Jump to content

Talk:Kirsten Gillibrand

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 138.88.180.149 (talk) at 23:58, 1 April 2009 (→Living Former New York Senators). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Original article

original article was a stub and did indeed deserve replacement with a redirect to the district page. This version is no longer a stub, but describes Kirsten, her issues, and links to her campaign site. I suggest to change the district page, make her name there link to this new version.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnSinteur (talk • contribs) 05:28, 31 August 2006

Next Junior Senator

I'm concerned about the possible misleading of this word Junior Senator. Gillibrand votes in the Senate will have as much impact as Schumer's. PS: If Senator Schumer dies, before Gillibrand is sworn in - Gillibrand will be the senior Senator. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In American political jargon, the phrase "junior Senator" is a common description of the Senator from a State who has less seniority than the other Senator from that State, who is known as the "senior Senator". There is nothing misleading about it. And it is an important distinction, since although every Senator's vote is equal, their positions and committee assignments are not. 68.73.84.231 (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Roland Burris' start date for his Senate term is listed as December 31, 2008, the day Gov. Blagojevich appointed him, shouldn't Senator Gillibrand's start date be amended to January 23, 2009, the day Gov. Paterson appointed her? There was some controversy on Burris' page regarding when his term as Senator actually began, and the ultimate decision by Wikipedia's editorial staff was to list it as the day he was actually appointed, not the day he was sworn in. As such, I believe Sen. Gillibrand's term start date needs to be amended to today, January 23, 2009, as opposed to January 25, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.227.46 (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, Burris did not assume his seat on December 31, 2008. Anyways, why is Gillibrand listed as Senator-elect? She was appointed. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gillibrand will be sworn in on Sunday, Jan 25, and that's when she changes from Senator-designate (right, not "elect") to Junior Senator. We went through all of this for the Cabinet after the presidential election and came up with a reasonable way to handle it, and I don't see any reason to reinvent the wheel here. Tvoz/talk 03:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well if that is the case, then why is Roland Burris' start date for his Senate seat listed as December 31, 2008, when he wasn't sworn in until January 15, 2009? I tried to edit Burris' start date for his office, but was told repeatedly that since Burris was appointed on December 31, 2008, that constituted his start date. An even standard needs to be applied across the board. Either an appointed senator becomes a senator on their appointment date, or on their swearing in date. You can't use one rule for one senator, and a different rule for a different senator. Look at Roland Burris' wiki page and explain why there are two different rules being applied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.227.46 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A senator's term begins at appointment. See 2 U.S.C. § 36, John Barrasso, and Roger Wicker. Gillibrand's appointment is effective Sunday because that is the day she will be appointed. Friday's activity was a press conference, not an appointment. She is not taking the oath on Sunday, which I can say with certainty because the Senate is not in session again until 2 p.m. EST on Monday. -Rrius (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then her "Taking office" date needs to be amended to January 25, 2009. It currently reads "On or after January 25, 2009", but since we know that she will be appointed today, then it needs to be amended to today, as someone is liable to set it for tomorrow, when she will probably be sworn in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.208.87 (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of last name

This article in The New York Times says her last name is "pronounced JILL-uh-brand". Would someone who knows how please add this to the article with the proper IPA symbols? Thanks. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added it. Should that get a cite? --Cam (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}
"represented many pro bono cases" should be "represented many pro bono clients or causes"

You present a case but usually represent clients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.254.46 (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should say she "participated in" or "handled" many pro bono cases. Lawyers do not represent cases; they represent clients. Also, "pro bono" needn't be italicized because it is sufficiently English as to be listed in English-language dictionaries. -Rrius (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is now resolved. If not, remove "tlx|" from the template. -Rrius (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happens to her House seat?

She will be vacating her House seat. What happens to that? Could someone mention that in the article? Michaelh2001 (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon, a special election for her House seat, will be held later this year. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would be a good addition to the article if you can find a source - need to know if it's a special election or an appointment. I haven't had a chance to check. Tvoz/talk 03:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vacant House seats are always filled via special elecrtions. (See: Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 4: Vacancies.) Cassandro (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but by source I meant something that specified that this particular election was going to take place and when, to avoid the OR of reading the Constitution and extrapolating from it - even though it's correct. I haven't seen any sources yet about this election, but they'll follow soon enough I imagine (Or I may have missed them). Tvoz/talk 21:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gov. Paterson will call a date for primaries and the special election, let's wait for it. Cassandro (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The special election already has the New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009 article. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, WTR - hadn't seen that one. Tvoz/talk 21:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centrist v conservative

The sources - and the reality - state that she is a centrist who is difficult to categorize. I don't see any sources that explicitly say that she is a conservative - they say that her district is heavily conservative - in fact the majority of her positions are center leaning left. So I think we should refer to her as centrist who represents a conservative district. Tvoz/talk 20:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's sort of a divided district. The city of Hudson, which she lives outside of, is extremely artsy and very Democratic (a lot of refugees from the city). I was driving east from there across Columbia County last fall, and was very surprised to see lots of Gillibrand and Obama signs in what used to be a pretty solidly GOP area. So too with northern Dutchess County, and the areas of Rensselaer County closer to the river.

