Anthony Weiner: I don't think Gilibrand's going to have a primary.

[Stephanie]

The New York Democratic party machine declares Kristen Gillibrand senator for life. The machine has spoken, now sit down and shut up.

Village Voice
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/02/barrett.php#more">Runnin' Scared
Barrett: Weiner's Democracy Lesson
Posted by Wayne Barrett at 4:21 PM, February 13, 2009

We all know how sacrosanct the rights of the electorate are to Anthony Weiner, the congressman running for mayor. During the term limits debate last fall, Weiner railed about how the will of the voters should be respected. (Of course, the will of voters had twice favored term limits that would have made it easier for him to become the next mayor.)

Turns out he's only a champion of our rights when it involves getting Mike Bloomberg out of his way.
   
The morning Kristen Gillibrand was anointed as New York's next U.S. Senator, I was on Brian Lehrer's WNYC show talking about the selection with Irene Liu, a Times Union reporter. I had already blogged twice about Gillibrand's bizarre voting record and was, as usual, venting on air. Weiner called in to sing Gillibrand's praises (he was not a scheduled guest). He was even willing to question some of his own House votes to praise her. Maybe, in the age of 24-hour spin, even that's not unusual.
   
What I found beyond the ken, though, was this gem: 

"I think people need to take a little bit of a deep breath and get to know her a little bit and I think she's going to be a terrific senator. I don't think she's going to have a primary. I think she's going to serve there for a long time." Weiner appeared to be arguing that unelected governor David Paterson should be able to pick an unelected senator, whose views and votes are demonstrably different than many New York Democrats, and that she should skate to the general election. Our only choice should be her or Pete King in November. Instead of saying that if she isn't "terrific" (after all, he was saying this morning she was picked), or if many Democrats don't think she's "terrific," we should have a full-throated debate about her, Weiner was rushing to award her the seat "for a long time." In fact, he was dialing up a show to volunteer this lesson in democracy.
   
Just to make sure I got this right, I called the congressman, read him the quote and asked if he had second thoughts. He didn't. "I don't think a primary for a primary's sake is a good thing," he said, adding that he still doesn't think that ultimately there will be one. He thinks Gillibrand is changing her positions on immigration and other issues to adapt to a statewide constituency and broaden her appeal beyond the boundaries of her upstate, Republican-plurality, district, and that we should just wait and see who she becomes, as opposed to who she's been.

==snip==

Weiner's argument for Gillibrand, by the way, was that "she's got the New York ethos." She does "a lot of her fundraising, frankly, down in New York," observed Weiner, "she understands the rhythm." Weiner ostensibly believes that she can represent the city because she knows how to raise money here (was that the quid pro quo beat he was referring to?). Equally baffling was Weiner's response when Lehrer asked about Gillibrand being the only member of the state's delegation to vote against the TARP bill, which was, with all its flaws, a New York bailout bill. "I'm not sure that she didn't have that vote right and I had it wrong," said Weiner.

   

[RBInMaine]

1. Perhaps you'd rather a RePUKE ? Gotta have a big tent. She'll be up for re-election soon enough.

[Stephanie]

3. She's up in 2010.

And I am hoping a progressive Democrat will step up to challenge her.

[RBInMaine]

2. Focus on saving her House seat for the Dems. Put your energy there.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. Nobody wants a Repuke in her House seat nor her Senate seat

That being said I still think that her nomination for her (appointed) Senate seat should not already be pre-ordained. If somebody wants to challenge her for the nomination he/she should be allowed to do so.

[Stephanie]

11. That's my complaint. The party machine doesn't care for elections.

They're not in favor of democracy. They believe the power elite should choose who fills the seats and we should dispense with elections altogether. That's why progressive Dems get shut out here. Having our representatives actually represent us is not big on the list of qualifications to the party elite who control the process here.

[BlueCaliDem]

17. Totally agree. It shouldn't be up to the NY Dem party machine a la LIEberman.

The DSCC didn't want to run any Dem against Lieberman in the primaries, but Connecticut Dems wanted change.

Ned Lamont was wealthy enough to start his challenge against Lieberman, but the Democratic Party stepped in to campaign for their old centrist friend - even liberal Barbara Boxer, who received an angry e-mail from me for doing so - and tilt the race in Lieberman's favor.

The Democratic Party had that union on their side and must've promised them something because although Ned Lamont won the Democratic primary against Lieberman, he lost 25% of Democrats to Lieberman's "Independent Democrat". Together with 98% of the Repub voter, Lieberman won.

