Massa On Offensive: Says Is Being Forced Out and Hints Could Rescind His Resignation
The political scene just got messier and uglier for the Democrats, the White House and for the passage of health care reform: Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) has gone on the offensive and says he is being virtually forced to resign and that he could decide to rescind his resignation.
Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) suggested on a New York radio station Sunday that he could rescind his resignation — scheduled to take effect at 5 p.m. Monday — after asserting that an ethics investigation into allegations that he sexually harassed one of his aides may have been orchestrated by Democratic leaders to get him out of office before the health care vote.
Not a good press narrative for the Democrats — one that may not help it with wavering Democrats in Congress.
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.”
During the hour-and-a-half show, Massa said that Democratic leaders are using the House ethics committee to get him out of office before the vote on health care because he voted against the House health care bill last fall.
“Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill, and this administration and this House leadership have said, ‘they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill, and now they’ve gotten rid of me and it will pass.’ You connect the dots,” Massa said Several times during the broadcast Massa raised the prospect of rescinding his resignation if national news media picked up on his story of being railroaded out of office by Democratic leaders.
And it doesn’t end there:
In response to a caller’s suggestion that Massa disseminate his allegations by contacting Fox News, Massa stated: “I can’t call Fox News. You guys gotta call Fox News. I can’t do it. … Here’s why. I’m in the center of this storm, so obviously I’m not objective.”
But Massa also repeatedly pointed out that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, commonly referred to as the ethics panel, would continue its investigation if he remains in office.
“That’s very kind of you, but understand what that means for me,” Massa said in a response to a caller who suggested he not resign. “It means that a group of lawyers are going to try to rip me and my family limb from limb. And you’ve already seen it in the newspapers. … It’s a piranha feeding frenzy.”
Translation: the Massa story will be a big political story today, sucking up a lot of the political oxygen and grabbing the attention of a sometimes ADDH-like news media so attention elsewhere (such as any message the administration is trying to get out on health care) will be diminished.
Now you can follow Joe Gandelman on Twitter.
30 Responses to “Massa On Offensive: Says Is Being Forced Out and Hints Could Rescind His Resignation”
Hard to make a judgment without knowing the details of the harassment allegations.
If they are real, then he is trying to save his butt by calling out Dem leaders.
If they are fake, then house leaders have some explaining to do.
He's delusional. Massa is not the sole and deciding vote. Pelosi will easily find a “yes” vote to replace his.
What evidence is there that Massa was forced out? He has none.
Well, I look at it this way.
If he's gone at 5PM, regardless of what he says, he was making it up.
If he's here at 5PM, it might get awfully interesting.
One possible explanation is the allegation is real but it's unclear where the truth lies. In those circumstances, I could certainly imagine the leadership (whether R or D) asking him to step down. I don't think it's about HCR, it's just about party leadership not liking scandals, particularly scandals that involve sex and staffers.
Just to clarify what I think Massa is saying on the vote.
He voted no and was planning to vote no again, so he's not a lost yes vote.
But if he resigns, then the House membership drops by one and this would make the number of votes needed for a majority one less, plus of course the absence of his no vote.
Oh, I know the politics of the one vote. But I find the notion that an ethics committee investigation went after him for this reason to be laughable. The investigation started a while back before anybody talked about this end game. And while I think he is innocent and should be cleared of any wrongdoing, I don't see how an ethics committee could actually force him to resign at this point? In other words, how could ANYBODY force him to resign?
I think he's lost his mind.
A note: if Massa is gone, it means Pelosi needs 2 less votes. Massa gone is a big deal for Pelosi.
Since we can't yet know (if ever) the truth or falsity of Massa's allegation, therefore the interesting thing at this moment is that Pelosi and Emmanuel, via the hardball/bribery/threat tactics they've used on their own members, have made themselves vulnerable to a Massa type allegation. We know Massa's allegation could be true because we've seen the way Pelosi and Emmanuel operate. Pelosi and
Emmanuel have made themselves vulnerable. It would be ironic if Massa is guilty of blatant sexual harassment, yet still inflicts damage on a vulnerable Pelosi and Emmanuel. And, if Massa is guilty and yet is playing hardball, what is different about Massa's political hardball and Pelosi/Emmanuel political hardball? If we do not condemn Pelosi/Emmanuel for their tactics, is it fair to condemn Massa for his tactics?
