Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch paper
Democracy for NH
Granite State Progress
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Pickup Patriots
Re-BlueNH
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
New Hampshire Labor News
Chaz Proulx: Right Wing Watch
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Landrigan
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Campaigns, Et Alia.
NH-Gov
- Maggie Hassan
NH-01
- Andrew Hosmer
- Carol Shea-Porter
- Joanne Dowdell
NH-02
- Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
"The Top Ten Reasons The Mafia Is Better Than The State"
That's the title of a rant written by Emily Sandblade, co-winner of the Manchester primary yesterday for Ward 11 alderman. She's a Free State Project immigrant from Washington State.
Here's a picture of her burning a Federal Reserve Note - I guess she wants to privatize the Treasury. She's taking campaign contributions in gold or chickens.
On the House floor today, Rep. Steve Shurtleff, (D) Concord, took the Majority Leader to task for some reprehensible remarks he made about Chief Mara of the Manchester PD in the Concord Monitor Back on August 23.
Manchester police Chief David Mara made three points in favor of Lynch's veto yesterday. First, the current self-defense law works and no data has been presented showing otherwise, he said. Second, the Republican bill is opposed by a host of law enforcement professionals, including state police Maj. Russell Conte, Department of Safety Commissioner John Barthelmes, Attorney General Michael Delaney, and police chiefs and sheriffs throughout the state. Thirdly, Mara said, the bill would take away a person's duty to retreat from deadly force in a public place, creating more risk of innocent people being shot.
"If this bill passes into law, we're just going to be putting people into danger," Mara said. "Manchester, being a city, is a compact area."
House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt said Mara's opposition to the bill is "not a novel position . . . law enforcement bureaucrats traditionally are in favor of disarming the public."
DJ immediately leapt up and ran to House Legal Counsel Ed Mosca and the Speaker for comfort. As we all must realize by now, young Bettencourt doesn't care for his irresponsible words to ever be thrown back at him. Apparently he can say what he wants and if say a Concord Monitor reporter quotes him, well that's not what I meant, I was misquoted.
The House went into a ten minute recess after taking up the veto that the Speaker's office denied for the last week would
happen. What commenced next was hilarious to those of us
observing. The House Policy Director came down, followed by
the House Information officer and the huddle began. Head shaking and pacing followed by the Honorable member from
Salem. DJ then noticed the NPR reporter waiting for him.
Should be fun to see him wiggle out of this one.
My question is this, given Rep. Tasker and his comments and now Rep. Bettencourt, why does the NH GOP not renounce this type of rhetoric? Do they really have such little respect for our state's law enforcement? Also, will law enforcement continue to support these "tough" on crime pols?
(Thanks for the deep dive. Hard to believe MHT is represented by three different Senators. One thing if it were big enough to need 3, but this is just plain old electioneering. I vote for 2 Senators from MHT! - promoted by Mike Hoefer)
With all the controversial topics being discussed in Concord this year, the decennial redistricting process hasn't been on the radar much. That's not good news for Manchester, though, which has been oddly gerrymandered, with its political influence in the state splintered, for at least the past decade.
One topic that gets a lot of attention in New Hampshire is how often the North Country is overlooked, due largely to its low population and despite the amount of tourism revenue it brings in. Less discussed, though, is how tilted state senate districts in the southern tier are toward suburbs at the expense of the state's largest cities.
With just under 110,000 residents, Manchester could neatly support two senate districts of its own, with each of the state's 24 senate districts to be comprised of roughly 54,853 people after the 2010 census. Despite this, Manchester is currently divided into three districts (16, 18 and 20), all of which encompass suburbs with demographic profiles and legislative priorities that are much different than those of the Queen City. Currently, two of these three senators are residents of Manchester, but even if all three are Mancunians, they must represent-and if they hope to be re-elected, satisfy-the needs and priorities of voters in suburbs as diverse as Hooksett and Dunbarton as much as the voters of Manchester. This ends up depriving the state Senate of a uniquely urban voice, which could represent the needs and desires of residents in the state's largest city, as well as urban areas too small to have their own senator, such as Portsmouth and Concord.
I wanted to share a two-part series I wrote about the state and possible future of transit in the Queen City for GoodGood Manchester, a new website dedicated to bringing people together and providing information about goings on in the Manchester community.
Though I'm living in Cambridge, Massachusetts these days, as a Manchester native and intern architect, I have remained very interested in the city's renaissance over the past two decades. I have also become more interested in planning, and how transit influences land use, especially in New England. I have seen how the freedom of the automobile has led to the destruction of much of southern New Hampshire's countryside, but something that gets much less notice is how the lack of a strong public transit system has stifled renewal of New Hampshire's urban neighborhoods, most notably in Manchester.
Discussions of transit in mostly sparsely populated New Hampshire revolves around the ongoing effort to connect the Merrimack Valley with Boston via commuter rail. This important effort is often framed as one of economic development for the region, but it should be accompanied by an effort to create an extensive and efficient regional transit system for Greater Manchester. This would be in keeping with the progressive causes championed on this site as well as the prudent frugality endemic to New Hampshire: protecting the environment and traditional neighborhoods while responsibly investing in the economic growth that typically accompanies a well-functioning transit system.
The pieces I wrote focus first on the state of transit in Manchester and the reasons for improvement, and then on a very hypothetical and admittedly ambitious design for a streetcar system. While this design is ambitious, I think it's important to envision something grand since smaller plans are often scaled back and reduced; I hope that this plan will add to the ongoing, but fragmented discussion about what an improved Manchester transit system might look like, and help people imagine something grander than extended hours or greater frequency.
Manchester is a great city, and the success and revitalization of Downtown since the mid-1990s has been phenomenal. The neighborhoods of a city, however, are what make it a truly great place to live, and urban neighborhoods need to be accessible and well-connected via public transit to retain the sort of density needed to make them vibrant, walkable places. I hope you'll check out these pieces and offer your thoughts.
Part One: Public transit: the key to Manchester's future: http://myggm.org/public-transi...
Part Two: A Manchester streetcar system: http://myggm.org/manchester-st...
(Remember when Frank went begging for the stimulus and Kelly called him a "grandstander"? - promoted by Dean Barker)
The picture painted in the UL of Manchester if the Republicans win NH's federal races is bleak.
FALLING OFF A CLIFF. That's how the mayor, aldermen and school committee members have referred to the budget outlook without federal stimulus funding. Politicians have fought over the effectiveness and worthiness of the $787 billion package throughout this election cycle, but the reality on the ground is that school officials will have $4.8 million less to work with when they sit down to craft their budgets.
Florist Dawn LaBow said she voted for Guinta both times he ran for mayor and thinks he helped make the city safer. But she was still undecided yesterday, nagged by concerns about a bank account worth between $250,000 and $500,000 that Guinta failed to initially list on his campaign disclosure forms.
"That's not pocket change," she said. "I like him, but I'm worried about that money."
Sarah Fleming, a 24-year-old who works and lives downtown, said she wouldn't vote for Guinta after seeing an ad this week highlighting his firm pro-life stance.
"That just completely floored me," she said. "From that time on, I was just like 'no.' "
One clarification for Ms. LaBow - Manchester was less safe under Mayor Frank Guinta:
Crime has increased dramatically with Guinta serving in City Hall. In fact, since 2008, burglaries have gone up over 30% and violent crime is up almost 10%. (Manchester Police Department, "Crime Data," accessed 1/21/10)
Guinta has slashed law enforcement funding that would strip the Manchester police of 11 officers. (New Hampshire Union Leader, 4/22/08)
As for the request by NHDP for a criminal investigation into Guinta's magical bank accounts, US Attorney John Kacavas is not offering comment yet on whether or not he will proceed.
(Great writeup. Part put below the fold, and thanks. - promoted by Dean Barker)
This is a public thank you to everyone who made it down to Manchester today as we stood as silent witnesses for equality against the National Organization for Marriage's unwelcome stop in New Hampshire on its nationwide bus tour.
Well, at least they're persistent. NOM pours money into the state to keep trying to thwart New Hampshire's decisions, attack our representatives and our governor (the only governor in the nation to sign a marriage equality bill!) and ignore our strong tradition of protecting civil liberties. We were there in Manchester today to bear witness to New Hampshire's commitment to marriage equality as NOM attempted to spread its lies here.
By Mike Brunelle, Executive Director for the New Hampshire Democratic Party and Chair of the Manchester City Democrats.
That didn't take long. In just 3 short months, Mayor Ted Gatsas has gone from being a "champion" of bi-partisanship to shouting down school board members at public meetings.
This week, the new mayor held a meeting to discuss the merger of MCAM and MCTV -- specifically, the debate centered on the employees of MCTV and their future employment.
