Kudos for Carolyn McCarthy and Chris Matthews | 20 comments (20 topical, 0 hidden)
Help me understand (none / 0)

More power to McCarthy if she wants to challenge in two years, no problem.

I've never owned or had the desire to own a gun - can't think of anyone off hand I know who does - but I am not anti-gun, nor am I anti-NRA. I don't agree with many of their stands, but they don't represent anything evil in my mind.

Is there anything besides Gillibrand's NRA support that someone can point out which would lead me to think that she is any less qualified than other possible selections? Anything egregious which makes her unfit to be seated?

I'm also confused at the shocked - shocked! - response at her appointment as hers was one of the first names I heard bandied about - even before Caroline Kennedy's name surfaced. Why is this such a surprise?

I get that if she's a Blue Dog she is not a person I'd like to see voting on laws, but Obama has a Blue Dog as his right hand man so that part doesn't seem out of line. What's behind the vitriol? With Kennedy and Cuomo, the main objections were "dynasty" claims - no such issue here, so why aren't the people who were bitching about bloodlines cheering?

Someone wanna help an old man out here?

by MedfordTim on 01/26/2009 02:58:56 PM EST

I'll try :) (none / 0)
>not anti-gun, nor am I anti-NRA. I don't agree with >many of their stands, but they don't represent >anything evil in my mind

I don't hunt, I don't own a gun, but I don't want to stop anyone from hunting, I do want strict gun control laws.
I don't care that you can shoot an uzi at the shooting range, I do care when people start keeping uzis at their homes.
And that's where I do think the NRA is evil, they are not protecting the rights of hunters, they are protecting an absolute right to gun ownership that seems right out of the Wild West. The laws they fight in court and the laws they try to get passed in Congress, make them evil in my view.

more on http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/National_Rifle_Associatio n#Criticism

>Is there anything besides Gillibrand's NRA support that >someone can point out which would lead me to think >that she is any less qualified than other possible >selections? Anything egregious which makes her unfit >to be seated?

She also used to be bad on LGBT issues, but the morning she got opointed to the senate, she flipped on the issues :)
Similarly, we're seeing her flipping away from the NRA platform as we speak (again since she got named for the Senate seat)
At least the pressure is making her move away from the Blue Dogs. 

>I get that if she's a Blue Dog she is not a person I'd >like to see voting on laws, but Obama has a Blue Dog >as his right hand man so that part doesn't seem out of >line.

yes, she is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, Rahm Emanuel might be too DLC for my taste, but he isn't a Blue Dog (nice little bit on http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Blue_Dog_Coalition#Blue_D og_Democrats_vs_DLC )

I think a lot of the vitriol comes from the fact that in a time we're trying to change things, move in a more progressive direction, the Governer appoints a Blue Dog, a bunch of "Democrats" that do everything they can to undermine any progressive action on the Democratic side and roll over for every conservative proposal of the Republicans.

by callisto on 01/26/2009 03:41:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The difference is wafer thin (none / 0)

Almost a po-tay-to, po-tah-to situation.

This is why I laughed when Ken suggested that Dems are a cohesive group...

by MedfordTim on 01/26/2009 07:52:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Depends (none / 0)
"officially" it seems like that, but since Blue Dogs don't have a coherent position on some issues as a group, they have people that by any measure should be Republicans

as much as I dislike Harold Ford, I think that the Blue Dogs as a group hurt the Democratic Party more

people expect certain things from Democrats and when the Dems can't find a majority because of the Blue Dogs, it looks like the Dems are incompetent and wrong

by callisto on 01/26/2009 08:30:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nra (none / 0)
the nra Is there for all the hunters out there ,and
what will we hunt with' when we no longer have the right to own gun's.
 I do think gun laws need to be in place to protect us all. But if the nra stop's fighting for our right to keep and bear arm's , We will no longer have that right.

With out that right , they will in time slowly take away our gun's for hunting and selfdefence.

And that is not right, when you are being raped, or robbed at night, will you just sit around waiting for the cop's to stop it , Or try to stop it yourself right now .I will not wait to protect my family not 1 min

by tuna on 01/27/2009 07:04:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Naive (none / 0)
>what will we hunt with' when we no longer have the >right to own gun's

jeezes, nobody is speaking about outlawing guns, also since when do you hunt with a hand gun?

> But if the nra stop's fighting for our right to keep >and bear arm's , We will no longer have that right

really, how come Canada and Europe, which have stricter gun laws and NO NRA, still have the right to own guns?

>I will not wait to protect my family not 1 min

there's what, 700% more chance that the gun in the house will kill one of your family members instead of a criminal

by callisto on 01/27/2009 07:38:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
way left (none / 0)
Thats what always come's from the far left , big # that are nothing more than a anti-gun lefty lie.
 Look at something besides the anti gun side, make up your mind.
Gun crime has come down from the past #s, I won't give you some big numbers that make's it look good , Just ck the past numbers with the numbers from 2008.

by tuna on 01/28/2009 06:54:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
way brainwashed (none / 0)
why didn't you answer the point about other countries doing fine with hunting without an NRA?

btw I guess you couldn't find the numbers? a quick link is too much?

by callisto on 01/28/2009 05:34:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My distaste for her was exacerbated by... (none / 0)
a commercial she aired in Essex County, NY around the time that the FISA bill was pending. She pleaded, with alarm, that residents contact their congressmen to demand that they vote for immunity for the telecoms, for the safety of the nation. Sad to say that Obama voted this way as well, but he didn't ring the alarm bell, as she did. The ad reminded me of the "scary-voiced" warnings about Obama (tapping into the unrealistic fears of the less-informed.) Might I add that the most recent reports about the telecoms came on the same day that her consideration was announced. The irony...

by tifosies on 01/27/2009 06:46:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Kudos for Carolyn McCarthy and Chris Matthews | 20 comments (20 topical, 0 hidden)