To the Editor:
Tom Reed is quoted in your newspaper as wanting to “discuss his record of fighting for a better environment.” At least that is what he said providing there was a comma intended after the word “environment.” Otherwise, everyone who has spoken to or listened to Mr. Reed is well aware that protecting the environment is not even a remote concern for him.
This man is an outspoken proponent of horizontal hydrofracking for gas in the Marcellus shale with no regard for the potential dangers it could cause to our environment. This is really not surprising since by October 2011 he had received $32,250 in political contributions from the gas drilling industry. In my estimation it is safe to assume he has added a few more bucks from them to aid in his present political campaign.
Nate Shinagawa, his opponent in the race for 23rd Congressional District, is openly opposed to horizontal hydrofracking, and Nate is completely educated on the subject and well informed as to the potential risks to our environment.
Why should Reed be opposed to debates with Nate Shinagawa? Reed will agree to only three debates and one of those to be “private” — whatever that means. There will be no available local TV coverage of these debates in the Finger Lakes area because Time Warner cable thoughtfully removed the Elmira channels, which do plan to carry them, from our lineup. Could it be that Mr. Reed is afraid that his support of fracking despite its threat to our environment will convince voters that Nate Shinagawa is a better man to represent them in Congress?