Former Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) punked conservative talk show host Glenn Beck yesterday by recanting his earlier allegations that House Democrats forced him out of office because he refused to vote for health care reform. Massa resigned on Monday amidst allegations that he sexually harassed one or more male staffers.
Adele Stan has a nice recap of the implosion of Massa's political career at AlterNet. Massa initially said he was stepping down because he had cancer. Then the news broke that the House Ethics Committee was probing allegations that Massa sexually harassed a male staffer.
Beck gave Massa the entire show. Clearly Beck was hoping the former congressman would lay bare nefarious wheeling and dealing by House Democrats to pass health care reform. Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly argues that the Massa train wreck shows the weakness in the whole Beck schtick. Beck didn't bother to find out whether there was a conspiracy. He just assumed Massa was going to tell him what he wanted to hear.
Massa and the health care reform conspiracy
As Tim Fernholtz points out in TAPPED, the notion that Massa was forced out over his stance on health care reform was never very promising, even by conspiracy theory standards: Why would Massa take this moment to start listening to the Democratic leadership, having blithely ignored them throughout his brief political career?
More to the point, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel didn't force Eric Massa to act like a drunken sailor in front of his staff. Clearly, the Dems are relieved to see Massa go. In addition to a near total lack of interpersonal boundaries, he was an unshakable "no" on health reform. The guy is clearly a loose cannon, in the saltiest and most nautical sense. If House Dems had seized the opportunity to get rid of him, that would have been more sound management than conspiracy.
'I failed.'
But under the bright lights, Massa dropped the conspiracy allegations and blamed himself for ethical lapses, according Eric Kleefeld of TPMDC. "I wasn't forced out. I forced myself out. I failed," said Massa.
In fact, Massa seemed eager to preemptively confess to even more inappropriate behavior: "Now, they're saying I groped a male staffer. Yes, I did. Not only did I grope him, I tickled him until he couldn't breathe and four guys jumped on top of me," Massa told Beck, "It was my 50th birthday. It was kill the old guy."
Massa even brought visual aids to assist in his own indictment. He showed Beck a scrapbook of a "crossing the line" ceremony from his Navy days. "It looks like an orgy in Caligula," Massa chirped. His point being that he never got out of the creepy, gropey habits he picked up in the Navy.
He even whipped out an x-ray of his own gut to prove that he really does-or at any rate, really might-have cancer.
By the end of the show, Beck apologized to America for wasting the country's time.
Kucinich still opposed to reform
Meanwhile, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) remains steadfast in his opposition to health care reform, calling it a giveaway to the insurance companies. On the Ed Schultz Show, insurance company whistleblower Wendell Potter urged Kucinich to quit posturing and take the deal, according to Ruth Conniff of The Progressive. Potter agrees that the deal is a massive giveaway to insurers, but he thinks Kucinich is unrealistic to hold out for a better deal.
Stupak smoke signals
Fervent anti-choicer Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) has been threatening for months to derail health care reform over the abortion issue. This week, Stupak was back in the news with some cryptic remarks. He told a town meeting that there was "no such thing as a compromise" on the abortion issue, but he also said that he was more optimistic than he was a week ago that the House leadership could offer him some kind of acceptable accommodation. Stupack insisted that any such deal would have to be written before the bill goes to the Senate for a vote.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
It is worth noting, however, that Eric Massa completely changed his story in just 48 hours. On Friday, he posted a letter on his website taking full responsibility for his resignation, and that his desire to avoid national media attention was a motivating factor in his resignation.
Here are the passages taking responsibility:
I own this reality... In fact, there is no doubt that this Ethics issue is my fault and mine alone.... I want to make something perfectly clear. My difficulties are of my own making. Period.
(...)
I fell short and I believe now, as I have always believed, that it is not enough to simply talk the talk, but rather I must take action to hold myself accountable.
And here are the passages on wanting to avoid attention:
But in the incredibly toxic atmosphere that is Washington D.C., with the destruction of our elected leaders having become a blood sport, especially in talk radio and on the internet, there is also no doubt that an Ethics investigation would tear my family and my staff apart(...)
I am also aware that blogs and radio will have a field day with this in today's destructive and unforgiving political environment.(...)
I ask that members of the press respect the privacy of my family, my staff, and me at this time.
On both counts, this is a complete reversal. Now Massa is alleging a conspiracy to kick him out of office by the Democratic leadership due to his opposition to the health reform legislation, and he is willing to get as much exposure for his story as possible.
This does not necessarily mean that what Massa is claiming now is wrong. It does mean that he was not always telling the truth--it can't be entirely his fault and a conspiracy to get rid of him.
