Voting "nay"
Noted: Kirsten Gillibrand is the only US Senator to have voted "no" on all three Trump admin nominees so far -- Mike Pompeo for CIA, John Kelly for Homeland Security, and John Mattis for Defense. For Mattis, she was the only "no" vote and publicly opposed the waiver necessary to allow Mattis, a former general, to serve as secretary of defense, citing an emphasis on civilian control of the military. [US Senate x3] [The Hill]
Hi there. Comments have been closed for this item. Still have something to say? Contact us.
Comments
Gillibrand can have all my donations and volunteer time if she keeps this up. Now is the time to fight, before it gets worse.
... said Gabby on Jan 24, 2017 at 2:15 PM | link
I'm becoming more impressed with Gillibrand for standing up to Trump. Maybe she can drop that Blue Dog Democrat stuff.
... said chrisck on Jan 24, 2017 at 3:02 PM | link
I just called her office to thank her.
I guess she's getting a lot of calls because it took me a few tries to get through.
We are all quick to complain when politicians do the wrong thing. Let's recognize her when she does the right thing.
... said Stan on Jan 24, 2017 at 3:18 PM | link
Good move, Ms. Gillibrand. Glad you're our Senator. As usual, we your political sensibilities synch up with ours.
... said Arthur and Dawn Einig on Jan 24, 2017 at 4:54 PM | link
This is all becoming a major shit-storm, thanks goodness for people like the Senator. For the first time in my life I was compelled to write my Congressman about the recent EPA clampdown. I have to pinch myself every day to remind myself that this is really happening.
... said Harold on Jan 25, 2017 at 8:44 AM | link
I'm a little mistrusting of her because of the amount of money shes received from Wall Street and lobbyists over the years but I give her a lot of credit for fighting when a lot of the other Dems are rolling over.
... said Jeff W on Jan 25, 2017 at 10:46 AM | link
"the amount of money shes received from Wall Street and lobbyists over the years"
I'll never understand this sort of purity-testing mentality. Sorry but if she wants to do anything as a senator, she actually has to be elected as a senator. One person cannot single-handedly overturn our campaign finance system, and there is not a single politician in a federal seat who can get by without this. (Keep in mind this applies to the alt-left's heroes like St. Bernie as well.)
... said JayK on Jan 25, 2017 at 11:15 AM | link
Jeff W, Gillibrand (and Shumer) get a lot of money from Wall St because that's where the money is in New York State.
In other states the senators get their money from (insert major industry here).
Neither of them are saints but right at the moment, I admit Gillibrand is my favorite Senator. Even Warren, Franken and Sanders are voting for some of these clowns.
... said Stan on Jan 25, 2017 at 11:22 AM | link
@JayK - I never understand the "well, that's the way the game is played" argument so we'll have to agree to disagree. Will it ever be "pure"? Of course not, but our system can be so much better than it is. So many people would rather take a backseat to special interests than actually try to change things for the better, then at the same times wonder why things never really get better.
@Stan - I agree to some extent that location plays a factor, but it still raises a bit of an eyebrow for me.
... said Jeff W on Jan 25, 2017 at 2:30 PM | link
I should clarify my position as well - taking donor money doesn't make one a bad candidate, but they don't get the benefit of the doubt either.
... said Jeff W on Jan 25, 2017 at 2:54 PM | link
I agree with Jeff W, expecting that our political leaders are free of entanglements is neither nieve or misguided. In my eyes it is simple to vote nay, when you know the votes and your given that gift\opportunity by the leadership. Let's not forget that our future first female President was appointed not elected. Once in, incumbency usually suffices to be reelected, as do those deep deep connections. Apologies, if my cynicism offends.
... said Chris on Jan 25, 2017 at 3:50 PM | link
"Let's not forget that our future first female President was appointed not elected." Appointment does not involve winning the popular vote by a large margin twice in one year.
Personally, I'd rather "progressives" begin to focus on progress rather than this adolescent posturing over who can be the most perfect liberal. It doesn't seem my opinion is widely stared, at least on this comment thread.
... said JayK on Jan 25, 2017 at 6:35 PM | link
@JayK are you saying that Senator Gillibrand did not get appointed to fill Senator Clinton's seat by Governor Patterson when Clinton went to the State dept. That is how she got there. I think that a majority of Gillibrands positions are right on but the senator doesn't need to be lauded for a purely political move orchestrated to strengthen the resume. Purity is what brought the conservatives to power over their establishment. Maybe it could work for the party that pretends to be the representatives of working people as well.
... said Chris on Jan 25, 2017 at 9:45 PM | link