The ‘Glass Ceiling’ Argument and the NY Senate Seat
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?
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 NY 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.
Not a shock at all.
1. The entire rest of NY’s major high-power office holders are NYC. Predominantly Jewish, and from Manhattan. Speaker Sheldon Silver, Jewish, Manhattan. Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson, one Jewish, one black, both from Manhattan. Chuckie Schumer, Jewish from the NYC borough of Brooklyn. Worked in Manhattan before going to Congress. Mayor Bloomberg – Jewish, & a Manhattan guy. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo – from Queens. Lived with a Kennedy in Manhattan for a while. Lost the Kennedy, stayed in Manhattan.
Given that there are 19 million people in New York, with 1.7 million Jews and 1.6 million living in Manhattan…..Gillibrand represents a good effort to broaden the notion that if New Yorkers vote Democratic, Upstate will not be given short shrift with all power and influence going to NYC, and further concentrated in mostly Jews and Manhattanites.
2. Gillibrand proved she could win in a Republican District, then get re-elected AND go out and do spectacular fundraising for other Democratic candidates. She has strong appeal to independents and moderats and may help deliver a good portion of that voting block to other Dem candidates – especially Paterson.
3. She and her other family members have long exposure to the issues and problems of New Yorkers outside NYC. As such, she enters the Senate far more grounded in statewide issues and needs than the raft of Manhattanite candidates mentioned for the Senate pick, lead by the hapless Caroline, liberal Jewish Congresswoman Lowey, and NYC suburb scold Carolyn McCarthy. “Adirondacks? Aren’t those some mountains in Quebec?” “I am very familiar with Upstate. My family used to vacation in the Catskills…”
4. She is not a right-to-lifer. She supports most early abortion availability, making contraception available, and supoorts late term abortion only for life and physical health of the mother, or severe fetal defect. She is not a gun loving fanatic – vs, Carolyn McCarthy’s gun-banning fanaticism – but believes gun ownership (with reasonable regulation) is a clear individual Constitutional Right.
5. Her background is impressive in terms of biography (good-looking mom of two young kids, husband a venture capitalist, ). And impressive in terms of credentials. Dartmouth (Asian Studies) UCLA Law. Clerked US 2nd Court of Appeals. Senate intern with Republican Alphonse D’Amato. Special Counsel at HUD in the Clinton Administration. pro bono work Partner at at Boies, Schiller & Flexner (yes, that Boies).
Gillibrand is part of a new generation of Democrats that appeal to independents and moderate Republicans because they have moved past the 60s battles and ideology that screwed the boomers up and hurt the Democrats from 1968 – 2006, with only Watergate and Bill Clinton being the bright spots in between…
Now we have the Republicans as the ones stuck in the “good old days” of the 80s and stuck in the ideologies of the Religious Right and the Corporatist Elites..
Great Article!
Pro-Lifer?
Pro-Family?
Pro-Gun Ownership?
Refused Driver Licenses to Illegal immigrants?
A Conservative Democrat From New York?
SARAH PALIN OF THE NORTHEAST!
MY KIND OF WOMAN!
Congratulations to Governor David Paterson
-
Bob Patterson- with 2 Ts.
Thanks, Bob, but don’t mistake the thrust of the artile as being in support of Gillibrand. There’s certainly must to dislike about the woman as Cedarford notes…though I chafe a bit at his point #1.
The central point is that the age-old, and now hackneyed arguments surrounding the various chosen groups of the Democrat party, are being exposed as at least ill-fitting to the current day situation. thereby, I can’t help but feel there’s another motivation other than the stated one.
I also chafe at Cedarford’s ‘stuck in the 80′s’ line, but that, and the ideology, is the subject for another peice, already in the works.
(A taste: It was the ‘me, too’ Republicans, who played along so as to stay in their seats as opposed to standing on principle, who doomed the party to exile from FDR , pretty much to to Reagan)
“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 NY 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.”
Are you SURE she isn’t a Republican???
Is it possible that Obama worked Patterson to appoint a blue dog to Hillary’s seat as an internal Democratic Party check on the party’s lunatic fringe? By adding a vote against hot button issues like gay marriage, gun control and immigration to the Senate he can insure that the Republicans can successfully filibuster controversial legislation like FOCA.
Yeah, I read that Mo Dowd wasnt too happy about K. Gilli’s appointment. Which makes me happy. Mo Do was moaning about her stance on Illegal immigration, did she ever comment on Caroline’s stance which was “um you know”.
Point accepted, though I point out in response that the phrase isn’t as absolute as some would make it. Certainly, she leans more in that direction than most others that would be in line for the position. Kennedy, for example. I suggest she would have been openly labeled ‘leaning pro-life’ by the Democrats, were she a Republican. As it is, I note a rather interesting silence on the point prior to her sentorial debut.
—The appointment (and the reaction to it) does prove that the charges of “glass ceilings” and sexual discrimination get dragged out every time a favorite daughter is turned down for reasons regarding qualifications—
Women ,as a group and a class, are the most insecure creatures. Insecure people are pocket experts in conjuring up obstacles and ceilings.
Even a small blip on their path to success is magnified to elicit sympathy from people, who are susceptible to ideology of victimhood.
I can see this behavior across all cultures, nations and ideologies. There were many female conservative bloggers who put defeat of sarah palin to “bad and evil men” in the republican party.
