No response from Gillibrand

Just a quick note that Kirsten Gillibrand, the 20th district Democrat challenger, has not responded to my debate challenge. She had challenged Sweeney, the Republican incumbent in her district, to a debate. I thought her challenge to him was not genuine and was just a political ploy. Looks like I was correct.

There’s a bit more to the story. I was contacted by one local television personality who offered to host the debate and contacted her campaign. Still no response. That’s because she has no interest in a substantive debate. She’s playing the traditional political game of building positive name recognition while saying nothing controversial, and at the same time going negative on the incumbent.

Gillibrand is just another political insider who brings nothing of substance to the table. So far she’s showing a lot of political smarts and she’s raised a lot of special interest money. Sadly, that’s already what we have in Washington.

4 comments to No response from Gillibrand

  • Hello Warren,

    It would be nice if all politicians had substantial plans to free us from energy dependence. I think not enough has been done since the first energy crisis in the 70′s. Weren’t we supposed to wake up and invest in non-oil, renewable energy sources? It has been neglected for too long and it is refreshing to see someone mentioning anything about energy independence. I’d like to see what your alternative plan is if you are critical of Gillibrand. Let’s see some more meat.

    Energy Independence is not a partisan issue. It is a key ingredient in national security, developing a stable and sustainable economy, and decreasing the need to invade countries for natural resources.

    Thank you for your response, and I look forward to more discussion.

  • In response to “positive energy”, I support increased gas taxes with offsetting reductions in other taxes, and I have long supported a freeway monorail, built and run by the private sector in exchange for freeway right-of-way and permissive zoning around the stations.

    I agree this is non-partisan. Both parties have dropped the ball on this issue for a long, long time.

  • I’m interested to know what you think of requiring buildings to at least be net zero energy consumers, and preferrably energy producers using non-polluting, renewable energy sources. I’m sure increasing the gas tax won’t fly very well with the way gas prices are already. You’d be hurting the poor working people the most.

  • Resopnding to “Positive Energy”, I don’t like “requiring” things. That’s command and control regulation, and the regulations are often set by people who have no idea how difficult it might be to comply (or they just don’t care). I run a business and am getting ready to hire my first employee. The government requirements I have to meet to carry this out are a major hassle. For me the paperwork is the major hassle but in a mom-and-pop small business with less money coming in, the extra cost would also be a hassle. You impose these regulations and you destroy jobs and you destroy economic growth. Run a business for a few years and then let us know what you think of government regulations.

    Taxes are a far more effective way of encouraging conservation. Increasing the gas tax might not be popular on its own, but should fly if combined with offsetting reductions in other taxes so the average Joe or Jane breaks even (or maybe a little better than even if we – note the theme of this blog – stop wasting money all over the place). Europe, Canada and Japan are much more liberal and they have much higher gas taxes. Why is this so difficult?

    Gillibrand now calls for reducing the gas tax, while calling for CAFE at 60 mpg. Reducing the gas tax will not work, and when her CAFE standards hit home in the average Joe driving his scooter to work in the snow, we’ll see what’s popular.