Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
John DeJoie
Ann McLane Kuster
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
I think this is a fine idea, for all kinds of reasons (email release, though Pindell has it here too):
Dear Governor, (cc NH Legislators)
I urge you to ask the New Hampshire Attorney General to join the lawsuit of the State of Massachusetts on the Defense Of Marriage Act. Especially since marriage equality will become law in New Hampshire on January 1, 2010, I think that by joining the action of the State of Massachusetts concerning the unconstitutionality of DOMA, we will be assuring that our same-gendered couples who will be married can secure the exact same federal rights, obligations, and responsibilities which are given to differently-gendered couples.
If she's going to break her pledge to serve, it's only fair she do the job Lynch asks her to do until the 17th. If not, then we're clear on where she stands.
Did you hear? The marriage equality bill is going to lose in the House. Kevin Landrigan told me so:
The House will likely vote later this week to reject legislation (HB 436) that would legalize same-sex marriages.
Rep. Jim Splaine, D-Portsmouth, appeared to signal so in a Friday commentary.
"House Bill 436 should be adopted because, in fact, it is OK to be as we are and who we are," Splaine wrote.
"It may still take a while, but every time there's a story about voices speaking out for equality and fairness, we're touching lives and very likely saving a few."
Now, where have I heard those words in the last graf before? Oh yeah, the same place where Jim also wrote this:
House Bill 436 took a step toward approval by surviving on a tie vote during a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee. What it means now is that the bill will go to the House floor next Tuesday "without recommendation." It's a position from which we can win.
Don't let the pundits bury this bill before it's been voted on.
And for still more, here's the text of the bill, including this summary:
This bill eliminates the exclusion of same gender couples from marriage, affirms religious freedom protections of clergy with regard to the solemnization of marriage, and provides a mechanism by which same gender couples who have entered into a civil union prior to the enactment of this bill may obtain the legal status of marriage.
Now would be a great time to contact your Representatives on this.
Of the 11 Dems, 9 supported the bill: Reps. Brendon Browne of Dover, Paul Hackel of Nashua, David Nixon of Manchester, Fran Potter of Concord, Gary Richardson of Hopkinton, Bob Thompson of Manchester, Janet Wall of Madbury, Rick Waltrous of Concord, and Lucy Weber of Walpole. One Republican, Tony DiFruscia of Windham, was the 10th supporter.
We did lose two Democrats, each of whom I respect so I won't say anything negative about their votes. Of those who spoke in defense of the bill, I have to single out Gary Richardson and Lucy Weber, each of whom did much to make the Civil Unions Law a reality two years ago. Bob Thompson, a first-termer from Manchester, was also extra-fantastic.
You're too stoopid to vote in our First-in-the-Nation Primary.
If you don't like it, move to one of the nine other states, like Maine, that entertain such radical ideas about voting.
But seriously for a minute: as a practical matter, this hurts, not insignificantly in my view, the long-term prospects of the health of our primary.
If you lowered the age a year for the primary, you would have a much* higher rate of high-school students eligible to vote on primary day. This would make voting much* more prominent and visible at school, which would have the effect of making it one of those permanent traditions that populate student life at school. That in turn, would create a larger number of people more likely to be both a) life-long voters, and b) voters with a vested interest in preserving our primary.
*Adding: duh - I'm stoopid too. If they need to be 18 by the time of the GE the following November, then this doesn't actually mean a whole lot more students in school with voting power. So maybe not a huge impact on student traditions. That said, I still firmly believe 17-ers are mature enough, independent enough, and smart enough to make considered a choice for a POTUS candidate on primary day.
The Monitor takes on Jim Splaine's push to get the ball rolling on a marriage bill, and an odd line issues forth:
In [Rep. David] Hess's view, marriage is a traditional, Judeo-Christian institution between a man and woman. "I don't think that definition of marriage should be expanded," he said.
That's an awful lot of Chinese and Indian and Muslim and and ancient Greek and Roman marriages he's negated, just to name a few non-Judaeo-Christian societies that have had the institution of marriage for millenia.
