Over the last few weeks we've heard all manner of thoroughly ugly and completely baseless crap from Republicans across the country. We've heard that Congressional Dems as well as Barack Obama himself were potentially "anti-American" from first class wingnut Michelle Bachman. We've heard from wingnut Rep Robin Hayes that Democrats "Liberals hate America-people who work hard, achieve, love God. We've heard how much Sarah Palin likes to appear in the "Pro America" parts of the nation.
Now we get to see and hear "Shotgun" Randy Kuhl (R-Hair Club for Men) say on camera that he "firmly believes" that Democrats want the American People to suffer and to hurt." No, really. Here's the exact quote:
I firmly believe the Democratic majority wants the American public to suffer and to hurt so that they can make some political gains at election time, and I think that's wrong.
Excuse me, Randy? Did you really just say that? The tape doesn't lie, I guess.
I have just about enough of this crap from GOP dweebs nationwide, but this addition to their 2008 Hall of Shame is simply beyond the pale.
I understand that Randy is polling well behind progressive Eric Massa and that desperate times call for desperate measures and all, but this is ridiculous.
Randy Kuhl has long been an embarrassment to New York State as well as his own party. He's now crossed a line that he can't uncross.
They say that Walter Mondale was told in the waning weeks of the '84 campaign, when it was perfectly obvious that he was about to get crushed, that he should campaign the way he wanted his grandchildren to remember him.
I have to say that Randy's grandchildren may look back upon the fact that Randy once drunkenly pulled not one, but twoshotguns on their grandma as not exactly his lowest point.
It is going to be so nice to see Kuhl tossed out on his ass. Good riddance.
Wow. You can smell the desperation a mile away with this one. There is stretching the truth and then there's is just flat out making crap up. The NRCC's new ad in NY-29 is one busload of crap just dying for a fact check. The gist of this new ad is that challenger Eric Massa wants to raise taxes so that he can give free health care to scary brown people. Seriously. Check it out:
What's interesting about this claim, especially since I've never heard Massa say anything that could possibly be construed as advocating any such thing, is the citation provided in the ad. The ad makes a number of completely BS claims and provides citations for two of them. The first citation is from a questionnaire of some sort from the Progressive Democrats of Genesee Valley. The second, the one is supposed to piss people off the most, the bit about giving free health care to illegal immigrants, is much more interesting - and completely absurd.
Now, if the NRCC or the Kuhl campaign wants to produce quotes from Massa saying that he wants to give free health care to brown people from the OTH or the Toledo Blade, I suggest they do so. I'm pretty damn sure no such quotes exist. But, why on earth are they citing a bill in a Congress in which Massa does not serve? NY-29 is represented in the 100th Congress by one "Shotgun" Randy Kuhl (R-Hair Club for Men). Why is the NRCC attempting to tar Massa with a bill on which he could not vote for or against? Is it just to have some tiny type at the bottom of the screen when they make such a transparently BS claim?
Or are they simply, as someone recently described them, "poo-flinging howler monkeys" that are furiously flinging crap, true or not, in hopes that something sticks?
Nothing warms the hearts of political reporters like quixotic write-in candidacies. It turns out we've got one in NY-29. Predictably, it's a disillusioned Republican (whatever quarrels I might have with New York State Republicans, you have to give them credit for being justifiably disillusioned with their party):
Alan Merklinger sees it differently. "I have a way of motivating people," said the Army veteran who lives in Hopewell.
The registered Republican who typically spends Election Day working at his local polling place as an election inspector will be wearing a different hat this Nov. 4.
That of congressional candidate.
Merklinger is running as a write-in candidate, meaning voters can put his name in the space at the top of column No. 6, which will have the names of candidates running to represent the 29th Congressional District: U.S. Rep. Randy Kuhl, R-Hammondsport, and Democrat Eric Massa.
Will this have much of an affect on the race? Probably not.
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.
In a debate Monday in his upstate New York district, GOP Rep. John R. Kuhl said he wants to "essentially do away with the Appropriations Committee" to reduce wasteful spending.
The House Appropriations Committee is "where all the earmarks and seniority comes into play," Kuhl said during the debate with his Democratic challenger, Eric Massa. Instead, he said, every congressional district "ought to get the same amount of money" in earmarks.
Kuhl's campaign spokeswoman, Meghan Tisinger, told Politico the earmarking system is "extremely flawed," and said, "If you gave everyone an equitable share of federal funds, you really wouldn't need an Appropriations Committee."
Kirstin Brost, spokeswoman for Democrats on the Appropriations Committee, tells Politico that Kuhl "doesn't seem to understand the basic functions and responsibilities of Congress."
Brost said the Appropriations Committee handles "the $1 trillion discretionary budget covering every Cabinet agency," and that "earmarks represent less than one percent of this budget."
David Williams, vice president of policy at the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, also criticized Kuhl's proposal.
"It doesn't make sense," he said. "The problem isn't that the Appropriations Committee exists. The problem is the individual members of the committee."
Stu Rothenberg, one of America's premier political prognosticators has upgraded the race in NY-29 from "Toss-Up/Lean Republican" to "Toss-Up/Lean Democratic".
