Skip to main content

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
On Wednesday, as Republican lawmakers abandoned SOPA and PIPA in droves, Democrats clung desperately to the legislation demanded by their entertainment industry donors. Among the most vocal defenders of the dangerous internet-censorship bill was New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who posted on her Facebook page:
Thank you for all your messages regarding Protect IP. I agree there are real concerns with the current legislation & I’m working to make important changes to the bill. We must work to strike a balance between ending online piracy to protect New York jobs & ensuring Internet freedom so our tech community can continue to flourish.

In other words, she was saying, "we'll keep tinkering, but I'm not abandoning this bill."

But with Republicans abandoning the bill, effectively killing it, Democrats were left holding this stinker of a bill, and inevitably, they had no choice but to start abandoning it. And today, we just heard that next week's Senate vote has been indefinitely postponed.

Now that the bill is essentially dead, Gillibrand wants to play the hero, writing on her Facebook page:

While many of my colleagues and I have worked hard to address concerns with the current bill, it is clear this proposal will not create consensus on how to crack down on the real problem of online theft that threatens tens of thousands of New York jobs in a balanced way that ensures our tech companies will continue to flourish. It is time for Congress to take a step back and start over with both sides bringing their solutions to the table to find common ground towards solving this problem.

She wants Congress to step back! Except Congress already stepped back. At that point, she was left the choice of being a dead-ender, or pretending that she had some role in killing the bill in its current form.

She wants to sound reasonable and accommodating, when she pushed for this current legislation until it died. And it's obvious to see why. Gillibrand is up for reelection this year, but will coast easily. There is no statewide GOP left in New York, and they're having a hard time coming up with even token opposition to her chances. No, this isn't about her statewide race, it's about 2016.

Gillibrand will be running for president after Obama's second term expires. She has aggressively raised her national profile in recent years, to the point of campaigning for Democrats in recall races in Wisconsin last summer. She has also employed an aggressive netroots strategy to make connections with the activist online community. No one does those things unless they 1) are trying to build a national movement, or 2) they want a promotion to the biggest stage in the land. It's obviously not the former.

And there are few more fertile grounds for money and headline-grabbing than Hollywood. Thus, Gillibrand did her best to cling to this shitty bill in order to curry favor with future donors and backers. But given the backlash among the technology/online set—another constituency she's been wooing, she now tries to play the hero, as if she had anything to do with killing this bill.

She didn't. And while everyone can decide for themselves whether they give a shit or not, it's not something that I, personally, will have an easy time forgetting.

Originally posted to kos on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 09:35 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  Can any politician ever change their mind? (17+ / 0-)

    Is there a timetable that must be adhered to for every issue?
    I think you are making too many leaps here.I wish Gilibrand had come out against this garbage sooner,but I can't villify her for coming out against it now. What I will do is watch her future actions on this quite closely.
     

    "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

    by tardis10 on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 09:47:46 AM PST

  •  Lost in translation (8+ / 0-)

    Sen Gillibrand writes:

    I agree there are real concerns with the current legislation & I’m working to make important changes to the bill.

    and adds:

    It is time for Congress to take a step back and start over with both sides bringing their solutions to the table to find common ground towards solving this problem.

    Markos reduces it to:

    In other words, she was saying, "we'll keep tinkering, but I'm not abandoning this bill".
    •  those statements were made at different points (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Setsuna Mudo, Brown Thrasher, Miggles

      in time....and Kos only used that phrasing for one...

      that impacts your credibility...not his...

      "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

      by justmy2 on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 10:20:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Credibility? Are you freaking joking? (5+ / 0-)

        Kos posts two Gillibrand quotes about one inch apart from one another and prefaced both of them as saying they were posted on her Facebook page. Nowhere does it say when either was posted on FB.

        It's not even an issue of credibility. Not mine. Not his. He distilled her idea into something that is NOT supported by either quote. I disagree.

        •  Exactly n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Scott Wooledge

          "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

          by Andrew C White on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:48:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (4+ / 0-)

          Taking only the two quotes into account, Markos' paraphrasing reveals more about him than about Sen Gillibrand.

          He might be right -- she may hold the views he attributes to her -- but his case isn't made with the quotes by themselves.

          •  my point doesn't relate to Markos.... (0+ / 0-)

            it is the conflation of two statements to misrepresent Kos' position...

            the argument could and should be made without being inaccurate...

            "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

            by justmy2 on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:48:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  you didn't state that... (0+ / 0-)

          why did you conflate the two?  There was no way to read those two quotes as though they were made at the same time...and you attempted to portray otherwise.  I will leave it to others to determine why...thus a question of credibility of the rest of your statement.  

          And it does state when they were posted  (in one case he writes ("she was" followed by "now" she writes...pretty clear...but if there was a question you can click the links)

          which once again impacts your credibility on this topic...

          "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

          by justmy2 on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:47:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not conflating anything (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Scott Wooledge

            They're both right there in Markos diary. It's simple freaking English. And AGAIN has nothing to do with credibility - mine, his or yours. It's not like I'm the only one here that has noticed that Markos's distillation of her words is not an accurate representation of what she said. It is only through myopia that one can read "make important changes to the bill" as "tinkering."

            •  It is. My point is why did you say this? (0+ / 0-)

              You clearly say he reduced both quotes to one statement.

              There is no way to read the content and assume that her second statement is referred to be you his quote.  None.

              All I am telling you is that by continuing to imply that the his "tinkering" point was about both statements, leads me to personally question the credibility of your point on the topic.  It seems as though your point is to "attack the messenger" instead of addressing the facts.   That doesn't mean I won't evaluate it independently, but it makes you appear to have an axe to grind or you are protecting Gillabrand at all costs.

              FWIW...I am sure you disagree, but that is my honest assessment based on how you, in my personal opinion, tried to add additional evidence to your original point that was clearly not accurate.

              "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

              by justmy2 on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 06:17:49 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Give it up. Gillibrand has doo doo all over her (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kurt

          shoes from this bill.  This is not one of her finer moments.  Trying to smear someone for repeating her quotes doesn't change that fact.

          Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

          by Miggles on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 08:48:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Why Doesn't She Just Say The Bill Is Dead? (9+ / 0-)

      To my eyes she is parsing and nuancing and wants to have it both ways: pleasing her big money donors and pleasing her voting base.

      Existence is no more than the precarious attainment of relevance in an intensely mobile flux of past, present, and future.~~~ Susan Sontag

      by frandor55 on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:43:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  That is one way to look at it. (12+ / 0-)

    It's 48 hours after the action.

    She wants Congress to step back! Except Congress already stepped back.
    I don't know you can't assume these actions didn't occur concurrently, rather than consecutively.

    She certainly made a mistake in supporting Chris Dodd's bill initially, in my opinion.

    But to see a Senator turn around in 48 hours, it seems kind of counter-productive to yell, "Well why weren't you with us all along?!"

