Late last week, Gov David Patterson named Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton’s replacement in the U. S. Senate. His choice, Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand was a surprise pick for many. No one seems to know a lot about her.
Fortunately for my friends here at Red State, you have a writer who lives in Gillibrand’s district that is politically active and has had a chance to meet her on several occasions. Let me start by saying, she is the best pick Conservatives in NY State could have hoped for given the circumstances. Yes, Gillibrand is a Democrat, but she leans a little bit farther to the right than party bosses would like her to and that has caused Gov. Patterson to come under more than a little heat for choosing her.
Gillibrand’s rise to political stardom began in 2006 when she defeated incumbent Republican John Sweeney for New York’s 20th Congressional District seat. Gillibrand literally came out of nowhere. Sweeney’s first shot over the bow was to accuse Gillibrand of being a carpet bagger that didn’t even live in the District. He was quickly proven wrong but as the race went on, he maintained a very comfortable lead as all Republicans in that District had enjoyed. The idea of a Democrat representing NY’s 20th was unthinkable. This after all, was the seat occupied by the legendary Gerald B. Solomon, Congressional Republican icon and former Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Gillibrand, with lots of help from the DNC (and we suspect the Clinton’s) did the impossible and defeated Sweeney handily giving the GOP it’s 16th loss of the night and officially handing control of Congress over to the Democrats. Just a week earlier, Sweeney had the lead but a police report surfaced that had the Saratoga County Sheriff’s Dept. responding to his house on a Domestic Violence complaint. That report devastated Sweeney’s chances as he was not able to recover.
To say that Gillibrand was greeted with skepticism despite her win is an understatement. It was a nasty campaign that was ranked in the most negative in the country. The talk of “two and you’re out” was running rampant.
Gillibrand didn’t even blink. She made some very impressive changes that raised some eyebrows.
First, she instituted “Congress On Your Corner” where she would actually set up shop in a grocery store or mall and listen to her constituents. You didn’t have to be a Democrat and you didn’t have to be a campaign donor. You just had to walk up, shake her hand, and speak your mind. She ALWAYS listened and she listened well. She never really told you if she agreed or disagreed, she just asked a few questions to make sure she understood your position on the issue and thanked you for stopping by.
Second, she put policies into place that gave her office the transparency that most other politicians just talk about. For starters, she placed all of her earmark requests and successes on her website for constituent scrutiny.
Kirsten is a supporter of the NRA. She voted in favor of FISA and she voted in favor of funding our troops. To say she doesn’t tow the party line is an understatement. Many Democrats had talked about running against her in a primary fight in 2010 because she leans to the right a bit too much for her. Now they are talking about the same for her newly found Senate seat. Those same Democrats are also talking about taking on Gov. Patterson, who was not elected to his post, in 2010 for daring to pick Gillibrand over Caroline Kennedy, Atty. Gen. Andrew Cuomo, and others.
I doubt Harry Reid is pleased with this pick. He won’t be able to count on Gillibrand for some key votes he is counting on. She has proven her independence and I’m confident she will continue that.
Most importantly, Gillibrand is FROM New York. She LIVES in New York. She did not come to New York to take a Senate seat that would give her a shot at the Presidency like her predecessor did. She will represent New York, and UPSTATE New York. Her vote will be for what she feels is best of New York, not what will be best for a Presidential campaign.
Yes, this is the best outcome we could have hoped for. We were going to get a Democrat no matter how this played out. I’m just glad that Democrat was Kirsten Gillibrand.
By the way, this gives the GOP a shot at re-capturing a House seat. I have my doubts lightning will strike twice on this one.
Aaron Gardner
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
KnightsofMalta
Dan Spencer
Dan McLaughlin
From what I've seen, I have to agree.
randy streu (Diary) Sunday, January 25th at 11:30PM EST (link)Let’s face it, we weren’t getting a Republican. Gillebrand’s the absolute best we could’ve hoped for… and I’m frankly a little surprised at Paterson. I’d like to believe it was his way of reaching out to Conservatives in some small way, but really, I think he just needed a woman, and he has no idea what he’s doing.
Either way, bully for us.
Blogging also at
SLC Republitarian
The Minority Report
I kinda had hoped
itrytobenice (Diary) Monday, January 26th at 5:37PM EST (link)that he would pick Kennedy, because I figured we were going to get stuck with a crazy, flaming, liberal, NY dem, we might as well get a dumb one, thinking she would be easier to beat.
I guess I like this better. She doesn’t agree with me on everything (or even really very much), but I guess it’s better not to have total concentrated ignorance in the Capitol. An occasional sensible person helps break up the clods.
Proper grammar saves lives.
