Skip to main content

I’m about to get on a conference call with reporters but I wanted to share this with my on-line communities first: :  I am announcing today that I am running for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate against Kirsten Gillibrand in 2010. I want to say a few words about why I decided to run.

  You can see an announcement video here:

  I believe New York voters deserve a choice. We live in a democracy, and elections should be about addressing the issues, not about party insiders "clearing the field" for a favored candidate. If party insiders had "cleared the field" in 2008, Barack Obama would not be president today.

  New York—-and the nation-—are at a critical point. We are living through the most unprecedented financial crisis in our lifetime—-and, at the same time, I see a great opportunity to change the country.

  There are great choices to be made—-whether and how we will unburden Americans and businesses from the crushing costs of obscene health care costs (I have been an unwavering supporter of single-payer, "Medicare for All"), whether workers will truly share in the great productivity they have created over the past three decades, whether workers will have the right to join a union, and whether we will live up to the promise of "equal justice under the law" by granting marriage equality throughout the land.

  I am the only progressive in the race. And I believe, as do my supporters, that we have a chance to move the Democratic Party in a progressive direction.  New Yorkers will have a very clear choice in 2010—-a choice of values and principles.

  Voters will be able to choose either someone who put children and families at great risk by advocating for and taking the money of Big Tobacco (work she has just recently said she does not regret), someone who has embraced the National Rifle Association, one of the most extreme organizations in the country which has worked tirelessly to defeat Democrats, and someone who is awash in corporate cash.

  Or they will have a chance to build a progressive movement that will give the power back to the people and make a better world.

  In the great tradition of people like Paul Wellstone, I have worked my entire adult life for the cause of economic justice and civil rights so that we—-our family, our children and our friends—-can live in a healthy, safe, and morally just society. I think most people who know me will say, even if they disagree with me, that what I have fought for are principles and values that I have held my entire adult life--not principles and values I discovered all of a sudden to run for the U.S. Senate.

  In many ways, the question really is: where do we draw the line? When do we, progressives, say we simply are not going to settle for anything less than elected officials who we know have a set of principles and values that have stood the test of time and who will be rock-solid when we have to fight for a truly progressive society? Long before I decided to run for office, I have been very vocal about our need--particularly within the labor movement--to support candidates who are about "us" and from "our" ranks, not from the ranks of people who clearly will abandon us when the rubber meets the road.

  We--the people who are being knocked down AGAIN a giant peg in the economic ladder, the people who have no health care or inadequate health care, the people who want to save our planet yet see the corporate ethos of the "free market" continuing to ravage the planet, the people around the world who are drowning in a noxious life of poverty and despair, the people who want our country to stand for "equal justice under the law" and believe that discrimination is discrimination...period--we cannot afford to wait. We have a president who does have core value and principles but he needs a great surge of people to push him in an even more progressive direction.

  We cannot wait.

  Come join us at our campaign website.

  (A quick note to my fellow Kossacks. I neglected to open up a new account for the campaign, which I have now done. Once we can post here about the campaign in the new account, I will do so under "Jonathan Tasini". I value the interaction with people in this community on the issues that I work on every day in my "day job"--economic justice, labor and the economy--and want to be clear when I am posting specifically about material that is directly related to the political campaign. Please bear with me in the next week while we get that going)

UPDATE: have to talk to the press now but will be back in about 30 minutes or so...

Originally posted to Tasini on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:11 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  embed (6+ / 0-)

    code is messed somehow and working to fix but you can go to the link.

  •  Great news. I would like real debates about (6+ / 0-)
    who would be the best democrat to be the candidate in 2010!

    Sorry I have to run to the Senate floor to abolish torture.

    by bten on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:14:40 AM PDT

  •  Excellent choice for the Senate (15+ / 0-)

    Anyone who doesn't know Jonathan should go to his web site Working Life

    Tireless fighter for working Americans and extremely smart and articulate.  He appears on CNBC often and can do battle with those crazies and always come out looking good.

    "It is not be cause things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that they are difficult." Seneca

    by MontanaMaven on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:16:04 AM PDT

  •  You have an underscore at the beginning (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Liberaltarian, Rich in PA

    ..of the YouTube code.


    For whatever reason, DailyKos doesn't like that and your video will not show as a result.

    Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

    by Scarce on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:16:32 AM PDT

  •  As Someone Who Has Voted For You Before (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thirdparty, Tasini, lams712, beemerr

    I would greatly prefer that you ran against Chuck Schumer, and I would be more likely to support you if you ran against Chuck Schumer.

  •  Good Luck (8+ / 0-)
    I wish I could vote for You.  The political insiders have ruined this country.
  •  Best of LUCK!!!!.....n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    david mizner, Predictor

    "...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine...." {-8.13;-5.59}

    by lams712 on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:24:11 AM PDT

  •  Good luck, Jonathan. (6+ / 0-)
    It's good to have a progressive in the race.

    They tortured people to get false confessions to fraudulently justify our invading Iraq.

    by TomP on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:25:29 AM PDT

  •  I hear the Senate is on lock-down in New YORK (0+ / 0-)

    at the state level. Any views on that?

    Poll worked 7am to 5pm! Ran caucus till 10:30pm! Proud Texas dem!

    by AHiddenSaint on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:26:42 AM PDT

    •  There are absolutely (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, Hudson

      efforts underway to ensure that the unelected Gillibrand does not have to face a primary and that Dem voters get ZERO say as to who we think would best represent New York.

      I'd suggest throwing a couple of bucks towards this diarist and anyone who you think might consider primarying Gillibrand but remains on the fence.

      With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. - President Obama

      by GN1927 on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:38:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ought to put your full name in the Diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Perhaps somewhere in the intro.

    P.S. I see the aside regarding opening a second dkos account (is this allowed?) nothing wrong with posting under tasini (it also has the very old uid #, for what its worth).

    Notice: This Comment © 2009 ROGNM

    by ROGNM on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:29:17 AM PDT

  •  You excel at job creation! for one ;) (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, benny05, lams712, Predictor
    good luck, of course.

    "He's like any other president -- he's a politician and he's got to do what politicians do." Rev. Jeremiah Wright

    by PhillyGal on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:30:13 AM PDT

  •  Why no foreign policy positions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    on your site?

    All my IP addresses have been banned from

    by charliehall on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:30:52 AM PDT

    •  Weird (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, Predictor

      That's strange. There should have been a whole thing on the middle East etc. I'll need to get to that asap and see--sometimes things don't get to the web when the candidate wishes!!! :):)

      But, I do have an extensive set of views about the Middle East and other parts of the world.

    •  I retrieved at least this (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, Hudson, benny05, Liberaltarian, Predictor


      Israel-Palestinian Conflict:

      Jonathan’s broad philosophy is embodied in three principles:

      Everyone must be at the table
      Everybody has to agree to a ceasefire but you can’t ask anyone to give up weapons until they are ready to
      You can’t ask people to give up their dreams

      At the heart of the conflict in the Middle East is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unlike virtually all American politicians running for public office who express their position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, Jonathan’s views on the issue come from a deep, personal connection and experience.

      Jonathan’s father was born in Palestine and fought in the Israeli underground. Jonathan lived in Israel for seven years, during which he was involved, as a teen-ager and young man, in the fledgling peace movement. He went through the 1973 Yom Kippur war, and one of his cousin’s was killed in the war and that cousin’s brother was wounded. Half of Jonathan’s family lives in Israel, some within a few miles of the West Bank border.

      So, it is absolutely clear to Jonathan that only a two-state solution will end the violence that has taken so many Palestinian and Israeli lives--and bring stability and peace to the Middle East.

      Jonathan unequivocally supports the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip, consequently ending Israeli occupation of these areas because such a solution is the only way to ensure Israeli security. The final peace settlement has to accommodate Israel’s security requirements but it also has to ensure a viable, thriving, independent Palestinian State which has territorial contiguity and is not broken into cantons.

