Blue-Dog Democrat Named to Clinton Seat

New York Governor David Paterson's decision to name centrist Kirsten Gillibrand to the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton highlights a number of the problems with allowing governors to appoint senators.

Surrounded by many -- though not all -- top New York Democrats (and former Republican Senator Al D'Amato, a Gillibrand family friend), Paterson observed that not all states allow governors to appoint senators. (Wisconsin, Oregon and Alaska are among the exceptions.) He then took advantage of the fact that New York does allow such selections to be made and gave his blessing to Gillibrand.

The congresswoman, who admitted that most New Yorkers do not know who she is, then took full advantage of the opportunities that go with appointment.

Gillibrand, whose political ambition has been much noted in New York and Washington, delivered a smooth, campaign-style acceptance speech, complete with shout-outs to friends and foes in the state's congressional delegation and promises to "get to know" every corner of the state.

That's smart politics. And no one should begrudge Gillibrand for practicing the game ably.

But for those of us who have long raised concerns about the loophole in the 17th amendment that allows for gubernatorial appointment of senators -- when all House vacancies must be filled with special elections -- Friday's events offered a reminder of what is so unsettling about the process of conveying incumbency upon an unelected senator.

Gillibrand will have to work to keep her seat in the 2010 election. But she will do so from a place of strength when it comes to grabbing headlines and raising campaign money. But her appointment makes her an immediate frontrunner not just in the 2010 race but for a long career in the Senate.

So who will be representing New York in a Senate where the state's representatives have historically -- though not always -- pushed the debate to the left?

Gillibrand, a Democratic congresswoman who has just finished her first term in the House, is a rare northern-state member of the southern-dominated Blue Dog Coalition who describes her voting record as "one of the most conservative in the state."

In 2007, Gillibrand was the only member of the New York delegation in the House to back the Bush administration's request for te extension of Iraq War funding. Though she served on the advisory board of the Brennan Center for Justice, she backed the Bush administration's rewrite of legislation to permit spying in telephone calls. Gillibrand has said she backs proposals to renew Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. And she sparred with former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer on the issue of immigration, whipping up opposition to his plan to allow them to obtain New York drivers licenses.

Gillibrand's allegiance to the National Rifle Association is such that one of her Democratic colleagues, Carolyn McCarthy, a Long Island Democrat, says she is prepared to mount a 2010 primary challenge to the appointee on the issue of gun control. (Congresswoman McCarthy's husband was killed when a gunman opened fire on a Long Island Rail Road line in 1993 and she entered politics in order to battle the NRA and its anti-gun control line.)

No wonder veteran union activist Jonathan Tasini, who has been organizing a push to fill Clinton's seat with a progressive, says, "David Paterson's choice to fill the U.S. Senate in New York is an affront to the people of New York. New Yorkers do not deserve a caretaker Senator who is anti-immigrant, anti-gay rights, and proudly carries the endorsement of the National Rifle Association, an organization that is uniquely responsible for the death and injury by gun violence of hundreds of thousands of Americans."

Why did Paterson pick Gillibrand?

Of course, the governor offered the usual denial that the choice had anything to do with politics. "I believe that I have found the best candidate to become the next U.S. Senator from New York," the governor declared. "This decision was not made based on gender, geographic location, race or sexual orientation, it was based on [merit]."

The reality, however, is that when a governor is preparing for a tough race to hold on to his job, the choice of an appointed senator has everything to do with politics.

After inheriting his job following Spitzer's unceremonial exit from the position, the governor must run for election in 2010. He feels reasonably confident that his own strong ties to the liberal community and his roots in New York City will secure his left flank. But he worries about appealing to upstate voters and centrists and conservatives. He also wants to score points with women who, rightly, suggested that it was important to address the continuing gender imbalance in the Senate by filling a seat being vacated by a woman with a woman.

By most measures, Gillibrand's selection makes sense as a political calculation.

Unfortunately, it does not make a lot of sense to those who would like to see a the senator from New York take a lead in promoting the progressive policies embraces by past Empire state senators such as Robert Wagner, Robert Lehman, Robert Kennedy and Charles Goodell.

