The Fighting 29th

All about New York's 29th Congressional District

Maj Gen (Ret) John Batiste has officially endorsed Eric Massa. During the last election cycle, Batiste's anti-Kuhl statements were featured in Massa campaign ads, but there was no official endorsement. During this cycle, Batiste has already made anti-Kuhl ads for the VoteVets.org organization.

Batiste contributed to a "live blog" on the Daily Kos yesterday. In one of his responses in that discussion, it was clear that Batiste is still a Republican:

It's important to remember that VoteVets.org is not antiwar. This great organization is focused on doing what's right for America and our incredible military. When I joined the organization, it became bi-partisan as well.

Both the Elmira Star-Gazette and the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle picked up a Gannett News Service article describing the discrepancy between Randy Kuhl's vote and the press release on his web site. The D&C article, which ran far inside on page 5B, also noted that every other Member of Congress in the Rochester area voted for the measure.

Kuhl's press secretary, Bob Van Wicklin, blames a "miscommunication" for the discrepancy between Kuhl's vote and the press release. Bob apparently improved the lines of communication in Kuhl's office, because the press release has finally been taken down from Kuhl's website. Here's a copy [pdf] in case anyone missed it.

Thanks to Reader Elmer for the S/G link.

Update: Elmer also sent in the front-page coverage [pdf] and the jump [pdf] from the Hornell Evening Tribune. Elmer notes that the Star-Gazette story also ran on the front page. Another example of the difference in media attention in the Rochester market versus the Southern Tier.

As reader Zabriskie noted yesterday, the key to Randy Kuhl's last-minute change of heart on H R 2638 is apparently President Bush's veto threat. According to the OMB's statement of policy [pdf], the White House objection is twofold: the bill contains $2.1 billion more in spending than requested in the original budget, and it requires that all wages paid for federal projects must be paid at the same rate as prevailing wages in the area. (In other words, Homeland Security projects must follow the Davis-Bacon Act.)

The Massa campaign has issued a press release claiming that Kuhl's reversal was due to Bush's Friday afternoon announcement that he would veto H R 2638. That might be true, but I think the reason is not only Bush's announcement, but some serious behind-the-scenes arm twisting. The President's plan to veto the bill was not new information on Friday: the OMB document linked above, which is an official veto threat, was released last Tuesday. Kuhl had plenty of time to decide to tow the administration line, if that was his original intent. The muffed press release indicates that it wasn't. Someone or something changed his mind at the last minute.

As Exile of Rochesterturning points out, Kuhl was the only Western New York Republican to vote against the bill: Jim Walsh (NY-25) and Tom Reynolds (NY-26) both voted "Yea". It's telling that others facing tight races weren't willing to tow the administration line. Voting against Homeland Security in New York State is tough. I'm sure Kuhl is hoping that he'll have a chance to cast a vote for a final compromise bill after the Senate goes to work on H R 2638. In the meantime, the Massa campaign has already labeled this a "flip-flop", and they'll certainly try to make an issue of it.

Randy Kuhl's vote against H R 2638, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, is puzzling for at least three reasons.

First, the bill was part of a larger procedural victory by House Republicans. As part of earmark reform, Democrats have pledged that all appropriations bills would list earmarks and sponsors before passage. Because H R 2638 did not include information about earmarks, Republicans staged a number of protest votes that delayed action on the bill. Democrats argued that they lacked time to get earmark information into the bill, but the Republican protest led to a compromise. Both sides agreed that H R 2638 and H R 2642, which funded the VA, would be allowed to pass without earmarks listed. Ten other appropriations bills would list earmarks.

A good summary of the earmark controversy is available here. Even if Kuhl objected to the lack of transparency on earmarks in this bill, his leadership was able to use the bill to force more transparency in later bills.

The second aspect of H R 2638 that should have garnered Kuhl's support is the delay in implementation of passport requirements. Kuhl voted for an amendment that postponed the requirement that all travelers to Canada must present a passport. This is an important issue in a region so close to Canada, and the delay and expense involved in getting a passport has received a lot of press recently.

The final reason that Kuhl's vote is a surprise is that his website is full of press releases celebrating the arrival of Homeland Security checks at local fire departments. I can't believe he'd want his opponent to call him a hypocrite for, on the one hand, touting federal largesse with Homeland security money, while, on the other hand, voting against Homeland Security appropriations. But that seems to be what happened on Friday.

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI), an anti-war coalition made up of progressive, veteran and union groups, will target Randy Kuhl as part of its "Iraq Summer" event. According to a New York Times story, AAEI will deploy a total of 86 activists, who will have the goal of organizing 1,000 events, by Labor Day. Kuhl, and Jim Walsh in nearby NY-25, are two of 40 Republican legislators targeted.

