23 January 2009

The Case Against Senator Gillibrand

Wayne Barrett sums up the "progressive" arguments against New York's new U.S. Senator on the Village Voice website. I note with interest Gillibrand's relatively few degrees of separation from Joe Bruno, the ex-majority leader of the state senate who is expected to be indicted on corruption charges today. Check out the reader comments for more tidbits, including a bit about contributions from Gillibrand's former law firm to Paterson's campaign fund. Their comments on issues are rather less interesting. I guess a primary is inevitable before the 2010 special election, which I believe itself will only cover the remaining two years of the term to which Sec. Clinton was elected in 2006. I also imagine that Gillibrand, and probably by extension her patrons, Schumer and Paterson, would welcome a challenge from the left in order to prove their own "centrist" credentials during an election year for all of them.

Once again, dissatisfaction is desirable so long as people act on it, not next year, but now -- by demanding a new law or constitutional amendment stripping the governor of the right to replace Senators by appointment. If no one does this, I must conclude that they don't object to the governor's power to choose, but only to the choice made. But anyone who's watched this silly process objectively should be convinced that real change, not just a change in personnel, is necessary.

2 comments:

hobbyfan said...

I've read that they will have a special election-----next year. Swillary's Senatorial term actually runs to 2012 (6 years in the Senate, as opposed to 2 in the House). The State Senate & Assembly should consider changing the state constitution such that in another case like this, it's put in the people's hands, not the governor's, to make such appointments. Same goes for Illinois and Gov. Blasphemy.

Crhymethinc said...

Since the Senators serve at a federal level, perhaps it ought to be a federal mandate that special elections be held in such cases.