Massa v. Dickert: Libel Case Settled

It appears that, at long last, Eric has settled with Sanford Dickert, his former campaign manager, on the latter's libel suit against Massa.

Massa on Client 9

After a long afternoon away from the office, I just got around to reading Grievous Angel's coverage of today's Massa presser. Frankly, this type of response was Massa's only option given his close association with Spitzer in the last election. Plus after that wonderful ad the two did together started to float around again, continued silence would have only resulted in humorous YouTube remixes of the ad and Massa's association with Spitzer, like this one which was sent to me this morning.

So to combat that, we got lovely images of Massa standing in the cold yesterday "with a tea kettle of hot water" scraping off his Spitzer bumper sticker (what, was Spitzer's campaign so cheap it couldn't afford those easy to remove vinyl ones?). His remarks weren't gaffe free, though. After throwing Spitzer under the bus and praising David Paterson as "a man who listens," he analogized Paterson assuming the governorship "much like Lyndon Baines Johnson was able to get done what JFK couldn't get done." Of course, LBJ became president after JFK's assassination, while Paterson became governor after Spitzer's ejaculation, so I fail to see the connection.

And leave it to Massa to find a way to attack Congressman Kuhl. When asked about an innocuous article which mentioned that Kuhl is a good golfer (for shame!), Massa responded, "If you have enough time [as Congressman] to improve your golf game then there's something wrong." You know, because Heaven forbid that Congressman Kuhl is allowed play a round of golf once in a while. And it's this type of rhetoric which gets Rottenchester to state about St. Eric, "Watching him...I see a sense of honor and commitment that isn't always there in politicians." And I've been accused of being "over the top." Puhlease!

Massa Remains Mum on Client 9

According to Rottenchester, Massa has apparently donated the $2,000.00 he received from Spitzer this year to the Steuben County's Net Domestic Abuse Program. Good for him.

I'm still wondering, though, why Massa's remaining silent about Eliot "John" Spitzer, especially after today's reports that Spitzer has "used hookers for 6 years" and spent "perhaps as much as $80,000" for such services over the years. Congressman Kuhl issued a statement today stating that Spitzer should step down. Most of the major New York papers have called for Spitzer's resignation, along with the local ones. Democrat Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand also called on Spitzer to resign today, as did local Democrat politicians in Ontario County, so why the continued silence, Eric?

UPDATE: Rottenchester has the full press release from Massa today, which I would have gladly posted before, but it wasn't on his campaign website. Regardless, Massa says, "If in fact these accusations are true, I hope the Governor does the right thing." Now, we can try to assume that Massa is suggesting that Spitzer should resign, but unlike Gillibrand and the other Dems I mentioned above, he's not flat out saying that. This comment appears to be ambiguous on purpose. It could mean to some that he's saying that Spitzer should resign, or merely that he should just plead for his family's forgiveness. So Eric, for the record, answer me this, "Yes or no, should Spitzer resign?"

NRCC: Will Eric Massa Return Spitzer's Sleazy Money?

The NRCC asks. And we in the district await the answer...

Spitzer & Massa: Together Again!

I asked, and you responded. I present to you all, once again, that wonderful Massa/Spitzer ad, entitled "Day One":

Reaction to Massa Presser

One of these days, I would absolutely love to attend a Massa press conference. I wonder how welcomed I would be...

Regardless, here's my reaction to his presser:

1) If the NH primary results are an indication that people are "fed up with politics as usual in Washington, DC" and want to dismantle the "good old boy network," how come the Dems voted for the establishment candidate there? True, Hillary's not physiologically a "boy", but she's most certainly part of that damn network!

2) I highly doubt that Congressman Kuhl's recent mailer on SCHIP cost "hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money." And what's exactly wrong with informing constituents directly on where he stands on an important issue, and even informs them on how to apply for this program?

3) The complaint that Congressman Kuhl has with the "Post Office Congress" isn't that they choose to honor distinguished citizens by naming post offices and federal buildings after them, but rather he believes that on top of doing nice things like that, Congress should also be passing laws that have a real positive affect on the country, and the Dem leadership has failed to do that in 2007. The reason for dubbing it the "Post Office Congress" is because of "the 155 bills signed into law, over one-third of them renamed post offices and court houses" and that "only six [of the 155 bills] will really have a positive affect on the American people." You see, Eric, Congress can rename a post office or two (which Congressman Kuhl has no problem with for a distinguish American, like Congressional Medal of Honor winner Jason Dunham) and pass substantive laws too!

4) Massa repeated his shtick that he's "bi-lingual," i.e., he "speak[s] donkey and elephant, eat[s] carrots and peanuts." You see, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Massa was once a Republican, but switched parties for political gain because he felt "disenfranchised" by the GOP. But as a former Republican, he thinks he can still speak "elephant." Of course, I can't find a single major issue that he runs on in which he has a conservative viewpoint. You see, Republican voters primarily fall into three groups: social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and foreign policy conservatives. If Massa genuinely wants to claim that he speaks "elephant" (and I will define "speaks" as being at least somewhat fluent, merely because you can say "Bonjour" doesn't mean you can "speak" French), then he should prove that he appeals to at least one group of these voters. For example, U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) can legitimately claim that he speaks "elephant" since he appeals to social conservatives with his pro-life views. NM Gov. Bill Richardson (who sadly exited his quest for the presidency today) speaks "elephant" to fiscal conservatives, given his tax cutting record as governor. And when he was still a Democrat, Joe Lieberman's views on Iraq and the War on Terror greatly appealed to the foreign policy conservatives (yes, I know, he got pushed out of his party because of these views and is now an Independent, but since he held these views back when he was a Democrat, he's still a good example). Yet, Massa doesn't hold a view on any significant issue in which he can honestly claim that he "speaks elephant" and "eats peanuts." Instead, he's a proud pro-choice, economic "progressive," who vehemently opposes the Iraq War. Sounds like a typical liberal to me, at least through the ears of one who actually speaks "elephant."

Massa Weighs in on the Presidential Race

Eric Massa believes that the Iowa Caucus results showed a "mandate for change in both parties." Fair enough. But then he goes on to say, "We have to elect people who are bilingual, who speak both donkey and elephant." And the question I have for him is, "When have you ever spoken 'elephant'?"

What's Wrong with This "Hornell Evening Tribune" Headline?

This is the headline appearing in the Hornell Evening Tribune: "'Sorry' but it didn't happen: Kuhl, Massa agree on one thing: Challenger didn't apologize over criticism of Brazil trip".

What's wrong with it? When I first read it, my heart skipped a beat since it's not what we've been reporting here this week. But if you actually read the article, you discover that they still don't agree on what happened. The only thing they agree on is that Massa didn't apologize to Engel directly, since Engel was in Brazil (as I reported here), but Massa's still claiming he didn't call Engel's office to apologize, while Kuhl (via the information relayed to him by Engel's office), still says that Massa did call Engel's office to apologize about this whole flap (read here for why that's very relevant). The Evening Tribune's headline is only adding more confusion to this whole thing:

Massa, the Democrat who challenged Kuhl in 2006 and will again in 2008, denied the claim made in the e-mail, saying he's never spoken to Engel before.

"I called Eliot Engel's office to verify what the Washington Post said about the delegation trip," he said. "That's the only conversation I've had there. [OntarioGOP Note: This is the first time that I know of where Massa actually admits to calling Engel's office.]

"What Randy is talking about, I have no idea," Massa added.

During his weekly telephone press conference call this morning, Kuhl was asked whether or not Massa had apologized, due to the conflicting statements made by the 29th Congressional seat opponents.

"He hasn't," Kuhl said. "He called Eliot Engel's office to apologize, but Eliot was in Brazil and wasn't reachable."

Asked why Massa was apologizing, Kuhl said he assumed because of the comments made about the trip.

"Eliot Engel was insulted by it," he said. "His (Massa's) statements speak for themselves."

Kuhl referred media inquiries about the matter to Engel, because the two had discussed the alleged apology attempt.

"That's the statement Eliot Engel made to me," he said. "You'd have to question Eliot Engel or his staff about it, but that was the message given to me." (Emphasis added)

UPDATE: I should have slammed the first paragraph of the article to begin with: "So, apparently Eric Massa didn't apologize to the man who planned a congressional delegation trip to Brazil last week." There are two sides to this story, even after you read the whole article, and apparently the Evening Tribune only sides with Massa's version if that's how they want to begin this story. Shameless!

