Fair and Reasonable Question

Very Fair and Reasonable (4.00 / 1)

I agree with you, and I hope that the members of the Executive Council ask that question.  If someone is nominated to head up a department for a four year term, the acceptance of that nomination should be in and of itself a commitment to serve the full term.  

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

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 21:32:30 PM CST

another fair and reasonable question: (4.00 / 2)

Who will run for governor next year?

It is time for a Democratic primary.  

---

by: susanthe @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 23:34:05 PM CST

There was one in '08 (4.00 / 1)

Susan, I understand that John Lynch is not the governor you would want; I don't always agree with him either; I support marriage equality and expanded gambling, for example, and I'm not always crazy about his appointments.  But, under this Governor we did obtain an increase in the minimum wage and other pro-worker legislation as well as civil unions.  Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.    

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

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 06:28:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I voted for Katy Forry (4.00 / 2)

For a long time the CW of NH Democrats was that only a certain kind of Democrat could win in our state - a wimpy, near Republican Democrat. Those days are over, Kathy.

We don't need to elect Democrats who run away from being Democrats any more. It's time to move on.  

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:10:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I voted for John Lynch (0.00 / 0)

Along with 44,548 other Democrats

Along with 3,352 Republicans who wrote John Lynch in.

I am really getting tired of people saying Gov. Lynch is not a Democrat.

---

by: sdoyle @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 21:23:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

well you should be feeling wide awake (0.00 / 0)

since no one on this thread said that. Feel free to disagree with me, but disagree with what I'm saying. Don't read in between unwritten lines.  

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 21:27:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I believe you did say it.. (0.00 / 0)

"We don't need to elect democrats who run away from being Democrats any more. It's time to move on."

Implying that we don't need to run or elect Democrats like John Lynch because he is running away from being a Democrat, and thus not a Democrat.

Thats my take on what you said above, if you think I am wrong, can you clarify what you said.

---

by: sdoyle @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 22:19:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If I had wanted to say (4.00 / 1)

that Lynch is not a Democrat, make no mistake, I would have.
I don't fear the wrath of the party mafia.

John Lynch is a very, very pallid Democrat - which is why he endorsed Bob Odell, which is why he did Judd Gregg's bidding, which is why he's nominated Kelly Ayotte for another term, which is why he's so beloved by Republicans.

When I got involved with the party in 2000. I was told over and  that only certain kinds of Democrats could win in NH - the kind that didn't piss off Republicans. Democrats who would take the anti-tax pledge without even being asked to.

That's the kind of Democrat John Lynch is. One that panders far too often to the right.

Oh, and don't bring up civil unions. He didn't do any heavy lifting on the civil union bill - he didn't publicly support it until it was a fait accompli.  

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 22:43:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Considerations (0.00 / 0)

Bob Odell was helpful to Governor Lynch in, for example, getting the budget passed. His Democratic opponent had been obstructive. Governor Lynch also endorsed the rest of the Democratic slate for the state Senate. Winning that particular seat was not a necessity for having control of the Senate, either, making it a case where a popular governor could simultaneously demonstrate to the opposition that supporting him was good politics, and to his own party that crossing him was a bad idea.

From a purely partisan perspective it was objectionable, but for a governor to get the chance to simultaneously demonstrate his bipartisan credentials (and thus improve the value of his endorsements for everyone else up and down the ticket), improve his own ability to press for his own priorities, get a degree of leverage over someone across the aisle, and rein in an obstructionist from his own side, all without endangering the partisan balance of the Senate? It's not an outrageous proposition that he might go ahead, even over strictly partisan desire to take the seat.

All that said, yes I admit to being sufficiently partisan to wish he'd decided otherwise, but I don't think it was a wholesale indictment of his Democratic credentials.

IT for John Lynch '04 and NHDP '08 - I'm liking my track record so far!