    When President Obama eventually supports marriage equality for gays and lesbians, as I am sure he will before his second term ends, I don't intend to say, "Yeah, but you didn't for all those years so you suck."

    •  If FDR came out for marriage equality in 1932 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      devtob

      Would he have won?

      It's a rhetorical question I use to denote political realities of the times that we live in.

      •  Well, to contextualize it better (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        devtob, Odysseus

        only after we pass public financing of elections can we even begin to hope this sort of thing will never happen.

        Surprise, Al Franken and Kirsten Gillibrand signed onto a bill funded by big money backers and a lobbyist, Chris Dodd.

        Here's an idea: Let's run Al and Kirsten out of the Senate.

        So we can do it all over again, after Al and Kirsten become lobbyists to their replacement.

        •  The thing is that money or no, (5+ / 0-)

          it really is okay for the Members of Congress to address issues negatively impacting segments of the population.  What's not okay is for them to ignore everyone else's interest in the process.  

          I don't buy into having to wait for that day when money is no longer an issue for two reasons.  One because that day will never come and two because it is incumbent upon us to push these congresscritters to do a better job.  If they aren't smart enough or just too lazy to make an effort to think things through beyond a campaign contribution, then we need to replace them with people are are smart and not so lazy.

          My only thing about this diary is that it only targets one of scores of people in Congress who should have known better.

          •  Well, my point wasn't (4+ / 0-)

            we're in a position of "having to wait" until money isn't an issue to hope for things to get better. But just pointing out, so long as the corporatacracy has outsized control of both parties, we'll just be playing a game of whack-a-mole if we continually take out our aggression at the players.

            Obviously, better due diligence might have been done by Gillibrand and everyone on this bill.

            But New York is a state, and a city rich with content producers (movie, tv, film, news orgs). It's not clear this wasn't initially a good faith effort to represent their interests.

            •  Yes,I don't think anyone should (5+ / 0-)

              underestimate the competing interests here & the learning curve on this,and other,tech issues.
              The brilliant diary written by msblucow http://www.dailykos.com/... pointed out that even her union got it wrong.
              Of course,all the lobbyists know which $$$ide they are on.
              We have to make sure to keep the legislators on ours.

              "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

              by tardis10 on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:01:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  My point was that any Congresscritter (4+ / 0-)

              whether there is money involved or not is going to be approached by some supporter or group of supporters who will show up asking for something.  That is how our system works and that's a good thing.  It is what happens next that makes or breaks the politician in my estimation.  If the critter says, "Okay, send me over what you want and how you want it done and I'll get it for you because you're so great", they are screwing up.  If they say, "Tell me what you think should be done; let me look at the issue independently; and I will do the best I can for you," they are doing the right thing.

              What is not happening on Capitol Hill is that interim step of independent research and review of an issue.  That's a problem across the board - not about Gillibrand in particular.  It is really obvious from the almost unanimous support in the Senate for this bill that most of these critters did not do their own due diligence on this bill.  I am sure some knew exactly what they were doing, but I think a lot of them were just going along to get along.  Lemmings headed over the cliff.

              The truth is that SOPA/PIPA might have stopped some piracy and a lot of the internet, but that's not even good for the companies who lobbied for it.  I contend that it would also actually decrease sales and reach for content marketers.  Throwing the baby out with the bath water.

              One hopes that this is a learning experience for Gillibrand and some of the other newer Senators -- that next time a bill for their consideration comes along they will think a little bit more strategically and expansively before automatically giving it their support.

              •  We agree. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                inclusiveheart, devtob

                I can't disagree with what you've written there, aside from hypothetical speculation that may or may not be true about how Gilibrand came to support it initially.

                My objection was mostly with your characterizing my counsel as that we have to wait. To the contrary, I think, given it will surely take decades to actually pull off, the movement toward public financing of elections and finally putting a stake in corporate money interest in the electoral process needs to start yesterday.

                •  I wasn't meaning to finger you with (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  COBALT1928

                  the notion that we have to wait for public financing. I just see that statement made so often in these situations; and while it is true that public financing would be better, I don't think it is a panacea -- and I often think that it distracts people from thinking about what can be done in the here and now.  

                  The blackout on Wednesday was effective, although I don't think that this battle is by any means over with.  People need to try to get in front of Senators who might be open to looking at more data, information and analysis than that which Leahy used to craft his bill.

            •  Gillibrand also on Hollywood fundraising circuit (0+ / 0-)
              Barbara Boxer and other co-sponsors of the Protect IP Act include a number of regulars on the Hollywood fundraising circuit, among them.../

              Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA), Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

              http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/....

              Rhetoric has to be matched with actions. "Only actions don't lie."

              by allenjo on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:18:18 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Kos is playing the activist role here (12+ / 0-)

      Think about it. The bill is not dead.

      Keeping pressure on Gillibrand and other Dems  is the right play for the activist (and Obama on gay marriage.)

      Gillibrand is the pol here. Kos the activist - not the reporter, not the reasoned measurer and explainer of Gillibrand's political calculations.

      I think folks are missing that point.

      Off topiuc - I think Hillary Clinton will run in 2016 and that will effectively block Gillibrand anyway but who knows.

      •  I agree. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Armando, inclusiveheart, Matt Z, MadEye

        So long as the specter of "fixing" the bill exists we do need to keep up the pressure. Since the government flexed its might on Megaupload over piracy, I'm not sure what the argument is we need another bill?

        Mostly I object to a tone of "we're done with her now..." that permeates the post.

        Of course, we're done with Tester over Dream Act, and Franken on this and God knows how many other Senators and Reps.

        Unfortunately, we gotta work 'em. The replace the apostates with purists strategy isn't working out well for the Tea Party.

        •  Whether or not people agree with the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brown Thrasher

          tactic, kos has always been willing to go after even those closest to his political ideology when he feels that they've departed from whatever his definition of a fair zone is on a particular issue.

          I don't see that as a purist strategy as much as a survival strategy where it comes to the big ticket items like free speech.  I think that we can all agree that the Democrats were about to put themselves at considerable political risk if they passed SOPA/PIPA.  Shouting at your kid when they are about to or have thought about running into traffic on the freeway strikes me as quite normal and reasonable. lol

          •  There's a lot of supposition (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            inclusiveheart, Matt Z

            and conjecture in this post. If Gillibrand is planning a 2016 run at the presidency (and I think she and her staff would be stupid not to be at least contemplating it), it's a very well-kept secret.

            The circumstantial evidence he cites is persausive, I won't discount that. And I'm certain Kos has better sources than I, but I've bent a lot of NY ears on this topic and no one is saying a single word.

            •  Well, he's just putting it out there that (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Scott Wooledge, Brown Thrasher

              if she signs onto legislation that could shut his business down, she's not going to have his support.  That would be both figuratively and literally true, as you know.  Given that most people running blogs would probably bail, her netroots support efforts would prove to have been a waste of time.  We'd all be back to having to put up with those horrible chain letters on email.

              $1.2 million bucks was raised for Elizabeth Warren in a day primarily as a result of internet communication.  Those days would be over for all of them...

              Whether she runs for President or not, she like so many others was about to shoot herself in the foot.

              I know you like her.  She'll survive this and if she can't then she's got a lot more to worry about than kos or his dkos audience, imo.  She's a politician this is a part of how her job rolls.

              •  It isn't so much about liking her (3+ / 0-)

                although, I am guilty as charged there and agree, she would be shooting herself in the foot and throwing away 3 years of carefully garnered Netroots support, and should well be aware of that. And Kos is right to put her office on notice.

                That said she's—for today—on the right side. Let's see what fixes, and continued push she comes up with, if any.

                LGBT community would make no progress at all if we weren't willing to let bygones be bygones and move on from past mistakes. Nearly half the current Senate sponsors of DOMA repeal voted for it first time around, after all.

                •  Understood and agreed. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Scott Wooledge

                  I tipped and recommended your diary and didn't on kos' fwiw.

                  I think that they should get credit when they opt to do the right thing; and it isn't like she's invulnerable to retaliation from the pro SOPA/PIPA lobby in NYC either.

                  Anyway, maybe she'll be the really smart one in the bunch who can thread the needle.  Here's hoping someone does.

                  •  I also think she's being singled out (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    inclusiveheart

                    when this was clearly a Democratic bill, and she apparently, too soon, fell in line with the Democratic party. The vast majority of the party made a big error in embracing and pushing this bill, apparently prematurely.

                    There are 40 co-sponsors, many of them on the rotating heroes roster of Netroots and the supposed Democratic wing of the Democratic party.

                    I'll admit, there's value to making an example out of someone.

                    •  It is funny that you say that because (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Scott Wooledge

                      I was going to say earlier that I thought kos showed remarkable restraint on this issue in not attacking the Democrats until just a couple of days ago even though it was pretty obvious that if Reid was planning on holding a vote that the Democrats were backing the bill en masse.

                      Anyway, betrayals committed by perceived allies are always more intensely felt than those by one's opponents.

                      •  And ironically... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        inclusiveheart

                        while Kos threatens to pull Gillibrand's support.

                        The FP is cheering and pushing Elizabeth Warren's fundraising.

                        Even as Warren has been silent* on SOPA and Brown has been opposed.

                        (*Which probably represents Warren wants to be a good Democrat and not ruffle Democratic feathers by condemning the bill, but also, can't voice support because that's a big populous/progressive no-no. But the result being she's going along to get along.)

                        •  I think that anyone who could (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Scott Wooledge

                          duck and cover on this one did.

                          I believe that this bill has to go deeper than Hollyweird.

                          I am guessing that Leahy's interest was motivated by national security.  I am guessing a lot of them saw an opportunity to fight Anonymous, etc. with this legislation.  With no judicial review, they can say just about anything about why they turned off a tube. lol

                          •  You may be right about that. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            inclusiveheart

                            Anonymous is a bit skilled and wily to be taken down by the gov't but not that they can't dream.

                          •  Regardless of whether or not this is (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Scott Wooledge, Brown Thrasher

                            related to national security, there is, in my opinion, a post 9-11 theory of legislation and governance apparent here.  

                            "OMG!!!  Hollywood's movies are being stolen in Taiwan!!!  Quick, everybody, burn the Constitution!!!!!"

                            I have a ton of friends in the film industry and they are indeed facing a real problem in figuring out how to create a distribution model that both covers the cost of creating their content, but also makes it a profitable business.  As a fan of movies in general, I would like them to be compensated for their work and I'd like them to earn enough to live on and sometimes even get fabulously rich.  But SOPA/PIPA didn't really offer that promise to anyone that I know.  Their problem is two-fold, compensation and access to buyers.   All SOPA/PIPA did was stop consumers from getting the content which actually undermines both goals of making more money and selling to as many people as possible.

                        •  Incorrect; Warren came out against it. n/t (0+ / 0-)

                          Tell Congress: DON'T BREAK THE INTERNET! Learn about the OPEN Act.

                          by Brown Thrasher on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 03:37:11 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

  •  Huh? Where in her statement do you see her (12+ / 0-)
    ... pretending that she had some role in killing the bill in its current form.

    She acknowledges the bill is dead and is simply stating the obvious... we need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better solution to address a real problem. Nowhere does she say "I lead the fight to" or any of the standard language politicians use to claim credit for something.

    If you want to criticize her for supporting the bill, fine, she did. But I think you are reading a lot into her statement that just flat out ain't there.

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 09:50:51 AM PST

  •  She isn't running for Prez in 2016 (5+ / 0-)

    She will not have even served a full elected term by then, and in case you didn't notice, her former boss and current governor of her state Andrew Cuomo is positioning himself for such a run. She may run in 2020 or 2024 but she is not going to try to top Cuomo at a time when he will have great advantages over her.

  •  Let's not be so quick to judge (5+ / 0-)

    I get your point, kos, but in this case I think we have to watch her on this issue VERY carefully for the next few months before we conclude that her conversion (if indeed there was one) wasn't genuine. Really, what the problem seems to be here is the obvious word-parsing she did on her Facebook page.  I'm sure she won't be running on this issue.

    All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 10:38:01 AM PST

  •  It looks like this Kos diary may not get FPed (0+ / 0-)

    or even on the rec list, has that ever happened before?

  •  Gillibrand is supposed to be somewhat (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gustynpip, Odysseus

    Progressive. As such, I do hold her to certain standards that I wouldn't bother with for Blue Dogs. Blue Dogs routinely disappoint me. I've wondered about whether Gillibrand was good and know little about her record, much more about her reputation. This isn't a good introduction to her record, in my view. I'm glad she's backtracking but sad to see be better introduced to her on an issue which is so completely fraught.

    She comes off looking like she's powerless against corporations backing SOPA/PIPA, or else that she is politically naive, or that she just doesn't care about net neutrality and Progressives.

    Our side gets burned easily. We need to be careful.

    •  This is really late (0+ / 0-)

      so you may not see it, but here's some background on Gillibrand:

      She comes from an upstate NY political family - a Republican political family. Historically the power in that part of the state has resided with the Republicans, but things have gotten a bit shaken up there in the past decade or so, due to a combination of corruption within the state GOP, tea party divisiveness in an area that was historically more moderate, and the disaster that was Bushco.

      So, she ran for the House and served as a Democrat in a district that had not elected one in something like 30 years previously. She was quite conservative while there, notably as a gun rights advocate. But when she was appointed to fill Hillary Clinton's seat when she resigned to run for President, Gillibrand immediately understood that she was representing the entire state, and that a big portion of the state is New York City and some other nearby areas that are much more liberal. She is ambitious, pragmatic, and a very good fundraiser.

      Seeking an opportunity to ingratiate herself downstate, she made gay rights her signature issue, and has scored some pretty impressive victories in that area.

