Tom Reed’s des-per-a-tion

tricksOn June 11, 2014, in a political advertisement Tom Reed wrote:

What is Martha Robertson trying to hide? To date, Robertson hasn’t held a single public event or town hall and her handlers are desperate to keep her extreme liberal views out of the public eye. Her team has even denied questions from the public at a local press conference for fear the questions would be recorded.

One wonders what Tom is afraid of. Would he like to send operatives to harass Martha at public meetings? How would he know what her handlers, as if she were a prize fighter, fear? Town hall meetings are conducted by Tom as a member of Congress at public expense; ostensibly they are a means for our representative to communicate with his constituents. Why should Martha ape him?

Perhaps Martha is conducting a stealth campaign, talking about her views and accomplishments without giving her antagonist an opportunity to attack, ignoring Tom Reed’s attempts to mock her. It might be a good strategy, better than Reed’s efforts to demonize his opponent at every opportunity, better than Reed’s clumsy efforts to catch Martha in a gaffe, better than Reed’s possibly illegal effort to put Green Party candidates on the ballot.

William A. Jacobson writes:

The Veterans Administration scandal poses a problem for Robertson, as it raises fears of what healthcare will be like if the government gains total control. Robertson appeared recently with Nancy Pelosi, and was interviewed on local television. Robertson blamed the VA scandal on what she called decades of underfunding:

“And we see it’s not a matter of the care that they get once they get access to the care,” said Robertson. “There’s no question that they’re getting quality care and responsive care once they’re in the system. This is a problem of decades of underfunding the system altogether.”

Pooh–Tom claims spending is adequate because it is up from a low but ignores the increased demand for services. The claim that funding is adequate is wrong no matter how much right-wing propaganda claims the opposite. Jacobson’s one-sided defense of Tom is as phony as a typical half-truth of Reed’s.

Will Tom Reed agree to debates? He had very few when running against Nate Shinagawa and those only at the last minute before the election.  More plausibly it is Tom Reed who is hiding–refusing to give Martha a platform to explain her views.

Tom continues:

When she does comment to the media, Robertson doesn’t seem to get her facts straight. Instead she relies on personal attacks because she knows her liberal values don’t mirror Western New York.

Martha relies on personal attacks? Who knew? I have seen nothing like that. Martha has concentrated on introducing herself to voters and explaining her position on the issues. I know of no instance of a personal attack on Tom Reed. However, Reed has produced many ads attacking Martha directly mostly for things having nothing to do with the political views or qualifications of a member of Congress.  Reed can’t run on his record as Martha can–he has none.

Liberal values don’t mirror Western New York? Liberal values like support for Social Security and Medicare? Liberal values like support for affordable health care? Liberal values like relief from burdensome student loans. Liberal values like compassion for the unemployed and those working at low wage jobs without benefits? For sure those are my values and the values of many voters in NY-23.

Tom’s message concludes:

Tom cares about families in the Southern Tier and Finger Lakes and has held nearly 150 town halls in a district the size of New Jersey.

I have attended a number of these town halls; they are campaign events in all but name. Tom does much talking and little listening. Tom actually seems embarrassed to report on his votes and official activities–he seldom does.

Finally, Tom hits us up for $23. He doesn’t need the money but would like to claim that he enjoys local support as Martha Robertson can. A recent report shows Tom’s supporters, mostly representing special interests, each giving $1000; out-of-state, right-wing PACs give much more. A man of the people Tom ain’t.

© William Hungerford – June 2014

Martha Robertson (Dem challenger NY-23) inaccurately blames VA scandal on underfunding


About whungerford

* Contributor at where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in Congress, Constituents, Health Care, Political, Reed's Views, Veterans and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Tom Reed’s des-per-a-tion

  1. Susan says:


    Sent from my iPad



  2. Deb Meeker says:

    There’s our No Labels hero again. Since “Obamacare” is working, and Tom Reed isn’t – what better way to deflect self examination, than point fingers at his worthy opponent?


  3. Anne says:

    Because Martha Robertson is not yet a representative of the district, for her to hold Town Hall meetings would be inappropriate (and were she to start, the cry from the right would be “presumptuous!” as well). Reed is drawing a whole lot of false equivalences here, in addition to spinning a wholesale lie about Robertson’s “hiding” out of nothing at all. I have yet to see one bit of campaigning out of Camp Reed that isn’t a negative attack ad. Nothing substantive, of course, because there is nothing substantive about Reed’s record. And for Reed to whine about Robertson denying public questions when his Town Halls are nothing but a pick-and-choose talking points photo op appearance is beyond laughable. When has Reed ever dared take an unscripted question?


  4. whungerford says:

    On Jun 12, 2014 Tom says he attended a “No Labels Problem Solvers Meeting.” He doesn’t say what problems they solved, if any. I wonder if he was chided for fighting rather than fixing or for finger pointing both which he does often.


  5. BOB McGILL says:

    ” When has Reed ever dared take an unscripted question? ” you ask, everytime that I have been at one of his meetings. He even takes questions from ptstew, when you can understand what ptstew is trying to say, that is.


  6. whungerford says:

    Tom Reed’s reelection campaign pays rent to his “former” business: RR Resource Recovery. Whether legal or not, this makes a mockery of conflict of interest laws and regulations–it is a transparent means of milking his campaign fund for his family’s benefit if not directly for his own.


  7. Anne says:

    Whenever I have heard Rich speak or read what he’s written, he is perfectly coherent. Reed’s town halls require the presence of his own handler (Joe?) to vet questions.


  8. Anne says:

    Are we sure it’s legal?


  9. solodm says:

    That is quite an interesting link you provided. I noticed several entries in the “memo” box that state :
    “Original vendors exceeding reporting threshold itemized as memo transactions.”

    Here is what the FCC has ruled on this issue :

    I may be missing something, but I see no required “breakdowns” of the larger amounts of monies listed after the entries with note in the memo line.


  10. whungerford says:

    The file is sorted in order of amount; the subitemization is there, but not adjacent to the charge card payment.

    Tom is spending heavily on consultants, polling, and data mining.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s