It May Continue To Be "NH State Representative Tim Horrigan"

I hope Tim runs and wins (4.00 / 1)

But I think this whole demonizing of party officials is at best misplaced, at worst a distraction in the race.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 11:36:52 AM UTC

And Who Was Demonized? (4.00 / 1)

It was the overreaction to the Republican Party and right-wing conservatives that became our distraction.  For a couple of days, we lost focus of the big picture, and some people went into panic mode in responding.

The reputation of a very good man who earns $100 a year was put on the cutting block for the sake of political image.  It was amateur hour in response to an issue that went viral on Fox News and the conservative blogosphere -- and we should not have our choice of elected leaders decided by Mr. Hannity or any of those characters.  

That the Republican State Party tried to make this an issue to which any Democrat needed to respond shows us that we have to keep our guard -- and chin -- up when they try to go after any Democrat.  We don't work for the Republicans, nor should our elected officials be expected to follow the written scripts of any party leaders.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 11:55:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Which is a great reminder (4.00 / 3)

of which we have had several recently, including one from the Executive Branch of the US, that decisions made from panic are never wise.  
Why are we so afraid of the Republicans?  There are still people in my area who seem to want to run everything by them to see if it passes muster as .....? Of course, at least nowadays, it never does.  I have been urged to be "statesman-like" in my utterances.  Which means what...?
We are as children told not to project fear to animals, such as a strange dog.  We need to be taught as public servants not to project fear of those who disagree with us.  It hurts us, it hurts our constituents, and we make bad decisions that come back to haunt us.
One thing that Howard Dean did for me was to teach me that I do not have to hide as a Democrat in NH.  In our part of the state, getting people to "come out" as Democrats is the first step to getting organized.  And we had to overcome a lot of fear to do it, and to stand on the street corner holding a sign for a Democratic candidate was amazingly empowering.  Which is why it is still our favorite thing to do.

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 16:02:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

St. Rep. Horrigan (0.00 / 0)

Well put Rep. Splaine. I'll be voting for Tim in Sept. and in Nov.

---

by: calvin @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 16:59:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll respond (4.00 / 4)

I still believe Rep. Horrigan's comments were inappropriate, and that is not said out of panic, or a concern about image, or an election.

The context: halloran, who was banned by the editors of this site several months ago for his comments, made a stupid, offensive Facebook post arising from a plane crash in which several people, including a 16 year old girl, were killed. After controversy erupted, Rep. Horrigan, who IMHO should have known better, voluntarily injected himself into another Facebook discussion in which Halloran was bragging about how famous he had become. It would have been one thing if the Representative had chastised Halloran for what he had said, but instead he continued the discussion of "what if Sarah Palin was dead."

That was inappropriate and bad judgment.  I appreciate that his colleagues in the House are supportive, but the notion that  some one does not have the right or perhaps the obligation to criticize an elected official for doing something he should not have done, or express an opinion as to what the rep should or should not do, strikes me as odd. Is someone who is a party officer or a member of house or senate leadership not supposed to criticize an elected official when the official does something which is not appropriate or shows bad judgment? That's a dangerous path, chilling criticism of elected officials.

Ultimately yes, it is up to the voters to decide whether to elect someone. But that does not tale away my free speech right to comment when I think someone did something inappropriate.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 17:26:41 PM UTC

Ultimately Yes... (0.00 / 0)

...it is up to the voters to decide whether to elect someone.  You're welcome.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 10:57:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is a difference between a gaffe and an unacceptable attitude. (4.00 / 2)

Sometimes, when a person says something stupid, people should get over it.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 23:56:24 PM UTC

Criticism is one thing, (4.00 / 1)

calling for a resignation is something else. Both sides, imo, have hyperventilated over minor mis-steps on the opposite side in recent years. And now we have a climate of pre-emptive resignations.  Apologize, accept the apology, and move on. Gaffes will only grow more common as more and more private interactions happen in semi-public forums.

Resignation should be reserved for felonies, and major ethics or character issues, and breaches of voter trust.