Let’s eat Grandma.
Let’s eat, Grandma.
I was a little more optimistic until I read this and this
its_a_right_wing_thing (Diary) Monday, January 26th at 7:22PM EST (link)Hillary Clinton’s Successor Kirsten Gillibrand
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1873589,00.html
She’s gonna be no Clinton that’s for sure. We’ll have give and take and compromise unlike Clinton and she’s a winner on gun control (against it), licenses for illegals (against it and fmr. Gov. Spitzer on this), and against the NAFTA Super Highway
but she’s pro Choice (pro contraception) anti discrimination-take that for what you may. She’s pro ERA re-introduction, I choose to take it as pro gay rights as she is against discrimination based on orientation), and pro Auto bailout.
Check out
http://www.ontheissues.org/NY/Kirsten_Gillibrand.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsten_Gillibrand
Gillibrand is not what we want and this does not make the case
Marcus_Traianus (Diary) Thursday, January 29th at 9:21AM EST (link)I completely reject your premise; that Gillibrand is the best pick for Conservatives. I, for one, will not stand on ill-founded themes such as “it could have been worse”. In fact that type of acquiescence typifies the pervasive fait accompli attitude which dominates New York State Republican politics. Argumentatively, this behavior has also infected the national attitude and brought our party to its knees.
This has been accomplished by supporting marginal candidates in the hope that one day, or perhaps once in awhile, the candidate will support our point of view. This contra-intellectual approach dismisses what can be accomplished- the possibility, substitute’s capitulation for reasoned disagreement, cancerously eats away at principle and ultimately obscures the vision that Conservative Republicans represent. It plays to the fallacious characterizations promoted by liberals and led to the birth of a so-called “moderate” Republican movement which is nothing but conservative liberals that fly a Republican flag for their parochial purposes. It is infectious, destructive behavior which is metaphorically akin to collaborating with an occupier for a piece of bread. I would rather stand firm and die on principle- expressing the intellectual, factual view, then yield, demur, dissemble and ultimately destroy everything we stand for. That is called leadership which creates a vision for the future and helps people see the possibilities.
Negotiation and compromise are an important part of our political process. But that does not mean we embrace or accept that with which we disagree. That tact has destroyed us as a party. It simply means we consistently lead with ideas, intellectually persuade those willing to listen and consider points made by those with whom we disagree. THAT is the hallmark of our identity.
“Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object—the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers; the other, by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other, the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove.”.Thomas Jefferson
When the primaries come around, I'll be singing your song
The_Gadfly (Diary) Thursday, January 29th at 12:32PM EST (link)But for the moment, I think mickeysnaders is right: GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, this is the best we could hope for. Those circumstances are a Democratic governor of a very Democratic state, replacing the 7th most liberal Democrat in Congress, appointed somebody who agrees with us on a couple of key issues, after a very liberal national election. I was expecting Patterson to fold and appoint Kennedy. I mean, it’s a political dynasty, and Dems are always going to want a Kennedy as a leading light somewhere in their leading light of government. This is way better than that.
Sure, election time work to replace her with an actual Conservative Republican. But in the meantime, when our objectives are similar we should work with her. Maybe some legislation incorporating Heller protection into some civil rights statute or another.
This tact is sophistic and self-defeating
Marcus_Traianus (Diary) Friday, January 30th at 10:58AM EST (link)Repsectfully, we seem to be spending a monumental amount of time showing how we are more like them and less like us. Voters have no clue who we are anymore (nor do I after the opening line).
We absolutely need to worrk with the opposition and be persuasive in our arguments, ideas and ideals. However, what we don’t need is to cheerlead and market our opponents because they happen to agree with US on a few select issues. That is self-defeating and does not establish credibility with voters. In fact, it provides a reason NOT to vote for us and support the status quo. They become empathetic and start to surrealistically believe these people broach both philosophies- even as they steal liberty, socialize our economy and destroy healthcare as we know it.
If as Republicans we ever expect to gain voter trust again, we must establish our own identity. We need to highlight our ideas, contrast them against the socialist takeover and explain factually why they are better alternative. This is more akin to saying while we agree on a few issues, there are major areas of disagreement and here is why. We should emphasize the latter, not former. In thar vain, I understand the coice of Gillibrand as a machination of the Democrat Political machine which is undemocratic- until the voters have their say. We the people will then have an opportunity to advance our cause; and from now until then should spend all our energy doing so. THAT is how you win.
“Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object—the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers; the other, by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other, the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove.”.Thomas Jefferson
Bad news is still bad news
Neil Stevens (Diary) Friday, January 30th at 10:32AM EST (link)She’s still going to be a regular opponent for us.
RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder