About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe
William Tucker

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Communication

by: Dean Barker

Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 19:43:56 PM EDT


I think what's so consistently disappointing to me about the Swett campaign boils down to communication.
Dean Barker :: Communication
One major stumbling block is that they have made a tactical decision, at odds with every other major Democratic candidate and officeholder in New Hampshire, of avoidance of us and other lefty blogs. And when we ask for supporters to write about their support, we get nothing.

But we know they are constantly watching, because the second we say anything critical, the Swett Defense Team comes out of nowhere with the volume on ten, using the space we openly provide to trash the messenger.

This is a reactive campaign interested in tightly controlling the narrative among a few gatekeepers like DiStaso and Landrigan. It is disrespectful of the new digital grassroots and the positive manner in which one can build open, open-source support.

Compare that approach to the major NH Republican candidates, who, to their credit, have finally figured out that they need to make themselves accessible to potential voters who are online. They are writing diaries and posting videos all over the various right wing sites.

So basically we are left to interpret media accounts of Swett, and places we manage to see her in person.

Like when I caught on that they were going negative early by tossing around the L word.  I was a Bad Blogger for suggesting it, until I was proven right when the strategy became obvious in a subsequent article.

In a campaign with a tightly controlled message, words matter. The Swett campaign claims that they were misquoted or something in the infamous Telegraph caption on marriage, so instead take a look at the statement they themselves provided to WMUR on the question "Same-Sex Marriage":

It is important that the legal protections and benefits that the federal government offers be available to all families no matter where they live. I will work for the passage of federal civil unions legislation which will guarantee these rights for everyone.
What's missing from that question?

Right. The word "marriage."

Here's what I think. I think words matter, and that cautious politicians and candidates choose them extremely carefully, so that they won't get caught later on in the event the winds shift.

There is no denying that simply stating, as Ann Kuster did, "I support marriage equality" comes with some risk (and leadership).  In fact the same-sex marriage law has moved the ball so much in this state that civil unions is now a position endorsed by candidates of both parties.

And when the dustup from the Telegraph caption forced them to a clarification, they put this out:

As it often does, NH led the country by being the first in the nation to proactively enact marriage equality through the legislative process.   In so doing, NH stood up for the proposition that all members of our community should be treated with respect and deserve an equal place at the table.  I support federal civil union legislation that will extend the full range of federal benefits and legal protections to all families in our country, especially those who live in states that don't yet provide marriage equality.

Do I think Katrina Swett supports gay marriage?  I'd say it's likely.  But if you really want to get into the weeds of her statement, and the clarification on her statement, she nowhere explicitly says that. And I don't believe that's by accident.

Similarly, I don't believe NH Freedom to Marry's endorsement of Ann Kuster today was an acident either.  One candidate was clearer than the other, issuing an open-ended commitment to marriage that had the word "I" in front of it.

Here is their release:

New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition Endorses Ann McLane Kuster for Congress

CONCORD, NH - Pointing to Kuster's crystal-clear support for equality for all citizens, New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition's board of directors voted unanimously last night to endorse Ann McLane Kuster in her race for New Hampshire's Second Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

"Ann McLane Kuster's uncompromising support for marriage equality and her commitment to working families of all kinds made this an easy decision," said Mo Baxley, Executive of Director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry.  "Annie is exactly the kind of leader we need in Washington"

The New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition includes tens of thousands of active supporters in New Hampshire.

"I was proud to be a vocal supporter for passing marriage equality here in New Hampshire and I'll continue to support marriage equality in Washington," said Ann McLane Kuster. "We should have less government interference in our personal lives, at both the state and federal levels."

Born and raised in Concord, Ann McLane Kuster has a long history as a community activist, author, public policy advocate, and attorney with deep roots in the Granite State.  She worked with New Hampshire colleges to create the UNIQUE 529 College Savings Program to help families save for their children to attend college, and worked with a coalition of health care providers to create the Medication Bridge Program that distributes free medication to New Hampshire families and seniors who cannot afford the high cost of prescription drugs.  She has served as a board member or advisor to the NH Charitable Foundation, the Trust for Public Lands, Child and Family Services of New Hampshire, the United Way, and many other community groups. She and her husband Brad live in Hopkinton and have two sons who attend college in New Hampshire.

