Hmm. Title sounds almost naughty. ANYWAY - any New Yorkers here? What’s the thought on Kirsten Gillibrand as the new Senator? What little I’ve read indicates she’s a pretty conservative Democrat, to the point of having NRA backing.
I’m new to this savage place so I can’t comment on Gillibrand, but I can say that I thoroughly look forward to voting against David Paterson in 2010.
I have zero faith in the competence and integrity of the current governor of NY. I’m no Caroline Kennedy fan, but to call this whole thing a debacle is being polite.
Lifelong NYer here. I am ok with the pick, I consider myself center to slightly right of center so many of her positions I agree with…some I do not. She is very much a blue dog democrat…however a lot of that can be attributed to the district she represents, W took it 60-40 in 08 I think. I would imagine her to move slightly leftward as she starts representing the whole state. This does open the door to a pretty massive primary for the 2010 election, I can count 7 or 8 strong candidates that could run against her. 2010 is going to be a pretty wild year politically…Gov and both senators running. I know schumer was very much in favor of her getting the seat.
For the record, I would have been ok with any of the elected official getting the seat of those that wanted it…I was very much agaisnt Caroline getting the seat.
I agree that this thing was a debacle, I blame that more on Kennedy then on Patterson, but just out of curiosity what makes you think Patterson lacks integrity and competence? Not trying to sart a flame war or anything, just curios as to why you feel that way…
i would hit it.
Taking so long to make a decision, allowing the situation to turn into a circus, being easily affected by the daily changes in public and media opinion, allowing his staff to snipe and make acrimonious statements, openly and blatantly pandering for upstate votes, etc.
I think it ‘s the transparent pandering that bothers me the most. When the financial crisis hit Bloomberg gave some tough talk about both cuts to programs and to tax increases, which is unfortunate but seems like the responsible way to handle things. Paterson immediately ruled out tax increases, which strikes me as politically expedient but fiscally irresponsible. Since I’ve moved here it seems virtually every single public move Paterson has made has centered around getting re-elected in 2010. And he’s not even embarrassed enough to try to hide it.
Just caught CNN’s Situation Room, in which Jessica Yellin had a story on how Caroline Kennedy was caught in the “double-standard” of increased scrutiny because of her gender, whereas Tim Geithner managed to squeak by, despite also having tax and nanny issues.
She had a brief split screen of three men (one of them was Orrin Hatch) who (the quote is to the best of my recollection) “also didn’t have any experience in government before deciding to run for public office.”
Also in the segment, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) was quoted as saying that JFK Jr. wouldn’t have gone through the grinder, and “people would have said, oh, okay.”
~
- Kirsten Gillibrand is of course a woman.
- The three men split-screened were (presumably, as I didn’t see Burris in the mix) elected, not appointed.
- Hell no, JFK Jr. would not have gotten a free pass. Becoming an appointed senator on the basis of having run George magazine?
After the story Jessica turned to Wolf Blitzer, who let the BS slide without comment. Arrgh, CNN.
Yeah, Geithner being an incredibly experienced, articulate person with a background tailor made for the job and a person Wall St. feels is extremely qualified for the job.
vs. Caroline, who has a last name of Kennedy, makes Sarah Palin interviews look good, and has, um, a famous last name.
Yeah, definitely a gender double standard.
I mean, c’mon, WHAT grinder? Being interviewed? Sheesh, how dare anyone ask someone asking to be made a U.S. Senator questions about their background and experience! Male Pigs!
Yeah Caroline kinda seemed to have a lot in common with Palin, to be honest.
And it didn’t seem bungled by the Governor to me, it just seemed like Kennedy was the one making most of the noise/drama.
There’s also a huge backlash against becoming a government official because your family members are good at it.
George Bush was a good reminder on why we hate royalty here in America.
I’m kinda glad that Caroline didn’t get the position ('Ya know)… but damn, I’m not too glad that it’s a rural blue-dog’ish rep that got the position instead.
If you consider yourself leaning left, consider health care to die via filabuster as of … NOW.
I’m not at all left leaning, but I am really hoping for an effective health care plan.
This is why many of us supported Obama - the hope that he has the ability to create and push through programs and find ways to destroy pure bipartisan objections. If he can convince the American people and get them overwhelmingly behind a program, Congress will follow.
