Kirsten Gillibrand was struggling with or awkwardly evading a question from Chris Wallace about whether she would go through with a fundraiser hosted by a Pfizer executive — with tickets at $1,000 to $2,700 — now that Elizabeth Warren has announced today that she won't do any fundraisers with high-priced tickets.
I'm watching that after JRoberts, in the comments to an earlier post today, mentioned it, and said:
My wife and I were laughing at her most of the time. She seemed unable to present her ideas coherently and settled for filibustering Wallace. I've not taken her too seriously for 2020, but in my mind she has even less creditability as a result of that interview.Gillibrand tries so hard and so unconvincingly to act as if Wallace is preventing her from answering. How many times did she say "let me finish"? I need the transcript:
WALLACE: OK, but answer my one question directly.Answer: 6!
GILLIBRAND: I will - I will, but let me finish - let me - let me finish - let me finish. I got you - I got you. I got your point. I'm going to get to it....
WALLACE: OK, but what about $2,700 tickets?
GILLIBRAND: Let me finish - let me finish. So what's wrong with Washington is there's so much corruption, so much corruption, so much greed. We can't actually pass common sense gun reform in this country, not because the American people aren't behind, because they are, but because the NRA's more worried about gun sales than they are about the wellbeing of our kids. So what's really wrong with Washington is corruption and greed.
WALLACE: Can you answer my question?
GILLIBRAND: Yes, just let me finish.
WALLACE: OK....
Posts
85 comments:
She's just another old white woman who will get lost in the scuffle. warren, her, koblach, isn't there another one?
She is a joke to most people in upstate NY.
Elizabeth Warren has announced today that she won't do any fundraisers with high-priced tickets.
I stand in solidarity with the Cherokee lady on this issue!
And, so far, only this issue.
Chris Wallace has a look of bemusement on his face. I'm surprised he didn't roll his eyes.
She’s lost some weight, which will help her look less like Hillary.
Here's mine question...
WHAT is IT about female politicians that they think that their hands (And Arms) MUST be in motion WHENEVER their lips are?
I noticed this first with Hillary, but it seems true of All female politicians now. With every word (sometimes with Every syllable), their hand position has to change (like they were signing in ASL).
Now, i understand that since they're on TV; they were told not to just sit there and talk (i don't understand why) . Even the guys move their hands (usually at the start of a sentence or to emphasize a point.
But female politicians feel (apparently were TOLD) that they Have to keep their hands moving AT ALL TIMES. This makes them seem (to me, at least) to be flapping their arms; on account of because of the fact that they are flapping their arms.
Why do they do this? Are there people that this affects in a Positive way?
1) Man-hating mattress-girl supporting harpy in favor of the "dear colleague" letter. No.
2) BLM supporter. No.
3) Hate Hoax supporter. No.
4) All-aboard-the-support-'whamyn'-train. No.
5) Hates Trump because he reminds her of that BMOC that 5Fd her. No.
6) Massive ditz with an ego to match. No.
7) Middle-aged white female democrat......NO
In a word, no.
A race to the bottom
I get the nervous concept. If I watched network news on a regular basis; the best thing would be not to have kids. I'd probably take myself out. At least in fictional, err scripted fictional, err self-acknowledged scripted fictional drama, the story moves along rather than harping on the one "scary" thing for 36 to 72 hours.
As for Chris Wallace's question; that question seems a softball compared to his debate performance with Trump. During the debate, Hillary easily lied about her willingness to accept the results. It was easy for Hillary. We know she lied, because we spent the last two years hearing how she only lost because of Russian collusion based on the Dossier she purchased. Gillibrand needs to get better at lying or, better yet, own up to having the fundraiser. So what if she's a stooge of the Pharmaceutical Industry. That's job for NY and influence with the same companies to get them to lower prices. See, that's a spin. BS, but a spin.
WALLACE: This is a drug executive who's holding this [fundraiser] meeting.
GILLIBRAND: And who's a dear friend who I've known for years and years, who believes in my gay rights platform and believes in women's rights and women's equality.
WALLACE: OK, but what about $2,700 tickets?
Well, as long as they support YOU, I guess that makes all the difference.
It really is true that Trump is the only person in politics that is different. Everybody else is an automaton repeating buzzwords and phrases that mean nothing. Trump may do some of that too, but at least they are different phrases than the same ones we have heard our entire lifetime. I think that after two centuries of it, we will not be getting money out of politics. Can we just accept that, and stop saying it? Every time you say it, you are lying.
Remember that Hollywood movie about the politician who was sick of all the fakeness and decided to just tell the truth and it made that politician super popular?
Has she ever had to deal with non-softball questions before?
