Eric Massa

Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 18, 2009 - 10:45am
Tagged in
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friend

Eric Massa is smarter than those he represents.  Or at least he thinks he is.  He held a town hall meeting yesterday in which this exchange took place.

For those without video

MASSA: I’m not going to vote for 3200 as it’s currently written. Step one, I will vote for a single payer option or a bill that does have a medicare coupled public option, which we don’t have right now. If my town hall meetings turn into the same media frenzies and ridiculousness, because every time that happens we lose. We lose another three million people in America. They see that happening and negate us.

PARTICIPANT: It changes America.

MASSA: Every time that occurs. So what happens in my town hall meetings frankly is important, because I am in one of the most right wing Republican districts in the country, and I’m not asking you guys to go back to wherever and send people to me. This is a generic statement of what can I do? Well that’s one thing we can do.

PARTICIPANT: So if we got your meetings to sixty forty, you’d vote…and there was single payer in a bill you would vote for it?

MASSA: Oh absolutely I would vote for single payer.

PARTICIPANT: If there was sixty forty sentiment in the room?

MASSA: Listen, I tell every audience I’m in favor of single payer.

PARTICIPANT: If there was eighty twenty in the room?

MASSA: If there was a single payer bill?

PARTICIPANT: And there was a single payer….

MASSA: I will vote for the single payer bill.

PARTICIPANT: Even if it meant you were being voted out of office?

MASSA: I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful.

(inaudible participants' comments regarding the "interests" of the district statement from Mr. Massa)

Massa: I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them.

 

 

It's a sad day in this REPUBLIC when a REPRESENTATIVE can't do the job he was elected for. Instead he will do what his party bosses tell him and not what his constituents want.

I wish I was in his district just so I could run against him because anyone that does and has a copy of this should win in a landslide.

Posted by Dennis Jay on August 18, 2009 - 12:08pm
How is it a sad day when a politician risks losing his seat to take a principled stand on an issue? In light of all of the other lemmings on both sides of the aisle, I find Massa's comments refreshing.

Political courage sometimes means voting against the wishes of a majority of your constituents, which is how legislation like the Civil Rights Act got enacted.
Posted by Chris Charvella on August 18, 2009 - 12:13pm
Rep. Massa is a Democrat. A major part of the 2008 Democratic platform was healthcare. The voters in Massa's district chose him knowing what the platform was.

What are you having trouble understanding Peter?
Posted by Bea McManis on August 18, 2009 - 12:15pm
Posted by Dennis Jay on August 18, 2009 - 12:08pm
How is it a sad day when a politician risks losing his seat to take a principled stand on an issue? In light of all of the other lemmings on both sides of the aisle, I find Massa's comments refreshing.

Political courage sometimes means voting against the wishes of a majority of your constituents, which is how legislation like the Civil Rights Act got enacted.

Right on, Dennis.
I'm glad this was posted. It shows that political courage isn't dead.
He may very well lose in his district but he will go down with his convictions intact. As you said, it is refreshing.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 18, 2009 - 12:15pm
Just like the voters knew that Obama was a socialist?

He is there to represent his voters, not to tell them how they must live.
Posted by Chris Charvella on August 18, 2009 - 12:17pm
Right, I'll refer you back to my original post.
Posted by Richard Gahagan on August 18, 2009 - 12:17pm
He's just bluffin to show support for the all out marxists power grabbing agenda.
Posted by C. M. Barons on August 18, 2009 - 12:39pm
If there wasn't so much money, vested interest and political action lined up against health care reform, the issue MIGHT get a fair hearing. Offering a legitimate alternative to the status quo would not only disenfranchise a highly motivated industry from its huge profits; it would immediately expose the shortcomings of our dealer-rigged health care system. How anyone can espouse (with a straight face) that having an insurance adjuster between patient and doctor is preferable to having a public employee between patient and doctor is evidence to the magnitude of the insurance industries con job.

Twice now we have had presidential elections determined largely by an electorate dedicated to health care reform (Bill Clinton's first term and now, Obama). In both cases a sophisticated and premeditated campaign was launched to squash the effort. In both cases the electorate was made to look schizophrenic in light of the election night mandate visavis the post-industry-damage control campaign against health care reform.

If the health care industry has the financial where-with-all to TWICE accomplish such a reversal of mass opinion, keep at least 50% of the congress in their back pocket and still come up with spare change to own branding rights on most of the arenas in the United States- Do ya think - maybe- they might be taking advantage of the American public on a daily basis???? Talk about gullible? Death panels? Socialized medicine?