AAEI's press release says that these organizers will work for ten weeks in targeted areas, making contact with local activists and veterans groups. "A barrage of events, letter writing campaigns, endorsement efforts, and local legislative events are planned for each targeted state or district."

MoveOn.org is a major sponsor of AAEI, and this campaign sounds like the same old MoveOn tactics that energize the same set of players. My guess is that AAEI will make some noise, but they won't change the minds of either Randy Kuhl or the voters who supported him in the last election. When Kuhl starts getting letters that begin "I'm a Republican, I voted for you in the last election, and I'm going to vote against you because of your support of the Iraq War", then his position will change.

As for voters, I think they're looking for a more sophisticated alternative than "stop the war responsibly", AAEI's stated goal. They want a salvage plan that gets us something out of this misadventure. AAEI doesn't have that. I have no doubt that they'll generate some sound and fury, but they don't bring anything new to the table.

Here's a new one: Randy Kuhl has issued a press release saying he voted for H R 2638, the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. Though there were three dozen different procedural votes on the bill, Kuhl voted "No" on the final vote on passage. Something ain't right here.

Eric Massa has received the endorsement of the Town of Gates (Monroe County) Democratic Committee. He's also announced that he's retaining the Rochester firm of Novak Media to do consulting for his campaign (check out the story and comments at Rochesterturning for more information on Novak).

Finally, perhaps the most interesting piece of news: Eric Massa will host Maj General (Ret) John Batiste for a liveblogging session at the Daily Kos on Monday from 11:30 to 12:30. This is interesting if it signals that Batiste will take a more active role in the 2008 Massa campaign.

The obvious pratfalls in David Nachbar's City Newspaper interview
-- dismissing a Navy veteran as a "government employee" and
saying that endorsements are "silly" -- have been discussed here and
elsewhere. Instead of dwelling on Nachbar's apparent
foot-in-mouth syndrome, I'd like to concentrate on two broader
issues raised by his interview: the difference between suppressing
a candidate and criticizing one, and the challenges faced by a corporate officer who wants to become a candidate for
public office.

Let's begin with this exchange:

How do you respond to criticism that your candidacy will rob Democrats
of money and manpower and that it will ultimately hurt Democrats'
ability to take the seat?

Elections are good. Choice is good. It tests candidates, it vets
them, it makes sure that all of the arguments are heard, and it makes
sure that the voters are well-informed. This is not the old communist
Soviet Union, this is America. This is about candidates, this is about
open debate, and this is about having people who are going to get into
the mix. And I think all of that's a good thing.

The notion that it's somehow un-American for party members to want to avoid a primary is laughable. Nachbar has a right to run for any office, from dogcatcher to President. Those who think it's a bad idea for him to run for office also have a right to oppose his candidacy. The debate on this blog and others has been a healthy expression of dissenting opinion. Unlike the Soviet Union, and unlike the hierarchical corporate world, dissent is tolerated in politics. As for the "openness" of the debate, Democratic Committee meetings are open to the public. It's Nachbar who refuses to participate in an open process.

Also notice that Nachbar didn't answer the question. His campaign
will consume money and manpower in a district that has
precious little of either. At best, it's a diversion. At worst, it
will ensure Randy Kuhl's election in 2008. Earlier in the
interview, he says that he believes he can "make the greatest
impact" and "serve the best" as a Member of Congress. That's great,
but sometimes it isn't just about where you think you fit the
best: it's also about where the party can use your talent. In
this cycle, the 29th isn't that place.

Moving on to Nachbar's corporate background, it's a sure bet that his
candidacy will be dogged with issues raised by his association with
Bausch and Lomb. For example, those who are tempted to believe
his assertion that he's "the only candidate in the race who knows
what it's like to create jobs" might want to take a peek at the following
paragraph
in B&L's
2006 10-K [pdf]:

Employee Relations As of December 30, 2006, we employed approximately
13,000 people throughout the world, including approximately 4,400 in
the United States. In general, we believe our employee relations to be
very good. Less than five percent of our U.S. employees (mainly in
our surgical products manufacturing facilities) are represented by
unions.

Apparently, David Nachbar excels at creating non-union jobs in
foreign countries. That might be good for investors and management
at Bausch and Lomb, but Nachbar will have to work hard to convince voters that he "knows what it takes" to create jobs in this area.