It should also be noted that Massa has a strong motive to change his story. With his entirely new story, he is going to become a martyr for many opponents of health reform legislation. I guess he has decided that is a better track to take than being disgraced over sexual harassment charges. It would have been a more believable tack if he had taken that approach in the first place, and not claimed full responsibility for the sexual harassment, and if by flat-out changing his story, he is receiving a huge wave of new support.
Act Blue pages which I co-managed supported Eric Massa in 2006 and 2008 to the tune of nearly $100,000. Further, before these charges, I was going to help him win re-election no matter his vote on health care. However, there are good reasons to be suspicious of his actions since Friday. And frankly, while I was very proud of it until Friday of last week, I don't feel very good about my past activism for Eric Massa now. No matter the veracity of his contradictory charges, he is not coming across very well right now.
Eric Massa has always never been one to shy away from tough language, which is one of the reasons he was able to gather so many grassroots supporters during his campaigns for Congress. As he prepares to leave Congress today admist sexual harassment charges, he is staying true to form and not going out quietly.
First, he is alleging a conspiracy by the Democratic leadership to force him out of office to pass the health reform bill:
"There's a reason that this has all happened, frankly one that I had not realized," Massa said on WKPQ radio on Sunday. "Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill, and this administration and this House leadership have said, quote unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they've gotten rid of me and it'll pass."
"Steny Hoyer has never said a single word to me at all, never, not once," Massa said. "Never before in the history of the House of Representatives has a sitting leader of the Democratic Party discussed allegations of House investigations publicly, before findings of fact. Ever."
When I voted against the cap and trade bill, the phone rang and it was the chief of staff to the president of the United States of America, Rahm Emanuel, and he started swearing at me in terms and words that I hadn't heard since that crossing the line ceremony on the USS New Jersey in 1983. And I gave it right back to him, in terms and words that I know are physically impossible. If Rahm Emanuel wants to come after me, maybe he ought to hold himself to the same standards I'm holding myself to and he should resign.
This certainly isn't the first time that freshman members of Congress have accused the White House of bringing heavy-handed pressure on Progressives to fall in line. Other reports have come from Lynn Woolsey, and there is talk that one of the primary challengers Donna Edwards faces is being supported by Emanuel behind the scenes.
Responding to a caller to his weekly radio show on WKPQ Power 105 FM, a recording of which was made available via the Web site of local station 13 WHAM-TV, Massa said: "I'm not going to be a Congressman as of 5 o'clock [Monday] afternoon. The only way to stop that is for me to rescind my resignation. That's the only way to stop it. And the only way that's going to happen is if this becomes a national story."
By the end of the show, Massa is saying that passing Health Care Reform via reconciliation will tear the country apart and that the only way to stop it from passing is to get his story (presumably the alleged plan to force him out of Congress) on to Fox News to let the public know what the Democrats will do to get the bill passed.
"A staff member made an intonation that maybe I should be chasing after the bridesmaid," Massa said. He responded by saying, "Well, what I really ought to be doing is frakking you." He said the complaint came not from that staffer, but from another at the table.
As someone who actively supported Massa's campaigns in 2006 and 2008 through both significant fundraising and search engine optimization efforts, the whole situation just seems like a huge frakking mess that I don't want to touch. There is a whole lot of he said / she said going on here. My usual inclination is to believe charges of sexual harassment and strenuous top-down pressure on Progs to fall in line. However, Massa also has appeared to play both sides of the fence during his time in Congress, telling Progs he opposes Democratic bills for left-wing reasons while echoing a lot of right-wing talking points at the same time. His opposition to the housing bill was a pretty good example of this.
I had a lot of hope for Massa, and I am sad he is leaving Congress. That it turned into something this messy is particularly saddening.
Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) will resign Monday at 5pm, a source close to the embattled incumbent tells Hotline OnCall.
Massa has been pressured by House Dems to step aside amid an ethics controversy that caused him to announce earlier this week he would not run for a second term.
If true, then it would set up a summer special election in the NY-29, which has a Cook Partisan Voting Index of Republican +5.5. It would be a difficult seat to keep.
Just as importantly, in the short term it would mean only 216 votes are required to pass health reform in the House. Since Massa was a no vote, this actually helps the chances of reform. Now, only 216 will be needed for passage, instead of 217 if Massa was still in the House.
We have to act fast. Five Democratic Members of Congress from New York are putting the brakes on President Obama's historic campaign to reform our broken healthcare system.
Legislation that would expand healthcare coverage for tens of millions of Americans is gaining steam in Congress. But these five New York Representatives are stalling the bill because it pays for reform with a modest tax on the rich.
This is our best chance for healthcare reform in a generation, but now these five Democratic Members of Congress are putting real reform in jeopardy - even though less than 1% of all New Yorkers would be affected by the tax. Healthcare is too important to sit on sidelines.
