Thursday, January 22, 2009

Kirsten Gillibrand Supports Gun Rights! But....

It has just been announced that Kirsten Gillibrand has been selected to fill New York's recently vacated Senate seat that was previously held by Hillary Clinton. When I skimmed the Wikipedia of Gillibrand, I found something surprising: she supports second amendment rights and believes that all law-abiding citizens should be allowed the freedom to own a gun.

But of course, after taking a quick look at (Great Site by the way!) sure enough I found a number of things I do not agree with:

  • Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25
  • Protect American jobs from going overseas.
  • Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC
  • Voted YES on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation.
  • Balance fossil fuels and viable renewable energy.

These are just a few things from her voting record that just don't fly with me. But it was nice to see that some Democrats do not like her more conservative positions (such as gun rights):

"But some New York City Democrats are skeptical of Gillibrand, who voted against the financial rescue package last fall. And the National Rifle Association has endorsed Gillibrand -- another cause for concern among some Democrats."

I expect her to vote along party lines, but it will be interesting to see if/when she will go against the Liberal Machine.


jpberthiaume said...

I have a hard time believing she would champion gun rights considering her other tendencies. It's nice that she is is pro-freedom in that regard, but it almost seems like a meaningless niche when you consider everything else (that you have pointed out).

It's New York -- I don't think any of us had great hope for even a moderate replacement. :)

DC said...


The gun rights issue is actually bigger than you might think. That combined with her fiscal conservatism are making some Dem's upset about the pick, but I love to see Dem's that are not all out liberal such as Obama and Pelosi and more centrist. I'm not saying I'm a 'fan' of her, I'm just saying there is positives to be seen in the pick.



Dinks said...


Interesting point about Gillibrand's voting record on stockholder control of executive compensation. When I've considered this, I've come down squarely in favor of stockholders rights when it comes to executive compensation.

The way I figure it, stockholders are owners of the corporation and therefore should rightfully control how much management gets paid.

Whats your stance on the issue?

DC said...


"Stockholders are owners of the corporation and therefore should rightfully control how much management gets paid."

I agree, as owners they should have direct influence on how much someone gets paid. But the main concern I have is when government starts getting involved in the private sector and try to limit executive pay when a company has received TARP funds and whatnot. Essentially I don't believe companies should get handouts!

Thanks for the comment!


Dual Income No Kids said...


I totally agree with you on this point.

Its harsh, but economic darwinism has long run positive effects on economic growth.