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.

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.

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."

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?