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.

Liberals choose expediency over democracy

The Liberal Party national executive had two choices in naming an “interim leader.” They could have come up with some way of hearing from Liberal Party members from across the nation. Or they could have limited the discussion to a small group of by-invitation-only guests. Unfortunately, they chose the latter.

As a result, now-former leadership candidate Bob Rae withdrew from the race on Dec. 9, aware that he would be unable to win over as much support in the Liberal caucus as enjoyed by Michael Ignatieff, the only leadership candidate left standing.

Rae, however, was not the only victim of the party’s decision. Democracy, party building, and grassroots involvement were also left as road kill along the path leading to Ignatieff’s coronation. (Ignatieff is now set to take over as interim leader, with the convention slated for May becoming a pro forma – if constitutionally mandated – event to pick a “permanent leader.”)

While there is no doubt in my mind that the nation would be well served with Ignatieff as the next prime minister, I am concerned about how the party executive’s decision will play itself out.

Firstly, this decision tunes out the voices of workaday Liberals, including all those volunteers whose involvement is so crucial to campaigns. Just look at the recent Democratic primary process that chose Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. Democrats choose their presidential nominee through a combination of elected delegates (those elected by party members through voting) and super-delegates (party officials, members of Congress, and other high muckety-mucks.) With the elected delegate count so close, the super-delegates actually had the numbers to overturn the voters’ decision and throw the election to Clinton. While the super-delegates had the right to do that, they knew that if they had chosen that path, party members would have revolted. The same could happen here by completely shutting down the leadership process and picking the leader behind closed doors.

Secondly, I fear that without a contested leadership race, the party will not be able to do the groundwork necessary to rebuild. Without an opportunity to hash out the competing visions of the party brought by Rae and Ignatieff, workaday Liberals won’t get the chance to open the hood of the party, check its oil, kick its tires, and really diagnose what led to such a disappointing election result. (And no, simply changing leaders won’t do the trick.)

But also, without even Liberals getting a chance to pick their next leader, I fear that Canadians in general will feel like Ignatieff is just being thrust upon them, anticipating his next coronation as prime minister. Ignatieff and the party now will have to work that much harder to convince all Canadians that he is the right person to lead the nation after the disastrous, selfish, and deceitful tenure of Stephen Harper.

To his credit, Rae was gracious, practical, and well-spoken in his press conference announcing his withdrawal from the race. As he said, “Our own ambitions are less important than the greater interest of the Liberal Party and the greater interest of the country.” The party now has to show that its coronation decision is indeed in the best interest of the party and the nation.