I guess if he really does have something to hide, then he would be forced to resign in order to save his reputation.
Are you saying that it is wrong to force Massa to resign because he (allegedly) sexually harassed someone? That isn't hardball…that is attempting to enforce some sort of moral and ethical standing in Congress.
I'm not saying that. The actual truth or falsehood of whether or not Massa harassed is boring. Humans harass. It's what we do. Modern day Americans falsely allege harassment. It's what we modern day Americans do. All of it is kind of boring, really.
I'm saying the interesting part of this is that Pelosi/Emmanuel opened themselves up to it. Suppose Pelosi/Emmanuel had reputations for integrity and fair play: would we give so much weight to Massa's allegation? We would not: we would give much less weight to some hysterical Congressman's allegation. However, given the Pelosi/Emmanuel have conducted themselves, we say: Hmmm. There's no way to know if Massa's allegation about Pelosi/Emmanuel is true, but it could be true (given their modus operandi). It sounds exactly like something Pelosi/Emmanuel would do. Pelosi and Emmanuel are the reasons Massa's allegation has a bit of bite, as opposed to having almost no bite at all.
I think what you are doing is trying to turn one persons harassment into an attack on those that are trying to do the right thing. You go after 2 people when the entire legislative branch is sitting at..what 20% approval rating? You are just trying to flip this for political points…imo
I guess if he really does have something to hide, then he would be forced to resign in order to save his reputation.
If he had something to hide, then why is he going on the radio and saying what he said? This is the part I can't figure out. If he were guilty of harassment he should say as little as possible and resign to spend more time with his family. Instead he makes comments that will greatly increase the focus on him. If there was harassment details are now more likely to come out than if he had stayed quiet.
To me the fact that he is not quietly slinking away make his comments more credible, not less.
Okay, you've caught me out
, I'm trying to flip this for political points. However, my trying to score political points does not invalidate my point: Pelosi's and Emmanuel's past hardball tactics, bribes, and threats comprise the reasons Massa's allegations against Pelosi and Emmanuel have some bite.
Do Pelosi and Emmanuel operate any less ethically than every other Speaker and Chief of Staff before them? No. That's why it isn't that interesting that they played hardball. They SHOULD play hardball to whip their caucus in line.
I think he has passed a tipping point where he can save his career, if he is guilty, by keeping quiet and letting the investigation continue. Maybe he is trying to force Dem leadership to put the brakes on the investigation by making them look bad during the HCR fight.
Here is the thing…if he isn't guilty…then let the investigation go forward without saying a word.
You make a fair point. I disagree with it. But I certainly do agree that many or all House Speakers have thrown around their political weight. Dick Armey even retired from his position in leadership b/c he was uncomfortable with it, telling his wife: I've either got to be me, or be in House leadership, but I can't be both.
Since you (fairly) raise this subject, I will argue my case a bit. Not every Chief of Staff operates as Emmanuel does. “Never waste a crisis” adds bite to Massa's allegation. Emmanuel's carefully crafted public image as a punishing bulldog adds bite to Massa's allegation. Emmanuel's cajoling and threatening telephone calls to media add weight to Massa's allegation, as does Emmanuel's blatant carrot and stick handling of media.
The corrupt deals made by Reid (Louisiana Purchase, et al) have been countenanced, if only via silence, by Pelosi, Emmanuel, and Obama. Those corrupt deals leech discredit out and onto Pelosi, Emmanuel, and Obama; those corrupt deals add bite to Massa's allegations. Pelosi's handling of William Jefferson and Charlie Rangel, when contrasted with her handling of Massa, add bite to Massa's allegations. Last, the national impression of Pelosi is that she has no empathy for the members of her own caucus. Many Speakers knock heads. Few do so with as little empathy as Pelosi, i.e. with as little willingness to hear out the concerns of the members of their own caucus. This impression – of Pelosi's lack of empathy for her own people – adds bite to Massa's allegation.
And I would say Congress in general is so loathed than any allegation about anyone for anything is a double edged sword.
Pelosi leaves herself wide open to this allegation, not only because of what shanonlee mentioned (general loathing of Congress) but also because she has failed to 'drain the swamp' as she promised. If she had a history of forcing other members to step down over ethics violations, then this particular example wouldn't look like an exceptional case where she may have done so in order to tilt votes in favor of passing HCR.
