Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is scheduled to appear tomorrow with another former House colleague and onetime political opponent, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy.When it was decided that Ms. Gillibrand would replace Hillary Clinton as N.Y. Senator, Gillibrand enjoyed a full endorsement from the NRA. This has changed dramatically.
Gillibrand is to join the Long Island congresswoman, Mayor Bloomberg, NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, the Brady Campaign and New Yorkers Against Gun Violence at John Jay College for a so-called "major announcement" (according to a press release) of a "new federal measure to combat gun violence."
Mayor Bloomberg, who has made getting illegal guns off the street a personal crusade, also expressed dismay over Gillibrand's selection last January by Gov. David Paterson to fill Hillary Clinton's US Senate seat.
But Gillibrand has worked assiduously since then to prove she has learned the error of her ways, starting with a visit early in her Senate tenure to a Brooklyn school after a 17-year-old student there was shot and killed by a stray bullet.
McCarthy, like her fellow would-be Gillibrand challengers in the House, has backed off her plans to challenge the junior senator when she runs in hopes of keeping her seat next year.
The congresswoman is a Bloomberg ally. She crossed party lines this summer to endorse the mayor for re-election, citing his gun control efforts and also appeared in a TV ad on his behalf.
What's your opinion? Did the NRA misunderstand the position of Gillibrand before or did the Senator actually change? Does changing one's position on gun control add to the credibility and strength of the newly acquired stance? I often hear that about Prof. Kleck, the fact that he supposedly moved from anti-gun to pro-gun means something. Would the same thing work for Senator Gillibrand?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.