New Yorkers and other sick of being told who they have to vote for check in

[liskddksil]

I am so sick of the establishment telling us we have to vote for an unelected senator appointed by an unelected governor. And for those who whine about putting the seat at risk to a Republican, competive primaries make candidates stronger in the general election - just ask the President. If Senator Gillibrand wants the seat she needs to earn it like everyone else. There are still several (progressive) alternatives, because as of now I have no assurances that Sen. Gillibrand will not just fall back in line with the blue-dogs once she secures the seat.
--------------------------------
With Rep. Steve Israel out of the way, Jon Cooper is ramping up his exploration of a 2010 Democratic primary challenge to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand with a new Website that he unveiled today. You can link to it here.

The site features a photo of Cooper in front of the Capitol Building in Washington beside the words "Jon Cooper for U.S. Senate Exploratory Committee."

The site features 12 things you don't know about Jon Cooper, which includes that he is gay, was the first on Long Island to endorse Barack Obama for president and, in a preface to the list, that he studied Swahili.

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2009/05/cooper_unveils_senate_explorat.html
----------------------------

Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), who bowed out of a primary challenge against Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) at the direct behest of President Barack Obama, told an Albany TV station Wednesday that he hasn’t ruled out backing either Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) or Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), both of whom are mulling over runs against Gillibrand.


“Carolyn Maloney and I talked extensively today, and we talked yesterday,” Israel told Capitol 9 News. “I have not discouraged her from running. ... I’m absolutely open to considering her or any other candidates that may emerge


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23370.html#ixzz0HZzgGjHZ&C

[Captain Hilts]

1. Yes, I agree it stinks. Out loud. We never would have gotten Donna Edwards...

if she had been blocked from challenging the incumbent.

[liskddksil]

3. Absolutely and she is turning into a star!

we would be stuck with corporate Dem. Al Wynn had she not run.

[Captain Hilts]

5. Al Wynn was a total tool. nt

[cascadiance]

23. Yeah! And he now works alongside fellow lobbyist DENNIS HASTERT at Dickstein Shapiro!

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/former-speaker-hastert-to-join-lobbying-firm-2008-05-30.html

And of course you know who Dennis Hastert is lobbying for now are the Turks just as Sibel Edmonds pointed out he was in bed with earlier when he was House Speaker... And a firm like Dickstein Shapiro seems to fit both of these TOOLS! Tools that some heavy campaign finance reform need to render USELESS!

[quiller4]

2. I disagree. Winning means coming up with one candidate and

throwing the whole party's support behind her/him early. I am glad that McCarthy has announced she will not run. I expect Maloney to make a similar announcement soon when she finds out that major funds will not touch a campaign against Gillibrand.

I am not a New Yorker. My husband was born upstate. His extended family in Buffalo, Plattsburg and Derby are solidly behind Gillibrand.

[Captain Hilts]

6. NY is fairly dark blue, so the risks are not so high. But a varied, spirited primary

is good.

And NYS Dems need to hold their convention about two months earlier.

[liskddksil]

7. just like how nobody could stop the fundraising of Hillary Clinton

in 2007 when she was the annointed front-runner.

[zalinda]

8. So, you think any one

that the dem party is backing is the right choice? See Joe Liberman...........dem party backs him.

zalinda

[liskddksil]

14. and still votes like a republican - spector

[zalinda]

20. and that means, what? n/t

[liskddksil]

28. Sen. Spector, who still votes like a Republican, is also getting Dems backing just like Lieberman

[zalinda]

33. Of course! Thanks for clearing that up n/t

[DaLittle Kitty]

4. Got to "weed out" the Democratic Crooks! Primaries help to do that! K & R!

:)

[Occam Bandage]

9. Your signature line is amusing given that post. nt

[liskddksil]

10. being the first one to talk about "public option" makes him such a crook

who gives a crap about his personal life, his policies were awesome.

[Occam Bandage]

11. No, redirecting campaign money to a mistress makes him a crook. nt

[liskddksil]

12. innocent until proven guilty

[Occam Bandage]

13. I'll keep that in mind if I'm called to serve on his jury. nt

[Thothmes]

26. Thats right, lets purge those that do not

toe the party line.

[liskddksil]

29. its not about purging

its about being accountable to the the people you represent and party members being given a choice.

[BzaDem]

15. Competitive primaries do hurt candidates in the general.

The President's situation was completely different. He had so much money in the end that he could outraise McCain 4-1 in most of the swing states and still have money left over (wheras in most Congressional and Senatorial primaries, money is in much shorter supply). The money lost in a primary can be a big deal. Just ask Lincoln Chafee, who was spent dry in the primary by a conservative challenger and then lost in the general. Many think he might have won if he had enough money left over from the primary. For more examples, you can go to fivethirtyeight.com (a site that often comments on the subject).

In addition, one reason a long and competitive primary helped Obama was because it introduced the relatively unknown candidate to the nation. This is not nearly as applicable to incumbants like Gillibrand.

Whatever your opinions on supporting a challenger to Gillibrand are, it is not true that in general competitive primaries don't hurt the eventual winner.

[Raineyb]

16. I don't care.

It is the right of the people to make their own choices and having our primaries undercut by the machinations of Washington DC is not right. I'm not interested in what's good for the party I'm interested in what's good for the state and it just might be possible that what's good for the state is someone else as our Senator. We should have the chance to make that decision not politicians making decisions behind closed doors. Schumer can make his choice when the rest of us do at the polls in the primaries. Before then he needs to butt the fuck out.

[Captain Hilts]

19. Party members have a RIGHT to have a choice. It's that simple. The Politburo ran things your way.

[BzaDem]

27. I never once mentioned what "my way" was.

The OP stated that competitive primaries were good for the eventual winner. That is not true in general. That's what my post was about.

[liskddksil]

31. While Gillibrand is an incumbent very few in the state actually know her

because she never ran in the first place, so it might even be good for her. I do get your point that primaries can weaken us. However, I think as long as it is about policy and remains civil, I think the good will outweight the bad.

[Smarmie Doofus]

17. The state party is a horror show.

They keep throwing flawed and mediocre candidates at us and we keep electing them. Gillibrand is a case in point.

I look to the state party to find out what NOT to do. This time it's telling me NOT to support Gillibrand and to demand a primary.

I'll back either Maloney or McCarthy over the state party's pick. . Don't know anything about Jon Cooper 'cept he's glbt... which is excellent but not enough, in and of itself. Makes more sense, seems to me, to recruit a higher profile , more accomplished gay or lesbian figure : e. g. Chris Quinn, Tom Duane, Dan O'Donnell.

[TreasonousBastard]

21. While the state party is a bit screwy, could you please explain,,,

precisely how and why either Maloney or McCarthy would be a better Senator than Gillibrand.

I don't dislike either one of them, but can't imagine either of them being worth fighting over.

[Smarmie Doofus]

35. Gillibrand is too conservative and too republican.

Gillibrand is too conservative and too republican.

You can say this of Gillibrand , but not of the other two:

>>>>>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. >>>>>



I also oppose her 'cause she's soft on GLBT rights and basically because of everything in this article:



http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/200...

[TreasonousBastard]

36. The link is broken, but as...

another post mentioning 538 says, she's been one of the more liberal Senators since her promotion. What she did representing a conservative Congressional district hardly counts any more.

So, if someone who's voting record parallels Leahy and Kennedy is too Republican for you, don't hold your breath waiting for someone good enough for your tastes.

[Smarmie Doofus]

37. Here's the article in its entirety. Her frantic repackaging of herself does not negate a lifetime..

... of political sub-mediocrity.


Wayne Barrett: Is Gillibrand Too Republican to Replace Clinton?
By Wayne Barrett in Featured, Wayne BarrettThursday, Jan. 22 2009 @ 1:59PM


Now that Caroline Kennedy has dropped out, the new frontrunner for Hillary Clinton's senate seat is upstate congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democratic hero for capturing a Republican-majority district in 2006. Camera crews are now posted outside her home in Hudson, New York, and she is reportedly telling Washington colleagues that she believes she will be tapped by Governor David Paterson, who is now in such a rush to announce a pick that he plans to do it either tomorrow or Saturday. Â

The irony is that Paterson may be swinging from the nation's most prominent Democratic family to one with strong Republican ties.
Gillibrand's father, Doug Rutnik, is an Albany insider and lobbyist whose ties to former GOP powerhouses Joe Bruno, George Pataki and Al D'Amato are legendary. In fact, Gillibrand won her seat when a state police domestic violence report about the GOP incumbent, John Sweeney, was mysteriously leaked, ostensibly with the acquiescence of the Pataki administration, which had its own reasons to oppose Sweeney. Bruno is under federal investigation now, and some of the subpoenas in the case involved a real estate deal that partnered Rutnik with Bruno and another lobbyist. Rutnik dated, and eventually lived with, a top Pataki and D'Amato aide for many years, until he broke up with her in 2006 to marry a cousin of his, Gwen Lee, who'd worked in high-paying state jobs secured by the same aide. Rutnik and D'Amato have been registered lobbyists for some of the same clients.

Ironically, Chuck Schumer, who defeated D'Amato in 1998, is said to be Gillibrand's top Democratic champion. What's even more ironic is that Gillibrand has a one hundred percent rating from the National Rifle Association, and Schumer made his own national reputation as a sponsor of the assault weapons ban and a fierce proponent of Brady bill and other gun control legislation. Gillibrand even opposes any limitations on the sale of semiautomatic weapons or "cop-killer" bullets that can pierce armored vests. Schumer's other signature issue is the care and feeding of Wall Street, and Gillibrand voted against both of the Schumer-supported financial service bailout bills last fall, which have delivered billions to New York, salvaging institutions like Citigroup. An editorial in Crain's, the city's premier business news magazine, said recently that Gillibrand "should be disqualified" from seeking the senate seat "by her politically expedient vote" against the bailout.
Â
One connection between the senator and the congresswoman is that Schumer's chief of staff, Mike Lynch, is married to Gillibrand's legislative director, Brooke Jamison, a former Schumer staffer. In Schumer's 2007 book, Positively American, he called Lynch "my most trusted staffer" ever. Schumer has handpicked senate candidates across the country with great skill, picking enough winners in 2006 and 2008 to give the party its new, rather hefty, majority; but his apparent favorite in his home state, if it is Gillibrand, is out of step with New York voters, particularly Democrats, on a host of issues.
Â
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.

But it's her votes on the bailout bills -- which pleased no one but were widely seen as vital to the national and New York economies -- that could become the most damaging ammunition against her should she run statewide in 2010. She was one of 63 Democrats to break with the other 172 party members in the House and vote against the second bill, which she called "fundamentally flawed." Her argument against the bill seemed to be both parochial and political, contending that "upstate New York needs a plan that will actually work to stabilize our economy and protect taxpayers." Albany's other House Democrat, Mike McNulty, voted for it, perhaps aware that the statewide economy depends upon revenues generated by the financial services industry. "It's the most important vote of my career, and took an enormous amount of effort on my part to decide what was best for my district," Gillbrand said.
Gillibrand once worked for both D'Amato and Andrew Cuomo, another candidate for the senate seat. She was a special counsel when Cuomo ran HUD in the 1990s and her father was close to both Senator D'Amato and Governor Mario Cuomo in the same time period. Her former law firm, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, has been the largest single donor to her House campaigns, and David Boies, the senior partner at the firm, contributed $25,000 to Paterson's campaign committee on December 23, 2008, while the governor was considering Gillibrand's candidacy. Boies' son Chris, also a partner in the firm, contributed another $25,000 on the same day.          Â

Additional research for this story was done by Patrick B. Anderson, Ana Barbu, Beethoven Bong, Dene Chen, Sara Dover, Jana Kasperkevic, and Jesus Ron.

[TreasonousBastard]

44. Oferchrissakes, all that stuff is old news going back to...

when NYC and its voice in the Voice hated Gillibrand for shoving the inept Kennedy out of the way. Nothing new there at all, and not much except that she did what she had to do representing her extremely conservative district. I've spent a lot of time upstate, and they hate us up there-- I've always heard them say that their problems could all be solved by cutting off everything south of the north half of Westchester.

Did she have ties with the revolting D'Amato and his waterboy Pataki? Yeah, strange bedfellows and all, but seems her ties with Schumer and Cuomo are tighter. And her voting record so far as a Senator is as good as it gets.

Worst that can be said about her is that she's aggressively ambitious. But, that's not a bad thing if it leads her to represent NY aggressively. NY has seen too many carpetbaggers and Presidential hopefuls run for Senate here-- it's kind of what we do best.

