I don't know, I have mixed feelings about just about everything regarding David Paterson's appointment of Kirsten Gillibrand to fill Hillary Clinton's US Senate seat in New York until the required election in 2010.
1. Regarding Caroline Kennedy: I'm disappointed that she will not be going to the Senate. As I've argued previously, her going to the Senate would have been an historically significant and satisfying act - her stepping up and taking the seat once held by her slain uncle, RFK, in a branch of government in which her slain father, JFK, served, before becoming President in 1960. Caroline heard the call to public service made by Obama throughout his campaign, and stepped up.
But why did she withdraw at the last minute? If for something like personal or family health reasons, then we can chalk this up to more bad luck for the Kennedy family and our nation. If she withdrew for personal, non-health reasons that she knew about before stepping forward, then that would count against her. If in fact she withdrew because she knew, as Gov. Paterson now says, that he was going to choose Representative Gillibrand, than I wish she had not done that - but the main villain in this piece would then be Paterson.
2. I don't like the way Paterson conducted himself in all of this in any case. He should have made a public decision much sooner. Now he says he knew on Inauguration Day that he was going to choose Gillibrand ... if true, for what reason? Why did her preferable to Caroline Kennedy - or, for that matter, Andrew Cuomo?
3. And as for Kirsten Gillibrand: she has a 100% approval rating by both the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association. And that says it all to me. Because, even though both ACLU and NRA share a powerful support of the Second Amendment, with which I do not disagree, the NRA goes much further. As did Gillibrand, in introducing a bill (which didn't pass) which would have made it more difficult for police to track firearms. On the other hand, Gillibrand supports a woman's right to decide when to become a mother, and she supports gay marriage, too.
So, all in all, though I'm not at all happy with the way this whole selection process was conducted, and the way it turned out, I'm willing to support Gillibrand for the present, and see how she performs in office.
=============
P.S.: One other, minor point: What was Al D'Amato, former Republican Senator from New York, doing at the Gillibrand (Democratic) appointment ceremony? Well, maybe I shouldn't ask - any time D'Amato appears anywhere, it does provide a little publicity for my Phil D'Amato character.
3 comments:
Two quick answers on D'Amato: (1) Gillebrand was a D'Amato intern years ago, though that doesn't say anything ideological (lots of students intern for their home-state senators regardless of party); and (2) her dad was a pretty well-connected fundraiser or lobbyist (I forget which) who was close to some Republicans, including Pataki (whom D'Amato was instrumental in getting the 1994 nomination). If only I could solve the BSG mysteries as easily as the D'Amato mystery...
Glad to hear she is pro-second amendment. The bailout is also a real delineating vote for me -- at least if she voted against that, she may have a principle or two.
Scott - thanks for solving the (Al) D'Amato mystery. If you ever get a chance to read my Phil D'Amato mysteries, let me know if you find them as easy to solve...
anon - As I indicated in the blog post, the problem I have with Gillibrand is not that she strongly supports the 2nd Amendment - I do, too - but that she has a 100% NRA approval rating. In particular, she introduced legislation last year (which did not pass) that would have made it more difficult for police to track weapons. Being a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment need not mean that you want police not to be able to nab criminals.
As for the bailout, I was in favor of it, but not that thrilled with it, so I'm not too concerned about her vote against it.
And, all in all, I'm willing to give her a chance.
Post a Comment