New Senator from New York pro-gun, anti-bailout — and anti-amnesty

posted at 9:31 pm on January 26, 2009 by Allahpundit

We knew about the first two but her border enforcement cred caught me off guard. You ready for this? Quote:

In Congress, Congresswoman Gillibrand has been a firm opponent of any proposal that would give amnesty to illegal aliens. The federal government must provide the necessary resources to secure our borders, which is critical for America’s economic and national security. She strongly supports legislation that would significantly increase the number of border patrol agents and place sophisticated technology along the Southern border to catch human and drug smugglers.

Congresswoman Gillibrand authored and passed an amendment that will prevent employers who have hired illegal aliens from receiving federal contracts.

In addition, Congresswoman Gillibrand believes English should be made the official language of the United States and she opposes providing non-emergency taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens. As a Member of the Agriculture Committee, she has advocated for a review of the current H-2A visa system, so that farmers will have access to legal workers when they cannot find Americans to fill their labor needs.

Pelosi and the rest of the New York congressional delegation evidently hate her, too. Dude, sign me up.

The bad news? She’s sure to get a serious challenge in the primary next year from the left, fueled by nutroots money and amnesty-shill rhetoric like this. Donate early and often. Exit question: Who could have guessed that KP would become only our second-favorite Democrat named Kirsten?

Update: Just to put this in perspective for you, on two of the three aforementioned issues, she’s to the right of Sarah Palin.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Eh, she will fall in line with Obamabi.

aikidoka on January 26, 2009 at 10:35 PM

This all is a good example of just how bad both parties politicians have gotten in America. So bad that we are doing the equivalent of picking out morsels from a garbage dump and debating the culinary merits of each, right before deciding which is the best alley to sleep in.

MB4 on January 26, 2009 at 10:35 PM

Another reason they hate her.

Health Care Affordability:

All individuals, families and businesses deserve to have the ability to buy into a health care plan at a rate that they can afford. Competition in the private insurance industry is critical to reign in health care costs and improve quality of care for the patient.

Too many small business owners are unable to offer health care to their employees because of the high costs. I support providing tax credits to small business owners to allow them to help insure their employees and allowing small businesses to pool their employees for lower rates.

She’s free market capitalist when it comes to health care. No Daschle-ized socialized medicine.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 26, 2009 at 10:39 PM

MB4 on January 26, 2009 at 10:35 PM

Ding. Too bad it took so long on the thread to get to the proper way of looking at this.

Bishop on January 26, 2009 at 10:40 PM

Good grief! Have we found our true Republican in the form of the…Democratic beast?

I like her! Keep talking, Ms. G., and I am your slave.

PattyJ on January 26, 2009 at 10:45 PM

Ding. Too bad it took so long on the thread to get to the proper way of looking at this.

Bishop on January 26, 2009 at 10:40 PM

I started out with a bit of a buzz over all of this and then slowly sobered up, unfortunately.

MB4 on January 26, 2009 at 10:45 PM

This all is a good example of just how bad both parties politicians have gotten in America. So bad that we are doing the equivalent of picking out morsels from a garbage dump and debating the culinary merits of each, right before deciding which is the best alley to sleep in.

MB4 on January 26, 2009 at 10:35 PM

Certainly a better job of putting this to words than I could do,but this pretty much parallels my thoughts when getting a little bit happy about seeing a democrat going into Congress that is not a full blown marxist,or feeling relieved when a Republican on the hill actually stands up for the country and party every once in awhile.

OHH well,nothing a few good shots of Tequila won’t take care of.

Baxter Greene on January 26, 2009 at 10:46 PM

OHH well,nothing a few good shots of Tequila won’t take care of.

Baxter Greene on January 26, 2009 at 10:46 PM

Sometimes too much to drink is barely enough.
- Mark Twain

MB4 on January 26, 2009 at 10:53 PM

I like what I see so far….

DL13 on January 26, 2009 at 10:54 PM

Update: Just to put this in perspective for you, on two of the three aforementioned issues, she’s to the right of Sarah Palin.

Yeah- sure Allahpundit. Gillibrand is also pro gay marriage, pro big government, and pro abortion.

…just to put that in perspective for you.

What’s wrong? If you cannot misrepresent Palin in one of your posts, they you don’t get any post action?

kcarpenter on January 26, 2009 at 10:57 PM

I have no confidence that she will stay moderate. Until recently, she had the lowest score on gay issues of any Democratic Congressman from New York and supported same-sex civil unions. As soon as she was picked for Senate, she supported full marriage rights for homosexuals.

Buyer beware.

