The Fighting 29th

All about New York's 29th Congressional District

Randy Kuhl's interview with the Corning Leader is worth a good read by anyone who's planning the next anti-war demonstration. In that article, Kuhl makes the protesters, who came from a few miles out of the district, sound like dangerous outside agitators, and blames them for an increase in security at the Bath office.

I think it's pretty clear that the only risk to Kuhl's staff from the bunch who occupied his office was nasal irritation from the scent of patchouli, or perhaps a splitting headache. (If you don't believe me, take a look at the Messenger-Post video of the Fairport office sit-in.) Nevertheless, this bit of negative publicity was easily avoided, if the protesters would have displayed a little bit of flexibility in their planning.

I'll bet that a good number of the protesters in Bath were from the district, but none of them wanted to be arrested. Apparently only the "outsiders" longed to be cuffed and booked, and when that wish was granted, their hometowns (and rap sheets) became public record. The only reason we've been spared the identity of the Fairport protesters is because they were "tricked" into not getting arrested.

Where is this need for an arrest as the outcome of a protest coming from? Chapter 3, page 12 of the super-groovy protest handbook? I'll bet that the protest would have gotten every bit as much publicity if the arrests hadn't occurred. Instead, now we have Kuhl making an issue of tactics instead of substance. I'm sure he would have tried that in any case, but the protesters made it so very easy.

My Sunday post on the content of the anti-war demonstration led to a long discussion with a couple of readers. A lot of good thought went into the comments, and I appreciate them all. Some commenters think that I should be more willing to accept that putting the war into historical perspective, and questioning its legality, are legitimate parts of the anti-war movement. Maybe so, but I want to suggest that they study a few historical leaders to inform their movement. I'll pick one: Abraham Lincoln.

Some of the components of Lincoln's success as a leader were his ability to compromise, to subsume his ego in service of his strategic goals, and to make few permanent enemies. Reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's recent biography, I was struck time and again how he found areas of agreement between himself and others on both sides of the difficult issues of the day, how he refused to question the motives of those with whom he disagreed, and the way he immediately mended fences with those who ended upon the other side of an argument or political contest.

When I compare the way that Lincoln faced the great challenge of his time to the way that the leadership of the anti-war movement has faced theirs, I see a number of differences.

Let's begin with compromise. For Lincoln, it was key. He understood that his power was limited by what the people and their representatives would accept, and acted accordingly. Bold strokes were rare, while carefully calculated moves were common. Lincoln's ability to compromise was based in an exquisitely tuned sense of political realism which helped him to patiently and deliberately reach his ultimate goals.

I see little of Lincoln's ability to compromise in the anti-war movement. Reader Peter described my suggested position as "wishy-washy centrist views that will never stimulate any kind of lasting social change". But the example of Lincoln's leadership shows exactly the opposite. He was able to achieve great social change precisely because he was able to strike a series of compromises between the two factions of the day. His ability to compromise was the key to the lasting social change engendered by his administration.

As for subsuming one's ego in service of political aims, I don't see much of that either. The need to be shown to be right seems to trump the desire to attract a wide variety of supporters. The prime example is the need to drag in issues of US imperialism and the illegality of the war into what should be a simple petition opposing the war. (For those familiar with the history of the time, the position of the anti-war protesters reminds me of Salmon P. Chase.)

As for Lincoln's ability to patch up relations with his rivals, I don't see much reaching out in the rhetoric or actions of the anti-war movement.

The latest polls show that a staggering 70% of adults disapprove of the administration's handling of the Iraq war. Yet the anti-war movement stays at the fringes of our public debate. There's some media coverage, but I don't seem meaningful engagement with anything like 70% of the population. Perhaps the false consciousness of our consumer society is to blame, but I believe that a good part of the explanation is absence of leadership that follows the example of great politicians like Lincoln.

Today's Elmira Star-Gazette reports that Finger Lakes for Peace will deliver 3,000 petitions to Randy Kuhl's Bath office tomorrow. The wording of the petition can be seen on the group's website [pdf].

The gesture of delivering the petitions en masse will probably draw some media attention. But if I were to set out to design a document with less appeal to the 70% of the population that opposes the war, I'd be hard-pressed to beat the following short paragraph:

I am strongly opposed to the illegal war of aggression against Iraq. I believe the war betrays American values, violates the will of the Iraqi people, fuels anti-Americanism, and makes us all less safe. I believe the best way to stop the war is to stop its funding. I call for a formal apology to the people of Iraq and for funding to be provided by the U.S. for the rebuilding of Iraq, by the Iraqi People. I call for an immediate redeployment and phased withdrawal of our Troops. I call upon you to vote AGAINST President Bush’s Supplemental Appropriations Bill in September, and use Congress’ power of the purse to end the Iraq War.

