It just never ends, does it? First, Dodd and Dorgan retire, starting the day off on a bad note, and then, the New York Times reports that Tennessee native, Merrill Lynch banker and newly-minted New York resident Harold Ford, may just throw his hat in the ring against incumbent Senator and Senate newbie Kirsten Gillibrand.
Mr. Ford, 39, who moved to New York three years ago, has told friends that he will decide whether to run in the next 45 days. The discussions between Mr. Ford and top Democratic donors reflect the dissatisfaction of some prominent party members with Ms. Gillibrand, who has yet to win over key constituencies, especially in New York City.
About a dozen high-profile Democrats have expressed interest in backing a candidacy by Mr. Ford, including the financier Steven Rattner, who, along with his wife, Maureen White, has been among the country's most prolific Democratic fund-raisers.
- Gillibrand's favorable rating is 31 percent, which is a decrease from last month's 34 percent rating but still keeps her above 30 percent. Her unfavorable rating is 22 percent - the lowest it has been since August. Those who don't know or have no opinion come in at 47 percent and while that still is a lot of ground to cover, it is still below 50 percent of the respondents.
- Bill Thompson's favorable is lower than Gillibrand's. He comes in at 25 percent and his unfavorable rating is 17 percent. There are 58 percent of respondents who don't know him or have no opinion of him, so he's behind Gillibrand in that respect.
- In a primary featuring Gillibrand, Thompson, Harold Ford Jr. and Jonathan Tasini, Gillibrand wins with 32 percent of the vote. Thompson is second with 23 percent, Ford nets seven percent of the vote and Tasini is last with three percent. That part of the poll makes it clear that, at least today, Gillibrand is the top of the Democratic crop of candidates. She is the strongest of any of them.
- In head-to-head matchups with with Gillibrand and two top Republican candidates, Gillibrand fares well. While she would lose to Rudy Giuliani 49 percent to 42 percent, she would defeat George Pataki 46 percent to 43 percent.
The Gillibrand-Giuliani matchup is especially good for Gillibrand since in October, she was 17 points behind Giuliani. Now, she only trails by seven points 11 months out from the general election and nine months out of the primary.
- Giuliani and Pataki both have favorable ratings over 50 percent (Giuliani is at 58 percent while Pataki enjoys a 53 percent favorable rating) but neither get over 50 percent against Gillibrand.
Gillibrand has plenty of work to do to make herself a favorite for the general election next year. But one thing is becoming clear. She is the option for Democrats next year. If she can do this well in a poll against Thompson, who is coming off a battle for mayor in New York City (a place where Gillibrand hasn't run a full-blown campaign as of yet) then that is a good sign for her.
Another good sign is beating out Pataki. She was ahead of Pataki by one percentage point in the last Siena poll so increasing that lead to three points is a good sign that more and more voters see her as a better candidate than Pataki. Of course, Pataki doesn't want to run for Senate, but considering his name recognition (he was governor for 12 years), beating him in a poll isn't a bad thing.
I had a couple of long phone conversations with Jon Cooper when he was prepping to visit upstate and meet with activists who were interested in his exploratory efforts for U.S. Senate. In those conversations, Cooper would push a few of the talking points about Senator Kirsten Gillibrand that were mentioned in what seemed to be every article or story about Gillibrand in the media. I thought then his view of Gillibrand was distorted because of that, but didn't correct him. That's not my job. He is an intelligent man who has gotten to this point in his life because of hard work and his smarts.
Cooper's decision not to run for U.S. Senate and endorse Gillibrand was one that didn't come with the fall-in-line fanfare that usually accompanies such endorsements. In his endorsement, he explained how and why he got to this point.
"After I met with Kirsten for several hours, and had an opportunity to engage in in-depth discussions on a wide array of policy issues, I realized that my perceptions of her were primarily based on media reports and second-hand stories," said Cooper. "I now believe that she's the 'real deal' and I'm convinced she will vote the way I would, work as hard as I would, and strive for the same progressive goals as I would."
...
"Kirsten is smart, warm, energetic and committed to doing a great job," stated Cooper. "I've always said that my decision would ultimately be based on what's best for the Democratic Party, New York State and our nation. And that's why I am today offering Senator Gillibrand my wholehearted endorsement."
In an e-mail sent out to supporters, Cooper further detailed how he got to this point and why he has decided to endorse Gillibrand:
But one recent Saturday, I flew down to Washington and had a private dinner meeting with Senator Gillibrand. I did this because a mutual friend challenged me to do so. He told me that what I knew about the Senator from press reports was simply wrong. And he suggested that if indeed it was wrong, my ignoring that and running anyway would be like declaring war on Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Didn't I have a responsibility, he asked, to take a few hours to determine whether the enemy was real?
I was somewhat reluctant, having come this far, but at the end of the day, I always try to do what I think is right. So down I went to Washington, fully prepared for a "snow job" that I would easily detect and resist...and pretty certain I would come back to stand here today and declare my candidacy.
But what I found instead - based on facts I subsequently verified - is a woman quite unlike the one that has been portrayed in the press.
Believe me, it's a conclusion I did not jump to.
But in reviewing the "source materials," as you might put it, instead of relying on second-hand accounts, I determined that Senator Gillibrand is no more a tobacco stooge than I am...that she was 100% pro-LGBT equality long before she was ever appointed to the Senate...that her positions and votes on guns are not at all what that "100% NRA rating" had led me to assume.
Plus, as it turns out, Senator Gillibrand is smart, warm, energetic and committed to doing a great job.
The decision for Cooper, politically, is a smart one. While there are those who argue Gillibrand is vulnerable, her profile is still rising. For Cooper, it would have been an uphill battle even against someone with perceived weaknesses. He is a strong legislator and a brilliant activist, especially when it comes to leading on LGBT issues. But making the jump from county legislator to U.S. Senate would have been a big one. Perhaps too big.
Yet, Cooper showed a willingness to sit down with Gillibrand and get to know her. He learned who she really is through their one-on-one meetings and by the end of it, came to the realization that it wasn't in his best interest to run for Senate. Instead, he not only decided not to run, but endorsed the woman who he was almost going to primary.
Jon Cooper has been pondering a primary challenge to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand for months now. In an interviewed I conducted with him in the fall, he outlined a number of reasons why he would mount such a challenge while adding that he would make a decision on whether or not to run by year's end.
Today, Cooper held a press conference announcing the he will not run against Gillibrand. In addition, he announced that he is endorsing Gillibrand for Senate believing her to be the best candidate for the job.
In a tweet, Gillibrand said she was "honored" by the endorsement.
I am honored to receive the endorsement of one of Long Island's great leaders and champions of LGBT rights, Majority Leader Jon Cooper.
Cooper was considered a long-shot candidate because he would enter the race trying to make the leap from county legislator to U.S Senate. He would be in a better position than Jonathan Tasini, but still would face long odds.
Cooper's exit means that no elected officials from New York will face Gillibrand (unless something changes over the next several months).
Jon Cooper, the Suffolk County legislator who created an exploratory committee for a possible primary against Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, announced today that he will make his decision at a press conference on December 14.
Cooper made that announcement in an e-mail to supporters today. The e-mail is below:
It's been six months since I launched my exploratory campaign for the U.S. Senate. Since then, I've had the pleasure of meeting with New Yorkers all across our great state. This has given me the opportunity to hear about their concerns and frustrations, as well as their hopes for the future.
Running for the U.S. Senate is obviously a major decision with important consequences. As such, I felt a responsibility not to rush into a decision.
As a friend and supporter, I'm glad to advise you that I'll be announcing my decision at a press conference on Monday, December 14th. More details will be provided as the date approaches.
Thank you very much for your support and please accept my heartfelt wishes for a very happy Thanksgiving!
Best regards,
Jon Cooper
When I interviewed Cooper in September, he made it clear that he wasn't going to rush this decision. In the comments of that post, at least one person brought up that the end of the year seemed to be a bit late. I agree with that, but given Cooper's profile and the fact he is more willing than Jonathan Tasini to actually campaign in New York, making the decision this late in the year is not a huge issue. It's not as if Cooper is starting from scratch here. He is an elected official who does have a base and has a fairly large county (Suffolk) that he could win votes from.
So will he or won't he? We'll find out December 14. The guess for you, the reader, is: Should he or shouldn't he? Should he run and give Gillibrand a challenge? Or should he do the same thing that possible candidates did before and drop out?
Of the endorsements she has received to date, the one Senator Kirsten Gillibrand received today might be the biggest endorsement from a member of the congressional delegation.
Representative Jerrold Nadler announced today that he is endorsing Gillibrand, calling her a "great partner on many progressive causes" and praising her for the work she has done on a number of issues, including the issues important to the LGBT community and fighting for a public option.
"From protecting a woman's right to choose and standing up for issues of pressing concern to the LGBT community, to fighting for a robust public health insurance option and protecting our environment by working to reduce harmful emissions, Kirsten Gillibrand has been a great partner on many progressive causes," Congressman Nadler said. "We have worked closely together to provide our 9/11 heroes and affected community members with the health care and compensation they deserve, and on a variety of other issues facing our State and the Nation. New Yorkers want and need Kirsten on their side and I'm proud to endorse her for U.S. Senate."
Nadler's endorsement gives Gillibrand endorsements from 17 members of the 27 Democratic representatives that make up the New York congressional delegation.
The full list is below (I did not include Nadler, since this post is about his endorsement):
•Congressman Michael Arcuri (NY-24)
•Congresswoman Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
•Congressman Joe Crowley (NY-7)
•Congressman Eliot Engel (NY-17)
•Congressman John Hall (NY-19)
•Congressman Brian Higgins (NY-27)
•Congressman Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
•Congresswoman Nita Lowey (NY-18)
•Congressman Dan Maffei (NY-25)
•Congressman Eric Massa (NY-29)
•Congressman Michael McMahon (NY-13)
•Congressman Gregory Meeks (NY-6)
•Congressman Scott Murphy (NY-20)
•Congressman Ed Towns (NY-10)
•Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
•Congressman Anthony Weiner (NY-9)
One of the findings in the Marist poll was that 59 percent of Democrats who were surveyed said that they would support Gillibrand while 84 percent of Republicans said they would support Giuliani. The huge commitment by Republicans to support Giuliani is just how the Republican Party: When it is time to support their candidate, they usually do (See Scozzafava, Dede for an example of what happens when they don't). That strong support helps give Giuliani a 14 point lead in the poll. Everyone considers it a "weak" showing by Gillibrand, but I see it as a weak showing among Democrats who, almost a year after her appointment, are ignoring Gillibrand's record in the Senate and instead are looking for some reason to dislike her because of what she was in the past (a Blue Dog Democrat from a conservative district in upstate New York).
When looking at Gillibrand, it is easy to look at the past. You want an example of looking at the present and future? Look at why Nadler endorsed her. He made it clear: She is a partner on progressive issues. Her record as a U.S. senator has shown that and instead of just using her time as a Blue Dog and other ridiculous things against her, we should take the time to acknowledge the great work she is doing as a U.S. senator.
It is because of her advocacy and support in the U.S. Senate that the LGBT community considers her a friend. Today, the Human Rights Campaign endorsed Gillibrand.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, announced today the endorsement of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) in the 2010 U.S. Senate race. Gillibrand is the first U.S. Senator from New York to support full marriage equality for same-sex couples.