Damian G. on January 26, 2009 at 10:59 PM

Typical AP. Yeah, Gillibrand is to the right of Sarah – when Sarah is being forced to toe the incoherent John McCain party line.

Get back to me when Sarah Palin is giving Sarah Palin’s positions on the bailout and immigration and not John McCain’s.

As for Senator Gillibrand, we love our gun totin’ ladies over here in the GOP. You know, in case that Democrat thing doesn’t work out for you and you decide you’d like to defect. We’ll even give you a waiver on the abortion and the stem cells issues…

Nat Hound on January 26, 2009 at 11:00 PM

Why isn’t she a Republican? Oh wait. Maybe she doesn’t want to be associated with the likes of McLame? I don’t really know.

hockey2k5 on January 26, 2009 at 11:01 PM

Gillibrand is also pro gay marriage, pro big government, and pro abortion.

…just to put that in perspective for you.

What’s wrong? If you cannot misrepresent Palin in one of your posts, they you don’t get any post action?

kcarpenter on January 26, 2009 at 10:57 PM

If left to her own devices, I’m not sure how pro-big government Kirsten is. She introduced legislation in the House for a constitutional balanced budget amendment. Doesn’t sound like a big government fan to me…

Nat Hound on January 26, 2009 at 11:04 PM

Doesn’t sound like a big government fan to me…

Nat Hound on January 26, 2009 at 11:04 PM

On the other hand, she could be a proponent of higher taxes

genso on January 26, 2009 at 11:06 PM

On the other hand, she could be a proponent of higher taxes

genso on January 26, 2009 at 11:06 PM

Check out her House page before Dingy Harry scrubs it. It’s quite the read. She’s in favor of making the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts permanent.

Nat Hound on January 26, 2009 at 11:11 PM

Gillibrand AP is also pro gay marriage, pro big government, and pro abortion.

kcarpenter on January 26, 2009 at 10:57 PM

Two outah three ain’t bad!

spmat on January 26, 2009 at 11:13 PM

Oh, and she has a lifetime rating of EIGHT from the American Conservative Union.

Clinton’s was a 7.71. SUCH a lurch to the right, really…

Damian G. on January 26, 2009 at 11:13 PM

The more discord that can be sown on the left the happier I am. This seems to be one vote that the big O will not get.

Gatsu on January 26, 2009 at 11:14 PM

Sometimes too much to drink is barely enough.
- Mark Twain

MB4 on January 26, 2009 at 10:53 PM

No doubt.

Reading over this “Pay for play” pork fest called a stimulus
certainly legitimizes that quote.

Baxter Greene on January 26, 2009 at 11:15 PM

I know it’s too late, but do we have any idea how she might feel about a tax cheat at Treasury?
It doesn’t matter what will happen tomorrow – right now, some of the dems are losing sleep over this woman. And that’s enough for me. We have to take some pleasure in the little things.
Today, I love her.

JeffinOrlando on January 26, 2009 at 11:20 PM

You guys do know that Emily’s list is part of her top 5 contributors, right?

kcarpenter on January 26, 2009 at 11:22 PM

I started out with a bit of a buzz over all of this and then slowly sobered up, unfortunately.
MB4 on January 26, 2009 at 10:45 PM

Yep, a nice cool drink on a hot day only to find a dead fly floating in the bottom of the glass.

But hey, I’m being turned away by my own reps in most respects, so I might as well enjoy the temporary high while I can.

Bishop on January 26, 2009 at 11:24 PM

For the first time in my life I am proud to be a New Yorker.

:)

hadsil on January 26, 2009 at 11:24 PM

Update: Just to put this in perspective for you, on two of the three aforementioned issues, she’s to the right of Sarah Palin.

yep.. stop back in for a day to see if it was worth it..

AP, go suck some rotten eggs.

DaveC on January 26, 2009 at 11:25 PM

…pro-gun, anti-bailout — and anti-amnesty …

based on those three issues … she beats the two conservative Senators from Arizona …

sigh …

AZ_Redneck on January 26, 2009 at 11:26 PM

If she sticks to her guns, pardon the pun, she could be an ally, if not a friend.

If she sells out to Harry Reid, so be it. That’s par for the course.

But for tonight, I’m racking my brain trying to figure out how her ACU score is so low. She seems to be on the right track with most of the big ticket items, save one notable exception.

Nat Hound on January 26, 2009 at 11:26 PM

Today, I love her.
JeffinOrlando on January 26, 2009 at 11:20 PM

While tomorrow she will send you a ‘Dear JeffinOrlando’ note explaining how she has fallen in love with some guy named Baracky.

