NY’s new senator can bridge state’s urban-rural divide

Enough already with the criticism about New York Gov. David Paterson’s appointment of upstate Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand as the state’s junior senator to replace now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Gillibrand is a strong choice who is poised to serve the entirety of the Empire State very well.

In fact, Gillibrand was a good choice for a number of reasons:

1. She is not Caroline Kennedy, who proved to be unqualified and not ready for prime time.

2. She is from upstate, and it’s about time New Yorkers north of Westchester had someone in Washington who truly understands their issues.

3. She is unquestionably pro-gay, even supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples. This will make her one of only a few U.S. senators to take such a strong stand for equality.

4. She is a Republican slayer. She first won her House seat, representing the heavily GOP district surrounding Albany, in 2006 by beating incumbent Republican Congressman John Sweeney.

5. She is a woman, and after Clinton’s historic presidential run – and those 18,000 cracks in the glass ceiling – it is a plus for a qualified woman to be chosen to replace Clinton in the Senate.

Despite all the pluses, however, Gillibrand has been criticized for being too pro-gun. Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, who represents part of suburban Long Island and is a staunch gun-control advocate, has even promised Gillibrand a Democratic primary challenge in 2010.

But this criticism has little to do with Gillibrand and says much more about how urban New Yorkers just don’t understand rural issues in the rest of the state. Yes, Gillibrand has a perfect voting record as rated by the rabidly pro-gun National Rifle Association (NRA). But that doesn’t mean Gillibrand is a gun zealot. It means that she understands the culture of guns in her rural district is very different from gun culture in the state’s urban centers.

Howard Dean, until recently the head of the Democratic National Committee, understood this difference. No one would argue Dean is a conservative – in fact, he lost the 2004 Democratic presidential primary because he was perceived as too liberal. But as governor of Vermont for over 11 years, he was consistently endorsed by the NRA. That’s because he understood the culture of guns in his largely rural state, a place where deer season is celebrated but with one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the country.

As for Gillibrand, she has already signaled her understanding of this issue statewide. Upon being appointed by Peterson, she said, "I will look for ways to find common ground between upstate and downstate. There are so many issues where we can come together, … where we can reduce gun violence and protect our children and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but also protect our hunters' rights."

I’m no fan of the NRA, and I certainly don’t understand killing animals for sport, but I do understand that guns are viewed differently in urban and rural parts of the country. Gillibrand understands that difference as well, and that is a good thing for someone hoping to represent all of New York state.

Hate for Blogo getting in the way of good Senate pick

The state of Illinois – like the other 49 – deserves to be represented by two U.S. senators. But with Barack Obama resigning his Senate seat in order to assume the presidency, it falls to the governor to appoint a replacement until a special election can be held in 2010. The problem is that the governor is Rod Blagojevich, who is alleged to have tried to sell Obama’s seat to the highest bidder. But no matter how much you may dislike Blogo, he did the right thing by naming former state Attorney General Roland Burris as the next senator from Illinois.

This was a strong choice for a number of reasons. First, Burris is the right kind of senator under the circumstances. He has already proven that he has support statewide, having served as comptroller from 1979 to 1991, and then as attorney general from 1991 to 1995. (As opposed to Caroline Kennedy, who is trying to be the new Hillary Clinton in New York.)

Not only is he qualified and respected, but he is also likely to serve only until the special election. As he turned 71 this year, he would likely not run for re-election. This is good, since no candidate would then have the benefit of incumbency after only being appointed to the job.

As a bonus, Burris is African American. In fact, Burris made history as the first African American elected statewide in Illinois. At a time when Obama’s resignation will leave the U.S. Senate without any African-American representation, the choice of Burris is a wise one.

During a Blagojevich press conference announcing his choice, he said, “Please don’t allow the allegations against me to taint this good and honest man,” referring to Burris. Sadly, too many others are simply ruled by their hatred for Blagojevich – who may be smarmy, vulgar, and mentally unstable, but has yet to be found guilty of any wrongdoing.

In fact, Blagojevich initially did something that was even better than appointing Burris – he tried to get the state legislature to approve legislation that would take the power of appointment away from him and allow for a special election. But the Democratically controlled legislature, even though they are of the same party as the governor, refused Blagojevich’s request.

Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, also African American and a Democrat, added to the nonsense when he said that he would not certify the governor’s choice of Burris.

But if anybody hates Blagojevich more than his state’s legislature, it’s the nation’s. The Democratic leadership of the U.S. Senate released an open letter saying they would not seat anyone Blagojevich appoints. Even Illinois’ other senator – Dick Durbin – signed the letter, which read in part: “This is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat. Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus.”

Even Obama jumped on the bandwagon, stating that he agrees with Senate Democrats and that he just really wants Blagojevich to resign.

All this is simply political hatred getting in the way of good government.

OK, Blagojevich is a bad man. But no one questions Burris’ integrity or qualifications, and no one is arguing that Burris would be a poor choice for senator. So all these politicos with a hate on for Blogo need to put that aside for just a few minutes to allow the people of Illinois to have its other senator.

Caroline Kennedy just ain’t qualified

It’s official. The New York Times reports that Caroline Kennedy – daughter of President John F. Kennedy – has told New York Gov. David Paterson that she wants to be appointed to the U.S. Senate. The only problem is that she’s just not qualified for the job.

Paterson has the power to appoint a new senator from New York once its junior senator – Hillary Clinton – leaves her seat to become President-elect Barack Obama’s secretary of state. And Paterson has much to consider. After all, New York is hard hit by the current economic crisis, is an economic engine for the nation, and needs someone who can hit the ground running.

But as the Times put it, Kennedy “has not held a full-time job in years, has not run for even the lowliest office, and has promoted such non-controversial causes as patriotism, poetry, and public service.” In fact, she has purposely kept herself largely out of the public spotlight until her recent campaign forays on behalf of Obama. Therefore, her political views are largely unknown.

What makes her qualified to be senator? Oh yes, she’s a KENNEDY – a name that makes older Democrats all fuzzy on the inside. Of course, there are Kennedys who continue to work hard for the sake of the nation – Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Congressman Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, to name two. But they earned their stripes, have well-known political positions, and have enjoyed continued and long-term support in their respective states.

Some Democrats are giddy over the idea of sending another Kennedy to Washington. And that would be fine if said Kennedy won the seat fair and square. But what has Caroline Kennedy done to earn this seat, aside from campaigning for Obama and being a Kennedy?

New York State is busting with a talented political farm team that could be tapped to fill Sen. Clinton’s shoes (or pantsuit) – counting everyone from Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown (who is African American).

At the very least, actress, businesswoman, and lobbyist Fran Drescher – who has also said she wants the senate seat – went on “Larry King Live” to explain her political beliefs to the nation. Kennedy has yet to talk publicly about what kind of senator she would be. Kennedy refused comment to the Times, instead giving some friends permission to speak on her behalf. If she really wants to be a senator, Kennedy needs to start talking for herself.

Clinton, before she began running for the Senate, went on a listening tour of upstate and western New York to make sure she understood the state beyond the five boroughs and the Hudson Valley. Cuomo, as a statewide official, is already familiar with these other parts of the state, and Brown is mayor of the largest city in western New York. Has the Manhattan-centric Kennedy even been to Brooklyn, let alone Plattsburgh or Tonawanda?

Democrats reveled in pointing out how unqualified Sarah Palin was to become vice president. But if Palin – who is a governor and served as a mayor – wasn’t qualified for a job that doesn’t have much responsibility, Kennedy certainly isn’t up for the job of senator.