It is pretty rare that a freshman member of the U.S. House leads a successful fight to make a tangible difference in the lives of his or her constituents after only three months in office.
It is equally rare that progressive grassroots activism is adopted by a member of Congress, and then quickly translated into a successful, governing victory.
Last week, freshman Representative Eric Massa, who I have been pretty hard on in the past, achieved both at the same time. In so doing, Representative Massa demonstrated that his election to the U.S. House was an important step toward "closing the rootsgap"; that is, the gap between the progressive grassroots and the Democratic leadership. That is big news, both in terms of the open media victory Massa helped secure, and in terms of proving a successful model for grassroots activism to turn into governing policy.
How often does Congress vote on spending bills that only impact one congressional district? The answer is almost never. Members of Congress almost always write and vote on legislation that impacts the entire country, not only their own personal district. In fact, the entire reason we have a federal Congress is to pass laws that impact more than one state. If there were no such laws, there would be no need for a national legislative body.
Here is another question: when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, would it have been appropriate for members of Congress not from the Gulf Coast to vote down all spending for relief and rebuilding efforts, because such efforts disproportionately benefited districts in the Gulf Coast? Should members of Congress from outside the New York and Washington, D.C. metropolitan areas have voted down 9/11 relief effort because their congressional districts did not receive proportional benefit from the aid? Should we not have declared war on Japan in December of 1941 because they only attacked Hawaii?
And here is another question: did Congressman Eric Massa serve in the Armed Forces only because he thought such service would disproportionately benefit New York's Southern Tier? And when Captain Massa ran for Congress, did he refuse all contributions from people living outside his district, including help from the DCCC and other groups which are not based in his district?
And when 8,100,000 American families are facing foreclsoure over the next four years, is it appropriate for a member of Congressto vote against a housing bill because his district is facing only 7,048 foreclosures, which is less than 1 out of every 435 of all foreclosures? As I discuss in the extended entry, this is not a hypothetical question.
Randy Kuhl is on the death list of Republicans against Better Democrat Eric Massa in New York's 29th. Massa is not just in favor of universal health care, he's in favor of straight up single payer health care. NY-29 is also the most Republican district in New York state.
But you know, universal health care isn't popular so whatever.
And we're shooting for a goal of 100 new donations by tomorrow, and here's why. In two weeks, money will start to become less valuable for candidates because they won't be able to buy enough advertising time.
Our Better Democrats page is flush with great people who will make you proud in Congress. Jeff Merkley will be an aggressive progressive Senator in the Wellstone model; the NRSC has decided to stop spending in all races except Oregon and North Carolina, so let's help him out. Mark Begich is in a dogfight against the execrable but hilarious Ted Stevens, Eric Massa, a single payer advocate in the most Republican district in New York state, is leading Randy Kuhl, Annette Taddeo is standing against the bailout, Perriello is creeping up on the racist Virgil Goode, Alan Grayson is beating up on his opponent and proudly running as a liberal in central Florida, Dennis Shulman just got added to Red to Blue, and of course, Darcy Burner is finally leading against Dave Reichert.
Next year, the fight is going to shift from defeating the Republicans to winning over more Democrats to our agenda. With strong Congressional majorities, the fight within the party is the one we can set up for with this amazing wave.
So give and give deep. It will matter, and it will matter in the best way possible.
"Randy Kuhl, my opponent, flip-flopped and yielded under pressure from corporate special interests in the Bush administration to make sure he voted for this bill and it's a very sad day for the American taxpayer," said Massa.
Kuhl's congressional challenger, Eric Massa, says changes to the bailout plan only added pork and corporate tax breaks. He says he would have voted against it both times.
Incidentally, environmental groups were lobbying to pass the bailout bill because it had tax extenders for renewable energy.
In the last couple days, there have been several posts across the blogosphere citing what various candidates running for Congress have said on FISA and retroactive immunity for the telecoms. But so far, it's been all over the map. I'll try to corral all their statements into this diary, so you can see who the "good guys" are.
First, let's start off with the current House and Senate members who voted against this bill. They do deserve credit, as it's their jobs on the line.
Follow me below the fold to see the dozens of Democratic challengers who are standing up for the Constitution, and are against this FISA bill and retroactive immunity.
3500 people and more than 50 Democratic congressional candidates have endorsed a Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. I've been asking these candidates all day what they would ask Petraeus were they in Congress. Here are some of their questions.
