Gillibrand: Sell-Out in NY

[lomalinda]

From the NYT:

"Gillibrand, who had represented a rather conservative district upstate, leapt to the left when she got the Senate appointment, particularly on the issues of guns and immigration. She has been mending fences with the speed of an overcaffeinated Future Farmer of America. Her effort to make amends for her previous allegiance to the National Rifle Association has been so intense that it is possible Gillibrand is now the only member of the U.S. Senate for whom gun control is actually a priority. And if you’re an illegal immigrant, she feels your pain. In fact, she may volunteer to adopt you."

[Untamed1972]

Once elected a person should not be able to change parties mid-term. If they want to change they should hafta campaign for re-election based on the party they're going to change to, and can then change at the time of re-election.

[Dr Rockso]

Once elected a person should not be able to change parties mid-term. If they want to change they should hafta campaign for re-election based on the party they're going to change to, and can then change at the time of re-election.
She hasn't changed parties.

[Untamed1972]

She hasn't changed parties.

Oh.....so she's just a traitor to her party and the people who elected her?

[Dr Rockso]

Oh.....so she's just a traitor to her party and the people who elected her?
Not so much to her party (since she's a democrat) but I'll bet the people in her original congressional district aren't too happy with her. Unfortunately she wants to get re-elected, which now means pandering to the whole state including NYC.

[dustoff31]

Oh.....so she's just a traitor to her party and the people who elected her?

Well, she's not really a traitor to her party. She's a democrat.

But the people who voted for her, did so knowing and approving of her, at that time, pro-gun position. Maybe that's why they voted for her. She is certainly a traitor to them.

[yellowfin]

Not so much to her party (since she's a democrat) but I'll bet the people in her original congressional district aren't too happy with her. Unfortunately she wants to get re-elected, which now means pandering to the whole state including NYC. It's more like the whole state OR NYC--the two are total opposites. NYC is basically a part of New Jersey that they can't claim and we don't want.

FYI nobody voted for Gillibrand for senate, she was appointed to it after Hillary got the Sec of State position.

[dwtt]

I don't know if the OP is from the Brady Bunch or if he just likes posting FUD, but that quote is from a New York Times op-ed piece, hardly factual.
Judge for yourself and look up Gillibrand's voting record, not what the New York Times has written in their op-ed pages by Gail Collins.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/opinion/18collins.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=gillibrand&st=cse

Let me say it again, look up Gillibrand's voting record, not what the New York Times writes, before claiming Gillibrand's a sell-out.

[lomalinda]

"Let me say it again, look up Gillibrand's voting record, not what the New York Times writes, before claiming Gillibrand's a sell-out."

Judging from the comment she and Shumer made regarding her "seeing the light", I consider her to be at least nominally anti-gun.

If she proves me wrong and votes in our favor, I'll admit I fell for a NYT snowjob.

[Dr Rockso]

I don't know if the OP is from the Brady Bunch or if he just likes posting FUD, but that quote is from a New York Times op-ed piece, hardly factual.
Judge for yourself and look up Gillibrand's voting record, not what the New York Times has written in their op-ed pages by Gail Collins.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/opinion/18collins.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=gillibrand&st=cse

Let me say it again, look up Gillibrand's voting record, not what the New York Times writes, before claiming Gillibrand's a sell-out.
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. She's been giving at least nominal lip-service to the antis, but if there were a vote I'm not sure which side she would fall on.

[cadurand]

Here's the broken record message about all of this.

If the people of New York are so hurt by her change of heart in regards to guns... will they vote her out of office next chance they get?

Will those same voters throw out the Governor for appointing her to the empty Senate seat?

I'd bet they don't. We get what we deserve in this country if we're not going to use our vote properly.

[bulgron]

Here's the broken record message about all of this.

The answer to your message is that the voters in NYC have enough numbers that they can re-elect Gillibrand even if the rest of the state does not want her. So, being a politician, of course she's pandering to them.

When the bulk of the people in major metropolitan areas such as NYC stop demanding gun control of their political representatives, we'll stop seeing politicians like Gillibrand's shifting around on that particular issue.

[yellowfin]

The problem is, cadurand, that NYC almost entirely by itself elects the two senators, the governor, and the majority of the NY state Assembly. It's a worst case than CA in that regard. Gun owners should be more united against the antis, but just alone won't give us the numbers as it stands. There's a lot of fuddism that's gotta be cured here too.

[berto]

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. She's been giving at least nominal lip-service to the antis, but if there were a vote I'm not sure which side she would fall on.

The jr. senator from NY, given the choice of maintaining a pro-2A record and facing a stiff primary challenge or turning anti-2A and having a better chance at remaining in the Senate, will ditch gunnies for a broader base of brainwashed urbanites voting the way the machine instructs them to in exchange for more promises of free money, hope, and change.

[yellowfin]

^ ya know, it really gets my goat for people to say going after the anti gun vote is a "broad base." It isn't. It is merely a guess that more people are indifferent or susceptible to the utterly miserable, empty lie of gun control. The number of people who actually support it on its own is small, and they are not "broad"--they are pathetically narrow, myopic, insular, and limited. There's nothing broad about that. Further, a "broad base" would imply a diversity of backgrounds or views, again something that a big pile of gun grabber sympathizers clearly is not- it's one view, one that is in its entirety wrong. It does not seek to coexist with any broad base of options for people.

[cadurand]

The problem is, cadurand, that NYC almost entirely by itself elects the two senators, the governor, and the majority of the NY state Assembly. It's a worst case than CA in that regard. Gun owners should be more united against the antis, but just alone won't give us the numbers as it stands. There's a lot of fuddism that's gotta be cured here too.Sure, I see your point that the NYC is hard to take on. However.. we gun owners still need to vote smart.

For example some of us were silly enough to vote for Barrack Obama if you can believe it.

[Bugei]

Sure, I see your point that the NYC is hard to take on. However.. we gun owners still need to vote smart.

For example some of us were silly enough to vote for Barrack Obama if you can believe it.

How's that working out for you?