EG: When I first met with my father's lawyer and the nursing home representative: the two subjects at hand were #1 getting Dad up to speed with Medicare and #2 sign the DNR (Do Not Rescusitate order). Is the whole country on crack? Can a moron like Sarah Palin really control mass opinion? Does anyone really know what's going on - or better yet, what the hell they are talking about?
Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 18, 2009 - 12:47pm
A massive power grab is what is going on. Obama controls GM and Chrysler. He control many banks. He now wants a huge chunk (1/7) of our economy by introducing a single payer system. He has appointed many "czars" to run different aspects of the nation. Those czars are unconstitutional but have yet to be challenged. They also have no check to the power they have been granted.

Massa is Obama's puppet.
Posted by Bea McManis on August 18, 2009 - 1:01pm
Czars? Do you think that word is 'scary'?

Where were you when:
Bush Appoints Interim Drug Czar - Posted in Chronicle Blog by Scott Morgan on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 11:56pm

Bush Appoints Dinty Moore Avian Flu Czar - STARVE A COLD, FEED A FEVER
November 3, 2005

Bush appoints Lute "war czar" over Iraq/Afg
Breaking news per CNN. 5/15/07

Bush Appoints Piracy Czar
XBIZ News Report - Tuesday, Jul 26, 2005

Bush Appoints New Bioethics Czar
by Aaron Atwood 09/12/2005 citizenlink.com
Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 18, 2009 - 1:09pm
Nice try Bea. Bush is not the subject at hand. Czar is the term used to describe them because they have unchecked power. I didn't create it. Why do you assume I support everything Bush did?
Posted by Chris Charvella on August 18, 2009 - 1:10pm
The 'czar' position has been used by every President since Nixon. 'Czars' exist within the Executive branch of government and are therefore checked by the Legislative and Judicial branches.

To say they are unconstitutional borders on the ridiculous. Do you believe that Cabinet positions are unconstitutional? How about staffers and aides? The President's secretary?
Posted by James Renfrew on August 18, 2009 - 1:12pm
Health Care Reform is what President Obama set out to do. It's the reason people voted for him. Are you saying that all those who voted for President Obama are socialists?

The purpose of the writer appears not to be to engaged in coversation that would lead to something useful, but to personally destroy an opponent. You can see a lot of these attacks: President Obama has been variously labeled a "socialist" (the writer above), "terrorist" (Palin), "nazi" (various town meetings), "muslim" (the nice lady in the retirement community near here is convinced of this, she listens to Christian radio), "other" (ask any racist), or "foreigner" (ask a 'birther'). Never mind that all of these are a mess of contradictions when you bring them together, but the point is not a logical one, the point is to destroy the president personally. Throw enough manure against the wall, and some of it will stick - the desperate strategy of the party of "no" and its fellow travelers. My mother always taught me that when people resort to name calling they have finally demonstrated that they have nothing substantive to offer.

But maybe I should try this in my town? Next town meeting when taxes come up I'll just start screaming "socialism", and accuse each board member of being a socialist. How could they possibly defend themselves - they are on record as authorizing and collecting taxes! I'll destroy each one of them in the eyes of the public, and then the other good citizens will acclaim my wisdom as I lead them to a no-tax paradise - no health care, no schools, no roads, no government. We won't have anything except the high wall around each of our homes with motion detectors and AK-47s, but we'll rest peacefully at night knowing that we are not socialists. Who's with me?
Posted by Chris Charvella on August 18, 2009 - 1:14pm
'Czar', by the way is just a term coined in 1973 by Time magazine in reference to the director of the Federal Energy Administration. It has become a part of the political vernacular and is used in reference to appointed Government officials.
Posted by C. M. Barons on August 18, 2009 - 1:14pm
Peter? ...Know why Obama doesn't control Ford, too? Ford charges $13.00 apiece for galvanized shackle-spring bolts. Any company that can screw its customers with over-priced bolts has to survive.
Posted by C. M. Barons on August 18, 2009 - 1:15pm
I bet Ford calls its CEO- Czar Executive Officer.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 18, 2009 - 1:16pm
No because Ford was in a better position financially and didn't want the strings attached to the bailout.
Posted by Chelsea Dobson on August 18, 2009 - 1:28pm
Czar actually means King, and was the head of government in Russia until their revolution around 1920. It's been used to describe people with unchecked power and those whom generally do not belong in the position they are in.
Posted by George Richardson on August 18, 2009 - 1:31pm
"Obama controls GM and Chrysler. He control many banks"...and Peter's mind. Peter may well be the youngest grumpy curmudgeon in America.
Posted by John Roach on August 18, 2009 - 1:56pm
I bet Massa thinks most of the people in his district support him. They very rarely want to be voted out of office and will do everything they can to stay.
Posted by Richard Gahagan on August 18, 2009 - 1:59pm
Obama is a socialist and he appoints socialists czars like Browner. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-s...
Posted by Chris Charvella on August 18, 2009 - 2:02pm
Chelsea, I was explaining the word in context. If you want to have an etymology contest I'd be happy to oblige.

The word 'Czar' or 'Tsar' actually originated from the Latin 'Caesar' which was the term used to identify the Roman Emperors from Julius to Hadrian. Caesar in Latin translates roughly to 'the hairy one' and was, in fact, simply a family name belonging to those of the Julio-Claudian bloodline. The last true 'Hairy one,' was Nero being the grandson by blood of Germanicus (Germanicus was never Emperor, but he was father to Gaius and brother to Claudius.) Although all subsequent Emperors were not decended from the Julio-Claudian line Caesar became just another title that the Emperors of Rome claimed for themselves along with Imperator and Princeps Senatus.
Posted by Bea McManis on August 18, 2009 - 2:10pm
Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 18, 2009 - 1:09pm
Nice try Bea. Bush is not the subject at hand. Czar is the term used to describe them because they have unchecked power. I didn't create it. Why do you assume I support everything Bush did?

Peter, with all due respect...
I mentioned the Bush administration czars because it is as off the wall as you bringing in the topic of czars in the first place.
It has nothing to do with the political courage shown in the clip.
I am curious, though, how careful you would be to bend to the will of your constituents if they didn't 100% agree with your views of politics and government and let you know that they expected you to vote with the majority and not your own convictions.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 18, 2009 - 2:53pm
I was telling C.M. exactly what was going on with this health care "reform". Its a power grab. Then I went on to explain what Comrade Hussien already has control of. It did fit if you follow the conversation.
Posted by Sean Valdes on August 18, 2009 - 3:14pm
Wow, and I thought I was arrogant. I'm all for politicians having a back bone and a pair of kahookies, but if the clear majority of your constituents tell you something, you should also have the back bone to stand up and say "OK, I get it. I was wrong."
I think we get political courage mixed with up political smugness.
Posted by Howard Owens on August 18, 2009 - 3:43pm
A lot of people forget how a representative government is supposed to work.

You don't vote for the person who will take opinion polls to find out how he should vote. You elect a person whom you believe has courage and backbone, shares your values and aspirations and will vote according to his character and beliefs. He or she won't switch a vote just because it might be unpopular with constituents.

As you've heard, this is a republic, not a democracy, so majority doesn't always rule. If you don't like the way your representative votes, it's your right to vote against him in the next election, but it's ridiculous to think he should vote just as you think he should, or on majority whim.

One problem with majority whim voting is that the majority is often wrong, swayed as it is easily by those who would "manufacture consent" (as Walter Lippmann discussed in Public Opinion 90 years ago). What we need are leaders who stand up to majority whims and stick to the principles they articulated while campaigning.

I for one don't even think candidates should campaign on issues. Rather they should campaign on, and be elected because of a clear set of principles that will guide their decisions.
Posted by Chris Charvella on August 18, 2009 - 3:45pm
Well said Howard.
Posted by George Richardson on August 18, 2009 - 3:55pm
Peter said: "Then I went on to explain what Comrade Hussien already has control of"....my mind. Peter, you provide a conduit for discourse and I can't fault you for that. Actually, I can applaud you even though I disagree most of the time. I'm sure Bea agrees, don't you dear?
Posted by Bea McManis on August 18, 2009 - 4:02pm
Posted by Howard Owens on August 18, 2009 - 3:43pm
A lot of people forget how a representative government is supposed to work.

You don't vote for the person who will take opinion polls to find out how he should vote. You elect a person whom you believe has courage and backbone, shares your values and aspirations and will vote according to his character and beliefs. He or she won't switch a vote just because it might be unpopular with constituents.

As you've heard, this is a republic, not a democracy, so majority doesn't always rule. If you don't like the way your representative votes, it's your right to vote against him in the next election, but it's ridiculous to think he should vote just as you think he should, or on majority whim.

One problem with majority whim voting is that the majority is often wrong, swayed as it is easily by those who would "manufacture consent" (as Walter Lippmann discussed in Public Opinion 90 years ago). What we need are leaders who stand up to majority whims and stick to the principles they articulated while campaigning.

I for one don't even think candidates should campaign on issues. Rather they should campaign on, and be elected because of a clear set of principles that will guide their decisions.