I'm still going to vote for Katrina Swett in the general election if she becomes the nominee.  I like her as person, even if I am at a new low with the way I view her campaign.

But I really hope sometime between now and then they rethink, fundamentally, how they view open communication and plain talk.  Because the fallout from this dustup will be nothing compared a like one in the general election against Charlie Bass if they behave similarly.

(Of course, this will be immediately discounted by some because we endorsed Annie, bloggers are mean, pajama wearing losers, etc, etc., blah, blah, blah. So take it or leave it.)

UPDATE (Saturday): Looks like the Swett campaign finally decided the parsing was backfiring on them and issued yet another clarifying statement.  It's a start. Better would be for them to secure a correction or clarification to the Telegraph caption and its voter-rich Nashua audience. As of this update, it has not changed.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Communication | 35 comments
Swett / Kuster (0.00 / 0)
Dean -- you make much sense.  I live in the 1st CD so my choice is already made, and I'm 100% pleased with our nominee -- Carol Shea-Porter.  As I've observed, and you observe about the Swett campaign, I think Carol's campaign could be better, and I've offered some advice and despite getting punched for doing so I'm pleased that it appears there is some internal debate to make it better so she can win in November.  There's still time.  

Between Kuster / Swett, I have no choice because in so many ways, each is a star.  I remember well the 1990s when Dick and Katrina Swett were so important to the NH Democratic Party.  On gay marriage, I think she'll eventually come around.  After all, just two years ago many NH Democrats had not yet arrived to support it, including John Lynch.  Times change.  People change.

I like Ann McLane Kuster too.  I served with Susan McLane in the State Senate in the early 1980s, and Ann seems to be in the same mode.  Caring, passionate, compassionate, fantastic.  That she is "already there" for marriage equality, with the word, is a plus for me.  

Either could win in November if they make their campaigns local and New Hampshire-based.  Neither has to defend everything Democratic in Washington.  New Hampshire voters will vote on New Hampshire issues.  And whether it's Ann McLane Kuster or Katrina Swett, we'll have another wonderful person representing us.  

By the way, last week in a newspaper column I suggested that whomever wins the Democratic nomination, the "runnup" should become a co-chair of her election and go everywhere the nominee goes.  Both Kuster and Swett teaming up on the campaign trail smashing Bass would be tough to beat.    


Chits Count (0.00 / 0)
There is a pattern.

Jim says it here:
I remember well the 1990s when Dick and Katrina Swett were so important to the NH Democratic Party.

DD says it constantly. Here is the latest version:
But Katrina Swett has fought for the Democratic Party for her entire adult life, and she deserves better than the constant barrage of crap she gets here.  

Katrina Swett said it at the Bow Town Hall Forum, last night. She started her introduction to the people of Bow, by introducing her husband, Dick. She continued by reminding the audience how in the '90's the NHDP was in the wilderness and that an intrepid Dick helped turn the tide. When she described the later successes of NH's current delegation, she didn't once use the word "coat-tails."

Then today, I check back in with JonnyBBad via cellie. We discussed the race and he stated quite clearly that in those days when money was short that "the Swetts were angels."

Let me tell you a personal story. It is short, but shows why I love my wife, Salmira, so much.

When my mom died, the "girls" of the family started to discuss dividing up the jewelry. It was decided that each would simply take back, what they had given mom over the many birthdays, Christmases, ect. When they asked Salmira what she had given mom,she said,"I don't have a clue. When I give something, I give it."

A big undercurrent to the Swett message is founded on a mega chit.

Whack-a-mole, anyone?


[ Parent ]
OK, Jack (0.00 / 0)
Jack, I never said that Katrina Swett is entitled to a congressional nomination because of her longtime support for Democratic and progressive causes.  

I did say that she should have her credentials considered fairly and openly.  Cite differences between her positions and Annie's on Afghanistan and nuclear power (as a recent diary did), and criticize her if her priorities differ from your own.  She's a candidate for office.  That should happen.

