The only person in the United States with worse political instincts than Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.
First, the self-professed defender of women’s rights waited until seven women had accused former Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., of groping and unwanted kissing before calling for his resignation in 2017. Seven accusers. Members of Congress are apparently allowed exactly six alleged acts of sexual misconduct before it is considered unacceptable behavior.
Now, Gillibrand and her campaign are blaming her paltry haul of $3 million in the first quarter on the role she played in ousting Franken from the Senate. Her campaign alleges in a memo obtained by the New York Times that Democratic donors are “punishing” the New York senator for “standing up for her values and for women.”
Because if there is one thing that will turn around abysmal polling and fundraising numbers during a primary, it is a direct attack on primary voters.
The Times reports:
In a memo obtained by The New York Times, the campaign reportedly said there’s “no question” that donors are retaliating in response to Gillibrand calling on Franken, who had been accused of sexual harassment, to step aside.
“There’s no question that the first quarter was adversely impacted by certain establishment donors — and many online — who continue to punish Kirsten for standing up for her values and for women,” the memo reads.
Here’s a thought: Perhaps donors are unenthusiastic about supporting Gillibrand in the 2020 Democratic primary not because she called for Franken’s resignation, but because they see her as exceedingly opportunistic, as evidenced by the fact that she flipped on her former colleague only after it appeared to be politically safe. There’s a reason her fundraising numbers are low, compared with the $18.2 million raised by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and the $12 million raised by Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and it is not because she supposedly stood up “for her values and for women.”
Maybe, like me, Democratic donors have kept track of Gillibrand’s history of all-too-convenient political “evolutions.” Perhaps they noticed that when she served in the House of Representatives between 2007 and 2009, she was pro-Second Amendment enough as to be characterized by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd as “an N.R.A. handmaiden in Bobby Kennedy’s old seat.” Perhaps they noticed that almost immediately after joining the Senate, Gillibrand actively fought against gun rights legislation she had championed as a member of the House. Perhaps donors have noted that the only thing that changed between Gillibrand boasting that she keeps “shotguns under her bed” and calling for a “women’s crusade” for stricter gun control laws is her donor and electoral base.
I am sure a fair number of donors also recall that, as a representative of an R+2 congressional district, Gillibrand used to oppose giving “amnesty to illegal aliens,” and that her overall position on immigration reform aligned closely with President Trump’s.
But now that she is a senator with presidential aspirations, many of her previous positions seem to have, ahem, shifted. Fancy that.
I think Democratic donors can be forgiven for investing their money elsewhere on candidates like Sanders, who, if nothing else, has been remarkably consistent throughout his career in Congress.