      She is plainly the sort of politician who chooses her positions to reflect her constituents' concerns, not one who crusades based on her personal ideology, and she has yet to win the trust of some on the left here. One reason is that, like our other Senator and several other local electeds who are very liberal on social issues, she accepts lots of donations from the financial sector (this is New York, after all).

      I wouldn't say that I "trust" her, but I think I understand her, and for now I'm quite satisfied with her. As long as she can advance her career by staking out liberal positions, she will do so, but if she decides that she'll do better in the long run taking the opposite position she will. Not a Blue Dog; more of an opportunist, and politicians like that can be made to respond to our desires if we deal with them right.

      "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

      by sidnora on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:53:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I love me some Kirsten but good points. nt (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    devtob, Andrew C White, gustynpip, Matt Z

    Today, strive to be the person you want to be.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:22:30 AM PST

  •  you guys are getting rediculous (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Andrew C White, Matt Z
  •  Stealing is Not Freedom (0+ / 0-)
  •  I think we have to avoid solipsism here. (6+ / 0-)

    We're online so Net freedom it's unusually important to us.  But some people are soldiers and getting the hell out of Afghanistan is unusually important to them; some people are unemployed and job creation is unusually important to them, and some people are (what's that word?) women and reproductive freedom is unusually important to them.  It's unseemly for bloggers and Net entrepreneurs to make this issue a permanent deal-breaker for anyone's political future when so many people who are wrong on one or more of those other issues, or at least not nearly as right as they could be, don't get that kind of vilification.

    But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

    by Rich in PA on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:33:34 AM PST

    •  All of those issues you raised that are (4+ / 0-)

      important to me would go without much needed debate if SOPA/PIPA were to be enacted.  It is likely that this blog could not survive under that legislation.

      There is a reason why people get so worked up about protecting speech and that's largely because it pretty much is the preferred method of addressing all of the issues that you have cited above.

      •  True, but Kos is suggesting that even if KG... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Scott Wooledge

        ...changes her position, he won't forget that she was initially wrong.  He's letting this issue press his buttons in a way that other issues don't.

        But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

        by Rich in PA on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:48:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He's got other issues that push his buttons (0+ / 0-)

          to this extent and always has.

          He'll get over it assuming she makes moves that show some sort of reason and intelligence on this issue.  If she doesn't, people will eventually look back at this and say he was right to call her out.  That's how political debate works.

        •  That's Not The Issue (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, cybersaur, Brown Thrasher

          The issue is the weasel-worded non-retreat retreat. A straightforward "this is a bad bill, and there's nothing to be done with it but put a stake through its heart and bury it at the crossroads" statement would do just fine.

          On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

          by stevemb on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:48:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Probably obvious, but... (10+ / 0-)

    It is very apparent from the language used in her statement that she has no idea how the bill works, what is at stake, or why there was so much opposition.

    I wouldn't surprised at all if the bill was pushed as "stopping online theft" to gain support from low-information legislators, when the issue at hand is so much more complicated.

    •  Yep (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laconic Lib, Brown Thrasher

      I could tell pretty much from the beginning that lawmakers thought this bill would be uncontroversial. They didn't understand the implications, and they were caught totally flat-footed by the reaction to the bill by many people in the tech world.

      Hopefully now they've learned their lesson and when they go to write new legistlation to cover this issue, they'll invite some the folks to the table to discuss the implications.

      By evening’s end, they had melted into an indistinguishable mass of privatizing, tax-cutting opponents of Shariah law. --NYT on 2nd Republican debate

      by wide eyed lib on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:43:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  well.. (7+ / 0-)

        There is always hope I guess, but after being in IT and watching politics, I've come to the conclusion that never the twain shall meet.

        Legislation covering telecommunications will likely be poorly written and influenced solely by the companies that are already positioned to make money from it, hacking and cracking will never be considered separate activities, and experts in the field will be told "That's your opinion" by Congresspersons who can't even send an e-mail without three aides and a junket to the Caribbean.

  •  champions of this bill should pay even now (4+ / 0-)

    that is how you prevent them from trying to keep pushing it.  If we find it attached to some other bill or some other low life way to try and slip it by we will come for you and make you pay politically.  That should be the message.

  •  This is what I like about the site (5+ / 0-)

    Contrary to the other side, we do not support our canidates, blindingly and unthinkingly; as Olbermann has said 'We think over here' When they do something worthy of criticism - we criticize. That is what a 'base' is for.

    An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head. -- Eric Hoffer

    by MichiganChet on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:36:53 AM PST

    •  yeah, but I prefer (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dannyinla, Matt Z

      not reading words that our candidates didn't say into the words that our candidates actually did say. Kos is way off base here.

      "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

      by Andrew C White on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:57:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Umm no. Read between the lines. Look at (0+ / 0-)

        Gillibrand's big donations.  Trying to tear apart the quotes that were posted by kos doesn't change the fact that Gillibrand has been carrying water for the entertainment industry via this bill.  Why are you looking at kos' quotes through a magnifying glass but doing nothing of the sort with respect to Gillibrand's support of this bad bill?

        Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

        by Miggles on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 08:54:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Sometimes. I've seen candidates flogged as (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laconic Lib, Matt Z, Brown Thrasher

      progressive who on election turned out to be considerably less than.  Unsavory, actually.  And there were people here warning that so-and-so wasn't what was being PR'd who couldn't get thru the rah-rah noise.

      Those who forget the pasta are doomed to reheat it.

      by CarolinNJ on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:00:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  IIRC isn't this how she dealt with the NRA in her (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybersaur

    upstate district prior to her becoming a Senator? She has triangulating tendencies unlike for example Elizabeth Warren.

    And there are few more fertile grounds for money and headline-grabbing than Hollywood. Thus, Gillibrand did her best to cling to this shitty bill in order to curry favor with future donors and backers. But given the backlash among the technology/online set—another constituency she's been wooing, she now tries to play the hero, as if she had anything to do with killing this bill.

    dangerous voter for a "dangerous president",Präsidentenelf-maßschach; Warning-Some Snark Above"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Sciant terra viam monstrare."

    by annieli on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:39:55 AM PST

  •  democrats caught flat footed on this one (0+ / 0-)

    Democrats need to move faster. Learn from the republicans. As soon as they see the tide turning- they flee like rats. Don't try to be a hero, democrats.

  •  Unfortunately for her, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybersaur, Brown Thrasher

    the support Ms. Gillibrand gets from me in the form of campaign contributions will be tied to her support for this bill.

    In other words...

  •  I wish those in favor would quit spreading the lie (6+ / 0-)

    that tens of thousands of jobs will be lost unless we pass this bill!  It's total BS!  Piracy has been around since the dawn of the internet and I can't think of one shut down that has occurred in all that time due to piracy.  Piracy is not a new phenomenon and it's a lie that this is why this bill was written.