      Jonathan also lived in Jerusalem and still remembers what a beautiful city it is. Its special nature, though, is the role it plays in the spiritual lives of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Jerusalem should always be the capital of Israel, but a negotiated settlement must include a plan that allows Israelis and Palestinians to share the city because Palestinians make up one-third of the city’s residents and have historic and long-standing political, economic, and religious ties to the city. A Palestinian capital in Arab areas of Jerusalem will not threaten the city’s role as the capital of Israel.

      Violence is not the answer for either side. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be resolved via negotiated, non-violent means. Both peoples have suffered from the bloodshed. Yet, clear majorities of both peoples say they want a peaceful settlement of the conflict. A credible negotiating track, linked with a bi-lateral effort to ensure security and stop the violence, is the only path to a long-lasting settlement. "Credible" means that everyone must have a seat at the table.


      The great danger in Pakistan is a drifting reliance on escalating military force, particularly unmanned drones, which are killing disproportionate numbers of civilians, even if occasionally they get lucky and also get a "bad guy". Jonathan believes that the result is to drive people, through anger at the civilian deaths, into the arms of anti-U.S. resistance forces, including the Taliban and others.  

      We must remember that our country embraced, funded, and armed the Taliban and related Islamist militants, including Osama bin Laden himself, in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s. Jonathan is concerned that our country is ignoring the impact on the Afghan people of such a flood of arms.  

      And, we seem to be starting the same process in Pakistan, and even more dangerous scenario because of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.  The only way to deal with Pakistan, and the neighboring Afghanistan, is by ending air strikes that are killing civilians, engage with the Pakistani government, civil society, tribal leaders, and the resistance forces.


      Jonathan believes President Obama has taken an important step towards reducing the likelihood of a military strike against Iran by his statesmanlike declaration calling for "engagement" with Iran. We must endeavor, however, to begin such negotiations by holding back on threatening language that promises harsher sanctions if we don't get our way.

      Negotiations need to be wide-ranging, open-ended, and based on respect for Iran's position in the world and in the region.  The goal should be a "grand bargain" where everything of concern to both sides will be on the table—including Iran’s nuclear power program, relations with Hamas & Hezbollah, ending Iran’s threats towards Israel AND US threats of "regime change" or military assault, and a recognition of Iran’s role as a regional actor in Iraq and elsewhere in the region.

      Military strikes would be a disaster for our country because Iran will likely retaliate, leading to massive instability in the region, attacks on US troops in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and throughout the region, attacks on Israel, the closing of the Straits of Hormuz (through which 40% of the world's daily oil supply flows). Large numbers of Iranian civilians would die from strikes against nuclear power facilities because some Iranian nuclear power plants are in or near major cities (think Indian Point, New York).

  •  If you don't win the Democratic Primary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Liberaltarian, Predictor

    will you run on a different line in the General?

    Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

    by milkbone on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:35:13 AM PDT

  •  Good luck! (3+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    raboof, GN1927, Predictor
    Hidden by:

    The voters deserve a choice.

    Cheney tortured people To get false confessions To fraudulently justify Invasion of Iraq!

    by dclawyer06 on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:35:35 AM PDT

  •  I linked to this diary (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, GN1927, benny05, pseudopod, Predictor

    and your campaign website at MyDD Breaking Blue and Open Left Quick Hits.

    Good luck! I like contested primaries.

    Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

    by desmoinesdem on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:39:01 AM PDT

  •  In 2006 you ran against Hillary Clinton (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ..for the Democratic nomination. You lost 83%-17%. During that time you raised about $247,000 to your opponent's $39,000,000, and had gotten on the ballot by providing over 40,000 petitioning signatures (15,000 or more required). During that lection you had opposition to the Iraq War as your main issue but it wasn't really enough to gain much traction or notice against your well-known opponent.

    What makes you think 2010 will be any different?

    Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

    by Scarce on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:41:22 AM PDT

    •  Or (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      proudprogressiveCA, Pager

      Why not run in a state or local race, which are too often neglected by progressives in NY.

    •  Hi, Scare (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, GN1927, benny05, Predictor

      Let me say very briefly--I think that the crisis in the country has opened peoples' ears up to dramatic chance in the rules of the economy.

      In 2006, I was running against a super-star. That is not the case this time.

      In 2006, I ran against someone who, while though I disagreed with her on the issues, had been elected by the voters in 2000. In 2010, I will be facing someone who is a caretaker in the position and has never faced the voters for this position.

      In 2006, it was all about money--and that will be the case again. I believe that Barack Obama proved that you can raise significant funds outside of the coffers of the corporate-connected lobbyists. If we raise the money, we can win on the issues that have been central to the work I've done my entire life.

      •  Have you learned how to raise money? (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chi, GN1927, Tasini, proudprogressiveCA, Pager

        In 2006 you couldn't. That's a serious impediment right there. You likely won't get any free advertising out of the beneficence of state or national media either. Becoming a "Fox News Democrat" is not really an option either for any serious candidate. So is there a real strategy to gain donations this year, unlike in 2006?

        Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

        by Scarce on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:57:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That was against Hillary. This is against KG. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GN1927, Predictor

        The 2006 numbers are apples-to-oranges here.

        It is a very different matter taking on Kirsten Gillibrand in 2010, who has a 19% approval rating (tied directly to Paterson's similarly low rating) than going against an incumbent Hillary Clinton in 2010.

        As I saw it, Tasini' 2006 race against Clinton was more to make a "statement," most importantly to get the war issue out there. Donors knew she would win, and thus gave hesitatingly; also, Hillary's people made it very clear that if you donated to an opponent you would be persona non grata.

        I think in this environment today there is a much more open field and many more possibilities for a true Progressive to win votes and, yes, raise money.

        "Animals are my friends. And I don't eat my friends." -- George Bernard Shaw

        by Hudson on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 10:55:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you very much (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, Hudson, Tasini, bten, benny05
    for choosing to participate in the upcoming primary.

    It is beyond ridiculous that there are efforts underway to make sure that someone who wasn't even elected will not receive a meaningful primary challenge.  

    Ideology-wise, I believe that you are the clear superior candidate of the choice between yourself, Maloney, and Gillibrand.

    I think you're awesome.

    With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. - President Obama

    by GN1927 on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:43:18 AM PDT

    •  thanks (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, GN1927

      To the rest of the people reading this, because of the comment that I am "awesome", I want to reassure people that GN1927 is not my mother, a sibling or relative.

      •  LOL (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chi, Hudson

        I think it's in the state's interest that there is a vigorous primary here.  I'd rather us, rather than the GOP thoroughly vet Paterson's appointment process, backgrounds, and ideology.  If there's stuff to come out, it should come out now.  In addition, if there's a chance for us to install a senator in this seat who will be a key ally to progressives, it's important that we grasp this opportunity to do so.  I know I sound excited, but I have ample reason for it!

        With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. - President Obama

        by GN1927 on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:58:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  As an attorney.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dufffbeer, milkbone, JimmyTheSaint
    It really worries me when people attack attorneys for the clients they have represented, particularly when those attorneys were only associates who had no real choice about what cases they worked on.

    People become attorneys because they believe in the structure of our court system and the adversarial method, even if they think the results are often unfair. We don't usually choose our clients. But most of us believe that even the most heinous criminal or unethical corporation deserves its day in court.

    She said she did not regret the work because it permitted her to do pro bono which she found rewarding, such as helping battered women.

    While I am rabidly opposed to Big Tobacco, I don't think it's proper to criticize Gillibrand for her willingness to do her job and do it well.

    It's a short step from there to demonizing attorneys for defending anyone who is unpopular. I like to think that in our society, Thomas More would have been represented; maybe not, if this keeps up.

    •  I hear you (7+ / 0-)

      But I would say two things.