But, after years of support for causes that we care about, she deserves better than lies and slurs.  And that's what she's received from too many Kuster supporters on Blue Hampshire for too damn long.


[ Parent ]
Better Left Unsaid (0.00 / 0)
"Entitled" will be one's undoing this cycle. Charlie Bass acts all "entitled."

As far as issues based discussion goes. I tend to hyperfocus on process. Partly, because I figure a candidate will run their congressional office in a way close to how they campaigned.

I'll spare you the compare and contrast, but it won't surprise you to know that I'm way more impressed with Annie's arc to November.


Whack-a-mole, anyone?


[ Parent ]
That's pretty clear, my friend n/t (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Still neutral, still in NH-01, still confused but maybe less so. (0.00 / 0)
I'm inclined to take DD's word for it with respect to Swett's position on marriage equality, and I'll go one step further: I think this business of Swett supporting civil unions is being misunderstood--maybe it's just me.

It seems what she's saying about civil unions is a novel proposal, unrelated to federal recognition of gay marriages performed by those states that do so, extending federal recognition of same-sex partnerships nationwide, even to states that do not have any form of legal recognition for same-sex unions. (Swett campaign and confidants, I welcome your corrections and clarifications). That is not a bad idea, in fact it's a rather intriguing intermediate step before SCOTUS eventually ends marriage discrimination in the 45 states that still have it. It might be federal overreaching from a constitutional perspective, but that probably depends on how it's implemented.  Regardless, if the proposal is what I just described (and maybe I'm wrong), I think Swett is to be applauded for coming up with it.

Meanwhile, as for communication, I disagree with the Swett campaign's hesitance to use this site but as long as she's in a primary against someone the site has endorsed, I understand it.  I would remind them, though, that after the editors endorsed Dodd and Edwards in the 08 Presidential, this site was still full of lively debate that included Obama people, Clinton people, Richardson people person (singular), Kucinich people, etc., and the other campaigns continued to come here too.

And credit where credit is due, Kuster would not have had the problems with speculation that Swett has had this week simply because she has an issues page on her website.  Frankly, not having positions on major issues readily available online is a campaign vulnerability, and this experience is a case study in that vulnerability.

--
@DougLindner


One quibble. (0.00 / 0)
Swett's non-engagement on the lefty blog (and others, AFAIK) began long before the endorsement.  In fact, it was the same during her senate run in 08.


birch, finch, beech

[ Parent ]
irrc (0.00 / 0)
Senate race for '08 cycle ended in summer of '07 for Swett.

Annie 2012!

[ Parent ]
In Response (0.00 / 0)
Well, Dean, as a "pajama wearing loser" on Blue Hampshire for the past 3+ years, as well as the sole member of the "Swett Defense Team" on this site, I feel an obligation to respond before you put more words into my mouth.  

Before I begin, let me note again that I am not employed by the Swett campaign, nor am I versed in its strategy and its direction. . . . With all due respect, here goes:

One major stumbling block is that they have made a tactical decision, at odds with every other major Democratic candidate and officeholder in New Hampshire, of avoidance of us and other lefty blogs. And when we ask for supporters to write about their support, we get nothing.

Dean, you don't "get nothing."  I -- and many other Swett supporters -- have expressed our support for Katrina on Blue Hampshire.  Many, many times.

Should the Swett campaign do more to engage the blogging community?  Absolutely.  But campaigns operate to engage undecided voters, and there aren't many for Katrina on a site that publicly endorsed her opponent one week after her announcement.

I certainly don't fault you for making your endorsement, nor do I fault JB, Jack, and Annie's other supporters on this site for making their choice known.  But, as I expressed at the time, the decision to endorse as Blue Hampshire -- rather than as its constituent members -- sent a clear statement that this community had already made up its mind.  So Katrina doesn't spend much time here, for the same reason that Barry Manilow doesn't spend much time blogging on Metallica fan sites -- he doesn't want to get crapped on by people who have made it clear they despise him.

But we know they are constantly watching, because the second we say anything critical, the Swett Defense Team comes out of nowhere with the volume on ten, using the space we openly provide to trash the messenger.