Gillebrand will feel the power soon enough, it remains to be seen how badly her personal ethics are compromised by it.

Bishop on January 26, 2009 at 11:28 PM

Check out her House page before Dingy Harry scrubs it. It’s quite the read. She’s in favor of making the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts permanent.

Nat Hound on January 26, 2009 at 11:11 PM

Yowza…cut my taxes first, then we can have debates on other issues.

genso on January 26, 2009 at 11:30 PM

Hey man, it sounds like she’s a good one! New York finally got it right for once. I believe that senators should be appointed again. We don’t vote for Supreme Court justices and nobody seems to care about that. I’ll give credit to the NY Gov for making this pick.

ThackerAgency on January 26, 2009 at 11:36 PM

She may not be perfect, but she is a hell of a lot better than Sweet Princess Caroline.

And now Ted Kennedy is out for blood.

Mr. Joe on January 26, 2009 at 11:39 PM

Look, let’s take what we can get out of this. Even if on all other issues she is the same as Shrillary, look at the pluses (given she sticks to those principles):
1) Pro-gun — that’s going to be a big help when Pelousy, Biden, and crew come in with the assault weapons ban, ammunition serialization and closing the “gun show loophole”
2) Anti-amnesty — it will be nice to have someone to balance out Grahamnesty and McLame on that issue
3) Anti-bailout — hey, very few of the Republicans have a spine to oppose it, maybe she can show a few of the spineless ones up.

It’s not like we were going to get a Reagan in the rough from a Democrat governor appointment from one of the bluest of blue states (blows me away that Kimber Arms is still doing business in that state), so let’s do a happy dance with at least getting something good out of what could have been another certain Dirty Harry Reid rubber-stamp.

AZfederalist on January 26, 2009 at 11:40 PM

We’ll even give you a waiver on the abortion and the stem cells issues…

Nat Hound on January 26, 2009 at 11:00 PM

Speak for yourself please.

pannw on January 26, 2009 at 11:41 PM

Speak for yourself please.

pannw on January 26, 2009 at 11:41 PM

Tell me you wouldn’t be thrilled if the headline in tomorrow morning’s NY Post was “Gillibrand to Switch Parties.”

Nat Hound on January 26, 2009 at 11:45 PM

Pelosi and the rest of the New York congressional delegation evidently hate her, too.

My weekend home is in her old district and she’s very popular there. Now I can support her without changing my voter registration! Sweet!

muggedbyreality on January 26, 2009 at 11:50 PM

Happy, yes. Because it would be better than nothing, but I wouldn’t give her a waiver on life issues. I’d only want her until a true, well-rounded conservative could take her place. Or she came around…

pannw on January 26, 2009 at 11:54 PM

Very perplexing!

All the outpouring love of Gillibrand,
and yet,Governor Sarah Palin,it seems,
gets none!

What a difference, on how the Liberal Party
acts,and treats, towards,these two women!

canopfor on January 26, 2009 at 11:55 PM

I like that this whole thing pisses off the Kennedys to no end. I’m happy with the pick because it’s better than I could have imagined from a Donk pick; here’s hoping she sticks to her guns and doesn’t go completely left.

Fallen Sparrow on January 27, 2009 at 12:03 AM

It sounds like all NY Republicans need to re-register as Democrats in order to vote in their primaries.

daryl_herbert on January 27, 2009 at 12:36 AM

Never has a woman been treated worse in politics than Sarah Palin.

It was a disgrace how they treated her.

Mr. Joe on January 27, 2009 at 12:41 AM

How come this woman didnt run for president
on the republican side???

We might have had a chance..

Oh well

now i know why obama cant even count on his own party
some of them (ok 1 so far) actually has some common sense

jcila on January 27, 2009 at 12:42 AM

Well hot diggity damn! Blue Dogs aren’t extinct afterall. Someone please call NOVA.

Limerick on January 27, 2009 at 12:44 AM

Gen-X has its first Sen-X.

If Kirsten Gillibrand can win an election or two in the Senate, and doesnt screw up in office, she’ll be well-placed to run for President in 2016.

Mike D. on January 27, 2009 at 1:11 AM

But for tonight, I’m racking my brain trying to figure out how her ACU score is so low

I have to wonder whether the score is partly based on political affiliation. John McCain, in that same year, ranked 80. Lindsey Graham ranked even higher at 88. Chuck Hagel, 79.

Not surprisingly, my congressman, Devin Nunes of California’s 21st district scored 100 (IIRC, he voted against both bills).

eaglescout1998 on January 27, 2009 at 2:05 AM

Not surprisingly, my congressman, Devin Nunes of California’s 21st district scored 100 (IIRC, he voted against both bills).