      First, many of my friends are lawyers. I queried all of them. They all said that they believe that a lawyer also has an obligation to follow their own ethical compass--and can decide not to represent an entity that crosses that line.

      Second, my opponent, then, took money as a candidate from the tobacco lobby. It is one thing to be legal counsel. It's another moral choice, however, to take money as a politician.

      I can promise you this--I would never do so.

      •  Comparing your lives, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chi, benny05, Predictor

        which people should do to see if each walks the walk, people will see that you have always worked on the side of working people and justice, not for personal gain.  While her pro bono work was nice, she did not ahve to work at a corproate firm to do it.

        Your lives tell a story.  Of course she can represent whomever she wishes and there are people at corporate firms who are progressives, but the choices each of you made says something about you.    

        They tortured people to get false confessions to fraudulently justify our invading Iraq.

        by TomP on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 09:11:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not clear (0+ / 0-)

          Based on 5 months in the Senate. IMHO, taking their money is just as gross.

          Has she clearly voted against them?

          •  yes (0+ / 0-)

            According to Brian Keeler:

            The short analysis is that Gillibrand has a 100% anti-tobacco voting record in Congress and the Senate, and as Bill Corr, executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said "What's important to us is how she votes." [Albany Times Union, 10/16/08]

            Here's a more detailed account of that record:

            - Gillibrand Co-Sponsored and Voted For a Bill to Regulate Tobacco Through the Food and Drug Administration. In 2008, Gillibrand voted in favor of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. This bill seeks to remove the exemption that tobacco products have from basic health regulations that apply to other consumer products such as food and medicines. The bill would crack down on tobacco marketing and sales to kids, require larger, more effective health warnings on tobacco products, require tobacco companies to disclose the contents of tobacco products, changes to their products and research about the health effects of the products, ban candy-flavored cigarettes and prohibit terms that mislead consumers into believing that certain cigarettes are safer. [HR 1108, Vote #542, 7/30/08]

            - Gillibrand Voted to Raise Taxes on Cigarettes. In 2007, Gillibrand voted for bill that would increase the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack and raise taxes on other tobacco products to offset a $35 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The bill would reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program at nearly $60 billion over five years. The bill passed 265-142. [HR 3963, Vote #1009, 10/25/07]

            - Gillibrand Voted to Override President's Veto and Raise Taxes on Cigarettes and Tobacco Products. In 2007, Gillibrand voted for an attempt to override President Bush's veto of the bill that would reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program at nearly $60 billion over five years, expanding the program by $35 billion. The bill failed 273-156. A two-thirds majority was required to override the veto. [HR 976, Vote #982, 10/18/07]

            - In 2008, Gillibrand Voted to Override Bush SCHIP Veto. In January 2008, Gillibrand voted again to override the Bush veto of legislation to renew and expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The bill would have overridden Bush's Dec. 12, 2007, veto, of the bill that would reauthorize the program at nearly $60 billion over five years, expanding the program by $35 billion. To offset the cost of the expansion, it would increase the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents, to $1 per pack, and raise taxes on other tobacco products. [Vote #22, 1/23/08]

            - In the U.S. Senate, Gillibrand Voted to Raise Taxes on Cigarettes to Expand Children's Health Care. In 2009, Gillibrand voted for bill that would increase the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack and raise taxes on other tobacco products to offset an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. [Vote # 31, HR 2. Public Law 111-3]

      •  A lawyer has to follow their ethical compass ... (0+ / 0-)

        but to suggest that an associate in a large firm can turn down an assignment without consequences is altogether another thing.  She likely would have been jeopardizing her job with the firm if she said she could not represent the tobacco companies in question.  

        Yeah, she took money from the tobacco lobby.  So what?  How did she vote?

        She has voted against Big Tobacco on (if IIRC) all legislation Big Tobacco lobbied Congress on.  What more do you want?  

        "Some see things as they are and ask why? I dream things that never were, and ask why not?" -George Bernard Shaw, as quoted by RFK

        by DailyKingFish on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 11:33:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What more Do we want? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hudson, GN1927

          As a New York voter, I want a progressive Senator. Not someone who became a "progressive" in order to further her career.