That is the key and why I think he’ll be more influential even than the Bush white house was. He’s used to taking his case to the people and probably has the largest mailing and e-mailing list in the world. If congress tries to stop him he’ll take his case right to the people.
Bush got his power from doing what he wanted in secret but Obama will be even more powerful because if he doesn’t get his way that congressman is going to hear about it from all 50,000 voters in his district on Obama’s e-mail list.
It’s going to be interesting to see what will happen with an administration that doesn’t have to take it’s case to the MSM to get the word out. I have a feeling the MSM is going to be getting e-mails and blog posts at the same time we will, expect less “stories” broken by the press than ever before.
Unless of course he’s hopelessly corrupt or morally weak.
Bingo. I believe Obama has the potential to be one of the best, if not the best, presidents in terms of being able to connect with the people and make his case, reassure, persuade, etc.
Bush never really spoke to the American people to discuss Iraq, what he was trying to do on terrorism, the economy, etc. So combining Obama’s far above average personable skills with the American people living in a void of Presidential “fireside chats” results in a tremendous opportunity.
Congress will do whatever they feel the overwhelming majority of Americans want done, for better or worse. See the vote on Iraq. If Obama convinces America, through “one on one” style television chats, of the tragedies occurring every day of people losing their houses and cashing out a lifetime of a 401K to be able to get treatment for a mother or child with cancer, of people dying because they don’t want to bankrupt their loved ones, etc. Congress will develop and pass something quickly.
Of course, then the problem is WHAT to do. This is where Obama will really earn his pay. Getting the best and brightest in the country, and around the world, on the topic together to develop something free of partisan vested interests, etc. that is the new benchmark for the world in effective health care.
Bleh. I think Paterson should have chosen someone who aligned more closely with Hillary’s ideals.
I wonder if Paterson did this to shore up support for his re-election bid; would he do badly amongst Upstate NY’ers?
Here’s what really irritates me about this whole New York Senate replacement mess (beyond the irritation that Caroline Kennedy almost got it by just declaring she wanted it, with the only qualification being her last name.)
I have twice heard, the second time this morning on the Sunday news shows, that Caroline Kennedy was mistreated by the press because she is a woman. That this is an example of the prejudice against women, etc.
Not once did I ever hear any of the people making these claims complain that the criticism and intense scrutiny that Sarah Palin was getting was an example of how a woman gets challenged more than a man in the political arena. IMO, they were both people who were completely unqualified and both people whose lack of capability and qualifications came out when they were interviewed and questioned.
Why is it so hard to just accept that Caroline Kennedy had no qualifications whatsoever compared to most people under consideration, e.g. Cuomo, and was embarrassing when questioned and interviewed? They act as if it was her job by default and had it taken away by the big bad chauvinist pigs. Argh.
Kennedy managed to not continually look like a dumbass in interviews, didn’t intentionally put off a sexpot vibe, and she was running for Senator, not VP. I think that pretty much explains the gap.
I don’t buy it. Kennedy looked like a MAJOR dumbass in every interview I ever saw of her, to the point of her interviews being late night comedian fodder. She was a joke.
There’s a dumbass, and then there’s Palin. Can you name a political in memory that put forth such a thoroughly awful presentation?
I agree to a point, but I still can’t sway from the fact the Washington is a child of 2 parties. There’s no way conservatives will accept ‘Socialized Medicine’ . Period.
I can see Obama working his way through the stimulus package, middle class tax cuts, repudiation of Bushs’ ‘Terror’ laws ( Guantanamo, torture, NSA spying, etc… ), but conservatives will not budge on two things. EFCA, and Universal Heathcare. Blue Dogs are not going to help us ( we need to get more moderate conservatives on our side , not introduce more conservative Democrats ).
I agree that Obama is going to get alot of things done that McCain could have only dreamed of, but Universal Healthcare unfortunatly is going to be a strickly partisan vote. And Paterson appointing a conservative, to Hillary’s liberal ( comparitivaly speaking ), senate seat is only going to hurt us.
Regardless, I’m just dissapointed Patterson appointed a person not like Clinton to the senate. I mean, if you’re going to appoint someone, why appoint someone with different values than the person leaving?
Oh well, Patterson still looks like friggin Buddha in comparison to my Nevada governor.
EDIT, fugged up my last comparison.