"Senator Gillibrand has emerged as one of the strongest advocates in the Senate for full equality for the LGBT community," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "From her personal lobbying of the New York legislature in support of marriage rights to helping garner support for a Senate hearing on repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' Gillibrand has time and again stood for fairness for all."
"I am very honored to once again have the endorsement of the Human Rights Campaign," said Sen. Gillibrand. "Equality, civil rights, and equal justice for the LGBT community must be a clarion call for our party and our generation. This is the civil rights march of our generation. We must continue to push every day to repeal DADT, repeal DOMA, and provide equal protections in the work place for all Americans. There is far more support for our cause than people realize. Let's continue working together to write a new chapter of equality in this country."
Here are some key points regarding Gillibrand's record on LGBT issues:
• Support of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples;
• Helping lead efforts to repeal the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the U.S. military. At Sen. Gillibrand's urging, the Senate Armed Services Committee announced it would hold the first hearing on the policy in 15 years;
• Cosponsor of the fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA);
• Cosponsored and voted for the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act;
• Supports full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.;
• Cosponsor of the Uniting American Families Act, to allow same-sex couples in bi-national relationships to sponsor a partner for legal immigration to the U.S.;
• Opposes amending the U.S. Constitution to discriminate, including opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment;
• Cosponsor of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act; and
• Cosponsor of Early Treatment for HIV Act.
This is a big endorsement from the LGBT community. Getting the support of HRC shows that Gillibrand has been a great advocate for the LGBT community in the U.S. Senate and recognizes her past work in the House. Her support of equal rights is important, especially in New York, as we have our own fight for marriage equality brewing and having a sitting U.S. senator from our state out in front on these issues helps the pro-equality movement.
We all know that a strong robust public option is necessary. It is needed because there are those without insurance who need help. While it is nice to talk about lowering costs, eliminating the ability of insurance companies to use preexisting conditions against you and other priorities, a public option is important. If we are going to achieve real reform, a strong public option needs to be in the final bill.
That's why 30 Democratic senators wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) urging that any health care reform bill in the Senate includes a strong robust public option.
Here's the letter:
Dear Majority Leader Reid:
We have spent the better part of this year fighting for health reform that would provide insurance access and continuity to every American in a fiscally responsible manner. We are concerned that - absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option - health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment. For that reason, we are asking for your leadership on ensuring that the merged health reform bill contains a public insurance option.
As it stands, the health insurance market is dominated by a handful of for-profit health insurers that are exempt from the anti-trust laws that ensure robust competition in other markets across the United States. Without a not-for-profit public insurance alternative that competes with these insurers based on premium rates and quality, insurers will have free rein to increase insurance premiums and drive up the cost of federal subsidies tied to those premiums. This is simply not fiscally sustainable.
We recognize that the two Committees with jurisdiction over health reform - the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee - have taken two very different approaches with respect to this issue. However, a strong public option has resounding support among Senate Democrats - every Democrat on HELP, three quarters of those on Finance, and what we believe is a majority of the caucus.
The Senate Finance Committee included a cooperative approach to insurance market competition. While promoting more co-ops may be a worthy goal, it is not realistic to expect local co-ops to spring up in every corner of this country. There are many areas of the country where the population is simply too small to sustain a local co-op plan. We are also concerned that the administrative costs associated with financing the start-up of multiple co-op plans would far outstrip the seed money required to establish a public health insurance program.
Opponents of health reform argue that a public option presents unfair competition to the private insurance companies. However, it is possible to create a public health insurance option that is modeled after private insurance - rates are negotiated and providers are not required to participate in the plan. As you know, this is the Senate HELP Committee's approach. The major differences between the public option and for-profit plans are that the public plan would report to taxpayers, not to shareholders, and the public plan would be available continuously in all parts of the country. The number one goal of health reform must be to look out for the best interests of the American people - patients and taxpayers alike - not the profit margins of insurance companies.
Health reform is about improving access to health care, containing costs, and giving Americans a real choice in the insurance plan best suited to their needs. We urge you to fight for a sustainable health care system that ensures Americans the option of a public plan in the merged Senate bill.
Among the 30 senators who called for the public option to be included is Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. She was joined by the following senators:
Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH); John D. Rockefeller (D-WV); Russell D. Feingold (D-WI); Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT); Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI); Tom Udall (D-NM); Roland W. Burris (D-IL); Ron Wyden (D-OR); Debbie Stabenow (D-MI); Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI); Michael F. Bennet (D-CO); Dianne Feinstein (D-CA); Jack Reed (D-RI); Jeff Merkley (D-OR); Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ); Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD); Al Franken (D-MN); Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA); Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD); Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI); Edward E. Kaufman (D-DE); Arlen Specter (D-PA); Maria Cantwell (D-WA); Robert Menendez (D-NJ); Bernard Sanders (I-VT); John F. Kerry (D-MA); Herb Kohl (D-WI); and Paul Kirk (D-MA).
Gillibrand also made her own statement that reiterated her support for health care reform and the public option.
"Ensuring that every American has access to quality, affordable health care is a national priority," Senator Gillibrand said. "I continue to support a robust public option that can compete with private health insurance and drive down health care costs for everyone. With more than 47 million uninsured Americans and millions of families and businesses struggling with rising health care costs, the time to act is now. We cannot have a system in which the only choice is private plans. Everyone should have the option of buying into a not-for profit public plan at a rate that they can afford. I am proud to join with my colleagues to fight for the inclusion of a public plan option in health care reform."
While Senator Chuck Schumer wasn't in on the letter, we do know where he stands. We also know that there are close to 50 senators that would support the public option. That's a majority of the Democratic caucus. So if there are Democrats that want to vote against a majority of their caucus, so be it.
The Senate passed the Agriculture Appropriations bill which includes $350 million for dairy farms, including $290 million in direct payments to farmers that need it most.
