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
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
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

Swett Responds

by: Jennifer Daler

Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 08:41:22 AM EDT


In a column in today's UL, Katrina Swett responds to Fergus Cullen's "advice" that she run as an independent. Swett, who is exploring a run in the CD-02 Democratic primary, counters with the conviction that the Democratic Party has a large enough tent to hold moderates as well as more liberal and progressive outlooks.

The Democratic Party has truly become the big tent party of this country, where the passion of the progressives is linked to the pragmatism of the moderates to achieve real solutions. Indeed, the most effective moderates bring deep passion to their work, and the most inspiring progressives leaven their advocacy with a healthy measure of pragmatism.

Instead of working toward consensus, the opposition has chosen to demonize reform with phony accusations of "death panels" and "government takeovers." But at the end of the day, I believe we will enact significant reforms that will make health care more accessible and affordable without compromising quality, innovation or choice. These solutions will command the strong support of the American people if they are built on the terra firma of common ground.

Looking at the primary, it seems Swett is positioning herself as a "centrist" Democrat, the only party to claim that territory.

The Republican Party has become the party of extremism and unhinged behavior, as evidenced by the disruptions at Town Hall meetings on health care reform. Tim C's photo essay of anti health care demonstrators in Portsmouth bears this out. Remember people were removed from Bush's events by police for wearing t-shirts his handlers found offensive. But people carrying sidearms are allowed to roam at Obama's events with signs that signal a call to violence.

Notice that no Republican leader, at the state or federal level, has condemned the violent and anti-American nature of the protests. None. Their silence is complicity. It means they are in agreement.  It means they believe the lies and distortions being put forward by  industry shills and radio/teevee demagogues. I remember all too well how anyone criticizing Bush for the least little thing, such as creating torture chambers, was branded a traitor and unpatriotic. Now people say Obama isn't a citizen, hold signs with him as Hitler (the ahistorical and ignorant nature of this is mind boggling), and that's somehow okay.

I hope voters realize this as we move forward toward the 2010 elections.

Jennifer Daler :: Swett Responds
Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Swett Responds | 6 comments
If we can have 'no speech' zones outside of presidential events, why cant the Secret Service establish 'no gun' zones? (4.00 / 2)

I am not a big fan of no speech zones outside of events, and think that they exist for no really good reason ( as opposed to limitations on signs and other items inside events, which can have a security basis), but if you can limit speech outside, it would seem that a far stronger case can be made for limiting firearms so near a President.

And speaking of speech, the wearing of a terrorist t-shirt advocating assassination is rather close to yelling fire in a theater. Whether or not it is constitutionally protected speech, one wonders why our state and national Republican leaders aren't condemning this forcefully? Are they in favor of terrorism? Do they think it was fine for Timothy McVeigh to advocate murder?

Perhaps the press can ask putative candidates Lamontagne and Ayotte their positions on the advocacy of violence.


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


No need to establish them (0.00 / 0)
It's well established that a person who is shouting can be removed from an event. Why not remove the armed person as well? In my opinion, bringing a gun to an event with the president is so anomalous that it is its own shout -- a distraction, and further, a threat. I don't see how removing such a person damages the Second Amendment.

[ Parent ]
I take your point, Jennifer.... (4.00 / 1)

Notice that no Republican leader, at the state or federal level, has condemned the violent and anti-American nature of the protests. None. Their silence is complicity. It means they are in agreement.

I have to say this has really surprised me. That there are nutty people out there who have become riled and now feel empowered as a result of the demagoguery of the Becks and Limbaughs of this world is to be expected. That not a single responsible GOP leader has seen fit to defend our President from slanders and demands for his blood, or call on the opposition to show respect to the country that he represents- and this in a time of war- is something I never would have expected.

We are certainly living in odd times. I worry about what happens next if there is a violent episode somewhere.  


I thought Swett's column (4.00 / 7)
was a pitch-perfect response to Cullen's disingenuous column.

And I think Jennifer's words here about the gaping silence from Republican leaders here and nationally about the recent scary stuff is pitch-perfect as well.

Silence is complicity.

birch, finch, beech


I agree. Katrina's column (4.00 / 3)
was a great response to Fergus Cullen.

[ Parent ]
"Positioning herself as a moderate????" (0.00 / 0)
Jennifer-

I am pleased you agree with Dean that Katrina's op-ed was a pitch perfect response to Fergus' column - but I was suprised you decided to frame Katrina's logical rebuttal as

Looking at the primary, it seems Swett is positioning herself as a "centrist" Democrat, the only party to claim that territory.

As is evident from reading her article, and as a long time observer of NH politics, it is clear that Katrina ascribes to those core principles that make us proud to be Democrats.  

The primary is a long ways away, and I look forward to learning more about all of the candidates as they share with us their views on today's issues.  Clearly her reponse shows that Katrina is with the party, and in all honesty, with the majority of the party, when it comes to what I believe to be the number one issue - ensuring healthcare for all.  

In the interim, there will be those, including the msm who will want to portray Katrina as the the "moderate" or "centrist" candidate.  I hope the readers of BH can see through this poorly disguised effort to divide us and create unecessary infighting.  



Swett Responds | 6 comments

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