What Was Missing from Massa's Press Conference?

Rottenchester has a recap of Massa's presser from earlier today, and do you know what was missing? Not a single reporter asked Massa about his private apology to Engel about the Brazil trip. Instead, we have Massa claiming the following:

By calling me ignorant in the newspaper, Randy Kuhl clearly wants this trip to become the central issue in this election. I want to talk about the economy, health care for children, how we fund home heating assistance. Randy Kuhl wants to talk about this trip because he won't answer simple questions.

Um, Eric, I don't think Congressman Kuhl is trying to make this trip a central issue of the campaign, but rather your overall ignorance, of which this present case is a prime example. Even a Democrat Congressman from New York has questioned your fitness to serve in Congress, so it's a perfectly legitimate issue! Fortunately, a reporter did raise a question about Massa's above comment. According to Rottenchester, "Rick Miller of the Olean paper asked whether it wasn't Massa who's making it an issue," which of course he is. Massa responded about going on and on about some trip that some people from Corning took or something, and the issue was dropped. Otherwise, it was just an ordinary, incoherent Massa presser, with some fine gems, including "Don't tell me what Democrats are saying [about the surge]" and that he won't be voting for Rudy Giuliani (oh darn, really?).

The Relevance of Massa's Apology and Flip Flop

In response to my previous post's update, Rottenchester got the following comment from Massa spokesman Jared Smith: "Eric Massa has made absolutely no apologies on this subject and stands by his previous statements."

So now we have a categorical denial from Massa, while Eliot Engel's office still asserts that Massa called them while Engel was away to apologize.

This whole episode speaks volumes for Massa and his campaign. Massa had a field day with bashing Congressman Kuhl about this trip for a week now. He thought he had a campaign issue and ran with it, gaining some press coverage and generating lots of buzz in the blogosphere in an otherwise slow news week. Yet, in order to attack Congressman Kuhl, Massa would have to imply that the five Democrats who also went on this bipartisan trip were wrong in going, particularly the trip's organizer, Eliot Engel, a fellow Democrat from New York serving his tenth term in Congress. Massa derided this trip publicly, yet Engel's office claims that Massa privately called them to apologize. This is as two faced as you can get. He actively drums up this non-story to create controversy, and then knowing this would anger the Democrats on the trip, he does an about-face privately. You know, "Psst, I really didn't mean to offend you, just my opponent. I mean, I almost won last year, and I need to exploit this as much as I can. Sorry!"

And then, after it's revealed publicly that he did call to apologize, he refutes it. Yet, one has to ask, why on Earth would Eliot Engel's office lie about this? Engel is a Democrat's Democrat, a guy who would love to see his party gain seats next year. In fact, it only stands to reason that Massa would want to apologize to such a powerful New York Democrat like Engel, given his seniority in the party, his access to donors, his contacts on Capitol Hill, etc.

But after Engel's office publicly disclosed Massa's apology, this created a conundrum for Massa. He either had to (a) admit that he did apologize to Engel, which would mean that Congressman Kuhl also deserved an apology (i.e., Congressman Kuhl did the exact same thing as Engel here, so logically, he should get an apology too), or (b) deny that he apologized, since it makes him look weak and hypocritical to the public after how much he drummed up this issue. Massa chose the latter route, but now risks being publicly accused of lying from a senior member of his own party and/or privately lose the support of such a high ranking New York Democrat.

Massa's certainly dug a big hole for himself...

Massa Flip-Flopping on Apology

Rottenchester contacted the Massa campaign today about the story I posted yesterday regarding Massa's apology to U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) for his remarks about the Brazil trip. Massa now claims that he hasn't talked to Engel about this and stands by his original statement. However, Meghan Tisinger, Congressman Kuhl's press secretary, just confirmed with me that Engel is backing up their story that Massa did indeed call him to apologize about this.

UPDATE: Megan Tisinger just emailed me with a clarification on this. Because Engel was in Brazil, Massa did not talk directly to Engel, but did call Engel's office to apologize. Note that Massa's now claiming that he "not had the opportunity to speak with Congressman Engel." Obviously Massa's trying to wiggle out of this by stating flatly that he didn't talk to Engel directly, which is technically true, but with no mention that he had spoken with someone in Engel's office to apologize.

