Patterson picks NRA-Backed, Bailout Opposing Congresswomen for senate

Rael

Banned
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
3,524
ALBANY - Gov. Paterson, defying the liberal wing of his Democratic Party, has chosen little-known, NRA-backed, upstate Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton as New York's junior senator, it was learned last night.

The surprising - and, for many Democrats shocking - decision to pick the conservative Gillibrand, 42, from Hudson in Columbia County, was disclosed by the governor in calls to party officials and some members of the state's congressional delegation, many of whom said they were unhappy with the selection, sources said.

MORE: Nasty Caroline War

MORE: Kirsten Has Big Goals - But Little Experience

GERSHMAN: Oh, The Shame: Blago Did Better

Gillibrand, a mother of two occasionally resented by colleagues for being an aggressive self-promoter, was strongly backed for the post by Charles Schumer, the state's senior senator, who said a woman and an upstater was needed on next year's ticket.

Paterson's decision - to be officially announced today at noon at the state Capitol - was made just 24 hours after Caroline Kennedy took herself out of the running.

The decision was a major rebuff to some of the state's best-known Democrats interested in Clinton's seat, including Attorney General and former federal Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo, for whom Gillibrand once worked as a junior lawyer; Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, and Reps. Carolyn Maloney of Manhattan and Steve Israel of Suffolk County.

Sources said "at least five" members of the state's Democratic congressional delegation called Paterson to protest the possibility of Gillibrand's selection. One, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of Nassau County, even threatened a primary challenge. Gillibrand faces a special election in 2010.

Democratic activists predicted that Cuomo, son of former Gov. Mario Cuomo, would also "seriously consider" challenging Paterson in a primary next year.

Calls were made from Paterson's office to leading Democrats and Republicans throughout the afternoon, inviting them to a special meeting room attached to the Capitol for "a major announcement."

The inclusion of several prominent Republicans among the invitees was an early sign to insiders that Paterson planned to pick an upstate Democrat.

Gillibrand has won two successive elections in one of the heaviest GOP districts in the state, first upsetting incumbent Rep. John Sweeney and, in November, defeating former state GOP chairman and multimillionaire Alexander Treadwell, in one of the most expensive races in the nation.

Liberal Democrats have been wary of her because she ran for re-election with the backing of the National Rifle Association, opposed the federal TARP program to rescue banks, and has been less than enthusiastic about gay marriage.
 
She's sure as heck better than Kennedy. The bailout is a real delineating vote for me -- at least if she voted against that, she may have a principle or two.
 
I have to say, as an Upstate New Yorker I almost cried from happiness when I saw this. My disgust level for Patterson just went from extremely disgusted to mildly negative. Wow. I never saw it coming.
 
Ahh that's a nice change to the Liberal jerks that run NYS. I live in a Republican area which is not bad but NYS is always Democratic State...

Cool that the NRA backs her too! Finally an ally in the state I can send emails/faxes to that she will agree with.
 
She'll also be the youngest member of the US Senate at 42 - backed by the NRA but not a member of the NRA,
and so was being called a "conservative" democrat this morning.

Question is if she was the pick of Patterson even without Caroline Kennedy's withdrawal
( i.e. Caroline dropped out only after she learned she was not the Patterson choice anyway).
 
I hate how these liberal democrats are freaking out. GOD FORBID SHE BELIEVES IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

It makes me absolutely sick the way liberals are reacting to this.
 
I hate how these liberal democrats are freaking out. GOD FORBID SHE BELIEVES IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

It makes me absolutely sick the way liberals are reacting to this.

Why? Enjoy watching them whine.
 
Remember, Spitzer was sacked because he was not as friendly with the CFR as Patterson is. Let's watch how this shakes out before rejoicing.
 
kirsten_gillibrand.jpg


house-do-want_thumbnail.jpg
 
And the lines between "Democrat" and "Republican" blur just a little more. Eventually, the party names will mean absolutely nothing.

I didn't know there was such a thing as a pro-2nd Amendment Democrat that opposed gay marriage and unlimited spending of taxpayer money.
 
Me, neither! We need to find more of them and get them involved with the Campaign For Liberty.

She opposed gay marriage? It's very totalitarian to tyrannize people by telling them they can't marry who they wish too. The government doesn't have a place in marriage. It's a shame that Ron Paul supporters hold neo-con/totalitarian views.
 
Read an interview where she mouthed the standard "I'm concerned about the rights of hunters" and "let's reduce gun violence". She's your standard statist Democrat.
 
She opposed gay marriage? It's very totalitarian to tyrannize people by telling them they can't marry who they wish too. The government doesn't have a place in marriage. It's a shame that Ron Paul supporters hold neo-con/totalitarian views.

It's tyrannical for the social left to be imposing its views on the social right. It's more totalitarian to compel people to recognize 'marraiges' that are not marraiges historically or morally speaking. Marraige is a religious rite, not a secular right, and Paul simply wants the state out of the business of conferring social legitimacy (via legal title) to disputed behavior. So it's cool to see some elected Democrats who also see this clearly.
 
It's tyrannical for the social left to be imposing its views on the social right. It's more totalitarian to compel people to recognize 'marraiges' that are not marraiges historically or morally speaking. Marraige is a religious rite, not a secular right, and Paul simply wants the state out of the business of conferring social legitimacy (via legal title) to disputed behavior. So it's cool to see some elected Democrats who also see this clearly.

Marriage can be whatever the market and people want it to be from a secular lifestyle to a religious lifestyle, there is no need for the state to step into it. No wing is imposing anything on another wing, society has people of all different values, beliefs, actions, looks, and characters. For one group to impose another group to do something is ludicrous. Legalizing gay marriage allows the homo sexual group to participate in marriage. It is not force feeding religious churches or institutions to give marriage to gays. Other market marriage institutions can do that. It's more tyrannical to make people from one wing have their view of life imposed on us all, or more importantly the opposing wing. In this case it's the social conservatives forcing their religious morals upon the nonreligious. This is unlibertarian and authoritarian in its very nature, and it needs to be diposed of. This is a shameful and scary dogma.
 
Last edited:
Can you agree that in order to alleviate this mess we must allow market forces to operate and remove government marriage licenses?
 
Back
Top