Yes, he really said that. Speaking to the like-minded at the left-wing Nutroots convention this weekend.
Transcript here.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
|
"When bad men combine, the good must associate." -- Edmund Burke |
FEATURES
Local
Albany
National
Big Media
Above Politics
Rochester Life
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(170)
-
▼
August
(13)
- Teddy Bare
- Oh, Henry!
- Senator Ted Kennedy, R.I.P.
- Correction -- Not What I Thought!
- Vox Populi
- Shrewd Move in the County Legislature
- THE GOVERNMENT THAT CAN TAKE AWAY YOUR CASH FOR CL...
- US Healthcare: Number 1 in the World for Health-R...
- Massa Story Goes National
- Massa: "I Will Vote Against the Interests of My Di...
- "Single Payer" Paradise
- An Obama Voter Opines ...
- "I Don't Want to Be Taxed to Pay for Somebody Else...
-
▼
August
(13)
Contributors
THE ALMANAC OF MONROE COUNTY POLITICS
7 comments:
Telling that you deleted all context from the quote.
The question was would he vote for single payer even if the town hall meeting sentiment was against. The answer was, basically, yes.
No surprise to anyone paying attention -- he's only said that he supports single-payer healthcare about a million times.
By the way, is that all you have? A "gotcha" moment that isn't? A reference to "nutroots". That's not going to beat Massa in 2010, and you know it.
Sorry, Rotters, but you're wrong on this one. The question was not about how he'd vote if a town hall meeting didn't like single payer, but about how he'd vote even if his district was against it so strongly that that he'd lose re-election. Read the transcript.
Your admiration for the congressman Massa impairs your customary reasonableness.
Deleted context? For heaven's sake, we linked to the full transcript. All our post said was "Here's what he said" and "Here's the video and transcript."
To avoid confusion, if confusion it was, we've placed the transcript link on its own, instead of in the same sentence referring to the video. Just in case people were overlooking it. We've also embedded the video directly.
Or perhaps our headline should have reflected that what he really said was not "I will vote against the interests of my district, but rather "I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district."
And I'm afraid it's you, not we, who are taking things out of context. The question was not, as you state, perhaps wishfully, "would he vote for single payer even if the town hall meeting sentiment was against."
The question was, would he vote for single payer, "Even if it meant you were being voted out of office?".
To which Massa responded "I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful."
The question was not about how he'd vote if the group at a town hall meeting didn't like single payer, but about how he'd vote even if his district was against it, even so strongly that that it would cost him re-election!
Both the question and his answer addressed the district.
It's there on the transcript and the video.
Now, there's an important and respectable philosophy of representative democracy in America, which holds that congressmen are supposed to vote in accordance with their best judgment, even if their constituents won't like that vote.
So it's not like Massa's being unreasonable. It's just that, when he leaves the comfy precincts of "Netroots Nation" he has to go back to the real nation, where he would have to explain such a vote to his constituents. And it's true that constituents tend to not be big fans of the aforementioned philosophy.
Your last paragraph suggests we're out to get Congressman Massa. Right after his election, we suggested that conservatives should show up at his events and ask questions, just as left-oriented groups had done to poor old Kuhl. But that's a different proposition than being out to get him. We've even singled him out for praise, commending him for standing up to Time-Warner over internet download caps.
As for a "gotcha" moment -- hey, he said what he thought. (And reiterated it two lines further down the transcript). If "macaca" could bring down George Allen, who knows where any such "gotcha" might lead to?
Finally, there may be some whistling-past-the-graveyard in your suggestion that this won't beat Massa in 2010. Well it could, although by itself it probably won't. But Massa partisans know that, despite the Congressman's remarkable appetite for work as a candidate and his smart and focused campaign, Massa didn't win the GOP-leaning district as much as Randy Kuhl lost it by being a wretched candidate, a wretched Congressman, and a lazy campaigner in a big Democratic year. Incumbency will certainly help, but Congressman Massa has a big job before him in getting re-elected, with prospects for success that may be good, but are scarcely certain -- as he himself doubtlessly understands.
After being asked for clarification on the headline comment, Massa said: " I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them."
That's what I meant by out of context. He clarified his remark. When someone is speaking extemporaneously and they clarify what they're saying, a reasonable listener takes the clarification, not the original statement.
That said, I assume you'll agree that he's going to clarify his comments further, and we'll be left with the original point: Massa supports single-payer.
As for the "costs him his seat" part, he is a first-term MoC, the election was less than a year ago, and he campaigned on a platform that included single-payer. I don't see how that's such a big deal. First-term Congressmen generally follow the legislative agenda upon which they campaigned.
