The Hopium narco-traffickers and their fellow Hopium addled addicts are angry at those of us who not only predicted but also advocated and agitated against Caroline Kennedy’s appointment to the U.S. Senate. The Hopium addled addicts are now making threats which we do not believe should be taken seriously.
The Hopium addled are correct about one thing: they and their religion, the Church of Obama, have suffered a defeat. How big that defeat is remains to be seen but it is potentially a very big defeat that portends even greater defeats in the short and long term. The Hopium addled are shaken and fearful and in denial about 2010. They might not know exactly why they feel the way they do but they are right to have a sense of dread about what is coming. We’ll ‘splain it to them today.
As promised, today we will discuss Kirsten Gillbrand and the possibility of defeat for the fake Obama “stimulus” bill as well as the emerging NObama coaltion; Senator Schumer’s role in the swatting of Caroline Kennedy; and the unlikely but possible primary revolt against Gillibrand and Paterson in 2010.
* * *
Two strong Hillary supporters, new Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and new Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire might be the backbone the U.S. Senate needs to bring responsibility to the congress and restrain the drunken spending of Barack Obama and block the looting called the Obama “stimulus” bill. The looting “stimulus” bill will likely pass, it is almost a “done deal”. But now there is a possible chance to stop the looting if Gillibrand sticks to her principles.
Lawrence O’Donnell wrote in that Huff n’ Puff website about our two Women Jedi in the Senate:
The governor obviously has no idea that this means he has just delivered a Democratic senator who is committed to voting against the first Obama bill to come her way–the stimulus package that will push the federal budget at least 800 billion dollars farther away from balance. Indeed, the Gillibrand simple-minded devotion to balancing the federal budget above all else means that she must oppose everything on the Obama agenda. Everything President Obama wants to do costs money, money that the federal government doesn’t have. Obama, as he made crystal clear in the campaign, plans to do it with deficit spending, something that Congresswoman Gillibrand opposes and something we now discover the governor of New York opposes even though New York state will be one of the biggest beneficiaries of that spending.
To her everlasting credit, Kirsten Gillibrand voted in the House (on January 22, 2009) against the looting of the American economy. She voted against the $350 billion which benefits the gamblers who gambled and now want to be bailed out. She voted against the second $350 billion of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Kirsten Gillibrand voted for sanity and non-release of the funds.
The money will unfortunately be spent because the U.S. Senate had earlier voted to release the second $350 billion in TARP loot. But our heroine in the other congressional wing, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, sensibly voted “no”.
The vote in the House of Representatives was 270 NO – 155 yes. Consider: the bailout bill was the #1 priority of Barack Obama and Obama lobbied relentlessly for the money and yet the House of Representatives with all those newly elected Democrats overwhelmingly told Obama to shove… er… off.
Barack Obama did not do much better with the big Dimocratic majority in the U.S. Senate. Obama pummelled Senators to give him the loot of the bailout bill. The Senate voted to give Obama the loot, but the numbers are not very impressive -52 YES, 42 no.
Obama huffed and puffed to get the money, and barely managed to get a majority vote in an overwhelmingly Democratic Senate. Senator Merkley of Oregon proved to be a hypocrite or a liar or both in this vote. Merkley campaigned a few months ago against the bailout bill but his vote was to surrender the money. Merkley lied to his constituents.
Democrats voting against giving Obama the TARP loot were: Bayh of Indiana, Cantwell of Washington, Dorgan of North Dakota, Feingold of Wisconsin, Lincoln of Arkansas, Nelson of Nebraska, Shaheen of New Hampshire, Wyden of Oregon and Bernie Sanders the Independent who typically votes with Democrats from Vermont.
Kristen Gillibrand will now join the Senate and quite possibly join with Jeanne Shaheen (maybe add Hillary friend Blanch Lincoln of Arkansas) to block Obama’s looting of the American economy in the same way George W. Bush looted the American economy.