"Our dairy farmers are hurting like never before from forces beyond their control and this assistance will help them weather the storm," said Schumer. "A large step was taken when we convinced Secretary Vilsack to increase prices paid to farmers, but putting $290 million directly in the pockets of dairy farmers will be a tremendous shot in the arm. We have now cleared all the hurdles in getting this money to our dairy farmers."
According to the press release issued by Gillibrand and Schumer, the $290 million will be issued based on guidelines set forth by the Secretary of Agriculture. The remaining $60 million will be used to purchase cheese and dairy for food banks and other nutrition programs.
"During these tough economic times, this increase will bring some much needed relief for our farmers," said Senator Gillibrand, the first New York Senator in 40 years to serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee. "While this is great for New York's dairy farmers, this is only a temporary solution to the fundamental problems with the dairy pricing system. I will continue to work for a long term fix for our farmers."
As Gillibrand acknowledges, this is a temporary solution. More needs to be done.
From the release:
Senators Schumer and Gillibrand have been leading the charge for dairy farmers. Senator Schumer has been aggressively lobbying the Secretary of Agriculture to provide emergency direct payments to dairy farmers in New York and has called on the Department of Justice to investigate the discrepancy between the fall in prices dairy farmers are seeing and the much smaller drop in the price of milk in the store.
Senator Gillibrand has introduced legislation that would double the amount of money farmers get from the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program retroactive to the low point of the crisis in March. She also introduced legislation that would index the MILC rate of $16.94 to inflation. The price floor of $16.94 per hundredweight has not changed since the 1990's, yet the cost of production has increased exponentially. The MILC program payments were originally designed to help dairy farmers in their time of need, but have remained stagnant. In August, Senator Gillibrand hosted a hearing in Batavia, New York, to discuss long term fixes for the dairy pricing system, and has pledged to hold a similar hearing in Washington, D.C.
New York farmers are facing a dairy pricing crisis. According to the USDA, it costs a New York dairy farmer $18.82 to produce a hundredweight of milk. Yet in July, the average New York farmer received only $11.60 per hundredweight, though a number of farmers reported receiving even less. The MILC program was designed to be a safety net when there is a large price discrepancy, but has not been able to adequately protect New York's dairy farmers. As a result, New York farmers have been forced to either take on massive debt to cover their costs or go out of business.
Dairy farmers are facing a tough problem and some have had to go out of business because of it. I know of a dairy farm nearby that went out of business a few years ago. The figures listed above had a lot to do with it.
Today was a good first step. That will provide short-term relief and allow time for more long-term reforms to be reviewed and implemented.
The resolution might be a little hard to read in the image below, but after the picture I have the full text:
Whereas, The New York State Democratic Committee has numerous resolutions supporting single payer; and
Whereas, any real step toward single payer must include a strong public option (no triggers, no coops, government ability to negotiate with drug companies, rates tied to Medicare rates, and uniformity across the Country); and
Whereas, insurance companies (who seek to retain their profits) are the prime opponents of single payer; and
Whereas, the Baucus Plan will make insurance companies stronger and increase industry profits by forcing everyone to buy insurance from private insurance companies; and
Whereas, it is difficult now to counter insurance companies and pass single payer, making insurance companies stronger will make the passage of single payer impossible;
Therefore be it resolved, That the New York State Democratic Committee urges Senators Schumer and Gillibrand to oppose the Baucus Plan. We must move forward rather than take a step backwards. This bill in its current form will enrich insurance companies and impoverish the American people.
This is an important resolution and a big statement by one of the largest state parties in the country. It states not only support for a public option and health care reform, but also states opposition to the Baucus plan.
It is time for real reform, not bills dressed up as reform that are written by senators like Baucus who was bought and paid for by the insurance companies.
Kudos to the New York State Democrats for taking a clear stand on health care reform.
The first vote came on Senator Jay Rockefeller's (D-WV) amendment. All 10 Republicans and five Democrats voted against it, thus killing the amendment. The five Democrats that voted against it weren't surprises. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT).
The second vote was on Senator Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) amendment. That amendment received Carper and Nelson's support, but Baucus, Conrad and Lincoln still joined the Republicans in opposing the public option amendment.
On a personal level, I don't care what Baucus and Conrad think. They both seem to have it in their head that having a public option in any health care bill would mean that the bill wouldn't pass. They are wrong, but they will continue to believe what they have believed all along.
The big thing is that most of the Democrats on the Finance Committee support some version of the public option, whether it's Rockefeller's or Schumer's. That is good news.
Here are ads that Democracy For America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee are trying to get out on the air.
If you were running to become the junior U.S. senator from New York, where would you raise money?
Certainly, your home state (in this case, New York) comes to mind. And since New York is home to New York City, the go-to place for political fundraising dollars, you would have no problem raising funds from the large group of people willing to give the maximum amount to any candidate they like.
Jonathan Tasini, a labor activist who is mounting a left-flank challenge to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand will host a fund-raiser tonight in Los Angeles featuring actor Richard Dreyfuss.
Tasini told me by phone from LA that he has known Dreyfuss--the star of Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Mr. Holland's Opus--for about three years. Dreyfuss is an active Democratic donor, and played Dick Cheney in the 2008 film W. Tickets start at $100 a head.
I asked Tasini how things were going, in light of a new poll which shows Kirsten Gillibrand running behind potential Republican opponents.
"I believed from the very beginning that she will not be the senator from New York," Tasini said. "It will either be that I defeat he in the primary, or she'll lose in the general election. Democrats should be very concerned about that; I will be a much stronger candidate against any Republican."
"I intend to be the nominee. I'm very confident in that," he said, noting things are "very, very different" than his Quixotic 2006 primary against Hillary Clinton.
