×
I think I'm going to have to be stronger than Dana and say that Paterson has made a very poor selection to fill New York's vacant Senate seat. Kirsten Gillibrand's Republican dynastic background doesn't bother me in itself, but being a Blue Dog really should disqualify you from consideration for statewide office. To add to Dana's analysis, Wayne Barret further details her conservative "credentials":
Gillibrand has described her own voting record as "one of the most conservative in the state." She opposes any path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, supports renewing the Bush tax cuts for individuals earning up to $1 million annually, and voted for the Bush-backed FISA bill that permits wiretapping of international calls. She was one of four Democratic freshmen in the country, and the only Democrat in the New York delegation, to vote for the Bush administration's bill to extend funding for the Iraq war shortly after she entered congress in 2007. While she now contends that she's always opposed the war and has voted for bills to end it, one upstate paper reported when she first ran for the seat: "She said she supports the war in Iraq." In addition to her vote to extend funding, she also missed a key vote to override a Bush veto of a Democratic bill with Iraq timetables.Ugh. And in terms of the argument that you have to be this conservative to win the district -- which makes sense on its own terms -- I think it makes the pick even worse. If you're going to pick a sitting member of the House, it should presumably be from a safe seat. Now we have a senator without progressive credentials and have handed the GOP a good pickup opportunity in the House. I don't see how this can be defended. --Scott Lemieux
