Congressman Jose Serrano isn't interested in running for the U.S. Senate. He likes where he is in the House and doesn't plan on moving on. That is according to Liz, who reported today that Congressman Serrano won't run for the U.S. Senate and has no plans to endorse Senator Kirsten Gillibrand either.
Add Rep. Jose Serrano to the list of House Democrats taking a pass on 2010 primary challenges to their former colleague, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.
Serrano, a 35-year veteran public official from the Bronx who said back in May that he would consider taking on Gillibrand if no one else was willing, told me yesterday he isn't willing to risk his seat to do so
But Serrano remains concerned about the process by which Gillibrand was plucked from relative political obscurity by Gov. David Paterson and the subsequent "pressure" to which would-be contenders like Reps. Steve Israel and Carolyn Maloney were subjected to clear the field for her next fall.
"No, I'm not running," the congressman said during a telephone interview. "But I was not pleased with the selection, and I'm not pleased with the style and the pressure on Maloney and everyone else to get them out."
"I've been in office 35 years...I've never seen this type of pressure to get candidates out of the way. The White House, the vice president, the senator (Chuck Schumer). This was incredible."
"Here we are, and it looks like she's going to get a clear ride. Very few times in politics do you get to be that lucky, and there's no other way to say it but 'lucky.'"
There is the perception that President Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders have forced out the rest of the field. The only representative you could say was "forced out" was Congressman Steve Israel, who chose not to run after talking it over with President Obama.
When Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney announced she would not run on Friday, it was clear that she came to that decision on her own. While there may have been pressure, that pressure has been applied for months. Her decision not to run wasn't based on that pressure. Her decision not to run was based on some of the same reasons why Serrano won't run: Doesn't want lose seniority for congressional district in the House and doesn't want to start as a junior member in a new house.
The line about Gillibrand being selected from "relative political obscurity" made me chuckle. Gillibrand, while only a one-term congresswoman from an upstate district, has been a prolific fundraiser. Also, since when are you in "obscurity" if you are a member of Congress? Maybe you don't have the profile that someone like Sen. Chuck Schumer does. But it's not like Gillibrand was an unknown in political circles. Gillibrand raised nearly $4.5 million in 2008 for her re-election campaign. That was nearly as much as Israel, Maloney and possible Republican challenger Peter King combined. I don't like using money as a key indicator, but being able to raise that kind of money from an upstate district says a lot about her political credentials.
It looks like the push is still on for a Democratic primary. I wish the focus would shift from finding an opponent to taking a serious look at the job Gillibrand is doing as our senator.
Richard Fife just passed along this statement from Maloney which gives us a good idea of why she decided not to run.
In seriously assessing a Senate Campaign, I have been inspired by all the calls of support I have received from a broad array of people from all over the state and encouraged by my strong showing in the polls.
However, these are unique times with unparalleled challenges and running for the Senate is a full time job. Giving up for a critical period of time, the things I do best-passing legislation, working on the issues, serving New Yorkers would put politics before policy for the next year and a half.
Working this past week to provide meaningful health care reform and to advance important legislation to help those who lost their health because of 9-11 attacks, which would bring more than $11 billion to the city of New York, brought into sharp focus the importance of the work we are doing in Congress and of what is at stake for the nation.
The right decision for me and the people I represent is to stay in the House of Representatives and use the leadership positions I hold, including Chair of the Joint Economic Committee, to get things done.
I make this decision, not because I fear a tough political fight, but because I love one. In this Congress, we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to enact meaningful health care reform, restore the trust and confidence in our financial systems, and take a step toward a clean energy future.
We can do all this and more, but not without a mighty effort that deserves all my focus and all my energy. I welcome the challenge of shaping those bills and passing those reforms.
I look forward to working with Senators Schumer and Gillibrand and the NY delegation on behalf of our constituents, the State of New York and the American people.
I thank my family, friends and supporters for their confidence in me throughout this process. I may not be entering the race - but I will never leave the fight.
As I stated earlier, we all benefit from having Carolyn Maloney in the House. We also benefit greatly from having Kirsten Gillibrand in the Senate. Maloney has been a strong representative for those in her district and for all of New York. She will continue to be a critical piece of our congressional delegation.
After weeks of speculation that she would enter the race and challenge Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in a primary, it appears that Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney will not run for the U.S. Senate, citing her seniority in the House as the main reason why it was a tough decision to make.
A person close to Mrs. Maloney, a Democrat from Manhattan, said she made her decision not to run after days of agonizing over the fact that running meant she would have to leave her current job at a point when she had significant seniority in Congress.
"It's been a tough decision for her," said the Maloney associate who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter.
Mrs. Maloney's decision potentially clears the path for Ms. Gillibrand, who Gov. David A. Paterson picked to fill Hillary Clinton's vacant seat in January, for the Democratic party's nomination in the race for United States Senate next year.
The reality is that Maloney is a key member of the New York congressional delegation and losing her in the House would lose us everything she has worked hard for. Much like losing Congressman Steve Israel would have cost us a key political figure and a key member of the delegation, losing Maloney to the Senate, where she would have been one of, if not the junior member of the upper house.
But the signs were there that this wasn't going to be a good move for Maloney. She made it known on more than one occasion that she would announce her candidacy only to delay such an announcement. Her delay made today a possibility. Because with every announcement to push her candidacy back came speculation that maybe she just wasn't interested in running for a seat that would have her starting all over again in a new house.
I also think that today is a win for Gillibrand. There are obvious reasons, but also some not-so obvious reasons. Maloney had been pushing some talking points against Gillibrand that tried to paint Gillibrand as this conservative upstater who wasn't worthy of representing a state that is more progressive than the congressional district Gillibrand once represented. Gillibrand has made it a point since being named the junior U.S. senator to raise her progressive profile and show that she has always had the progressive credentials critics have questioned.
In the end, those talking points didn't gain any traction. They were all debunked by what Gillibrand is doing in the U.S. Senate.
We need our best leaders in Congress. A Gillibrand-Maloney primary would have robbed us of two great women who are in great positions to better New York. Gillibrand is a rising star in D.C. and will continue to serve the best interests of New York. Maloney has been a key leader in D.C. for many years and has been behind some key legislation, including the recent credit card reform bill, that has left a great mark on our state and country.
We need them both in Washington D.C. There was no need for them to fight it out. We need both where they are right now to serve our best interests.
In the six-plus months since her appointment, very little has changed from that aspect. In recent days, Jason Horowitz of the New York Observer has authored two columns (here and here) that paint Gillibrand as a political opportunist and as a puppet for the all-powerful Sen. Chuck Schumer. Liz Benjamin also played along today, using a post about Rep. Jerrold Nadler's endorsement of Manhattan DA candidate Richard Aborn to point out that Nadler has yet to endorse Gillibrand. Of course, he hasn't endorsed Rep. Carolyn Maloney either, but that's not how the point was framed.
This approach by members of the New York City media is becoming so blatant that it is really hard to take them serious, especially if this ends up being a legitimate primary with no possible candidates but an actual candidate in Rep. Maloney running against Sen. Gillibrand. They have treated Gillibrand as an outsider and even though we are all New Yorkers (as in the state), Gillibrand is not a "New Yorker" (as in the city).
I am a supporter of Gillibrand's. That I will disclose. Those who write for some of the above publications have read here in the past and will continue to read in the future. My message to them isn't that they kiss Gillibrand's feet and paint some fake picture of her. All I am asking for is balance. There needs to be a level of equality in their reporting. The continued "criticize Gillibrand" approach is getting tired. It is one thing to criticize an elected official where criticism is necessary. But it's another to pile on just because you don't know too much about them other than they aren't from your city.
Again, I'm not looking for special treatment. All I am looking for is a level of fairness and balance. There have been certain opinions of Gillibrand that aren't necessarily written, but are shown in the writing approach of these reporters. Sen. Schumer has been the beneficiary of plenty of positive media coverage from New York City publications in the past, but they have also critiqued him just the same. That same principle can be applied to Gillibrand, but we have yet to reach that point.
Is it the New York City media being disappointed that it was Gillibrand and not media darling Caroline Kennedy that was appointed to the seat? Possibly. And since Kennedy received just as much (if not more) media coverage than Gillibrand when Gillibrand's appointment was announced, it's hard to debate that point.
But that was a long time ago, at least in political terms. Caroline Kennedy is an afterthought at this point. We have a possible U.S. Senate primary and we have a senator that New Yorkers are trying to get to know. It is the media's responsibility to fairly distribute the news to show New Yorkers (whether in upstate or downstate) what their senator is doing or isn't doing. So far, that isn't being done.
We deserve better from our journalists. It's time we got the full story instead of the story they want to tell us about Sen. Gillibrand.
And Gillibrand, along with the dairy farmers of New York, got what they asked for.
Gillibrand, who is the first New Yorker in over 40 years to serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee, announced today that Secretary Tom Vilsack and the USDA will increase dairy pricing which is expected to give dairy farmers an estimated $243 million in revenue.
After meeting with U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand this week, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack announced immediate action to support struggling dairy farmers by increasing the amount paid for dairy products through the Dairy Product Support Program (DPPSP). The increase will be in place from August 2009 through October 2009 and is expected to generate an additional $243 million in revenue for dairy farmers.
"While this is great for New York's dairy farmers, this is only a temporary solution to the fundamental problems with the dairy pricing system," Senator Gillibrand said. "When I met with Secretary Vilsack on Wednesday, I made it clear that the current system is not working for New York dairy farmers - who have been pushed farther and farther toward bankruptcy. During these tough economic times, this increase will bring some much needed relief for our farmers."
New York farmers are facing a dairy pricing crisis. According to Farm Credit, it costs dairy farmers $17.58 to produce a hundredweight of milk. Yet the market is only paying $13.33 per hundredweight. The Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program was designed to be a safety net when there is a large price discrepancy. However, as the MILC program currently works, farmers are not even receiving enough income to cover the cost of staying in business. New York farmers have been forced to either take on massive debt to cover their costs or go out of business.
Senator Gillibrand has been working tirelessly to bring relief to New York's dairy farmers. Wednesday, Senator Gillibrand wrote to Secretary Vilsack urging the USDA to follow the Farm Bill, which she helped craft as a member of Congress, when establishing an advisory board to review issues surrounded milk pricing and dairy competitiveness.
Earlier this month, Senator Gillibrand unveiled her three-point plan to bring relief to New York's dairy farmers, including legislation to double the amount of money farmers receive from the MILC program, legislation to index the MILC rate to keep up with inflation, as well as plans to hold Senate hearings on dairy pricing both in Washington, D.C. and New York State.
The increase announced today will raise the price paid for nonfat dry milk from $0.80 per pound to $0.92 per pound, the price paid for cheddar blocks from $1.13 per pound to $1.31 per pound, and the price of cheddar barrels from $1.10 per pound to $1.28 per pound. This increase in the support price will have an immediate effect upon dairy farmers' bottom line. Temporarily raising the price of these dairy products increases the price that dairy farmers receive for their milk.
This is significant for a number of reasons. For starters, it is good to have someone in the U.S. Senate defending the interests of New York's farmers. While upstate New York benefits from this greatly, we do have farms in areas like Long Island where the importance of agriculture is worth noting.
Dairy farmers everywhere, especially in New York, have been suffering for a long time. Not only is this a tough economy, but with overseas competition for milk, it is hard for a lot of the small farmers to compete. This will help them get on their feet and give them some extra revenue for their operations.
Kudos to Gillibrand for standing up for the dairy farmers of New York and other states where dairy farms play a vital role.
The largest public employees union in New York - CSEA - announced today that they will support Gillibrand for Senate in the 2010 elections.
CSEA President Danny Donohue said Senator Gillibrand established a strong working relationship with CSEA during her years in the House of Representatives and she has continued to impress with her hard work and fresh ideas. Donohue made the announcement during a meeting of CSEA's 122 member statewide Board of Directors today.
"Senator Gillibrand is an important ally for CSEA members and other working people," Donohue said. "She understands the pressures that our members experience on and off the job and she has consistently worked with us. At a time when our state and nation face extraordinary challenges, we need extraordinary individuals representing New Yorkers in the US Senate."
"We are proud to make this announcement now and without any reservation because we know Senator Gillibrand will continue to serve New Yorkers well.
"I am honored to receive the endorsement of CSEA and the 300,000 members-hardworking New Yorkers in every part of our state. We have a lot of work to do together to move forward on President Obama's agenda to get America's economy working again, create good-paying jobs and repair our nation's broken health care system," Gillibrand said.
CSEA joins a growing number of New York unions that have lined up behind Gillibrand's campaign, including New York State United Teachers (NYSUT), United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1500 (UFCW), New York State Pipe Trades Association, New York State Public Employees Federation (PEF), National Federation of Federal Employees, New York State Council of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and Office and Professional Employees Union.
I am actually a member of CSEA. I just received my membership card in the mail a few days ago. So this endorsement is excellent on many levels.
The strong labor backing Gillibrand has received will help her, not only in a primary, but also in the general election. As Gillibrand's profile grows and she becomes more widely known, it will be tough for anyone to put up a strong fight against her. That goes for Democrats and Republicans.
She is a very strong representative who knows that listening to her constituents, being open (her sunlight initiatives are a rarity in Washington D.C.) and showing leadership is key to winning over New Yorkers who are looking for her to replace Hillary Clinton. She has shown the ability to do all of that and has even shown an ability to embrace the progressive movement and netroots and fight for the same causes we have been battling for.
There are certain issues that steal the spotlight for short or long periods of time. Right now, health care is the focus of the media's attention and in Washington D.C., health care is the hot topic right now with Congress looking at reforming our broken system.
But one issue that should not be forgotten is the environment. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand hasn't forgotten about the importance the environment plays and why keeping our air and water clean and addressing the issues with climate change deserve to be a top priority.
But Sen. Gillibrand is hoping that it will pass, but not at the environment's expense. Earlier this month, she spoke out regarding one key element in the House bill that would give coal-fired power plants less regulation and strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its power to regulate those coal plants.
Environmental activists already have complained that the House bill is too friendly to polluters and have been urging the Senate to toughen it by selling more emissions allowances -- rather than donating most of them to businesses initially.
Senate deal-making also jeopardizes some of the last-minute agreements that were key to passage in the House. For instance, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is worried about a provision added to the House bill that would strip the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate pollution from coal-fired power plants -- language backed by lawmakers in coal mining states.
"The EPA has to have authority to regulate coal plants under the Clean Air Act," said Gillibrand, who has promised "to use every bit of persuasive power" she can to ensure the bill "reflects the needs of New York." Leaders in New York have been concerned about acid rain traced to coal-burning plants in the Midwest.
This provision was criticized by environmental activists for being too lenient on polluters in a bill supposedly touting clean (and green) energy. In response, progressives have led the charge to make sure that such a provision won't survive in the Senate version (and the future agreed upon version) of the bill. MoveOn has a petition you can sign voicing your opposition to the provision and also sent out an e-mail to New York members of MoveOn asking them to send a note of thanks to Sen. Gillibrand for being "one of the very first senators to speak out publicly against rolling back the Clean Air Act."
Here's an excerpt from that e-mail:
For years, New York has had some of the worst air pollution in the country. On top of local pollution, New Yorkers get tons of smog and acid rain blown in from out of state.
Now, coal industry lobbyists are trying to slip a provision into Obama's clean energy plan that would repeal a key part of the Clean Air Act. This would bring about a whole new generation of dirty coal power and make New York's pollution problems even worse.
But not if Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has anything to say about it. She's one of the very first senators to speak out publicly against rolling back the Clean Air Act.
...
Under the Clean Air Act, dirty coal-fired power plants are required to meet standards for their global warming pollution. The Bush administration refused to enforce these rules, but President Obama has already started taking steps to crack down.
That's why coal lobbyists are trying to repeal key sections of the Clean Air Act, letting coal plants off the hook and sticking New Yorkers with lots more pollution.
This rollback is the wrong thing to do, and it certainly doesn't belong in a "clean energy" bill. But the polluters might get away with it if champions in Congress don't fight back.
Sen. Gillibrand is fighting. She told the Albany Times-Union in an article that got picked up nationwide that "The EPA has to have authority to regulate coal plants under the Clean Air Act" and promised "to use every bit of persuasive power" to ensure the bill "reflects the needs of New York" by cutting power plant pollution.
MoveOn also thanked Sen. Gillibrand outside of her office in New York City:
Gillibrand has been at the forefront of many progressive issues during her time as a senator. This isn't the first time, but it is key since this legislation will be taken up by the Senate and there are already debates about what protections should be included (or excluded). Senators from coal-friendly states will be facing pressure to defend the interests of the industry. Gillibrand won't face such pressure, but she isn't going to let the best interests of coal be reflected in a bill that is supposed to be promoting clean and green energy.
But now she's in the Senate, representing all of New York rather than a small, and relatively conservative, slice of it. She's also facing a primary challenge from the liberal Carolyn Maloney. Gillibrand's response, in part, has been to emerge as an unexpectedly aggressive champion of the public option. "I believe that a robust not-for-profit public option must be a part of the health care reform package Congress passes this year," she wrote on the Huffington Post. "I feel that opening up a Medicare For All type system to everyone would lower costs and increase efficiency by injecting some much needed competition into the market." The post's title? "Help me fight for a public option!"
Of course, Ezra's post gives us the impression that support for a public option (a "Medicare for all" system) is something new to Gillibrand that is only a matter of convenience. His argument in the post ties Gillibrand with Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter and his attempt to sway progressive voters in the Democratic Party by doing things like attending Netroots Nation in Pittsburgh.
But what Ezra misses is a long-held belief by Gillibrand that the only way to reform our health care system is by implementing a public option. This isn't something new. This isn't something she wrote in a blog post only to appeal to progressives.
In fact, Gillibrand has been advocating for a public option since her first campaign in 2006.
According to OnTheIssues, Gillibrand's 2006 campaign website featured as her platform on health care all of the following:
- Allow anyone to buy into Medicare
- Increase funding and access to rural health care
- Insure every child in America Prescription Drugs
- Allow the government to negotiate directly with the drug companies for Medicare
- Allow the U.S. to import drugs from Canada
Gillibrand favors allowing Americans to buy into the Medicare system; Swee ney denounced her proposal as a move toward universal health care.
Medicare has less overhead than private insurers with high CEO salaries, she said. "I think we need more competition in the system. The whole health-care system is being framed by the health-care industry," Gillibrand said. "What Americans need to do is focus on a preventative care system."
Sweeney dismissed Gillibrand's proposal.
"She's proposing a government-run universal health care system. That's been a disaster. Anywhere it's been applied anywhere in the world, it's done nothing but stifle innovation and made services less available to people who need them," he said. "We have expanded health-care insurance access by virtue of incentivizing it for small businesses in the private sector."
There are those who will argue that Gillibrand has made a shift on some issues from being a moderate (or conservative) to being a progressive. They will point to her stance on guns, her support for marriage equality and other issues simply to paint her as a "flip-flopper."
But if there is one issue you can't do that with it is health care. Gillibrand's support for a public option was evident in 2006 when she was campaigning in the 20th congressional district. She did not change that stance while she was serving in the House of Representatives and is now fighting to make sure that a public option is included in any health care reform that the Congress completes.
The lumping in of Gillibrand with Specter was also something Ezra did (and others have done recently) which isn't quite accurate. For example, since Gillibrand's stance on health care has always been one supportive of a public option, then she has held a progressive stance on that issue. Obviously, that's something she hasn't been given enough credit for because it's easy to paint her as a conservative Democrat from a conservative upstate New York district.
But the comparisons are way off. Gillibrand has shown us a progressive side that was waiting to be unleashed. As we have seen with some Democratic representatives like Congressman Eric Massa, there is only so much you can say or do without putting yourself at risk of being threatened come election time. Gillibrand was in the same position - until she became a U.S. senator.
Now she has reinforced her belief in a public option. She has advocated for a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and has shown support for gun control and gun safety initiatives she was once accused of opposing.
Specter is no comparison. He is a Republican who decided that the Democratic Party was now his party of choice. Maybe the tide in Pennsylvania told him that. Now, he has the Democratic establishment and party leaders in Pennsylvania supporting his re-election efforts. And he has the support from one of New York's "great Democrats": Steve Pigeon.
The Gillibrand-Specter comparisons can quit. Specter isn't even close to being progressive. And while Gillibrand will continue to prove that she is a progressive, keep in mind that her support for a public option was there even when she was a member of the Blue Dog Coalition. And with the opposition from Blue Dog members in the House to health care reform, that is something worth highlighting.
Gillibrand has always supported the right option: The public option.
In a diary on Daily Kos, Sen. Gillibrand stood firmly against DADT and said that she would actively work to repeal the policy that discharges (or fires, which is more appropriate) members of the military who are openly gay.
Recently, Gillibrand announced that she was circulating an amendment that would be attached to the defense spending bill which would institute a moratorium on firing members of the military who are openly gay.
Unfortunately, as of today, such an effort is on hold.
Gillibrand, the freshman senator appointed by Governor David Paterson after President Obama tapped Hillary Clinton to head the State Department, signaled last week she would introduce the reform as an amendment to a Defense Department reauthorization bill.
The amendment would place an 18-month moratorium on the military gay ban, also known as "don't ask, don't tell," the law that prescribes discharge for gay and lesbian service members who do not remain celibate or closeted.
While the measure was supported by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, Gillibrand said the bill became a non-starter after her office shopped it around.
"She's not going to pursue the moratorium amendment at this time," Matt Canter, a Gillibrand spokesman, told the paper. "She was working for about a week to assess support among her colleagues for the measure. It does not appear that we're going to have the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster."
...
A bill that would repeal the military gay ban is sponsored by Pennsylvania Representative Patrick Murphy, an Iraq veteran, in the House. Senator Kennedy is expected to sponsor the Senate version.
President Obama says he supports repeal of the law even as the administration has fired 313 gay service members, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group that lobbies for repeal.
I have no criticisms for Gillibrand here. She did everything she could do in trying to find support for the amendment. Unfortunately, it appears that fellow members of the Senate (including members of our 60-seat, alleged "filibuster-proof" majority) don't see it the same way Gillibrand does. Gillibrand sees DADT as discrimination and believes it is wrong. Apparently we have senators who think otherwise, even on our side.
It is time for DADT to come to an end. It has done far too much damage to good people like Dan Choi. It's good to see Gillibrand at the forefront, but we need more support.
But in their attempt at an attack on Gillibrand, they showed just how inept the Republicans are (and have been) at utilizing the Internet as a political tool.
Not only is that bad, but because of their apparent coding failure, the title is mashed together. You can still make it out, but it overlaps and looks rather beginner-like.
I should also note that this was brought to my attention earlier today. As of 4:00 p.m., it still wasn't fixed. So apparently the NRSC is going for substance over style, even though there isn't much substance and not a whole lot of style either.
UPDATE: As Dan indicates in the comments, if you go to the press release that I mentioned in this story, it no longer exists. How embarrassing it must be for the individual (or individuals) who left that up all day. Do they not read the material once it is posted? It was just a foolish mistake and yet, it was there for the whole day.
With guns at the forefront of a debate on the Senate floor, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand used her time to discuss why she opposed the much-talked about Thune Amendment.
The Thune Amendment, which Sen. John Thune (R-SD) tried to slip into the defense spending bill, would have allowed individuals who are licensed to carry concealed weapons to carry those same weapons in other states that allow for the possession of such weapons.
The amendment came close to passing, with 58 senators voting for the amendment, including a number of Democrats. However, the 39 senators who voted against the amendment kept it from passing. Among those 39 were both of New York's senators - Gillibrand and Sen. Chuck Schumer.
You can watch Sen. Gillibrand deliver her remarks on the Senate floor. Gillibrand also issued a statement praising the rejection of the amendment.
"Over the last several days I have been urging my colleagues to oppose this harmful measure and side in favor of law enforcement and state's rights.
"It is simply wrong for the federal government to overrule a state's ability to enact reasonable, constitutional gun laws designed to prevent criminals and other violent and dangerous persons from carrying guns in city streets.
"This legislation would have posed a serious public safety risk to New York and states around the country, and I am pleased that our colleagues have taken the right course and voted to defeat this amendment."
What this amendment intended to do, while being touted as pro-gun legislation, was very anti-state and anti-Constitution. It is one thing to provide your citizens with the right to bear arms. It is another to tell states that they must allow those who are licensed to carry concealed weapons in their state even if that particular state didn't license the individual. Keep in mind that some states gun registration rules are stricter than others. So such an amendment would have taken a lot away from the states.
Sen. Gillibrand (and Sen. Schumer) made the argument against the amendment. This amendment, despite its bi-partisan support, should not have been passed. It is good to see both of our senators on the right side of the issue.
- Nearly 60 percent of adults in New York are either obese or overweight. The report has the county-by-county breakdowns, but the region breakdown tells the story.
New York City: 55 percent of adults either obese or overweight
Long Island: 54 percent of adults either obese or overweight
Hudson Valley: 57 percent of adults either obese or overweight
Capital Region: 59 percent of adults either obese or overweight
North Country: 62 percent of adults either obese or overweight
Central New York: 59 percent of adults either obese or overweight
Southern Tier: 61 percent of adults either obese or overweight
Rochester-Finger Lakes: 59 percent of adults either obese or overweight
Western New York: 60 percent of adults either obese or overweight
- Gillibrand will introduce legislation banning trans fats in public schools. Any school receiving federal funds would be required to eliminate foods from schools that have trans fats in them.
- Gillibrand is working with Sen. Tom Harkin, who heads the Senate Agriculture Committee, to give the USDA more authority in regulating junk food in schools.
- The reimbursement rate would increase under Gillibrand's plan for the National School Lunch Program. The goal is to provide schools with the necessary funds to make lunches healthier and more nutritional for students.
- The Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity Act is a piece of legislation that Gillibrand will introduce to promote exercise among young people and assist communities that have high rates of obesity get obese and overweight people working out and active.
From the press release:
With health care reform the top priority for Congress, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is focusing her efforts on reducing childhood obesity, announcing a new plan to ban trans fats in school and provide healthier school lunches. As the first New York Senator in 40 years to sit on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Gillibrand is providing New Yorkers with a seat at the table as congress debates how to improve the health of children and the food they eat each day. From her seat on the Committee, Senator Gillibrand is working to secure more federal funds for New York State to combat childhood obesity and lower health care costs..
"As Congress debates how to improve health care access and lower health care costs, we must also pursue a strategy to tackle childhood obesity and improve the health of our future generations," Senator Gillibrand said. "We can't afford to let our children grow up in a culture of obesity. If our children are going to have the opportunity to reach their potential, they need a healthy start. The most effective way to address obesity is to provide healthier food and exercise opportunities for our children. We need to be taking real steps to give parents, schools and communities the resources they need to give our children access to fresh fruits and vegetables."
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, over the last 30 years, obesity among American children ages six to 11 has more than doubled - from 6.5 percent to 17 percent. In the same timeframe, obesity among 12 to 19-year-olds has more than tripled - from five percent to nearly 18 percent.
Studies show that the most effective way to prevent obesity is to address it during childhood by instilling healthy habits. Obesity puts children at risk of developing serious diseases, including Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, hypertension and other conditions like depression. Obesity keeps children from performing their best at school. Studies show that being overweight or obese can have a negative effect on math and reading scores - and keeps students out of school for more sick days. According to a recent study by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, performance on standardized tests is strongly correlated to physical fitness levels.
These initiatives are key to addressing the problem. On a personal level, I have lost 50 pounds since June 2008 just by riding my bike on a regular basis and by playing tennis and other outdoor sports. Staying active is important and eating right is just as important. Both play a big role in staying healthy and living a fruitful life.
I have heard all of the arguments why Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand should face a primary. There are those who have argued that primaries promote democracy. I agree with that. There are also those who argue that because Gillibrand was appointed by Governor David Paterson (who doesn't have the best of approval ratings right now), she should face a challenge as part of some sort of challenge to Paterson's leadership. I don't agree with that line of thinking because, well, picking Gillibrand was one of the best things Paterson has done.
But in terms of the Democratic Party, one of the key theories is that a primary makes for a stronger candidate, no matter who ends up the victor. In Gillibrand's case, there are those who argue that a primary will put her to the test. Can she win the progressive vote? Can she win the downstate vote? Can she still appeal to those who are on the conservative side of the party?
That raises a good question: If we are asking these questions of Gillibrand, who will face a primary in 2010, why aren't we doing the same for Sen. Chuck Schumer?
Those that argue for a primary would surely agree (based on the arguments that they are currently making) that the same principles should apply to Schumer. Gillibrand and Schumer have a lot in common. They both enjoy strong party support. They both are incumbents (Schumer moreso than Gillibrand).
If I had to make the case for a primary, I could make a stronger case for Schumer than for Gillibrand. His connections to Wall Street and the money he has raked in (or helped rake in for the DSCC) raises a lot of questions about his independence. He also supported Michael Mukasey for Attorney General after Alberto Gonzales resigned, even though Mukasey wouldn't say publicly whether or not waterboarding was torture.
Schumer, however, has proven to be a strong Democrat. He led the DSCC to victories in 2006 and 2008 and the reason why we have 60 votes in the U.S. Senate can be largely attributed to Schumer.
But is he the most progressive senator there is? Maybe not. Is he bad enough to primary? In my view, no. But if there was a serious challenge to him, I would consider my options.
The point is that a lot of the arguments made against Gillibrand could be applied to Schumer. One argument is that Gillibrand is going to bully other opponents out of the race with her money and party support. What do you think Schumer has done and will continue to do? Schumer is a force to be reckoned with. He would be very difficult to beat in a primary unless he had a serious challenger with strong support.
Primaries are good for democracy. They are also good for making good candidates better candidates. A primary for Schumer wouldn't be a bad thing. In New York, Republicans aren't strong enough to seriously challenge our opponents. Giving Schumer a serious primary challenge would put him to the test. And that would be a good thing, not only for us, but for Schumer.
We owe a lot of our success, as a party and a movement, to Howard Dean. As chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Dean led the way (equipped with a 50 state strategy that he was the main architect of) and helped elect a Democratic majority in the House, Senate and also led to the election of President Barack Obama.
Of course, the discussion about health care is important. But the political aspect of this is huge. Getting Howard Dean's endorsement is something that will hold a lot of weight with a lot of people, including the likes of myself who already support Gillibrand. Dean endorsing Gillibrand is a huge endorsement for Gillibrand and while she has received many endorsements from Democratic Party leaders and elected officials, having the backing of Howard Dean will help rally more and more progressives in support of Gillibrand.
Here is the text of the endorsement:
Well I want to thank Kirsten for the time she gave to do the interview. I asked her to do the interview because I'm considering endorsements in the United States Senate race in New York. So I'll tell you one very quick story about Kirsten Gillibrand.
She was elected in 2006, and I spent four years in Washington - and a lot of people in Washington say a lot of things and usually don't do anything about it. She came in about two and a half year ago when she was a representative and told me when I was chairman of the DNC that she wanted to do something for women through the Women's Leadership Forum. And I thought to myself, this is really great, but I'll bet it'll never happen.
She's the only person in four years that came to me, made a promise, and then brought six of her women colleagues in the House then, to raise money for the Democratic National Committee so we could have this big majority in the House and this big majority in the Senate.
And today, she's satisfied me that she knows how to use that majority in order to get things done. So I'm pleased to endorse Kirsten Gillibrand for the United States Senate for her re-election.
The endorsement is big, but the discussion Dean and Gillibrand had about health care really shows just how progressive Gillibrand is on the issue. For all the criticisms that she has wavered on issues from the past to the present, her support of a public option is something that she had stood by during her time in the Senate. She hasn't backed down from that, which is admirable and, well, progressive.
This is a great night for Gillibrand. Getting Dean's backing could be the most important endorsement she has received to date. Dean is well respected among those in the Democratic Party, the progressive movement and the netroots/grassroots. This endorsement will hold weight among all of those groups.
We have discussed a lot here the Democratic primary featuring Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney and progressive activist Jonathan Tasini. If this is necessary, those who frequent TAP know where I stand. I believe that Sen. Gillibrand is a strong senator and has done a lot of great things in the Senate during her short stint there.
But I wanted to put this in the proper context. I wanted to look at the advantages and disadvantages of a primary.
There are those who believe that democracy must be exercised. There also those who believe that there is someone better (someone more progressive or more in line with their views) than Gillibrand. Sometimes those views overlap, but the same can be said for those who support Gillibrand and believe that an unnecessary primary should be avoided.
Here are the list of pros and cons for a primary:
PRO: A primary that focuses on the issues can help make any candidate, whether that's Gillibrand, Maloney or Tasini, a stronger candidate. The key there is a campaign on the issues. To date, both Maloney and Tasini have taken a very negative tone in their approach. Maloney has said less about issues and where she would stand as a U.S. senator than she has attacked Gillibrand for Gillibrand's views or perceiving changes to positions. But a primary that features candidates talking about what is important to New Yorkers (something that is lacking at the state level lately) will be a refreshing change from the politics that we have seen over the last few years.
CON: The time between the primary and the general election. In New York, our primaries fall in September, giving the winner of those primaries less than two months to prepare for the general election in November. In 1992, we probably wouldn't have lost to Alfonse D'Amato if the primary was held earlier. But a hard-fought primary left the Democratic Party picking up the pieces and having to bring everyone together in two months. That is not an easy thing to do.
Those that have said that we did last year with President Barack Obama have a valid point, but also must remember that after the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton battle was done, we had five months to prepare for the general election. Five months is better than seven weeks.
PRO: A primary will be democracy in action. There are those who have been critical of how Gillibrand has netted many endorsements, but that is only part of the game. Endorsements are a two-way street. Remember: Someone has to do the endorsing. But a primary in this case was inevitable and that will enable the nearly six million Democrats in New York to voice their opinion about who should be the party's nominee for the general election in November 2010.
CON: A primary can be very damaging. This primary, at least the way it looks right now, could be a damaging one. As mentioned before, the timing of the primary makes a damaging primary tough to overcome. If attacks are exchanged and that is the only thing primary voters are hearing, they will be turned off by the process. That makes a candidate who stays out of the mess a more appealing choice and a possible upset winner should the primary get very messy. But whether or not that candidate (or any candidate who pulls it out in a nasty primary) is a viable one will depend on many things, namely just who the Republicans put up to oppose the Democratic nominee.
PRO: There are those who say that a primary would be a good thing for Gillibrand. In fact, I have heard those who are thinking about supporting Gillibrand but also support a primary say that a primary would show them just how good Gillibrand is. The same could be said for those who support Maloney. A primary is a test. It will be a big test for Gillibrand. It will be just as big for Maloney and Tasini.
CON: In a year when there will surely be a contentious fight for the New York State Senate (after the coup, it is hard to disagree with that) and in a year when we could face the prospects of a Democratic primary for governor, it would be nice to have a seat that is without drama. The U.S. Senate seat could have been that seat, but the primary will only add to the drama that New York will experience in 2010.
I am certain there are more pros and cons, but I want those to play out in conversation and debate. These are the ones I could immediately think of and be reminded of.
One thing that I didn't know how to group was the tie that a few people have made between Governor David Paterson and Sen. Gillibrand, essentially saying that because Paterson appointed Gillibrand, that should raise serious questions about Gillibrand's ability because of Paterson's own leadership woes. I don't believe the two are connected. Gillibrand's approval ratings and popularity are on the rise. Paterson's numbers aren't so lucky.
The primary is underway though. It is something we can't avoid now and something we should not shy away from. It will be an interesting race and I hope that it is one where the issues are at the forefront. Attacks have proven in the past to be something that turns off voters, so we should see less attacks and more substance in the months ahead.
Everyone has a reaction to the Quinnipiac poll unveiled yesterday that shows Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand trailing Rep. Carolyn Maloney 27 percent to 23 percent, with four percent of respondents saying they backed Jonathan Tasini and 44 percent of those surveyed saying that they are undecided, a huge total which will no doubt help the eventual winner in such a primary.