That debacle should be used as the PRIME example why we need term limits in government because although people say "we already have, it's called elections!", in reality, that's a bunch of dung.

[book_worm]

4. So how has she done as Senator so far?

What votess that she has taken, as Senator, are you upset about? I think she deserves a chance and if you still are up in arms about her and others are as well I'm sure a challenger will be in the primary. But let's see what she does as Senator first.

[Stephanie]

8. She's too fresh to the Senate to have much of a record, but her House record is not great

I'm not "up in arms" about her, but I am enraged by Weiner's statement that an appointed Senator ought not to be challenged in the primary, no matter their views. That's not what Democracy looks like. The Democratic machine in New York runs the state with an iron fist. I'm tired of machine politics. We're entitled to elect a Senator who represents our views.

Here's a little on her House voting record:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_610606.html

New York Gov. David Paterson, who appointed Gillibrand, 42, and supporters say her conservative record on issues from guns to immigration reflects her Upstate New York district and embodies the virtues of the big tent. Critics say she's out of the mainstream of New York Democrat politics and trying to obfuscate her positions. A look at her record on key issues is revealing.
***

Along with many other members of Congress -- but few from the Northeast -- she co-signed with Vice President Dick Cheney a brief that went far beyond President George W. Bush in calling on the Supreme Court to knock down Washington, D.C.'s, restrictions on gun ownership. The brief implies that the Constitution prohibits localities from banning any sort of gun.

As a member of the House, Gillibrand voted for a measure that would have specifically prevented the nation's capital from outlawing semiautomatic weapons.

***

he record shows a fairly hard line. She has suggested that an immigration bill sponsored by Sens. John McCain and Ted Kennedy was tantamount to "amnesty" for illegal aliens.

In fact, the legislation, the centerpiece of the immigration debate and backed by both Bush and then-Sen. Barack Obama, granted a pathway to citizenship for illegals only after stiff fines, vigorous background checks and a lengthy waiting period.

Last September, she was one of a minority of House Democrats who voted against the $700 billion financial-rescue plan. The legislation failed and markets around the world cratered. Several days later, the House reconsidered and passed the measure.

[leftchick]

6. fucked up

as usual. I am so sick of this shit. The Democratic leadership is definitely purple. :(

[bluestateguy]

7. Good

I'm delighted too have more pro-gun Democrats in the Senate to counter gun grabbers like Dianne Feinstein.

[cherish44]

9. about guns...

The gun issue is the main reason people vote GOP in my neck of the woods. That's their #1 concern. WAY more important than the economy. I think more pro-gun Dems, especially in rural places like where I live would be highly electable. Most of these people are blue collar people earning an hourly wage, the very people who SHOULD be voting Democratic.

[Stephanie]

12. I grew up in a hunting and fishing state and I agree with you to a point.

Except that, opposing a ban on semiautomatic weapons in Washington DC is patently insane.

[Mojambo]

10. "A primary for primary's sake?" We have primaries for DEMOCRACY's sake, Weiner.

What an asshole.

[Stephanie]

13. Except that when Bloomberg overturned term limits for himself, Weiner was outraged

Christine Quinn rolled right over for it, because her own financial scandal had ruined her chances at the mayor's office, but Weiner was loudly against it, as he should be. Except that as we can see from the above, he's only interested in democratic principals when they serve his career ambitions. Otherwise, not so much.

[FLAprogressive]

14. I like pro-gun Dems, but not pro-gun Dems like Gillibrand. We need more DeFazio's and Welch's...not

Blue Dog Gene Taylor's and Kirsten Gillibrand's who sell out our other constitutional rights......

[Cha]

15. That sucks but things change as Weiner

should well know.

[Nite Owl]

16. Gillibrand is changing her positions

so quickly now that it could make ones head just spin. She 'needed' to be more conservative to get elected in the 20th and now she 'needs' to be more open and liberal. So who is she? Which Gillibrand is the real one and how long and under what pressures will it last? She can raise money, she can turn on the charm but she is just doing what is politically expedient to get elected to the job. Better than a Peter King or Ghouiani sure she is but not a real leader.

[Stephanie]

18. No core beliefs, just ambition

Of course she's better than Peter King, but when I saw her onstage with D'Amato I couldn't believe it. Who is she really?

[FLAprogressive]

19. As I told everyone before, she's an opportunist. She basically lied to the Blue America PAC and told

them she was a progressive...they helped elect her in 2006, then she joined the Blue Dogs and voted like the corporate shill she is. Safe to say, they didn't endorse her in 2008.