I have always wanted Siena or Marist to include Tasini in their polling. If he thinks Senator Kirsten Gillibrand will lose in the general election and that he "will be a much stronger candidate against any Republican" then we should know just how well he fares against the likes of Rudy Giuliani and George Pataki.
There are those who come here and criticize our coverage of this race and label the whole blog pro-Gillibrand even though there are only a few of us in this community who are outspoken in our support for Gillibrand. Yes, a few of us are front-pagers, but that doesn't make the whole group pro-Gillibrand. That is like the labeling that went on during the 2008 elections that tabbed Daily Kos as the blog for Obama and MyDD as the blog for Clinton. Were front-pagers on those respective blogs supportive of those respective candidates? Yes. But it wasn't an accurate label of those blogs.
The truth is that I would take primary opponents a little more seriously if they did two things:
(1) Ran on their own platform instead of trying to run against the incumbent. If you have to run on someone's weaknesses instead of your strengths, why bother running?
(2) Treated the race seriously by actively campaigning, traveling the state and by putting New Yorkers first just as you would have to do as senator.
In Tasini's case, he fails both. While he does have his own platform, that is not his primary focus. He is trying to highlight Gillibrand's weaknesses instead of his strengths. He did the same thing in 2006 with Hillary Clinton. It didn't work then and it won't work now.
Tasini had a problem with being viewed as a serious candidate in 2006. The same can be said now. Instead of making trips to Hollywood for fundraisers with actors, why not take that time and effort and come to upstate New York (not Ithaca, somewhere else), the North Country or hold a fundraiser on Long Island. There is more to this state than the five boroughs and Tompkins County. Apparently, Tasini doesn't know that.
The problem for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand might not be a Democratic primary. The problem might be beating Republicans Rudy Giuliani and George Pataki.
The Marist poll on the U.S. Senate race shows that Gillibrand trails both Republicans, although there are some points to make about the polling numbers against her hypothetical Republican opponents.
Against Giuliani, Gillibrand loses 51 percent to 40 percent. Those numbers aren't too surprising, given Giuliani's name recognition and considering that is pretty much what these polls are all about when they involve someone like Gillibrand who doesn't have the statewide name recognition that Giuliani or Pataki has.
When pitted against Pataki, Gillibrand does better. She still trails 45 percent to 41 percent, but that's not a bad margin against the man who seems to be the more likely of the two opponents. If Giuliani runs for anything, it is looking like he will run for governor. But I think the Republicans are waiting to see what Andrew Cuomo does.
There are some things in these polls that need to be pointed out.
- Gillibrand beats Giuliani in New York City by a larger margin than Pataki. That is a very interesting number. Gillibrand wins 58 percent to 38 percent in New York City over Giuliani and 53 percent to 34 percent over Pataki. I know that it's only one percent point, but since 58 percent of voters are willing to pick her over Giuliani, that's a much bigger achievement than the margin of victory.
- Gillibrand's weakness in the general election matchups is what some might consider her strength: Upstate. She loses upstate New York to Giuliani 59 percent to 33 percent and loses to Pataki 48 percent to 39 percent. Isn't it fascinating that Giuliani loses the city he used to be mayor of by 20 percentage points and yet, wins what you might consider "conservative upstate" by 26 points.
- Democrats supporting the Republican in these polls are also interesting. Of the Democrats polled, 29 percent support Giuliani and 26 percent support Pataki. By comparison, only 13 percent of Republicans back Gillibrand in her matchup with Giuliani and 17 percent support her in a race with Pataki. Could those votes be from Democrats who just don't like Gillibrand or aren't informed about Gillibrand? It is very possible. It's also possible that they are voting for the person they know the most about. In this case, it wouldn't be a shock to have that person (or persons) be Giuliani and Pataki.
- Gillibrand has to build her support among women. Women back Giuliani over Gillibrand 47 percent to 41 percent and back Gillibrand over Pataki 43 percent to 40 percent. You would think that support would be a little higher, especially in a race that would pit her against a man. But those numbers are sitting in the low 40s.
We are about 13 months away from the general election. I'm not too worried about this race. I do worry that she has hit a lull after months of increasing poll numbers. What is clear is that if Pataki is her opponent, she will probably beat him. The numbers don't say it now, but she could beat him today. Giuliani is a different story. Of course, it helps to have a national profile. Some people vote not based on qualifications but who they know when asked in these polls. So when they hear Giuliani as opposed to Gillibrand, it doesn't surprise me that they pick Giuliani.
Gillibrand is still working hard. She has clearly made gains in New York City, where hardly anyone likes Giuliani or Pataki. So if she can build up her base and appeal to those in upstate New York, she will be a tough candidate to beat in 2010.
Jon Cooper said it was an eye-opening moment for him. He was watching the press conference announcing Governor David Paterson's selection of Kirsten Gillibrand to serve as New York's junior U.S. senator. His spouse Rob inquired out loud if that was former Senator Alfonse D'Amato standing on the platform with her.
Last week, I spoke with Cooper about his possible candidacy, his career and why he is interested in running for a seat that was once held by Hillary Clinton, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Robert F. Kennedy.
At first, Cooper dismissed the notion that a former Republican U.S. senator from New York - the same man Senator Chuck Schumer beat in 1998 - would be at a ceremony for Republicans. But, much to his dismay, there D'Amato stood mere feet away from Gillibrand as she was introduced as New York's newest senator.
Cooper makes it clear that he has ideas. He isn't just going to run an anti-Gillibrand campaign, but he can't help but point out her record. He mentions her past ties to Big Tobacco, the 100 percent rating she received from the National Rifle Association and her evolution on numerous issues that could be perceived as politically convenient.
