I & I Editorial BoardI&I Editorial
‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself,” was the rallying cry during the Depression for which history remembers FDR. “It’s morning again in America” was Ronald Reagan’s inimitable, softly spoken re-election slogan.
But the catchphrase that will go with the, as of last week, ex-presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand to her grave is: “I’m just trying to get some ranch.”
As the Democratic junior senator from New York babbled on in an Iowa City restaurant about “the bold ideas that the base and the grassroots care about,” those were the words of a female college student conducting a Bible study upstairs as she squeezed past Gillibrand looking for something more tethered to the real world: her preferred condiment.
It was an example of how the plenty of America leads to a great deal of disinterest in politics, with people more focused on their own lives than keeping up with the various layers and happenings of government, as well they should be. (Although “ranch girl” Hanna Kinney reportedly leans left.)
But a less frivolous soundbite came from Gillibrand herself, in the last debate, conducted by CNN at the end of July. Gillibrand contended that “as a white woman of privilege … I can talk to those white women in the suburbs that voted for Trump and explain to them what white privilege actually is, that when their son is walking down a street with a bag of M&Ms in his pocket, wearing a hoodie, his whiteness is what protects him from not [sic] being shot.”
It would be hard to compose a statement more racially divisive, more prejudiced, or more sexist. Apparently, we’re to understand that suburban white women are so shallow, they need it “Gillibrand-splained” to them how it is that their sons don’t arrive home riddled with bullets.
She Can Be ‘Any Woman You’ve Ever Imagined’
But let’s get beyond the “dressing” here, if you will. What Gillibrand was, and still is, running for is not president but vice president. That is if it’s a man at the top of the Democrats’ ticket. Because there simply has to be a woman somewhere on the Democratic presidential slate this time around, four years after the Hillary loss to Trump that was not supposed to be; the group politics that rule the party of Jefferson in the 21st century demand it.
And Gillibrand has triangulated herself with a shamelessness that would bring a sly smile to the lips of her onetime friend Bill Clinton. She was appointed, not elected, to the U.S. Senate in 2009 to replace Hillary Clinton, who had made a deal to be secretary of state in the administration of her primary opponent, Barack “Team of Rivals” Obama. The New York governor who appointed her himself hadn’t been elected governor, but landed in the office when Eliot Spitzer’s extramarital bad habits became public.
Gillibrand was a Democratic congresswoman representing a Republican district in Dutchess County in upstate New York, and actually boasted a 100% National Rifle Association rating. When her appointment was announced, none other than former longtime Republican New York Sen. Al D’Amato, now a mercenary lobbyist, stood conspicuously nearby. New York Democrats wanted to bamboozle New Yorkers living north and northwest of New York City and affluent Westchester County into believing they wanted them to have some token representation for once.
Upon moving across the Capitol to the Senate, her migration to the left happened faster than a knife fight in a phone booth, of course. But now, after a failed presidential campaign that didn’t burn any bridges (even with a bumbling suggestion that Joe Biden is an anti-feminist), Gillibrand the shape-shifter can become “any woman you’ve ever imagined” – whatever is needed in a 2020 running mate.
If “moderate” Biden is nominated, Gillibrand can balance the ticket by being the rabid feminist who talks down to white suburban women who voted for Trump. If South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg is nominated, she can be the upstate, rural, white, working homemaker with the 100% NRA rating who provides the homosexual-with-husband some connection to the quaint, more conventional America of a bygone era. Socialist Bernie Sanders as nominee could use some of that too.
Perhaps there’s even an outside chance that a California Sen. Kamala Harris nomination could make use of a less-left white woman as running mate.
Whether it means being a Jekyl-brand or a Hyde, Kirsten Gillibrand’s just trying to get some power.
— Written by Thomas McArdle
Note to Readers: Issues & Insights is a new site launched by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to use our decades of experience to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day.
We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we think our approach to commentary is sorely lacking both in today’s mainstream media and on the internet. If you like what you see, feel free to click the Tip Jar over on the right sidebar. And be sure to tell your friends!
