Gillibrand says she won't vote for Mattis waiver
Source: Politico
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) on Thursday said she plans to vote against the waiver required for retired Marine Gen. James Mattis to serve as Donald Trump’s defense secretary.
Gillibrand’s early opposition to the waiver came less than an hour after Trump announced he would tap Mattis for the Pentagon. The popular commander, nicknamed "Mad Dog," is still expected to become the first defense secretary nominee in more than 60 years to win the congressional waiver that's necessary to install him as the military's civilian leader given his recent service in uniform.
“While I deeply respect General Mattis’s service, I will oppose a waiver," Gillibrand said in a statement. "Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and I will not vote for an exception to this rule.”
The law requiring a waiver for defense secretaries who have recently served in uniform dates back to 1947, and Congress indicated that it did not expect exceptions to the rule after allowing retired Army Gen. George Marshall to lead the Pentagon under President Harry Truman in 1950. Because the waiver is legislative, it could ultimately prove subject to a 60-vote threshold for Senate approval -- meaning that the GOP would have to secure at least eight Democratic votes in the upper chamber.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/kirsten-gillibrand-mattis-waiver-232099
= new reply since forum marked as read
Do unto others as they did to you, Congressional Dems! 
That was a Free Love Manifesto, in essence. It was a bit icky, frankly--and not because of the "homosexuality" word, either. It was a "Hey, Bang Away" type thing. Nowadays, we're smarter, and we understand things like coercion, abuse, victimization, grooming, and other things of that nature.
But the point is fair--he shaped his views to suit his audience. That creepy letter appealed in the "Love The One You're With/Pre-AIDS" era. People who lived in Burlington LIKED it that it was referred to as the "People's Republic of Burlington" in both an admiring and a snarky way.
ALL laws relating to sexuality? Child pornography? Child prostitution? Ewww. He wasn't thinking it through. I rather doubt he would want to be remembered as a champion of ADULTERY, either, even though he and Jane were likely practicioners before she unloaded the unlucky Mr. Driscoll. Never mind that, in that letter, he wanted to give "working" people a "break" on cigarette taxes! Talk about a dated concept...! Smoke away, the ACA will cure you?
Boy did he back away from it, though, when things got a bit more conservative on the sexuality scene. It just wasn't playing in the farms and hamlets across the state.
He's on video saying he favored "Civil Unions for VT." He takes the States Rights approach, saying that marriage is a "state issue" as opposed to a federal one. This was in 2006, and CSPAN has it. It's the debate when he ran against that GOP millionaire a bit after the 26 minute mark.
Gay marriage was selling in MA but it wasn't selling in VT in 2006, and Sanders wasn't stupid--he knew it.
But he wasn't -- despite his protestations -- "always there." Check this out from 2000:
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/fuggedaboudit/Content?oid=2291039
Sanders continues to refuse to give a clear answer regarding his position on civil unions.
In the 1980s, a year before he allowed those gays to have a Pride Parade in his city, Sanders also signed his own little "Defense of Marriage" Manifesto declaring "We Believe in Marriage" Week, which everyone seems to overlook. Marrige is between a Man and a Woman, it's a LIFELONG commitment, he said~! See--he was all over the page, too. Shall we call him a bitter hypocrite, and hold him to the same standards of purity?
My intent here is NOT to refight the primary, though--my intent is to show that THEY ALL DO IT. Sanders is no different than any other politician--he adopts views that his constituents want to hear.
SHOCKING EXPOSE: Politicians Cut Cloth According to the Measure! Film at Eleven!
MY POINT: Beating up politicians for not being perfect all the time is a waste of time--judge them by their overall record, and their trajectory. People who nitpick and finger - point and play the "Perfect is the enemy of the good" card are the jerks who give us the Trumps of this world, and I've no patience for them at all anymore.
I look at the big picture, and Senator Gillebrand on her worst fucking day is better than Donald Trump on his best day. She's also better than pretty much every damn Republican in public service today, as well. I'm not going to go back to her days as a representative in a blood red district, and question why she wasn't a screaming liberal when surrounded by a bunch of right-wing nuts. You adjust when you are a "representative," and you represent your constituents--otherwise, you're out of a job.