Had the Clinton seat been filled in a special election -- as Gillibrand's House seat must be -- it is very likely that a more progressive contender would have taken it.

But, now, Kirsten Gillibrand, a smart, tough political operator, will move quickly to secure her hold on the seat. In that pursuit, she will have the advantage of incumbency -- not an incumbency accorded her by the electorate but by appointment at the whim of one man who happens to be the governor.

The Progressive New York movement, which has been endorsed by Tasini, Barbara Ehrenreich and a number of labor and peace activists from around the state, describes the process as a case of "Democracy Lost" and argues that, "The flurry over the past couple of days has made it clear why so many people find so disturbing the entire process of annointing someone to take a Senate seat, without the consent of the voters."

That is, indeed, the case. But it is not a unique problem to New York state. Whenever senators are appointed by governors -- rather than elected by voters -- the process is defined by private political calculations and unfair advantages that are by their nature at odds with democracy and the progressive ideals that underpin it.

Comments (65)

1. I'm sorry...this seems oddly familiar?

   Except for all the missing posts from the FIRST time you posted it, Mr Nichols?!?!?!??

   Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 1:28pm

2. I'm not going to go on and on about this on this thread, when John Nichols posted a more concise version of the same exact blog earlier today.

   But I will add two things to what I said on his other thread,

   1--congrats to Wisconsin, Oregon, and Sarah Palin's state for being more progressive and voter-oriented on the issue of replacing senate vacancies. Kudos, one can only hope other states, including mine (CT) follow suit some day.

   2--John Nichols--(I doubt you read the comments to your blog, and I doubt further you care to respond, but I'll take a shot-- (a) why the sudden concern with how vacancies in the senate are filled? and (b) would you have posted your concerns about the governor's power to replace vacant senate seats if Hilary Cinton's vacated seat was filled by someone you wanted to see in there?

   Posted by urmygyro at 01/23/2009 @ 1:36pm

3. Posted by urmygyro at 01/23/2009 @ 1:36pm

   I think Joe the Schmoe Lieberman sees the handwriting on the wall and will decide to "spend more time with his family" as 2012 approaches.

   Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 1:44pm

4. BTW, time to Spot the Difference-

   Remmber those old picture puzzles as kids, and you had to spot the difference? ("There's a striped ball behind the cat in Pic #1, it's gone in Version #2....There's no apple on the tree)...well, try to spot the differnce between-

   Blue-Dog Democrat Named to Clinton Seat By John Nichols

   Choice of Centrist to Replace Clinton By John Nichols

   Winners get a Waldo toboggan!

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 1:56pm

5. If progressive NY Dems mean what they say, they'll back Andrew Cuomo in a '10 primary for gubernatorial candidate & Maloney for the senatorial candidacy.

   But they'd better start organizing Obama-like campaign organizations now, or the Schumer-Clinton money bags will stomp all over them next year.

   Posted by sloper at 01/23/2009 @ 2:02pm

6. Typical Nation Magazine self-delusion. Patterson is about as much of a liberal as Obama is. Patterson has targeted the weakest and poorest groups in NY State to balance the budget while Obama gives every intention of slashing Social Security and Medicare benefits. Patterson chose this DLC Democrat because it is a perfect match for his own dreadful politics.

   Posted by lnp3 at 01/23/2009 @ 2:12pm

7. Mask- Lieberman is an incumbent whore. He ran in '88 as a 3 terms-tops, I just want to humbly serve my constituency, I'm not running for personal power--PHONY.

   last mid-term, after losing the dem primary, he ran as an independent (after cozying up w/ the repubs)--winning a senate seat for the 4th time. oops - that 3 terms limit promise flushed into the sewer. apparently, the people of ct. needed joe lieberman, we'd crumble w/out him.

   I loathe joe lieberman

   Posted by urmygyro at 01/23/2009 @ 2:17pm

8. Paterson is going to have the fight of his life in 2010, and the odds do not favor his re-election.

   I don't think his right flank will be convinced to support him because of this appointment, and he may have just lost his left flank.