Dean, I made a decision a year ago not to respond to attacks on Katrina Swett by slamming Ann Kuster.  Helping Charlie Bass is not why I got involved in politics. . . . So, when Katrina has been personally attacked by certain Kuster supporters, or her positions have been deliberately distorted, I have called out the messengers who have delivered them.  I have challenged them to stop engaging in negative campaigning, and to focus their guns on Charlie.  (I did the same when Peter Sullivan attacked Annie unfairly.)

I make no bones about that.  Nor do I apologize for trying to stop a circular firing squad.  (Obviously, though, I have failed miserably.  So that ends tonight.  I have a new plan in mind to refocus us on Charlie.)

Do I think Katrina Swett supports gay marriage?  I'd say it's likely.  But if you really want to get into the weeds of her statement, and the clarification on her statement, she nowhere explicitly says that. And I don't believe that's by accident.

That's not what you said, Dean.  While I appreciate that you finally changed the title of your diary from one that was an undeniable falsehood, you know damn well that Katrina Swett supports the NH marriage law and DOMA repeal.  Her publicly stated positions are identical to those of Annie's (who, from what I can tell, still hasn't come out for a federalization of marriage laws.)  Ray, Kathy, Karen, and other non-aligned, non-members of the "Swett Defense Team" said this clearly.  It's time to admit your mistake -- and apologize for it.

If you don't like her wording, then criticize that. But don't lie about her positions.  And that is precisely what you and Laura did.

If I said that "Ann Kuster opposed the environmental movement" because she issued a pro-energy statement that didn't use the words "climate change," then I would hope that you would rake my ass across the coals.  You did no different here.  And you owe her an apology.

Similarly, I don't believe NH Freedom to Marry's endorsement of Ann Kuster today was an acident either.  One candidate was clearer than the other, issuing an open-ended commitment to marriage that had the word "I" in front of it.

While congratulating Annie and commending her position on civil rights, I don't think it was an accident, either.  The endorsement came a day after you and Laura spread lies about Katrina's position across the Internet.  Even Jim -- one of the smartest people on this site -- says above that Katrina will "eventually come around" on gay marriage.  Come around to what?  To the exact positions endorsed by the GLBT movement?  

Falsehoods have power when they are not confronted.  And that's why I chose to call you out on it.  You crossed the line.  

I'm still going to vote for Katrina Swett in the general election if she becomes the nominee.  I like her as person, even if I am at a new low with the way I view her campaign.

I'm still going to support Ann McLane Kuster in the general election, too, if she becomes the nominee.  But I am disappointed by the repeated negativity of her supporters. And I'm done tolerating it.  


Do you realize (4.00 / 3)
you just made the claim that NH Freedom to Marry (with whom I have not had any communication on this) based something as important as their endorsement decision on a blog post headline that was a completely accurate description of words in the Nashua Telegraph that as of this datestamp are still there? And in which post I included every statement and clarification I could find from Swett?

That is an amazing claim, especially given your own notice of Mr. Rater's lengthy explanation and personal commentary of his engagement with the Swett campaign in the previous thread.

Relatedly: you keep saying I "know damn well" about Swett's positions on gay marriage.  Um, no, I don't.  I have to rely on Kevin Landrigan for that. That is the whole problem right there.

Go ahead and keep calling me a liar.  But this is about as far down the rabbit hole I am going with you on this thread and issue, so don't expect me to get worked up by that enough to keep responding.

birch, finch, beech


[ Parent ]
Sorry, Dean, but I protest (0.00 / 0)
* First of all, I am not "trying to get your worked up."  You made a number of comments about me (without identifying me).  I was responding to your concerns.

* I don't know why NH Freedom to Marry made their endorsement.  Am pretty sure that the widespread perception that Katrina Swett opposes gay marriage (which you and Laura spread like wildfire) didn't help her cause.  Public interest organizations respond to the wishes of their supporters, and a lot more of them have a false impression of Katrina's position on gay marriage than they did 48 hours ago.

* Please don't claim that you didn't know about her support for gay marriage.  She has talked about it many times in many different forums, as Rep. DeJoie and others cited.  If you didn't know, you had many avenues for checking prior to publishing a diary the was, quite frankly, beneath you.  And, even after folks of all candidate persuasions went on line to point out your error, you kept that misleading title on the site long after its inaccuracy was clear.

I do apologize for calling you a liar.  That implies an intent that I do not know, and is inconsistent with our relationship.  But it remains a mystery to me how you could do something so irresponsible and inconsistent with the facts in evidence.  


[ Parent ]
I don't know everything that went into the endorsement (4.00 / 2)
however, I think that it was inevitable because Kuster speaks directly to marriage and Swett usually talks about civil unions instead.  Personally, I always cringe when that phrase is used and I'm sure that many others do as well.  Civil unions from my perspective are always associated with second class status.  It is segregation - a way to differentiate polite society from the undesirables.  When the legislature passed the civil unions law, I testified against it.  Some argued that sitting at the back of the bus was better than not being allowed on the bus, but I would rather walk.

Swett's suggestion that we could have a federal system of recognition separate from state recognition is a good one.  Historically, it hasn't been done, but DOMA changed that.  If it's constitutional for the federal government to not recognize some state marriages, then it is also constitutional for it to recognize other marriages that are not state recognized.

What bothers me is calling this system "civil unions" instead of marriage.  There is no reason for a name change and it's insulting.

I'm still interested in hearing Kuster's position on this.

As a side note, I agree with Dartmouth Dem that several people on BH have been too eager to see something sinister in the Swett campaign.  We need to have honest discussion about the candidates, but we can do that a bit more respectfully than we have.


[ Parent ]
As much as I appreciate (4.00 / 2)
being called a liar repeatedly, and as much as I appreciate your mastery of wounded-sensible-moderate disingenuousness, I'll just stick to this: I addressed Katrina Swett's recent on-the-record statements. I cannot address what's in her heart. I carefully spoke of her not supporting marriage equality rather than her opposing it, because that was what the record showed. I can't do more than that. And, like Dean, I'll note that the Telegraph still says what it said -- getting a correction there would seem to be the first step if you really wanted to change the record.

Also, I'd like to make a distinction you don't appear to get. When we ask you to express support for Swett, we don't mean "jump in defensively every time anyone mentions her." We mean, you know, "write about what you think is good about her." And sorry, but "there's no point, you don't like her" is not a good excuse. Plenty of people have continued making the positive case for their candidates even in the face of support for other candidates.


[ Parent ]
"Swett does not support marriage equality." (0.00 / 0)
Your diary is an out-and-out lie.  You know it now, but you refuse even to even change the title of your Kos diary.  It is deliberate misinformation.  And it is wrong, regardless of what type of retraction the Telegraph prints next week.

I have spoken extensively -- and on many occasions -- on Blue Hampshire about my support for Katrina Swett, and about my reasons for backing her.  I would like to not be defending her against blatantly false allegations, but, of course, that would require folks like you to stop making them.

Am guessing that if someone posted a diary that says, "Ann Kuster is anti-choice," when all evidence says otherwise, you would not sit quietly.  (Nor would I.)  I can't imagine why you would expect less of me.


[ Parent ]
One example (of many) (0.00 / 0)
Since you are so interested in my reasons for backing Katrina Swett, here's one example:

http://www.bluehampshire.com/s...

Notice that I didn't write "Ann Kuster opposes (insert progressive value) here" without foundation.  Perhaps you could learn from that.


[ Parent ]
Didn't want to weigh in, but (4.00 / 1)
as far as I know, there has not been a diary written by any Swett supporters showing why they are supporting her. I know many people who are supporting Swett rather than Kuster based on certain issues. That's fine. And if such a diary supporting Swett were written, it would have been front paged.

I'm very disappointed that the only diary written by a Swett supporter is against Annie, and has that as its only theme.


[ Parent ]
Disappointment (0.00 / 0)
Whether I opt to show my support for Katrina Swett via a diary or dozens of comments is a personal choice.  I don't do many diaries, and most of them concern Charlie Bass, on whom I have done considerable research over the years.