Wow, if she IS pro-life, then she could be a Dem Sarah Palin but only if she:
1) Takes down the NY State old leftist network,
2) Becomes governor and balances the budget,
3) Turns against her own party on government reform,
4) Gets more valuable executive experience.
Kirsten is like Sarah before she became governor.
Go Girl!
Hi, Eric Florack – Nice that you read comments.
Besides Gillibrands positions on abortion, she is also not “hardcore conservative” on guns or gay rights.
Almost has a ring of “Romney” to her, and as a moderate myself, that is not a bad thing.
Gay Rights – She supports civil unions and full rights for gays, but not gay marriage.
Gun rights – She is pro-2nd Amendment but not an absolutist. She mentioned on her “get to know NYC people” tour, in respose to the Carolyn McCarthy issue – that she understands NYC has concerns about guns quite different than her home District. And now that she serves a larger constituency, as Senator she pledges she will be flexible and open-minded about city concerns – but will stand with the rights of hunters and sportsmen and the right of law abiding people to self-defense. (Meaning she will not be in any rush to open handgun shops in the South Bronx , and will not be calling gun wielding thugs “2nd Amendment Freedom Lovers!!”)
If we accept cedarford’s analysis of Ms. Gillibrand as representing a new Democrat that has “moved past the 60s battles and ideology” (i.e. pro-abortion on demand, gender feminism, gun control, etc.) then this could provide the Republicans a chance to focus their message. If the “battles” over pro-life (the general principle, not the sticky question of at what point a “life” is to be recognized), second ammendment rights, equal rights (as opposed to political preference based upon demographic), etc. have essentially been settled more to the right than the left, the real substantial question left is to what degree is government intrusion into an individual’s life required to ensure these rights.
I fear, though, that the promise of Republicans as small-government champions may be no more substantial and real than Obama’s mantra of “hope and change.” To this end we fall victim to what I call the Groucho Marx syndrome (“I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.”). Generally the only people who seek political power are those who wish to have, use and grow it, regardless of party. Rare is the person that would put in the hard work and endure the discomforts required to be elected only to then turn around and willingly give it back to the people. And yet, that is precisely what we eternally hope for in Republican (and especially libertarian) circles.
She’s an avowed “Blue Dawg,” which is fine by me, but it sure ruffled some feathers.
Great pick by Paterson, and she’ll deliver, I predict.
Very good pick , Patterson will be gone next election no doubt, I really like it when Democrats fight amongst themselves.
Very entertaining to hear all the hypocrisy flying around.
Thanks. I do try to remain involved in conversations I start. Your remaining points; same answer as with the first.
And to your other points…. again, that’s the point of the peice; Get someone even a little bit closer to the political center, and the entire left wing narative falls apart faster than yesterday’s kleenex.
#8 Women ,as a group and a class, are the most insecure creatures
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are over generalizing. LIBERAL women, as a group and class, (could be labled) the most insecure. They are the ones who circle the wagons, and have a fit when a conservative woman isn’t beholden to them.
This was a good article and interesting comments, thanks for all of them. I live in WAY up Northern NY, and we are the red-headed stepchild of New York. Guess where all the windfarms that the enviromoonbats love so much end up? Not in Kennedy’s backyard as we know, in mine. Looks like a SciFi movie.
Anyway, I am happy with this pick, as it could have been much, much worse. I was up in arms over the Princess, and I was picturing some other hardline leftocrat from the City. We really need, badly, someone who knows what it’s like outside of Manhattan. We’re so opposite of there, we shouldn’t even be in the same state. Basically, we’re Alaska with a lot of cows. How do our interests possibly converge with Manhattan? Sorry, ranting.
P.S. Ked5, AGREE!
There are some on this web page who identify quite closely with the “elitists” and “intellectuals” of the Democrat Party (or at least are trying to make a vain attempt to do so).
The Northeasterns have deluded themselves into thinking they are the only ones wise enough to govern our country. If a person comes from another part of the county who most likely has done a lot more to celebrate American values, the NE’ers try to marginalize them because just plain, simple folks are of no use to them.
To compare Gillibrand with Palin is honoring both of them for being good wives, good mothers and good career examples. Too bad the noses of the NE’ers are so high in the air they are unable to see the virtues of either of them.
Hey the more pro-second amendment votes in the Senate the better. Sure she’s not as pro as we would like, but she’s DEFFINETLY more pro than most Dems.
Had the Governor picked Ms. Kennedy I would always have considered him bought and paid for. I respect him for this choice.
A great choice on Patterson’s call, question, why didn’t he do this a month ago. She’s as centrist
a Democrat as you’re likely to find; ironically she probably makes it a little harder for the GOP to claim the seat in two years. But that’s the breaks, the Democrats need people to steer them away from the extremist faction, that has seized power for a time.
Mr. Florack,
I too would like to say, “Thank you’ for adding your comments/ clarification in some areas as well. The comments, clarity of the article is hashed out and civility is the norm. The above comments express my interest, levity to Senator Gillibrand.
(Shrug) Thanks for saying. Now, if only I could get rid of the typos…. (Chuckle)
cedarford – I’m always skeptical of your info, but if you’re right, than the question I have for you is, “Where does she stand on fiscal policy?” If she’s conservative there, too, then she’s in the wrong Party. She is a moderate Republican. She’s masquerading as a Dem; flying under the radar. Or fooling herself.
Or, simply doing what she had to to get elected in a conservative district.