In Thursday's debate, Randy Kuhl's answer to the question about Iraq referenced his trip to Baghdad this Summer. He said that he met with General Casey and learned more about the "very complex" reality over there.
Here's another perspective on VIP visits, from a soldier's letter home published in this week's Time:
Biggest Hassle — High-ranking visitors. More disruptive to work than a rocket attack. VIPs demand briefs and "battlefield" tours (we take them to quiet sections of Fallujah, which is plenty scary for them). Our briefs and commentary seem to have no affect on their preconceived notions of what's going on in Iraq. Their trips allow them to say that they've been to Fallujah, which gives them an unfortunate degree of credibility in perpetuating their fantasies about the insurgency here.
The whole letter is worth reading.
The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle's new poll asked one question of interest to the race in the 29th: "Will your view of the war in Iraq or feelings for President Bush play a role in your choices in the 2006 election?" 58% said "major", 24% said "minor", and 18% said "no".
Without polls in the 29th, it's hard to judge how base Republican voters, who are key to Kuhl's election, are feeling. One interesting indicator is Bob Lonsberry, a conservative radio commentator. Bob's Wednesday column is a good example of the trouble Kuhl faces with his base.
The theme of Bob's column was that base voters have a lot of justification for staying home, but they should instead go and vote for Republicans as the lesser of two evils. Money quotes:
The only thing that can bring all the base home is the dread and loathing surrounding any discussion of a "Speaker Pelosi" or a "Majority Leader Reid." To have one or both of those whiners setting the agenda of Congress would be a living hell for a genuine Republican.
So it boils down to this: While Republicans will certainly backstab you, Democrats will backstab you with a bigger knife.
[snip]
We can't bring ourselves to enthusiastically support the party that has so poorly represented us in recent years, but we can hold our noses and vote against candidates who will help Nancy Pelosi become speaker of the House.
I listened to a good part of Bob's show the next day, and I heard no real defense of the Republican Congressional leadership in his discussion of the Foley scandal. In fact, he spent a lot of time debunking the notion that a Democratic conspiracy was behind the release of the emails.
Bob made another observation in the comments section of the column:
elections are only local for fools and the politicians who try to take advantage of fools. we are voting on our national trade balance, our borders, the war with terror, the national debt and budget, the cancer of welfare. those are the issues that count, and they are all national.
Bob's beliefs are hard to peg: on some issues, he's a values conservative. On others, he's a libertarian conservative. But he usually takes his position based on a principle rather than just swallowing Republican talking points. His recent columns and shows reflect the disappointment of the principled conservative base, and they're an ill omen for Rep. Kuhl. Voting against something as nebulous as "Speaker Pelosi" doesn't energize values voters.
Randy Kuhl can't catch a break. When he voted against party on the seemingly innocuous Horse Protection Action, which outlawed the sale and transportation of horses for human consumption, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Now that vote was criticized at a Democratic farmers forum in Corning, since it will result in a "catastrophic problem of abused and unwanted horses".
Maybe Randy shouldn't have listened to Bo Derek on this one.
Thanks to MaryR, here's a link to a video of Kuhl's Ad on the New York Times site. It contains the same basic charges that I reviewed earlier, along with a little extra rhetorical frosting. In Kuhl's "I support this ad" tagline, he says that he voted to cut taxes. As I noted earlier, when we're running big deficits, tax cuts alone don't impress even solid conservatives like Bob Lonsberry.
(The Times makes it hard to link to video. If that link doesn't work, go here and search for Kuhl.)
The coverage of yesterday's non-debate in Canandaigua was a prime example of what's wrong with local media. In their own special ways, each media outlet made sure that the story was jammed into a template I call "Those Fucking Politicians are At It Again", or "TFP" for short.
TFP is a product of the shallow, easy cynicism of the local news outlets. It begins with the lazy assumption that issues are a yawn: Nobody wants to hear the bullshit that these fuckers spout, so at least half of the story has to be about the ephemera surrounding the debate, or someone will turn the channel. Some of that ephemera must be local, because we're local news, not national news. Plus, it's a debate, right? That means it's a confrontation, so we need to put conflict front and center. And let's look for a "gotcha" or "gaffe", because one or both of the "politicos" (media-speak for "fucking politician") will say something stupid we can laugh at.
The Gannett coverage is a good example. The Star-Gazette's headline, "Kuhl, Massa exchange barbs in Canandaigua", was perfectly wrong, yet pure TFP. A "barb", which is a term that fits nicely in a headline but is never used in real life, is a nasty, cutting remark. Not a single barb was uttered at the event, but no matter, TFP demands conflict, so there must have been barbs.
The Gannett story led with the some TFP ephemera: the "overflow" crowd full of somewhat boisterous Massa supporters, and Kuhl's comment that he didn't bring an applause group. Here's the real story on the crowd: that room was the usual location for the weekly Rotary meeting, and it was barely big enough to hold the Rotarians. It was crowded, not a crowd. But facts don't matter to Gannett: they'd call two people in a phone booth an "overflow crowd" if it fit their template.
The D&C's picture of the crowd is a two-fer because, in addition to showing that the room was in fact crowded, the expression on the crowd's faces shows that those fucking politicians are bo-ring.
WHAM's actual story at least began with facts about the debate rather than facts about the room. However, as you can see in the video, anchor Don Alhart's intro was already pointing us to the meat of the matter: Randy Kuhl is uncomfortable with debates. This sets us up for one of the two TFP components in the WHAM coverage, the gaffe. Today's gaffe was Kuhl's not-too-bright statement about Katrina. The Massa campaign is eating it up, but in a sober moment I'm sure even they agree that gotcha politics are pointless and stupid.
More importantly, Kuhl's aw-shucks comment that he's not comfortable with confrontation was pure horseshit. The debate wasn't confrontational, and he's a career politician who's actually pretty good at public speaking. That comment was made to add a faux underdog air to his campaign, and Alhart ate it up just as Kuhl intended.
The second TFP component in the WHAM coverage is the local angle. Just like clockwork, a Massa supporter and a Kuhl supporter are interviewed. Guess what each of them thought and, moreover, who gives a shit?
WHAM will probably devote 20 airtime minutes this year to the campaign in the 29th district. If, like last night's story, 1/3 of that is devoted to some random asshole's partisan opinion, and another third is a gotcha moment, that leaves something like 7 minutes to report on matters truly relevant to the election. For this election, 7 minutes is nowhere near enough time to form an educated opinion.
(If anyone's actually read this far, you might be interested in two other media-related stories. The first is a study showing that the Daily Show's reporting on the '04 election was as substantive as mainstream media, and actually focused less on the hype. The second is Michael Kinsley's recent piece on the role of opinion in journalism.)
The D&C story on the debate includes one in Rochester on October 16 on RNews, the Time-Warner cable channel. This looks like news to both campaigns, since neither has it on their calendars.
(Update: Kuhl just posted it. Massa also has it on his Debate Page.)
As predicted, the VA announced yesterday that the Canandaigua VA Hospital will remain open. Randy rhapsodized:
The Canandaigua V.A. Medical Hospital is a special place. There's a soul here and a soul that needs to continue.
I wasn't aware that souls become more visible and in need of preservation one month before elections, but perhaps I'm not as erudite a theologian as Rep. Kuhl.
I heard Randy Kuhl's latest ad on the radio today. Using the term "Liberal Eric Massa", it charged that Massa wants to raise estate taxes, income taxes, and also create a sales tax on Internet purchases. The ad also charged that Massa's tax plan would result in an average tax burden increase of $2000 per person in the 29th.
Massa has published his tax position here. Like every other politician on earth, there are no plans there to raise taxes, only to redistribute the tax burden. In Massa's case, he wants to move it off of the middle class. I'm sure that Kuhl can back up the arithmetic in his ad, so he must have chosen some group on the fringe of middle class, declared that group average, and calculated the tax change as $2K. That's a standard operating procedure for ads like this.
I heard this ad on the Bob Lonsberry show, while driving to the debate in Canandaigua. On my return trip, I heard Bob say that when a politician promises a tax cut, the first thing we should ask is where the money's coming from to finance the cut. Good question, Bob.
At today's debate, Randy Kuhl said he wanted to balance the budget immediately. He also supports the war in Iraq. There aren't enough tax revenues to do both. So, on the logic of his ad, he, too, wants to raise taxes. Also, as the Massa campaign points out, Kuhl has a track record of 24 years in the New York legislature, many of those years in leadership positions. New York's tax burden is among the nation's highest. There's no evidence that Kuhl's ever worked to lower taxes.
I think there's a core group of voters who hate taxes so much that they will respond to this type of ad. But most voters have heard ads like this so often that they're skeptical. For those folks, ads like these are so much noise. Even Lonsberry, who's quite conservative, has a hard time buying generic political claims on taxes. These voters want to see some action to lower taxes before they buy into election-year tax scares.
If you like your food and your politics bland and pre-digested, I commend you to the Canandaigua Rotary Club. A find organization, to be sure, but the event they hosted this afternoon was like a white-bread sandwich from their buffet. No taste, no texture, and very little meat.
In a real debate, each candidate usually has an opportunity to refute the other's answer to questions. At this event, each candidate had 3 minutes to answer the question, and then moved on. Because of these ground rules, both candidates tended toward uninformative stump rhetoric. Part of this is due to the nature of Rotary, which is really a fine organization, but one devoted to harmony rather than discord.
So, with that understanding, on to the "debate":
From the opening statement to the last word, it was Eric "Look at the World" Massa vs. Randy "Look at the District" Kuhl. After subtly pointing out that the Mayor of Canandaigua was a supporter, Massa began by saying that the election was about staying the course or changing course. Kuhl began with a recitation of his local boy resume peppered with a few Canandaigua references.
Two of the questions were on Iraq and the NIE's take on Islamic fundamentalism. Kuhl repeated his "I went to Iraq and I saw ..." answer, omitting the references to eating lobster, for the first. Massa's response laid out his partition strategy. For the second, Kuhl went through a disquisition on the secrecy of the document (very softly implying that he might know better, since he's read the whole thing), and then pointed out that one of the conclusions of the document was that beating Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq would deal a blow to that movement in general. Massa talked about how not finishing the job in Afghanistan emboldened fundamentalists, and that we've got our eye off the ball in the "18th century" occupation of Iraq.
Since the next question, on health care, had Massa go first, he talked about his experience surviving cancer, and then pointed out that 47 million people are without health care in the US. Health care is his #1 reason for running, and he favors a single-payer system. He also made a point that scare talk about "socialized medicine" doesn't let the debate get off the ground, and that the most important thing is that we re-open this debate. Kuhl began with an arithmetic lesson, pointing out that 253 million have health care in the US, and the issue is getting the rest of us covered. He pointed to the Baldwin-Price Health Care Bill, which pushes the issue down to the states, as one of the things he supports. Kuhl's statement that a good portion of the uninsured work, and therefore elect not to have coverage, came out a bit clueless, since he seemed to imply that all workers have access to affordable health care. Because this wasn't a real debate, he didn't get a chance to clarify that statement, which Massa would have challenged.
On to Jobs and the Economy. How do we get more jobs, including manufacturing jobs, back here? Kuhl thinks we need to balance the budget and get more federal funds back to the 29th. Massa thinks the culprit is overly permissive trade agreements, and he wants to see better enforcement of, if not changes to, CAFTA, NAFTA and similar pacts. He also pointed out that New York gets 74 cents back for every dollar sent to DC, and he hopes that a new congressional delegation (hint, hint) and a new Governor will be able to work together to better that amount.
The next question was a Miss America: "As a representative, how do you advance local issues vs. national issues. Does one take priority over the other?" And, if elected, how will you work toward world peace and harmony? (Just kidding, I added that last sentence.). Both candidates gave speeches. Massa's centered around protecting the constitution, and patriotism over partisanship. Apple pie would have been mentioned, but time ran out. Kuhl's speech began by genuflecting to Amo Houghton as an icon of civility, and went on to explain how he tries to balance all of the demands on his time. No mention of his golf handicap, but, again, time ran out.
Finally, the deficit and national debt. Kuhl thinks we need to balance the budget immediately, that Congress is "out of control", as is the President (I believe I wrote that down correctly). He points out that he voted for a debt reduction act that shaved $37 billion from some programs. Massa's response got the only laugh of the day: When someone told him that we're spending like a drunken sailor, he told them that at least drunken sailors stop spending when they run out of money. He pointed out that budgets were balanced under a different administration (apparently we dare not speak its name), and that we need to "Just Say No" to spending increases. He also noted that the national debt is really a tax on our children.
This was perhaps the most unsatisfying part of the debate, because nobody needs another lecture on how debt is bad and self-control is the issue. But that's the way the Rotary, um, rotates, so we must move on.
Finally, and not one moment too soon, it was time for closing remarks. Massa repeated the stay the course vs. change argument, and pointed very gently in the direction of l'affair Foley: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and "headlines we don't want to explain to our children". Nothing direct. He got a round of applause from his supporters, who had packed the room.
Kuhl said that he knew this was a Rotary event and didn't think he needed to bring a bunch of his supporters (in a very pleasant way, it looks worse in print). He also said that he's not comfortable with confrontation, but that events like this are important. In other words, Massa went a bit too far, tsk-tsk (pianissimo).
Then, for the first time of the day, he showed what a total minefield this election has become for a Republican incumbent. He started listing accomplishments and mentioned the response to Katrina as one of them, which got a guffaw from the Massa supporters in the audience. Kuhl pointed out the amount of money that Congress had appropriated, and how quickly it had been done, apparently oblivious that the real issue wasn't the money available, but how it was spent. Overall, though, the theme of his summary was that he went to Washington to represent and to change things, not to make friends. He's country, not DC.
All in all, a very gentlemanly affair. I think Rotarians left with a broad idea of a few major disagreements between the two, but it wasn't a real debate. TV cameras and reporters were present, but I'll bet that the sound bites that make the news tonight won't be from the debate. Instead, we'll hear Massa and Kuhl answer questions on the Foley matter asked afterwards by reporters.
Yesterday, Randy Kuhl said that the Speaker of the House, the man second in the line to the Presidency, should be held to the same standard as a defendant in a criminal trial. Today, as part of backgrounders in preparation for today's debate in Canandaigua, he had another chance to speak out on the Foley matter. Let's take a close look at what he said:
All of this activity all happened before I was even there.
Not true: the initial emails were received and "processed" by the House leadership in the Fall of 2005 and Spring of 2006. Kuhl was in office during that time.
Isn't it interesting it all just comes out now?
Yes it is. Why would a House GOP aide leak emails to the press? And why didn't Hastert and Reynolds take care of the problem when they first heard about it a year ago?
My opponent is trying to capitalize. I think that's scurrilous. It's just outrageous for them to try to do that.
Absolutely true: his opponent is trying to capitalize on the scandal. I'll leave the ultimate judgment of whether that's "scurrilous" or "outrageous" to the reader, but I think there's a legitimate question of abuse of power and responsibility behind the salacious emails.
Here's another interesting quote:
I think that any calling at this point for any resignations is just political pandering. There's no question about in my mind and I'm very disappointed that my opponent has joined into that.
Perhaps Randy should write a letter to the pandering editors of the conservative National Review, which has called for the resignation of Rep. John Shimkus, head of the Page Committee. Or perhaps he has a bone to pick with the panderers at the conservative Washington Times, who said yesterday that Speaker Dennis Hastert should resign.
None of Kuhl's responses printed today are anything more than spin. How about: "I want my leadership to do better." That's a simple one. Can Kuhl agree to it?
Randy Kuhl has responded to Massa's challenge:
Kuhl said there has to be a presumption that Hastert is innocent until proven guilty. He says Congress owes it to parents to make sure their children are protected while serving as House Pages. But he also said the facts will come out, and if Hastert was at fault he'll be replaced when the House reorganizes its leadership after the election. Right now, Kuhl says he doesn't know that Speaker Hastert has failed in his responsibility.
He declined to back away from the Speaker, or to say what he would have done Hastert's place or in Congressman Tom Reynolds' place.