During the meeting, school committee member Kathy Kelly had a question about the change and wanted to introduce an amendment. Kelly wanted to ensure that students who currently have access to a certified teacher for the courses they take at MCTV would continue to have this opportunity available to them.
The amendment was clearly relevant to the discussion about the future of employees after merging the two channels. And a school board member should feel comfortable asking questions and voicing concerns at a school committee meeting.
But the mayor refused to even listen. He did not allow her proposal to come forward, maintaining that her amendment wasn't germane to the debate and that she had no right to introduce the motion in that venue. At one point, Mayor Gatsas even screamed inappropriately and lectured the committee on past practices. What's ironic is that Mayor Gatsas let three other amendments get introduced; but of course these three amendments were ones he supported.
This kind of behavior is outrageous. Kathy Kelly is a member of the board, and she has a right to raise legitimate, serious concerns about the mayor's proposals. Mayor Gatsas has no right to try to intimidate people into supporting his position.
Clearly, the honeymoon is over. And anyone that mistakenly thought he had turned over a new leaf was sadly mistaken. This kind of behavior is devastating for civil political discourse. The hope for a new Ted Gatsas is clearly nothing but false hope.
In fact, this isn't the first time he has gone off the deep end. At a school committee meeting last month, the mayor went on a tirade telling a member that he wasn't allowed to ask a question and even said "you want to make that statement, you make that statement on your own time, not in this chamber.
Even the Union Leader thought this went too far - dedicating an entire editorial to chastising the Mayor for his tyrannical tirade. They correctly pointed out that "if a school board member cannot oppose a school realignment plan during a school board meeting, when should he? And if he wants to suggest that his constituents are being treated unfairly, so what? Since when is that off limits?"
This kind of bullying has no place in city government. We need open, honest, and civil debate. Three little months - it didn't take long for Gatsas to show his true colors.
(Posted by Harrell Kirstein, deputy press secretary for the New Hampshire Democratic Party.)
The meetings of Manchester's Board of Mayor and Aldermen continue to be riveting. Last night, the board voted to privatize a city operation, without any notice to the public, with no prior mention on a published agenda, with the required city ordinance changes not made available to the public for comment, and only given to the aldermen at the meeting last night. On top of that, the board voted to award yet another no bid contract to replace the office. All to carry out one of the privatization initiatives promoted by a Ted Gatsas task force.
The operation being privatized is the city's Employment Assistance Program. The two people who work in the department are going to retire at the end of June, and basically the city voted to give them a contract to do the same work they are doing now - but part time and on contract, while they also collect their city pensions. According to the alderman who made the motion, the individuals do a good job and this will save the city some money. Maybe it is a good deal for the city. But once again, the city has made a decision that was never discussed in public until the meeting at which the aldermen voted to pass it. If it was a good idea, why not put it on an agenda, give the public the opportunity to comment, and also give the public the opportunity to look at the ordinance revisions? And why not put it out to bid? Why the rush?
I have been riveted lately by Manchester government. In the past, I tried to stay out of Manchester issues as much as possible, but actions by Ted Gatsas have me paying much closer attention than ever before.
Last night, I was stunned to see the aldermen pass a department consolidation proposed by Gatsas, even though (a) no notice had been given to the public that this matter might be discussed at the meeting, let alone voted on (b) the public therefore had no opportunity to weigh in, and (c) the proposal included ordinance revisions that no only were not available to the public, but which had been passed out to the aldermen at the meeting. In other words, they voted to pass ordinance revisions that they did not thoroughly review. Although the public never had a chance to comment, however, it was clear that the mayor had been weighing in with the aldermen, as there were several references to private meetings held in the mayor's office with individual aldermen to lobby them for their votes. The people who are going to be laid off as a result of the vote never had that chance.
This week, Mayor Ted Gatsas brought a proposal before the aldermen to extend the management contract at the Verizon Center for another 20 years. This is a major contract for one of the city's major facilities. The current contract does not expire for another six years, so there was no hurry to extend it, but Gatsas sold it by saying it was a better deal than we have now. Maybe it is - but could we have gotten a better deal?
We'll never know, because the contract was not put out for bid. One of the largest contracts the city has, and it was not put out for bid. And the aldermen passed this unanimously. Where is the oversight?