I'm sorry that you are disappointed in my diary.  I'm disappointed that you stayed on the sidelines while Dean and Laura spread blatant fiction about Katrina Swett's gay marriage position.  Perhaps we both have an incentive now to support clean, open, and honest exchanges between backers of both candidates.  That would be in everyone's interest.


[ Parent ]
Rick Trombly's Diary (0.00 / 0)
Based on your earlier invitation, I certainly expect that you will front page Rick's diary, which was posted quite a few hours ago.  

As a leader of our party and of the NH civil rights movement, Rick's statement on behalf of Katrina Swett is yet another firm rebuttal of the "Swett does not support marriage equality" falsehood.  

Thank you.


[ Parent ]
If any journalists are passing through, (4.00 / 2)
Please let the record show that neither Kuster nor Swett, nor either of their campaigns, are engaged in this argument.

People, let's not do this like it's Pennsylvania '08.

--
@DougLindner


Agreed (0.00 / 0)
People, let's not do this like it's Pennsylvania '08.

But political peace is a two-way street.  There has never been a diary by a Swett supporting criticizing Annie Kuster on this site.  Do you really think that the opposite is true?  

I would love to spend the next two months publishing A Sorry Bass History diaries.  (Already have them mapped out through October.) But if I have to tell the truth about Annie's record to discourage some of her supporters from lying about Katrina's, then rest assured I will.


[ Parent ]
The "truth?" (4.00 / 1)
That's rich. LOL.

I'm not trying to taunt you and I won't double dare you. However, If you feel compelled to break your own set of values because "the other kids are doing it," do what ya gotta do.


Whack-a-mole, anyone?


[ Parent ]
Then help me (0.00 / 0)
Jack, I have tried the other approach for the past year, and it doesn't seem to prevent the constant crap from seeping through.  Do I have any other options?  

Maybe some form of modest deterrence will keep some of Annie's muddier supporters on the up-and-up, without undermining her prospects against Charlie.  That's my hope, anyway.


[ Parent ]
I should begin by saying (4.00 / 1)
I reject the premise.

The words "attack", "lie", "smear", "slur", ect. get tossed around WAAAAY to quickly when the going gets tough. This is a blog. Shit get said, yo.

For me, I have not even begun to disclose things that cross my mind. So when you portray this blog as the wild west, I can assure you, it is NOT.

So, I invite you to squelch the hyperbole and have some fun here.

Whack-a-mole, anyone?


[ Parent ]
Fun, but not garbage (0.00 / 0)
Jack, I realize that I am no stranger to hyperbole.  Emotion is part of blogging.  We all share it, and we all get out of hand.  And, yes, even when we disagree I appreciate your no BS approach.

But words like "attack", "smear", and "slur" are understatements in this case.  Dean and Laura provided deliberate misinformation to untold thousands of progressive voters/donors across the country.  Even now, Laura's diary on Kos still splashes the headline: "Swett does not support marriage equality."  This has no foundation in fact.  None.

Accountability is a prerequisite for integrity.  I never imagined that Dean, of all people, could do something like this.  But he did, and he deserves to be called on it.  


[ Parent ]
When the words "marriage equality" (0.00 / 0)
spill across Swett's lips, then you can gripe.

She is rhetorically metering her support. If I was to guess, she may not want to offend some in her base that feel that marriage is a sacrament between one man and one woman.

So by metering her rhetoric, she has offended some that feel their human rights are violated by a construct of "seperate but equal."

What puzzles me, is why you are being so disrespectful to Dean and Laura. Katrina has made her choice on how to frame her position. Even if, technically it is a sound position, it is couched in "politically correct" terms. It is the right of others to take exeption with that.

What you are missing is, that people have the right to call out such things. Katrina's position may be sound, but the language is off. She is trying to have it both ways. That is politics as usual.

Whack-a-mole, anyone?


[ Parent ]
In Response (0.00 / 0)
What puzzles me, is why you are being so disrespectful to Dean and Laura. Katrina has made her choice on how to frame her position. Even if, technically it is a sound position, it is couched in "politically correct" terms. It is the right of others to take exeption with that.