    •  Lost jobs is a lie (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brown Thrasher

      There's a HUGE assumption that people who procure pirated copies of media would have otherwise purchased it if piracy was stamped out. It isn't true at all. Many people on this very site have probably downloaded torrents they would never have purchased.
      In many cases, pirated copies are simply the only media available because the media companies don't make their products available to everyone that wants them. So even if someone wanted to buy something, often they simply can't!
      Hell, I pay for Netflix, but do I get to watch all their DVD movies over Instant Watch? Nope, but I could download many of those movies instead of waiting on them to arrive in snail mail if I were so inclined. The media companies just don't seem to "get it".

      Keep Christian mythology out of science class!

      by cybersaur on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:13:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ha ha. Microsoft has been complaining for decades (0+ / 0-)

        (yes decades) about hundreds and hundreds of billions that they lost due to piracy.  But a deeper analysis shows that even if all piracy were eliminated, there would be next to no increase in revenues.  And why are we even talking about these as losses?  Last I checked, Microsoft was one of the most profitable corporations on the planet.  Same goes for many of the entertainment companies.  Since when has a company declared bankruptcy due to piracy?

        Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

        by Miggles on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 09:00:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Copyrightt law in this country (11+ / 0-)

    needs an overhaul. Patent law, too. Trademark law is the only area of IP without serious controversy or technical issues as far as I can tell.

    If music and film companies want even more protection than they've already got, it's time to start reducing the number of years copyright is good for. Make it 35 or 50 years, but that's it, the protection is GONE once the time runs out.

    At this point if the MPAA and RIAA still haven't got what they need it's their own fault because they've been writing the legislation themselves and bribing Congress to pass it ever since Sonny Bono and the Senator from Disney were around.

    Time to overhaul the whole stinking mess so that it benefits THE PUBLIC at the end of the process, not enable record companies to sue kids for outlandish amounts. Oh, and the committee that looks into the overhaul should be composed of ordinary citizens and experts, none of which are affiliated with the entertainment industry or subject to bribery by same.

  •  all pols want their cake and to eat it too... (0+ / 0-)

    so this is basically a dog bites DC diary but one thing did strike me... the line about Gillibrand already planning her run for the WH, is this a known fact?  

    "Orwell was an optimist"

    by KnotIookin on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:45:31 AM PST

    •  No... conjecture (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Scott Wooledge

      she is a rising star and I would not be surprised if she makes a run at some point. Whether that point is 2016 or sometime later is another story altogether.

      "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

      by Andrew C White on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:00:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gillibrand has been tipped for the presidency (0+ / 0-)

      since she got into politics.  Which tells you something about her political chops and her fund raising ability because professional politicians and political operatives don't size up potential the way ordinary citizens do.  The political pros know what it takes and they assess from that perspective.  Frankly, if you look dispassionately at the people who get into office, you can see the disconnect between governing and electability.  The pros are all about electability.  Governing can be handed over to another team, the permanent governing class.  Which is why the same people keep showing up after elections to occupy the executive and administrative positions.  For a local analogy, it's the municipal clerk who really knows what's what and has probably been in the position for years, decades in many cases.  Elected office holders come and go and are usually not nearly as knowledgeable.

      Would that the permanent governing class was as competent as most municipal clerks.

      Those who forget the pasta are doomed to reheat it.

      by CarolinNJ on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:16:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  being in tech, and in software development (4+ / 0-)

    I like any coder and developer have to be able to constantly see 5-6 moves ahead, and most importantly understand and see how every little tweak I create to a code branches out and effects every other piece of existing code.

    Its is what separates good programmers and developers from bad, much like chess players, you have to see how it all connects.  

    I think in the end this same mindset and skill set is what separates good legislatures from bad.  In both fields it seems that there is a severe shortage of talent.

    Im not giving up or even poo pooing Gillibrand, I actually think she is doing a decent job.  I'm just commenting broadly on lawmakers and complicated and far reaching new laws like this one.

    I'm pretty sure most simply dont have the skills to understand what they unleash.

    Bad is never good until worse happens

    by dark daze on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:46:04 AM PST

  •  Running for President? (0+ / 0-)

    All due respect to the Senator, but she's got to be pretty far down the list of possible candidates for 2016. You can guess at her motivations for waffling on PIPA, but I don't think a Presidential campaign is first among them.

    •  Who do you suggest is up on the list? (0+ / 0-)

      Those who forget the pasta are doomed to reheat it.

      by CarolinNJ on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:19:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is really too early to tell, but (0+ / 0-)

        Tim Kaine has been mentioned. He has a long political resume. He is running for Senate though and if elected his term would not be up until 2018, although that might not preclude running. Biden might also contemplate another run.

        •  You think they're better prospects than (0+ / 0-)

          Gillibrand?  Wow, I'm floored.  If Biden and Kaine, who I'm sure have presidential ambitions and egos, are what the Democrats have to offer, Jeb is a calkwalk from the Oval Office.

          Those who forget the pasta are doomed to reheat it.

          by CarolinNJ on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:44:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I like Gillibrand (0+ / 0-)

            but to run a campaign you need to have national name recognition and be able to huge quantities of money. That is a high hurdle.

            •  Name recognition, I'm with you. Money, different (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Slightly Wobbly

              story.  Gillibrand can raise money.  Was third on the House money raised list in her House tenure, I believe.  The woman seems to have the touch.  Pelosi was number one.  That's how she got the speakership.  See Tom Ferguson for gruesome details:  Legislators Never Bowl Alone:  Big Money, Mass Media, and the Polarization of Congress.  A pdf file that's somewhere on the web.  Leadership positions and desirable committee seats are distributed to those who raise money and the amounts required for attaining the various positions are openly posted.  Congresspeople make or do not make the cuts by the amounts of money they raise.  Seniority is gone the way of the southern congressional barons.

              Those who forget the pasta are doomed to reheat it.

              by CarolinNJ on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:44:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  No thanks Senators (5+ / 0-)

    I don't want the bill "fixed."  I want is scrapped.

    •  So when she says she wants to "start over" (0+ / 0-)

      that is different from "scrapped"?

      •  Yes (6+ / 0-)

        Scrapped mean discarded. Start over means I'm going to try to pass this again in the future, after it has been rewritten and you all aren't hopefully watching.

        •  So you're an absolutist. (0+ / 0-)

          You want no government involvement in protecting Intellectual Property. Because that's what scrapped/discarded means. Just trying to make sure I understand you.

          •  This bill has nothing to do with protecting IP (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Brown Thrasher, ChadmanFL, Miggles

            It's already illegal to sell pirated and counterfeit items. This bill was about Internet censorship and breaking DNS (the Domain Name System) that makes the Internet work. And all the damn laws in the world will NEVER stop Internet piracy (of digital media) because file sharing is an inherent part of the Internet. Websites are nothing more than collections of files rendered by a browser (or processed by some other application). You cannot stop file-sharing without ending the Internet entirely. That's what the idiots in Congress, who think "the Internet is not a truck-- it's a series of tubes", don't grok.

            Keep Christian mythology out of science class!

            by cybersaur on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:20:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, I always laugh when government officials (0+ / 0-)

              think they can fix every ill of the internet through DNS policy.  There are a million other ways to access any site that might happen to be DNS black-listed.

              Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

              by Miggles on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 09:06:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  This is funny. (9+ / 0-)

    I love seeing people give kos shit for pointing out asshattery on Gillibrand's part.

    Here's an idea: Whether it's Gillibrand, Obama, or any Republican, it's our duty as thinking Americans to point out bullshit.

    Oh, and Chris Dodd is a douchebag.

    •  Except that he's making it up (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Scott Wooledge

      on his own assumptions and reading things into her words that just flat out aren't there.

      If he, or anyone, wants to criticize her for supporting the bill in the first place then that is appropriate because she did.

      But he's creating all sorts of conjecture about motivations here for which there isn't a shred of support in what she actually said.

      I understand losing focus on an issue that is important to you. I've done it. Most of us do. And I think that is what has happened here.

      "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

      by Andrew C White on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:04:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kos defends Dems till he gets hurt directly (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DerekNJ, CarolinNJ, Tentwenty

      Some of the rest of us stand up for the principles the party stood for during the Bush years, even though Obama is doing the same things and worse.

      Here's an idea:  protest indefinite detention, covert surveillance, SOPA, PIPA, drone assassinations, the war on drugs, maximum deportations, and so on, and so on, rather than just  rooting for team Democrat.

      A new year, a time for many changes. Some we will like, some we won't.

      by Tommy Allen on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:06:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Damned if she does and damned if she doesn't (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles

      "asshattery".  She changed her mind and now wants to start over on a piracy bill.  So if she's an asshat for coming around to the right way of thinking, what would she be is she stubbornly stood behind SOPA?

      •  Standing behind SOPA/PIPA in the first place means (6+ / 0-)

        that you're ignorant of the technology behind the internet, and quite frankly, the entire "culture" of the internet.

        ...and I have never been one to approve of ignorance.

        •  Not everyone is as enlightened as the DKos (0+ / 0-)

          community about the workings of the Internet. She supported a bill that she thought would help and has now learned that it will hurt more than it helps. So she stepped back from her support. So, what, now she should be attacked because she doesn't know the details of how the Internet works? BREAKING NEWS - Gillibrand, like most people in the world, have no fucking idea how the Internet works. But, at least, she's willing to listen. Apparently that's not good enough for you and others.

          •  No. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Odysseus, Laconic Lib, Brown Thrasher

            I worked at an internet provider starting in '94.  The Congress that passed the DMCA showed they were clueless as to the workings of the internet.  However, this was understandable as it was a new medium, and these people were OLD.

            Sen. Gillibrand is only 45.  She was in her 20's when the internet first came about.  I find it hard to believe that she's clueless as to how the internet works.  Is it more likely that a Gen X'er is clueless about the internet, or that she has been lobbied by the MPAA/RIAA to be against the bill?

  •  ? (6+ / 0-)

    She abandoned the bill.

    This is good news.

    Read my stuff at burn after writing and The Huffington Post @indiemcemopants on Twitter

    by indiemcemopants on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:50:37 AM PST

    •  Exactly n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      indiemcemopants, Matt Z

      "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

      by Andrew C White on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:01:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am normally (4+ / 0-)

        not in the business of defending politicians against activists - at all - but I don't get this. She was supporting something terrible and then when she stopped and when she urged others to stop... that's when she gets criticism?

        ??

        Read my stuff at burn after writing and The Huffington Post @indiemcemopants on Twitter

        by indiemcemopants on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:04:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly... (3+ / 0-)

          I understand criticizing her for supporting it in the first place. But here she is acknowledging that criticism and changing gears as result... and she still gets criticized? That part I don't agree with.

          "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

          by Andrew C White on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:08:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's weird. (3+ / 0-)

            Dkos front page:

            The president finally stopped standing in the way of 80% of Americans who wanted DADT repealed! He did this after blocking Rep Murphy's bill and attempting to delay repeal into 2012! This is a historic achievement! President Obama is The Best President Ever!


            Senator Gillibrand used to support a bill she realized is wrong and backed off on, urging others to stop supporting it as well! She sucks and tries to have things both ways!

            Read my stuff at burn after writing and The Huffington Post @indiemcemopants on Twitter

            by indiemcemopants on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:30:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Supporting it breaks trust (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cybersaur, Miggles

            Gillibrand was wrong, and continued to be wrong right up to the point where there was a massive internet shit storm and the bill became radioactive.

            The truth is, there is a lot of wrong legislation that will be written and voted on, and there aren't going to be giant internet-stopping protests every time.

            •  Yes, that's true (0+ / 0-)

              but her track record is one of being on the right side of most issues regardless of whether there is a shitstorm or not.

              While I am in complete agreement that these were bad bills that needed to be stopped I also think that they were classic examples of the difficult in crafting good legislation. Piracy is a very real problem that needs a solution. Trying to solve that problem does not make one a bad legislator. Coming up with a solution that is perhaps worse than the original problem only highlights the difficulty in these situations. I don't personally think the folks supporting the bill are inherently bad people. On some bills it's pretty cut and dried. But as much as I oppose this one I don't agree with a lot of what I perceive as over the top rhetoric. Particularly at some one who acknowledges the problems and tries to fix them and then backs off completely from our pressure. We want legislators that are responsive.

              Peace,

              Andrew

              "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

              by Andrew C White on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 03:18:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Mealy mouthed follow up quotes from her (0+ / 0-)

            deserve criticism.  Start over??? Rewrite the bill??? Improve it???  All of those are suggest that she hasn't really seen the light yet.

            Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

            by Miggles on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 09:11:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, they suggest that she (0+ / 0-)

              recognizes there is an actual problem that needs solving.

              This is not an all or nothing bill. There is a real problem that needs a solution. This was a bad solution. Do you therefore abandon all efforts to solve the actual problem? No. You go back to the drawing board and re-write the bill to craft a better solution that doesn't cause problems in its own right.

              "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

              by Andrew C White on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 12:19:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  So in this particular instance (0+ / 0-)

    we'd have been WORSE off with more Dems.

    If that doesn't illustrate to people that the system is fucked up, nothing will.

    "I wish I could tell you, in the midst of all of this, that President Obama was waging the kind of fight against these draconian Republican proposals that the American people would like to see. He is not." -- Senator Bernie Sanders

    by Sagebrush Bob on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:51:32 AM PST

  •  With the possible exception of Bernie Sanders (10+ / 0-)

    (who's not even a Democrat) there's probably not a single Democratic leader who is going to take the "right" progressive position on every issue of importance to progressives. While that's neither a call to take it easy on them nor an assertion that they're all equally or similarly wrong on such issues, it is a reflection of what I believe to be the political reality that political leaders, whether for ideological or political or character reasons, will never be with us 100% of the time, and that our outrage over their "betrayals" should be proportionate to both the degree and nature of their deviation from the progressive agenda (which itself isn't agreed upon by progressives), and to the political reality in which they operate.