Howard,
I sincerely wish I had your talent for words. Perfectly stated.
Thanks
Posted by Sean Valdes on August 18, 2009 - 7:27pm
Howard, then why have town meetings, lobbyists, call-in numbers to officials offices, letter writing campaigns, etc.? If the elected official has the answer, we can relax and stay home.
I think that your idea makes more sense 100 years ago when information wasn't as immediate and plentiful as it is now. Elected officials would be in Washington and couldn't get large amounts of input from their constituents instantly. Now, the public is as informed as the official, and sometimes more so.
I'm not saying that the majority of American's don't want President Obama's healthcare plan, because I know there are many people out there like Bea. BUT, to say that if 80% of the public he comes in contact with wants to head east, and he still heads west (using our money and our votes)- then Congressman Massa doesn't have courage, he has arrogance.
Posted by Dennis Jay on August 18, 2009 - 9:03pm
Peter -

"Comrade Hussein??"

Sounds like you need to take a break from watching Fox News and reading FreeRepublic.com. :)
Posted by Howard Owens on August 18, 2009 - 9:47pm
Sean, this may sound like a hedge, but it's an aspect of being a principled leader that I didn't get into: We don't want to be represented by an ideologue.

Let's say you run as a progressive and win, so as one of your core beliefs, you believe the government has a role is solving most if not all civic and societal problems (a libertarian, of course, holds the exact opposite view). So when it came time to health care reform, you would believe that government should solve the problem. If you campaigned on the progressive principle, nobody should be surprised if you supported some form of government intervention into health care costs. Even if it turns out that most of your constituents believed the government had no business in health care, you have an obligation, I believe, to be consistent with your principles and support a government-centric position.

Now to say that the solution should come from the government is only half the answer. There are numerous details that need to be addressed, and that's where the public hearings and other forums come into play. The process should be designed, nor expected, to sway a principled man to stay from his firmly held beliefs, but to help him arrive at a more nuanced and considered conclusion.

And the voices of libertarians should be considered by a reasonable progressive as well as those who take the progressive track, not so that he might compromise, but so that he might temper his considerations.

There needs to be a process by which all voices are heard -- we do not live in a dictatorship -- but I will continue argue that no leader should bend to the whim and will of the majority just because that is the loudest voice he happens to hear on any given day.

We make a grave error when we criticize our leaders for "not doing what their constituents want." It's up to the constituents to change leaders if they're unhappy with the decisions being made, but constituents betray their own best interest and subvert the process when they make unreasonable demands for a leader to go against his principles and his character.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 18, 2009 - 10:36pm
Dennis,
I don't have cable and the only broadcast tv I watch is Family Guy before bed.
Posted by C. M. Barons on August 18, 2009 - 11:44pm
Howard, using your defining guidelines for a representative's obligation to constituency; how should George Wallace (his oft quoted lines from his 1963 Alabama gubernutorial inaugural address: "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever.") have behaved in confrontational situations (University of Alabama, the Selma/Montgomery march) he clearly understood to be unlawful and unfair? He was a moderate judge prior to being governor, yet he ran an anti-integration, anti-voting rights, anti-civil rights campaign to the cynical end of being elected governor ("I was out-niggered by John Patterson. And I'll tell you here and now, I will never be out-niggered again.'").
Posted by Howard Owens on August 19, 2009 - 12:52am
Clearly, Wallace lacked principle, and was bending to the needs of majority whim rather than standing on principle. He would have been a more honorable man to stand on his principle and lose an election than pander to a majority he may have felt immoral. He had an obligation to educate, rather than pander.
Posted by Charlie Mallow on August 19, 2009 - 5:02am
Looks like Massa has some backbone and principles. Only the worst politicians watch polls and change their minds on big issues just because a few wing-nuts show up to a meeting.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 19, 2009 - 6:54am
The HoR was supposed to be respondent to the whims of the constituents. That was supposed to be tempered by the Senate. Since the Senate members were appointed by the state legislature, they were not beholden to the voters.

But that original ingenious design was destroyed by the 17th Amendment.
Posted by John Roach on August 19, 2009 - 9:12am
Charlie,
Masa can do what he wants. He will either win or lose his next election and I am sure he gave that some thought.

But those “wing nuts” you slam are the ones worried about health care rationing as in England, long waits as in Canada, mandatory government collection of health records, cut backs in Medicare and Medicaid, and mandatory medical care for illegal’s. Nobody knows yet what will come out in this bill.