Leland said...As for Chris Wallace's question; that question seems a softball
Did you notice that they placed a overly large Banner saying TAKING THE PLUNGE over her hands to try and cover them up so that you couldn't see how spastic she was? They TRIED to make her as good as they could; but something about silk purses
She doesn’t realize that a full-throated defense of $2,700 fundraiser tickets with some humor would help her. But she can’t because she’s running in the Dem primaries.
Yeah, baby, four years of THAT coming from the Oval Office! We'll all miss Trump's tweets after five minutes of her.
She even got in a reference to the Koch brothers. Haven't they given up on the GOP? They certainly have on Trump. Kirsten, get in the game!
If she can’t handle a typical Chris Wallace tongue bath, with occasional feints at biting, how would she fare debating Trump? She seemed as lost as Ted (“Why do I want to be president?”) Kennedy did. These were simple answers. Fund raising is what these people DO. She should have been ready to answer that easily, with wit and a firm “this is how I’m running MY campaign!” She’s dust.
My impressions of her going into that interview were that she is the lightest of lightweights in the race (so far) and a distant fourth of the females.
If the liberal press are not going after her they must agree and not see her as a threat to their chosen one.
If she makes Meade nervous now, just wait until she is installed as our 46th President.
WALLACE: OK, but what about $2,700 tickets?
answer - people are clamoring to get in - so we are rationing by price - NOT : so we can pretend that
I would hope for a Presidential Chick that was smarter than that.
But not as corrupt as the rest of them.
I am Laslo.
"Yes" or "no" will do.
Hillary proved you can't buy elections but to run a campaign you do need a budget to pay for things. Elizabeth Warren won't have to worry about that since she's not going anywhere. If I were GIllibrand I wouldn't feel a need to answer to Elizabeth Warren.
I din't find her rabbityness distracting, either. All for naught since she's not going anywhere either....
"Her rabbityness" = Peppy LaPine
She's someones future VP running mate at best. She's always been awkward. She was gifted her Senate seat when Hillary vacated it. And for a Dem in deep blue NY any re-election has been an effortless foregone conclusion. As a result she's never had to actually really campaign and be held to any real level of scrutiny. It's obvious she's out of her depth here.
WALLACE: "OK, but what about $2,700 tickets?"
Gilli: "Untrue Chris" ....... (mutters under her breath) "tickets reduced to $2599."
Elizabeth Warren has announced today that she won't do any fundraisers with high-priced tickets.
I.e., no ticket scalpers.
Rabbityness never won the presidency. Except for Carter, but his rabbityness was more in his face.
Her initials spell "KEG." She needs to do some keg stands to buff up those forearms.
Chris,I think it is a shame that vast amounts of money are needed to have an effective run for a major office in 2019. But it is. Senator Warren can make the choice she has, although there are a lot of other avenues for her to raise large amounts of money. I can not cripple my ability to run effectively when the other candidates have not made that pledge.
I will tell you I can not be bought by a $1,000 ticket. My voting record shows where I stand.
Doesn't seem too tough.
"we need to get money out of politics"
LOL - what a crock.
OK - you first Clintons.
Next up - Bernie. The man who hath made millions off of tax payers.
Meade nails her.
Remember that Hollywood movie about the politician who was sick of all the fakeness and decided to just tell the truth and it made that politician super popular?
Yes but in typical Hollywood fashion the politician's "truth" is a left wing fantasy. In reality left wingers have to lie because there aren't enough stupid Americans to vote for their actual beliefs. That's why their media allies help cover up their true goals and positions.
You nailed it Rick ^^^^^^^^^^^
The left ran the most corrupt money-grubbing person in the history of politics - and now they whine about corruption and money in politics.
I used to think senators were all wise solons. Now I know they're more like Mafia dons, greedy, stupid and vicious.
Half off topic, but with Kamala coming out in favor or reparations, I'm not seeing a major-league candidate that can remain even remotely plausible in the general election, except for a couple white males, Beto or Biden.
That's why the public school system is churning out an army of kids who are not equipped to handle the real world. But they are brainwashed to support left wing fascism.
Now I know they're more like Mafia dons, greedy, stupid and vicious.
Mafia dons are smarter and know what they are doing and why.
And they outspent their rivals at least two to one, with McCain it was more like six to one.
We got to get money out of politics, LOL. The dems are so dishonest.
"Elizabeth Warren has announced today that she won't do any fundraisers with high-priced tickets."
Probably because she floated high-price tickets and found no buyers.
Does it matter who they run, assuming a Democratic party victory?
All of them are auditioning for a role as a figurehead, as Obama was.
These people are not unmoved movers, they are rather offering themselves as puppets.
The most plausible puppet will be given this actors part in the theater of the campaign, and in the theater of their term.