Jack, Dean and Laura did not claim that Katrina Swett had a "technically sound" position that was expressd in a crappy statement.  If they took exception to that, I would have no protest (and would, in fact, agree with them.)  I'm with you -- they have every right to do that.

But they didn't.  The Kos diary is titled "Swett does not support marriage equality."  (It's still up there.)  That is a blatantly false statement, and all of us know it.  And, while Dean and Laura have earned a tremendous amount of respect from me over the past several years, they lost a lot of it during the past 48 hours.


[ Parent ]
"marriage equality" (0.00 / 0)
Instead of flailing about, causing a distraction from the conspicuous absence of the words from Swett's communications; pick up the phone and get them to fix it.

There should be nothing to it, right? Right?

Whack-a-mole, anyone?


[ Parent ]
This is why DD needs to join facebook! (4.00 / 2)
One of Katrina's staffers put her statement on Marriage Equality on facebook last night.

http://www.facebook.com/home.p...

Also from her website -- http://www.swettforcongress.co...

I am a proud supporter of marriage equality.  As it often does, NH led the country by being the first in the nation to proactively enact marriage equality through the legislative process.   In so doing, NH stood up for the proposition that all members of our community should be treated with respect and deserve an equal place at the table.

I strongly support the repeal of DOMA as well the repeal of DADT.  While the repeal of DOMA would bring important concrete federal benefits to couples who live in states that have marriage equality, it would confer no benefits on same sex couples living in the 45 states that do not.  That is why I will lead the fight for federal civil union legislation that would extend the full range of federal benefits and legal protections to all families in our country.



[ Parent ]
New Rules (0.00 / 0)
I am adopting a new policy with regards to the 2nd CD primary. . . . For the past year, I have responded to unfair, untrue, and blatantly false attacks on Katrina Swett by "attacking the messenger" (to use Dean's term) - pointing out errors and calling bloggers to account for undermining progressive unity.  My hope was that Blue Hampshire could support open, thoughtful debate between supporters of both candidates, one that would strengthen either Ann and Katrina for a fall campaign against Charlie Bass.  

That has failed miserably, as evidenced by the recent sensation about Katrina's alleged (and, oh yeah, blatantly false) opposition to gay marriage.  Hence the new approach.  From now on, this sort of unsubstantiated attack by supporters of Ann will be met with a single, accurate challenge to her own record.  One for one.  I will limit deliberately my scope, and will only cite "low hanging fruit" - newspaper articles and other sources that even a campaigner as lazy as Charlie will find.  Won't give Bass any material that a teenage blogger could not easily find.

I do not wish to do this very often, and will set a high bar.  Only the most egregious garbage will merit one of my diaries.  And I will wait at least 24 hours before issuing one, to give the writer a chance to correct errors and to allow any member of Annie's campaign to put forth a disassociating comment.

My hope is that this is a one-time deal, and then I go back to Charlie.  But my days of idle protests are over.  


Deliberate decision long before the Kuster endorsement (4.00 / 1)
Unfortunately, the Swett campaign has not considered New Hampshire's online community a source of support since long before any BH endorsement of Annie Kuster, and they actively decided not to try to have a blogospheric presence. I think if they did have someone representing them who appeared here, they could have clarified a number of points over the last few weeks definitively, and I still believe they would have gained a great deal more respect from Blue Hampshire and other Democratic New Hampshire blogs for showing a willingness to engage.

I'm trying to stay very neutral between them for now, but I do believe that disengagement was a purely tactical error that could have been avoided.

Only the left protects anyone's rights.


Ouch! (4.00 / 1)
When WE have a primary, we have a PRIMARY.  They are hard.  I go back to Dean's issue with communication.  First I am in NH-01 and love Carol's way of running a campaign.  We engage with the blogs as grassroots volunteers.   We try to be positive, which is not hard, because Carol does so much positive stuff to talk about.  But she now has the benefit of incumbency, which sure helps.  
I haven't really followed the NH-02 campaign, though I know folks in NH-01 who have supported Annie.  I don't have the time or energy to do more than my local campaigns, including my own, and Carol.  From my experience at the convention, I would lean to Annie, simply because she reminds me of Carol, and I love that sense of empowerment of the voters that campaign depends on.  
However, Blue Hampshire covers the whole state, and I do wonder why we have seen so little Swett coverage from those grassroots.  See, I assume that all modern campaign of progressives have grassroots.  So, does the Swett campaign have a grassroots component?