But while that might be the most important statistic from the poll, there are actually others that give you an idea that while Maloney might lead in a primary, that lead might not be what it seems.
There are a few other numbers from the poll that are worth highlighting:
- Gillibrand would beat Republican Peter King in a hypothetical matchup 44 percent to 28 percent with 26 percent undecided. Maloney also beats King, but by a 42 percent to 26 percent margin and 30 percent undecided. That four percent difference in the undecided column shows that while Gillibrand still has some work to do, Maloney has a longer way to go, especially if she is going to be a strong general election candidate. It's one thing to win the primary, as we have seen in the past, but it's another to be a weak candidate for a general election bid. I'm not saying that Maloney is the best candidate for the primary (I believe Gillibrand is) but if she is going to tout herself as the liberal in the race, she might want to change her tone and tout herself as more of a statewide candidate, which at the present time, she isn't.
- Maloney's only strength is New York City. Against King, Maloney beats King in New York City with 54 percent of the vote compared to King's 18 percent. In the suburbs, Maloney gets 41 percent against King's 39 percent, which isn't a huge margin. Maloney's faring in upstate New York isn't any better. In all of upstate New York, Maloney gets 32 percent of the vote against King, who gets 25 percent of the vote in a race against Maloney. Maloney's numbers against King in urban upstate areas (39 percent to 18 percent) are better than her numbers in other, presumably more rural areas of upstate (31 percent to 26 percent).
- While Maloney is strong in New York City and shaky elsewhere, Gillibrand is strong in most categories. While she needs to improve in the suburbs (King is beating her there in the poll by 17 percentage points), Gillibrand has strong numbers elsewhere. In New York City, she beats King 49 percent to 20 percent. In upstate New York, she beats him 46 percent to 24 percent. The polls show that both Gillibrand and Maloney have some work to do in the suburbs, but that Maloney also has a lot of work to do in convincing upstate voters that she, not Gillibrand, is the right nominee for the Democratic Party.
- Gillibrand's job approval ratings are rising. The poll finds that 37 percent of those surveyed approve of the job Gillibrand is doing as senator. Only 15 percent disapprove and 48 percent don't know or have no opinion on her performance. Those numbers are up from 33 percent in April and 28 percent in February. There are also more voters forming an opinion of Gillibrand. While only 48 percent are undecided on her approval rating, that is down from 54 percent in April and 62 percent in February. And it can be concluded from the results that as time goes on and Gillibrand has a chance to prove herself, more of those who don't know or have no opinion decide that they approve of her job performance.
Gillibrand has received plenty of endorsements from party leaders, unions and community groups, as well as many other progressive leaders, elected officials and organizations. There have been those who have argued that she has done this to avoid a primary. That isn't the case. She is receiving this support because people genuinely support her. The poll numbers have shown the evolution of New Yorkers and their support for Gillibrand. She is gaining more and more support at time goes on.
Maloney might lead in this poll that was released yesterday. But leading a poll in June 2009 is a far cry from winning the Democratic primary in September 2010. There is a long way to go and time is something that Gillibrand has shown benefits her greatly. The more time she has, the more she can show New Yorkers just how effective she has been and will continue to be.
(UPDATE: By my count, these are the 10 counties that have yet to endorse at this time: Bronx, Delaware, Fulton, Kings, New York, Niagara, Queens, Richmond, Suffolk and Tompkins. Only four of those counties - Delaware, Fulton, Niagara and Tompkins - are in upstate New York. The rest are around New York City or Long Island.)
But this endorsement announcement is the biggest of them all.
Gillibrand's campaign announced today that 52 county Democratic chairs have endorsed her in her bid for election in 2010. This is a huge announcement and gives Gillibrand serious party backing as she faces a possible primary challenge from Rep. Carolyn Maloney.
Here are some of the remarks given by county chairs in their endorsement of Gillibrand:
"I am proud to endorse Kirsten Gillibrand for U.S. Senate," Westchester County Chair, Reginald LaFayette said. "Kirsten is a voice that Westchester County families and businesses can count on - working tirelessly to forge new, innovative solutions to fix health care, and put renewable energy at the heart of our efforts to rebuild the economy and create new, well-paying jobs for New York."
"I am proud to endorse Kirsten Gillibrand for U.S. Senate because she will be a strong advocate for families and businesses on Long Island," said Chairman Jay Jacobs of Nassau County. "In just four short months, Kirsten has proven to leaders on Long Island that she understands our challenges and shares our values. From her efforts to reduce property taxes to securing funding to create jobs on the Island, Kirsten is working tirelessly on solutions for families and businesses in Nassau County."
"I am pleased to endorse Kirsten Gillibrand for U.S. Senate. Senator Gillibrand understands the needs of families during these hard economic times," said Len Lenihan, Erie County Chair. "Senator Gillibrand knows that high speed rail is a key component of Western New York's economic recovery. She is working with President Obama and our Congressional Delegation to create jobs in Erie County and secure the federal dollars we need to promote economic growth."
"After meeting Senator Gillibrand four times this year during her numerous visits to Western, New York, I strongly recommend her re-election," Cattaraugus County Chair, Dan McCandless said. "Her knowledge and support of upstate farmers fills a key need for Cattaraugus County and other upstate areas whose economies depend on family farms. The Senator has also authored legislation to help veterans receive the benefits they earned and she fought for the greatest investment in Veteran's benefits since World War II. I am proud to endorse Senator Gillibrand and look forward to working with her for years to come."
I have included the full list of county chairs below the fold. I should note that the only county they put the incorrect name of the chair down for was my county, Orleans. That was an easy edit I made. The correct name is Jeanne Crane. The incorrect name was Judy Baker's, who does serve as chair of Ontario County (as was recognized on the endorsement list).
The importance of this endorsement announcement cannot be understated. Having this much party support at this stage is huge. A primary challenge by anyone (including Jonathan Tasini) was severely weakened today with this announcement. While it isn't impossible to win, it sure makes it hard on those who are trying to win a statewide race when there is very little statewide support left.