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/23/2009 @ 2:21pm

9. Posted by urmygyro at 01/23/2009 @ 2:17pm

   A few mitigating factors now that he'd face in 2012 that he didn't in 2006.

   1. Dems likely to put up somebody a bit more exciting than Ned the Head.

   2. He openly endorsed the 2008 GOP candidate and is from a state that went to Obama by 60 to 38%.

   3. He tied himself to Dubya as well.

   He'd be lucky to break double-digits in 2012...and I think he knows it. But Dems are still stuck with him for 4 more years.

   Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 2:44pm

10. I'm sorry...this seems oddly familiar?

    Except for all the missing posts from the FIRST time you posted it, Mr Nichols?!?!?!??

    ~Maskot @ 1:28pm

    Strange, I just posted a somewhat lengthy post on the historicity --or lack thereof-- of Jesus at KvH's "Ed. Cut" of yesterday (regarding Katrina's favs for the NY Senate seat to be filled by Patterson).

    The entire blog thread then suddenly went "POOF"! "KABLAMMY!"......Gone.

    Incidently, it's the same post where I basically implored KvH to not forget the value of The Nation's blog spaces as a critical forum for the common man and woman.

    Oh well, who knows what's going on?

    Beats me....I'm not even gonna speculate.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/23/2009 @ 2:53pm

11. New evidence on Antarctic warming

    By Richard Black

    Environment correspondent, BBC News website

    The continent of Antarctica is warming up in step with the rest of the world, according to a new analysis.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7843186.stm

    •••••••••••••••

    Climate shift 'killing US trees'

    By Mark Kinver

    Science and environment reporter, BBC News

    Old growth trees in western parts of the US are probably being killed as a result of regional changes to the climate, a study has suggested.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7841030.stm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2009 @ 2:56pm

12. Beats me....I'm not even gonna speculate.---Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/23/2009 @ 2:53pm

    Not sure about Mr Nichols, but I think there's a pretty obvious answer to why Ms vanden Heuvel's "POOFED".

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 3:02pm

13. Posted by frosty zoom @ 2:56pm

    Yeah, I know, we're gonna get our collective asses kicked.

    Then there's the "common sense" of Darin the Trog who says, essentially, I know it because my little finger tells me.

    Let's see.......global oil consumption: ~30 billion barrels annually.

    Coal: 5.7 billion metric tons annually and rising steadily.

    Natural gas: Not sure, but does it matter?

    Common sense: We're fucked.

    Just wait til the Atlantic conveyor shuts down, and deep ocean methane (order of magnitude more powerful solar heat trapper than CO2) begins rising to the surface.

    At least the (near) future won't be boring.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/23/2009 @ 3:09pm

14. ....I think there's a pretty obvious answer to why Ms vanden Heuvel's "POOFED".

    Posted by Maskot @ 3:02pm

    I know, but that's pretty gutless if we're on the same wavelength. Is there a similar precedent here?

    I've seen corrections go up later, but entire threads gone on (apparent) specious reasoning?

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/23/2009 @ 3:12pm

15. For fun.......

    If ACook shows up on this thread.....

    Here's little tune:

    tinyurl.com/al5hob

    Love the harmonica beginning at 3:00 and the ending is about perfect for Cook.....

    "Wasssa matta whi-joo momma?"

    P.S. For one example of what I'm talkin' about, after suggesting that Obama was very possibly gonna be a Big Brown of disappointment, Cook replied, "More like Eight Belles".

    Ouuuuch!

    That's down right COLD blooded.....and from an african-american woman no less....

    We gots some real winners here, ya' think?

    I'm out. Talk at ya' further on down the road.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/23/2009 @ 3:27pm

16. Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/23/2009 @ 3:12pm

    Interesting at the least. A theory?

    That Ms vanden Heuvel not mentioning Gillibrand and endorsing others, would prevent a "parsing" on "Hardball" tonight (or later on) where by she is both critical of Gillibrand as a "blue dog" and disappointed that it wasn't a "Cuomo", but "glad to see another woman in the Senate to replace one."

    The old paradigm of feminist politics vs. progressive politics that some feminists get stuck on. i.e. Is it better to have a Democratic woman in the Senate who's centrist...or a Democratic man who's more 'pure progressive'?

    By Winston Smith-1984 "memory holing" the article...no evidence can be presented to refute taking BOTH sides of the appointment.

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 3:39pm

17. KVH - this is disgraceful to erase entire threads so you can appear smart to other people, as if you predicted what would happen, or at least didn't make an erroneous guess.

    What is with this nonsense?

    Posted by urmygyro at 01/23/2009 @ 4:24pm

18. <i>Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/23/2009 @ 2:53pm </i>

    I didn't get to see that thread, but I'm VERY curious to know how a thread about a new Senator generated a post about the historicity of Jesus. :D

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/23/2009 @ 4:57pm

19. thrawn - like Jesus needs much to become the center of attention at the nation threads?

    Posted by urmygyro at 01/23/2009 @ 5:01pm

20. "I believe that I have found the best candidate to become the next U.S. Senator from New York," the governor declared. "This decision was not made based on gender, geographic location, race or sexual orientation, it was based on [merit]."

    Hmmmm, what a novel idea! This guy is an independent thinker, impressive!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 01/23/2009 @ 6:00pm

21. I didn't get to see that thread, but I'm VERY curious to know how a thread about a new Senator generated a post about the historicity of Jesus. :D Posted by Thrawn at 01/23/2009 @ 4:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    these things happen.sometimes a thread has quickly exhausted its subject. nature, we are told, abhors a vacuum. this is also true of threads, evidently.

    I'm usually bored by this subject, but sometime I'm bored, period. hence my participation in this thread.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 7:27pm

22. I didn't get to see that thread, but I'm VERY curious to know how a thread about a new Senator generated a post about the historicity of Jesus. :D Posted by Thrawn at 01/23/2009 @ 4:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    these things happen.sometimes a thread has quickly exhausted its subject. nature, we are told, abhors a vacuum. this is also true of threads, evidently.

    I'm usually bored by this subject, but sometime I'm bored, period. hence my participation in this thread.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 7:28pm

23. Hmmmm, what a novel idea! This guy is an independent thinker, impressive! Posted by comancheamerican at 01/23/2009 @ 6:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    pssst, he's lying.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 7:29pm

24. Posted by comancheamerican at 01/23/2009 @ 6:00pm

    RIO, you realize you just complimented a "Demoncrat", don't you?

    You'll ruin your reputation as an "independent"!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 7:29pm

25. Not really, I'm a Zell Miller fan too, you know , another REAL Democrat!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 01/23/2009 @ 7:38pm

26. As Jack Webb says "Just the facts mamam, just the facts!"

    Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.

    Office: Elected to Congress in 2006

    Birthdate: Dec. 9, 1966, in Albany, N.Y.

    Residence: Hudson, N.Y.

    Education: Graduated from Dartmouth College in 1988, and U.C.L.A. in 1991.

    Religion: Catholic

    Marital Status: Married (Jonathan).

    Professional Career: Practicing attorney, 1991-2006; special counsel, HUD, 2000.

    Committees: Agriculture (18th of 25 D): Livestock, Dairy & Poultry; Horticulture & Organic Agriculture; Conservation, Credit, Energy & Research. Armed Services (28th of 34 D): Seapower & Expeditionary Forces; Terrorism, Unconventional Threats & Capabilities.

    Gillibrand is the daughter of Douglas Rutnik, an Albany lobbyist who is part of former Gov. George Pataki's inner circle. Her grandmother was a prominent Democratic activist in Albany who brought Gillibrand along with her on the campaign trail.

    Gillibrand served as a law clerk at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Gillibrand traveled widely, working one summer for Republican Sen. Alfonse D'Amato

    After law school Gillibrand served briefly as special counsel under Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo, before going to work for a major New York City law firm

    Posted by comancheamerican at 01/23/2009 @ 8:20pm

27. <i>Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 7:27pm </i>

    Fair enough. I just wonder why I missed out :D

    <i>Posted by urmygyro at 01/23/2009 @ 5:01pm </i>

    Haha touche. I wonder if that's supposed to tell us something :p

    But more seriously, I think there's actually a reason why religion keeps coming up. Whether you like it or not, religion often plays a very significant role in politics, if for no other reason than the fact that people's religion often influences the way they think about issues. So long as that's the case, and since I don't think one can be asked to leave their fundamental views behind when they walk into the voting booth or even the Cannon Office building, I think there's a great deal of value in having that conversation. Public reason may seem like an appealing paradigm, but expressed in absolutist terms it cannot be an adequate basis for discourse in a democratic (or republican) society.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/23/2009 @ 8:23pm

28. Kirsten Gillibrand gives me the creeps. I heard the ads from her first campaign on the radio for a week, before discovering to my shock and horror that she was the Democratic candidate. Now is not the time for one of these chameleon-like relics of the era of Republican dominance.

    Posted by tonyzito at 01/23/2009 @ 8:23pm

29. She sounds like a perfect choice.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/23/2009 @ 8:47pm

30. Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 7:27pm

    JEEZUS, is Professor Rolf a kiss-ass or what?

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 9:42pm

31. BTW, again, HAPP, comanche/RIO, JOMAMMA....

    they just like Gillibrand because she sounds like she'd be Zell Miller in a pantsuit and progressives are carping about her.

    First time she votes for "Obama's socialism"...they'll call her "Hillary Junior" and the love affair will end!

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 10:03pm

32. She sounds like a perfect choice. Posted by YourJomamma at 01/23/2009 @ 8:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    for Nebraska maybe. NY? we'll see when she runs, IF she runs.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 10:04pm

33. As recent as 2001 Republicans were the BLUE staters and Democrats were RED staters. The CNN map guy changed the colors and nobody paid attention. It was a subliminal usurping of territory by the left. Also RED suggests communism. The power of suggestion. Guard you minds.

    Posted by uPay2Play1 at 01/23/2009 @ 11:19pm

34. Posted by uPay2Play1 at 01/23/2009 @ 11:19pm

    You see the "fnords", doncha?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 11:44pm

35. "Advice is not a gift, but a debt the old owe to the young.. go left Kirsten Gillibrand.

    Natty Bumppo

    Posted by Sorelish at 01/24/2009 @ 01:26am

36. I'm very pleased to see Kirsten Gillibrand, a Blue-Dog Democrat, appointed as Hillary Clinton's replacement. We need lots more Democrats just like her to either kick out or marginalize the leftist wacknuts and restore the party to some semblance of reality and sanity.

    Posted by skeetjr at 01/24/2009 @ 01:30am

37. Posted by skeetjr at 01/24/2009 @ 01:30am

    Take it to the crapper, housefly.

    Posted by Sorelish at 01/24/2009 @ 01:39am

38. Nobody watches CNN anymore

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/24/2009 @ 02:10am

39. Jr,

    She reminds me of Ben Nelson, our Dem senator, for whom I voted.

    And she would be good for NY. I wouldn't think you or anyone else would want one party running NY... Not good at all. That's how you end up with the "Peoples Republic".

    Like California....

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/24/2009 @ 02:14am

40. Funny thing, is that I remember when Gillibrand was the darling of the upstate progressives, because she ran against and unseated John Sweeney.

    Funny how capitulation always ends badly for the left. This constant sense of needing to moderate and temper the agenda results in things like this, my friends.

    Posted by DJGoody at 01/24/2009 @ 02:25am

41. well we do have one party running things in Albany now. control of both houses and the governor.

    I've always believed that NYC should be the 51st state. we make most of the money and pay most of the taxes.

    of course if we secede upstate new york would look like east germany.

    why should our destiny be controlled by Albany?

    those fools up there got rid of the commuter tax, a big loss for the city. the commuters should definitely chip in to cover expenses, transit ones especially.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2009 @ 09:01am

42. They may have gotten rid of commuter tax but NYC has more than made up for it with a myriad of other taxes.

    Just ask all be "rich" and business who have "relocated" to more friendly places.

    Look to Caifornia for what the future will look like.

    Again, California is hemoraging it's people who make the cash and pay the bills(myriad of taxes) at an increasing rate.

    California will never be able to elect a repub or conservative govt because 1 party has rigged the entire voting process by it's redistricting plans that leave a permanent dem majority in perpetuity.... By design.

    California ius run entirely by Dems and it broke heading fr bankruptcy, after begging for loans and bail outs .... then the Dem will use it as a model for saving"the US. But no spending cuts will occur, only more demands for more taxes as wealth and wealth generating class... desert a sinking ship. California it gone and will not change it's ways.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/24/2009 @ 10:33am

43. Ms. Gillibrand represents a generally conservative, Republican district in upstate New York, one that abuts the more generally liberal, Democratic Albany. There's a great deal of rural area in her district, some urban area. As Senator, she will now represent a much more liberal, Democratic New York State. At first glance, it seems a puzzling pick. But it will take more than incumbency for her to secure the seat in 2010 - New Yorkers long ago repudiated Al d'Amato (you remember Senator Pothole, no doubt), and I'd hazard a guess that they won't elect his like again soon.

    Posted by jmusolino at 01/24/2009 @ 10:53am

44. California will never be able to elect a repub or conservative govt because 1 party has rigged the entire voting process by it's redistricting plans that leave a permanent dem majority in perpetuity.... By design.

    what you are describing is gerrymandering, a practice both parties engaged in.

    one more thing, the repub run states are also in huge trouble financially. you would do well to stop looking at the world through hyper partisan glasses, and join the rest of the world in looking for solutions to this unprecedented, in our lifetime, crisis.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2009 @ 11:00am

45. Jr,

    Über spending is not the solution but rather the problem.

    As usual, the govt has the microscope upside down. And thinks they see something we all missed.

    And the left celebrates.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/24/2009 @ 11:21am

46. and who was the big spender? Bush.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2009 @ 11:35am

47. when america went to war, it used to raise taxes to pay for it.

    what Bush and his supine congress did was raise the debt limit. the chickens are coming home to roost.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2009 @ 11:58am

48. and who was the big spender? Bush.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2009 @ 11:35am

    Yes, which is why conservatives like myself, who never really were drawn to him in the end ...abandoned him...

    and he was the big spender..untilll.....

    your guy....watch the place melt down...

    this will not work...Private spending, not govt fake wealth being spent...will do the trick..slash taxes and slash them deep...and get out of the way....our B Frank will tank us all.

    move your money JR, to some place safe, for it is no longer safe here, mine freund...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/24/2009 @ 12:00pm

49. move your money JR, to some place safe, for it is no longer safe here, mine freund... Posted by YourJomamma at 01/24/2009 @ 12:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I have no money, mein Freund

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2009 @ 12:10pm

50. This wasn't one of Paterson's most inspired moments. I listened to the gals speech yesterday and she sounds truly parochial, sort of like you "betchya" Palin. Secretary Clinton must have really cringed about this one. Is she a four year or two year term?

    Posted by julien38 at 01/24/2009 @ 12:32pm

51. for a description of my current situation see the Pete Seeger thread.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2009 @ 12:38pm

52. Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2009 @ 12:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    you still got me on ignore? if so, please don't respond in any way whatsoever...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/24/2009 @ 12:45pm

53. Ib, what are you talking about?

    in any case you cannot tell me what to do.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2009 @ 12:48pm

54. Ib, how would I be able to read your unjustified complaint if you were on ignore?

    thimk before you post.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2009 @ 12:51pm

55. you didn't even post on this thread. what the fug?

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2009 @ 12:54pm

56. Yes, which is why conservatives like myself, who never really were drawn to him in the end ...abandoned him...----------Posted by YourJomamma at 01/24/2009 @ 12:00pm

    Key part? "in the end". Didn't start until after 2006 (well after they voted for his re-election, despite their 'principles')...and after the GOP Congress had been lost.

    Before that...happy as clams to hang around Dubya.

    Posted by Mask at 01/24/2009 @ 1:33pm

57. in any case you cannot tell me what to do.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2009 @ 12:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    lol...perhaps i was confused. not telling you what to do(!), but maybe you should be specific about who you put on iggy warning. thought you were talking to me on a previous thread.

    how u doing, JR?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/24/2009 @ 1:37pm

58. I've never used the warning feature. I just walk away, so to speak.

    I'm ok and thank you for asking. I'm under some stress, but aren't we all. for more information, if you are interested, see the Pete Seeger thread.

    while I have your attention, any vehemence I may exhibit, is rhetorical only.

    if anyone is friendly to me, I reciprocate.

    in any case, new threads come up and we can all start over. I find your posts intelligent. we agree more than we disagree.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2009 @ 1:51pm

59. in any case, new threads come up and we can all start over. I find your posts intelligent. we agree more than we disagree.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2009 @ 1:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    likewise, friend.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/24/2009 @ 2:02pm

60. here it is kids: no more Mr. not so nice guy.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2009 @ 3:24pm

61. I have no money, mein Freund

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2009 @ 12:10pm

    I will revisit the thread if I cvan find it...

    How does the warn system work? I have hit the phrase by accident on I[phone buit I do not know what it does...

    and if anyone has gotten a warning from me, then it is an error...

    ANYWAY,

    JR...should my China and American plan work as designed, or even close...I can be found in Aruba or another Island there, running my own grass hut bar catering to tourists on the beach..skimply clad waitress in abundance, serving only spirits and lobsters in the sand...

    and a table will be in a constant "reserved" status for one EMILE AUS DEUTCHLAND...complete with a wide ale selection...and you would never see a bill, of course...courtescy of the evil capitalists...you would not need any money there, so forget Seeger threads, JR, and it will not be good by then anyway...

    just ask for "Edwardo"...everyone will know who you are talking about...:)

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/24/2009 @ 3:53pm

62. JR, I am sorry about your plight..

    I am in the same boat..I, too, have partaken in almost everything..and my son has developed a taste for the bud himself...my objection , aside from the legalities and the after math of a record following one today..is that I will be held responsible for his behaviour considering his age(17) and I will pay a certain price for his actions...

    I am against use by young people while they are not fully developed phyisicaly,emotionaly, and mentaly..

    I also told him, that when in my house my rules...we aint a democracy here, we are belnevolent dictatorship where he has privelges, not rights....

    and when he has his life together, his bills and rent paid, he is a success in his own eyes and responsible in others...and he wants to get high in HIS OWN HOUSE...that is his right and business as far as I am concerned...but he is not even close yet.

    At least your son has a scholareship to lose...after all he is white, sorry, i digress...but my son wants to go to art school plus culinary school, which I support, but if he get arrested .....his dreams will have gone up in smoke...literaly.

    Sorry for your condition...I will call you when I get out there,,...been too long.

    Bleib Gesund

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/24/2009 @ 4:13pm

63. When I posted my comment on you tube about that Twain claymation thing ("A claymation featuring Dick Cheney! Whould a thunk it?") it was POOFED pretty quickly. Sometimes it doesn't pay to clown around. Someone also didn't like my tribute to the ancient McD's commercial and that disappeared as well. But in those days Ronald really did look like the kind of clown that would smoke weed with the counter girls

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 01/25/2009 @ 09:30am

64. we need a veterinarian so we can put all of the "Blue Dogs" to sleep. If I wanted a blue dog member of the DEMOCRAT party in lieu of a liberal member of the DEMOCRATIC party I would have chosen a REPUBLICAN instead. BLUE DOGS ARE A DISGRACE TO SMALL D DEMOCRACY. Blue dogs are what helped reagan get elected in 1980.

    Posted by jcruml at 01/25/2009 @ 1:15pm

65. Blue dogs are what helped reagan get elected in 1980.----Posted by jcruml at 01/25/2009 @ 1:15pm

    So you want all blue dog Democrats to leave the Democratic Party and become Republicans, so they can elect more "Reagans".

    Now...which party do you support again???

    Posted by Mask at 01/26/2009 @ 08:54am