Parsing Gillibrand

OK, so maybe Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand hasn't changed her tune so much on health-care reform, as a commenter pointed out on my post from a couple of days ago. There are still guns, immigration and gay rights as issues on which her position has moved significantly in a liberal direction since she was appointed as senator earlier this year. I'd give her a pass on all that if she'd just move the opposite way on abortion (where she's always been a pro-choice hard-liner), but that's not in the cards. Is it hopelessly naive to think that a public official's stand on any issue could be based on anything but political calculation and expediency?

Comments

[Brian]

It's a trap though, isn't it?

If she changes her mind, she's accused of flip flopping and political expediency.

If she doesn't, she's accused of putting her own personal agenda ahead of that of her constituents, of being unrepresentative.

(Bearing in mind that the makeup of her constituents has changed significantly from that of a somewhat conservative Congressional district to that of a fairly liberal state)

It boils down to what we want in a representative. Someone who presents their positions in a campaign and pushes them aggressively in office. Or someone who is play doh and simply figures out what his/her constituents want on any particular issue.

Ultimately, it comes down to the individual priorities of voters. You wouldn't mind her being unrepresentative of the state as a whole if she switched to anti-abortion. You would mind her being unrepresentative of the state as a whole if she switched to pro-gay marriage.