Darcy Burner, Democratic candidate for WA-08:
Gen. Petraeus, in March 2007, a few weeks after taking charge of U.S. military forces in Baghdad, you said, "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq." More than a year later, rockets are still falling in the Green Zone and Iranian-backed Shiite militias are fighting each other for power in Baghdad and Basra. The political reconciliation the surge was intended to foster has not happened, nor has any significant diplomatic breakthrough been achieved. So, given that we agree that there is no military solution to the problems we face, is our costly open-ended military commitment to Iraq really making the Unted States safer?
1) The hope of the surge was that it would create the space for political reconciliation and compromise in Iraq. But the Iraqi government and other power centers in the nation remains mired in disagreement with little real progress. Last week, it was the Iranians that reportedly brokered a truce between the Iraqi government and Sadr's Mahdi Army. The level of violence has settled back to 2005 levels. Where is the light at the end of the tunnel?
Jill Derby, NV-02:
"The question I would ask Gen. Petraeus is this: 'The Army is saying that more than 25 percent of soldiers on third or fourth tours suffer mental health problems and Army Chief Of Staff General Casey called the Army "out of balance." What are we doing to help our troops, vets and their families deal with these issues?'"
Donna Edwards, MD-04:
My first question for the General is: When are you prepared to discuss and implement a multi-tiered approach to Iraq that includes economic, diplomatic, and political options to bring stability and sustainable progress to Iraq? Has the war in Iraq made the United States safer? Is the current U.S. force level in Iraq covering up the lack of political progress in the country and isn't that troop level unsustainable? Doesn't the violence of the last several weeks demonstrate that the central government is weak and that the Iraqi forces are not trained or prepared to defend against the insurgents?
I believe "The Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq" is a critical step in the right direction and is the kind of discussion we need to start having in Washington and across the country."
"The question that needs to be asked is how is our current policy making us safer and why we wouldn't be better off spending that money to address problems at home?"
Don Wiviott, NM-03:
Has the War in Iraq actually made America safer?
What plans are in place to both get our troops out of Iraq and give the Iraqi army a chance to step up to the plate and protect their own country?
Since there is no military solution in Iraq, what steps are we taking to ensure Iraqi officials are working together and moving towards lasting political reconciliation?
The President and other top officials talk about winning the war. What criteria constitutes "winning" the war in Iraq? How will we know when we have "won"?
Leslie Byrne, Democratic candidate for VA-11:
General Petraeus: Since our National Security is at risk from a "broken military" according to many of your peers, how do you plan to salvage the military, given the lack of political and economic progress in Iraq, which after all you said was the purpose of the "Surge"?
Chellie Pingree, ME-01:
The number one question General Petraeus should have to answer is this: Has the war in Iraq made America safer?
Eric Massa (NY-29):
"General depending accounting used, this war will cost us from $2 - 3.5 trillion. Help me explain to my constituents why it is more important to rebuild Iraq and not rebuild America."
After five years in Iraq, are we really any safer?
Tim Cunha (FL-06):
When General David Petraeus and U. S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker meet with Congress Tuesday and Wednesday, Tim Cunha, Democratic 6th district congressional candidate, wants them asked: "Is the continued American involvement in the Iraq civil war making America safer?"
Steve Harrison, Democratic candidate for NY-13:
1. General do you believe advocating for a withdrawal from Iraq necessarily indicates either a lack of support for our troops, or a lack of patriotism?
2. General, troop withdrawal is a military operation. Given the current conditions in Iraq, in your expert opinion, what would be a reasonable time frame for complete withdrawal assuming the planning started tomorrow?
3..General, Prime Minister Maliki's surprising attack on the Sadr militia last week showed great weakness in the government's ability to provide security as well as weakness in the government's political ability to unite the country. It also showed great lack of judgment in the capabilities of his military. The Iraqi situation shows no signs of near term stability and it does not appear American military presence has facilitated that goal. In the absence of being able to meet that political goal, what other military goals, in your opinion justify American military presence in Iraq?
"If the United States removed the combat forces in Iraq, would there be any direct threat to the United States? If any threat, what would it be and how could it be mitigated?"
In July of 2006, The Lancet, a British Medical Journal, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion. According to Opinion Business Research, those estimates have risen to over 1 million dead. General Petraeus, how do you ascribe the term "victory" in these circumstances? Additionally, how do these deaths make America safer?
"General depending accounting used, this war will cost us from $2 - 3.5 trillion. Help me explain to my constituents why it is more important to rebuild Iraq and not rebuild America."
Tim Cunha (FL-06) sent a letter to Democratic House leaders.
When General David Petraeus and U. S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker meet with Congress Tuesday and Wednesday, Tim Cunha, Democratic 6th district congressional candidate, wants them asked: "Is the continued American involvement in the Iraq civil war making America safer?"
Alice Kryzan (NY-26) in a heavily contested primary has a video.
STATE BLOGS