So, push for your little primary, and if you get someone else on the ballot be prepared for everyone north of south Westchester to vote for Peter King. If that happens, I would expect full confession and penance from all you purists, but I know you'll never own up to it-- interfering with the process and screwing things up is always OK when some vague principle is involved.

[Recursion]

55. Hint to people who want a "bluer" candidate

If a more progressive candidate would stop trying to ban classes of firearms that are essentially never used in crimes, that candidate would probably do very well upstate, too.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. Sorry, but calls for pure democracy and other such follies are...

complete bullshit.

There are thousands of people in New York who would make excellent Senators, perhaps much better than Gillibrand, but we will never, ever have the chance to vote for them. We won't eve have the chance to go through the list of Democratic Congresscritters, mayors, and state legislators. And then there's all those county supervisors and legislators and town board members and mayors...

Nope, you only get the chance to vote for somebody someone else decided to put on the ballot-- unless, of course, you're the one out there getting all those signatures. And then digging up the money to fund the lawsuits over New York's amazing complex ballot access rules.

So, talk all you want about "The People's Choice" but we ain't got that much of a choice no way no how and I prefer to take the safe road and keep a perfectly good Senator in office instead of roiling the waters and wasting vast amounts of money and energy for an unknown quantity who could lose the election.

Now, if Gillibrand was something of an asshole like Burris, I'd go along with a primary challenge, but she's not, and I'm not. And most New Yorkers aren't.

[hedgehog]

25. The key phrase there is "perfectly good senator". As you note ,

it all depends on how Gillibrand delivers the next few months.

After all, Truman was also foisted upon us by party leadership.

[Jim Sagle]

32. Truman RRRRRRRAWWWWWWKED!!!!!!!

[quiller4]

34. See what 538 has to say about Gillibrand:

"New York voters seeking a progressive alternative to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand may have found one: Gillibrand herself.

According to ratings compiled by ProgressivePunch.org (Progressive Punch founder Joshua Grossman is a contributor to FiveThirtyEight.com), Gillibrand has thus far compiled a progressive score of 98.45% in the 111th Congress, and 94.12% on critical votes. Although there has been little to distinguish the first 30 or so Democratic senators, most of whom have voted in lockstep with the President's agenda, those scores rank Gillibrand 15th among the 59 Democratic Senators; her ratings are essentially identical to those of reliably liberal Senators like Tom Harkin and Pat Leahy, as well as those of her colleague in the Senate, Chuck Schumer. Gillibrand has also been among the most liberal of the 11 freshman Democratic Senators..."

Now why would anyone want to challenge a senator with a record like hers?

[Dragonfli]

22. Agreed - the party can only grow stronger if we actually use the primary process available to us

It is not there just to piss off the DLC, it is there to enable the constituency to try to find a candidate that represents what they believe to be in their best interests.

This "King making" nonsense is anti-democratic in my opinion.

K&R in agreement.

[cascadiance]

24. The party keeps fear mongering us from mounting any serious primary challenges...

We ALMOST pulled it off in getting rid of Lieberman, but they still helped him even when he was no longer a Democrat...

If and when we get a sitting corporate Dem voted out of the primaries, and then take that candidate to win in the general election, that will be a watershed moment that will show it CAN be done, and that future fear mongering to keep us from challenging *anointed* selections with more people-representative choices won't be as strong as it has been now.

Now maybe we need to pick a battle to win. But make no mistake about it, we NEED to get on board with at least some attempts at this in the coming 2010 elections. If we don't, we'll never cross this threshold. I think America is ready for significant change from the ground up. Just because the "anointed" incumbent doesn't win the primaries now, I don't think will be a slam against them in the general election like it might have been in the past. I think some in the middle might look at it as a strength that the people were able to overcome the Washington powers that be and send a Mr./Mrs. Smith to Washington again!

Especially if that person can campaign on universal more populist issues that reach both right, left, and center in terms of who they affect, like single payer health care, the bailouts, climate change, immigration reform, government transparency, ending the wars, campaign finance reform, election reform, etc. and be seen as one to actively take on the special interests that control both parties in Washington now...