(Welcome to Blue Hampshire, Governor: what a wonderful inaugural post! - Elwood. Bumped. - promoted by Dean Barker)
Nine years ago today I had the honor of being the Governor to sign legislation finally making Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday an official holiday in New Hampshire. This was the culmination of a 20-year effort begun in 1979 when then State Senator Jim Splaine filed the first MLK Day legislation.
The bill signing ceremony on June 7, 1999 was a joyous occasion. Martin Luther King III, sponsors of MLK Day legislation over the 20-year struggle, legislators who had voted for the legislation over the years, and New Hampshire citizens who wanted to witness the signing crowded the State House lawn for the outdoor ceremony.
Rev. Dr. Arthur Hillson offered the invocation. At the ceremony Jim Splaine and Manchester State Rep. Lionel Johnson read aloud the list of more than 70 legislators who had sponsored MLK Day bills over those 20 years. Arnie Alpert, who worked so hard for years advocating MLK legislation, spoke. And Martin Luther King III spoke movingly of his father's legacy.
I then signed not one, but two MLK Day bills! So many legislators had worked so long for this cause that both a House bill and a Senate bill with identical provisions were allowed through the process to accommodate the many people who would wanted to co-sponsor the version that finally became law.
As soon as I signed both bills (State Rep. Laura Pantelakos was the primary sponsor of the House bill and State Senate Bev Hollingworth of the Senate bill), the bells at St. Paul's Church rang out.
Having this honor meant a great deal to me. Growing up in southern Missouri and teaching in the Deep South, I saw firsthand the effects of segregation and racism. I also saw the positive changes -- some dramatic, some more incremental -- brought by the civil rights movement.
This week our nation took another giant step toward the ideal of equality for all when Barack Obama became the first African-American to secure the delegates necessary to be the Presidential nominee of a major party.
While there is still a lot of work to do before we can say that all Americans, regardless of their race, gender or sexual orientation have the same opportunities to succeed, this week we moved ever closer to achieving Dr. King's dream of creating a world where all people are treated with dignity and respect.
Being a member of a big-tent party comfortable with open debate, I'm going to have to disagree with esteemed State Representative Jim Splaine when he chides you for not wanting your Republican party candidates publicly recorded.
The Union Leader notes this morning:
State Republican Chairman Fergus Cullen wants Democratic staffers with video cameras barred from GOP events, concerned that "they are hoping to catch one of our candidates saying something that can be used against them" during the upcoming campaign.
"We should not be helping the Dems accomplish this by allowing active Democrats, be they paid staff or otherwise, to attend party events," Cullen e-mailed local Republican officials and "major office candidates" yesterday.
Chairman Cullen, I could not agree more with you, and I applaud your decision to keep your candidates away from those who are not committed Republicans. When surveying the history of the GOP from Nixon to now, I am struck by how effective your party is when it does its business in secret. Indeed, most of the problems the Grand Old Party has spring from unfortunate bursts of sunlight into the process. One thinks of Watergate and Iran-Contra, for example. But there's no need for the distant pre-internet past, Chairman Cullen. Examples abound today of the need to keep the public out of the business of Republicans and their designs on government.
If we hadn't learned of Dick Cheney's secret 2001 energy meeting, for example, replete with maps of Iraq's oil fields, we might never question the Great and Glorious rationale for invading a country that had no WMD or links to al Qaeda and that is bankrupting our economy. Thank goodness there are still many details of that meeting that are still secret.
If someone hadn't leaked those pesky photos of us torturing Iraqis in practices conceived in secret by a Republican Administration in DC and migrated down to Gitmo, where they then spread to Baghdad, we might not be having a "debate" on waterboarding today, to the shame of the world.
If, Chairman Cullen, some America Hater hadn't run to the press about our Republican President's repeated pre-9/11 violation of the fourth amendment, our telecom CEOs would be sleeping easier tonight. Again, I say, thank goodness we do not know the full extent to which Republicans are spying on us.
It's the little things, too, Chairman Cullen. If the NH Democrats hadn't been so uppity about their phones not working in 2002, your party might have more money to spend on staffers to kick out non-Republicans with cameras. Because you never know what a Republican might say when he thinks they're in friendly company - even New Hampshire Republicans.
So, it is with great admiration, Chairman Cullen, that I applaud your decision to keep away Democrats from Republican candidates. But if I might be so bold, I urge you to take your secrecy initiative a bit further. You see, the Libertarians, certainly no allies of Democrats, have a habit of taping everything. While your top man to protect, John E. Sununu, thought he was in friendly territory, and revealed that he wants to throw out the tax code and institute a flat tax, in reality it was destined for the internet, where it could fall, through a series of tubes, as investigated Republican Ted Stevens likes to say, into anyone's eyes and ears.
I would extend your ban to include not just Democrats, but also Libertarians, and even undeclared voters. The problem with that last group is that they appear to be breaking two to one for Democratic candidates this election cycle. They simply cannot be trusted with Republican business with those kinds of odds.
To sum up, Chairman Cullen: you have rightly recognized that Republicans do their best and most characteristic work in a non-transparent environment. Therefore, it makes every bit of sense to keep out non-Republicans when making your case to the voters. In the article referenced above, I see that your candidates disagree with you. I do hope you will sit them down and show them the error of their ways.
Sincerely,
me
p.s. The Democrats don't need video footage anyway, since they spend their time watching cartoons.
A bill that would give 17-year olds the right to vote in a primary (presidential or state) provided they are eighteen at the time of the general election breezed through the Election Law and Internal Affairs Committee on a unanimous vote today, 4-0.
Rep. Jim Splaine wrote about the possibility of this bill right here on BH. And this is the angle on this I like the most:
Sen. Molly Kelly, D-Keene, said the bill would mean young voters would be able to take part in an election before they leave for college, easing them into what can be a complicated process.
I'll go one step further and say that the college piece is less relevant to me than seeing a much bigger bloc of high school students going to vote on primary day, which in turn will have a big influence on their younger peers. Like getting a driver's license, applying for a job, or gearing up for graduation, it strikes me as a ritual that can end up turning a lot of young people into life-long voters through seeing the process first-hand. And unlike the Union Leader, I have great faith in the ability of seventeen year olds to make informed choices about candidates based on issues. Strike that; I have more faith in them than I do in many adults.
* Is Rudy! going the way of Frederick of Hollywood? Landrigan reports that Mr. 9/11 is cutting back on ad buys and shifting resources to Florida. As it stands now, I can't see how Rudy! gets better than third place here, and that's being generous.
* The Globe's James Pindell catches an interesting contrast: did Billy Shaheen resign over his Obama drug dealer remarks, as was released, or is Senator Clinton giving us the real story:
"That was totally a surprise," Clinton said about Shaheen's remarks. "It was not authorized. I certainly don't condone it. We asked him to step down. He's not part of our campaign."
* Is it just me, or are you all starting to see lots of Huckabee signage and bumber stickers crop up? Who knows, maybe I was wrong when I thought this state would be a major bump in the road for him. He certainly doesn't mind airing an overtly Christian TV ad in this, the least church-going state in the nation.
* How fitting, that on the fifth anniversary of the phone jamming crime, Jeanne Shaheen is beating John Sununu in the latest Survey USA via Roll Call poll by double digits (h/t SSP, sample size around 650, w/ MoE from 3.8-4.0%):
Jeanne Shaheen (D): 53
John Sununu (R-inc): 42
Undecided: 5
Poetic justice, don't you think? And look who's holding the Sprinter to under 50%:
Jay Buckey (D): 36
John Sununu (R-inc): 49
Undecided: 16
* Speaking of Sununu's criminal anniversary, the NHDP held a conference call today on the ongoing, unanswered questions surrounding that assault on Democracy. Said Kathy Sullivan on the DoJ slow-walk (sorry, no linky yet):
"So, I want to know why was the Justice Department dragging its' feet? Who were they talking to? Were they getting instructions from someone?"