A US President can be, to a large degree, an unmoved mover, and most in the past have been, for good or ill. This sort of thing is no longer in favor.
Among the characteristics of Trump is that he is the unmoved mover, which has not been seen in a long time. He is not just an actor playing his part, but the impresario, the producer, director and writer of his theater.
Meade's right and it occurs to me, if Gillibrand gets the nomination, Althouse may finally be forced to read 'Watership Down'
Yikes, and I used to think it was torture listening to Hillary’s voice. Now we have to put up with this chick and the Indian woman?
"Althouse may finally be forced to read 'Watership Down'"
When's the last time I read a book with animals for characters?
I did contemplate rereading "Animal Farm," but that aside, unless I was reading with a child, I can't picture it happening.
I'm thinking of doing a post on best books for adults with animals as characters, so give me some tips. Don't tell me about children's books!
And I mean talking animals that are the main characters, not stuff like a guy goes looking for his lost cat (which I did read recently — "The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle").
She seems a lot like AOC. Like there were giant alien vegetable pods in their basements that took on human form and replaced whatever they were before. Who's next?
When she started I was reminded of what movie mogul Jack Warner said when he heard that Ronald Reagan was running for governor:
“No, no, Jimmy Stewart for governor; Ronald Reagan for best friend.”
Amy Adams for president; Kirsten Gillibrand for best friend.
But Gillibrand got so manic that it was hard to see her playing second fiddle to anyone else.
Too much caffeine?
Anyway, it's nice to see the candidates in action so that one can cross them off the list.
The last couple of years I've thought the possibility of another HRC run grossly improbable. But, given the clownish rabble of Democrats who've declared their candidacies, I'm increasingly thinking she's biding her time for a Savior of The Party move.
Just another Democratic hack of no particular talent or skills, who is used to softball interviews by friendly journos and can't deal with an honest interviewer (let alone a hard one, which Wallace isn't)
This is my last comment about this politician.
Gillibrand is what you get when one goes to expensive private schools till 21.
Why do they do this? Are there people that this affects in a Positive way?
It's one of the first thing a porn star learns......keep your hands moving.
No, I'm not kidding.
Go ask Kirsten
When she’s ten feet tall
This is not terribly surprising. Gillibrand has no principles or core beliefs beyond her own advancement. Her positions on any matter are completely dependent on what her audience wants to hear. The only thing unique about her is she's not very good at it. Her position changes are both blatant and wild, and if the issue at hand is not something she has not test polled she has no idea which way to move. It's amazing she has managed to advance this far with basically no political skills.
Rabbityness never won the presidency. Except for Carter, but his rabbityness was more in his face.
Jimmy Carter was attacked by a rabbit.
She chose to bring up/walked right into the Medicare drug pricing conflict in response to questions about her drug exec friend's fund raising for her, then scrambled to create perceived distance/distinctions with a load of SJW BS.
That obfuscation required Wallace to wait.
I watched it thinking, my God she's annoying. But I was shutting my mouth so as to not annoy my own wife, who, after a few minutes walked out of the room declaring "I cannot listen to her anymore. Does she ever stop talking?"
My wife is a voting Democrat. She saw in Gillibrand the same things I see: phony with talking points to make no matter the questions or that there might be another person in the room. Could have been a cardboard cut-out in front of her. Her goal was to hit her points and keep talking so that no questions could be asked or followed up on.
That will work for the staff at Salon. Not many others.
Gillibrand is intensely dislikable. Just a younger Hillary without all the crimes attached.
"Meade nails her."
OMG! I knew it.
bagoh20 said... "Meade nails her." OMG! I knew it.
GROSS! Meade! Say it's NOT TRUE!!!!
She's unfocused and fluffy, but I don't find her unlikeable. She seems pleasant enough. I wouldn't crawl over twenty yards of broken glass to vote against her like I would with Hillary and Warren. There's no particular reason to vote for her, but she doesn't deliver her platitudes and pieties in an annoying or self righteous way. This is something that should be encouraged in Dem politicians.
Buwaya makes a shrewd observation about Trump being the unmoved mover. He really is the rock upon which waves break. I don't see any of the Dem candidates with this quality, but some of them look like they could ride a wave. Gillibrand is trying to ride the ripple in a placid pond.
That right there is squirrely, not rabbity
Know your rodent
GILLIBRAND: And who's a dear friend who I've known for years and years, who believes in my gay rights platform and believes in women's rights and women's equality.
Doesn't Wallace know the magic incarnation of "gay rights, women's rights, and women's equality" is used to force the questioner to move on?
Because it usually works.
I just watched with the sound off. If it wasn’t for the cars in the background moving normally, I had the feeling the tape had been speeded up, she was so “rabbitty”.