Man, I just cannot type tonight. That should read: he voted against both bailout bills.

eaglescout1998 on January 27, 2009 at 2:10 AM

In Congress, Congresswoman Gillibrand has been a firm opponent of any proposal that would give amnesty to illegal aliens.

Hmmm. So she supports massive deportation then? No “path to citizenship” at all, ever? 12 million pairs of handcuffs?

Mr. Wednesday Night on January 27, 2009 at 3:38 AM

And now Ted Kennedy is out for blood.

Mr. Joe on January 26, 2009 at 11:39 PM

Good ole Ted..

the_nile on January 27, 2009 at 4:23 AM

I like her ; young, vibrant, half a brain maybe more.

johnnyU on January 27, 2009 at 4:48 AM

Pelosi hates her? I love this lady! Don’t you dare give sway to the liberal progressives in the Senate, Mrs. Gillibrand! Keep your brain intact! It sounds like you were given a very sharp one.

Jockolantern on January 27, 2009 at 5:49 AM

When it comes down to it, I think Obama will roll her without too much difficulty. At her core, she’s no different than any other Democrat. Power, perks and a desire to be part of the ruling elite will trump her “convictions”.

SKYFOX on January 27, 2009 at 6:01 AM

According to the MSM Obama was pro-gun and anti-amnesty too.

angryed on January 27, 2009 at 7:18 AM

She’s a hell of a lot better lookin’ than that ewok too.

LtE126 on January 27, 2009 at 7:28 AM

What exactly was Paterson thinking?

drjohn on January 27, 2009 at 7:29 AM

Just to put this in perspective for you, on two of the three aforementioned issues, she’s to the right of Sarah Palin.

That’s funny AP. Trying to swoon us away are you. :)

shick on January 27, 2009 at 7:32 AM

As a conservative New Yorker, I must say that after Up-Chuck Schumer and HILLARY!, Kirsten Gillibrand is not an embarressment to the state. We should see if we could get a couple of the RINOS to flip her to our side.

Don Carne on January 27, 2009 at 7:45 AM

And as we speak, the dems are working on making her anti-gin, pro-bailout, and pro-amnesty.

thekingtut on January 27, 2009 at 8:33 AM

Ah,make that anti-GUN. We all no ol’ Ted Kannedy would never allow an anti-gin stance in the party.

thekingtut on January 27, 2009 at 8:35 AM

No = know. Need coffee. Now.

thekingtut on January 27, 2009 at 8:37 AM

All we need is some leadership and I do believe as in ’93 a lot of these blue dogs will bolt from the Democrat party. If she gets killed in primary in NY (which she will) that leaves her only one way to go in political life, switch parties.

Jdripper on January 27, 2009 at 8:52 AM

I would vote for this lady over 90% of the GOP Rinos in congress presently.

james23 on January 27, 2009 at 9:13 AM

Gosh a Senator who bucks the party…whowuddathunkit.

kanda on January 27, 2009 at 9:14 AM

I think Gov. Patterson stuck it to those trying to force him to “choose” Kennedy. Good for Him.

kanda on January 27, 2009 at 9:15 AM

A democrat that I could vote for.

Johan Klaus on January 27, 2009 at 9:26 AM

Congresswoman Gillibrand

I dunno…. Congresswoman Gillibrand is a far different animal than Senator Gillibrand. We shall see…

mankai on January 27, 2009 at 9:33 AM

As the token RINO here, I want to say that Gillibrand seems to me more what I want on the centrist wing of the party than Snowe and Collins. Sometimes, but by no means all the time,Snowe and Collins are guilty of compromising and not moderation. To be clear, I define moderation as the thoughtful and principled rejection of right-wing and left-wing ideologies. Compromising is the mindless splitting of differences between the left and the right.

thuja on January 27, 2009 at 9:37 AM

Ah, Allah, still trying to find a way to somehow stick it to Palin, eh? Nice and not-so-very-subtle move. And you say that she’s to the right of Palin? If you call Gillibrand’s support on pro-abortion as being to the right of Palin then you got rocks in your head. Gillibrand would be to the left of Palin but right of center. Fair enough?

Get with the program, Allah. And stop with your nonsense efforts on trying to pidgeon hole Palin at every possible opportunity by making her look worse off when it’s not really. Or haven’t you looked at Obama lately?

Sigh.

*shakes head*

Kokonut on January 27, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Maybe she can just swith parties. Or we could trade Olympia Snow for her or something.

t.ferg on January 27, 2009 at 10:11 AM

I’ll happily donate to her come the 2010 special election. And if I lived in NY, I’d probably campaign for her during the Dem primary.
The only issue where I seem to have 110% disagreement with her on is something NY would choose a pro-choicer on anyways, abortion–and that’s mostly a POTUS/SCOTUS thing anyway.

