One of the things you can count on rightwing bloggers doing is to breathlessly describe how things are bad. They aren't actually going to do anything to make things better, but they will give a play-by-play of what's happening.
A case in point is Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York). Back in early 2009 after she was appointed to replace Hillary Clinton, I did my best to try to keep her position on immigration as good as possible: start at the end of the Gillibrand link and work to the top.
When Gillibrand represented upstate New York she was OK on immigration (a B grade from Numbers USA), but supporters of illegal immigration waged a campaign to change her position. I tried to resist, but as I recall no one else did anything. It would have been very good for the U.S. if she had broken with the stock Democratic Party position at least on that one issue, but I don't think anyone else lifted a finger.
With a background as a litigator, a face made for TV, two terms in the House and a few years in the Senate it’s not a bad resume. But if she gets too ambitious, voters will be reminded that Senator Gillibrand has a lot of history out there waiting to be explored. There’s a very lengthy piece this week at National Journal (yes... yes... I know, but bear with me) which should be a must read for watchers of national politics.
...She talked a good game in her house races, tough on supporting gun rights, tough on immigration and a number of other subjects. She even proudly joined the Blue Dog Coalition. But when Hillary was anointed to the State Department, NY’s Governor David Paterson (briefly filling in for Client Number Nine) appointed her to the Senate. Then the worm turned. Able to run as a full bore liberal in a statewide election, she quickly put on an entirely new face.
That's followed by this quote from the National Journal piece :
In 2009, two days before Gillibrand was sworn in to the Senate as Hillary Clinton’s successor, the 100-year-old Spanish-language newspaper, El Diario, splashed her picture across their cover with the headline: “Anti Inmigrante.” The piece quoted Peter Rivera, an Assembly member and now New York’s commissioner of labor, as saying her “hard-line stance” of opposing amnesty for undocumented immigrants “borders on xenophobia.” At the same time, a slew of House members, such as Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Carolyn McCarthy, threatened to run against her in 2010 because of her conservative record on guns.
Some or all of that was preventable. If opponents of amnesty had united or at least loosely collaborated to provide a contrary voice to those illegal immigration supporters, Senate votes on amnesty might be different. Gillibrand only heard from and was pressured by one side.
Note also the "yes... yes... I know" bit, as if something shouldn't be read just because it's from a particular source .
If you rely on leading rightwing media and you oppose amnesty, then your interests aren't being fully represented. The leading rightwing media is willing to endlessly discuss how your interests are harmed, but aren't willing or able to do much to prevent that from happening.
If anyone has any evidence of anyone else trying to maintain Gillibrand's fairly good immigration stance in 2009, leave a link in comments.
Want to make it less likely that things like this keep happening again and again? Write @Jazz Shaw, @Allahpundit, and other rightwing bloggers with your thoughts.
 hotair . com/archives/2013/10/26/
 nationaljournal . com/magazine/
 For a barely related example of yet more failure, a concerted effort would make it fairly easy to change the immigration reports from the National Journal, by assisting my campaigns (in comments and on Twitter) to discredit reporters like Fawn Johnson. As with Gillibrand, there's no concerted effort to do that.
Sat, 10/26/2013 - 11:51 · Importance: 3