The Fighting 29th

All about New York's 29th Congressional District

Randy Kuhl makes much of his local background and his 24 years in the New York State legislature. At the debate in Bath, where his successors in both the state Assembly and Senate were present, he went through a long discussion how he decided to run for Congress. Part of his reasoning was that it was time to let those two get a chance to move up in the organization. Both are running unopposed, as Kuhl did 9 of the 12 times he ran for state office.

Kuhl's campaign manager is his son James. His main spokesman, Bob Van Wicklin, also worked for Amo Houghton, who had 79% of the vote the last time he ran for Congress.

Though Kuhl can rightly claim that he has far more legislative experience than Eric Massa, he can't make the same claim about campaign experience. This is probably the first tight race of his political career, and it's also probably the first for his staff. As we come down the home stretch, we can expect both campaigns to make a few "first timer" mistakes. That's what makes this race so interesting.

Rochesterturning has the most in-depth coverage of last night's debate.  Rnews's short story on the debate is the only other piece I've seen.   It sounds like not much new ground was covered.

According to Rnews, in a question on Katrina, both candidates agreed that FEMA should be a stand-alone agency, and Kuhl was "was totally amazed at the inability and failure of FEMA just a year ago during Katrina".  That's a bit of a switch from his response in Canandaigua, where he played up the speed at which Congress appropriated money during the Katrina disaster.

Rochesterturning reports that Massa gave a defense of same sex civil unions.  Kuhl repeated his opposition to gay marriage.  The issue of equal rights for homosexuals is an interesting one for Republicans, since the Foley scandal has revealed the hypocrisy that surrounds this issue in the upper echelons of the Republican party.  Closeted homosexuals are apparently OK, as are openly gay advisors, as long as neither group demands equal rights.

The final debate of the campaign has just finished.  I didn't see it, because, like many of my suburban Monroe County neighbors, I don't subscribe to Time-Warner Cable.

Debates are only important if voters watch.  Here's the list of debates in the 29th and the coverage of each:

1. 10/5:  Rotary Club, Canandaigua.  Seen by 200 people.
2. 10/10:  WETM, Elmira.  Broadcast on the WETM Time-Warner cable channel in Elmira during prime time, and then re-broadcast on WETM UHF channel 18 the following Sunday morning.
3. 10/11:  Bath LWV.  Another 200 or so people saw this debate.
4. 10/12:  WLEA, Hornell.  A low-powered radio station with a "distant" signal radius of less than 40 miles hosted this debate at 3 p.m. on a Friday.
5. 10/16: Rnews, Rochester Time-Warner Cable.  This debate will be re-broadcast on Time-Warner affiliates in the Southern Tier.

None of these debates were broadcast in prime-time on an over-the-air station.   The one over-the-air TV broadcast was during off-hours on a low-coverage UHF channel. 

My conclusion:  there's no reason to think that the debates were widely watched, or that they will have anything but minimal impact on this race.

The Rural Patriot has posted a thorough analysis of a Kuhl mailer.  The theme, like his recent ad campaign, is taxes.  The tagline is "Eric Massa must think money grows on trees."  Along with Massa's recent hide-and-seek ad, which featured kids hiding behind trees, the negative campaigning in the 29th has taken on a distinctly arborial flavor.

The Patriot has also unearthed Massa's MyDD post upon which the whole Kuhl "he'll raise taxes" claim is based.  It looks like the claim is based on Massa's desire to repeal the tax cuts for the top 1%, though I don't know how Kuhl gets an average of $2,000 per person in additional taxes for the 29th, a district where the average per-capita income is $21,255.

Reader Rich writes to make two important points about the open-mouth kiss given to Randy Kuhl on Saturday by the Hornell Evening Tribune:

According to my figures, if Mr. Kuhl is 63, he was born in 1943. He became 18 in 1961. The 26th amendment, which changed the voting age from 21 to 18, was ratified in 1971. How could he have been voting in this district since he was 18? Did he vote illegally? Who does he think he is fooling?
He is also running for Congress from NY-29th district, not the 26th.

I agree with Rich that the Hornell paper needs better fact-checking on its puff pieces.

Reader Jim writes to remind those in the Rochester area that the last debate in the 29th will be telecast tonight on RNews at 7 p.m. I don't have cable, so I won't be able to watch it unless it is streamed over the Internet. But I trust other Rochester-area bloggers will be watching and reporting.

Randy Kuhl's new money numbers have just been posted. He raised $90K from individuals and $133K from PACs in the period from August 23 to September 30. That's about $80K less than Massa raised in the same period.

The Cheney fundraiser on September 29th is included in this period. Media reports estimated its take at between $125K and $200K. That event must have fallen far short of expectations.

Kuhl still has an impressive lead in cash on hand, holding steady at $550K.

Eric Massa's new money numbers have been posted by the FEC. In the period between August 23 and September 30, he's increased his total raised from $660K to $969K. His cash on hand has risen to $334K, $74K more than the $260K he had last month. Two-thirds of Massa's money comes from individual donations.

Kuhl's numbers aren't posted yet.

Both candidates in the 29th are on record in opposition to negative advertising.  At Tuesday's debate, Randy Kuhl said "I've never run a negative campaign and never will."  Massa's made the same pledge, and has characterized Kuhl's response to the MoveOn.org ads which ran in August as a "negative ad".

Massa's new ad campaign paints an unpleasant picture of Rep Kuhl.  The television ad is pretty mild, and the radio ad is quite harsh, though the harsh words are all coming from a respected third party, not Massa.  So are these "negative" ads?  Massa thinks not: during his appearance on WITR last night, he said that listeners need to distinguish between negative attack ads and comparative (or compare and contrast) advertising.

I see some truth in Massa's distinction.  Both candidates have a right to criticize the other, and calling all criticism "negative" simply because it's a statement against something is an assault on reason.  There's nothing wrong with an honest critique of the other guy's position.

That said, when people complain about negative ads, they're not referring to the few honest critiques that air each election cycle.  Their gripe is against the stereotypical and stupid ads that clog the airwaves.   If you've ever watched a Daily Show spoof of one of these ads, you've seen all the components:  the grainy black-and-white pictures, the deep-voiced narrator, and the overheated rhetoric. 

What voters hate about negative ads that they treat us like morons.  When they use some clever ploy (e.g., Massa's hide-and-seek kids) or feature obnoxious graphics and a sneering narrator (e.g., Kuhl's latest ad), they tell us that we're too fucking dumb or distracted to pay attention without some kind of visual aid.  Never mind that it's probably true -- even numbskulls hate being treated like morons.

I don't think Eric Massa or Randy Kuhl really understand the antipathy of the general population towards ads that contain even a whiff of the "negative ad" formula.  These guys, and the media geniuses who advise them, also don't get how a few simple ads would be a breath of fresh air.

I think Massa would have been better off by just standing in front of a camera talking about some issue -- health care, the war, free trade -- for 30 seconds.   Massa's got a lot of passion, and his campaign is a true grassroots event.  A down-to-earth ad with low production values would get that message across:  "I'm not a politician, but here's what I believe."  He could also say something like "Most of my contributors are individuals, so I'm trying to save a few bucks with this ad." 

Kuhl could also make a great positive ad by talking about how he's visited every town in the district once a year:  it's an impressive feat, no matter what you think of his politics.   He could follow it up with a discussion on how those visits changed his mind about Social Security privatization: "I listened to you."

Of course, this advice is probably considered stupid by professional media advisors.  No matter -  the first candidate who starts making simple, straightforward ads with their personal video camera will have an impact that those paid advisors can't imagine.   

Eric Massa has new television and radio spots out.  The TV ad features kids playing hide-and-seek, and says that it's time for Kuhl to stop hiding behind negative ads.  Over the video of kids playing,  Kuhl's votes against homeland security and increasing funding for vets, and a vote against funding Walter Reed Hospital, are listed.

The radio ad features quotes from Maj Gen (ret) John Batiste, "I tell you...Randy Kuhl -- this guy needs to go.  He's not informed, he doesn't have moral courage. That's not the kind of leadership we need in Washington right now." 

Video and audio links below:

Here's the mp3 of the radio ad. 

Congressional Quarterly has moved the 29th from "Republican Favored" to "Leans Republican". The article announcing the move doesn't list a concrete reason for the change, but it does mention the debate in Elmira.