Paul Twomey chimed in on the importance of Congressional investigations:
In the civil case, we went as far as we could go with it. As I said, we don't have the right to put people in front of a grand jury, we don't have the right to make people testify to grant them immunity, that's something that Congress can do and the Department of Justice can do. It appears the Department of Justice isn't going to do its job so we're going to rely on Congress and the Congressional Committees to protect the people."
* Jeanne Shaheen now has a campaign manager, Bill Hyers. Bill ran Kirsten Gillibrand's successful upset victory in the House last year, and "also managed the come-from-behind victory of Michael Nutter for Mayor of Philadelphia in 2007," according to the press release. And if that isn't a good enough pedigree for getting a campaign ready for a long fight, he served in the Army in Bosnia. Doesn't sound like the kind of guy who will let the inevitable GOP dirty tricks stand unopposed, does he?
* Quote of the day:
John Sununu is one of the nation's better senators.
...He doesn't believe in funding global warming conspiracy theorists (unlike, say, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee), and he supported drilling in ANWR.
there is speculation that a key endorsement nabbed by active candidate Steve Marchand (he's being backed by one-time Congressional candidate/state Sen. Martha Fuller Clark) means ex-New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen is leaning against seeking a rematch against GOP incumbent John Sununu. Frankly, while I trust my source implicitly in New Hampshire on this, I continue to hear that Shaheen is more open to a bid every day. Remember, because of the presidential campaign distraction, a New Hampshire Senate candidate can actually wait longer to get in, particularly one as well-known as Shaheen.
Perfect fodder for Blue Hampshire to debunk or confirm: does Fuller Clark's endorsement of Steve Marchand tell us anything about a Jeanne Shaheen run?
It's funny; I am this moment working on a post (coming soon) that tries to read the tea leaves on the latest Marchand and Swett endorsements.
Speaking of which, Mayor Marchand released another round of endorsements today. Thirty-two reps from various parts of the state including BH diarist Jim Splaine!
I have been intrigued by the idea that there will be a national straw poll taken by Myspace
beofre the New Hampshire Primary. Over 50 million users a month roughly, over the age of 18
will be able to express a preference. Of course anyone can work at adding profiles, it only takes a few minutes to sign up.
Early consensus is building for an Obama, Edwards, ? finish...Hillary may be third...will it be meaningful ?
Yes and a yardstick for the upcoming Primary season. Right now I assume its not a l'similar election'
Read on with quotes from Blue Hamster Rep. Jim Splaine from Union Leader article
New Hampshire primary defender Rep. Jim Splaine, D-Portsmouth, called it a good thing.
"It's exciting," he said."It draws more interest to the primary process, and that's good for us. Anything that increases overall awareness of the Presidential election coming up might give us more attention."
On his Web blog, Splaine noted, "The New Hampshire Presidential Primary, of course, will still be the first real election."
New Hampshire law requires the New Hampshire primary to be held at least seven days ahead of any "similar election.'' Is an online primary a similar election? Of course not, says Secretary of State Bill Gardner.
He said it's more like a poll. But, he mused, "it doesn't end, does it? The power of the mind of man...."
The Globe, through an AP journalist, has picked up on Rep. Jim Splaine's non-binding anti-escalation Iraq resolution, first mentioned here by Splaine himself, and sparked by nhcollegedem's comment here from an earlier post by Splaine. The Globe:
As the state with the earliest presidential primary, New Hampshire should have a voice on the issue, said state Rep. Jim Splaine, the prime sponsor.
"That is our history," said Splaine, a Democrat from Portsmouth. "We have had major input on national and international issues."
Splaine noted presidential candidates debated the Vietnam War on New Hampshire's national stage leading up to presidential primaries in 1968 and 1972....
...He said the draft states that the House "disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq."
"We have to find a way to end this war," he said. "We have our soldiers over there, too."...
...Splaine noted that a number of state legislatures are taking up similar resolutions.
At least 20 state legislatures have introduced similar resolutions, according to the New York-based Progressive States Network.
The article doesn't mention how we were midwives to the idea, but it does lead the reader to us at the end under "On the Net".
Just another chapter in the usefulness of local blogs.