    Translation: we spend way too much energy getting pissed off, and way too little actually doing something about it. On this issue, that was thankfully reversed, with the results to show for it. So instead of getting angry at Gillibrand for acting like a politician, I think we should do what we can to turn her around on this and other issues. As we should with every other Dem. Don't get angry--get smart.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:52:59 AM PST

  •  This is a case in point of my rule: (5+ / 0-)

    never fall in love with a pol. Pols are not your friends, they are means to an end.

    That applies to everyone from Obama on down.

    Ok, so I read the polls.

    by andgarden on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:54:29 AM PST

  •  Be a gracious winner, Kos (7+ / 0-)

    This 'take no prisoners" attitude with folks on the progressive side of the issues 95 percent of the time really pisses me off.  Would it hurt to acknowedge there are some legitimate concerns but this was the wrong way to address them and move on?

  •  We keep hearing "Hollywood" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PeteyP

    but I think this is not correct.   It is big media that wants this PIPA and SOPA shit.

    Big Media is NYC and East Coast much more than it is LA or Hollywood.

    I do agree that the movie studios and Hollywood also wants this crap, but I think we play into the Republicans "Hollywood liberal" nonsense when we say this is just Hollywood.

  •  Chris Dodd is no Ernie Hollings (D-Disney,RIP) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brown Thrasher

    and Kirsten Gillibrand is thankfully no Chris Dodd.

    But the money is all the same.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:08:20 PM PST

  •  Kirsten Gillibrand is my Senator. (7+ / 0-)

    She comes from a neighboring district, and I have been watching her since she first put her toe into politics.  It hasn't been my experience that she tries to have things both ways, but rather that she tries to represent her constituents, and as such, is willing to change her mind when proven wrong.  She doesn't pretend, a la Mitt Romney, that she never held a different view.  Rather, she admits to learning from others and adapting as her knowledge grows.  As far as this bill goes, she took the wrong stance, and clearly hadn't thought through the ramifications for internet freedom posed by it.  When I called her office about PIPA I was told she was in consultations about the bill, had recognized and agreed there were problems with it, and might change her mind.  Eventually she did.  I don't read into the statements kos posted that she's trying to be a hero after the fact.

    Her straightforward advocacy for, and heroic hard work on behalf of gays and lesbians, women, First Responders, veterans, etc., reveal to me that she is worth supporting, despite coming late to the right decision on PIPA.  I would support her bid, at least at this point, over Governor 1% Cuomo's.  Fortunately, I'm in the position to vote for her, while  Markos is not.

    Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain

    by SottoVoce on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:09:54 PM PST

    •  When I called it was the first time (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, Tentwenty

      her assistant tried to cut me off after one sentence with a curt thank you.

      I gave it a day to see what would happen. They were obviously against the wall about it and didn't even want to discuss it.

      Look, I like the Senator for the most part. By this point in time Hillary had already joined Chuck on my puts up a good front but a big money tool list - so she is already way ahead of her senior Senator AND her predecessor. But this is one where she clearly was wrong at the start, fairly obviously wrong at the end and is trying to cut her losses. Unlike Kos, I won't try to figure out why, ultimately I don't care, but I do know that she must be watched carefully on certain issues - and this will be one of them.

  •  I have really mixed feeling about this. (0+ / 0-)

    I believe that actual content creators should be protected, but don't know how that can be done in such a free-wheeling environment.  

    I don't consider the big money studios content creators I can fight for, because they  mostly piss me off with sexist racist BS masquerading as entertainment.  There are exceptions, but if I have to look at one more DVD cover with 3 sexy chicks with long legs or 3 beer-belly men with vacuous gazes I might lose my cool.  

    Much has been said about i-Tunes and a new way of managing the music industry successfully, but I'm not sure how that translates to movie making.  And I love movies.  It's a messy issue.  If we were self-policing it wouldn't have gotten this far, but how do you self-police the Internet?

    I keep going back to the basics - some sensible regulations, with sensible enforcement, and an admission that you'll never stay ahead of thieves anyway, but you might be able to influence the essentially honest.

    I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

    by I love OCD on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:26:21 PM PST

  •  Politician panders, walks tight rope. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scott Wooledge, Miggles

    News at 11.

    (I've been touting KG2016 for POTUS/VPOTUS for a year now. I'll still support her, this notwithstanding, as she is the bee's knees!)

    The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -Thomas Jefferson

    by PeteyP on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:34:06 PM PST

  •  I don't care. (0+ / 0-)

    She's hot.

    To love America is to hate the Republican party.

    by GOPGO2H3LL on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:46:07 PM PST

  •  Every politician is a phony when the lights are on (0+ / 0-)

    Amazing. They thought they were going to pass this bill with ease. They counted on the public being uninterested and uninformed. They were wrong and now they're running scarred.

  •  There are so many Dems on the wrong side of this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, Scott Wooledge, Miggles

    I don't really care if Gillibrand tries to claim credit for "killing" the bill or not.  As long as a) the bill dies, and b) she is not a dead-ender or zealous promoter of the bill from here forward.

    As I like to say about politics, there's nothing wrong with changing your tune, as long as you end up whistling the right one.

    The Democratic Party: Keeping Their Powder Dry Since 1968.

    by punkdavid on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:03:43 PM PST

    •  She only whistled the right tune after the fact (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybersaur, Brown Thrasher, Miggles

      I don't hold my politicians to perfect standards, but this is a stain on her record.

      •  Sure it is (0+ / 0-)

        I don't absolve her of blame, just as I don't absolve any politician for supporting this profoundly undemocratic and dangerous legislation.

        I'm just disagreeing with kos as to the amount of a grudge I would hold over this as opposed to if she were the lead mouthpiece for this (i.e. Chris Dodd), or if she were still holding on to absolute support.  

        My forgiveness will be commensurate to the distance she puts between herself and this legislation, and the speed with which she travels that distance.

        The Democratic Party: Keeping Their Powder Dry Since 1968.

        by punkdavid on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:48:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The full Gillibrand FB post in full context (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scott Wooledge

    I fail to see how this shows that Gillibrand wants to "play the hero" as Kos has written.

    Whether passing the 9/11 Health Bill, repealing DADT, or my call to action for women, I have always urged New Yorkers to make their voices heard. There has been an outpouring of democracy in action over the last several weeks on PIPA & SOPA. While many of my colleagues and I have worked hard to address concerns with the current bill, it is clear this proposal will not create consensus on how to crack down on the real problem of online theft that threatens tens of thousands of New York jobs in a balanced way that ensures our tech companies will continue to flourish. It is time for Congress to take a step back and start over with both sides bringing their solutions to the table to find common ground towards solving this problem. New talks between stakeholders -- media companies, music and film companies, Silicon Valley and Silicon Alley here in New York is a critically needed step forward. Make no mistake, we must act to protect the theft of intellectual property that costs our economy billions in revenue -- but we must get it right without unintended consequences that could stifle the internet.
    •  Huh? That whole quote is just a dog whistle to (0+ / 0-)

      appease the entertainment industry in the face of a blistering loss.  Typical political-speak which can NEVER be taken at face value.  Why didn't she just come out and tell the truth: this was a piece of shit bill written to help a handful of ultra-profitable companies profit even more?

      I say, instead of trying to fix or reincarnate SOPA, why not revisit other, better things that died in Congress, such as the Public Option.

      Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

      by Miggles on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 09:18:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Harsh. (4+ / 0-)
    Thank you for all your messages regarding Protect IP. I agree there are real concerns with the current legislation & I’m working to make important changes to the bill. We must work to strike a balance between ending online piracy to protect New York jobs & ensuring Internet freedom so our tech community can continue to flourish.

    In other words, she was saying, "we'll keep tinkering, but I'm not abandoning this bill."

    That's just donkey kicking right there.

    The bill certainly needed "important changes" to say the least or it was going to be a disaster, I have no disagreement there, but internet piracy is a huge problem also, so I cannot blame people for trying to work toward solving that problem-- especially folks who can hear public criticism and recognize when something that they are backing is seriously flawed.  Gillibrand fits that description.

    Harsh comments like yours against a friend on so many issues simply serve to turn legitimate issues into third rail issues where nothing ever gets done.

    •  Well Said (5+ / 0-)

      I've been a little saddened by the way so many have turned on some of our best senators and representatives because they're looking for a way to stop digital piracy to help the economy and job market.  That doesn't mean I think SOPA was the right answer, but how people like Al Franken suddenly became the enemy is just insane.    

      Electronic IP is in many ways our country's last great export in the sense that it's the one area where countries like China can't compete.  Digital piracy isn't about censorship or free speech, it's about massive theft.  SOPA goes too far, it blurred the line, but I didn't think we on the left fear mongered quite like this.  We're blurring the line intentionally as well, trying to convince people the goal is to censor the internet, that big government is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.  That's not the intent or goal.  

      Sadly though, I think a lot of people are actually against the true intent, not just the poor plan for the execution.  I think too many people enjoy downloading free movies and software and tv shows, and justify it as a victimless crime, or even somehow as "free speech".  It's neither.  

  •  Here's a detailed list of Dem Senators who backed (3+ / 0-)

    the bill, complete with the $$ they get from Hollywood.  1st Repub on the list is Mitch McConnell, in 15th!! place.

    Democrats Are the Ones Pushing Web Censorship

    In total, only two Democrats changed their minds on PIPA during Wednesday’s blackouts: Sens. Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR). The other 11 to walk away were all Republicans, who seem more open to Silicon Valley’s warnings against onerous, job-killing regulations.

    That may be due to the total sum donated to Democrats on the top 20 list: groups supporting PIPA have given over $7,319,983 to the 18 Democrats on the top 20 list, according to a Raw Story analysis. By contrast, those same Democrats have only taken in $807,502 from groups opposing the legislation.

    Conservatism is a function of age - Rousseau
    I've been 19 longer'n you've been alive - me

    by watercarrier4diogenes on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:23:24 PM PST

    •  ah. so we have more to mourn (0+ / 0-)

      than the usual sad.

      i did see comparison posters somewhere, showing who'd switched sides... why do i never keep open a 'notepad' window to paste in urls for this stuff ???

      Addington's perpwalk is the trailhead of accountability for this wound to our national psyche. (But go ahead and arrest Rumsfeld, too.)

      by greenbird on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:53:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not a chance in he!! she will run (0+ / 0-)

    I would agree with you if you said Junior (the current NY Governor) would throw his hat in the ring in 2016

  •  yah... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brown Thrasher

    Screw Gillibrand and her pro-millionaire stance.
    As a NY'er, I hate this attitude of hers, and I won't forget it.

  •  found just now from (0+ / 0-)

    Addington's perpwalk is the trailhead of accountability for this wound to our national psyche. (But go ahead and arrest Rumsfeld, too.)

    by greenbird on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:30:25 PM PST

  •  Let's fire her!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    crankyinNYC

    Given that Republican leaning commentators (redstate.com for example) are calling for primary challengers for people who were supporters of this bill in right leaning districts (Lamar Alexander being target number 1 for example), why aren't you doing the same?  They went so far as to say that even Marco Rubio, a real favorite of the commentators on the site should be challenged in a primary if he didn't switch his position, which he did even though he was a co-sponsor.

    The only way to set people like her straight is for the left to demonstrate that they are willing to take down candidates, even candidates who claim to be on the same team like the tea party did for the Republicans.  Yes, I understand that this may mean that a Republican wins and Ooh!! the political scorekeepers will score a point for the other time as a self goal like happened with Christine O'Donnell.

    It's no accident that a vast majority of the congressmen and senators who switched on SOPA and PIPA were Republicans.  What's more important, scorekeeping or ensuring that we have honest, upright, people who truly put the country's interests above their own in Congress.

    I live in the Northeast and I called Gillibrand and Schumer's office multiple times and was told each time to essentially stand by for an upcoming press release soon.  I called Blumenthal's office too and the person who answered went so far as to say they were in the process of releasing something that had already been drafted.  None of these three did anything of the sort.

    I for one will donate what I can afford to any credible primary or general election challengers to any of these three in 2012 or future elections.

    The only way to fix this properly is to impose electoral consequences for what is legal corruption.  Gillibrand, Schumer, Blumenthal and other supporters of these idiotic bills have shown us how corrupt they are.  The country is far more important than stupid partisan scorekeeping.  It's time to take action.  If we don't next time around when an industry is willing to pay a large bribe they will simply pass the bill quickly and quietly before the opposition has time to organize.

    •  So she got PIPA wrong, yet... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Silverleaf

      supported the public option, voted to repeal DADT, was a strong supporter of Sonya Sotomayor, and is for the legalization of gay marriage.

      DAMNIT - GET RID OF THE CORRUPT BASTARDS.

      •  Fire her (0+ / 0-)

        Any viable candidate for Senate in New York would vote the same way on any of those issues.  Given how Democratic New York is, so would a viable Republican candidate.

        I for one would happily trade things going the other way on any or all of those in order to create credible electoral consequences for corruption.  So I would more than happily support a primary challenger to her and Schumer even if that meant a Republican (shudder) won because getting rid of corrupting effect of money is that  important.

        To be elected to the Senate is an enormous privilege.  It's not enough to robo-vote the party line on issues where the opinions of your party and constituency are heavily skewed in the same direction.  I want a lot more.  As a start, I want someone who isn't corrupt.  That's not all I want but it's a start.

        So ya DAMMIT - GET RID OF THE CORRUPT BASTARDS.

  •  What's the difference between a politician and a (0+ / 0-)

    whore? At least a whore leaves you with something, a smile, the clap, something, the politician only leaves you with that empty feeling. It's like you have been screwed and don't realize it until it is too late.

    Just as prostitution is the world's oldest profession, religion is the world's oldest scam.

    by Agent420 on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 04:54:18 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site