Good luck Tim.

---

by: kite @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 00:57:27 AM UTC

You Said It All... (4.00 / 1)

...very, very well.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 03:49:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with Mr. Horrigan (4.00 / 2)

when he astutely observed that:
"It's my own damn fault", Horrigan said.

http://www.unionleader.com/art...

Blaming party or legislative leaders for responding to totally inappropriate behavior is absurd. He did something wrong and he accepted responsibility. Trying to make this about someone else makes no sense.  

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 02:10:23 AM UTC

I Agree... (0.00 / 0)

...with you that "he accepted responsibility."  A resignation was not called for, and shouldn't have been asked for.  I agree further with your words that calling for that resignation was "totally inappropriate behavior."  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 11:01:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well actually, I was speaking about the dangerous nature of giving one's imprimatur to elected officials engaging in the calculus of the political benefits of the death of a human being. (0.00 / 0)

Anyone having trouble understanding why this is problematic can talk to the survivors of Martin Luther King, JFK, RFK, Malcolm X, Yitzhak Rabin. They could ask the families of Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman and George Wallace what they think of speech that cheapens the life of people in politics, and whether acceptance of such speech can create a hateful climate that encourages the insane to act out.

In 1995, the leaders of Likud stood by and said nothing about the vitriol that was being directed at Rabin, calculating that they were benefiting from the whipping up of personal hatreds.

I, for one, am happy that I live in a state where the leaders of both parties have recently spoken up and condemned language that goes beyond the acceptable-- whether it comes from a right wing racist or a progressive legislator. I accept Mr Horrigan's apology at face value and think he (not some bogey-men party bosses) made the right choice in resigning.  

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 12:49:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Special To Paul Twomey (4.00 / 1)

When an elected official does or says something that is totally abhorrent and hateful, I will join with you as I have in the past in condemning that action with all the vigor I can.

But I believe that free speech in a democracy gives wide latitude to each of us, and I have a passion in defending a person's right to it.  Further, the voters' decision to place someone in office is an elemental concept of democracy and their decision is sacrosanct -- so short of clear ethical violation I will always try to balance their choice with my anger before I ask for a person whom they elected to represent them to resign when he or she does or says something that is to me abhorrent and hateful.  

You and I disagreed on an issue of free speech a couple of months ago, on legislation that I felt went over the line by intimidating and squelching free speech.  On that, and this, we disagree.

I still think you're a heck of a good person, and a good Democrat.  It would be fantastic to see you get into elected office yourself.  You always bring much to the dialogue, and from time to time I enjoy sparing with you -- and more often, agreeing with you.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 13:26:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Part of free speech is the right to criticize other speech with which you disagree or find dangerous. (4.00 / 5)

Asking someone to resign is speech. No one is saying that Mr Horrigan or Mr Hallahan should not be allowed to speak in any way they choose. But when they choose to say unwise things, they are not somehow insulated from the responses of others, including opinions that their speech makes them poor choices for public office.

It might be a different case if someone had initiated impeachment or criminal proceedings-- that would be punishing free speech-- but all I saw was criticism, which apparently Mr. Horrigan shared to some degree himself after he put his brain in gear and thought about it. (None of this means that I think that resignation was the only acceptable course of action for Mr Horrigan-- only that it is the one he chose, and I thought it a reasonable way to deal with the problem that he created).

His voluntary decision to resign was an appropriate response to mitigate the effects of his mistake-- he should be congratulated for accepting responsibility.

But that doesn't mean that those who criticized him were somehow violating his right to free speech by exercising their own rights and by fulfilling their own obligations to see that minimum standards in political speech are observed.  

