I don’t find highlighting the most probable causation of an action as being negative. When ANY politician acts in a manner to manipulate and use the public, I believe to should be mentioned for what it is.

I don’t question where the President gave out the donations to. He has every right to do whatever he choses with the money. A right that his own policies have made more difficult for others to enact.

But the fact that he is making politicial manuevers via the donations is insulting. It is blatant political posturing. And if pointing that out takes even 1/1000th of a percent away from his political gain from this, I have done the right thing.

And were I to have such funds to give away I would give to Darfur aid, create a new scholarship for kids from the Bronx, AIDS research, Haiti aid, and veteran groups.

Thank you for making a point. That being some will miss the trees for the forest. The news item is not how I felt, but that a representative of the people of New York are being given a disservice. Failure to answer questions of the public on monumental legislation is not an option for Congress, or at least it should not be.

You want this to be about me. To the extent that I asked the questions, and yes I am a member of the media, it is. I also happen to be a constituent. But your dislike at my factual evidence does not change the evidence.

Why aren’t you upset that a Senator is disregarding the public by sending out the same boilerplate message from 6 months prior? Why do you feel the need to attack me, personally even though you know nothing about me, rather than address a lack of respect to voters by a Senator?

You disagree with my views and manner? Fine, please write your own blog and Examiner articles. But that does not excuse what has been done to the public.

jane trahey says:
Isn’t it about time you stopped yammering about how Senator Gillibrand hasn’t called you up or written personal answers to your letters, you arrogant twit?

Who do you think you are that you deserve anybody’s personal attention when you are so confrontational? Take your personality disorder elsewhere, or else confine it to your personal blog.

You are starting to be seriously annoying with your obvious ego problems. And isn’t the Examiner supposed to be about news, and not serve as a digital trampoline for exhibitionists who have personal axes to grind?
March 10, 6:46 AM

More importantly, Senator Gillibrand has actively avoided facing constituents questions of the Health Care Reform issue. In fact, as stated, Sen. Gillibrand has gone so far as to respond to questions with a recycled boilerplate response that addresses none of the concerns.

Even if you agree with the Health Care Reform as proposed, can you honestly say that you think an elected official that refuses to answer questions and avoids response is acting in the best interests of constituents?

Also, based on my extensive coverage of the election of 2008, the fact is that several items in the current Health Care proposal were items that Secretary Clinton supported and President Obama was against. One example of that was the single payer issue, which in a national debate Obama opposed directly. So voters are not getting exactly what they voted for, or expected.

In addition, voters across the nation and in New York cast their votes for “change”. What voters have received on many issues has been the same partisan politics that have existed for decades at least.

Lastly, Sen. Gillibrand was never elected into her position. Therefore we cannot assume that all New Yorkers agree with her actions over the past year. And I believe no voter would elect a politician that actively avoids answering them

Lee says:
In my view Senator Gillibrand does a fine job of representing her constituents. The people of New York are interested in improving their health care choices and benefits.
March 9, 8:37 PM

Sam, NY says:
Why do you presume to know that everyone is against healthcare reform? The majority of Americans voted for a President and a party who were clearly in favor of it. Senator Gillibrand will win in November because she represents the view of the majority of New Yorkers.
March 9, 6:34 PM

Again, I do not represent or advocate for any candidate for the junior Senator seat in NY or anywhere. The questions asked of Jan Johnson was asked of Senator Schumer, Senator Gillibrand, and Harold Ford.

Jan Johnson is the only one of the group asked to respond to date. That response was provided above verbatim, as will be the response of any of those asked.

Larry Burke says:
As long as we continue to elect Republicans and Democrats, we will continue to get the establishment’s Socialist program. They are pre-selected, bought and paid for before they even run.
Why are we mentally tied to this habit of failure? Candidates from alternative parties at least offer us a chance to restore our country.
February 24, 2:54 PM

Christopher Kairnes says:
Although, I do not live in New York nor do I know Ms. Johnson. I do respect her arguments and agree that the Federal Government does not have constitutional authority to mandate such a suspicious piece of legislation. She brings up great points about where the campaign donations are coming from. Follow the money and it will usually take you someone up to something nefarious. I’m concerned also with my medical records being spread across the country. It isn’t the government’s business or anyone else’s to what conditions I may or may not have. She didn’t even get into the penalties and/or jail time for failing to adhere to this abominable elitist attempt to steal even more of our rights to choose for ourselves.
February 24, 5:15 PM