Nancy Elliott and the Politics of Beavis and Butthead

Nancy Eliot (0.00 / 0)

Nancy Eliott, IMHO, is a disgusting human being and should NOT be in the position she holds.  She is dangerous and a threat, not unlike a terrorist.  I certainly hope that she is not re-elected by the citizens of Merrimack for another term.  She should have been reprimanded for her behavior.  

---

by: mevansnh @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:10:49 AM CST

Agreed (4.00 / 1)

Isn't there some sort of censure or something at the state level?

---

by: FrankLloydMike @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 09:14:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The other insidious rhetoric (4.00 / 2)

she uses is the "defiling" of children. She said that pictures of naked men having anal sex were being shown to ten and eleven year olds in the Nashua school system. This is right out of the book that claimed Polish Jews were using the blood of Christian babies to make their Passover matzoh, that black men sexually assaulted the clean, white southern women. In both of these historical cases, the claims led to the most horrific murders and lynching of innocent people. Based on lies.

From a letter to the Telegraph:

You see, I have a suspicion that there wasn't a parent and a child, because if she did go to the police, an investigation would have determined there was no parent.

Elliott has her own agenda and interests in mind and not the good people of Merrimack, and she should be removed from the Statehouse immediately to prevent her from doing more damage and harm to our state.

We have enough hate in this world; we don't need it in our state government.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:23:22 AM CST

Added to my reading list (4.00 / 1)

Thank you for promoting this book - looks like a must-read.  I like to think that as a society we may finally be moving beyond this type of poo flinging (so to speak).  Chalk it up to years of 'political correctness' but the politics of disgust really shock and offend people in a way that wouldn't have been the case 30 or even 20 years ago.  Nancy Elliott obviously thought she was on safe footing with this, but she didn't persuade anybody with her insular views.  Quite the opposite!  I can only hope that she was somewhat surprised and embarrassed by the extent of the outrage.  It can't be a Sunday picnic in the park being known to the entire world as the 'wriggling in excrement lady.'

---

by: ScottNH @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:59:38 AM CST

Nancy Elliott (4.00 / 1)

From what I've seen and heard the most vocal legislators standing against gay marriage, Elliot, Baldasaro, and Bates, all have one thing in common.  They absolutely hate homosexuals. It shows in the words they use to make their points.

I've read quite a bit on the Loving vs Virginia Supreme Court case and have found many simularities between both mixed marriage and gay marriage. At the time of the Supreme Court case involving mixed marriages, national polls showed 85% of the population was against legalizing these marriages. The same words were used by those fighting mixed marriage that are being used against gay marriage today.  The same churches that are fighting gay marriage were also fighting mixed race marriage. As in mixed marriages the same thing is driving the fight against gay marriage, hate and bigotry. Elliott, Baldasaro, and the rest can say what they want but their language betrays them.

We allow convicted felons, atheists, child molesters, porn peddlers, and prisoners to marry, but Elliot, Baldasaro, and Bates won't allow two loving homosexuals to marry. Give me a break.

It is perfectly legal in the state of NH for homosexuals to have children by any number of means.  Many of the benefits given to married couples are to make it easier for them to raise children and therefore a direct benefit to the children of NH.  The "Big Three" would vote to keep these benefits from the children of gay marriages just because they hate the parents. I know if given a chance the "Big Three" would not hesitate to make it illegal for homosexuals to have children.  In fact I think the three would not hesitate to make homosexuality itself illegal again if given the chance.

---

by: Herb @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 10:18:10 AM CST

yikes (0.00 / 0)

I wouldn't include atheists in the same category as felons, child molesters, porn peddlers, and prisoners. You're making a good point, Herb - but atheists are not criminals.

---

by: susanthe @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 10:54:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

LOL (4.00 / 1)

I saw that when it was too late to changes.  I was going to include a few others like Muslims and Buddists but the sentence got too long and I dropped a few. My point was going to be we let all types of people marry.  I didn't really intend to just include bad people. My appologies to any atheists out there unless you happen to be a convicted felon or child molester.