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 14:12:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with this addition - (4.00 / 4)

In my view the episode called for an apology of some sort, which has been given. If I were in Tim's district I would consider the matter closed, and happily vote for him in September and November.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 20:26:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What Exactly Did Tim Say? (0.00 / 0)

Have you even read what he said, Paul?  This has become a mountain because a few Republican Party leaders wanted to make it a major event, and a few Democratic Party leaders fell for their ploy.  So, what did Tim say that has you calling for his head?  We're willing to throw a decent, hard-working public servant out because of ... why exactly?  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 00:40:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I didnt call for his head and of course I've read what he said (and where and when he chose to say it.) (0.00 / 0)

I said that his decision to resign was an appropriate response to his own actions, although it wasn't the only appropriate response I could envisage. A sincere apology would have worked equally well for me, as we all make mistakes. As I have said twice above, the fact that he accepted responsibility and resigned in an effort to minimize the damage are commendable and I respect him for so acting.

As his resignation and the accompanying public statements seemed to indicate an awareness of what was wrong with his actions, I am OK with him.

He is not blaming others for his problems--I don't know why others seem to feel compelled to do so. I long ago removed myself from the Christmas card list at the NHDP, but blaming Democratic party leaders for Mr. Harrigan's problems is unfair and misses the point, which is that there really is something wrong in conducting a public calculus of the political value of a humans life or death.

Doing so in a place and manner that essentially validates the profound sickness of what Halloran said is also wrong.

If all that is fine with you, then we just have to differ.


"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 01:26:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What is said on Facebook, and on a page not intended for public consumption (0.00 / 0)

Is not to be treated like a prepared speech given in one's capacity as an elected official.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 01:29:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Had dinner tonight with someone (0.00 / 0)

who lives four states away.

First question was something like "What on earth is going on with NH Democrats?"

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 03:13:09 AM UTC

Great Question... (4.00 / 2)

...and part of the answer might be that we have lost view of the big picture in the things we talk about and issue news releases on.  Let's put aside the personalities and the negatives.  Let's restore our idealism, encourage our candidates to discuss the very real need for tax reform, how to avoid further horrible budget cuts that hurt the vulnerable among us, how to find sustainable funding to invest in education, how to provide equality for all of our citizens including our transgendered friends, and how to honor the memory of Granny D by bringing about campaign finance reform so that our candidates and the political parties don't keep on dialing for dollars from corporate and other big-monied interests.  

Government, and democracy itself is hard, serious work.  It's not some chessboard game where the objective is just to trip up the other side and attack all the time.  The job of all of us participating in this process should be to contribute to the dialogue, not tear down and smash away.  Let's focus on the issues.  We have difficult problems and need solutions, not even more politics.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 11:11:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

NH Democrats can't stand Palin-okay? (0.00 / 0)

Why she and John McCain are not sent to the brig for treasonous behavior I'll never know. Giving Sarah the keys to the nukular football would be the equivalent of insanity.

Feelings of anger and disgust at the know nothings running the GOP boiled over into highly inappropriate speech. Halloran was ridiculous,and istotally marginalized.

Rep. Horrigan shot himself in the foot.

I agree with Lindner..."when a person says something stupid, people should get over it." Been there done that. I hope Horrigan gets enough votes to stay in the House, but until then his resignation should stand. In this way he would be censored but in the race.

note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 22:06:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

another question might be, (4.00 / 3)

what is going on with the NH media.

I know this story didn't get the same kind of coverage.

One woman, the owner of two gyms and a temporary-employment agency, was venting about a pro-union bill supported by Murray when she blurted out: "She ought to be shot. Murray and (Sen. Maria) Cantwell ought to be shot."

Rossi quickly pointed out a reporter in the room, and then said, "That's not really what you meant." The businesswoman quickly agreed: "I didn't mean that."

US Senate candidate Dino Rossi's only concern was that the reporter would cover this incident - he didn't tell the woman that shooting other people was a bad idea in a democracy.

Dino Rossi hasn't had to step down, either - despite his utter lack of response.

As for Tim - he's collateral damage in a sense, thanks to that utter idiot Halloran. This has been hugely overblown in the media, thanks to the NHGOP press, and the NH GOP, who don't have anything else to do, since their tepid candidates aren't generating any kind of a buzz.  