That all said, I found this interesting:
It's just that, when he leaves the comfy precincts of "Netroots Nation" he has to go back to the real nation, where he would have to explain such a vote to his constituents. And it's true that constituents tend to not be big fans of the aforementioned philosophy."
He campaigned for four years on single payer, from Olean to Pittsford. Do you think people weren't listening? Was there some sleight of hand that caused him to be elected despite his clearly-stated and long-held position on this issue? You seem to think he keeps single payer in his pocket and whispers it to progressives at Netroots Nation. The first time I heard him articulate that position in person was at the Canandaigua Rotary Club in 2006. That's hardly a progressive audience.
As for the point about Randy Kuhl, I agree that he was a poor candidate. But, if I were whistling pass the graveyard, wouldn't you think some notable Republican would step up for the easy pickings in the 29th? So far, every Republican with name recognition in the district has taken a pass on running. The Republicans are left with the little-known one-term Mayor of Corning. He seems like a fine person, but he's not Maggie Brooks, George Winner, Brian Kolb, Cathy Young or even Tom Santulli. Even Bill Nojay is hedging his bets, saying that a candidate can wait until next April or May to step into the ring (which is crazy talk.)
You're missing our point.
Of course he's been saying all along he wants single payer. No argument.
We're not talking about that.
Our point is that in discussing single payer, he articulated the view that he'd vote for it even if the people of his district were so much against it that his vote would cost him his seat.
His subsequent statement that you quote -- "I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them" -- (and that we referred to in our answer to your comment) serves only to emphasize his point about his willingness to vote against the wishes of his constituents. And that is what we're pointing out in posting this item.
Finally you misconstrue this paragraph in our response comment:
It's just that, when he leaves the comfy precincts of "Netroots Nation" he has to go back to the real nation, where he would have to explain such a vote to his constituents. And it's true that constituents tend to not be big fans of the aforementioned philosophy."
By "aforementioned philosophy" we don't mean single payer, but rather the philosophy of representation that we discussed in the paragraph immediately preceding, which holds that congress members can or should vote for what they think is right, even if their constituents strongly oppose it. We are saying that Massa's comment exemplifies this view, that it's a philosophically respectable view, but that it can get the representative in hot water with his constituents when he does it.
Some of the bigger-name Republicans you mentioned aren't angling for that seat because they're not interested in running for congress, like Maggie Brooks. The main reason none of them are giving up the position they hold, in order to run in 2010, is because they know that, after redistricting, that district isn't going to exist as a predominantly GOP leaning district in 2012. To seasoned political sophisticates like the people you name, giving up their current offices, and going to all the trouble, is too high a price to pay for a congressional career that's only going to last for 2 years.
We interpret Nojay's statement about waiting until next spring as his way of indicating he's not running. He's too sophisticated to believe a candidate could wait that long. More likely, Nojay sees the fact that the Conservative Party backs Tom Reed as setting him up for a replay of a few years back, when the Conservatives helped lock Nojay out of the nomination by backing Mark Assini.
"By "aforementioned philosophy" we don't mean single payer, but rather the philosophy of representation that we discussed in the paragraph immediately preceding, which holds that congress members can or should vote for what they think is right, even if their constituents strongly oppose it. "
OK, then, I guess the root of our disagreement is whether his constituents "strongly oppose" single-payer health insurance. I'm honestly not sure. A vocal minority do, but we aren't ruled by a vocal minority. The only recent poll that's specific to the 29th is the election, and Massa won that while supporting single-payer. There are a lot of national polls out, and it depends a great deal on how the question is worded.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Our posting was not about Massa supporting single payer in a district that adamantly opposes it. We agree with you, we don't know whether they do or not, although if we had to bet the Philbrick family fortune on the question, we'd bet against it.
Our posting was about a representative who said he'd vote against the interests (by which we read "views") of his constituents.
Whether it's about their views on single payer, or farm subsidies, or the war, or public urinals, or anything else.
And as we said, that's a philosophically principled position. But it can be a hard sell to your constituents.
Massa's bloggers have been working desperately to defend his statements for the passed few days. You were right Philbrick to point out Rotten's attempt at recreating what Massa said and using the "taken out of context" spin defense. That was a very good (yet sneaky) try though.
Did you also catch his subtle request to have the left ship bodies to his town hall meetings because so many people aren't happy and not fawning over him now.
I wonder if he called channel 13 yet to yell at them for covering his anti-constituent comments. He gets so angry when the press doesn't kiss his backside. D&C obeyed.
Post a Comment