I've been against the war from the beginning. I think it was an ill-advised, risky overreach into a country that had a peripheral (at best) role in the support of those who attacked the US on 9/11. Even so, I'd have a hard time signing this righteous document, for the following reasons:

• The war isn't illegal, since it was authorized by Congress. And, even though it's now clear that many of the justifications for going to war are false, the war began as one of self-defense. The current occupation is the result of very stupid actions on our part (such as disbanding the Iraqi Army), but "war of aggression" is still too broad a brush.
• I don't think that the "will of the Iraqi people" at the time of the invasion was overwhelmingly against the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. That will has changed over time, but we should at least acknowledge that some Iraqis might have been with us at the beginning.
• Calling for an immediate apology to the Iraqi people, whose elected representatives have been bickering among themselves, and many of whom have been engaging in a civil war, is premature at best. Apologies for wars are best given after emotions have cooled.
• We've funneled billions into Iraq for rebuilding. Though some of that has been wasted by inefficient and corrupt contractors, a lot of it has been thwarted by the Iraqi People, who are fighting a civil war that blocks reconstruction projects.

In order to sign this document, I need to sign on to an extreme, negative view of American power. Though I'm disillusioned and ashamed of much of what we've done in Iraq, I'm just not ready to supply an abject apology, nor am I willing accept the notion that the war was solely an ill-intentioned, callous exercise of imperial power. Moreover, I can't endorse the characterization of the Iraqi people as innocent victims which seems to underly this little tract. There are too many of those purported innocents using AK-47s to shoot our troops and each other.

Some people wonder why there isn't more marching in the streets, or more vocal protests against this unpopular war. I think at least part of the reason has been the shrillness and self-regarding righteousness of the war's opponents. Members of this group seem so invested in being right that they disregard their main political aim: to organize a generally centrist majority against the war. That majority, which I believe exists, probably doesn't see a formal apology as a first step toward ending the war.

3,000 petitions will not change Randy Kuhl's vote. But thousands of letters from supporters turned opponents because of the war will. The anti-war "movement" has done little that I've seen to mobilize this latter kind of real, effective opposition.

Last Fall, I posted repeatedly about a strategy named after pollsters' nicknames for left-leaning ring suburbs: the "Volvo-Donut". "Volvo" refers to the preferred vehicle of left-leaning suburbanites, and "Donut" refers to the suburbs that encircle major metropolitan areas like Rochester. The basic idea was that the key to a win in the 29th is heavy turnout of the Monroe and Ontario suburbs.

Even though Eric Massa did not win in the 29th, the data provided by Reader John shows that Massa's campaign inspired suburban residents to flock to the polls and to vote for Massa in large numbers. Rochester's suburban county, Monroe, had the highest turnout percentage of any county in the 29th, as well as the highest percentage of "pulls" (votes for Massa that probably came from blanks).

The performance of Monroe County is still key to the 2008 election. Massa must continue to inspire voters in Monroe in order to win. But there's a limit to what can be expected from the Southeast Rochester suburbs. Monroe had the highest turnount of any county in the 29th, with most towns in the 60% range. Brighton, by far the most Democratic town in the district, had an impressive 67% turnout. In US elections, two-thirds of the voters usually don't turn out for Presidential races, much less off-year elections. The simple fact is that Monroe doesn't have that many more voters to turn out.

Anyone studying the numbers realizes that the additional votes needed for a Democratic win in 2008 will not come solely, or principally, from Monroe. It's the Southern Tier where Democrats will have to turn out greater numbers if they want to win in 2008, since the average turnout in the South is lower than the sky-high Monroe numbers.

That simple fact is the reason that Southern Tier Democrats are so little receptive to the Nachbar campaign. They are well aware that the burden of getting more voters to the polls is on their shoulders. They don't see how a resident of Pittsford -- which already has one of the highest turnout numbers (67%) in the 29th -- will draw the voters in Salamanca and Tuscarora to the polls in greater numbers. Only a candidate from the South will be able to motivate those voters.

Reader John sent me a painstakingly detailed spreadsheet of data from the 2006 election. In it, John studied registration and turnout in the 29th, town-by-town and county-by-county. One of the factors John studied was "pull", or the ability of a candidate to garner votes beyond their base.