---

by: susanthe @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 00:22:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm Sticking With Tim Horrigan... (4.00 / 1)

...a very decent, compassionate human being who has done a great deal to help the people of this state -- and in the meanwhile, Democrats too.  

I won't throw him under the bus for political expediency.  I find that disgusting.

An elected official is answerable to his or her constituents, not to some script written by political leaders.  

We'll see if Tim is renominated by his friends in Durham, Madbury, and Lee, and if he is returned to continue to do great things in November.

And if he is, I'm sure he will be much wiser about the world of politics.  He'll continue to be courageous, and perhaps a bit more wary of those "leaders."  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 00:37:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oy. (0.00 / 0)

NYT:

Then there's the Democratic state representative, Timothy Horrigan, from New Hampshire. After Ted Stevens, the former Alaska senator, was killed in a plane crash this week, Keith David Halloran, a New Hampshire Democrat, posted this message on his Facebook page: "Just wish Sarah and Levy were on board," clearly referring to Sarah Palin and Levi Johnston.

To that, Horrigan responded: "Well a dead Palin wd be even more dangerous than a live one ... she is all about her myth & if she was dead she cldn't commit any more gaffes."

Seriously guys? I'm the first to say that I want to keep Palin as close to Russia and as far away from Washington as humanly possible, but debating the merits of her demise in a plane crash is heinous. Horrigan has since resigned.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 20:43:34 PM UTC

Oy Vey (4.00 / 1)

That statement shows exactly why the resignation was not weird, odd, or some sort of assault on democracy.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 21:56:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

meaning (4.00 / 2)

Oy vey ist mir = O woe is me  

note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 22:08:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's a pervasive problem in our society and our politics (0.00 / 0)

There's far too much emphasis on comments that are isolated, hyperbolic, private, or otherwise not deserving of public scrutiny.

Our government, our media, and our society seem to be losing more and more respect for privacy, and are increasingly willing to invade as much of people's privacy as logistically possible.

The New York Times should not be reading anybody's personal facebook page.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 01:37:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Facebook private? (0.00 / 0)

There is no expectation of privacy when you post on someone else's facebook page.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 02:24:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure there is. (0.00 / 0)

It may not be a basis for a lawsuit, but the expectation is there.

Facebook is like talking in a group in public.  It's not difficult to eavesdrop and tell the whole town what was said, but I think it's unethical.

Digital privacy is a very real and neglected issue, both in our laws and in our society. It isn't just about the Patriot Act and NSA wiretapping. It's about social media, it's about new forms of communication, it's about 4th amendment-eroding court decisions like US v. Pineda Moreno that nobody notices.  It's about that school district in Pennsylvania that uses cameras in school-provided laptops to arbitrarily spy on students and their families at home. And it's about private conversations being treated with just as much respect as they were decades ago despite the evolution in technology.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 05:38:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree (0.00 / 0)

That's like Bob Giuda insisting that people shouldn't be talking about his "sheep and dogs" comment because that was a private conversation.  Things you publish in writing on Facebook, and basically everywhere else on the internet, are conversations occurring in public no matter how cleverly you think you've cordoned them off.  Especially when you've signed a lengthy "we reserve the right to screw you" contract with the corporation that you're handing your writing over to for publishing, who shares all your information willy-nilly with its business partners anyways.

I could maybe see email being private... but I'm still glad that Palin's stuff showed up on Wikileaks.

At this point, technologically, privacy is an asymmetrical situation.  Nothing is going to be private from wealthy or powerful individuals or organizations or governments.  I think that the best policy would be if we adopted something along the lines of David Brin's transparent society idea and just give up on most concepts of privacy to even out the playing field somewhat.

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 08:38:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I get the law and the technology, that's not the point. (0.00 / 0)

There is a degree of privacy that should be respected out of common decency.

I strongly reject that last paragraph of yours.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 13:14:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Adding: (0.00 / 0)

Poll Facebook users and ask them whether they think what happens on Facebook should stay on Facebook.