          Doesn't seem like so much to ask for in a state like New York.

          •  She represented a district that hadn't elected (0+ / 0-)

            a Democrat in YEARS.  You can't win in a district like that by being a super progressive.  She had to represent the district while she was a member of the House, not her future political goals.

            Now that she's representing the ENTIRE state, she can let her progressive ideas shine through more clearly.  

            Her original stances worked quite well ... she now has a Democratic successor from that district, which, over time will bring that district to the point that it can elect a progressive, if it hasn't already in the person of Rep. Murphy.  

            "Some see things as they are and ask why? I dream things that never were, and ask why not?" -George Bernard Shaw, as quoted by RFK

            by DailyKingFish on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 07:53:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Understood (0+ / 0-)

              That said, both Andrew Cuomo and Eliot Spitzer ran statewide in favor of gay marriage and with a good immigration position.

              Both of them won every county in her district.

              She's got no excuse.

              And in all honesty. as a New York voter, I want a Senator who has always held position I admire. I dont' have to settle for a former blue dog from upstate....its' NEW YORK.

        •  It was reported already... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ... that most major firms, including Gillibrand's former firm, have policies which explicitly allow associates to decline to work on clients they prefer not to assist.

          "Animals are my friends. And I don't eat my friends." -- George Bernard Shaw

          by Hudson on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 01:42:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Most firms have that policy ... (0+ / 0-)

            But you really think that if you didn't do something your bosses asked you to do would have no repercussions whatsoever?  Seriously?  

            Are you THAT naive?  

            "Some see things as they are and ask why? I dream things that never were, and ask why not?" -George Bernard Shaw, as quoted by RFK

            by DailyKingFish on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 07:49:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're being rude (0+ / 0-)

              As it happens both of my grandfathers were partners in substantial New York City firms, and both were known as men of great integrity.

              Indeed such things do happen. Maybe not among the people you consort with, but some of us do actually know lawyers with consciences.

              In any case, I do not wish New York to have a Senator whose ethics are so situational.

              "Animals are my friends. And I don't eat my friends." -- George Bernard Shaw

              by Hudson on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:13:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Situational ethics? (0+ / 0-)

                On guns?  Hudson, do you not get that she would likely not have been elected the first time if she advocated for gun control policies in NY-20?

                So she took money from the tobacco lobby.  Did she vote their way on anything that has come up in the House?  Or has she voted to raise taxes on their products, and for greater regulation on them?  

                Also, nice job assuming whom I hang out with, or whom I know.  

                I recently graduated from law school, and know quite a few lawyers with consciences.  Some of them even represent murderers and rapists.  

                If you don't understand that EVERYONE deserves to have excellent representation in a courtroom, even murderers, rapists and (gasp), Big Tobacco, then there really is no reason to continue this conversation, as you will never understand that a lawyer can be a person of great integrity and still represent what YOU apparently consider to be the scum of the earth.  

                "Some see things as they are and ask why? I dream things that never were, and ask why not?" -George Bernard Shaw, as quoted by RFK

                by DailyKingFish on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 11:59:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  For the record (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, Hudson, GN1927, TomP

      She's still taking big money from big tobacco. It's obscene.

      She's also taking money from Citibank and Goldman Sachs (through employees and PACS); which I find disgusting given that many of the financial institutions she's taking money from have still yet to pay back the federal government.

      I would forgive her for work she did 20 years ago, if she would admit the work she was doing actually hurt many Americans and not helped and if she would agree to stop using those same entities to build her campaign war chest.

      My guess is she'll never do it....

    •  Alexander Hamilton rejected clients. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, davidseth

      Per the Chernow biography. Yes, he represented a few scoundrels, especially if he felt that there was the threat of mob retribution or a pack mentality against a defendent. But there were others Hamilton felt were beyond the pale whom he refused to represent.