Or we could trade Olympia Snow for her or something.

t.ferg on January 27, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Seems to be much more conservative than Snowe on most things.

malan89 on January 27, 2009 at 10:16 AM

She’s a trojan horse, or else Paterson sees the coming crash of liberalism before 2010.

Vashta.Nerada on January 27, 2009 at 10:21 AM

McCarthy will defeat her in the primary. Many more dem voters downstate than upstate and Patterson’s margin over Cuomo has collapsed. I can see Cuomo and McCarthy running together as the “real” democratic ticket.

IR-MN on January 27, 2009 at 10:50 AM

I’m not convinced.

She probably shape-shifted to get elected in upstate NY and now that she’s going to DC, watch the Marxist come out in her.

wildweasel on January 27, 2009 at 10:53 AM

It means nothing until the “vote” comes up, then we will see what kind of senator she is.

right2bright on January 27, 2009 at 10:55 AM

A true ‘maverick’ with her own values and ideals.
Maybe she will rub off on McCain and Graham.

HornetSting on January 27, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Score.

Aronne on January 27, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Hmmm. So she supports massive deportation then? No “path to citizenship” at all, ever? 12 million pairs of handcuffs?

Mr. Wednesday Night on January 27, 2009 at 3:38 AM

No, just enforcement of the immigration laws. Seems to be working in those states that have implemented them.
-Go after employers of illegal aliens.
-NO benefits for illegal aliens.

When the ‘teat’ dries up, they will go home.
Attrition thru enforcment.
Then, you can use the handcuffs on the hardcore criminal element.
The criminals that broke our immigration laws will be suckling off their own governments again.

HornetSting on January 27, 2009 at 11:19 AM

I had previously suggested trading Olympia snow for this Gillibrand gal, but I’ve changed my mind. Let’s trade John McCain for her straight up. We give McCain to the dems and we get Gillibrand. I’ll take that trade.

t.ferg on January 27, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Most likely the left wing will beat this woman into submission. She’s already saying things indicating that her positions were the ones her constituents supported but now that she’s Senator of ALL the state she will be more considerate of everyone’s views.

Simple speak for – don’t worry, I’ll toe the left-wing loon line becaue I know the urban voters/illegals want more money and no guns.

katiejane on January 27, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Gillibrand’s appointment is probably a smart move by Paterson, because Gillibrand would be much harder to beat in a special election against, say, Rudy Giuliani in 2010.

It remians to be seen how she VOTES in the Senate. It’s easy to be a “maverick” Democrat in the House–with the Democrats enjoying a 70-vote majority, losing her vote on a few issues is no big deal for the Democrats, and she gets to play to her centrist constituents upstate, and get a few crossover votes from Republicans.

In the Senate, she’ll be taking the place of Hillary Clinton, and will probably come under a lot of pressure from Senate colleagues to vote like her predecessor. Would she really have the “chutzpah” to vote against the bailout, against gun control, against amnesty for illegal aliens while representing a state that includes a “sanctuary city” with 8 million people? Will she oppose “card check” for unions? We’ll see…

But if Gillibrand has some conservative positions, she could be very useful for filibusters, with only 41 Republicans in the Senate (42 if Coleman squeaks by, but that could take months). Senator McConnell, you might want to have a long talk with Sen. Gillibrand…

Steve Z on January 27, 2009 at 11:55 AM

So in other words, Patterson appointed her to get rid of her. He knows her positions are in deep minority, and that in a statewide contest in New York she will be destroyed. He’s made sure that her district loses her in two years and maybe gets her back in 2012.

Oh well, maybe she’ll help fillibuster the “fairness” doctrine when it comes through.

PastorJon on January 27, 2009 at 12:25 PM

now i know why obama cant even count on his own party
some of them (ok 1 so far) actually has some common sense

jcila on January 27, 2009 at 12:42 AM

There are lots of Blue Dog Democrats around…

Red State State of Mind on January 27, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Update: Just to put this in perspective for you, on two of the three aforementioned issues, she’s to the right of Sarah Palin.

That’s the kind of Democrat I can respect.

PersonalLiberty on January 27, 2009 at 3:25 PM

I think we need to help her out by cursing and deriding her. Only if the Democrats are convinced that Republicans hate her will they re-elect her.

joe_doufu on January 27, 2009 at 7:01 PM

I like her. Anyone but Kennedy would have worked for me.

stefystef on January 28, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2