"Her past position (on gun control) was of concern," he said. "There are some people are distrustful of her evolution on this and other issues and are concerned about what they see as flip-flopping and see this as insincere or they question her character. I'm not saying I do. But there are those who do."
For Cooper, however, it is different. He is not yet a declared candidate but he is touting his own record and why, if he were to run, he should be considered a serious contender to Gillibrand.
"I have, many times over the years, took stances that might not have been politically popular with my constituents but I believed it was the right thing to do," he said.
As an openly gay and happily married man, Cooper is the father of five children he and his spouse Rob have adopted. He has served 10 years on the Suffolk County Legislature and currently is the majority leader for the legislature's Democrats. He lists two key pieces of legislation as highlights of his career. He wrote the first law banning the use of hand-held cell phones while driving in the country. Since then, a number of states (including New York) have adopted such laws. In addition to that, Cooper also authored legislation that banned the sale of ephedra. That effort led to the federal government imposing a ban on the dietary supplement.
Jobs and the economy is an area that Cooper knows all too well. Cooper is running the family business, Spectronics Corporation, in Westbury. He said that while he is on the corporate side of things, he also is very much pro-labor and supports workers.
In the 2008 presidential primaries, Cooper backed an underdog named Barack Obama. Cooper was the first elected official from New York to endorse Obama and went on to be the Long Island chair of the Obama campaign. He said that, at the time, people asked him if he realized the political risk he was taking. Cooper said he had supported Hillary Clinton in the past but once he met Obama, he was sold. It was through the Obama campaign that Cooper met many grassroots organizers, some of whom are now aiding him in his exploratory efforts and organizing meet and greets throughout the state for people to meet him. Cooper was in upstate New York this weekend meeting voters in Buffalo and Rochester and will be back in upstate New York again, especially if he decides to run.
Cooper knows that he has a long way to go. He realizes that Gillibrand has millions in her bankroll. He realizes that she has received nearly every county chair's endorsement to date. But one thing he references to is that Obama was counted out too. No one thought Hillary Clinton could be beaten. But with the greatest grassroots campaign ever, Obama pulled it out in the primary and won the general election.
A vast majority of Obama organizers and activists that Cooper worked with in 2008 are urging him to run and are supporting him. Democratic clubs have urged him to run. Progressives are supporting him. And while he says he isn't comparing himself to Obama, the comparisons are glaring.
"The party establishment, for the most part, quite understandably is falling in line behind our Democratic incumbent senator regardless of how she got to that office," he said. "But she's the incumbent Democrat now and I expect most of the political establishment to back her. But a lot of the grassroots leaders that had been early supporters of Obama seem to be lining up behind me or at the very least, urging me to run so that we will have a choice, which is what this is all about: Offering Democrats in New York State a choice."
While Cooper doesn't have a full slate of issues on his platform yet (understandable at this stage), his platform stresses the importance of economic development, pushes for progressive values and support of the environment and the fight for health care, consumer protection, gun safety and middle class tax cuts.
So when will we know whether or not Cooper is running? He says by the end of the year he will have a decision. He is testing the waters right now to see just how much support he has and what the response is statewide. I spoke with him over the weekend and he seemed to be very pleased and excited by the response in Buffalo and Rochester. So we'll see just how far he is willing to go and if he is going to make an upset bid for the U.S. Senate.
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.
Things have been quiet on the Democratic primary front for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. But as her recess winds down, one challenger is on the campaign trail and other possible opponent challenges her on the public option.
Jonathan Tasini was in Ithaca over the weekend campaigning and raising money. Ithaca (and Tompkins County) was where Tasini performed best in upstate New York. In 2006, Sen. Hillary Clinton defeated Tasini in Tompkins by 828 votes. The final tally was Clinton 2,849 to Tasini's 2,021.
Despite massive disadvantages in name recognition and fundraising, Tasini thinks the economic crisis and state government meltdown have left people more open to his brand of change than they've ever been. Tasini was in Ithaca Sunday campaigning and fundraising.
"The political machine in this state does not work for the people. The political machine in this state works for the politicians and the careers of politicians, and people are fed up with that," he said.
...
Prior to accepting her Senate seat, Gillibrand worked for the tobacco and gun industries, and she is "awash" in money from special interests, Tasini said.
Tasini's contributions are all from individuals, while almost $700,000 of Gillibrand's are from political action committees, including hospitals, insurance companies, financial services and the natural gas industry, according to the FEC database.
If elected, Tasini said his top priorities would be strengthening the labor movement through widespread unionization; rewriting free trade policies to protect workers as well as corporations; and raising taxes on corporations and couples making more than $351,000 rather than "borrow(ing) from the Chinese."
On health care, he supports single-payer government insurance by opening Medicare to everyone.
Jon Cooper, a local Long Island official who may be the only elected official remaining to challenge Kristen Gillibrand, sends out an email today that shows how the approaching midterms polarize the debate.
The punch line of the email:
As you know, I strongly believe that any meaningful health care reform must include a government-run public option. That's why I was greatly concerned by phone calls I placed last week to all six of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's district offices. Staffers at each office advised me that Senator Gillibrand is willing to consider supporting alternatives to the public option, such as health insurance co-ops.
On both sides, the public option is becoming a potent primary wedge, which isn't exactly a spur to rational debate.
Thanks to Ben, I have included the full e-mail below the fold.
Cooper's approach is an interesting one, given Gillibrand's stated support of a public option. She can consider alternatives all she wants, but her stance is in strong support of a public option. She hasn't wavered from that.
On Tasini, it is hard to take him seriously when he goes to virtually the only place in upstate where he stood a chance in 2006. He needs to go elsewhere if he wants to be considered a serious candidate. Right now, Dr. Scott Noren seems to be a more serious option than Tasini, who ran against Clinton in 2006 on a platform of holding her accountable for her Iraq War vote (which is a nice idea, but hardly something to run a U.S. Senate campaign on).
Cooper has the right idea. Cooper has said that he is going to travel to upstate and visit Democrats in places like Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse. Tasini should be doing the same, but that has yet to happen.
"For me, this is a season of hope. New hope for a justice and fair prosperity for the many and not just for the few. New hope, and this is the cause of my life, new hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American - north, south, east, west, young, old- will have decent quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege." - Senator Edward M. Kennedy speaking before the Democratic National Convention in 2008
The words delivered by Senator Edward M. Kennedy at last year's convention came exactly a year to the day of his passing.
On August 25, 2008, Senator Kennedy stood before Democrats of all makes - the progressives of the party, the moderates of the party and the conservatives of the party - and said that health care should be a right, not a privilege. It was something that Kennedy believed in, not just on that night, but throughout his career in the United States Senate.
Senator Kennedy saw the passage of many key pieces of legislation that drastically changed the quality of health care in this country. On his Senate website, there is a long list of accomplishments and goals regarding health care. The list is long and worth mentioning:
Throughout his Senate career, Senator Kennedy has championed the cause of quality health care for all Americans. Among the many landmark laws enacted under his leadership and sponsorship are the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act of 1990, the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Children's Health Act of 2000, the Project BioShield Act of 2003, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act of 2005, the FDA Amendments Act of 2007 and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.
You could argue that, single-handedly, Senator Kennedy improved our health care system through his support of the above legislation. His goal was a system of health care where every American is covered and has access to the best quality of care. It was, as he said in his speech to the DNC last year, to be a right for all Americans, not a privilege.
The fight for health care started a long time ago for Kennedy. In a profile by the Boston Globe, the story was told about health care reform attempts in the early 1970s. Then-President Richard Nixon proposed a plan that would have covered nearly every individual through their employer and then covered the poor through government subsidies. But that's not the type of reform Kennedy wanted. What he wanted was more of a single-payer system. What he wanted was a true national health care system.
Unfortunately, neither the Nixon proposal or Kennedy proposal became reality.
Kennedy was at the center of the fight for health care reform in 1993 when President Bill Clinton was working to install universal health care. And he was, until his death, a central figure in the reform fight going on right now in this country.
For Kennedy, this was one of the most important missions of his time in the Senate. The irony is that a draft of a bill discussed earlier this year was similar to that of the Nixon proposal he had stood firmly against. Such an act isn't surprising. Even though he is known as the "Liberal Lion" and will long be remembered as the quintessential Democrat, he believed in talking with the other side to reach reform. It was what made him liked by Republicans. In Sen. John McCain's words today, if Sen. Kennedy was around for this health care fight, we would have had progress and there might even be a Republican or two willing to support such legislation. That is the type of impact Sen. Kennedy has had in Washington D.C.
So what will we do now that Senator Kennedy is no longer with us? We need to pass real health care reform this year. The great thing about Senator Kennedy's legacy is that while he was willing to talk with people, he did not make concessions that would take away from the key elements of legislation. His goal was health care for all. Our goal should be nothing less.
Two key elements of health care reform that Senator Kennedy stressed were a strong public option and more employer responsibility. After all, the public option exists so that if you aren't happy with your health insurance, you can then choose to receive a national health care plan. That is something Senator Kennedy wanted.
But Senator Kennedy also wanted more responsibility from employers who provide coverage. If an employer didn't offer health insurance, they would be charged a fee per employee. Considering the cost of health insurance is greater than such a fee per employee, that is not a bad move.
Health care reform is not a new issue. It is something that has been needed for a long time. Out of everyone in government, no one knew that better than Senator Edward M. Kennedy. He was at the forefront of the fight. In his honor, we need to pass landmark legislation that will fix a broken system and allow the 47 million Americans without insurance to have the right to the same health care that many other millions of Americans enjoy.
It is a right, not a privilege. We need to honor Senator Kennedy's memory by doing the right thing.
Congressman Eric Massa was questioned for a few months about why he had not yet endorsed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. He was asked on weekly press calls and in interviews why he had not endorsed Gillibrand. Simply put, Massa believed that his energy was better spent focused on his district and his work in the House of Representatives.
As one of the last members of the New York House delegation to back Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's election next year, Rep. Eric Massa, D-Corning, announced today that he will back the junior senator.
A quick education for Mr. Spector. The New York House delegation has 29 members, 26 of which are Democrats. Of those 26 Democrats, 14 have endorsed Gillibrand. Massa isn't "one of the last" members of the New York congressional delegation. Is he one of the latest members to endorse? Yes. But there are 12 other members of the New York House delegation who have yet to endorse.
Here is the list of those who have endorsed:
* Congressman Michael Arcuri (NY-24)
* Congresswoman Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
* Congressman Eliot Engel (NY-17)
* Congressman John Hall (NY-19)
* Congressman Brian Higgins (NY-27)
* Congressman Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
* Congresswoman Nita Lowey (NY-18)
* Congressman Eric Massa (NY-29)
* Congressman Michael McMahon (NY-13)
* Congressman Gregory Meeks (NY-6)
* Congressman Scott Murphy (NY-20)
* Congressman Ed Towns (NY-10)
* Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
* Congressman Anthony Weiner (NY-9)
This is the list of New York Democratic House members who haven't endorsed Gillibrand:
- Congressman Gary Ackerman (NY-5)
- Congressman Timothy Bishop (NY-1)
- Congressman Joseph Crowley (NY-7)
- Congressman Steve Israel (NY-2)
- Congressman Dan Maffei (NY-25)
- Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
- Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (NY-4)
- Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-8)
- Congressman Charles Rangel (NY-15)
- Congressman Jose Serrano (NY-16)
- Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
- Congressman Paul Tonko (NY-21)
I see bigger stories than Massa's endorsement here. None of the House members from Long Island have endorsed. Three upstate members - Maffei, Slaughter and Tonko - have not endorsed.
