Kirsten Gillibrand is... a liberal?
A lot of people have been attacking Kirsten Gillibrand for being a member of the Blue Dog Coalition and getting a high score from the NRA.
But it's important to look at her overall voting record, which it seems like most people on this blog and others are kind of ignoring.
Here are her 2008 scores from several important liberal interest groups:
100%-NARAL/Pro-Choice America
100%-American Civil Liberties Union
95%-Americans for Democratic Action'
100%-Children's Defense Fund
95%-League of Conservation Voters
96%-NAACP
89%-SEIU
96%-Mean Score
I wouldn't exactly call someone with those kind of numbers a conservative...
She sounds pretty liberal to me!
But it's important to look at her overall voting record, which it seems like most people on this blog and others are kind of ignoring.
Here are her 2008 scores from several important liberal interest groups:
100%-NARAL/Pro-Choice America
100%-American Civil Liberties Union
95%-Americans for Democratic Action'
100%-Children's Defense Fund
95%-League of Conservation Voters
96%-NAACP
89%-SEIU
96%-Mean Score
I wouldn't exactly call someone with those kind of numbers a conservative...
She sounds pretty liberal to me!
Advertisement
Anyone who has actually read about or been witness to her work in office would clearly know she's not a Conservative.
January 24, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bah, here in Texas its not uncommon for Democrats to carry firearms. So, it doesn't really bother me.
January 24, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read Barth's blog. He really is upset about NY politics. But you have convinced me. I just want someone who desires an opportunity to caucas with the Democrats and work on a Democratic agenda.
January 24, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those aren't votes BTW, those are special interest group scores (the NRA score is also). Here are a few actual votes that make me wonder:
-She voted against both versions of the TARP bailout bill in the fall.
-She voted against assistance to states for purchasing foreclosed homes and providing housing assistance to low income Americans.
-Against imported prescription drugs.
-She was the only New York Democrat to support the May 2007 war-funding bill; the others voted against it because it did not contain a troop-withdrawal timetable.
-She also voted for H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act (If folks are gonna criticize Obama for it...)
-During this year's campaign, she described her voting record as "one of the most conservative in the state"
-As far as a conservative rating goes, she's close to Nick Lampson and has the highest conservative rating among democrats in the NY delegation.
-As recently as the Jan/Feb 2009 issue of Inside/Out magazine she was against full gay marriage and supported civil unions.
-In Idaho, Minnick got a crummy rating from the NRA for supporting regulations on armor-piercing ammunition. I can only assume that her 100% rating means that she is opposed to said regulations.
If you want to compare her to Tom Delay, hell yeah she's a raging liberal. If you want to compare her to Caroline Kennedy or even Rham Emmanuel; she isn't that liberal at all.
After all the crap I got for suggesting our guy in Idaho should be appreciated (and all the crap Reid and Pelosi get for not standing up to "Blue Dogs") - it is amazing to see the same people are now calling this woman a true-blue liberal. I actually agree with much of what she's done, but so far nobody around here has ever called me particularly liberal. I don't much care either way, but the hypocrisy from many of TPM's regular posters is stunning.
January 24, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You pretty much nailed it. Bravo!
She's a moderate, plain and simple. Let's be honest. She strikes me as someone pretty much right down the middle of the line. But I don't think Paterson picked her for any ideological reason. I think he picked her mainly because of the fact that she's a woman from upstate NY. That's what he said, and frankly, I can't think of any better explanation, unless I want to go making wild accusations about conspiracy theories involving Hillary Clinton. That line of thinking just strikes me as slightly irrational.
January 24, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink