New York’s new Senator Kirsten Gillibrand does not look like she will be as lucky as Arlen Specter. More than 24 hours have passed since her appointment, and the state’s liberal wing is showing no intention of giving her a free pass - so much so that it could damage Governor David Paterson himself.
(Forgive my very New York-centric blogging these days, but it is hard to resist this ever-evolving story.)
In her acceptance speech, Gillibrand pledged to work with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy on a bill requiring background checks for guns; but this was certainly not enough to win McCarthy out. In an interview with MSNBC, McCarthy reiterated her strong opposition to Gillibrand. “I certainly have never forgotten why I came into politics, so you can imagine how I felt when I heard that the next Senator from New York would be a person who got the endorsement of the NRA,” said McCarthy. “I had to speak up. I had to let the people know who their next Senator is going to be.”
Complicating matters for Gillibrand is the fact that her stance on immigration is proving to be just as controversial as her opposition on gun control - and this fact alone could be enough to motivate the Hispanic community to support a primary challenge (and perhaps to field one).
Gillibrand has talked extensively against granting “amnesty” to undocumented immigrants, strengthening patrols and security fences on the Southern border, and denying immigrants driving licenses. Fliers have surfaced in which Gillibrand touts her positions (see below), and while these might be fine in NY-20, they certainly can cause a huge amount of trouble for Gillibrand in a blue state like New York:
Needless to say, a significant proportion of New York’s Democratic primary voters are Hispanics, and Gillibrand will be in huge trouble in 2010 if Latinos rally behind a primary challenger. Already, Assemblyman Peter Rivera (the most senior Hispanic in the state legislature, and as such an important voice in state politics) blasted Gillibrand in startlingly tough words:
I am troubled by Governor Paterson’s choice to replace Hillary Clinton as New York’s Junior Senator. I find no compelling reason for the Governor to select a conservative Democrat to carry on the progressive work of now Secretary of State Clinton.
In fact, Rep. Gillibrand’s stand on a range of issues is counter to the desires of the majority of New Yorkers, including her hard-line stand on immigration, which borders on xenophobia. The Governor had a long list of extremely qualified and talented New Yorkers to consider that would not have created the opposition he will face. None of the other candidates have an anti-immigration record.
His choice will no doubt anger New York’s huge immigrant communities and could go as far as creating political obstacles to meaningful immigration reform efforts of our new President. It is clear to me that Rep. Gillibrand will face a primary and create splits among New York Democrats that will only serve to damage our party.
The whole statement is worth a read, as Rivera goes on to detail Gillibrand’s policy positions that he objects to. To recap, Gillibrand’s appointment has been received by:
- stinging criticism from gun-control groups and from Rep. McCarthy, who has already pledged that she will run against her former colleague if no else does,
- disappointment from New York City Mike Bloomberg, who issued a long statement criticizing Gillibrand’s opposition to gun control,
- news that Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer is already considering a primary challenge,
- deafening silence from from the state delegation’s other Democrats, though some (anonymously) provided murderous quotes to Politico in an article that reveals that Gillibrand’s nickname in the House was “Tracy Flick,”
- a pledge made by liberal groups to support a primary challenge. Said John Tasini, a primary challenger to Hillary Clinton in 2006: “New Yorkers need to begin to organize today to elect a Democratic Senator in 2010 who will represent progressives values,”
- accusations of “xenophobia” voiced by a prominent Hispanic politician.
Note that the frostiness of Gillibrand’s relationship with her House colleagues greatly increases the likelihood that she will face a primary challenge. Not only is she conservative, but she is also personally disliked; if she had been more popular with state Democrats, there would probably have been less negative reactions.
On the other hand, Gillibrand has received important shows of support, whether from Senator Chuck Schumer, former Senator Hillary Clinton, women right’s groups (Gillibrand is pro-choice, and Emily’s List should help her), gay rights groups that are content with Gillibrand’s sudden support of same sex marriage. In an important sign that Gillibrand might retain African-American support, Al Sharpton did not criticize Paterson’s choice and praised it as politically intelligent.
