David Paterson’s mistake gets uglier by the day:
Ten New York House members are warning state Party chairwoman June O’Neill not to use party resources to help promote Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in a potential primary next year. …
Sources said this morning that the concern stems from the party sending out emails that included articles about Gillibrand’s re-election bid next year, but nothing about the other candidates considering a run.
The signatories:
Tim Bishop (NY-01)
Steve Israel (NY-02)
Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04)
Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Yvette Clark (NY-11)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-12)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Jose Serrano (NY-16)
Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Eric Massa (NY-29)
Personally, I think the idea of the state party not helping the incumbent is a bit ridiculous, though obviously a few somewhat influential members of Congress (and a passel of backbenchers) disagree. On the other hand, how much help can the New York State Democratic Party actually offer a sitting senator?
I guess perceptions are probably what’s most at stake here – anyone considering a challenge (or worried that the too-conservative Gillibrand might be getting too comfortable) doesn’t want the conventional wisdom to congeal around the idea that she’s untouchable. This seat might be safely blue in a general election, but this intra-party split is unpleasant in the extreme. (And note that it’s not just upstate-vs.-city – Hinchey and Massa signed the letter, too.)
The full letter is available at the link above.
I am shocked. Shocked!
If Gillibrand doesn’t get a major primary challenge this year, she may well be the Senator for the rest of many of these Reps lives–barring a major realignment. At the very least they want to make sure enough pressure and influence is applied on their sudden Senator, you can’t blame them for that.
Mostly though the soon-to-be 28th Amendment needs to pass and get ratified, stat.
Are they going to SUE the DNSC?
but not Maloney.
that’s interesting. . .
I don’t know, but it feels like there may be some other intentions by these house members that have not been spoken as of yet…I don’t know.
She’s very smart and talented, as clearly indicated by her ability to win a tough district and (if I’m not mistaken) speak Mandarin. I don’t see her “conservatism” to be a huge problem myself. Yeah, she supports gun rights-but she had to represent a rural district. Yeah she had to position herself to the right on the immigration debate, but again she was in a tough district and the immigration debate was particularly toxic at the time, revolving around Spitzer’s driver license proposal. However, on most issues, she’s been pretty good, and she’s shown that since her appointment she’s willing to reach out and broaded her positions to take in her new state wide constituency. So yeah, I think she’s going to work out great, for herself and for us. And besides, I think you can bank on her winning, after all she’s got a big gun from what I understand (Chuck Schumer).
It reflects that they don’t think she’s progressive enough, but also that a lot of them simply don’t like her.
By ideology, he’s about as conservative as she was before her appointment.
These people might not have liked the process but this talk smacks of jealousy and personal animosity rather than having anything to do with ideology. I remain deeply skeptical that anybody actually will pull the trigger but this kind of behavior almost makes me hope one of them runs and gets absolutely smashed.
Answer: They wanted the appointment instead.