The Committee to Unleash Prosperity
Michael Ramirez
Using these vague “policy violations,” Google is now threatening to demonetize us. It’s part of Big Tech’s effort to silence conservative voices.
I’m hesitant to give advice to the Democrats, but I have a reason to do it in this case. The advice is: For your own good, first, do not take this woman seriously as a candidate for national office. Because? Well, because voters from sea to shining sea perceive (correctly) that she is an empty vessel and NO ONE, ANYWHERE would become more likely to vote for a Democratic POTUS candidate by virtue of Ms Gillibrand being on the ballot. She is a laughingstock, not because of what she “stands for” (whatever that IS this month or next) but because of who she is, which is a brazen self-promoting opportunist. Is she bright? I honestly don’t know; she’s a mirage.
The second reason is because it isn’t in any of our best interest as citizens, no matter our politics for Ms. Gillibrand to have power. In general I don’t want Democrats to win elections except where the alternative is a despicable candidate (i.e., a huge mistake). But we have to entertain the possibility, no matter how unlikely, that one of them just might be elected President. Can’t imagine that? Democrats could not imagine the electorate going for Trump, right? So let’s say it comes to that. And Kristen Gillibrand is then (as they say) a heart attack or stroke or a lunatic’s rifle shot from being the most powerful person on the planet, at least until she can be replaced. Now, THAT IS scary.
“a brazen self-promoting opportunist.”
It’s funny that you use those words to justify not voting for a democratic candidate when it perfectly describes the incompetent buffoon currently occupying the White House.
Steve, is it your standard that the person deserving the voting public’s support needs to be somehow preferable to an “incompetent buffoon”? I hold out hope for someone WAY above that. I did not and would not compare Senator Gillibrand to Trump; what’s the point of that? From among those currently running there is one and only one that I support financially, and in other ways, and that I would vote for. It is neither Trump nor any lightweight like Sen Gillibrand.
You should have kept your Republican views to yourself, no one in the Democratic party would take your advice, she is better person by far, then any Republican in Congress, or running for president for sure. Just by reason of moral, values and ethical standards.
My Republican views, Victoria? Not me; I vote for candidates not based on party affiliation but because he/she/they offer(s) what I consider the best alternative for the country overall. I just think that the Democratic Party in general has run off the rails and has joined the Republicans (post Trump) as “out of touch”.
Moral values and ethical standards are very important, but hardly sufficient. Even if Sen Gillibrand deserved “A” or “A+” on those factors, she’s still woefully unsuited to be POTUS or in line to become that. Just as clearly as I am not suited for the job. .
Keep running for office so that people won’t dare to touch her about NXIVM ?
All the Dem/Leftist candidates are wannabe chameleons. It should be interesting to watch the nominee’s vain attempts to tack to the center after all that’s been said and promised….
Oh my! What do you call that bag of trash parked in the Whitehouse?
No insults or name calling? What do you think this writer just did?
“Gillibrand the shape-shifter” — I guess that qualifies as name-calling, but I’m not going to start writing dull. “Gillibrand who completely changed her positions on issues” is boring. More important is the documentation of her change, which I provide — what she did and why (opportunism).
Outstanding article and spot on
I Don’t have anything against women running certain organizations however!! It is a fact that when women Run for president or vice president it seems like we wind up with mental cases like Hiliory and palen and I say enough is enough as it’s bad enough we now have for the first time in Nevada a majority of women Running our legislature Making up redicules laws that are chipping away at our second amendment writes as well as unconstitutional border line law’s and we don’t need anymore Constitutional rights being stepped on or taken away.
You should consider having someone proofread your stuff before posting it here. He or she might also point out to you that what you wrote makes no sense
So, if this article is to be believed, Ms. Gillibrand is one of two people. Either, she’s everything, which means that she’s nothing. After all, you have to have a specific platform; an anchor. Else, you’re all over the map. Or, she’s disingenuous, to be kind. Do we, as American citizens want either kind? I think not. Thank you.