You'd be out of your mind to think people are okay with their employers, schools, and complete strangers looking at that--let alone newspapers.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 13:23:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I guess I distinguish a desire for privacy from an expectation of privacy n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 00:49:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think it's reasonable to expect it, even if it's not reasonable to assume that the expectation will be met. (0.00 / 0)

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 15:59:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What about Giuda? (0.00 / 0)

What about the example of Giuda I gave?  Should people refrain from discussing what he said, or should the reporter have, because it was a private conversation?  That's probably the biggest thing for me, that people are really having their conversation  very much in public - as you yourself pointed out - but calling it private, trying to cordon it off with barriers that don't really exist.  

You wouldn't have to be wiretapping a conversation between two parties or anything of that sort to observe this stuff.  A conversation on a Facebook wall is between you, your interlocutor, and a hundred of your closest friends, basically (isn't it? I don't use FB very much because of the privacy issues.)

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 19:05:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are two separate issues--a legal one and an ethical one (0.00 / 0)

A campaign event, behind closed doors or otherwise, is not the same thing as a relaxed social situation.  Etiquette has not kept up with technology, and law has actively gone the wrong way on this.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 20:24:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Etiquette, then (0.00 / 0)

Well I can't quite get down to the point of calling it an ethical issue but we can agree that it's a violation of etiquette to do this.

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 09:46:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another point (0.00 / 0)

I realized that alot of why I think this way is because I'm an internet software engineer so I understand how it all works, how you're casting your information and fingerprints to the wind and sending that stuff to all corners of the Earth.

It's like expecting smoke signals to be private.

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 09:43:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is no privacy on the internet. People need to understand (0.00 / 0)

that.  Besides, the rights addressed in the Constitution are in the context of what the agents of the federal government are precluded from doing --unless they get a warrant and can demonstrate a need to infringe on a person's rights, even, if need be, detain them for a sufficient period of time to get their facts straight.

Private corporations have no obligation to respect their clients' privacy.  The have issued policies about how private information is handled because their clients expect to be respected, but, when the government comes calling with a good story about national security, they have no obligation not to comply.  Indeed, much of the motivation, IMHO, for public/private partnerships is based on the fact that private corporations can keep secrets or share them, as is their pleasure.  Our public corporations eventually have to give all information up, if it's requested.

The Constitution does not "give" us individual human rights, including the right to communicate and associate and make life-long commitments.  Our agents of government are obligated to respect those rights and, if they don't (which happens) they ought to be dismissed -- as should have been done with Bush/Cheney in 2004.

---

by: hannah @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 10:47:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Digital privacy is being eroded by the government too (0.00 / 0)

But as others here, you're responding to my point about an ethical responsibility to respect people's privacy in society with a legal argument.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 13:16:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We can't make people do what we want. (0.00 / 0)

We can only punish them for doing what we don't want.  If we want something done, we hire people and pay them.  People who think others should do their bidding for nothing consider that a bribe.  I think that, if we are truly committed to individual liberty, it's a fair trade.

Government is not a secular setter of moral standards.  Governments are organized to deal with the vagaries of man and nature, not natter about good behavior.

---

by: hannah @ Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 05:42:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are two issues here, a legal one and a moral one. (0.00 / 0)

Digital privacy is far too vast an issue to classify every possible wrong under either "things that should be legally prohibited" or "things that should be legal but not done".

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 16:18:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is no privacy on the internet. People need to understand (0.00 / 0)

that.  Besides, the rights addressed in the Constitution are in the context of what the agents of the federal government are precluded from doing --unless they get a warrant and can demonstrate a need to infringe on a person's rights, even, if need be, detain them for a sufficient period of time to get their facts straight.

Private corporations have no obligation to respect their clients' privacy.  The have issued policies about how private information is handled because their clients expect to be respected, but, when the government comes calling with a good story about national security, they have no obligation not to comply.  Indeed, much of the motivation, IMHO, for public/private partnerships is based on the fact that private corporations can keep secrets or share them, as is their pleasure.  Our public corporations eventually have to give all information up, if it's requested.