Despite sharp increases in crime, former mayor continues to lie to public claiming violent crime went down
Concord - The Union Leader reported yesterday that citywide crime increased nearly 5% during Frank Guinta's last year as mayor of Manchester. Violent crime was up even more, increasing nearly 10%, and according to the Union Leader "burglaries boom(ed)" last year, increasing 30%. (Manchester Police Department, "Crime Data," accessed 1/21/10), (Union Leader, 2/23/2010)
Despite Frank Guinta's campaign promises to make crime a top priority he repeatedly proposed budgets that slashed public safety. Guinta promised to add four additional officers to the Manchester police force last October at a Press Conference (Union Leader, 2/14/2010), but then proposed slashing funding for public safety in the FY2009 budget.
Police Chief, David Mara now estimates that by June the city will be short of a full compliment by nine officers. (Union Leader, 2/23/2010) Guinta's budget also proposed an 80% cut to neighborhood watch programs, and laying-off 25 firefighters. [Union Leader, 04/22/2008; 5/17/2009; 4/23/08]
"Crime has skyrocketed in Manchester under Frank Guinta's tenure as mayor," said Derek Richer press secretary for the New Hampshire Democratic Party. "And it's a direct result of his decision to slash funding for police and first responders."
Despite the sharp increase in crime, Frank Guinta is now traveling the state on his "Let's be Frank about..." tour claiming that violent crime actually decreased. Today, in the Laconia Citizen Frank Guinta claimed that he "was also proud of reducing violent crime in Manchester." Guinta then seemed to realize that this statement was directly contradicted by the facts on the ground and followed up by stressing that he was "an honest, upright guy." (Laconia Citizen, 2/24/2010)
"Now Guinta is just lying about his record, hoping no one will notice," continued Richer. "Frank Guinta needs to start speaking frankly with the voters about his failure to keep Manchester streets safe."
(Posted by Harrell Kirstein, deputy press secretary for the New Hampshire Democratic Party)
The field for the upcoming special election of State Senate District #16 has been set. The district includes Wards #1, #2 and #12 in Manchester (which is Hillsborough County), as well as the Towns of Bow, Dunbarton & Hooksett in Merrimack County and the Town of Candia in Rockingham County.
Since more than one Republican filed, we have a primary on January 12th, 2010, followed by the main event on February 16th. The two Republicans are Terry Pfaff and State Rep. David Boutin. The one Democrat is State Rep. Jeff Goley, the chair of the Labor Committee. Bob Backus is not running.
In the first of many events to come, a group of medical marijuana patients and activists gathered at the Ward 8 polling place in Manchester to show Senator DeVries that there are consequences to voting against the sick and dying. In this video, she tries to hide from disabled Vietnam veteran Ron Mitchell, who wants to know why she thinks she knows more than his doctor about what medicine he should take.
No politician, Republican or Democrat, who chose to prevent the seriously ill from getting life-saving medication (and I'm looking at you, Ayotte), will be safe from these simple (but apparently terrifying) questions. If you worked to take these patients' medicine, it's time to take your medicine.
Today an editorial in the UL titled "Spending cap foes - Their arguments have been lame" included this:
Manchester's cap would not eliminate spending, but it would certainly prioritize it and keep it within check, something that few elected officials have been willing to do.
Conversations with tax-cap supporters, and statements like this, lead me to believe that supporters believe that, in a perfect world, they would "eliminate spending". Yup. Fiscal conservatism taken to the most libertarian extreme. I suppose we'd go back to the good old days, with a militia to keep the peace, subscriptions to the fire service, and private schools for the wealthy.
The mills were made of marble,
The streets were paved with gold,
We sold off the bricks,
And lowered the taxes,
Now everyone votes as they're told.
- Gatsas for Governor 2012
They haven't spent a penny on the roads in Franklin for four years, and we do have a lot of missing bricks in Manchester sidewalks.
If ever in Manchester there was a gift-wrapped, defining issue, for candidates to say "this is why I am a Democrat", it is the tax cap. I am astonished that Democratic candidates are not using their bully pulpit to both educate the public and nail this to their opponents. It should be an embarrassment to support this garbage.
Maybe you're wondering why so many first-time candidates like myself are emphasizing that there has never been a more important time to bring change to Manchester's City Hall ... well, here's Exhibit A:
Alderman Ted Gatsas, a leading proponent for residency requirements, suggested the board could ask a judge to say whether the proposal is constitutional. When (City Solicitor) Clark told him the board does not have the authority to make such a request, Gatsas replied, "Then let's wait 'til somebody sues us."
