| The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle came out with a very puzzling endorsement of Randy Kuhl today. F29th has an excellent take-down of the piece.
Obviously, Jim Lawrence, Tom Tobin et al. are entitled to their own opinions. It is, after all, an opinion page. And, often, I personally agree with their opinions. But it needs to be said: their reasoning often makes less or no sense, even when they arrive at conclusions that I believe are correct (and in this case they haven't).
The Kuhl endorsement is a perfect example of the weakness of their arguments. They write:
Kuhl has grown in office. He has strengthened already strong ties to the district, which covers much of the Southern Tier and includes all or parts of nine towns in Monroe County. He's become a more confident, informed, less defensive lawmaker in sync with his district.
Massa is encyclopedic on the issues but his scope is more national than local. This district can't afford politicians who fight the big battles but fail to connect adequately to the needs and aspirations of their constituents.
I think much of this is a roundabout way of saying that Kuhl brings in a lot of pork. This isn't even true (he frequently brings in less than other area Congressmen, for better or for worse, probably because of his lack of seniority). But worse than that, this kind of thinking -- that the most important thing you can do as a representative is bring in pork -- is rooted in naive, simplistic, anti-free market thinking. The naivete is in thinking that pork does much for a district (in most cases, the amount of pork coming into a district is less than $100 per person). The anti-free marketism lies in the belief that it's a good idea to have your government take complete responsibility for the local economy.
Realistically, issues like immigration, free trade, and border security have a much greater impact on the local economy than do loans for bowling alleys and the like. Kuhl's opposition to sensible immigration reform (along the lines of, say, the McCain-Kennedy bill) ignores the needs of the district's agricultural industry. His support for agreements like CAFTA (which I sympathize with) are most likely damaging for the region's manufacturing jobs (even if they're not bad for the nation's overall economy). And his willingness to go along with the Bush administration's scare tactics -- who can forget "They want to kill all of you, all of you!" and his fear-mongering about driver's licenses -- is exactly the sort of thing that depresses tourism from Canada. In short, Kuhl's positions on many issues that might be considered national have negative local consequences, no matter how strong his "ties" are throughout the district.
Now, onto the other part of their point, that "He's become a more confident, informed, less defensive lawmaker..." That is patently absurd. He's become a less confident, more defensive lawmaker. The old Randy Kuhl debated in front of audiences and held regular meeting with constituents. The new one ducks public fora, locks the doors of his office, and talks about "packing" to protect himself from peaceniks.
This "packing" comments bring me to a final point about something we rarely discuss on this blog: Randy's history of gun violence. The D&C editorial page (to its credit) is very serious about the dangers of gun violence. To turn around and endorse a candidate with Kuhl's history is bizarre.
I imagine that this endorsement will draw a very angry response from readers. The best way to make your displeasure felt is to write a letter to the editor. Here's the address for writing a letter. |
