Challenging Gillibrand - Can Peter King do it?

National Review Online ^ | January 27, 2009 | Mark Hemingway

[neverdem]

---

January 27, 2009, 4:00 a.m.

Challenging Gillibrand
Can Peter King do it?

By Mark Hemingway

When Caroline Kennedy was still a top contender to replace Hillary Clinton as the junior senator from New York, it had been widely reported that Republican congressman Peter King of Long Island was gearing up to challenge her in 2010.

Since then, Kennedy has dropped out of the running, amid considerable acrimony between the Kennedy clan and New York governor David Paterson. Paterson has instead tapped Kirsten Gillibrand, a blue-dog congresswoman from upstate who is in some ways the antithesis of Kennedy liberalism.

Despite this turn of events, King appears still to be interested in making a run for the Senate in 2010. Yesterday King told Newsday he’s “seriously considering” running against Gillibrand.

Just last week, though, he told National Review Online that he was interested in seeking a Senate seat because of the particular dynamics a race against Caroline Kennedy would have. “That is a race I would look forward to,” he said in an interview from his office in Washington. “To me this is a chance to draw a distinction between a dilettante liberal and a blue-collar conservative.” He noted that Caroline Kennedy would come to politics with so much baggage, and receive so much attention nationally, that the race would be radically altered.

“I think it would really transcend party lines, and the whole country would be looking at the race. She would have to explain her positions,” King said. “If you’re running against just a standard Democrat from New York, the media is not going to focus that much. They’re going to get away with saying one thing downstate, something else upstate, and something else in New York City.” King went so far as to say, “If [Paterson] picks other Democrats they’d be able to paper over a lot of the differences.”

Gillibrand, then, would seem to be a much tougher opponent for King than Caroline Kennedy would have been. But after the selection of Gillibrand was announced, King spent the weekend with advisers trying to figure out whether running for the Senate remained a viable option. In a follow-up phone interview Monday with National Review Online, King tentatively concluded the answer is yes.

“It would be a different type of race,” he said. “I am still very interested. It’s different than Caroline Kennedy because I had prepared for that for seven weeks, going through it statewide, region by region, county by county, figuring out what her weaknesses were—because again [Democrats] start out 2 million votes ahead.”

King said that Gillibrand’s reputation as a conservative Democrat is overblown, and that it comes down to “guns, immigration, and one vote on the Iraq War. . . . Other than that, her voting record is pretty standard for a liberal.”

King also observed that Gillibrand is being pushed farther to the left. “As far as policy differences, Chuck Schumer has already said she’s going to change her position on guns. . . . As she moves farther to the left to satisfy the Democratic base, I can get back a lot, if not all, of the traditional Republican vote upstate.”

The long-serving congressman is a well-known entity in the state. “Politically I see openings because she only has one term in Congress and hasn’t distinguished herself very much. That gives me a real opening to do well in New York City suburbs—Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland—and also in the outer boroughs: Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. And even though she’s from upstate, she’s not known there. She’s just basically in a congressional district.”


The fact that the New York media are awash in rumors that backroom deals were cut for Gillibrand’s appointment isn’t likely to help her when she must earn her appointed seat in 2010. Newsday reported that King himself “called her selection by Gov. David A. Paterson a ‘fraud,’ ‘payoff’ and a ‘backroom’ deal.” But King is known to have excellent rapport with Paterson—so much so that the Democratic governor was quoted as saying he was open to appointing a Republican to the Senate seat, specifically King. “Peter King and I are great friends. We go to dinner often. He should have called,” Paterson said.

King is adamant that he did not say the things about Gillibrand’s appointment that Newsday attributed to him. “I didn’t say that, and that bothered me. I did not say that. When I’m asked if I think there’s any illegality, I say no. And fraud would be an illegality.”

That’s not to say that King thinks the circumstances around Gillibrand’s appointment are beyond question: “No matter what party we’re in, we’re entitled to know what happened.”

One important dynamic would be the same whether King ran against Kennedy or Gillibrand: money—as in, he’ll need a king’s ransom to mount a Senate race in New York.

“The only caveat I put on [running for the Senate] is that in the first month I would have to see a real opportunity for [the money] to come in, because money will be no object to her and I’ll need $35 to $40 million. And my family fortune is extensive, but not that extensive,” he said, laughing.
— Mark Hemingway is an NRO staff reporter.

[Clintonfatigued]

I think it’s still winnable, especially if there’s a significant shift in public opinion by 2010.

[appeal2]

If Rudy runs and wins, Peter has a shot.

[Frantzie]

One of the best posts in the NY Post message boards was about Caroline Kennedy. The poster said they could run Son of Sam and he could have beaten her if she had been appointed.