The Constitution does not "give" us individual human rights, including the right to communicate and associate and make life-long commitments.  Our agents of government are obligated to respect those rights and, if they don't (which happens) they ought to be dismissed -- as should have been done with Bush/Cheney in 2004.

---

by: hannah @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 10:47:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I will just say this... (4.00 / 2)

John DiStaso of the Union Leader wrote a tough piece--- but he did call me and ask me for my side of the story and even revised his column after he put it out the first time.  He is a class act.

None of the other mainstream media pundits who opined about my postings bothered to talk to me first.  I don't even know who most of them are, since I have been busy with other things this weekend and haven't had the energy or time to dig through several hundred GoogleNews hits and FoxNews video clips.  

It was unfair for the pundits to use my semi-private communications without at least going through the motions of making an effort to put what I said into context.  But hey, I knew beforehand that the mainstream media and life are both unfair.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:19:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We all say stupid things every once in a while. (4.00 / 2)

Your reasonable, gracious attitude toward the situation has gotten continues to convince me it should never have been such a big deal in the first place.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 05:29:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're A Good Man, Tim... (4.00 / 1)

...and you've been an excellent Legislator.  We simply would not have been successful on passing House Bill 436 for gay marriage without you -- lots of others played important roles, but you showed up early and often on the cause.  For that, I offer a special thank you.  

It will be great for your constituents having you continue to represent them and to speak up for them in the House.  Hang in there.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 14:57:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

facebook (0.00 / 0)

Or, they could have run the whole comment. I don't read Halloran's Facebook posts, so I read Tim's comments for themselves on Facebook. They could have been better stated but they were not malicious. The party leaders did call on him to resign, and they shouldn't have. They are really the ones who turned this into a circus. Hallorane was a one-day-wonder, at best.

---

by: calvin @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 14:17:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What is truly odd and surreal about all of this.... (4.00 / 2)

..is the Collective, Societal Hypocrisy on issues like this.   We are one type of 'creature' in our private lives...but Society requires a very different Public Personna that is at odds with reality. I am convinced it derives, in part, from our Puritan past which continues to haunt us.

Neither Halloran or Horrigan said anything that countless of individuals, as individuals, have said inthe privacy of their personal conversations without ramification.  But say it in public, and everyone has to pretend that they are holier-than-thou.

Same goes for Michael Phelps smoking pot.  Doing what a majority of Americans have done in their private lives, no problem...but let it go viral on youtube, and the 'requisite apologies' are delivered.  I would have preferred it for Phelps to have told everyone to go scratch, quite frankly.

And need I mention Clinton's dalliances with Monica, and the Theater that occupied the Media and Government over a blowjob?  

Maybe I'm just at an age where I just dont give a crap anymore....I am who I am.  No need to Pretend to be Righteous and a Paragon of Unreachable Virtue.  I don't even think they reached that on Olympus.....

---

by: Tully Fitzsimmons @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 22:15:46 PM UTC

Well said (4.00 / 2)

and exactly what I've been thinking this whole time.  If the GOP decided to say what they really want to happen to president Obama, I suspect they'd all be forced to resign.

---

by: Timmy J @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 22:58:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

facebook (0.00 / 0)

I was trying to reply to the comments about the NYT.

---

by: calvin @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 14:19:02 PM UTC

Screw the spin, we need Tim!!! (4.00 / 2)

The so-called "leadership" in BOTH parties in the Legislature play stupid games. Don't expect that to ever change.

Tim, please, please, please rise above this petty "he said, she said" concocted narrative. We need YOU in the House of Representatives in Concord.

Your presence there -- fighting for our liberties -- is far more important than ephemeral partisan political ploys.

To misquote Bush: the only way the terrorists win, is when we are scared :)

I completely reject the use of violence to effect social and political change.
End the wars. ALL OF THEM.

---

by: d_goddard @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 19:50:08 PM UTC