully fought for the funding New York state needs to helps us retain and create jobs, fund education, and meet our Medicaid needs. We note with special satisfaction the White House projections that this new law will create 7,800 jobs in the the 26th Congressional District, which is the district of the vast majority of our residents. However, we would note that our member of the House, Congressman Chris Lee, was opposed to this bill, despite the many benefits it will bring us. Therefore, we would like to point out how important our federal Senators are to our counties: we have no representation at the state or federal level in the majority other than you. We understand that the relief we get from this new law is due to the efforts of you and your fellow Democrats, and we hope your offices will get the credit for the coming aid we most surely need.
Sincerely,
Lorie Longhany
Genesee County Democratic Committee Chair
Phil Jones
Livingston County Democratic Chair
Jeanne Crane
Orleans County Democratic Chair
Harold Bush
Wyoming County Democratic Chair
The chairs make a great point: The senators are our only representatives in the majority. We need those representatives to be strong for us and to represent us well in the U.S. Senate. To date, they have. And as a GLOW Democrat, I am confident in saying that our senators will continue to represent us well in the future.
The final version of the package comes in at $789 billion, which is less than the bills that passed both houses of Congress over the past week.
According to Sen. Schumer, New York will get a healthy cut of the package. The state will receive $12.6 billion in Medicaid funding spread out over the next nine quarters. Of those monies, $8.6 billion will go to the state, $2.8 billion will go to New York City, $929 million will go to the upstate counties and $292 million will go to Long Island. The Medicaid relief will go directly to the localities so they will see immediate benefits.
Usually, the federal government pays a percentage of the state's Medicaid costs. In New York's case, that percentage is 50 percent. But under the stimulus package, that percentage is closer to 60 percent. That means the state will have to put less money into Medicaid.
New York will also receive $2.7 billion in education funding, although this money is considered a "stabilization fund" and will be used to make up for cuts already made to education programs. There is no money for school construction in the bill, which was something included in the House package but taken out in the Senate deal. But there is $800 million for special education funding.
Schumer said that the Senate will start debating this package tonight and could vote on it as early as midnight. He did warn, however, that if a senator chooses to place a hold on the package, they won't be able to act on the bill for 36 hours. So at the latest, it won't be voted on until the weekend. Schumer added though that he didn't see anyone placing a hold on the bill.
So how good is this package? It's not perfect, Schumer argued. But it's good enough.
"We couldn't let the perfect get in the way of the very good," Schumer said.
Schumer complimented and thanked Governor Paterson for his role in lobbying senators and being a proponent of the package. Paterson reminded the media during the call that the state faces tough fiscal times ahead and that this bill doesn't mean we can sit back and relax.
"We have not found the bottom of the floor of the deficit," Paterson said, warning that there will still be cuts and there still will be action taken to address the state's growing deficit.
New York got a bigger piece of the pie than expected. There are a lot of benefits here. I'm awaiting the final summary of New York's part of the package. I should have that later.
Earlier today, Sen. Schumer announced that he is endorsing Joe Mesi for New York State Senate.
Here is video from the event today:
This is more on the endorsement from a campaign press release:
"I support Joe Mesi because I know he has the toughness, discipline and work ethic to stand up to entrenched interests and fight for change for hard-working families in Western New York," said New York's senior U.S. Senator.
Senator Schumer noted that Mesi has spelled out his platform for job growth in Western New York and reform in Albany in a 18-page booklet titled, "A Plan for Change-Specific New Ideas for Our Future". Mesi's plan for change includes investments in green jobs and education, a middle-class property tax cut and reductions in wasteful spending.
"Joe is the right person to represent the hard working families of Western New York," said Senator Schumer. "Joe understands what it means to face adversity, what it means stand up to a challenge, and what it means to persevere. He will fight for the change we need in albany."
Mesi's Plan for Change has been a hit. The booklet outlines Mesi's plan for Western New York should he be elected to the Senate.
This is a nice endorsement of Mesi by Schumer and it shows that Mesi has the support of key elected officials who he will have to work with to implement that plan.
Bill Stachowski is in a tough fight. At least, it depends on who you ask. The Democrats aren't playing games with this seat and we want to make sure that Sen. Bill Stachowski remains in Albany.
The senior senator from New York, Sen. Chuck Schumer, announced that Sen. Stachowski had his support and endorsement heading into Tuesday's election:
Schumer orchestrated the Democratic takeover of the U.S. Senate in 2006 and is leading the effort to expand on that majority in this year's election. Despite his very busy schedule, New York's senior senator made time to support Stachowski and appear at events in the 58th State Senate District, where he noted how important it is to have partners like Stachowski in Albany.
