The Impending Unbranding of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand?

All posts are cross-posted to the beta version of the new Clyde Fitch Report. I'd love any thoughts on the new site -- bearing in mind we're still in beta, resolving kinks, bugs, design, functionality, etc.

I cannot tell you how many emails I get every day from organizations like MoveOn.org, imploring me to add my name to this or that cause. Many of them I support, many of them I don't, but I feel I receive entirely too many of these things, and no matter where one sits on the political/philosophical spectrum, at a certain point there's got to be the risk of diminishing returns.

Sometimes I get one of these emails and I realize that there is something far more significant going on in the background; that while I may be asked on the surface to lend my support to a cause, what's really happening is that a broader message, a broader agenda, may be moving into motion. I felt this way the other day when I got such an email regarding my new senator here in New York, Kirsten Gillibrand.

The subject of the MoveOn.org email is the housing crisis and President Obama's plan to fix it. The purpose of my post, however, is not to take a position on his plan quite yet (though it's much more intelligent than anything the Party of No has put forth) but to wonder why Gillibrand is the subject of targeting. She was, after all, sworn in to succeed Hilary Clinton just 47 days ago.

Personally, I think Gillibrand's uber-centrist positions are making her a target of the left and the right. I think the right sees a chance, albeit a slim one, to take her down in a death-by-a-zillion-cuts strategy, or at least soften her up for a hard time in 2010 if she is the nominee and/or if the GOP can come up with a candidate who could be her equal, which is where they're stalled at the moment. But I think the left is very divided about her: liberals are nauseated by Gillibrand's 100% NRA rating and worried, if not quite at the level of nauseated, by the senator's, um, let's say, evolving stance on gay rights. She's basically too centrist for New York, some say, and this may be about to cause her some problems.

Unless, that is, Gillibrand capitulates while also figuring out how to explain shifting so much to the left without leaving her vulnerable to charges of flipping and flopping. So this brings me back to this email from MoveOn.org, which clearly, I think, sends a shot right over Gillibrand's bow to hurry up and figure it out. That, in other words, she'd better vivaciously toe the Obama line or else face reelection problems next year. Now, party discipline is a Republican virtue, so efforts to instill it in the famously fractious Democrats strikes me as a net positive. But let's acknowledge that this may be what is going on here. And now, the text of the MoveOn.org email:

Dear MoveOn member,

Next week, the Senate will begin work on an important part of President Obama's plan to address the housing crisis, and your senator's vote will be key.

The bill makes a crucial change to bankruptcy law, empowering judges to help homeowners reduce their mortgages instead of losing their homes. Judges already have the ability to do this with vacation homes, cars, even yachts. But they can't take this commonsense step with primary homes.

The bill passed the House last week, but faced opposition from some Democrats. The fight in the Senate is going to be even tougher. Sen. Gillibrand needs to hear from you today so she knows constituents are counting on her to stand with homeowners, not big banks.

Can you call Sen. Gillibrand right now? Tell her: "Please pass the foreclosure bankruptcy reform that the House just passed. Stand with homeowners, not with big banks."

Here's where to call:
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
Phone: 202-224-4451

Then, please report your call by clicking here:

President Obama offered a comprehensive plan to ease the housing crisis. His plan helps families refinance their mortgages to take advantage of low rates, and gives qualifying homeowners relief through loan modifications. In all, the plan is expected to help up to 9 million families stay in their homes.

Most of the plan is already being implemented, but the key provision in question needs congressional approval. By allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages on primary residences, this bill provides a strong incentive for banks to work with homeowners before foreclosing.

But the mortgage industry is fighting the bill tooth and nail—they convinced 24 Democrats in the House to vote against the bill—because they don't want to take any responsibility for their role in the housing crisis. We can't afford to lose even a few votes in the Senate, and that means letting Sen. Gillibrand know now that you expect her to put her constituents ahead of the banks.

Can you call Sen. Gillibrand now and tell hers to stand with homeowners and to pass foreclosure bankruptcy reform?

Sources:
1. "Bankruptcy law may be modified," The Chicago Tribune, February 25, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51212&id=15732-6361398-B.mzwxx&t=4

2. "Obama: Housing plan could help millions," The Hill, February 18, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51214

3. "Bankruptcy law may be modified," The Chicago Tribune, February 25, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51212&id=15732-6361398-B.mzwxx&t=6

4. "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 104," The Clerk of the House of Representatives, March 5, 2009
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll104.xml

Now, here's the bottom line: MoveOn.org has every right to advocate whatever position it wishes. But it seems to me there's something about the tone of this email that implied a threat to the new Senator. Welcome to the big leagues, indeed.

Sphere: Related Content

The Democrats Create the "Republican Apology Machine"...Why Am I Upset?

This is going to be a short post but I think it's an important one. So there's been all this chatter about how strategist James Carville and pollster Stanley Greenberg hatched the current Rush-Limbaugh-is-the-leader-of-the-GOP meme and now the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has created a whole webpage, called I'm Sorry Rush, to spotlight how the leaders of the right must kiss Pope Rush's ring whenever they deviate from Republican orthodoxy.

So I laughed at first.

Then I thought -- wait a minute, so, some of this is coming out of the White House? Isn't this what Obama said he wouldn't do? Come on -- can't the Democrats be better than this? What makes anyone think the American people won't object -- and loudly? Don't screw up this moment with such stupidity. The Republicans, it seems to me, can do all that by themselves, no?

Sphere: Related Content

Oh, Ye Liberal Dreamers

Over at Isaac Butler's ever-provoking Parabasis, Isaac's question of the day is:

Given the runaway rise in income disparity in this country, and the large amount of wealth based here, why shouldn't one of the government's goals be large redistribution of wealth via social programs?

Normally, given enough time and alcohol, I'd write a long rant-slash-answer about this, but since the "book" is taking up so much of my available brain matter, I'll respond this way:

Yes, but how? Collectivization, which is what your question is, well, possibly romanticizing, was the m.o. of the early USSR and almost universally acknowledged to have been a grand social experiment that resulted in a grand social failure. I'm not talking about 1987, but 1927: the manner in which wealth was being redistributed ultimately generated famine, death and fear in the populace; Marx didn't exactly provide a how-to module for his otherwise admirable (to me) theories, and then his theories were perverted irrevocably by that fatherly fellow Stalin. More fundamentally -- and please note that I say this having just had lunch with Isaac a week ago and still feel smitten with him (in a way that won't freak anyone out, people, please) -- I'd ask Isaac this question: Are you ready to part with your own wealth immediately. I can think of a lot of ways his wealth could quickly and rather fairly be redistributed.

Sphere: Related Content