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.
This is no surprise. I called it months ago.
ReplyDeleteThe NRA has a bad habit of jumping the gun to support people who aren't that great when it comes to guns. Gillibrand is just a recent example.
Gillibrand is just doing what she has to do. As a rule of thumb, you can't be pro-gun, from the east coast, and stay in office. It just doesn't happen. She's essentially pulling a reverse Michael Steele.
Gillibrand was never pro-gun, just a poser. Gillibrand was pro-gun when she was a Representative in a rural community. As soon as she moved up to Senator, she switched to keep her spot. Like a turd she is tapered on both ends.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, these tools exist on both sides. Look how many Republicans decided to be pro gun just to get elected. Mitt Romney is one good example. Now we have Kasich running for governor in Ohio that decided to be pro-gun only after he saw what happened in '94.
Mikeb: "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?"
ReplyDeleteChanging one's position because you have studied the issue may mean MORE than changing one's position because you are trying to get elected in an anti-gunowner district.
Aztec:
ReplyDeleteNRA supported her because she was actually good on our issues before she was elevated to the Senate. She did everything she was asked to in the 110th Congress, so she got a good grade.
Politicians are prostitutes when it comes to their positions. When she was representing a pro-gun upstate district, she was pro-gun, when she had to appease the downstate anti-gun people, she became anti-gun.
In politics any position on an issue is up for negotiation.
Politicians are like statistics, both must be taken with a grain of salt.
ReplyDelete