      Everyone is entitled to a defense; but no individual lawyer is obligated to provide that defense (unless they're a public defender/court-appointed).

      The Times' exposé on Gillibrand's legal history was damning in this regard -- it is clear she went well beyond providing porr, helpless Philip Morris with legal aid, becoming an advisor on p.r. and helping to cover up their knowledge of the harm their products did. She avidly and eagerly used this to advance her career.

      As someone who has a relative whose teenaged adoption of smoking greatly compromised his health (and will almost surely end up shortening his life), I find her actions to be at best amoral and at worst reprehensible.

      "Animals are my friends. And I don't eat my friends." -- George Bernard Shaw

      by Hudson on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 10:59:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Disagree. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      At some point all of us have to explain why we're doing what we doing, why we represent who we do.  I represent heinous alleged criminals, and happily, I can explain that.  I don't think I've heard KG explain her representation of tobacco and the values she thinks that particular work embodied.  Saying that she did some pro bono work to counterbalance representation of tobacco interests isn't really an explanation of the values she was carrying out to assist tobacco.  It's a mitigating factor, but not an explanation.

  •  And have you had any contact (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, Tasini, benny05, TomP
    with Carolyn Maloney?  Although I do think that you are the best candidate, ideology-wise, I consider both of you as more representative of New Yorkers as well as improvements to the Democratic party than the current appointee.

    It's in both of your interests to make sure that the establishment isn't able to close the gates and forestall a vigorous primary.  I know so little of the nuts and bolts of politicking, but is there any potential for a collaborative preliminary campaign to introduce constituents to the necessity of a primary here?

    With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. - President Obama

    by GN1927 on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:55:57 AM PDT

  •  Joining the chorus... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, Tasini, benny05, david mizner, TomP

    to say good luck in your endeavor.

    Although this site may not realistically be the most accepting of your message, more progressives are needed to push this country to the left, and stop the drift toward a place where even change seems like just another tint of status quo.

  •  Good luck! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, GN1927, Tasini, Predictor, TomP

    I'll try to find some change soon to pony up.  We need more progressives who will be as bold as Bernie Sanders and Jeff Merkley.

  •  i am in favor of primary's that increase debate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, GN1927, Predictor
    good luck BUT you will need LOTS OF MONEY

    i don't mind if arlen remains the senior senator from pennsylvania IF the voters in the DEMOCRATIC primary choose him BUT until then...........

    by primaryarlen on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 09:08:59 AM PDT

    •  Money is overrated. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GN1927, benny05, Liberaltarian, Predictor

      I polled 15% v Herb Kohl in 2006, spending only $662, mostly on gas.

      Practicing Law without a License is my 3d favorite Crime.

      by ben masel on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 09:16:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  NONSENSE (0+ / 0-)

        don't be stupid please(and i know about your race against kohl; and i respect it); he would need AT LEAST $10 MILLION to even put up a REAL fight here; i already said i am in favor of primary's(read my sig line)BUT politics ain't beanbag

        i don't mind if arlen remains the senior senator from pennsylvania IF the voters in the DEMOCRATIC primary choose him BUT until then...........

        by primaryarlen on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 09:20:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  which accomplished what, Ben? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Adama D Brown
        Did it get your ideas before new people?  Did it move Kohl in their direction?
        •  In fairness to Ben and to Jonathan (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I think re-reading Matt Stoller's piece and seeing Ben's comments from a couple of years ago bear a mention.

        •  What it accomplished (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Adam B, neroden
          1. Got a few thousand newly eligibles to register. One they'd "friended' my Myspace page, I was able to point them to what i considered the best candidates in other Primary races the same day. Having voted, their overhead in the General was lower.
          1. I ended up with contacts throughout the State, most reachable for 2008 elections, and "non-partisan" State Supreme Court elections. One Assembly rookie in a rural District, told me at the swearing in (making sure the Speaker overheard) that when knocking doors he'd met at least 30 who told him he was already getting their votes due to my endorsement. I'm  pretty sure the blasts I sent out for the Court race last April was worth between 1,000 and 2,000 votes.
          1. State legislators, seeing my totals in their Districts, will feel safer voting for the Jacki Rickert Medical Marijuana Act next month.
          1. I get to speak at the State Dem Convention the day after tomorrow.
          1. Kohl, who'd pretty much blown me off before I ran against him, is now always willing to hear me out when I approach him at public events. I don't always get the vote I'm looking for, but he at least seriously considers the argument. (Advice for 'hopeless' challengers: don't bash the incumbents character, just their priorities.)