"There are very serious economic concerns facing New York State now. Nowhere is that felt more than right here in Erie County, and no one knows these issues better than Bill Stachowski," said Senator Schumer. "Bill loves Buffalo. I am supporting him because of his record of hard work and his vision for green jobs and technology. Bill is committed to creating an alternative energy industry right here in Western New York and securing the good paying jobs that will bring. We cannot afford to lose Bill's vision, knowledge or his experience as we work to get our economy back on track."
Not every state in this country is lucky enough to have two senators like we do that care about the states they represent. And not every state is lucky enough to have two Democratic senators, let alone have a former First Lady and the man who helped orchestrate the Democratic takeover of the U.S. Senate in 2006.
Sen. Chuck Schumer has been more than willing to help out New York State Senate Democratic candidates in their pursuit to take over the New York State Senate. Today he stood with Brian Foley and endorsed Foley in his run against Sen. Caesar "Rip Van Winkle" Trunzo.
Senator Chuck Schumer endorsed Brian X. Foley for State Senate citing Foley's commitment to putting working families' interests over special interests. Schumer joined Foley at a Campaign for Change event in Mastic Beach, in front of over 120 voters.
'I am supporting Brian X. Foley for Senate because he will bring the same integrity and common-sense approach to Albany that he used to turnaround Brookhaven" said Schumer. "Brian will put working families' interests over special interests and make government work for the middle-class again."
Foley thanked Schumer for the endorsement saying, "I am honored to have the endorsement of Senator Chuck Schumer. Working together, we will fight for Suffolk County families and fix the broken system in Albany."
Foley pointed out the need to focus on skyrocketing healthcare costs for Suffolk families. He discussed a new report by an independent group - Families USA - which revealed that healthcare premiums jumped 80.7% over the past seven years and median wages just couldn't keep up, rising merely 11% between 2000-2007. Premiums rose at an alarming rate of seven times faster than the average family income.
Foley is the real deal. It's great to see Schumer endorsed him.
Ken Dow is running in a tough race against Sen. Stephen Saland in the 41st Senate District. But he received a boost yesterday when he was endorsed by New York's senior senator, Sen. Chuck Schumer.
Senator Charles Schumer has announced his endorsement of Ken Dow, Democratic candidate for the NY State Senate in the 41st District (Dutchess and Columbia Counties).
Senator Schumer said, "Ken Dow understands the strains facing working families and businesses, and he is prepared to lead New York forward in these difficult and changing times. Ken is committed to the serious steps we need to keep New York moving forward, such as reforming our burdensome tax structure and modernizing our infrastructure and energy systems. Ken Dow is the kind of thoughtful, progressive, and hard-working leader we need in the State Senate, and I am happy to give him my support."
Ken Dow said, "It is an honor to receive the support of Senator Schumer. No one works harder or more effectively for the people of New York, and I look forward to following his example in my service to the people of our district and state."
While Sen. Schumer is busy trying to increase our majority in the U.S. Senate, he is also doing his part to help New York Democrats take back the New York State Senate. This endorsement is just one example of his efforts, but he has been more than willing to reach out and endorse state senate candidates who are in close or competitive races.
Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), a member of Senate Democratic leadership and a key Hillary Clinton ally who also sits on the Finance Committee, said he is "not sure we have the big plan on healthcare."
"Healthcare I feel strongly about, but I am not sure that we're ready for a major national healthcare plan," Schumer said.
Schumer said he would focus "on prevention above all and cost cutting until we can get a national healthcare plan."
More and better Dems, please. Call Schumer's office to tell him how much you love paying high health insurance premiums and co-pays so insurance & big pharma can reap record profits and pay huge executive bonuses. Or, if you want a healthcare plan that looks more like what he enjoys, tell him that.
It is hard how to read that because at first it sounds like Schumer doesn't think Americans are ready for a national health care program but then says that he would implement cost-cutting measures until we can get such a program.
I have been upset by a few things Schumer has done (Mukasey, anyone?) but could he be saying that Americans are not ready here? Or does he mean that Congress is not ready?
Americans ARE ready for it. So if that's what Schumer meant, I disagree with him and we should contact him and tell him so.
But if he meant Congress is not ready, I actually agree with that. They are not in the position now to pass such legislation, mainly because a Republican is president. That should change if Obama or Clinton becomes president.
Senator Charles Schumer has announced his endorsement of Ken Dow, Democratic candidate for the NY State Senate in the 41st District (Dutchess and Columbia Counties).