Kristen Gillibrand will have to run for election in 2010 to finish Hillary Clinton’s term, then seek a full term for herself in 2012. Gillibrand will win in 2010 if she sticks to her stated principles and votes against the looting of the American economy. If Gillibrand becomes a hypocrite or a liar and votes flop-flips like hypocrite and liar Merkley, she will deserve to lose – and likely will lose.
Gillibrand might become the light saber wielding fighter against Obama and a leader in the emerging NObama coalition.
* * *
Let’s deal with the nonsense of a primary revolt against Governor Paterson and Senator Gillibrand in 2010.
Governor Paterson and Senator Gillibrand (as well as all Democrats) do face potential defeat in 2010 because of the economy. But if defeat comes to Paterson/Gillibrand it will be in the general election not in the primaries.
The Hopium addled threaten that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, son of former Governor Mario Cuomo, has sufficient support and popularity as well as a strong fundraising operation, and will challenge Governor Paterson in the Democratic primary. This is foolishness.
Because of Obama’s race-baiting during the 2008 primaries, African-American politicians know they now can have friends and allies shout “racism” when in trouble and thereby defeat their white opponents. These fake shouts of “racism” in the age of fake demean the long and well documented history of racial bigotry. But like Obama and Burris the “racism” shouters (some like Bill The Bomber Ayres shout “racism” to scare off scrutiny and they are not even African-Americans) know they will not be punished for their bogus, politically motivated, claims of racism.
Andrew Cuomo knows he cannot run against a black man in a Democratic primary. Andrew knows this, not because of Obama’s race-baiting during the 2008 primary, but because Andrew has been there, done that.
But as we’ve mentioned here before, that line of analysis seems to ignore the impact of Cuomo’s disastrous 2002 challenge to Carl McCall for the Democratic nomination. Aside from running an immature campaign, Cuomo’s decision to try to take the nomination away from a longer-serving official striving to become the first African-American elected governor in NY was badly received from the start.
Challenging an incumbent in a primary involves the same kind of too-much-in-a-hurry chutzpah. Challenging an African-American appointed incumbent who is trying, again, to become the first black man elected governor would arouse the same resentments.
A Paterson vs. Cuomo primary would devastate Cuomo. First of all there is no love between the Kennedy Dynasty and the Cuomo Dynasty, what with that messy divorce business. Second, Paterson will most likely have the African-American community united behind him. More importantly Paterson would have Cuomo’s former vanquisher, Carl McCall, doing whatever “work” needs to be done. McCall is on board with Paterson and has recently defended him.
H. Carl McCall, the former state comptroller and a Democratic candidate for governor in 2002, defended Mr. Paterson’s handling of the appointment, pointing out that Ms. Kennedy’s own uneven performance and the intense worldwide scrutiny of her bid were factors beyond the governor’s control.
“I think that to look at his governorship in the light of this situation would be terribly unfair,” said Mr. McCall.
As to a potential Gillibrand challenger, she already has one. Carolyn McCarthy, the Long Island Representative who ran for congress as a gun control advocate because her husband was killed on the Long Island Railroad in 1993 is running against Gillibrand. Other than on the gun issue McCarthy is to the right of Gillibrand so her candidacy makes no sense on the issues balance test.
Recall that McCarthy was a Republican. Her congressional representative, Dan Frisa, voted to ban a ban on semiautomatic firearms. McCarthy wanted to run as a Republican against Frisa but was rebuffed by the Republicans. McCarthy turned to the Democrats in the Republican district and beat Frisa by 17 percentage points.
Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, yet another male from New York City, is weighing a challenge to Gillibrand. The usually sensible Stringer appears to be losing his sense – as others have. The usually sensible Michael Tomasky is not making much sense either:
She’s an odd choice. Two years in Congress, against all those members of the state’s House of Representatives Democratic delegation with many years experience? In these cases, one smell test that ought to be passed is that a governor should be able to say “X was the best person for the job” with at least some degree of plausibility. I don’t think Paterson can do that here. Even Blago could say that about Roland Burris, kinda-sorta. She was an obviously political choice: woman and upstater. Those are fair considerations of course, but when it’s this obvious, it invites trouble.