[oh8eleven]

Republicans won't be running against Dem opponents anymore.
From now on it's the GOP against the MSM.

[neverdem]

Will Kirsten Gillibrand Shift on Guns? (umm..probably)

Using “hunters’ rights” already.

FReepmail me if you want on or off my New York ping list.

[Joe Boucher]

Great.
Another old white guy to go up against a much younger white woman Gillibrand.
What will the gop think of next?
Idiots.

[Clemenza]

Peter King s-cks on guns. ‘Nuff said.

[garyhope]

Gilly ain’t bad looking.

If she sticks up for the 2nd ammendment she might be worth it.

[johnthebaptistmoore]

This is the definitive answer: If Rudy really succeeds in his race for N.Y. Governor as well as successfully creates some political coattails for King and other GOP candidates at every level throughout N.Y., then it will be a decent election year for the N.Y. GOP in ‘12. It will also depend upon who wins on the GOP side between RINOs and conservatives, because, unfortunately, it will probably still be tougher for conservative GOP candidates, at every level, to actually win the general election in N.Y. state compared to RINO candidates, at every level.

[Nuc1]

Gilly ain’t bad looking. If she sticks up for the 2nd ammendment she might be worth it.

Never worth it! She'll tell ya she is good on guns then knife you in the back during the vote. Trust not a rat ever and pubbies only once in a while. How many times must it happen before we learn.

[EDINVA]

There will be a catfight bloodbath in the Democrat primary. Those NY priaries are only 2 most before the election, and don’t leave much time for healing.

A day or two before 9/11/01, I read an article about Mark Green’s becoming Mayor of New York City. It was a done deal. The primary would be Tuesday, Green had it won, and no Republican was going to win the Mayoralty in NYC any time soon, since the put in term limits for Rudy. So the last part turned out to be correct, except Bloomberg ran on the Republic ticket in ‘01.

Point being, it ain’t over till it’s over. Go for it, Rep King!

[hunter112]

Gilly ain’t bad looking.

If she sticks up for the 2nd ammendment she might be worth it.

She's a knee-jerk liberal on everything else. The ACLU has given her a 90% rating. Peter King has a low rating with them, and the only times he's voted their way, a whole lot of other Republicans were with him.

I supported Sarah Palin because of what she stood for, not which part of me stood up. Maybe you'd serve your own interests better if you took the same outlook.

[The Mayor]

If he runs, he will lose. We need a Conservative in this race. King is an idiot.

[neverdem]

Peter King s-cks on guns. ‘Nuff said.

For some reason, the NRA and GOA deny access to their ratings after elections are over.

I’m not overly impressed with King, and not just on guns. NRA rated him a “D” in ‘02 and “C” in ‘04 and ‘06.

New York City fears return to 1970s

[neverdem]

If he runs, he will lose. We need a Conservative in this race. King is an idiot.

King gets a 76.28 lifetime rating from the ACU as of 2007. At least he has some name recognition. Has any one else expressed interest from the GOP for the U.S. Senate?

[The Mayor]

Yes, Faso and Tedisco but they are both fighting over the congressional seat right now too.

[BillyBoy]

"If he runs, he will lose. We need a Conservative in this race. King is an idiot."

Post #15 sums it up perfectly. The NYGOP can go ahead and run Pete King if they want to discredit their "RINOs are soooo much more ELECTABLE in NY!!!" talking point yet again. $50 says King loses by at least a 10 point margin. Not to say a conservative would automatically win, but at least a real Republican could keep the second amendment crowd on his side and wouldn't suffer defections from people who normally vote Republican.

A King-Gillibrand race is no-lose scenario for us anyway, since either one of them would likely vote to the right of Hillary. A Dem retention wouldn't make much of a difference in the Senate, this seat has been RAT for 30 years and is likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future. It's extremely unlikely we'd get back a majority by picking up any Senate seats in NY.

Of course I won't be endorsing Gillibrand because she's hard core pro-abortion. But I sure won't be shedding any tears over RINO Peter King being out of elective office. Should have happened 10 years ago.

[BillyBoy]

In SC you argued we should be rooting for the RAT candidate to win, noting that the RAT candidate was better on immigration than the GOP candidate (even though this was canceled out by the GOP candidate being 10X better than the RAT candidate on global WOT issues)

Following this logic, shouldn't you be rooting for the RAT candidate to win in NY, since she's indisputably better than Peter King on second amendment issues? (despite that this is canceled out by King being 10X better on rights of the unborn)

Of course I've never argued such a point, but just from a logical standpoint it's far more dangerous to let a RAT takeover a seat in a deep south GOP stronghold than let a RAT retain a seat on the east coast they've had for 30 years. The latter just maintains the status quo, the former is a guaranteed way to give Harry Reid a veto proof majority.