As a resident of New York, a member of the Orleans County Democratic Committee and a blogger here in the New York netroots, I am proud to support Kirsten Gillibrand for Senate and I hope that everyone, fellow Democrats and progressive bloggers alike, will realize that Gillibrand's leadership and representation are exactly what we need. She is the best person for the job.
"Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand understands that rebuilding the economy begins with investments in education," said NYSUT President Richard C. Iannuzzi. "She is working tirelessly and effectively with President Obama and Sen. Schumer to save jobs for working families, keep teachers in the classroom and grow the state's economy. She has a sterling track record of commitment to strengthening education and health care, and will be the leader we need to ensure New York students have access to quality public education from pre-school through college. She's an effective voice who will help New York get through these challenging times and be well-positioned going into the future."
"Sen. Gillibrand shares our vision and is proving herself to be a strong leader in Washington," added NYSUT Executive Vice President Alan B. Lubin. "New York students deserve every educational opportunity to succeed. And, Kirsten is fighting to make sure they get it. We're proud to have her as a partner in this effort."
Randi Weingarten, President of the national American Federation of Teachers and the United Federation of Teachers in New York City, noted that, "NYSUT's endorsement is recognition that in just five months on the job, Kirsten Gillibrand has already shown us what kind of senator she is. She is fighting hard each and every day to build a brighter future for every New York student. Kirsten is the advocate we need to deliver for New York schools."
Gillibrand's campaign announced today that she has been endorsed by ACORN's Political Action Committee (PAC).
"With Kirsten, we know we have a leader who will always fight for those who have been pushed to the brink in this economic crisis," said Bertha Lewis, CEO and Chief Organizer of ACORN. "Kirsten is fighting to stem the tide of foreclosures to keep New York families in their homes, fighting for pay check fairness and better wages for every New York worker." Said Pat Boone, President of New York ACORN. "She's a strong voice for New York children -- making sure they've got the health care they need and every educational opportunity for a bright future," said Valerie Holder, Chair of APAC.
Ms. Lewis oversees the operations of ACORNs 400,000 strong membership, which is active in over 110 cities nationwide. A 16 year veteran of the organization, Ms. Lewis was most recently the Executive Director of ACORNs New York affiliate and is a founding Co-Chair of the New York Working Families Party.
"I am honored to have the endorsement of ACORN and proud to partner with them on an agenda aimed at helping those New Yorkers that are struggling in this difficult economy," said Senator Gillibrand. "Under ACORN's leadership, thousands of community organizers across New York and across the country are organizing block by block to help build an economy that works for all our workers. I am proud to partner with them to create good-paying jobs and provide affordable health care to all Americans."
The NYSUT endorsement is key in terms of education. Having the NYSUT endorsement shows that Gillibrand is committed to improving the education of New York's youth. That should be a top priority and Gillibrand has made it a priority.
Being backed by ACORN also shows that Gillibrand has key social justice backing. With the economy in rough shape, having someone still fighting for the poor and middle-class citizens of New York is important. Gillibrand has been doing that and will continue to do that.
But that attack was dealt a severe blow on Thursday when Sen. Gillibrand voted for H.R. 1256 - the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act - which will allow the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate the tobacco industry, a move that gives the federal government unprecedented power in regulating the industry.
She also been labeled as anti-immigrant, even though she has clarified that position and others since being appointed to the U.S. Senate. This week, she joined Sen. Bob Menendez in sponsoring legislation that would assist orphans, widows and widowers by allowing them to continue in the family immigration citizen. The Reuniting Families Act (S.1085) will help build upon moves made by President Barack Obama that allows families to stay an additional two years should they lose a parent our spouse.
This is what Gillibrand had to say about the Reuniting Families Act:
"I applaud the Obama Administration for taking an important first step to help families that have lost loved ones, but Congress must act in order to ensure a lasting solution for widows, widowers, and orphans as well," Senator Gillibrand said. "I am hopeful that in the weeks and months ahead, we can take action on this legislation and make additional progress to protect families being torn apart by our immigration system. This is an important part of our efforts to reform America's family-based immigration system to reunite loved ones, promote family stability and foster the economic growth that immigrant families have provided throughout our history."
The vote on the FDA regulation of tobacco and the co-sponsoring of the immigration legislation should show to Gillibrand's critics that she has strong positions on these issues that she has been attacked for over the last several months by those who are trying to make her seem not-so progressive.
It will be very difficult making the argument that Gillibrand is pro-tobacco when she cast this important vote. And it will be just as difficult to call Gillibrand anti-immigrant when she is co-sponsoring legislation that allows widows, widowers and orphans to stay in America and stay in the family immigration system.
Those who raise questions about her past views must remember the district she represented. She couldn't afford to be very progressive or else we would have had John Sweeney still representing the 20th congressional district. She had to balance out her views to appeal to a certain base and now that her base is a statewide audience, she has a chance to blossom as a candidate and as a legislator. That is exactly what she is doing in Washington D.C.
Former Mayor Ed Koch announced today that he is backing Gillibrand in her run for the U.S. Senate. Gillibrand, who was appointed to the seat vacated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was very pleased with this latest endorsement.
"Mayor Koch is a consummate New Yorker who embodies the spirit of our great city," said Kirsten Gillibrand. "I am honored to have his support and that he has answered the question of 'how'm I doin' by endorsing me for the United States Senate. I look forward to his invaluable insights as I continue to work with President Obama to create good paying jobs in New York City and fix this economy."
Koch, in endorsing Gillibrand, said that she would be a great asset for New York City and would help build a connection between upstate and downstate New York.
"I believe that for New York City to continue to thrive we need leaders who can create a partnership of upstate and downstate, and I enthusiastically endorse Kirsten Gillibrand for the United States Senate," said Mayor Ed Koch. "In her short time in the Senate, I have been impressed with Kirsten Gillibrand's ability to understand the concerns of all New York families and to form a legislative agenda to address those concerns. She will fight to make sure New York City gets its fair share of federal dollars and to bring real improvements to the lives of everyday New Yorkers."
This endorsement comes on the heels of yesterday's report that Rep. Carolyn Maloney conducted an internal poll that shows her beating Gillibrand. Maloney, who has yet to declare her candidacy for the U.S. Senate, is seen as the top contender to Gillibrand at this point.
