Watching the developments surrounding a political appointment, particularly when Democrats are involved, usually ends up being something of a disappointment.
Mind you, I’m not speaking in terms of the appointee actually reflecting the will of the people. These appointments invariably end up producing a candidate who is so far outside the American mainstream as to be laughable. If that trend is not followed in every particular instance, the resulting arguments are both amusing and educational.
Example: Kirsten Gillibrand, who until recently represented New York’s 20th congressional district and is now the surprise appointee to fill Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat.
That Gillibrand was named to the position is something of a shock, particularly given her positions on the issues of the day. She’s pro-life, she has two children. She’s in a stable marriage. She comes with the NRA’s stamp of approval. She is against homosexual marriage. She fought former New York Governor Eliot (Client Number 9) Spitzer on his plan to give illegal aliens driver’s licenses. Not exactly what we’ve come to expect from the Democrats of late.
The complaints from the left, as you may imagine, have already begun. One example is Representative Carolyn McCarthy, whose late husband Dennis was murdered in a subway shooting, and who then ran for the House as a gun controller. She is quite predictably screaming that Gillibrand’s views on gun control make her unacceptable for the United States Senate. She’s also threatening a primary challenge in 2010.
The appointment of Kirsten Gillibrand has been successful in at least one respect: it has broken up a lot of Democratic Party myths by exposing them as fallacies with no small amount of help from the purveyors of those myths.
For example, if the gun laws Mrs. McCarthy is so vocal about didn’t work to protect her husband, why should any New Yorker put their trust in such laws, or in the proponents of those laws?