As for the overall performance of B&L, of which Nachbar is a highly
compensated member of the core management team, take a look at this
stock chart:

The time period is roughly the period of David Nachbar's employment.
The red line is the performance of Alcon, B&L's major competitor.
B&L's performance, represented by the blue line, has consistently
lagged Alcon's. Though
B&L's overall performance is lackluster, it took a big
hit in the past year because of possible problems with its
ReNu lens solution. B&L's answer to this problem was
a $4.5
billion private equity acquisition by Warburg Pincus.

A better-managed company might have created more jobs and probably wouldn't sell itself to a firm that might want to cut jobs to raise profits. Nevertheless, B&L has managed to stay in business, remain profitable, and, most importantly, compensate David Nachbar.

Nachbar has received a number of option and stock
grants under different complex incentive plans. Examples of these
grants are shown in SEC filings for
in May,
2007
and February,
2007. Some of these incentive compensation plans include
"phantom stock" that vests years in the future. If I'm reading the
most recent filing correctly, Nachbar's deferred compensation plan has a total value of
around $900,000 at today's price if Nachbar sticks around to
pick it up. In addition, Nachbar's recent sale of around
$400,000 of B&L stock included the disclosure that he still
owns about $900,000 of stock at today's price. In other words, over and above his (I assume) generous salary, Nachbar has
accumulated deferred and actual stock worth over $2 million in less than
five years of work at B&L.

I'll wager that primary voters in the 29th might want to know why a five-year tenure as the head of personnel for a mediocre company should net Nachbar millions. More importantly, they'll also want to understand whether he'll be working for the voters or for B&L. If Mr. Nachbar remains part of the B&L management team after the
buyout, what sort of incentives does he have to stay there? Does he plan
to quit B&L to campaign in the primary? In the unlikely event that
he does win the primary, will he be free to campaign full-time, or
will he work at B&L and campaign at the same time?

These are all fair questions. Mr. Nachbar has answered none of
them. Perhaps if he deigns to visit a Democratic Committee in the
29th, someone will ask him one or two of them.

Today's Massa press conference began with a couple of questions about today's City Newspaper Nachbar interview, moved on to Kuhl and flip-flopping, and finished with energy policy.

The Nachbar questions began with the comment by Nachbar that endorsements are "silly". Massa noted that Nachbar has been invited to meet with all of the Democratic committees in the 29th. He gave the example of the Pittsford committee calling Nachbar twice to schedule a meeting and not being called back. As for endorsements, Massa said:

Endorsements from your core constituencies are key because they are the ones who know you best. They spend hours, if not days, drilling the candidate on the issues they care about. To call that silly is a slap in the face of the Democratic party.

I also asked Massa about Nachbar's characterization of the other candidates in the race as "government employees". His response:

I spent several hours last month walking in Arlington National Cemetery, which is full of government employees. If Mr. Nachbar says that ... he has a lot of explaining to do to the families of soldiers who are in Iraq right now.

After pointing out that the election is about Kuhl, not about Nachbar, Massa went on to characterize Kuhl's latest response on immigration as one in a pattern of "flip flops".

First he cosponsors employee free choice, then he attacks it. First he supports the war, then he runs away from his record. First, he runs against the guest worker program, now he supports it. When I point that out, he says I'm fabricating or falsifying.

Massa characterized Kuhl's response as one taught by Karl Rove: "say anything and do anything in the hope that nobody is really watching."

I also asked Massa about energy policy. I asked him if he agreed with Kuhl's proposal to cut gas taxes by 10 cents when they reach $3.00/gallon, and Kuhl's support HR 1252, the price gouging protection act.

Massa called Kuhl's 10-cent proposal a "soundbite", saying that Kuhl can comfortably support it even though it will make no difference because Kuhl "knows it won't pass". He also said that it was good to see Kuhl supporting HR 1252, because, as the price of crude is going down, the price of gas is going up. "It's clear the public is being taken to the cleaners."

Aside from gas prices, Massa sees energy policy related to two broader issues: global warming and national security:

The single largest threat to national security is our dependence on foreign oil. The single largest environmental threat is the use of carbon-based fuels in all areas. We need a bold vision, one that looks a biofuels, and fulfills the promise of a hydrogen-based economy. We need a Congressman who will lead and not follow the oil industry.

Massa noted that Kuhl had received "tens of thousands" of dollars from the oil industry. "Once you're beholden to Exxon/Mobil, you can't act on behalf of the constituents you're representing."

Rochester's City Newspaper has published an interview with David Nachbar. He answers questions about why he's running for Congress rather than County Executive, why Randy Kuhl shouldn't be re-elected, and about endorsements. Here's his take on endorsements:

I have not asked any committee within the 29th District for endorsements. I think it's silly.

Nachbar says that he's the only candidate in the race "who understands what it's like to create jobs. The other candidates are government employees and have been that way."