—
Another interesting question is whether the stinging he is receiving will damage David Paterson in a lasting way. You would typically expect elected officials not to want to cross their state’s Governor, but New York Democrats are clearly not holding themselves to that rule right now. Just check the tone of Rivera’s statement or of McCarthy’s comments - and note that McCarthy was willing to blast Paterson but shied away from criticizing Schumer (who championed Gillibrand). What does that say about where power resides in state politics?
The hostility he has awakened could cost Paterson in his attempts to put his mark on Albany. The Governor does not have the smoothest of relations with the state legislature, and the last thing he needed was to antagonize Hispanic politicians.
None of this means that Paterson is likely to face a competitive primary in 2010. For one, it is harder for a Democrat to run to to the left of an African-American candidate than it is to run to the left of an upstate representative. Second, Paterson will have had more time to entrench himself, not to mention that sitting in the gubernatorial mansion gives you some control of the state’s political machine.
Third, there are no obvious candidates to take on this incumbent: Attorney General Andrew Cuomo would be the obvious contender, but he is probably too ambitious to risk his career on such a difficult primary (not to mention that this would be Cuomo’s second gubernatorial run against an African-American who was favored by the establishment).
Some points I’d like to adress:
1)I understand that gun control is a pretty big issue in NYC. But I think that her immigration stance will be the biggest problem in a primary. Obama and the Democrats in general have gone at great lenghts to court Hispanics, and they have seen how much damage has been inflicted to the Republican party by people like Tom Tancredo. I doubt that they will risk this strategy by embracing someone like Gillibrand.
2)Schumer might support her, but don’t forget that he also supported Kennedy. That is until she damaged herself with the disastrous media rollout.
Chuck Schumer cares first and foremost for Chuck Schumer. If the criticism continues and Gillibrand tanks like Kennedy, then I don’t expect from the Senior Senator to stick his neck out for her.
3)McCarthy wasn’t viewed seriously as a primary contender because, as you mentioned, she isn’t very good at raising money. But, if Hispanics, gun control groups, and perhaps Bloomberg, rally behind her and provide the necessary funds, then noone can tell what the outcome might be. The same goes for any other possible candidate who might consolidate the anti-Gillibrand vote.
I agree with Panos - Schumer will not spend capital to support Gillibrand. She will face a challenger, I just hope the other candidates unite behind one challenger. I hear so much about her having support in upstate NY. So what! most of the Democratic vote needed to be elected will come from NYC and its suburbs. It is like saying Heath Shuler in North Carolina is the best candidate for senate in 2010 because he represents a Republican leaning district - complete crap because again the urban centers (Charlotte, Raleigh, Durham etc) are where the Dems reside and they are the ones needed.
The tension between New York’s regional, cultural and ethnic factions makes for interesting politics. In Gillibrand’s case, it is a test of her political skills in how she negotiates the liberal, downstate opposition to her.
I can see why the first thing she did move to the left on gay rights. It is an issue where she already had a mixed record, so a shift to a pro-gay position isn’t too jarring.
She has taken a harder line against gun control and immigration, which makes readjusting her position more difficult. She may have found a decent “triangulation” approach on guns, however, by remaining a strong supporter of hunting rights while also supporting urban handgun control measures. I think this could work.
As others have suggested, the immigration issue is politically explosive and doesn’t lend itself to an easy split-the-difference solution. And because it is an economic and security issue, people will get riled up about it on all sides. Gillibrand will likely have a difficult time embracing a more pro-immigrant position without losing significant support upstate and being accused of selling out. However, she can hardly ignore the importance of Hispanic and Asian voters in the context of a Democratic Primary. This will be a tough test.
It is highly likely Gillibrand will have a Democratic Primary challenger in 2010. Whether she gets a true challenge or only token opposition will depend on her performance and ability to reach out to the oppositional factions.