The Fighting 29th

All about New York's 29th Congressional District

After a long day at the office there's nothing better than sitting down, mixing a stiff drink, and listening to the latest robo-call:

Hello. This is a healthcare alert from Working America. Recently Congressman Randy Kuhl voted to deny healthcare coverage for almost 12 million uninsured children, and he voted to preserve big subsidies for HMOs. It's time to call Congressman Kuhl at (607) 776-9142. tell him to give back his $4,000 Congressional pay raise and start voting for children and seniors.

The bill in question is H R 3162.

Reader Elmer sends the Corning Leader's coverage (here [pdf] and here [pdf]) of yesterday's Americans Against Escalation in Iraq news conference in Bath.

The Veterans Administration has announced major new plans for the facility in Canandaigua. A new 50-bed residential rehab facility and 120-bed nursing home will be constructed on the campus. The facility will also partner with the University of Rochester to create a Center of Excellence that focuses on suicide prevention. The possible closing or downsizing of this VA hospital was an issue in the last campaign. Randy Kuhl was not mentioned in either the Democrat and Chronicle or the Messenger-Post coverage.

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq will hold a press conference at Randy Kuhl's Bath office this afternoon. The purpose of the conference is to request a meeting with Kuhl so Kuhl can explain his position on the war.

The Massa campaign is having a fundraiser next week in Rochester, with featured guest Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) chair Rep. Chris Van Hollen (MD-8). According to the Massa invitation for the campaign, the departure of David Nachbar from the race has allowed the DCCC to put the race in the 29th in "top tier status". This early support from the DCCC is significant, since there wasn't much DCCC activity in support of Massa during the last race.

Randy Kuhl has an op-ed in today's Democrat and Chronicle that defends his vote against H R 3159. That bill required mandatory rest periods between troop deployment. Kuhl's op-ed is worth close study because it perpetuates the kind of thinking that has us mired in Iraq.

Kuhl's first reason for his vote is:

This legislation would allow Congress to undercut our troop strength and commanders' decision-making capacity. I did not vote for this bill because Congress should not micromanage our troops on the ground. This is a job for our commanders.

This is a dodge. It has always been Congress' job to fund the army, not the executive, and not commanders on the ground. As part of its funding responsibility, Congress determines the size of the armed forces and has full oversight over their recruiting and retention activities. That's a legitimate role, not micromanagement. It's time for Congress to get back to that role instead of abrogating it to the executive branch.

Kuhl's second paragraph makes two interesting claims:

• Specifically, this bill would hinder our military by reducing the number of troops in Iraq, thus putting troops on the ground in harm's way.

  The under-resourcing of Iraq has been happening since the beginning. We've had far too few troops to accomplish the mission of occupying and pacifying the country. Why has Kuhl been silent about that all these years? Why only now does he begin worrying about the size of our Iraq force?

• It also would extend the period of time troops can remain on the ground in Iraq, which may further strain and diminish their morale.

  This bill only mandates the length of rest periods between deployments. If the armed forces are working sensibly, deployments would shorten, not lengthen, because the armed forces would want to be able to rotate troops back in theater pretty quickly.

Though the piece is short, it manages to impugn the patriotism of the Democrats twice. Democrats are "not concerned about the needs of our military forces." And they are willing to "put party politics ahead of our soldier's safety." Ever since 9/11, anyone who has questioned the conduct of the war has been met with these types of attacks. They're over-the-top and wrong. There isn't a single Member of Congress who isn't deeply concerned with the needs of the military forces or soldiers' safety. This kind of rhetoric is poisonous to the real debate that needs to happen, and happen quickly.

The consensus of military observers is our current deployment schedule is wearing out the armed forces. We need to come up with an alternative to ensure the security of our country. Limiting deployments is a blunt instrument, but if it's not the way to save our armed forces, opponents need to come up with another strategy. Calling names isn't going to increase recruitment and retention, and it isn't going to save the Army and Marines.

This morning's Massa press conference featured more information on Massa's plan for "direct opportunity education", as well as a few more comments about a lawyer, a gun and some money.

Let's begin with the lawyer and the gun. Massa noted that he returned from the Yearly Kos convention to a "changed dynamic" -- an election without a primary challenger -- which will allow him to focus on Randy Kuhl. He re-iterated his concern with the Kuhl concealed weapon story, and remarked that "a man's words are a window to his soul".

Turning to the money, Massa mentioned an op/ed in the Buffalo News that criticized the threatened Bush veto of the Children's Health and Medicare Act. He widened his critique to characterize Kuhl's votes against bills with Kuhl-sponsored earmarks in them as "votes against himself." "When a Member of Congress publicizes earmarks and then votes against them, and continues to do business as usual, that's not leadership - that's pandering."

Massa also mentioned Kuhl's charge that Massa is a "professional politician." Massa said, "that's almost laughable coming from Randy Kuhl, who has been in Albany and in Congress for 24 years."

Massa then turned to the main topic of his press conference, "how a Member of Congress can help build the economy in a local area." Massa said it's a combination of "what you don't do and what you do."

What you don't do, according to Massa, is:

You don't vote for increased, open door, burn down the barn, free trade agreements. Randy Kuhl cast the deciding vote on CAFTA. He said it would bring jobs to 29th Congressional District. I have not been able to identify a single job that's been brought to the district by CAFTA. I will not support continued outsourcing of American employment, both manufacturing and agricultural [...] I believe in fair trade, not free trade: free is free to everyone but us.

Massa's take on what should be done is, according to him, "straightforward, and, like many successful things, we have an operational model for that in the US military." Massa used the example of the Naval Academy. When he attended, he committed to five years of service, so the Navy was able to schedule him for the next five years. He said that the same kind of predictability in the workforce would help local corporations "track a highly educated workforce." The only requirement for local corporations would be to "partner with local educational institutions to provide scholarship opportunities."

Massa said that this was something Congress can do, and can be expanded to all levels of the economy and all educational levels, including BOCES. He used the Raleigh-Durham area as an example of another area of the country that had figured this out.

I asked Massa a couple of questions about his plan. He didn't have a dollar figure in mind, though he was talking with local Chambers of Commerce and others familiar with the employment situation to gather some basic data. He saw his role as first to articulate the opportunity. Since he mentioned Bausch & Lomb, I also asked if he was considering involving David Nachbar in the plan. He said he'd asked Nachbar to serve as his honorary Monroe County Campaign Chair and the door was open to his input.

The other person on the call, Carol, was from the labor federation, so Massa mentioned his recent appearance at the Dresser-Rand strike rally in Painted Post. Massa said the strike "didn't have to happen" if "management had negotiated in any degree of good faith".

The Messenger-Post has a story about area blogs and the Kuhl "packing" comment. Tom Tucker from Rochesterturning and I are quoted.

My first quote is this:

“It was some off-hand dumb comment ... and he’s not a dumb man and he doesn’t do dumb things ... but giving all this emphasis isn’t very healthy,” Rottenchester said. “It’s like gossip.”

Space limitations made Bryan condense a few thoughts into one quote. My larger point on "gossip" was that people are drawn to these controversies for the same reason we read gossip: we're endlessly fascinated when someone slips up in public. The unhealthy aspect is that concentrating on these controversies occupies the (limited) bandwidth people have for politics.

That's not a criticism of Bryan's reporting, by the way: it's always hard to condense down a long interview into a short news story, especially when dealing with someone as verbose as me. He was faced with the challenge of mining 25 minutes of conversation for a couple of quotes.

Eric Massa was a guest on Coleman & Company show last Sunday, which airs on cable channel 11 in Elmira, Corning and Watkins Glen. His campaign has posted the video to YouTube. Massa discusses the "packing" comment, Nachbar's withdrawal, and Kuhl's effectiveness after the break:

Randy Kuhl's visit to the Hornell Evening Tribune focused on the campaign, or, rather, the non-campaign. Kuhl said he's not campaigning, but instead doing his job. Calling Massa a "professional politician", he said “People don't want me running a campaign, they want me working."

One of the downsides of being a Congressman is that it is essentially an eternal campaign, but Kuhl apparently thinks the "not campaigning" message works for him, so he continues to repeat it.

Reader Elmer sends "The Insider" column from today's Corning Leader [pdf]. Bob Rolfe, the retired Leader editor who writes the twice-weekly column, says he'll vote for Massa mainly because of his position on the war in Iraq.

