Guest MonkeySee Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 What a surprise! I thought Governor Paterson would pick attorney general Cuomo. I guess he felt a need to replace the senate seat with a woman. ALBANY, N.Y. – Gov. David Paterson appointed Democratic U.S. Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand on Friday to fill New York's vacant Senate seat, finally settling on a woman from a largely rural, eastern district of the state to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I appreciate the opportunity that you have afforded me and the trust that you have placed in me," she told Paterson. "I realize that for many New Yorkers, this is the first time you've heard my name and you don't know much about me." The appointment, which requires no further confirmation, came one day after Caroline Kennedy, daughter of President John F. Kennedy, abruptly withdrew from consideration. Gillibrand, 42, has been considered one of the top contenders in Paterson's selection process, along with Kennedy and state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Gillibrand had served as Cuomo's special counsel when he was housing secretary under President Clinton. Paterson's appointment lasts until 2010, when a special election will be held to fill the final two years of Clinton's term. Clinton is now serving as secretary of state in President Barack Obama's administration. "She is whip-smart and hard working," said Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York City. "She has made helping upstate her mission, but she understands that New York City is the economic engine that makes the state go. I'm going to work hard to help her be a success. She was a great choice among a lot of great candidates." Kennedy, the daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy, called the governor around midday Wednesday and told him she was having second thoughts about the job, according to a person close to Paterson, who said she later decided to remain in contention, only to announce her withdrawal early Thursday in an e-mail. ___ AP writers Valerie Bauman in Albany and Kimberly Hefling in Washington contributed to this report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shebavon Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Right you are. He wanted to pick Cuomo, so as to keep him from being an opponent when Patterson is up for re-election, but he was under massive pressure to replace a lady with a lady. Gillibrand is no stranger to NY politics, and disturbingly for this ex-New Yorker, came from the machine politics aisle of the Democratic party. On the plus side, in traditional NY fashion, she is an upstate pol who is tacking left to unite the party behind her when she is up for re-election in 2 years. A sudden interest and support for such Gay issues as Gay Marriage was expressed, and she has come out in favor of this issue. She is also pro-choice and pro-gun rights. And she can mingle with the masses, unlike Caroline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KhorTose Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 On the plus side, in traditional NY fashion, she is an upstate pol who is tacking left to unite the party behind her when she is up for re-election in 2 years. A sudden interest and support for such Gay issues as Gay Marriage was expressed, and she has come out in favor of this issue. She is also pro-choice and pro-gun rights. And she can mingle with the masses, unlike Caroline. Yes, she is tracking to the left, but it is interesting to see that the Democratic party is tracking to her position of gun rights. Gun control, has been one of the single most damaging issues to the Democratic party in years and now you hardly ever hear a Dem mention it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Yes, she is tracking to the left, but it is interesting to see that the Democratic party is tracking to her position of gun rights. Gun control, has been one of the single most damaging issues to the Democratic party in years and now you hardly ever hear a Dem mention it. How true. I feel the gun control issue cost Gore the election in 2000. If he had a more moderate stance on gun control, I think he would have won his home state of Tennessee and therefore the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shebavon Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 How true. I feel the gun control issue cost Gore the election in 2000. If he had a more moderate stance on gun control, I think he would have won his home state of Tennessee and therefore the election. I believe you are right on that. Though B43 was selected by the court and not elected. Had he won Tenn, the court would never have had the opportunity. Gun control is a losing proposition in this nation, and the best we can do is try to find ways to live with our constitution supported citizens who choose to have guns. Libs should give up on that issue if it allows us to move forward in the arenas we can succeed in. Gay Rights, Pro-choice rights, health care, to name a few. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 I believe you are right on that. Though B43 was selected by the court and not elected. Had he won Tenn, the court would never have had the opportunity. Gun control is a losing proposition in this nation, and the best we can do is try to find ways to live with our constitution supported citizens who choose to have guns. Libs should give up on that issue if it allows us to move forward in the arenas we can succeed in. Gay Rights, Pro-choice rights, health care, to name a few. No question that Bush 43 was selected. Hindsight is always 20/20. I also think if he would have had Bill Clinton playing a more active role in his campaign, the outcome might have been different. In my opinion, the main concern now for Obama is the economy, and that will shape what his adminstration can do on gay rights, health care and pro-choice issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Yes, she is tracking to the left, but it is interesting to see that the Democratic party is tracking to her position of gun rights. Gun control, has been one of the single most damaging issues to the Democratic party in years and now you hardly ever hear a Dem mention it. Here is a news clip that might sway people towards gun control or more parental control of guns. JACKSON, Ohio – Police say an angry 4-year-old Ohio boy grabbed a gun from a closet and shot his baby sitter. Eighteen-year-old Nathan Beavers was hospitalized Sunday with minor wounds to his arm and side after the shotgun attack. Police say another teen was also injured. Witnesses told police the child was angry because Beavers accidentally stepped on his foot. Beavers was watching the child at a mobile home in Jackson with several other teenagers and several other children. Jackson County Sheriff John Shashteen says authorities are investigating. The child has not been charged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lvdkeyes Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Jackson County Sheriff John Shashteen says authorities are investigating. The child has not been charged. I think this was on a previous thread. At that time I said I felt the parents should be charged with child endangerment for leaving a gun accessible to a 4 year old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shebavon Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 "Here is a news clip that might sway people towards gun control or more parental control of guns." Sorry Monk, not a chance on gun control. It's firmly set in the American DNA. Parental responsibility laws, now that is a possibility. Frankly, the bureau of child welfare should have seized the children from these irresponsible parents, until they are deemed to be fit parents, and have properly modified their homes. Perhaps a judge could ban them from having firearms until the youngest child reaches 18, but again, that is certainly too much to hope for in the good old US of A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