[liskddksil]

30. Absolutely. We have so many chances in 2010 to pull one out

Sestak challenging Specter in PA
Maloney or Cooper challenging Gillibrand in NY
Andrew Romonoff possibly challenging Sen. Bennett in CO

Lets make the party take us seriously by showing them we make the decisions not them.

[Arkana]

38. Carolyn Maloney and Carolyn McCarthy?

:psyduck:

[whistler162]

39. Yes but it will contiinue until...

downstate, New York City and Long ISland, stop shoving their candidates on the rest of us!

[Raineyb]

41. Gillibrand was not foisted on the state by downstate

Most of us didn't know who the hell she was. And quite frankly I can't say I really know who the hell she is now.

[whistler162]

45. I was of course referring to Israel, Mahoney, McCarthy...

and if you didn't know who Gillibrand was before she was nominated to handle the 1 year of Senatorial duties before the special election. Well that isn't my problem.

[Raineyb]

48. Why should I give a damn about a congresswoman who wasn't doing a damn thing for me?

I'm supposed to give a damn about a congresswoman who's home page made sure to let you know that if you're from downstate don't bother?

As for Israel et al, it's not foisting if the people get to vote. Right now the only people doing the foisting is upstate foisting their congresswoman as our senator.

Thanks for nothing Paterson.

[stevenleser]

40. Dem vs Dem isn't where I am concentrating.

I appreciate that you feel strongly about this, but I am more interested in holding what we have and picking up seats that are currently held by Republicans.

[Raineyb]

42. I'm interested in actually having a say in who represents me

I don't want anyone deciding it from on high.

[TreasonousBastard]

46. The fatal flaw in that logic is that...

you only get to vote for someone who has announced his or her desire for the job and who has already raised enough money and signatures to get on the ballot.

That's not many, and it already limits your choices to only those with powerful party affiliations, good organizations, and serious money connections. In this case, possibly McCarthy or Maloney, with every other Democrat left out in the cold.

So, where's your choice? If someone really great was out there and someone really terrible had the seat, a primary would be a great idea but that ain't the case here and a primary becomes simply a vanity-- which will be a great waste of money, time, and energy when we nedd to focus on keeping the seats we have and getting a few more.

(Or, it could be leftover angst and bitterness from that Kennedy busines...)

[Raineyb]

47. Well it's more choice than I have when the powers that be in Washington DC push potential

candidates away because of their party line bullshit.

You're arguing that I don't really have a choice in who I can vote for so I might as well keep the candidate that has been dictated to me. You do realize that you're arguing that I don't really have a choice so I may as well allow people in Washington DC make it for me. That makes no sense and it's un small d democratic.

[TreasonousBastard]

53. Not exactly. In a perfect world everyone...

would be educated, wise, and come to a consensus and elections would be pure free market theory.

Ain't happening any time soon.

To cut to the chase here, we have a decent Senator and arguing for "choice" simply means muddying the waters. Since there is absolutely no proof, or even good evidence, that anyone in play would be a better Senator, why muddy the waters solely for "choice"?

And it's also not just TPTB in DC, but a lot of powers right here in NY who don't see any reason for a primary.

[Raineyb]

54. Because I don't like having someone foisted on me and I want the chance to make another choice

And those of us who want this choice should have it. It is never acceptable to allow TPTB to just push someone on us because of expediency regardless of where they're from.

[Phx_Dem]

43. No one is forcing you to vote for a certain candidate.

It's called campaigning, and endorsing. You and the rest of the NY'ers are free to ignore the "campaigning." You're also free to organize your own support campaign for any person you'd like to see run, or for someone who is already running. Instead of complaining, why not organize your own support coalition?

[yourguide]

51. You're missing the plot

Schumer and the WH are essentially clearing the field for Gillibrand. In a state as blue as NY I think we have the right to choose our own candidates to represent us. Gillibrand doesnt represent me.

[AtomicKitten]

49. I am appalled at the intervention in what should be open primaries.

... for all races and especially those races with candidates that were appointed, not elected. That's precisely when an open primary is most important. The people should choose, not the party bigwigs, not even the president. They should STFU and merely stand witness to the very essence of democracy, an open primary.

[yourguide]

50. I'm in, Gillibrand sucks. n/t

[eggplant]

52. Much ado about nothing

She was my rep in NY-20, she's my Senator now, and I'll be voting for her. Gillibrand is great!