Wallace was "mansplaining"
She's sitting on her main qualification for elected office.
Well, Harry Reid did call her the "hottest member" of the Senate.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/21/reid-calls-gillibrand-the-hottest-member/
How many times did she say "let me finish"?
It worked for Ross Perot.
I don't know about likable or unlikable. With coaching she may be able to rein in some her rabbitty or manic mannerisms. That still won't make her a heavyweight, though.
The lesson of AOC, though, may be that apparent defects of manner can be an advantage. If you don't agree with the message and you focus on how someone speaks rather than on what they are saying you may end up being less hostile to them. Watching her is easier than watching some of the more dead earnest and direct politicians, in spite all of the manic activity. I don't think it works in the voting booth, but she's entertaining in a way.
Yo9u can identify a Democrat by their answers to avoid answering.
"It worked for Ross Perot. "
To be fair, Ross Perot had a lot of substance to say, and he didn't get much of a chance to say it.
He was earnestly trying to educate, which is not necessarily a practical thing to attempt.
i can't get past the silly Man-witch trial moment, where promising SuperWoman of the Senate Gillibrand threw 1000 years of English-language law out the window when fellow Dem Senator Comic McNastyMan was caught in the #MeToo Kleiglights.
Men long ago developed our structures to protect the rights of all those accused, and god bless them for it.
Democrat women like Gillibrand and Hillary Clinton are fine with generating hysterical mob rule and treating the people like cattle to herd. Gillibrand showed us how unready she is to meet the tests set down by Good Men: instead she was out and proud to shred first principles, toss them out like a ticker tape parade in celebration of something woman-y.
ptewy.
say, how about we find a transgender woman to be our next dem candidate? like those college track runners who beat all the cisgender females, maybe it takes a man to win being our first successful woman president, and it might make Her a better president than one of these petty, silly, not-as-good women.
I recently saw her speak. In her stump speech, she talks about her childhood and how she wanted to be in politics from the age of seven. Somehow she just wanted to be in politics. Then she somehow ended up in a church in August and saw some ladies stuffing envelopes in sleeveless dresses, their upper arms all flabby, and she wanted to be just like them and have their flabby arms, and so on.
She forgot to mention that her grandmother was for decades one of the most powerful people in the Democratic party in Albany. How much more honest-and powerful-had she said, "I had strong female role models in my family, and I grew up believing that a woman could do anything." Instead she played eye-batting, little ol' me role.
She also said she was electable because she could carry 'Red' areas like her former Congressional district in upstate New York. She forgot to mention that what really helped her win that election was that her campaign dumped dirt on her opponent about his marital problems.
She said global warming caused Hurricane Sandy, and that hurricane ripped children out of a mother's arms, killing them. Translation: If you don't believe in global warming, you are in favor of babies being ripped out of mothers arms by hurricanes. Overall, she came across as harsh and angry. People want their presidents to be likable.
She shouldn't even bother getting in the race at this point. She'd just lose.
Wallace could've let her go on and on ... To Sum it up with she never answered the question folks.
You know, its not that hard to elect a woman President.
Lots of countries have. Lots of countries have had plausible female candidates who have fought their way up fair and square, or at least without any special woman-ey sort of pandering. There are lots of female leaders who got there with a disproportionately male vote.
And most of these places had a more "sexist" sort of society than the US has had since the 1950's.
Rabbit Run.
If Trigglypuff was a bunny.
Don't you wish she'd given the straight answer to Wallace's question: Yes, I oppose fund-raisers like mine, and if I'm elected I'll be sure that no one else is ever allowed to raise money the way I am.
She lost me with her first sentence - "We need to get money out of politics." I stopped the play back at that point.
Getting a message out to 300,000,000 plus people when you are competing with 400 channels of TV, You Tube, Netflix, Facebook, Blogger, and a host of lesser distractions takes a lot of money. Campaign finance fund raising restrictions make money scarce. It's scarcity makes the candidate more beholden to those who can successfully fund raise. It means office holders spend inordinate percentage of their time and attention on fund raising. Removing the restrictions will make fund raising easier. Money will be easier to come by -- it will be less scarce. Officer holders will be less beholden to bundlers, etc. and will spend less time devoted to fund raising and more time focused on the tasks of the office.
Campaign finance laws are a quintessential example of unintended consequences, and she and those that think like her are a problem.
As old as this post has become, I assume few will see this comment. However, one of the things she (and other Dems) say is essentially that money that comes from groups like the NRA (which is voluntarily funded by its members) is BAD in the political process, but money that comes from groups like Planned Parenthood or public employee unions (which are largely funded involuntarily by its members, or worse, by the tax payers) is GOOD.
Total hypocrites.
Post a Comment