---

by: Herb @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:13:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Trouble (4.00 / 1)

My daughter who happens to be an atheist just had to read Blue Hampshire this morning and saw the post. I just got a nasty email from her. Oh well, as a father and a husband I know what it is to be in the doghouse.

---

by: Herb @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:17:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The problem is that people like Nancy Elliott are permitted to frame the issue. (0.00 / 0)

"and you have to think, I'm not sure, would I allow that to be done to me?"

It doesn't matter. People are allowed to do things that other people might not want to do. It's called freedom.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:39:12 AM CST

I agree (0.00 / 0)

That tends to be a problem with the Democratic Party. We tend to be more passive and have a tendency to react after all the horses are out of the barn.  Healthcare is a good example. We allowed the Republican right to frame the issue.  In the case of Elliott her comments were so wild the City of Nashua jumped on her right from the get go and made her look like a fool.

---

by: Herb @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:01:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the GOP (0.00 / 0)

has Frank Luntz, who comes up with scary phrases (death tax!) that resonate on a gut level with his target audience.

The Democrats do not have an equivalent. And a pre-emptive shot: Lakoff is NOT an equivalent.  

---

by: susanthe @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 13:42:52 PM CST

To See If. (4.00 / 1)

I just had a call from a resident in the Town of Raymond who told me that Article 44 (I believe) on the ballot, read:  To See If.  

This was the non-binding petition requesting a constitutional amendment that would rescind the marriage equality law.  

Has anyone else heard of a town doing this?  

---

by: mevansnh @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 16:15:43 PM CST

Yup. Looky- here, right in Andover, (4.00 / 1)

From our town report:

ARTICLE 19: To see if the Town will vote to approve the following resolution to be forwarded to our State Representative(s), our State Senator, the Speaker of the House, and the Senate President. Resolved: The Citizens of New Hampshire should be allowed to vote on an amendment to the New Hampshire constitution that defines "marriage". Submitted by Petition under RSA 39:3

Oh goodie.  It's the LAST article of the night!

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 17:41:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In Raymond (0.00 / 0)

the article had been reduced to just the words:  "To see if".  That was all that was on the ballot, To See If.  

---

by: mevansnh @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 18:02:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Update: (4.00 / 1)

Article 19? Defeated.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 23:08:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

good news, Dean (0.00 / 0)

Unfortunately it passed in Gorham, 44-32. According to my source, no one spoke against it.  

---

by: susanthe @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 23:38:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Here's the same text (0.00 / 0)

for New Durham.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 17:45:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My town has it, (0.00 / 0)

as do many others around here. It is an initiative of the state Republican party, I believe. Knowing the person who got the petition going here (it only needed 25 signatures to get on the warrant), that is my best estimate.

FYI all petitions are public, so if you want to see who signed it in your town, you can.  

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 18:11:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Jackson has it (0.00 / 0)

same text as Dean printed. It's  #39, the final article on the warrant. It's going to be a long night in Jackson on Thursday.  

---

by: susanthe @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 18:37:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Same here, (0.00 / 0)

which makes my theory more plausible. The wording came from somewhere. And Mister Bates most likely had help.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 18:44:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

http://letnhvote.com/ (0.00 / 0)

Vote in Pittsburg

The voters of Pittsburg, the most Northerly town in the State, voted 94% to 6% in favor of the marriage article.

Read more...
First Vote on Marriage is Unanimous

Voters in the Town of Stark voted unanimously at their Town Meeting earlier today that the citizens of New Hampshire should be allowed to vote on an amendment to the New Hampshire Constitution that defines marriage.

http://letnhvote.com/

---

by: mevansnh @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 18:44:42 PM CST

Whats the big deal (4.00 / 2)

WE ALLOW REPUBLICANS TO MARRY-------YEEEECH!

---

by: tchair @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 19:10:01 PM CST