If you're not sick of reading about last week's protests and the "packing" comment, I have three observations to make. They're behind the jump to spare those who can't stand to hear another word.

1. Fights about dumb remarks occupy far too much bandwidth in today's political media.

   Randy Kuhl's "packing" remark barely rose to Michael Kinsley's definition of a gaffe: "when a politician tells the truth -- or, more precisely, when he or she accidentally reveals something truthful about what is going on in his or her head." Kuhl's remark was more of a dumb, offhand comment, one which might have gone unnoticed in a friendly gathering, but not when he was on the record.

   The ensuing controversy was essentially political theater, which is often a contest over who's more offended. Kuhl was offended that the D&C would print his comment "out of context". His opponent was offended by the "gansta rap" term.

   The real reason that so much time is spent on dumb comments like these isn't hurt feelings. Reporters and partisans have decided that a few dumb comments, or perhaps a dumb stunt, is enough to end the career of a politician. Recent examples include Howard Dean, and perhaps, Mitt Romney. But that's a presidential race, not a race for Congress where most of Kuhl's constituents have known him for 20 years. Residents of the 29th have already formed a more durable impression of Kuhl, one that can probably withstand a few dumb remarks.

   So follows my second observation:

2. Portraying Randy Kuhl as a bad, bad man won't lead to his defeat.

   Every time Kuhl says something dumb, which isn't that often, a legion of partisans resurrect every bad fact we know about Kuhl, and draw outrageous conclusions about him as a person. These conclusions fly in the face of the facts: Kuhl may be a flawed person (as are we all), but he's not crazy, and he's a hard worker.

   Kuhl is active in his district, has an almost-perfect attendance record, and has a long history in the Southern Tier. If he's going to be beaten, it won't be because of his personal history, which everyone has processed, nor will it be from a couple of dumb comments. Kuhl's going to have to be beaten on lack of responsiveness on substantial issues.

   If you want to see what a lazy, crazy Member of Congress looks like, take a look at Barbara Cubin. Babs likes to make racist remarks, threatened to slap her wheelchair-bound opponent after a debate, and missed more votes this session than a Congresswoman who died in April. Cubin is the kind of disaster that Democrats wish for. Kuhl isn't, and viewing him as such is a dangerous miscalculation.

   Since Kuhl will be beat on issues and responsiveness, let's move on to the most important point:

3. The whole "security" controversy is the transparent attempt to change the subject from our security to Kuhl's.

   Kuhl's "packing" comment garnered all the attention, but even if he hadn't said it, he still would be guilty of dragging a security red herring into the discussion about opposition to the war.

   Kuhl portrayed the protesters as outsiders with "rap sheets". I've been in contact with one of the protesters. Here's his "rap sheet":

   1) violation trespassing - for locking myself in my church's bell tower with another guy and ringing the bell in mourning for the dead, when the war first began.
   
   2) Rounded up by the capital police in DC last September, along with various priests, pastors, nuns, monks, and people of faith, as we made our way to the Senate office building. I paid fifty bucks and was released without being charged with a crime.
   
   3) This latest one is being called criminal trespassing.

   These are not life-endangering offenses. There may be some threat to Kuhl's office, but it doesn't come from a bunch of pacifists who live in the district or around nearby Cayuga Lake.

   The reason Kuhl tried to change the subject to his security is because he's arguably made the rest of us less secure. Right before coming home last week, Kuhl was on the wrong side of another symbolic though damaging vote on HR 3159. That bill mandates reasonable deployment periods for soldiers and reservists. Kuhl's colleague Jim Walsh (NY-25), who's also facing a tough election, voted for the bill, because he knows political dynamite when he sees it.

   This bill is about the true security issue facing our country. The Iraq war is wearing out our ground forces, and inflicting long-term damage on our military. Recruiting is way down, even after standards have been lowered. If we are really facing a "long war", we might well lack the military capacity to fight it.

   The protest arrests gave Kuhl a convenient excuse to change the subject, but at some point he'll have to address the damage done by the war, and that's a daunting issue for a man whose party is supposed to be best at keeping us safe.