I guess it's really early October, but, in any case, Monroe County Exec Maggie Brooks is endorsing Randy Kuhl in Randy's new ad (via F29th). This doesn't seem like much of a coup for Randy since Brooks is a party-line Republican. But for some reason, Monroe County Republicans seem to think Maggie has some kind of Palinesque star power.
Brooks is no favorite of Monroe County progressives, so I wasn't surprised to get this email from a reader about Maggie's endorsement of Kuhl.
A sure sign of the apocalypse is when Maggie Brooks is chosen to be the "Arbiter of Truth." In Randy Kuhl's latest ad, embattled school tax interceptor Maggie Brooks, Monroe County Executive, touts Kuhl as a "man of principle." An ever-so-gentle soundtrack is playing in the background, the kind that evokes images of Mr. Rogers in the neighborhood. Well, let's evaluate what these two truthful, principled and values-conscious elected officials have done for our neighborhood:
Maggie Brooks loves the neighborhood children so much she wanted to steal from them: approximately $28 million from their schools via the Orwellian-named "F.A.I.R." plan. Thankfully, the schools stood up for the children and took Ms. Brooks to court and won.
Here's Randy Kuhl, explaining why he voted against a gay rights bill in 1993.
I don't think I'm going to support it. I don't condone their lifestyle. I think it's
their choice and they have to live with it. I look at it different than an Italian person or blacks or Chinese, people who have genetic traits that they can't do anything about. Sexual orientation is their choice and I don't think it's our place to force people that might have a moral opposition to it to have to put up with it and condone it.
So, on this Columbus Day, cheer up, Italians, there's nothing you can do about being Italian!
Last week, Health Care for America Now started running an ad that asked Randy Kuhl (R-Hair Club For Men) which side he was on in the fight for affordable health care for all Americans. Randy then proceeded to flip the hell out and began to threaten TV stations that ran the ad. Today, HCAN responds:
Binghamton, NY - Congressman Randy Kuhl's response to a TV ad by Health Care for America Now stating "Congressman Randy Kuhl voted to weaken a New York law that prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, like cancer" includes no mention of the ad's actual claim.
In a press release dated October 9th, Kuhl calls the ad "false" but does not provide a single line responding to the ad's claim that the legislation Kuhl voted for (H.R. 525, 7/26/05) and continues to defend in his press release would weaken New York's law. Kuhl's omission is because the claim is accurate. New York law on pre-existing conditions gives small business employees six more months of protection than federal law. New York law also provides employees many other consumer protections that are much stronger than federal law.
"Congressman Kuhl doesn't respond to our ad's claim that he would weaken New York's laws on pre-existing conditions for the simple reason that the claim is true," said Richard Kirsch, National Campaign Manager, Health Care for America Now. "The facts are that the bill Kuhl voted for weakens many other New York protections too, including items like coverage for breast cancer screenings and the right to have to an independent appeal if your insurance company denies you coverage."
Kuhl's response also distorts the impact of the bill he voted for. Kuhl claims that the bill would not allow plans to charge higher premiums to individuals within a group, but the bill he voted for actually would allow insurers to charge higher premiums to small businesses that have sicker workers, which is not allowed under New York law.
"New York has some of the strongest laws in the nation protecting health care consumers," said Mary Clark, Regional Director, Citizen Action of New York. "It's time that Congressman Kuhl stopped voting to protect the profits of the health insurance industry and started voting to help New Yorkers."
It's going to be so nice to see Shotgun Randy hit the road.
Democrats seem to be dominating the air waves today. I've seen about eight political ads on Rochester tv and six of them were for Democrats. Here's Eric Massa's new ad:
The Randy Kuhl campaign is trying to strong arm station managers into not running an advertisement from the 527 group Health Care For America Now. I've included the letter from the Kuhl campaign after the break. The ad asserts that by supporting H.R. 525, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005, Kuhl in effect voted to weaken a New York State law that prevented insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.
This assertion appears to be accurate. The bill creates "Association Health Plans" which are not subject to the regulations of the state in which the policy holder lives (although they are subject of course to federal regulation as well as to regulation within the "primary state" in which the AHP is incorporated).
I'll include a number of links, but for starters here's a Roll Call article ("Association Health Plans: Not So Simple," August 20, 2005) that is by subscription only:
The National Governors Association has questioned just how solvent these national schemes would be and how AHP legislation would shift oversight from the state level, where insurance regulation is well established, to the Labor Department, which may not have the manpower to root out malfeasance.
"Primarily, what AHPs do is exempt huge populations from state consumer protections and other regulations," said Matt Salo, director of the health and human services committee at the National Governors Association. The proposed legislation includes "solvency standards, but if there is no one there to enforce them, how useful are they?" Salo asked.
The insurance industry maintains that the proposed legislation will create an unequal playing field by creating new breeds of insurance carriers that are not required to adhere to state insurance requirements and mandates.