Now they worry about experience? Has Caroline Kennedy ever won an election? Gillibrand has won an election in a difficult district. Gillibrand is a woman. Gillibrand is not from Manhattan but rather from upstate New York which brings some balance to a downstate exclusive Democratic ticket. Is diversity relegated to the dumpster now?
McCarthy needs to remember that the Democratic Party she won election to has all but abandoned gun control as an issue. The successful Republican strategy of God, Guns, and Gays caused the Democrats to abandon, or rather embrace God (Obama kissey kissey Rick Warren), ignore Guns, and hide Gays. This is not the Democratic Party you remember Carolyn.
McCarthy and Stringer and any other potential challengers also have to consider Senator Schumer.
We revealed in December what others are writing about now in late January – that Chuck Schumer was either A factor or THE determining factor taking the appointment from Caroline Kennedy and giving it to Gillibrand.
And Schumer is not the same senator he was nine years ago. He has amassed real and undeniable power in the chamber after two incredibly successful cycles as the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Senators elected on his watch are indebted and loyal to him. He is a trusted adviser to majority leader Harry Reid, whose job Schumer is often discussed as eventually being in line for.
McCarthy, Stringer and the rest will have to fight Chuck Schumer if they want to replace Senator Gillibrand. And whatever Schumer thinks of them Chuck Schumer does not want to again be the senior senator from New York that lives in the shadow of the junior senator from New York – no matter if that name is Caroline, Stringer, or McCarthy. That “shadow” factor helped Gillibrand greatly in the Paterson primary:
“She won’t really present a threat to him in any way,” said one former Schumer staffer, speaking on background. “She’s new. She’s young. She’s not going to start out with any profile as opposed to a Cuomo or a Kennedy. She will give him no competition. I’m sure she’s going to be deferential.” [snip]
“Chuck will respect the fact that she beat Sweeney and that she is a brawler,” said another former Schumer staffer, referring to the Republican incumbent Gillibrand took out in 2006.
One of the staffers also said that Gillibrand’s strong contacts in New York City, where she worked as a lawyer for several white-shoe law firms, made her a more attractive addition to the 2010 ticket because of her ability to raise money. That’s a skill that Schumer especially prizes.
Howard Dean, like Gillibrand received an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association. Gillibrand’s position on gay issues is much for socially progressive than gay-bashing Obama, for all his flowery words.
Democrats in 2010 have to fear increased Republican turnout. Contrary to what the Hopium addicts believe, it was low Republican turnout that determined the results of the 2008 election. It is likely that in the 2010 off year elections, Republicans will be motivated and the Hopium addicts will be in political methadone clinics.
In The Mess-iah Complex we explained the 2008 election results. What Democrats have to really worry about in the 2010 elections is the B.O., stinky, economy.
Governor Paterson will be particularly hard hit. On January 1, 2009 New York State’s unemployment funds ran out – too many claims, no money. New York State is borrowing $90 million a week from the federal government to pay unemployment checks. Imagine what the economic landscape will be as Democrats run for election or reelection in 2010.
It was not the Hopium brigades that determined the 2008 election. In 2010 “historical electoral patterns suggest that Republicans could pick up a passel of Senate and House seats”. It was not a “wave of black voters and young people” that determined the 2008 presidential election.
More importantly, “you see a heavy influx of moderate to conservative members in the incoming freshman Democratic class, particularly in the House.” Democrats who want to loot the economy along with Obama might not be as easy to find as we suppose.
The fact that roughly a third of the Democratic House majority sits in seats with Republican underpinnings (at least at the presidential level) is almost certain to keep a liberal dream agenda from moving through Congress. The first rule of politics is survival, and if these new arrivals to Washington want to stick around, they are likely to build centrist voting records between now and 2010.
* * *
We will be writing with great frequency about the upcoming looting bill which might be as high as $900 billion.
If Paterson and Gilibrand want to win in 2010 they should fight for economic justice and not the looting of the American economy by Barack Obama, the Third Bush Term.
There is a future for the emerging NObama coalition.