Ny Senate Seat News

blackascoal said:
This is news to me.

Why then would Patterson appoint her?

Didn't Clinton applaud this appointment?
Click to expand...

I am just guessing about Hillary, but I wonder if she wasn't really pissed at Kennedy for endorsing Obama in the primary? As far as paterson goes, I again can only guess that he is trying to shore up upstate (conservative) ny support for his next run. Some say he is going to be challanged by bigger names, possibly, if not probably, Andrew Cuomo.

Carolyn Maloney is someone that liberals really wanted to see get picked. But she's from Manhattan. Buy those are just guesses. There has been so much going on behind the scenes, really furious infighting, so who knows what the real story is. I think that New York can do better, especially on gay rights, which is a battle that is going to need to be fought, and soon. If she won't even vote to end Don't Ask Don't Tell, are you kidding me? I don't know. I'm really disappointed.
 
Bac, here is more about her:

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.
 
Darla said:
I am just guessing about Hillary, but I wonder if she wasn't really pissed at Kennedy for endorsing Obama in the primary? As far as paterson goes, I again can only guess that he is trying to shore up upstate (conservative) ny support for his next run. Some say he is going to be challanged by bigger names, possibly, if not probably, Andrew Cuomo.

Carolyn Maloney is someone that liberals really wanted to see get picked. But she's from Manhattan. Buy those are just guesses. There has been so much going on behind the scenes, really furious infighting, so who knows what the real story is. I think that New York can do better, especially on gay rights, which is a battle that is going to need to be fought, and soon. If she won't even vote to end Don't Ask Don't Tell, are you kidding me? I don't know. I'm really disappointed.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information .. and you're right about why Patterson chose her ..

"Ms. Gillibrand’s selection was a careful political calculation by the governor, who will run for his second term as governor in 2010, when Ms. Gillibrand will also be on the ballot. The choice reflects Mr. Paterson’s thinking that his selection should be someone who can help him attract key demographics — in Ms. Gillibrand’s case upstate New Yorkers and women."

Pathetic

And you're right about McCarthy ..

"Representative Carolyn McCarthy, a Long Island Democrat and ardent gun control activist, said Thursday that if Ms. Gillibrand got the job, she was prepared to run against her in a primary in 2010. Ms. McCarthy was elected to Congress after her husband was killed in a gunman’s rampage on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/nyregion/24senator.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Patterson has proven himself to be just another politician looking out for his own interests rather than the best interest of those he serves.

Now I'm hoping he loses in 2010 ..

.. Oh wait .. he's black .. so I'm not allowed to criticize him. (Not directed towards you of course)
 
Darla said:
I am just guessing about Hillary, but I wonder if she wasn't really pissed at Kennedy for endorsing Obama in the primary? As far as paterson goes, I again can only guess that he is trying to shore up upstate (conservative) ny support for his next run. Some say he is going to be challanged by bigger names, possibly, if not probably, Andrew Cuomo.

Carolyn Maloney is someone that liberals really wanted to see get picked. But she's from Manhattan. Buy those are just guesses. There has been so much going on behind the scenes, really furious infighting, so who knows what the real story is. I think that New York can do better, especially on gay rights, which is a battle that is going to need to be fought, and soon. If she won't even vote to end Don't Ask Don't Tell, are you kidding me? I don't know. I'm really disappointed.
Click to expand...
There wouldn't need to be a vote to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", the President could simply order the military to allow and integrate gays into service openly.

One thing that I would find very positive about it would be the fact that gays in the military could then hold clearances. That is an untapped mental resource for intel that is missing. Because of the "no tell" policy, it is necessary for gays to hide that part of their life and it opens them to blackmail and therefore they are not allowed to hold clearances if they are military.

It might be unpopular with the military, but I would personally order it if I had been elected. Of course that would probably ensure that I would have primary opposition from my own party, but realistically the policy stinks and some of the best military in the world include homosexuals making almost all the arguments against it (in the trenches, blah) moot.
 
She's a Democrat who could win the South, in a redstate. New York doesn't need that kind of senator, we are supposed to be sending actual liberals to DC, that's who represents us. Don't Southerners have enough representation?
 
blackascoal said:
Thanks for the information .. and you're right about why Patterson chose her ..

"Ms. Gillibrand’s selection was a careful political calculation by the governor, who will run for his second term as governor in 2010, when Ms. Gillibrand will also be on the ballot. The choice reflects Mr. Paterson’s thinking that his selection should be someone who can help him attract key demographics — in Ms. Gillibrand’s case upstate New Yorkers and women."

Pathetic

And you're right about McCarthy ..

"Representative Carolyn McCarthy, a Long Island Democrat and ardent gun control activist, said Thursday that if Ms. Gillibrand got the job, she was prepared to run against her in a primary in 2010. Ms. McCarthy was elected to Congress after her husband was killed in a gunman’s rampage on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/nyregion/24senator.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Patterson has proven himself to be just another politician looking out for his own interests rather than the best interest of those he serves.

Now I'm hoping he loses in 2010 ..

.. Oh wait .. he's black .. so I'm not allowed to criticize him. (Not directed towards you of course)
Click to expand...


Oh MCcarthy, i thought that said Maloney! I had to edit this. Hmm, that's interesting, she's goign to be challanged by several people. I will work for the best of the lot. I haven't worked on a campaign for a long time, and it's suprising how exciting it feels to think about it.
 