But the Greene and Delaware county areas of NY20, west of the Hudson, are still strongly Republican as are the areas of it north of Albany where Sweeney and Solomon lived when they were representing the district. It will be an interesting special election that may well depend on the quality of the candidates the parties choose in the primary (Gillibrand helped put a strong Democratic organization in place too). Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right - I know the area too, and your description is right. My point is that we don't exactly know what her positions will be when she is representing the whole state - but "centrist" seems like the right characterization, with an indication that some of her positions tend toward conservative, while others are liberal. I don't think calling her a straight up conservative is accurate or supported by the sources cited. Tvoz/talk 02:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Tvoz. A NY Post article today called Rep. Gillibrand a conservative, and I wrote to the author and politely contested the accuracy of that characterization. An 8% rating from the American Conservative Union does not make someone conservative. Rep. Gillibrand is less liberal than the NY Congressional delegation, but that also doesn't make her conservative -- just not as liberal as the rest. Given that she is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, the terms "centrist" or "moderate" would seem to me to be reasonable, but "conservative" is inaccurate. BoulderCreek12 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. First, she IS a "conservative Democrat". "Conservative" is an adjective here, modifying the noun Democrat, meaning she is conservative relative to most Democrats (which she is, as are most Blue Dogs). Second, just because you personally disagree with a source does not invalidate its conclusions. If the NY Post calls her "conservative" and you want to insist she's "moderate" or "centrist" (even though she is not), cite other sources that use those terms to describe her.
Agreed with the disagreement. She is a member of the Blue Dog caucus, and the Blue Dogs are by self definition conservative Dems. Second, refuting a NYT article is OR. 68.73.84.231 (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, nobody who gets an 8% rating from the American Conservative Union is a conservative anything. There are plenty of sources accurately describing Gillibrand as a centrist Democrat, and those sources are now present in the article. I believe that the current version of this article is complete, well-sourced, and provides an accurate representation of Sen. Gillibrand's record and positions. One correction: the Blue Dog Coalition self-identifies as a coalition of moderate and conservative Democrats. They do not all identify as conservative, but I believe they do tend to identify as fiscally conservative.BoulderCreek12 (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future President??

Adding that she might be a future president is ridiculous and such speculation doesn't belong in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.188.223 (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say she might be president some day, it says that she was mentioned by a mainstream news outlet almost a year ago that she was a possible candidate. The point is that she is not as obscure as some reports are suggesting today. I think it's a reasonable addition to the article. Tvoz/talk 02:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reasonable addition to the article, and it is sourced information...even though the thought of a Gillibrand presidential run makes me laugh out loud... BoulderCreek12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
It seems a bit extreme to me too, but you never know. Tvoz/talk 03:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This text: "In May 2008, she was mentioned by The New York Times as a potential Governor who could become the first female President of the United States.[18] Upon her appointment to the Senate, Paul Begala also voiced the prediction that Gillibrand may rise to the Presidency.[19]" seems a bit much to me, or at least needs some balancing. How about all the members of the NY congressional delegation who don't like her, per this Politico story? How about the serious primary challenge she may get in 2010, per that story and this WaPo story? Who was the last 'Blue dog'-type Democrat who won the party's presidential nomination? Anyone remember how well Scoop Jackson did? At the very least, the article should clarify that she was one of a dozen or so women speculatively named by the NYT as future presidential possibilities. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree - that's why I re-added the "potential governor" which was the context of the NYT piece, but I agree the whole concept is out of left field (so to speak) and somewhat fanciful. We do mention the possible primary challenge from Mccarthy - and I have no problem with adding reference to other possible primary challenges as per politico/washpo. Tvoz/talk 21:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including political ideology in Intro

The introduction of the article should include the basic information about Gillibrand, such as the offices she has held and her recent appointment. Items like her political ideology, appeal, and caucus membership would be better placed in the "Issues and Positions" section.Tajm 22:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the intro section of biographies is a summary of the article - at least of its most important aspects - so I think a phrase about her political ideology is in order. Also see above discussion about the "conservative" label. Tvoz/talk 03:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comment and added a source describing Senator-designate Gillibrand as a conservative. I am not saying that I personally think her to be a conservative, but if others do, we should include that in the article.Tajm 22:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of position

{{editsemiprotected}}

The article currently states: "positive rating from the NRA,[25] but has also worked to strengthen..."

I would suggest this should read: "positive rating from the NRA,[25] and has worked to strengthen..."

The NRA supported this legislation, so the "but" seems deceiving. "The NICS Improvement Act was passed by the House of Representatives on June 13, 2007, and then by the Senate on December 20, 2007, with the public support of the National Rifle Association (NRA)." ---http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/36/1/123

Thanks.

be the second female senator from new york —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chexandy89 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: Where is the above said line? Leujohn (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
information Note:The editsemiprotected request has been rendered unnecessary by further changes to the page that wholly changed the sentence in question.--Aervanath (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Living Former New York Senators

New York Newsday article that said there were only two former NY Senators alive is incorrect. James L Buckley, who served before Daniel Patrick Moynihan is very much alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 03:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times article

The New York Times article on Gillibrand's role representing tobacco companies as a lawyer has been called a hit piece and has been responded to by Gillibrand's staff, but these activities are not mentioned. Right now the section is not balanced at all.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kirsten_Gillibrand&oldid=281185423"