The biggest story? Some of the most prominent members of the delegation haven't touched the race. The aforementioned Slaughter, one of the most powerful members of the House, hasn't endorsed. Nadler hasn't endorsed. Rangel hasn't endorsed.
But what is the media focused on? Whether or not Massa, one of the few freshmen members of the delegation, has endorsed. Even with their focus on it, they managed to drop the ball and consider his endorsement "one of the last" when it was one of the first 14 of 26.
Congressman Jose Serrano isn't interested in running for the U.S. Senate. He likes where he is in the House and doesn't plan on moving on. That is according to Liz, who reported today that Congressman Serrano won't run for the U.S. Senate and has no plans to endorse Senator Kirsten Gillibrand either.
Add Rep. Jose Serrano to the list of House Democrats taking a pass on 2010 primary challenges to their former colleague, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.
Serrano, a 35-year veteran public official from the Bronx who said back in May that he would consider taking on Gillibrand if no one else was willing, told me yesterday he isn't willing to risk his seat to do so
But Serrano remains concerned about the process by which Gillibrand was plucked from relative political obscurity by Gov. David Paterson and the subsequent "pressure" to which would-be contenders like Reps. Steve Israel and Carolyn Maloney were subjected to clear the field for her next fall.
"No, I'm not running," the congressman said during a telephone interview. "But I was not pleased with the selection, and I'm not pleased with the style and the pressure on Maloney and everyone else to get them out."
"I've been in office 35 years...I've never seen this type of pressure to get candidates out of the way. The White House, the vice president, the senator (Chuck Schumer). This was incredible."
"Here we are, and it looks like she's going to get a clear ride. Very few times in politics do you get to be that lucky, and there's no other way to say it but 'lucky.'"
There is the perception that President Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders have forced out the rest of the field. The only representative you could say was "forced out" was Congressman Steve Israel, who chose not to run after talking it over with President Obama.
When Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney announced she would not run on Friday, it was clear that she came to that decision on her own. While there may have been pressure, that pressure has been applied for months. Her decision not to run wasn't based on that pressure. Her decision not to run was based on some of the same reasons why Serrano won't run: Doesn't want lose seniority for congressional district in the House and doesn't want to start as a junior member in a new house.
The line about Gillibrand being selected from "relative political obscurity" made me chuckle. Gillibrand, while only a one-term congresswoman from an upstate district, has been a prolific fundraiser. Also, since when are you in "obscurity" if you are a member of Congress? Maybe you don't have the profile that someone like Sen. Chuck Schumer does. But it's not like Gillibrand was an unknown in political circles. Gillibrand raised nearly $4.5 million in 2008 for her re-election campaign. That was nearly as much as Israel, Maloney and possible Republican challenger Peter King combined. I don't like using money as a key indicator, but being able to raise that kind of money from an upstate district says a lot about her political credentials.
It looks like the push is still on for a Democratic primary. I wish the focus would shift from finding an opponent to taking a serious look at the job Gillibrand is doing as our senator.
On Thursday, Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by the U.S. Senate, becoming the first Hispanic justice to sit on the Supreme Court and the third women to do so. The historic vote has plenty of angles to cover, but those will be talked about a lot over the next several days and weeks.
The interesting part of the vote was how closely it resembled Sotomayor's 1998 confirmation vote to become a member of the U.S. 2nd District Circuit Court. That vote was 67 to 29, with all 29 nay votes being cast by Republicans.
In 1998, these Republicans supported Sotomayor's appointment to the Circuit Court.
Since 1998, some of these senators are no longer in office. But of the remaining senators from this list that voted for Sotomayor in 1998, these are the senators that supported Sotomayor:
- Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
- Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
- Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN)
- Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
(Note: Because of Specter's switch to the Democratic Party, I didn't count him as one of the Republican votes.)
In 2009, the 68 to 31 vote to confirm Sotomayor was not as bi-partisan. In 1998, Sotomayor was backed by 25 Republicans. On Thursday, Sotomayor was backed by nine Republicans.
We know that Supreme Court nominees tend to bring out the best in partisanship, depending on the party of the president at the time. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) made it a point to say that he had not voted against any Supreme Court nominee. Yet, he did vote against Sotomayor before. He opposed her appointment in 1998 and was one of the 29 votes. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who supported Sotomayor in 1998, voted against her in 2009.
Aside from Senators Collins, Gregg, Lugar and Snowe, the other five Republicans to back Sotomayor were:
- Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
- Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO)
- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
- Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL)
- Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH)
Of the four, only Bond was a senator in 1998. He actually didn't cast a vote for or against Sotomayor that time around. But with Bond on the verge of retirement, a yea vote wasn't surprising. The same can be said of Martinez, who announced his resignation today and had said previously that he was going to retire. Alexander, who is also on his way out, wasn't too surprising.
The polarizing of the process that is the selection of a Supreme Court justice is disappointing, but a reality we must face. Having senators who once supported Sotomayor at other levels of the judicial system only to vote against her because she was an appointment to the Supreme Court shows just how politicized the process is. The irony is, of course, that we expect these justices to be fair and unbiased and yet, the process to pick them is less than fair and has politics all over it.
Cooper makes it clear that he has ideas. He isn't just going to run an anti-Gillibrand campaign, but he can't help but point out her record. He mentions her past ties to Big Tobacco, the 100 percent rating she received from the National Rifle Association and her evolution on numerous issues that could be perceived as politically convenient.
Senator Kennedy saw the passage of many key pieces of legislation that drastically changed the quality of health care in this country. On his Senate website, there is a long list of accomplishments and goals regarding health care. The 