ALEXANDRIA, Va., July 26 PRNewswire -- The American Diabetes Association today reiterated its strong opposition to federal legislation to create Association Health Plans (AHPs) that would be exempt from state regulation and oversight and would negatively impact millions of Americans with diabetes. By enabling AHPs to circumvent state regulation and oversight, the "Small Business Health Fairness Act" (H.R. 525, S. 406) would result in the loss of critical health coverage for millions of people with diabetes.
And here's a piece opposing it in the American Journal of Nursing along the same lines.
Others have observed that AHPs would create a "second-class" type of heal insurance, "cherry pick" the best risks from the pool of individuals currently insured by individual policies, and leave the individual market with only the worst risks.
The Kuhl campaign (see the letter after the fold) claims that:
The bill referenced in the ad, H.R. 525, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005, expressly prohibits association health plans (AHPs) from charging higher rates for sicker individuals or groups within the plan.
That simply does not address the issue of whether or not individuals can be denied coverage for preexisting conditions.
The Kuhl campaign also writes of a follow-up bill that:
H.R. 4460 would require insurance companies to be regulated by the state law of each company's primary state. See Attached. The actual text of the bill states: "[t]he covered laws of the primary State shall apply to individual health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer in the primary State and in any secondary State."
And therein lies the problem. Just as all credit card companies move to South Dakota or Delaware because of their weak credit card laws, all AHPs would likely make their "primary state" a state with very weak health care laws. It is surprising that the Kuhl campaign included these details in their "rebuttal" since it actually illustrates the problem with the legislation perfectly.
So there are three key points here:
1. While these AHPs are subject to federal regulation, the Kuhl campaign does not conclusively demonstrate that said regulation is as strong as New York State regulation (as pertains to preexisting conditions), nor that it actually does prevent insurers from denying coverage for preexisting conditions.
2. AHPs are only subject to the laws in their primary state, not in secondary states where the policy holder might live. Thus, a New York resident would not be protected by New York State laws.
3. Health Care For America Now is certainly not alone in suggesting that the law will weaken protections for people with preexisting conditions.
Thus, one must conclude that the Kuhl campaign has no leg to stand on here. If the stations refuse to run the ads, it will be out of sheer cowardice or pro-Republican bias.
It's that simple.
I believe that I've been completely accurate and fair in my summary here, but I am neither a health care nor legislative expert, and if I have made any errors, please let me know in the comments.
October 13-14, 2008
Congressman Randy Kuhl
First Annual Oak Hill Golf Invitational
Oak Hill Country Club
Rochester, NY
$2,500 per player*
*includes Welcome Reception, golf cart & lunch with special guest Congressman Roy Blunt
Daily Kos has just published their Research 2000 poll of NY-29 and the results track very well with both the polls that were released last week. The poll finds challenger Eric Massa with a 7 point lead at 49-42.
Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 10/7-8. Likely voters. MoE 5% (No trend lines)
Kuhl (R) 42
Massa (D) 49
O2B candidate Eric Massa is obviously running a fantastic race -- winning independents by double digits, winning over 12 percent of Republicans while losing only 5 percent of Democrats, and sitting just a hair-width away from taking a seat he lost by just three percentage points in 2006. In fact, Eric Massa has outraised wife abuser Randy "Shotgun" Kuhl by a narrow margin, something you don't see every day. Incumbents usually vastly outraise challengers, but Massa ran a great race in 2006, and has learned the right lessons from his first bid last cycle to kick it up even higher.
When it rains, it pours. With D-trip seemingly still MIA in NY-29, a second ad from an independent group (check out the first one here) is going up today against Randy Kuhl (R-Hair Club for Men). Health Care for America Now is going up with a powerful ad that asks a rather simple question: When it comes to health care, which side is Randy Kuhl on?
Health Care for America Now (HCAN) sent the candidates in the race for New York's 29th Congressional District a sign-on form asking, "Which Side Are You On." Are they on the side in support of quality, affordable health care we all can count on? Or are they on the side that advocates leaving us alone to fend for ourselves in the complicated, unregulated insurance market? Republican Congressman Randy Kuhl did not respond to requests sent to his Congressional and campaign offices. Democratic Candidate Eric Massa sent HCAN a sign-on saying that he is committed to quality, affordable health care for all.
...
Since Congressman Kuhl did not reply, we looked at his record, and it became very clear why he did not answer our simple question. As the current Representative for New York's 29th District, his record shows he is on "the other side"-the side of leaving us alone to fend for ourselves in the complicated, unregulated insurance market.
Randy Kuhl has been consistently on the side of the special interests of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. He has voted against expanding coverage to children and bringing drug costs down for seniors by allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with manufacturers. He voted for a bill that virtually eliminates the ability of states to regulate health insurance practices, and he supports Health Savings Accounts which shift the risk of health care costs from insurance companies on to individuals and families.
I think it's a great ad and there's plenty of good info on the site. Check it out.
More later on this, but for now from the Massa press release:
Massa also announced his 3rd quarter fundraising totals. In this quarter, which runs from July 1st - September 30th, Massa raised $462,200 making this his most successful fundraising quarter during the 2008 this cycle.
Update: The Massa campaign reportedly has 400K cash on hand.