Integrity has been defined as doing the right thing when no one is looking; in the case of politics, integrity could be defined as doing the right thing even when it's not politically expedient. Unfortunately Pelosi has failed on both accounts, and that's why Massa's allegation may gain some traction.
WTF? Why don't we ask Massa if there's any truth to the allegations?
Massa: “And I grabbed the staff member sitting next to me and said, 'Well, what I really ought to be doing is fracking you.' And then [I] tossled the guy's hair and left, went to my room, because I knew the party was getting to a point where it wasn't right for me to be there. Now was that inappropriate of me? Absolutely. Am I guilty? Yes.”
Guess we'll never know, huh? “Am I guilty? Yes.” I really think we ought to investigate how Pelosi forced Massa to say “Am I guilty? Yes.”
I guess he could have been more clear. Like this? “I own this reality,” Massa said. “There is no doubt in my mind that I did in fact, use language in the privacy of my own home and in my inner office that, after 24 years in the Navy, might make a Chief Petty Officer feel uncomfortable.”
Doesn't anyone READ before jumping in with talking points?
I suspect there's more to it. If Massa got drunk and made a clumsy pass, is that reason to force him out? That's reprimand territory. Whatever happened to Gloria Steinham's Bill Clinton rule, i.e. every man gets one free grope? Whatever happened to Nancy Pelosi's Charlie Rangel rule, i.e. he wasn't doing anything which threatened national security? If Pelosi is forcing Massa out due to what Massa is admitting in his story, then maybe Massa is correct that he's being forced out due to the health care vote. If we forced out every person who said something clumsy, we would have no persons remaining on any job.
Massa said he's retiring because he has cancer. I also suspect there's more to it, and figure that there will be worse news for him if he stays in (or he would have rescinded his resignation and declared his innocence). And what happened to the faux outrage that Pelosi hasn't “drained the swamp?” Which is it? Pelosi should be ashamed she hasn't? Or shamed because in this case, an ethics violator decided to forgo the rest of the ethics investigation and resulting revelations?
Still, have to laugh at Republicans defending homosexual advances by a Democrat.
First, you can take your hateful insinuation about my hatred of homosexuals and shove it up your ass. I don't consider homosexuality a sin, many conservatives and Republicans believe the same, and many who do believe it a sin are nevertheless extremely loving towards homosexuals. You are clueless.
Second, I am a small government conservative. The Republican Party can take their free spending big government and shove it up their ass.
Third, let's see what your point is re Massa and Pelosi …
You say I am fake outraged that Pelosi hasn't “drained the swamp”. Wrong. Didn't everyone know Pelosi was full of manure from the beginning? Didn't everyone know she would never clean up government even a tiny bit? Everyone I know knew Pelosi was doing empty posturing: we all rolled our eyes and thenceforth ignored her assertion. Did you believe Pelosi would run “the most ethical” congress ever? Or, did you believe Pelosi was full of manure?
However, what the heck are you talking about in your comment, anyway? How could any Speaker of the House prevent sexual harassment from occurring? Pelosi has nothing to be ashamed of vis a vis sexual harassment: she cannot prevent the unpreventable. I said, above, human beings sexually harass. It's what we do. If we create an environment which completely protects us from all sexual harassment, that environment would be an oppressive nightmare for human beings.
Looking at your ought Pelosi be shamed b/c an ethics violator is resigning? Do you read your own comments? In your immediately preceding comment you criticized me for saying “we can't yet know (if ever) the truth or falsity of the harassment allegation against Massa”. You ought get the idea, somewhere along the way, that I haven't criticized Pelosi for her actions regarding Massa. I've noted that the interesting thing is that Pelosi and Emmanuel made themselves vulnerable to Massa's allegations. And I have shredded your hateful, unreasoned, prejudicial, biased, clueless accusations against me.
