Thursday, September 17, 2009

The Purple Center less than pleased with Senate appointee

by Smitty

John at the Purple Center falls short of happiness with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, one of seven in the Senate to vote against de-funding ACORN:
It's time for New York voters -- especially Democrats like me -- to send Gillibrand a clear message: we don't want any more of the taxpayers' money to be wasted on ACORN, an outfit which has few accomplishments other than scandals in its history and which exists mainly to perpetuate itself and give cushy jobs to people who are then drafted into "political action" to keep the money flowing.
When KG defended ACORN, the Purple Center was not amused:
But backing ACORN puts her in bed with an especially scummy outfit and aligns her with the the most left-wing elements of the Democratic Party -- and may help help put her out on her ear in January 2011. Maybe she thinks it will help her head off a Democratic primary next year, but the pols most likely to challenge her voted against funding ACORN! In any case, her vote on this issue (one of only seven!), far from fading from public view, will stand out as a major issue for her GOP opponent to hammer her with (this Marist poll shows her already running behind former Governor George Pakaki [sic]).
I've got a feeling that Senator Gillibrand's motives may resemble those of Senator Roland Burris: somebody acknowledging who put them in their current position.

I, for one, rejoice that the 17th Amendment so clearly saved the Republic from the evils of Senators with slits up the back of their suits, so that their handlers could readily manipulate them.


  1. Repealing the 16th and 17th, either separately or together, would be a good start.

  2. When they lose Jay Leno, have they lost the country?

  3. @Joe,
    Wow. I daresay ACORN is another way to spell 'toast'.

  4. Smitty...

    I'm trying to understand your antipathy to the 17th. Can you ponticate more on your concerns why State Representative selection of Senators is better than direct election?


  5. @The Mad Italian,
    Re: 17th Amendment. It's a chain-of-command question. The Constitution was a delegation of power from the States to the Federal government. Senators had been beholden to State capitals. Cutting out State capitals seems like it might make the Senate more responsive to the people, but check the empirical evidence: the 17th Amendment, in combination with the 16th and the Federal Reserve Act, planted the seed of the Permanent Political Class.
    Want some more empirical evidence of the ungoodness of these three things in concert? Watch this.

  6. OK - I follow you. I wonder how much that is affect by gerrymandering? I would think that the more gerrymandered a state is, the less likely you'll see turn over in the Senate.

    Don't we see the same levels of incumbency with the House, which is directly affected by the way states carve up their districts?

    I'd be screwed here in California no matter how the Senate is voted in. It's turtles all the way down here. :-P Even with term limits there are so many "safe" districts I'm not sure conservative politics are ever coming back over here on the left coast.

  7. @The Mad Italian
    I don't dispute your points, but I would sort them lower on the list of evils besetting the Republic.
    You might peruse this little riff of mine.