Kirsten Gillibrand was on the Late Show lamenting the NRA's "chokehold" on Congress.
She's a political turncoat. When she was a congresswoman representing the NY 20th Cong. District, she was a very strong supporter of gun rights. She was rated "A" by the NRA and she made sure that the voters in the 20th knew that. The 20th was largely Republican, so she ran to the right, railed against illegal immigrants and supported gun rights. As a lawyer, she had represented one of the big tobacco companies. She raised, for her district, a lot of money from tobacco company employees and she had no problem with taking their money.
When she wanted to run for the Senate seat that was vacated by Hillary Clinton, Gillibrand was questioned by Michael Bloomberg about her stances on gun rights. Gillibrand all but told Bloomberg that she was a believer in gun control and only supported gun rights to get elected to Congress. She has also flipped to supporting "pathways to citizenship", which is at odds with her past stance on illegal immigration.
Which means that Gillibrand is a consummate politician whose only true belief is that she should be elected. She's not "for" or "against" anything other than that. If her flip-flops on guns and immigration are any indication, she'd support necrophilia if there were enough voters interested in promoting it.
Second, what the NRA does is called "being better at the democracy thing than its opponents". They raise money, they mobilize people to go to the polls. Enough people turn out to vote that they make a difference.
Funny how this all seems to hinge on a person's political viewpoint. People who are fine with the NRA, the Koch Brothers and the Walton family pouring money into PACs and into the coffers of politicians are upset when labor unions, George Soros and Michael Bloomberg do the same, and vice versa.
So there's the deal, folks: That's how the game is played. Proponents of a particular point of view raise money and try to turn out voters. If the other side does it better than you, there's nothing unfair about it. They're just better at it than you.
Jurassic Lark, Part 5
44 minutes ago
9 comments:
Awww, the poor NRA.
"If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money and then vote against them you've got no business being up here." Jesse Unruh, California politician.
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." –Mark Twain
For her it's all about power. As it is for virtually all of Congress. What really pisses me off are those in power that think they know better than us what we need. And that's probably at least 534 members of Congress.
Screw 'Em!
Oh, and I forgot to add that my thoughts and prayers are with the NRA during this latest crisis.
You're not asking the only important question, which has nothing to do with any specific issue, or with any individual politician.
You say that Senator Gillibrand (to use her as a specific example of a problem that is not at all specific) has altered her stated views on various topics in order to get elected.
So here is the question, the only question: It worked; why did it work?
You do not have a problem with Senator Gillibrand. You have a problem with the people who voted for her. You also, and equally, have a problem with the people who did not vote for her, because they believed some other politician who was playing the same game.
And Senator Gillibrand does not have a problem with democracy. It is a game. She plays it. Is it the game itself that you do not like? Is it the playing of games, any games? Would some fiddling with the rules make the game less irritating for you to witness?
What about what's right? What about supporting what's scientifically accurate no matter which reptile is supporting it today? What about the likelihood that any given candidate who does support scientific accuracy on one issue may be a little more likely to support it on another issue?
It may be played like a game, but to people's lives it's really not a fucking game.
-Doug in Oakland
I lived in NY in 2010. I voted for Gillibrand based, in part, on the positions that she took when she represented NY-20. I know of quite a few other people who did, as well.
That she threw away her convictions as a Representative to be a Senator, well, I think that's wrong.
But, coming from the other side, Rudy the Fascist, Mitt "Fudge-Packer" Romney, and Chris "It's My Private Beach" Christie did as well.
Then there is Trump, who was for gun control before he decided to become a Republican. But I hesitate to point him out as an example, as Trump doesn't believe in anything other than the greatness of Trump. He's scrap the Bill of Rights in a picosecond if he could.
Liberals in favor of gun control in the Age of Trump are a little bit nuts.
I think the correct name is “moderate”, versus “liberal” or “conservative”. What will drive anyone nuts is trying to vote for a candidate based upon their “voting record”, because unlike most whores, the average politico often doesn’t feel any compunction about not delivering value for money.
We only hate it when unions, etc fail to follow the rules but then the media gives 'em a pass and the DOJ fail to enforce them.....for liberals.
For Conservatives, they sic the IRS....
Post a Comment