Now, look, I've made plenty of stupid comments, and will make plenty of stupid comments in future. If you wish to apologize for your hateful insinuation about my prejudice re homosexuals, then I will genuinely accept your apology, and we can be genuine blogosphere friends who happen to disagree with each other about virtually everything, yet nevertheless treat each other respectfully. BELIEVE ME, I know for an absolute fact that I will say plenty of stupid stuff in future which needs to be apologized for. OTOH, if you do not wish to apologize, then piss off.
dear GCOtharn: the commenters' rules at TMV are to newspaper standards. Please take a deep breath and state your case as passionately as you wish with your facts. But stay away from attacking other commenters and language that wont be found in Wash Times. The commenters' rules are on the home page of TMV. They are short and clear. Thanks.
dr.e
archangel,
Thanks for your tactful comment. I agree that “stick it up your ___” and “___ off” would not be published in the Wash Times. However, I protest your characterization that I attacked Green Dreams. I attacked his flawed reasoning. I'll tell you who was attacked: me, and Republicans. Green Dreams called us bigots. IMO, you ought consider reminding him of the rules of the blog.
you're welcome gcotharn. Appreciate it.
I'll reiterate to all: please do not attack other writers or commenters.
Thanks.
dr.e
Greendreams said:
gcotharn, taking this as a personal attack said:
First, I don't see where this gentleman (gcotharn) was personally attacked since he is not even a Republican and GD never directed the remark personally at him
.
Second, if attacks on whole groups of people, such as DLS constantly and continously calling “DemLibs” stupid, juvenile, idiots, devious, evil, etc., etc, were taken as personal attacks [confession: as a stupid DemLib, I am offended by them, thus I don't read his/her comments anymore], then I believe 99 percent of his/her comments would be flagged as “personal attacks.”
So, can we all just lighten up?
Just an opinion.
You took my comments awfully personally, which surprised me. They weren't directed at you, but at the larger story (see some more right leaning blogs for tons of examples). There is an irony in Republicans, in their hatred of Pelosi, defending homosexual advances to employees, considering their own problems in that specific area, and they didn't “drain the swamp” in their own cases did they? Actually, not “defending homosexual advances” so much as just ignoring his own confession in order to try to gain some “gotcha” points against Pelosi and Emmanuel.
So no offense meant to you at all. It's just the poor Republicans who simultaneously lambaste Pelosi for “not draining the swamp”, then lambaste her for supposedly trying to force someone out in order to help her health care vote. You have to admit the GOP, after years of railing against “the homosexual agenda” “San Francisco values” etc. looks a little silly trying to now say it's outrageous that Pelosi would “force out” someone for what appears to be a minor thing.
My comment about your saying “we can never know” is just that we do know. Massa confirmed it himself.
I really didn't mean my little quip to enrage you so, and am surprised it did. I'll be more careful in the future about you.
So, Massa will be on Glen Beck prepetuating this story, though I can't imagine why.
This is my best current conjecture about Massa:
His resignation indicates that he probably committed repeated and significant sexual harassment. He's not a shrinking flower. Personalities like Massa, if they are innocent, do not resign. They fight. All Massa's current behavior (allegations against Pelosi/Emmanual, appearance on Beck) is likely about protecting his own reputation as much as possible. Massa, in this situation, is probably acting like a huge jerk.
Separately, I appreciate your sentiment that your comment was not about me personally. However, I disagree with your reasoning. Here's your statement:
“Still, have to laugh at Republicans defending homosexual advances by a Democrat.”
Why is it funny for Republicans (and, by implication, conservatives and me) to defend homosexuals? I'll answer: it's only funny if we are bigots.
This is America: if I call you a bigot to your face, your response is “F you”, and then you punch me in the nose.
Why would my response be any different? Why do you believe you can, with impunity, call Repubs/conservatives/me bigots to our faces? Why do you believe you can read our hearts? read our minds? Do you equate our opinions about Constitutional principles with our having hatred in our hearts? Do you equate the least educated, most reactionary, most hateful amongst us with “Republicans”? with “conservatives”? Black people are typically Democrats, and are against homosexual rights by inordinately large numbers. Would you be comfortable if I attributed those black persons' beliefs to the Democratic Party at large? to the left at large? to black people at large? Many of the least educated and most hate filled persons in this nation — MANY — including many or most of the Ku Klux Klan and associate groups — are also consistent Democratic Party voters. Kathy Kattenburg says most of the racists in America are Democratic voters, and she's correct. Would you be comfortable if I attributed those hate-filled beliefs to the Democratic Party at large? to the left at large?
New focus.