In New York State, voters may leave their voter registration card blank. In the 29th, 20% of the registrants are "blanks", a little over 30% are Democrats, and a smidgen under 50% are Republicans. Since Eric Massa received 49% of the vote in 2006, it stands to reason that a fair number of blanks and/or Republicans pulled the lever for Massa. It's also reasonable to assume that most of the "pulls" for Massa came from blanks or independents..

To better understand the data in John's sheet, I've created a couple of graphs. The first details the turnout by county and party. As you can see, Republican and Democratic turnout is neck-and-neck in the 29th, but blanks tend to turn out in far smaller percentage than those who choose a party registration. (Note that John has combined Working Families, Green and Liberal in to the Democratic numbers, and Independence, Conservative and Right-to-Life into the Republican numbers.)

The second graph shows pulls, by county. Massa generally out-pulled Kuhl by a wide margin. In the big northern counties, Monroe and Ontario, Massa displays huge pull. Kuhl out pulls Massa only in far southern Cattaraugus County.

Since 2008 is a Presidential election year, turnout in the 29th will probably be higher. In 2004, it was approximately 30% higher than 2006. It's probably safe to assume that the 2008 will see a similar increase. Using John's data as a basis for speculation, I can envision a couple of possibilities for the 60,000 additional voters who will come to the polls.

If the additional voters arrive in the same proportion of Democrats, Republicans and blanks as 2006, then Kuhl's probably facing another squeaker. But what if blanks tend to turn out in greater numbers during presidential years? This makes some sense: if you're not committed enough to declare a party, you may only be committed enough to go to the polls to vote for President. If this is true, and blanks turn out in higher proportions in 2008, then Kuhl is in trouble, because a reasonable inference from these numbers is that he has little pull outside his party.

Update 7/26: Reader John contacted me and noted that I had mis-interpreted one of the pages in his spreadsheet. I've removed the graph and stricken the paragraph that was the result of the misunderstanding. Sorry about that.

Labor's scattershot approach to campaign financing is once again in evidence in the Q2 FEC filings. Even after Randy Kuhl's March vote against the main union bill of the session, the Employee Free Choice Act, the contributions kept rolling in.

Of the $6,500 Kuhl received from labor this quarter, perhaps the most interesting contribution is the $2,000 donation from the Machininsts' Non-Partisan League. Like Solomon, the Machinists decided to cut the baby in half by also donating $5,000 to the Massa campaign.

In the bible, the story of Solomon is a parable. In the 29th, it's a reality. So continues the strange tale of union political advocacy.

Today's Elmira Star-Gazette carries a story about Randy Kuhl's recent votes against major appropriation bills. As mentioned here last month, Kuhl voted against two appropriation bills that included earmarks he sponsored. Even though he voted against the bills, he still touted the earmarks on his website.

Kuhl's explanation for this apparent contradiction contains some topsy-turvy logic:

"The point is the bills passed, so why shouldn't I tell people about the local projects that were in them?" Kuhl said. "They wouldn't have been in there if I hadn't requested them."

Kuhl said he didn't vote for the bills -- with the exception of one that increased spending for veterans and military members -- because he thinks the Democratic majority is increasing spending too much.

As the article points out, Kuhl is clearly trying to have it both ways by saying that only his pork is worthy. One theory, offered by University of Rochester Professor Gerald Gamm, is that Kuhl will get away with this because "constituents are not paying attention to all the details". That may be true, but I think Kuhl will have a second explanation available later this year, after the Senate amends the spending bills.

Kuhl's vote against H R 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act, is another example of a vote against a popular bill. This bill was opposed by a majority of Republicans, for a variety of reasons. Like last month's vote against the Homeland Security bill, voting against an increase in funding for financial aid financed on the back of banks seems like a stone loser for Kuhl. However, like the other appropriations bills Kuhl opposed, this bill has yet to pass through the gauntlet of the Senate.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been making heavy use of cloture rules and the party loyalty of his fellow Republicans to control the agenda of the Senate. The ability of Republicans to block debate on bills is a powerful lever that the Republicans will use to force compromises on the appropriations bills passed by the House. After those bills have been amended, they will go back to the House for a vote. I'll wager that they'll get Kuhl's support the second time around.

The combination of Bush's veto threats, the loyalty of Republicans like Randy Kuhl in the House, and the lack of a 60-vote Democratic majority in the Senate is one that allows the Republicans to exert significant control over the legislative process. When Kuhl is challenged by the press or his opponent to explain his initial no votes, he'll point to changes in the bills to show that his no vote led to a more fiscally responsible bill.

Whether that's true will, indeed, require exceedingly close attention to the details.

Update: The same story made the July 16 issue of the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle.

Randy Kuhl has voted against the major appropriations bills that have come before Congress in the last two weeks. This week's no votes on the Interior and Environment and Financial Services and General Government bills are interesting because each was accompanied by a press release (here and here) touting Kuhl-sponsored earmarks in those bills.

Kuhl has not explained his votes against these or any other appropriations bills. None of the appropriations bills have passed with veto-proof majorities. Most of the bills passed are under veto threat from the White House. Kuhl's vote with his party helps to give those veto threats some credibility, which in turn gives Senate Republicans leverage to remove or reduce appropriations that aren't in line with the Republican agenda.

If Kuhl votes for the final, compromise version of the bill, he can have it both ways: He can claim that he ultimately voted for the appropriation (and his earmarks), even though he initially opposed the bill.

The DCCC has announced a "blitz" of ads targeting Randy Kuhl, among others, over the July 4 holiday. Unlike top-tier candidates (such as Jim Walsh in NY-25), who will be targeted by radio ads, Kuhl will be hit by "telephone calls, emails and web video".

Though the announcement doesn't say how many telephone calls the DCCC is making, when you combine the withering effect of robo-calls with emails and web video, one wonders why Kuhl won't just resign on the spot in the face of this terrific deluge.

If it's not painfully obvious, that last sentence was sarcasm. This is a nothing ad campaign that, at best, will garner a little attention in the local newspaper and promptly be forgotten.

With his appearance at a Brighton Democratic Committee meeting, and now that content is posted on his website, David Nachbar's campaign has started in earnest. As new information becomes available, it's possible to glimpse some of the Nachbar strategy for election.

Though full reports of Nachbar's appearance at the Brighton meeting have yet to be posted, one attendee ("davesnyd") reported at Rochesterturning that Nachbar's campaign will not be focused on a grassroots drive. This person summarized Nachbar's answer to the electability question as follows:

Mr. Nachbar’s response to that question boiled down to a statement that he can afford to hire the best campaign assistants– including people who had previously worked for or with the DCCC. Also, that he feels that between self-funding and fund-raising, he thinks he can raise $2.5M for this campaign.

Nachbar's strategy is one used by many corporate managers when facing an unknown problem: hire experts and trust their guidance. This strategy can explain why Nachbar has been reluctant to engage with local committees. Instead of spending hours listening to the advice of local Democrats, Nachbar can rely on the wisdom of former DCCC staffers. On the face of it, this might be a reasonable strategy. Let's see how it's playing out so far.

Nachbar's new site, which I assume is the product of sessions between him and his DCCC-bred experts, is a mixture of platitudes along with a few new ideas. Most of it is unobjectionable, non-specific, middle-of-the-road thinking about the major issues of the day. Interspersed with those are a few howlers, like the first bullet point of his Iraq strategy:

Our troops have done what they have been asked to do. It is time for them to come home. We need to deploy the Corps of Engineers, in place of the Marine Corps, to help rebuild basic human needs: power, water, hospitals, schools, police and housing to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and to show American credibility.

Anyone who's paid attention to the war in Iraq understands that any US presence makes them a target for insurgent attacks. Removing Marines and sending in the Army Corps of Engineers would replace one target with another: it's likely that the Marines would have to stay to protect the Engineers.

Aside from this little misstep, the Nachbar site does its job: it introduces the candidate in language designed to pique the interest of anyone even slightly interested in an alternative to Randy Kuhl. The next play in the DCCC playbook is a media campaign designed to introduce Nachbar as a non-threatening alternative, then perhaps some issue ads that distinguish Nachbar from Kuhl, and finally a few responses to the almost-certain attacks from Kuhl.

What's missing from Nachbar's campaign is one thing: the involvement of the voters in the 29th. As Carolyn Schaeffer, the Yates County Chair, puts it in her letter to City Newspaper:

Mr. Nachbar's candidacy is the antithesis of a voter-centered campaign.

The Nachbar/DCCC playbook places voters in the role of consumers rather than actors, and it treats his candidacy as a product that needs to be sold. Instead of attending endless coffee sessions, participating in neighborhood canvassing, and showing up at every town celebration, this strategy substitutes money for time. Since Nachbar doesn't have the time to visit and cultivate party support, he'll just do it wholesale, by beaming out television, radio and print ads that tout the Nachbar brand.

The Nachbar product created from the consultants' recipe comes in one flavor -- vanilla -- and it's meant to go down smoothly, with no bitter aftertaste. That's probably fine for the general election, but primary voters aren't used to such bland concoctions. David Nachbar will have to figure out how to inject some flavor into his campaign, or he'll be faced with an unpleasant and expensive lesson consultants can't teach.