Oh my, this is too much:
For the last eight years, the pattern of the working conservative majority has been for a minority of Democrats to join with unanimous Republicans in passing bad legislation. In that environment, Gillibrand would almost certainly have been a bad choice for Senator, especially from a state as blue as New York. However, that pattern of conservative governance broke down over the Wall Street bailout, and has never recovered. Since that time, there have been two sorts of roll call votes in Congress: unanimous Democrats passing bills with a minority of Republican support, and chaotic alliances between a majority of Republicans, along with a smattering of Blue Dogs and progressives, defeated by a “serious people consensus” alliance of a minority of Republicans, a majority of Democrats and the President (whether Bush or Obama). In this environment, someone like Gillibrand is arguably a more useful vote for progressives than a more traditionally liberal Senator would be, as demonstrated by her voting patterns on bailouts.
No, Chris, the Wall Street bailout did not breakdown the voting balance. We still have Republicans voting with Blue Dogs against progressive and mainstream Democrats. The only thing that changed is that you aligned yourself with Republicans and Blue Dogs and called the move ‘progressive’. Then, you looked at one particular Blue Dog, Kirsten Gillibrand, and realized that lo and behold, she agrees with you about the bailout.
Let me repeat myself. No caucus in Congress is more supportive of the bailout than the Progressive Caucus. Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, Raul Grijalva, John Lewis, Neil Abercrombie, Donna Edwards, Dave Loebsack, John Hall, Jerry Nadler, etc., all disagree with you about the bailout. The more conservative you are (as Nate Silver demonstrates), the more likely you are to oppose the bailout, which is a curious thing considering it is supposed to be a huge rip-off for the right-wing corporatists, or something.
Chris finds something to like in Gillibrand because he happens to hold the Blue Dog/Republican position on something. That’s fine, but please stop pretending it is the progressive position. It’s not.