Darla said:
She's a Democrat who could win the South, in a redstate. New York doesn't need that kind of senator, we are supposed to be sending actual liberals to DC, that's who represents us. Don't Southerners have enough representation?
Click to expand...
Isn't it only for two years before the Primary? Maloney better get started.

As for your question, doesn't the northern part of your state deserve representation?
 
You're probably also right about Clinton.

Seems to me the smart move would have been to pick Cuomo, before he runs to replace Patterson.
 
Damocles said:
Isn't it only for two years before the Primary? Maloney better get started.

As for your question, doesn't the northern part of your state deserve representation?
Click to expand...

ON a national level? They've got it in Republicans and blue dogs.

Don't liberals deserve representation? We're the ones very short of it.
 
blackascoal said:
You're probably also right about Clinton.

Seems to me the smart move would have been to pick Cuomo, before he runs to replace Patterson.
Click to expand...

This is how messed up state politics are here, well, probably everywhere. Sheldon Silver is the leader of the legislature and they would have picked the new Attorney General to replace Cuomo, and Silver is not someone close to Paterson, and I read that Paterson didn't want Silver picking the new attorney general because Paterson would get no say in who it was.

This is a really diseased way to fill a Senate seat.
 
Darla said:
She's a Democrat who could win the South, in a redstate. New York doesn't need that kind of senator, we are supposed to be sending actual liberals to DC, that's who represents us. Don't Southerners have enough representation?
Click to expand...

This has always been the flaw in democratic thinking. They never have to balls to take control and lead with power and authority .. unlike republicans.
 
Damocles said:
There wouldn't need to be a vote to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", the President could simply order the military to allow and integrate gays into service openly.

One thing that I would find very positive about it would be the fact that gays in the military could then hold clearances. That is an untapped mental resource for intel that is missing. Because of the "no tell" policy, it is necessary for gays to hide that part of their life and it opens them to blackmail and therefore they are not allowed to hold clearances if they are military.

It might be unpopular with the military, but I would personally order it if I had been elected. Of course that would probably ensure that I would have primary opposition from my own party, but realistically the policy stinks and some of the best military in the world include homosexuals making almost all the arguments against it (in the trenches, blah) moot.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's all true, but the fact that she is against ending don't ask don't tell, tells me too much about where she is politically, and I don't find it representative of NY State as a whole.
 
Darla said:
ON a national level? They've got it in Republicans and blue dogs.

Don't liberals deserve representation? We're the ones very short of it.
Click to expand...

Liberals and progressives are weak.

If this was a conservative governor choosing a liberal, conservatives would be all over his ass and starting campaigns to get rid of him.
 
Damocles said:
There wouldn't need to be a vote to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", the President could simply order the military to allow and integrate gays into service openly.

One thing that I would find very positive about it would be the fact that gays in the military could then hold clearances. That is an untapped mental resource for intel that is missing. Because of the "no tell" policy, it is necessary for gays to hide that part of their life and it opens them to blackmail and therefore they are not allowed to hold clearances if they are military.

It might be unpopular with the military, but I would personally order it if I had been elected. Of course that would probably ensure that I would have primary opposition from my own party, but realistically the policy stinks and some of the best military in the world include homosexuals making almost all the arguments against it (in the trenches, blah) moot.
Click to expand...

Golly gee Damo .. I'm proud of you.
 
It's such a shame because he has done some good things. He shut down Broadwater, and something he got like, no attention for, is this:

You know how debtors are not supposed to attach bank accounts that have automatically deposited funds like Social Security and Unemployment? Well some of you, probably bac, will also know that banks are doing it anyway! Do you know that elderly people have been made homeless because their SS gets automatically deposted these days, it's not like the old days when you got a check and no one could touch it? Homeless old people! this is happening all over the country and we need a federal law, but as of 1/1/09, this does not happen in NY State any longer.

Paterson signed a bill forbidding banks for attaching the first 2,500 dollars in any bank account that receives ANY exempt funds. And, the bill also forbids banks for attaching the first 1,700 dollars in any bank account, exempt funds or not. Now that, is working for the people, and it's something we have not seen anything of over the past years. It was a good thing. It made a real difference in people's lives, people with no power.

So this move was doubly disappointing for me.
 
Damocles said:
There wouldn't need to be a vote to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", the President could simply order the military to allow and integrate gays into service openly.

One thing that I would find very positive about it would be the fact that gays in the military could then hold clearances. That is an untapped mental resource for intel that is missing. Because of the "no tell" policy, it is necessary for gays to hide that part of their life and it opens them to blackmail and therefore they are not allowed to hold clearances if they are military.

It might be unpopular with the military, but I would personally order it if I had been elected. Of course that would probably ensure that I would have primary opposition from my own party, but realistically the policy stinks and some of the best military in the world include homosexuals making almost all the arguments against it (in the trenches, blah) moot.
Click to expand...


That's not actually accurate. Although the DADT policy was established through Executive Order it was codified as law by the Congress requiring and act of Congress to change the policy.
 
Darla,

It seems you may well have been right about Clinton's opposition to Kennedy ..

Clintons Moving to Block Caroline Kennedy's Senate Bid
http://www.wowowow.com/post/clintons-to-block-caroline-kennedy-senate-bid-155375

Not surprising though considering the Clinton's play hardball very well.

Not sure how the feud between the Democratic Party's most powerful families bodes well for democrats.

Wonder if they have anything planned for Obama?

I'm betting they aren't over their loss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top