Obama saying he will cover more people, with more care, for less money worries some.
Posted by Richard Gahagan on August 19, 2009 - 9:38am
John makes a good point. Government Health Care has has been a disaster in Canada, England, or any other country that has tried it - so why is it even being considered in the US.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 19, 2009 - 9:39am
Because its the socialist thing to do. Control more peoples lives through government and make them feel good about it and pay for it.
Posted by Charlie Mallow on August 19, 2009 - 9:59am
John, No. Wing-Nuts are people who scream and yell during civilized meetings or who now carry guns to those meetings to intimidate people. I never much cared for people on the left who have used the same tactic of disruption for years; those people are called different things.

All of these types of people are trying to stop the information from being spread and are part of the problem with our country regardless of the position they take.
Posted by Howard Owens on August 19, 2009 - 9:59am
I don't go into this "socialist" thing so much ... that's a buzz word and lacks nuance and displays a certain disrespect for political opponents.

I think there are two primary colors to the political pallet, with lots of hues in between.

There are basically progressives, who believe the best way to solve an ill is to turn to a government body or agency; and there are libertarians who believe that people should be free to live their lives free of government interference, so tend to reject government solutions. We used to call these points on the spectrum liberal and conservative, but those words long ago lost any real meaning.

Progressives do have a lot in common with socialist thinking (in varying degrees), but they are not necessarily socialist. I don't believe Obama is a socialist. I believe is is well entrenched in progressive thinking and his first natural impulse is to believe it takes a government to raise a child, run a farm, cure an ill or save an industry.

I simply disagree with that line of thinking, but progressivism goes back 100 years or so with a pretty rich tradition. Some of the accomplishments of progressives might even be judged to be beneficial.

Of course, if you know your Marxist theory, the progressive impulse is part of a continuum that leads to socialism, which ultimately leads to communism, the Marxist dream. But I don't believe the average modern American progressive has that as a goal or even considers it a possibility. But that was part of Karl's point -- it's a natural evolution of history. I hope he's wrong.
Posted by C. M. Barons on August 19, 2009 - 10:00am
Peter, I just checked Article I of the U. S. Constitution. I fail to find language indicating that "The HoR was supposed to be respondent to the whims of the constituents." Could you please reference the section of the Constitution that applies to your statement?
Posted by Howard Owens on August 19, 2009 - 10:01am
C.M., I'd settle for a quote from the Federalist Papers (though I'd rather listen to the anti-federalists on any point, but the Federalists won, mostly).
Posted by John Roach on August 19, 2009 - 10:08am
Howard,
I have read all of the Federalist papers and nowhere do they say any member of the HOR is to "be respondent to the whims" of the constituents. There was a real fear at that time they would, which is why the Senate was set up as it is.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 19, 2009 - 10:11am
Federalist Paper #52
"As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people."

"it has, on another occasion, been shown that the federal legislature will not only be restrained by its dependence on its people, as other legislative bodies are, but that it will be, moreover, watched and controlled by the several collateral legislatures"
Posted by Mark Potwora on August 19, 2009 - 3:39pm
Howard you hit the nail on the head with your last statement....."Of course, if you know your Marxist theory, the progressive impulse is part of a continuum that leads to socialism, which ultimately leads to communism, the Marxist dream. But I don't believe the average modern American progressive has that as a goal or even considers it a possibility. But that was part of Karl's point -- it's a natural evolution of history. I hope he's wrong."

I hope he's wrong also..The more we depend on Government(local ,state,federal)for our survival we risk losing our freedom..The more money we have to give to support all these government agency ,the more intrusive they will become in our life..
Posted by Dennis Jay on August 19, 2009 - 10:32am
Mark says:

"The more money we have to give to support all these government agency ,the more intrusive they will become in our life.."

I've always found it interesting that conservatives and libertarians are so concerned about government intrusion, yet they have little or no concern about the immense control that large corporations have over the political process, and thus our lives.

There ought to be adequate checks and balances on both big government and big business.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 19, 2009 - 10:34am
If Big Business was so powerful, they would have all corporate taxes eliminated and the minimum wage wouldn't exist.
Posted by John Roach on August 19, 2009 - 10:49am
Peter,
The part of Federalist paper #52, written by Madison, you quote was part of the justification for having frequent elections, and how often they should be held. It can not in any way be interpreted as telling a member of the HOR that he must “be respondent to the whims” of the people the way you are trying to make it sound
Posted by Howard Owens on August 19, 2009 - 11:06am
Dennis, I'm guessing you haven't read some of the anti-conglomerate remarks I've made ...

(I use the word conglomerate rather than corporation because "corporations" can be one-man shops ... it just a word that means incorporated for tax and legal purposes.)