The D&C's coverage of Massa's press conference is now online.
Reader Vincent writes with the news that the Washington Times has some more video of Eric Massa's discussion with some activists, where he says that Sen. Charles Grassley's remarks about the goverment "pulling the plug on Grandma" are "treason".
Tom Reed says he's now read HR 3200, the healthcare reform bill, and he still doesn't like it.
The Star-Gazette report on Reed's decision doesn't say what he didn't like about the bill. It will be interesting to see if Reed can come up with specifics. Most of the critique we've been hearing from the right is straw man arguments. The bill is not single-payer or "socialized medicine", so all the Canadian and British comparisons are off-the-mark, for example.
I'd sincerely like to have someone like Reed, who's a lawyer, come up with some sensible, sane objections to the bill. Or, if he thinks that the bill is a wrong approach entirely, what's the right approach? And how will his approach deal with a middle class that's increasingly unable to afford insurance, and is denied insurance by private insurers?
The Star-Gazette has Tom Reed's reaction to the most recent Massa dust-up.
Some bloggers who attended Netroots Nation weigh in on Massa's appearance there. Robert Harding from the Albany Project has some video of Massa's appearance there. And reader Vincent sends this post from blogger Digby who says that Massa was "adamant" about the public plan.
Update: Rochesterturning also has video of Massa's appearance.
The Star-Gazette has coverage of Massa's press conference. Massa's not backing down:
I stand by my words. My politics, when it comes to being independent, come from people like Amo Houghton and, frankly, Ronald Regan [sic] and Franklin Roosevelt.
Reader Tom tells me that Massa was on the Brother Wease radio program this morning. Rochester's Channel 10 also covered the story yesterday.
The only local news outlet covering the "voting against the interests" story was 13-WHAM. WHAM also has a story on healthcare-related campaign donations.
Mustard Street thinks he's caught Eric Massa saying something out-of-bounds, specifically "I will vote against the interests of my district".
The remark is taken out of context. Massa was being asked whether he'd vote for a single-payer bill, even if sentiment at town hall meetings was against it. His final answer is "I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them."
Anyone who's watched Eric Massa for the last 4 years knows his position on healthcare: he supports a single-payer option. If you don't know that about Massa, you're not paying attention. He won the election espousing that position. It's no surprise that he'd say that he'd vote for single-payer, no matter what people say at town hall meetings.
But don't trust me, watch the video or read the transcript. It's pretty clear that Massa's responding to a specific, hypothetical question.
A reader tells me that the Massa Town Hall meeting in Olean last night was heavily attended (over 300) and long (over 4 hours).
Eric Massa is one of eight lawmakers who have signed on to a letter to FEMA asking for a disaster declaration for ten Western New York counties. Cattaraugus County is one of the ten counties on the list, and the only one in the 29th district.
Update: WIVB has a short report on the Olean meeting. They peg attendance at 150.
Dr. Denny at Scholars and Rogues takes Eric Massa to task for accepting corporate PAC money.
Rochesterturning has posted a full index to the video they took of Massa's first town hall meeting. It's clearly a lot of work on their part, and a good public service.
Eric Massa has weighed in on the crisis of the day: $200 back-to-school grants for "children across the state whose families are on welfare, receiving food stamps, or whose parents are unemployed". Massa thinks that the money is spent without accountability.
In case you've been under a rock, this story has been all over the national, regional and local news. Because the money was dispersed into food stamp accounts rather than as vouchers for back-to-school items, there was chaos at local grocery stores. Also, a local Wal-Mart reported a "run" on high-end electronics.
Though I agree with Massa that this could have been done better, I have to laugh at the agida over this relatively minor, and completely stimulative, expenditure.
The press on this was golden. Is it really a front-page story that some poor people have bad financial judgment? What's next, a treatise on the sun rising in the East? (And please let me know which "high-end" electronic device can be purchased for $200, at a Wal-Mart.)
This little controversy was also a classic New York political moment. It begins with a David Paterson fuckup. It involves Maggie Brooks bitching about welfare allocation. And it ends with Dean Skelos saying that the money could be better spent on STAR tax rebates. Even wicked George Soros got involved, by having the gall to chip in $35 million on this giveaway. The only thing missing was Pedro Espada, but I'm sure he's involved somehow.
The Corning Leader covers Massa's appearance at a Chamber of Commerce event. It was all about -- what else -- healthcare reform.
Jane Sutter at the D&C reports on a telephone conversation with Massa.
The Hornell Evening Trib reports on a well-attended two and one half hour meeting in Canisteo.
The NRCC is targeting Massa because he supports closing Guantánamo. Apparently Leavenworth isn't strong enough to hold terrorists, even though it has housed Nazi spies, gangsters, and serial killers.
Finally, the Star-Gazette has a Massa/Reed story on healthcare. I don't think this bodes well for Reed:
Reed said he took a quick look at the bill on the Internet and decided not to waste his time reading it because health care that is run and controlled by the government is philosophically the wrong direction for the nation to go.
When you're running against a guy who believes (with some merit) that he can outwork anyone, saying you didn't bother to read the bill leaves a big hole for an attack, especially when your take on the bill (that it is government-run healthcare) isn't what the bill says.