I hear this a lot (4.00 / 1)

"she reminds me of Carol,"

I don't know CSP very well. I tend to leave her be, as there are so many that want to have a chance to talk with her, I figure I should let them have the time I would use. It is clear that she hits all the right marks in campagning and representing the 1st District.

Lately, NH folks are really starting to "see" Annie as their Congresswoman. There is a confidence in that outcome that was lacking some months ago. And one meme that tends to come up is, 'can you imagine Carol and Annie working together?'

These are two different women, in many respects, but there is a common thread in their approaches to "this thing" that draw comparison. Most important, imo, is this simple observation. I'll let the Primary Wire take it from here:

CHICHESTER - It's hard to put your finger on why, exactly, Ann McLane Kuster's campaign seems so different.
Maybe it's the enthusiastic young interns who have come from all over the country to support her. Maybe it's the impressive efficiency and organization of her campaign, or the crowds that flock to her house parties. Or maybe it's the candidate herself, incredibly warm and down to earth.

But it seemed perfectly summed  up by the supporter who told me, "you just know when you see the real deal." For a lot of voters, Kuster seems to be the "real deal."




Whack-a-mole, anyone?

[ Parent ]
Data Point (4.00 / 1)
  • April 17: MDH emails each campaigns and invites campaign to record a 2 minute "Introduction" video that we would "frontpage" in the order received.
  • April 17: Note from DeJoie Campaign indicating they would participate.
  • April 18: Note from Kuster Campaign indicating they would partcipate
  • ... Time Passes ...
  • May 4th: DeJoie Withdraws
  • May 6th: Kuster Video Posted
  • May 6th: MDH emails Swett Campaign
  • May 6th Swett Campaign responds inquiring about timetable for posting.
  • ... Time Passes ...
  • May 20th: Blue Hampshire Editors Endorse Kuster

As early as August 2009 John DeJoie was actively reaching out and engaged with the netroots. Ann Kuster has done so by starting her campaign "early" and locking up the support of so many NH Activists some of whom happens to be regular diarist here. The Swett Campaign seems to have either had a total blind spot for the importance of Netroots/NewMedia (I doubt it), or made a strategic decision to minimize their involvement with the channel (more likely IMHO).

The thing is... Conversations Happen. One can choose to be a part of the conversation, or you can ignore it and hope is goes away (it won't). For the cost of a staff/intern salary, and <$1000 in equipment you can change the world, or at least the campaign narrative in small congressional district.

I think most campaigns are still in transition in terms of accepting/embracing the netroots I'm not sure the power of "The Influentials: One American in Ten Tells the Other Nine How to Vote, Where to Eat, and What to Buyis fully embraced/understood (or perhaps it is understood but the Old Influentials are not the New Influentials?)

Katrina's stump speech about her family immigrating to America is a compelling story that any family currently struggling to make ends meet would connect powerfully with. I would have loved to have it on Blue Hampshire.

 

Hope > Fear




Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.


I don't disagree with you, Mike (0.00 / 0)
Believe me, no one would benefit from a stronger Swett presence on Blue Hampshire than I would.  I feel like Custer on here!

One caveat: The Swett campaign started late.  Katrina didn't decide to run until 2010, and the campaign hired most of its staff in the spring.  (The campaign announcement took place during the two week window you cited above.)  While it is certainly fair game to question that decision as well, I can only assume that it influenced the campaign's lack of responsiveness to you.


[ Parent ]
would "federal civil unions" even be constitutional (0.00 / 0)
she's not the first politician to oil their way out of a yes/no answer on marriage equality by advocating for 'federal civil unions'.  however, marriage an other family relationship law has always been left up to the states, and in fact the two recent doma ruling on the massachusetts a.g.'s challenge was based on the 10th amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
so is swett calling for something that sounds nice but is unconstitutional both on 10th amendment grounds at the least?

Communication | 35 comments

Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox