The Fighting 29th

All about New York's 29th Congressional District

The Massa Campaign has announced two more endorsements: the town of Rush (Monroe County) and Yates County.

Reader Elmer sends a page image [pdf] of yesterday's Corning Leader editorial page. Randy Kuhl has a guest editorial responding to last week's letter on Immigration from Eric Massa.

Kuhl's rebuttal is classic political rhetoric, designed to obscure one fact: he has recently changed his position on a guest worker program.

Kuhl's initial claim, "last year’s Democrat nominee claims that I am not a supporter of a guest worker program for the agricultural sector" is simply false. Massa did not make that charge. Instead, he accused Kuhl of "flip-flopping" on the issue. As documented in a newspaper article, Kuhl changed his position on immigration in late October, 2006, under pressure from local farmers.

Now, one man's flip-flop is another's "listening to constituents", and Kuhl could have simply said that he changed his mind. Instead, he tries to make it sound like he's supported a guest worker program all along. He cites his 2006 letter to the Republican leadership of the House asking them to support a guest worker program, but that letter was probably sent very near the election.

Kuhl's second point -- that he can't be accused of supporting Bush's immigration bill because it hasn't yet been introduced in the House -- is right. However, he goes too far when he says this:

As even an elementary school student could tell you, President Bush is not a Member of Congress and therefore is not able to introduce legislation in Congress. That privilege is reserved for citizens who have been elected to serve in Congress.

Yes, Randy, we've all paid attention to Schoolhouse Rock -- Presidents don't introduce bills. But this statement insults the reader's intelligence, because anyone who's been reading the newspaper knows that Bush has been pushing hard for this bill, and that he's twisting arms in his party to keep the bill alive. In fact, Bush will make a rare visit to Capital Hill this week to meet with Republican Senators to try to revive the bill. Most adults know what elementary school children can't tell you: Presidents use their clout to get bills passed.

Kuhl's final remarks concern a couple of statements Massa supposedly made about two of Kuhl's votes in the 109th Congress. According to Kuhl, Massa accused him of voting against a guest worker program when he voted for the House border security bill in December, 2005. Since that bill was moot on the guest worker program, Kuhl asks how Massa can accuse him of voting against something that isn't even in a bill.

I don't know if Massa ever made this accusation, but even if he did, Kuhl's using it to obscure a broader truth. Kuhl's stated position in 2005 was opposition to a guest worker program. He had no opportunity to vote on a guest worker program because his leadership removed it from the bill in committee and blocked floor amendments on guest workers. (Even the conservative Washington Times' account acknowledges that.) So, whether or not Massa made this accusation, it doesn't change the underlying fact: Kuhl was against a guest worker program for most of his first term.

Kuhl then alleges that Massa's statement about his non-vote vote is one in a pattern. He dredges up an old fight over minimum wage, where Massa accused him of opposing a minimum wage increase because of a vote on a technical amendment. The important point on this issue is that Massa got burned in July, 2006 and then stopped making that accusation. In the Fall, 2006 debates, the minimum wage debate centered around Kuhl blaming the Democrats for blocking a minimum wage bill he supported, as documented in this newspaper article. Again, accusing Massa of distorting his record obscures a broader fact. Kuhl's leadership consistently blocked action on minimum wage, and it was only when Democrats took control of the House that a minimum wage bill could pass.

Kuhl's letter ends with this statement:

So thank you, Mr. Massa, for providing everyone with an unfortunately not-so-rare glimpse of how you plan to run your future campaigns.

Unfortunately, Kuhl's letter also gives us a glimpse of how he runs his campaign. Instead of just owning up to the fact that he changed his mind, he chooses to twist and dodge, for no good reason . Kuhl could have made a virtue out of his ability to listen to area farmers. Isn't that what Representatives are supposed to do?

The Hornell Evening Tribune is the only newspaper in the 29th that consistently attends and reports on Randy Kuhl's press conferences. In this week's press conference story, both the Kuhl and Massa conferences get coverage.

Federal funding of stem cell research is the main issue covered in the story. Massa supports the bill. Kuhl calls his opposition to the bill "ethical", and says "embryonic research destroys embryos and I don't believe we should be destroying life".

This argument is always fascinating to me, because the source of embryonic stem cells is extra embryos from fertility clinics practicing in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Aside from embryo adoption plans like the Snowflake program, which place a tiny fraction of those embryos, the rest of the surplus (currently 400,000 embryos) are simply thrown away.

The sponsor of the Snowflake program, the Nightlight Christian adoption agency, calls those embryos "pre-born children". If that's true, then why is it "ethical" to kill thousands of children to allow infertile couples to have babies? Apparently, the "Christian" position in the case of infertility is that the end justifies the means. It's OK to kill children to make children. In the case of stem cell research, which has the potential to alleviate the pain and suffering of millions, the end does not justify the means. It's not OK to kill children (who would have been killed anyway) to potentially cure diabetes or Parkinson's.

The National Right to Life Coalition's position IVF, as contained in their factsheet [pdf] on stem cells is to bury their head in the sand. They simply mention that a large percentage of parents use frozen embryos for a second IVF attempt, and then juxtapose the number of adoption seekers with the number of embryos, showing that more people are seeking adoptions than there are embryos.

That position denies two critical facts about IVF and IVF adoption: First, IVF frequently requires multiple implantation attempts during which "pre-born children" die. Second, IVF adoption, which involves out-of-pocket medical costs along with adoption and embryo transfer fees, is far more expensive and risky than regular adoption.

The NRLC position, and that of politicians like Kuhl who take their line, isn't "ethical" or "Christian" -- it's one of pure political expedience. It would be politically impossible for the right-to-life movement to challenge IVF. The backlash from infertile parents would spell the end of the movement as a viable political entity. So, instead, they hypocritically appropriate extreme language like "pre-born children" when it suits them to fight a battle that will garner media attention, contributions and votes.

In fairness, I should point out that IVF was also developed without federal funding, because of issues of "ethics". However, now that it's an established practice, those ethical concerns are largely forgotten. The same will undoubtedly be true of whatever cures come from private- and state-funded stem cell research. Today's right-to-life politician or activist may be tomorrow's cured Parkinson patient. It will just take a little while longer because they had to gather a few bucks, and a few votes, along the way.

Update: The Hornell Evening Trib changes its links the day after the story is published. The new link is updated now. Also, thanks to reader Elmer, the pdf images of the pages are here and here.

Randy Kuhl's office has announced that the Canandaigua VA Hospital will add 23 new jobs to staff a 24-hour suicide prevention hotline. As in the past, announcements about what will happen at the VA hospital have to be considered carefully against evidence of what does happen, because previous reports about that facility have been innaccurate.

On another topic, Kuhl is a co-sponsor of newly introduced legislation to allow home delivery of IV infused medication. This bill is an interesting peek into the Medicare system. According to the head of the Infectious Disease Society of America, private insurers have been paying for home infusion for years, yet Medicare recipients still must travel to a hospital or outpatient facility to have IVs administered. Private insurers were able to realize the cost savings and adjust their procedures long ago, yet it (literally) takes an act of Congress to change Medicare. This might reflect bureaucratic inflexibility, or Medicare's superior standard of care. I would guess the former, and point to this as another example of why people are leery of government-delivered health care.

Randy Kuhl voted against the Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act today, re-confirming his opposition to expansion of stem cell research. The bill passed by a large majority that's over 40 votes short of the number needed to override a veto.

In other cell-related news, Kuhl also voted against an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to prohibit human cloning. The cloning amendment failed.

At this morning's telephone press conference, Eric Massa answered questions about Iraq, immigration and his campaign. Massa plans to make these conferences a regular Wednesday event, and I'll try to cover as many as I can. I'd also like to cover the Kuhl telephone press conferences, but those are apparently restricted to accredited press.

The immigration debate and tomorrow's House vote on stem cell research were the two issues that Massa wanted to highlight in this conference. On immigration, Massa summarized his position: He opposes the current immigration bill, supports a guest worker program with visas issued in the country of origin, and has consistently opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants.

I asked Massa what he proposed to do about the 10-12 million illegal immigrants in country, if he doesn't support amnesty. In responding to that question, Massa laid out four points that shape his stance on immigration:

1. One of the root causes of the influx of illegal immigrants is the economic disparity between the US and countries South of the border. Open door free trade, supported by treaties like NAFTA and CAFTA, has led to an influx of agribusiness in Mexico which has wiped out a number of small farmers there. A better partnership in economic development with Mexico and Central America will help address the root causes, and nobody is addressing this as part of the immigration debate.
2. There is a real need for a viable, legal agricultural guest worker program. Based on anecdotal evidence (and Massa is looking for empirical backup for this), almost all of the migrant workers in the 29th return home in some fashion or other once a year. If those workers were able to return home without fear of losing their job, this would help avoid the formation of a permanent underclass.
3. A grape grower in Schuyler or Yates county can't be the final line of defense in immigration. Farmers don't have the ability to determine whether the valid-looking Social Security cards presented by migrant workers are really valid. The current bill makes no distinction between that grower and a multinational company like Wal-Mart trucking immigrant workers in to do night shift cleaning.
4. The border should be secure, not closed. Massa pointed to his experience while serving in Belgium, where thousands of workers passed over the Belgian border daily, yet Belgium has nothing like the issue we have with immigration.

I followed up with a question about workers who aren't agricultural workers - what's Massa's plan for them?

Massa said he doesn't have all of the details, and his main focus is how immigration affects the 29th district, and border security and a guest agricultural worker program are key to the solution here. That said, he said he'd be open to an avenue for earned citizenship. Though he recognizes that deportation, especially of known criminals, is part of an immigration policy, he doesn't want to live in a country where we're "dispatching police in the middle of the night to knock down doors".

Rob Montana of the Hornell Evening Tribune followed up with a question about the difference between earned citizenship and amnesty.

Massa didn't have a specific answer to this question, though he pointed out that his grandparents came here on a guest worker program and earned citizenship, so it's part of our immigration tradition.

After immigration, a couple of campaign questions were asked. I wondered how close Massa was to his $300,000 by June 30 fundraising goal.

Massa noted that this goal wasn't his, it was a goal set in Washington by the DCCC. He said that his main focus isn't fundraising, but meeting and activating grassroots activists. When I asked whether Massa had encountered David Nachbar on the campaign trail, he said that Nachbar hasn't been to any committee meetings, but he was focused on beating Randy Kuhl.

Rob also asked if Massa was planning any town-hall type meetings, similar to those hosted by Randy Kuhl.

Massa pointed out that he had over 300 house parties before the last election, and his goal is to exceed that this year. He will also hold some public meetings, such as one in Belfast on Saturday, and also an event with General Batiste in Olean on October 23. The house parties are open to the public, and Massa said he begins each meeting with the statement: "I want to answer every question you ask of me to the best of my abilities."

The next set of questions concerned Iraq. I started by asking about Massa's May 27 post in the Daily Kos, where he said that " We must force [President Bush] again and again to VETO the funding Bills that would in fact support our troops." My question was whether he had a positive agenda that Congress should follow to end the war in Iraq?

Massa's responded by noting that the 2006 election showed the will of the people, and that the President does not want to bend to that will. At some point, he believes a compromise would have been reached - Bush would have been " the only person standing on the diving board".

Rob followed up with a question about "supporting the troops", wondering why it was OK for Democrats to criticize Republicans on those grounds, and citing a DCCC press release.

Massa chose to ignore the DCCC reference (it wasn't his press release), pointing out that he or any other military person should not allow politicians to question their support of the troops. Then, getting to the meat of the matter, he said, "Everyone knows that members of both parties will do everything they can do to make sure that our men and women are financially supported." This debate isn't about supporting the troops, he said, it is about our failed strategy in Iraq. "Randy Kuhl can throw any smokescreens he wants [...] His lack of statements speaks louder than any statement from his press secretary."

Finally, I asked what benchmarks or timetables could be part of a bi-partisan compromise.

Massa pointed out that the first benchmark is privatization of the oil industry. (See this Wikipedia article for more information). He pointed out that it is "ludicrous" that we are putting soldiers in jeopardy so the Iraqi government can sell off its oil fields. In general, he thought that there could be a bi-partisan compromise if "some common sense" was injected into the process.

In the past few days, Eric Massa has been endorsed by the Democratic Committees in the Monroe County towns of Chili and Mendon. All of the town of Mendon, and all but a little slice of Chili lie in the 29th district. With these two endorsements, five of the nine Monroe County towns in the 29th have endorsed Massa.

Reader Vincent attended Randy Kuhl's Hammondsport town hall meeting this afternoon. Here's his report:

I just got back from Randy's meeting with about a dozen people in Hammondsport. It ran almost exactly a half-hour, as scheduled although he was, not surprisingly, ten minutes late. The war question came up after a congrats for the phone meetings idea, a question about funding transportation for the handicapped, and a farm bill question.

This is the first time I've seen him in action in one of his listening sessions, and I was impressed. He's great at preempting criticism and addressing local concerns. For example, the movement in Congress is away from paying farmers not to grow crops and toward helping them through a bad year so that they can continue to provide American farm products. Specialty crops (peaches, apples, grapes) are a main concern of his. He also mentioned that the farm bill will include energy crops and that corn may not be best for ethanol production. Immigration didn't come up.

He gave a comprehensive description of the phone town meetings process. They are very cost-effective in that $2-3,000 can allow him to reach 30,000 people. 53% of live respondents to his calls participate, 35% of his calls are answered by machines. Apparently people are being called as the "meeting" is going on and he can see how many people (sometimes up to 150) are in the conference, so he can tailor his remarks and allow people time accordingly. It's a service that is readily accessible in DC. The difficulty with giving advance notice of such a meeting is that his schedule doesn't often allow large blocks of time, and he needs to keep his time flexible in order to do his work.

At no time did he hint at his party affiliation or refer to the Administration. He talked about Congress as a force that he is part of, that has altered course and is making good headway on important issues, including the war. The troops are being supported. He favors benchmarks. He wants our people out and the effort "concluded" -- no talk if victory. He asked what we would suggest. Two people rehashed the idiocy, crimes, devastation and he listened patiently, but he got no guidance. When treatment of returning wounded was criticized, he said that Walter Reed administration and facilities problems have been dealt with successfully. His concern is that injured should not have to wait months to get the attention that they deserve, but implied that that problem is also under control.

He's good.

Vincent's report is consistent with Friday's story about meetings in Cattaraugus County. In front of a small Southern Tier crowd, Kuhl is at his most effective.

For more information on the telephone town hall meetings mentioned in Vincent's report, see this post.

Reader Elmer sends a page image [pdf] from today's Corning Leader, where Eric Massa has a letter to the editor about immigration reform. Massa's position is interesting, because he opposes mass amnesty, yet he supports a guest worker program using visas issued by US embassies in the workers' home country.

Massa's proposal satisfies two constituencies that have been vocal about reform. The first is the anti-amnesty group, which is enraged by the prospect of millions of illegal immigrants "jumping the line" and being granted citizenship. The second is farmers, who need temporary workers to harvest crops. Massa's suggestion provides them with a stream of workers, and it also would do away with holding the farmers responsible for investigating the immigration status of workers they employ.

One of the interesting aspects of the Massa candidacy, which is pretty unique in American politics, is Massa's willingness to strike imaginative, independent positions on tough issues. Today's letter is one example.

The Olean Times-Herald has a story about Randy Kuhl's meetings in Cattaraugus County. In sharp contrast to the standing-room only boisterous crowds in Monroe County, the meetings down South are lightly attended. The main issue is immigration, with constituents urging Kuhl to oppose "amnesty".

Kuhl is getting it from all sides on immigration. Some Republicans, such as those at the CattCo meetings as well as some in the Pittsford meeting last month, are upset that the bill is too lenient. Farmers and grape growers are concerned that a tougher bill would make it impossible for them to have enough seasonal workers. The Massa campaign's most recent press release criticizes Kuhl for supporting a bill that treats winery owners "like felons". Nobody's happy, and debate on the bill hasn't even started.