Limbaugh/Massa "Phony Soldiers" Controversy Cont'd

Following up on my previous post about how Massa continues to lie about Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" remarks, this letter to the editor appeared in today's Star-Gazette, written by Eugene T. Lavelle of Horseheads, demanding that Massa get his facts straight.

Massa Continues to Lie About Rush Limbaugh's Remarks

Before I get into Massa's latest comments on this, as context for this post, here is the Wikipedia summary of Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldier" comment, made back in late September:

During the September 26, 2007 broadcast of Limbaugh's radio show, he used the term "phony soldiers" allegedly referencing a September 21st Associated Press story about individuals falsely claiming to be veterans in order to receive benefits.[47] A caller, after saying he was currently serving in the Army and has been in 14 years, said, "They never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media." Limbaugh interrupted, "The phony soldiers." The caller continued, "The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country."[48] Several minutes later, after the caller had hung-up, Limbaugh read from the AP story describing the story of Jesse Macbeth.[49] Jesse Macbeth joined the Army but did not complete basic training, yet claimed in alternative media interviews that he and his unit routinely committed war crimes in Iraq.[50][51] On June 7, 2007, Macbeth pled guilty to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and was sentenced to five months jail and three years probation.[52][53] Media Matters noted Limbaugh's use of the term "phony soldiers" in an article on their website. The article alluded that Limbaugh was saying that all soldiers who disagree with the Iraq War were "phony Soldiers." [54] and their article received substantial press coverage after it was discussed in speeches by Presidential candidates John Edwards and Chris Dodd.[55] Limbaugh argued that he had been speaking only of Macbeth and others like him who claim to be soldiers and are not when he had made the comment about "phony soldiers" and that Media Matters had taken the quote out of context.[56] Media Matters disputed the accuracy of Limbaugh's claim and defends its story.[57]

On October 19, 2007, Limbaugh announced the winning bid in an eBay auction of a letter sent to Clear Channel Communications Chief Executive Officer Mark Mays by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "We call on you to publicly repudiate these [phony soldier] comments," the letter said, ". . . and to ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize for his comments."[58] The auction's high bid of $2,100,100 by Betty Casey of the Eugene B. Casey Foundation set a new eBay record for largest charity bid.[59] Shortly before the auction closed, Senator Reid addressed the Senate, saying, [60] "I don't know what we could do more important than helping to ensure that children of our fallen soldiers and police officers who have fallen in the line of duty have the opportunity for their children to have a good education." In his radio broadcast later in the day, Limbaugh was critical of Reid's speech, saying Reid had tried "to horn in and act like he's part of this whole thing, folks." Limbaugh also said, "Senator Reid, you did not mention that I am matching whatever the final total is." Matching funds from Limbaugh would increase the total donation to the charity benefiting children of Marines and law enforcement personnel killed in the line of duty to $4,200,200.

Also check out Rush's response to the controversy a few days after he made his initial comments. Now, love him or hate him, there is no doubt in my mind that Rush was clearly referring to the ABC News report of an actual "phony soldier" named Jesse MacBeth, rather than soldiers in general who oppose the Iraq War. Nevertheless, scores of Democrats decided to bash Rush, including Eric Massa, who posted the following YouTube video on his Daily Kos blog page on October 2nd:

Now, I greatly admire Massa's long service in the Navy, but I don't think that gives him the right to accuse anybody of being a coward or a phony for remarks that were clearly not made.

On November 7, 2007, the Star-Gazette published a letter to the editor from Thomas F. Taylor of Horseheads, which demanded that Massa apologize to Rush for his smear. Instead, Massa wrote a followup letter to the Star-Gazette stating that he "refuse[s] to sit silently while [Rush] slanders America's finest," despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

Now, I personally don't care if Massa apologizes to Rush or not. Rush is a big boy, and he handled the situation impeccably by using that silly letter from the Senate Dems to raise money for the children of fallen Marines. Talk about turning lemons into lemonade!

But I "refuse to sit silently" while Massa continues to lie about this drummed up controversy for political gain.