I bashed the freepers who drank the "Joe Lieberman is one of us and should join the GOP" kool-aid, so of course it would be hypocritical for me to claim Gillibrand is conservative. She's not. She's not even moderate either -- but by Marxist NY Democrat standards she is, since they consider anyone to the right of Karl Marx to be "not progressive enough". There's no doubt the "progressive" moonbats on these liberal blogs are pull their hair out in frustration, and I am loving every minute of it. Basically the whole NY delegation is full of far-left socialist nut and Gillibrand is the least socialist nut of the bunch. That seat has been RAT for the last 30 years and isn't likely to go Republican any time soon, so any improvement over Hillary is welcome. I also believe the 10% of the time Gillibrand has taken the conservative side involve issues of major importance to conservatives (bailout, guns, immigration), rather than siding with us on low-key issues, so if she maintains the record we will have an occasional ally (say 1 out of 8 times) in the Senate.
>>> Now will she go full tilt moonbat to help in her primary or not, that is the question. If she stays to the “right” she will be a bad match up for King. Especially if he pulls a boneheaded stunt like campaigning for gun control if she remains against it. This issue has lost it’s luster for the pro side even in NY. Only a minor stink was made about the assault weapons ban expiring. Rats know it’s a powerful wedge issue against them. <<
That is a concern, given that alot of these rural Dems started off as so-called "moderate" populists when they represented a "local" House seat (Durbin, Gore, etc.), but morphed into far-left kooks once they had established themselves in the Senate as national leaders. But in a worse case scenario, we'd just be back to where we were when Hillary held the seat -- neither a gain or loss for the GOP.
>> I am skeptical if he could even beat a weak rat in a good year in New York. A respected incumbent D’Amato was thrashed in anti-impeachment NY in 1998 as Pataki won a landslide.Dumbass Carolyn McCarthy would be an easier rat to beat. <<
I agree, NY state goes RAT by something like 2/3rds of the vote, making it extremely difficult for even an A-list candidate to win statewide there. That's why I suggesting freepers cross over and vote for Gillibrand in the RAT primary over McCarthy, unless there is a major contest on the GOP side for an important office, of course. I have not endorsed or promoted Gillibrand in the general election, but it seems some of RINO Peter King's more ardent groupies consider anything less than total alliance of King to be "working for the Democrats". Reminds me of the Arnoldbots accusing anyone who didn't blindly support Arnie of being on Cruz Bustamante's payroll. For the reason, I would not vote for Gillibrand over King unless her views on abortion and gay rights were 180 degrees from where they are today (such a scenario would be a Poshard vs. George Ryan style contest in New York). I HAVE pointed out that although King is more conservative than Gillibrand overall, Gillibrand is more conservative than King on some of the most important issues -- guns & federal bailouts being prime examples. Some of Peter King's fans seem to dislike freepers reporting the facts that their RINO is inferior in this regard and thus respond with "you're a Democrat" rants.
From a simple personality standpoint (ignoring political ideology), there is no question who is a more a likable and decent human being, that being Gillibrand. I have as much respect for King's past history as I have for Al Franken's. From a political standpoint, ACU ratings don't mean much. Gillibrand's "lifetime" score of 92% is taken from a single year she was there that the ACU rated her - 2007. Both Gillibrand and King generally vote along "loyal party lines" on final passage of a bill (Gillibrand moreso than King), but depart from their party on a handful major hot button issues. At their core, both root for the Clintons, Gillibrand mildly and King with huge enthusiasm. Gillibrand is low-key and registers personal dissent, but King is a bully and resorts to any low-life tactic to force his way. A King vs. Gillibrand race is basically two moderate Democrats running against each other. Neither gets my support (I will not assist a pro-abort over a pro-life candidate), and would vote third party. However, I would enjoy watching King go down to defeat, it's long overdue.
>> I wouldn’t label King a Clintonista thug just cause he voted against impeachment 10 years ago. What he looks like to me is a full of himself self promoter type. Possibly his only motive was fear that impeachment was a political loser which I guess it was given 1998 and Clinton’s approval ratings. And it would have led to an incumbent Gore to run against. Of course he didn’t care it was the right thing to do because Clinton is a criminal disgrace. <<
I agree. Chris Shays voted against impeachment, and while he's a liberal douchebag, he's not a Clintonista by virtue of the fact he was never close to Clinton in the first place and voted NAY purely out his liberal convictions. King, however, was a Clintonista before impeachment ever took place. He has, by his own admission, a very close working relationship with the Clintons and was instrumental throughout Clinton's term in drumming up GOP support for Clinton's key agenda. He didn't merely vote against impeachment, he was the ringleader of the 'stop impeachment' forces. In short, King would be a disaster in the Senate because he is a Clinton sleeper cell who would "usually" vote Republican 75% of the time, but be on standby to ram through any initiative Hillary wanted him to. Just as Ray LaHood generally voted "conservative" on the floor but has unmasked himself as one of Obama's greatest allies behind the scenes.
Yes that was silly. A down the line leftist aside from foreign policy. Pro-partial birth abortion exc. He'd have been the worst RINO since the guy he beat with conservative support Lowell Weicker who is even more liberal than Lieberman. A when it mattered in 51-49 Senate he stood with his rat buddies. I would have voted for the nobody Republican with the gambling problem in 2006 instead of part 2 of the democrat primary.
Some were convinced the rats would shut him out and he'd have no other recourse but I never thought for a second he would join the GOP. I fully excpet now if he runs again he'll have the dem nomination and be on the Obama train. It says a lot about McStain that Joe was cool with him as President.
I suggesting freepers cross over and vote for Gillibrand in the RAT primary over McCarthy,
You might face a counter effort supporting McCarthy cause "King will thwamp her!". I'm not so sure, it is New York. She'd be worse than Hillary. ACU gives McCarthy a higher score than Hillary but she's a rabid moonbat and an incompetent idiot to boot.
is taken from a single year she was there that the ACU rated her - 2007
Sure one year doesn't give a good picture. The DUmmies sure don't care she got an 8!
However, I would enjoy watching King go down to defeat, it's long overdue.
I'd enjoy seeing someone better take his house seat if that's at all possible.
sleeper cell
Well we see these do exist. Witness Speaker Kent Williams in Tennessee. Straight up sleeper cell agent. The rats hadn't even been running opponents against him.