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.
This is more of a sports metaphor, but h/t to Jerry Sullivan, one of my favorite Buffalo News writers, for the title
Some items of note around the country today:
I just got an e-mail from Rep. Eric Massa with the ominous title "An Important Announcement About The 2010 Election", with the text:
The Founding Fathers designed the House of Representative as the People's House, and as such the citizens of this great Nation have the duty to elect their member of Congress every two years. While people sometimes get sick of campaigns, this cycle of frequent elections gives the people the best and most immediate tool possible to hold their member of Congress accountable and make their voices heard.
Accountability is a value that I hold near and dear, and it is with this spirit of service that I write you today.
On Saturday, 10/10 at 10:00 am, I will be making a formal announcement about the 2010 election. I would like to invite all of you, friends of old and new, to join me at Centerway Square in Corning NY on this morning.
It has been my honor and privilege to serve the families of this region and I hope to see you on Saturday in my hometown of Corning.
I called Massa's comm people for comment, and they declined to do so initially. Will update if warranted.
I don't like the sound of it, though. Massa knows it's a tough district (he lost his first race in 2006, which I worked on for a bit, and it's my grandpa's district), so perhaps it's just to prime the pump for a big crowd for his re-election announcement. I can't imagine he's running for higher office- certainly not Gov or Senator, and I don't really see him in something like a primary for comptroller or AG (or even qualified). The worst possibility is that he's not running again, something that would really disappoint me. I've been a huge fan of Massa's, particularly on his pushing for the House health care bill to be more progressive, and on his very strategic ways of talking about health care to constituents. He spent 45 minutes with a group of us NYers at Netroots Nation talking about that, and also hit some nails on the head when speaking at panels, too.
But one term and done would really piss me off, considering how hard the district is and how hard many of us worked for him, and that many of you contributed close to $1 million overall on ActBlue- including several thousand for standing firm on a public option. I hope he stays.
At the polar opposite of one term and done, former four-term Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad is running again. I asked former Iowa political operative Mike Lux for comment, to which he replied "I thought we got rid of that m*****f*****."
Last night, the defense authorization bill with the LGBT hate crimes amendment beat a motion to recommit (an effort by the Republicans to strip out the amendment), 178-234. Those are solid numbers, in addition to the fact that the Senate version already has it in by amendment. So we should be all set. HRC reports the conference report should be voted on in both houses by the end of next week before going to Obama's desk. We're close to the first major legislative achievement for LGBT rights in this term.
Glenn Greenwald has a fantastic piece documenting how Anne Kornblut violates the WaPo's own rules by using anonymous sourcing sixteen different times in one piece on the Obama Admin's national security policies, and journalistic ethics in general, as well as some on national security issues.
Yesterday, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, which would legalize marriage equality in the District, was introduced with much fanfare and 10/13 councilmembers co-introducing it. If you're looking for legislative and process details going forward, I wrote a piece last week on it here, and my friend Michael Crawford of DC for Marriage also has a piece today.
If you live in California, there are two LGBT bills before the Governor- one that would recognize Harvey Milk Day (which he's vetoed before, prior to the movie I believe) and one that would clarify that same-sex couples married out-of-state before Prop. 8 are recognized in CA, and that couples married after Prop 8 are entitled to the same rights. I know a lot of LGBT couples who marry in other states and have talked about moving to California one day- this would ensure they are entitled to marriage recognition. Equality California has phone numbers here of your local office- call Arnold and tell him to sign the bills.
Robert Harding at TAP reports the Rochester D&C is running another column by David Sirota, his latest on Afghanistan, which is a great sign. I wrote a bit last week on the D&C, a staid, center-right newspaper with far too many right-wingers on the ed page and a center-right ed board in a solidly Dem city with some hubs of progressivism. They're considering adding David permanently to the ed page. Take a second and drop an e-mail to Editorial Page Editor James Lawrence at jlawrenc@democratandchronicle.com and tell him that you want to see David Sirota's column made permanent.
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.
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.
The Northeast (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island & Vermont) has been sharply trending towards the Democratic party for some years now. Increasingly at a State and Federal level Republicans are finding it harder to get elected in the Northeast, be they conservatives or moderates, particularly in statewide races. And this years election seems certain to thin out their ranks even further.
We now have 7/9 Governors, 14/18 Senators and 51/65 House Districts!
Below the line for a look at the 14 GOP held House Races in the Northeast in 2008.
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.
Democrats Work and WesPAC have launched a contest to determine which Congressional district General Wes Clark is going to visit this summer.
This won't be an ordinary visit. General Clark will travel to one Congressional district where a Democratic challenger is fighting to change the direction of our country to work side-by-side with area Democrats to make a positive impact through community service. We want you to tell us where we should put our values into action.
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.
The amazing organization VoteVets is having a contest to see which candidate gets $5k in PAC. VoteVets endorses military veterans, a group that needs more political representation, and the leader of the organization, Jon Soltz, argues aggressively for smart national security strategy on cable news channels in a way most of wish Democrats would. He takes it to the Republicans every day on Iraq and on smart uses of the military, breaking us out of the stultified national security conversation.
The group was essential in beating George Allen, and ran effective ads on body armor in 2006 that were extremely powerful. They are having an endorsement contest to see which veteran gets a $5k PAC donation.
I've been meaning to sign up for their alerts anyway, so I signed up here and voted for Eric Massa, the only VoteVets guy to endorse the Responsible Plan.
The Iraq debate is going to be heating up for the next eight months. Tom Andrews of Win Without War just sent an open letter to Congress calling for an end to Congressional funding of the war. Significantly, the call is not just to cut off funding for the war effort general, but to cut off funding for permanent military bases, military contractors, and any long term status of force agreements with the Iraqi government that will tie the hands of the next President. Andrews is also calling for the funding of a diplomatic offensive in the region.
It's a turn for the Iraq campaign, and a way to broaden the conversation away from the ridiculous notion that this war can be stopped in one fell swoop. You can co-sign the letter here.
Speaking of Blue Majority, Mark Pera's primary against Dan Lipinski is in just 11 days time (February 5th), and Donna Edwards faces off against Al Wynn only one week later. The time to give to them is now.
Asked to explain what precisely he found problematic, Feingold offered that Edwards had "taken in" voters by switching positions on several key issues.
"You have to consider what the audience is, and obviously these are very popular positions to take when you are in a primary where you are trying to get the progressive vote. But wait a minute -- there were opportunities to vote against the bankruptcy bill, there was an opportunity to vote against the China [trade] deal. Those are the moments where you sort of find out where somebody is. So I think, people are being taken in a little bit that now he is taking these positions."
There is no one in the Senate who I respect more than Senator Feingold. While I disagree with him on this one, I have to admit that Edwards did not engage the big fights he needed to while he was in the Senate.
President Clinton put this country on a fundamentally different path. He changed the fiscal nature of this country, he changed the international relations of this country…He left the country on a totally different trajectory where people felt they were prepared for the 21st century."
Whatever. "Fundamental change" is not something that can be immediately wiped away by the next President. Outside of Kosovo, I can't think of anything that Bill Clinton did, against Republican objections, that Bush has not entirely reversed. Considering that "Clintonian" has come to mean a series of incremental, targeted government programs, I can't see how anyone would think that Bill Clinton fundamentally changed the country.
Now that we are down to just three candidates, primary straw polls become much simpler. So, I have included one in the extended entry. I'm interested to know where Open Left readers stand.
This is an open thread. Tell the world what is on your mind.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters reject amnesty for phone companies that may have violated the law by selling customers' private information to the government, preferring to let courts decide the outcome. Again intensity favors opponents of amnesty, with 48% "strongly" opposed. Fewer than 1-in-3 (31%) support amnesty for the phone companies, with just 1-in-5 (22%) strongly supporting amnesty.
Opposition to amnesty is also widespread, cutting across ideology and geography. Majorities of liberals, moderates, and conservatives agree that courts should decide the outcomes of these legal actions (liberals:67% let courts decide, 28% give amnesty; moderates: 59% let courts decide, 28% give amnesty; conservatives: 52% let courts decide, 37% give amnesty). Large majorities in every part of the country also reject amnesty: 60% in the West (29% give amnesty), 61% in the Northeast (32% give amnesty), 59% in the Midwest (33% give amnesty), and 57% in the South (30% give amnesty). Seventy percent (70%) of Democrats and 61% of independents say let the courts decide. Republicans are evenly split (45% give amnesty, 44% let the courts decide) with equal intensity on both sides of the divide.
And again, spread across the ideological and partisan spectrum, people want individual warrants.
Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters oppose allowing courts to issue blanket warrants for wiretapping American citizens that would not have to name any specific individual, with a near majority (49%) "strongly" opposing blanket warrants. Fewer than 1-in-3 (31%) support blanket warrants.
I'm starting to collect candidate statements on the FISA fight in reaction to Bush's call for amnesty for the phone companies that broke the law and spied on Americans and the expansion of powers Congress is considering making permanent.
STATE BLOGS