You say:
There is an irony in Republicans, in their hatred of Pelosi, defending homosexual advances to employees, considering their own problems in that specific area, and they didn't “drain the swamp” in their own cases did they?
I disagree with your premise that sexual harassment is a problem which can and ought be eliminated. Pelosi and Dems politically postured about the gay Repub Congressman in order to win the 2006 election. It was horse manure. First, the Repub Congressman did not break any sexual harassment laws. He contacted pages who were of age and who were no longer Congressional pages. Second, if he had committed sexual harassment, it would not have indicated that Repubs had a problem. Human beings sexually harass. Neither Repubs nor Pelosi are responsible for their members' sexual indiscretions.
Presently, I don't see Repubs/conservatives/blogs/radio/tv lambasting Pelosi on the premise that she somehow allowed Massa's sexual indiscretion to occur. If they lambaste Pelosi about hypocrisy re her charges in 2006, fine. If they make a case that Pelosi shoved Massa out early, fine. Typical politics, and not unfair. Ask yourself: if Massa were going to vote yes on healthcare, might Pelosi have encouraged Massa to stay another two weeks – and cast that yes vote – before resigning? She would have. If Massa resigned before casting the vote, might not The Moderate Voice blogposts and commenters be now condemning him for allowing his personal cowardice to cause him to betray suffering Americans who need health care? Dang right they would be.
“Homosexual agenda” is only a slur if one is a bigot. Otherwise, the phrase is innocuous. You are determined that Repubs/conservatives are bigots who hate homosexuals. I disagree.
You have misinterpreted the phrase “San Francisco values”. This refers to leftist values in general. “San Francisco liberal” refers to a reactionary leftist who is intolerant of dissent. “San Francisco values” does not specifically or especially refer to gay rights.
I agree that we do know, by Massa's own admission, that Massa harassed in the one instance.
Republicans, to the extent that they want to deny rights to one group of Americans that are available to others, are bigots. And it's in their platform, which I assume makes it a majority position. I can't help it that it amuses me when the self-righteous of either party turn out to be hypocrites, and I don't mind calling them on it. That certainly includes the rabidly anti-gay Vitter caught propositioning a male FBI agent, and the infamous pornographic texts to a young male page. If they weren't so vociferously anti-gay, it would be a nonstory. Ditto the “sanctity of marriage” politicians caught cheating on their wives, and including Elliot Spitzer, anti-prostitution zealot who it turns out had a thing for prostitutes.
My brother lives in the Bay area, as did I once. Your characterizations of the residents of that fine city are false.
I did not characterize the residents of SF. I was making the case that “San Francisco values” does not refer especially or specifically to gay people; is not a phrase indicating bigotry against gay people.
Re deny rights to gay people:
First, the last survey I saw showed 19% of gay persons do not favor gay marriage.
Second, a brief explanation of one way in which persons who love gay persons can nevertheless oppose gay marriage.
Traditional marriage advocates will say gay persons have the right to be married to a spouse of the opposite sex. Gay persons can even marry gay persons … of the opposite sex. Gay persons have every right that any American has. Marriage is not discrimination between gay and not gay: marriage is discrimination between marriage and not marriage. Lets dig down.
You might argue it's impossible for gay persons to be romantically attracted to opposite sex persons, therefore gay persons do not have all the rights of hetero persons. Your argument hinges on the definition of “right”: is it a constitutional right to be romantically attracted to the person you are marrying?
Traditional marriage advocates have an intelligent, informed, non hate based argument: there's nothing about romance/feelings in the Constitution, and there ought be nothing about romance/feelings in either the Constitution or in the laws of the U.S.
Down that path there be dragons.
There are other non hate based reasons for opposing gay marriage; other reasons which do not rely on denying rights to American citizens. I assume it is your opinion that Republicans who oppose gay marriage are bigoted against gay people. I hope you will reconsider that opinion. It is narrow and misguided.
I noted of the rest of your opinions.
[...] Massa On Offensive: Says Is Being Forced Out and Hints Could Rescind His Resignation (themoderatevoice.com) Related Posts:Video: Bunning obstructs Americans in needVideo: No signs of bipartisanshipVideo: Obama takes reform pitch to PennsylvaniaVideo: GOP makes false claims about reconciliationVideo: Tragedy at SeaWorld [...]