          Practicing Law without a License is my 3d favorite Crime.

          by ben masel on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 12:49:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Drug Policy? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Practicing Law without a License is my 3d favorite Crime.

    by ben masel on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 09:12:51 AM PDT

  •  ya got my vote (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, benny05

    good luck.

    Gore works in mysterious ways.

    by Dude1701 on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 09:16:38 AM PDT

  •  Tasini's Health Care (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MsMadrigal, Adama D Brown

    You say you are for single payer which is at odds with President Obama's healthcare reform plan. Senator Gillibrand has been clear that she supports a not for profit public plan as an option to private insurers. Do you? Can you vote for a bill that is anything less than single payer?

  •  Good luck (0+ / 0-)
    I'm sure your stance on the Iraq War will get you votes in comparison to your rivals past votes.  Just curious to see what effect your candidacy will have on the race, have a feeling that Gillibrand will welcome your entrance more than Maloney.

    Hey you, dont tell me theres no hope at all Together we stand, divided we fall.

    by marcvstraianvs on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 09:39:33 AM PDT

  •  Tobacco & Gillibrand (4+ / 0-)

    This NY Times-Village Voice hatchet job has been widely discredited.  Gillibrand was assigned to a tobacco client while a young, junior associate in a large law firm, years ago.  When elected to Congress, she voted repeatedly for more regulation and high taxes of tobacco companies.  She has earned high marks and strong support from the anti-smoking advocates.  Her record in Congress is the only thing that counts on this issue, not work she was assigned to do years ago by her employers.  Tasini loses credibility when he  uses this sham issue against her.

    •  She takes money from Big Tobacco still... (0+ / 0-)

      Gillibrand doesn't get to have it both ways. Tasini says she's tied to big tobacco, and she is. He didn't say she votes in lock step with the tobacco lobby.

      Care to discredit the notion that she depends on big tobacco lobbying firms to fund her campaign?

      Moreover, care to explain away the money she takes from citibank and Goldman Sachs?

      There's no excuse. Those chickens come home to roost at some point.

  •  Have fun taking 4% (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adama D Brown

    and running way behind what you did 4 years ago.

    Also, come visit us in Buffalo.

    •  If he could get 20% against Clinton, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GN1927, Montreal Progressive

      who was far more popular than Gillibrand, and who scared donors away from Tasini, I don't see any basis for your snide 4% projection. (Clinton's people were not subtle in implying that anyone who backed her challenger would be on the outs with the future President of the United States.)

      But I would bet if Tasini were only polling 4% a year from now, he would withdraw before the primary itself and throw his support to the last non-Blue Dog standing.

      If he retains even half the support he had against Clinton, both Gillibrand and Maloney will be panting to get Tasini's support.

      This is a win-win for Jonathan as I see it: Either his candidacy catches fire, or he moves the debate well to the left.

      "Animals are my friends. And I don't eat my friends." -- George Bernard Shaw

      by Hudson on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 01:41:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The key question is "Can he win the general?" (0+ / 0-)

    The answer with support of Single Payer and other very liberal positions, I would say "no."  Gillibrand has a much better chance of winning the general and holding support in Northern New York which is quite conservative, I don't think Tasini can take this.

  •  While this is nice I wish you were running for... (0+ / 0-)

    one of the Republican-held State Senate districts, or indeed one of the ones held by very very questionable "Democrats".

    It would make a much bigger difference.

    -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

    by neroden on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 01:25:00 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site