---

by: RealNRH @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 17:26:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'd support a primary challenge to Evan Bayh (4.00 / 1)

http://www.eschatonblog.com/

---

by: JimC @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:38:05 AM CST

Um, I-n-d-i-a-n-a! n/t (0.00 / 0)

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:47:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Indie Anna n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: JimC @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:52:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

circumstances change (0.00 / 0)

obama's cabinet is full of people who did not fully serve the terms they were elected to.  although that is admittedly not the same as planning to step down ahead of time, it would be hard to know the difference.

---

by: kite @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:09:24 PM CST

There's a difference in kind (0.00 / 0)

between accepting an appointment - which you had no confidence would be available - and launching a campaign in an election that was on everyone's calendar.

If Obama offered Ayotte a high-level federal position, that would put her in Rahm's position (or Judd's!) But if she were to quit in order to run for office, that's a much different situation.

Not that I expect her to.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 17:49:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Still waiting for Kathy to tell us what she thinks of... (0.00 / 0)

 OF THE ACTUAL ISSUE! To whit: Is Ayotte's reappointment a good idea?  

---

by: measurestaken @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 14:16:35 PM CST

I hear an echo. (4.00 / 2)

See diary on Ayotte reappointed.

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

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 16:31:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Serve out her term. Not the issue. what would Kelly do? WHAT HAS SHE DONE? (4.00 / 1)

Saw this piece by the AG of Calif. on Prop 8. (see below). It got me thinking. Where is Kelly A. on anything? She is a great rubber stamp of the status quo (which probably explains her reappointment by a Governor who avoids revealing his position on anything that could be interpreted as controversial...ie. we are still waiting to see how big the deficit has to grow before he reveals what his crystal ball says vis a vis gambling).
So far the Governor spends more time courting Republican favor and assisting them in establishing their future leadership bench. Given that the position of Governor is the only state wide elected office, Lynch, through his appointment power, has the only real opportunity to provide NH with examples of smart, effective democrats who could lead NH in the future, but, perhaps he only values the republican brand. Too bad, considering he bought the nomination from the other party (another reason we should embrace public financing...imagine a candidate would have to articulate progressive policies to get elected not just write endless checks with commas in them) Obviously, as Lynch looked across the legal landscape of NH, his lack of curiousity and passion for the possibilities that a truly enlightened AG could provide, made Kelly (Craig Benson's former legal counsel) a safe, uninspired choice for a Governor who wants his legacy to be: spent eight years in the corner office (trust me he is going for his fourth term) running in place.

Dean, I don't want Kelly to serve out her term...I don't think you do either, if you thought about it. I think we both want an Attorney General that has a passion for the rule of law and is zealous about ensuring open, transparent government. Too bad we are going to have to wait.

PROPOSITION 8 SHOULD BE STRUCK DOWN
Tuesday 03 March 2009

by: Edmund G. Brown Jr.,

   The California Supreme Court finds itself center stage this Thursday when it will hear oral arguments on whether it should uphold Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage.

   The case touches the heart of our democracy and poses a profound question: can a bare majority of voters strip away an inalienable right through the initiative process? If so, what possible meaning does the word inalienable have?

   The state faced a dilemma like this before. In 1964, 65 percent of California voters approved Proposition 14, which would have legalized racial discrimination in the selling or renting of housing. Both the California and U.S. Supreme Courts struck down this proposition, concluding that it amounted to an unconstitutional denial of rights.

   As California's Attorney General, I believe the Court should strike down Proposition 8 for remarkably similar reasons - because it unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples and deprives them of the fundamental right to marry....

   Edmund G. Brown Jr. is the Attorney General of the State of California.

---

by: political chowder @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 03:53:00 AM CST

U.S. Attorney is investigating Kelly Ayotte on request of Justice Laplante (0.00 / 0)

A long-standing state criminal prosecution which later became a malicious prosecution federal suit is under investigation by the U.S. attorney on request of Federal Judge Joseph Laplante. Laplante's request came as a result of a letter to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee during his nomination hearings. Ayotte is cited for refusal to release witness statements and for her failure to file criminal charges as well as Professional Conduct Committee complaints against present and former Rockingham County attorneys. U.S. Attorney Tom Colantuono has been sitting on this matter since May of 2007 for obvious reasons. Governor Lynch is well aware of the matter but refuses to make a statement.
For a copy of the letter to Senator Patrick Leahy/U.S.Senate Judiciary Committee and Justice Laplante's response, please contact me at davecoltin@netscape.net  

Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph LaPlante
The United States Attorney's Office
District of New Hampshire
53 Pleasant Street
Concord, NH 03301

Dear Attorney LaPlante:

Enclosed you will find correspondence from Attorney General Kelly Ayotte dated October 6, 2006 and May 10, 2007.   Since September 2004, I have had contact with her office and Governor Lynch's office requesting witness statements and notice of charges.

It is clearly evident that Attorney General Ayotte's response of  October 6, 2006 does not contain any of  the documents requested, and her letter of May 10, 2007 raises very serious concerns as to why she needs another 45 days to come up with documents that her own website states should be handed over in five days.

A review of these two letters and the accompanying documents should be sufficient reason alone to warrant federal review where such basic Constitutional rights are being denied at every level of the state justice system and in the Federal District of New Hampshire.  

It is not only an affront to the Constitution but also to basic intelligence when the truth is so readily available. Arrogance is not a crime but concealment is, and especially so, when it is to conceal fabricated probable cause statements and witness tampering in federal and state courts.

Recently Chief US District Judge Mark Wolf wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales regarding a similar matter of a federal prosecutor accused of withholding evidence in an early 1990s trial.  Wolf said "this matter remains important to the administration of justice in the District of Massachusetts."  The same holds true here-that this matter remains important to the administration of  justice in the District of  New Hampshire-with the major exception that this matter does not involve but one individual; rather, it involves individuals at every level of the justice system who are obligated by oath to follow the rule of  law  but have chosen not to.

Because of the seriousness of this situation and the long denial of my basic rights, I am asking to meet with you as soon as possible to go over this in more detail.

Very truly yours,

David H. Coltin

davecoltin@netscape.net

---

by: davecoltin @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:46:50 AM CST

Fair and Reasonable Question (0.00 / 0)

I would say this is a "Fair and Reasonable Question" for Congressman Hodes as well.  We re-elected him a little over four months ago and he announced his intention to run for the Senate only one month after taking the oath of office.  Paul, in essence, accepted our appointment without any restrictions, why should we restrict Ayotte?

---

by: JoeyM @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 10:38:27 AM CST

Is it really? (4.00 / 1)

A Congresscritter is always in campaign mode. 2 year terms come in quick succession. It is the nature of the beast and voters are aware of this.

Ayotte enjoys an appointed position. She need only perform her function competently for the full duration of the term.

The two positions are not comparable, but if I read the blog right, you just wanted to slip a dig in at Hodes.

Next?


www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 10:52:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"Restrict" (0.00 / 0)

It's an appointment. Being able to complete it (barring unforeseen circumstances, like a family situation) ought to be a prerequisite for getting the gig.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 11:00:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Entirely dissimilar (0.00 / 0)

Paul Hodes is not proposing to not complete his term as Representative. That term will be over in two years. He would be running for election in eighteen months or so regardless of whether he was running for the House or the Senate. If Ayotte runs for the Senate in two years, then she is campaigning during a period when she would be expected not to.

IT for John Lynch '04 and NHDP '08 - I'm liking my track record so far!

---

by: RealNRH @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 17:12:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

it seems to me (0.00 / 0)

that there's a world of difference between being elected and being appointed. I understand the fancydance you're trying here, Joey, but it doesn't work.  

---

by: susanthe @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 17:39:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No diggs at Hodes (0.00 / 0)

So if she resigns and runs is that ok?

---

by: JoeyM @ Sun Mar 08, 2009 at 08:49:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Indentured Servitude, .. (0.00 / 0)

a political appointment is not.

If a governor used a litmus test prior to an appointment, then it is a foul to resign. If not, then all's fair....

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Mar 08, 2009 at 11:01:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

are you a friend of JohnS. JoeyM ? (0.00 / 0)

These names sound so innocent

www.KusterforCongress.com

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sun Mar 08, 2009 at 13:46:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]