Throw All the Bums Out in November

by: Gary Patton

Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:33:44 AM EDT

"Just what's making you so mad Crawford," I replied.

"The federal government's my problem, that's what," groused Crawford. "It's wasted my tax money, and has nothing to show for it. Let business and the free market solve our problems; tell big government to get lost."

"Do you think everybody agrees with you that big government should just exit the stage? If you do, you're in for a surprise. Jon Cohen and Dan Balz report in the Washington Post that "A new study by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University shows that most Americans who say they want more limited government also call Social Security and Medicare 'very important'. They want Washington to be involved in schools and to help reduce poverty. Nearly half want the government to maintain a role in regulating health care."

"Cohen and Balz later write, 'Americans continue to see major areas of government spending as essential. Whether it is Medicare, Social Security, national defense, food stamps, education, unemployment benefits or environmental protection, about nine in 10 call these programs at least somewhat important.'"

"Well", said Crawford, "these smarty pants researchers never mention the fact that excessive federal spending is about to drive the nation into bankruptcy. No one will have Social Security or Medicare then."

"I have to admit that a lot of people agree with you, Crawford. A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll notes, 'More than three of four also see a day of reckoning approaching. They predict the cost of entitlement programs (e.g., Medicare, Social Security) will create major economic problems for the United States in the next 25 years if no changes are made. Recognizing the issue isn't the same as reconciling it, however. Raise taxes to address it? Fifty-six percent say no. Cut benefits instead? Sixty-six percent say no. Just 12 percent say both steps should be taken."

"In other words, Crawford, the general public wants a free lunch. It wants something for nothing - benefits without having to pay for them. That's not the way the world works."

"Well, I don't care what you say, Patton. I'm going to vote every incumbent out of office. They're all a bunch of dishonest, lying son of a guns - including Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter."

"Crawford, it's strange that you should put Shea-Porter in that category. There's irony in this election. Voters say they want to replace dishonest, lazy, deceptive office holders with honest, hardworking challengers who talk straight and vote independently. However, no one, but no one, has ever questioned Carol Shea-Porter's honesty. No one, but no one, has ever said she doesn't tell you exactly what she thinks. She may not always vote the way you like, but she doesn't lie to you. No one, but no one, has ever said that Shea-Porter doesn't work hard and effectively to meet the needs of her district."

Now, I was warming to my topic. "Contrast that with her opponent, Frank Guinta. Is Guinta honest? Recently, Guinta amended his financial disclosure statement to add a bank account containing $355,000. Where did that money come from? Guinta says that he 'forgot' that he had the account. Would you forget an account holding $355,000? If that money was a gift or loan from another person, Guinta broke election laws that limit such contributions to only $2,400. Guinta could answer questions by disclosing bank statements showing that the $355,000 was in his account for the past two years. Guinta adamantly refuses to do that, increasing suspicion that he broke the law."

"Is Guinta deceptive? He has flip-flopped on the issues of cap-and trade, global warming, the stimulus package, and abortion to win votes. Do straight shooters do that? I think not. Would he vote independently of party interests while in Congress? I think not. How do you think that Republicans were able to defeat so many Democratic initiatives during the past two years? By demanding that GOP members of Congress vote as a bloc; that no one deviate from the party line; that opposition to Democrats be unanimous."

"And," I added, "there were penalties for any GOP member who thought of defecting. Assignment to lousy office space in remote locations. Assignment to dead end committees. Loss of seniority on committees. Loss of funding from party sources. Bad parking places. Intimidation was effective in whipping GOP members into line."

"If Guinta goes to Washington", I concluded, "he will follow the party line just as other Republican members have. So, there's your irony. You want honesty, diligence, straight talk, and effectiveness? Support the office holder, Shea-Porter, not the challenger, Guinta. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Remember the old saying, 'vote in haste; repent in leisure.'"

This column first appeared in The Forum. It appears here with the permission of The Forum.

Return of the Secret Donors:Tom Fahey's State House Dome: Out-of-state spending boosts Stephen

by: JonnyBBad

Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 09:00:36 AM EDT

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10...

"Contributors," he said, "were literally flying into Washington with satchels of cash."

The Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CREEP) was also illegally hauling in many millions of dollars from corporations, many of which felt pressured into making contributions.

The record of donors was so tightly held that it was kept in a locked drawer by Rose Mary Woods, Nixon's secretary. The list - which came to be known as "Rose Mary's Baby" - wasn't released until Mr. Wertheimer forced the issue through a lawsuit. Among those on the list were William Keeler, the chief executive of Phillips Petroleum, who pleaded guilty, during the post-Watergate prosecutions, to making an illegal corporate donation.

Frequently Wrong but Never in Doubt

by: susanthe

Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 23:43:09 PM EDT

History is being rewritten at warp speed. Teabaglicans would have us believe that Obama destroyed the entire US economy in less than 2 years. They've conveniently forgotten everything that happened in the preceding 8 years of the Bush administration, including the trillion or so we borrowed so that Dubya could work out his Oedipal issues in Iraq. It's unfortunate that there can't be rational dialogue about the mess we're in, but the right is incapable of rational discussion. Last week, a columnist referred to Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine as RINOS. These women lean more toward being moderate than the new crazies like Palin, Bachman, Rand Paul, and O'Donnell - which is why the new, even more insane GOP wants to eliminate them. My father, the lifelong Republican, would recognize Snowe and Collins as members of the party he supported. He would be horrified to learn that a woman who claims scientists have created mice with human brains was walking around without a minder, never mind an actual candidate for the US Senate.  

Shea-Porter Represents Her Constituency

by: Gary Patton

Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:29:18 AM EDT

"Swimmingly, swimmingly, my man," he replied. "Everything is going my way. My errand boys, the Republicans in Congress, are working hard to extend the Bush tax cuts of 2001. If they can do that, because I earn more than $1 million per year, I will save $103,000 in taxes in 2011. Bully!"

"But wait a minute, sir," I responded, "the Bush tax cuts of 2001 were intended to expire in 2011. If they are made permanent for the wealthiest Americans, $36 billion would be added to the deficit in 2011. President Obama has a fairer plan; he would retain the tax cuts for individuals who make less than $200,000 and couples who earn less than $250,000. That's 98 percent of workers. Only the wealthiest 2 percent would be affected by the end of the Bush tax cuts."

"Nobel-winning columnist Paul Krugman wrote," I continued, "according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years." (New York Times, 8/23/10)

Bedford-Amherst turned red with anger. His monocle popped out of his eye. "I take offense, sir. Wealthy people pay unconscionably high taxes. Soak the rich. Soak the rich. It's always the same - the rabble always soaks the rich."

"I beg to differ, sir," I replied. "Do you know that the top tax bracket was 94 percent in 1944, and it remained above 82 percent until 1964? Ronald Reagan cut taxes, but still the top tax bracket was 69 percent during his presidency. (Mutual Funds, March, 2002) The top bracket continued to decline to 35 percent partly as a result of the Bush tax cuts. The end of Bush's tax cuts would increase the top 2 percent's rate only 4.5 points to 39.5 percent, far less than the top bracket has been in the recent past.

Now, Bedford-Amherst was truly annoyed. He impatiently tapped his riding breeches with his crop. "Lord knows, we wealthy people are doing all we can for the lower classes. Our servants, the Republicans in Congress, stoutly maintain that tax cuts for the rich stimulate economic growth."

"Again, sir," I offered, "I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that each $1 million in tax cuts would create between 1 and 4 additional jobs; compared with 6 to 15 jobs from increasing unemployment assistance; 3 to 9 jobs from providing aid to states, and 4 to 10 jobs from investing in infrastructure. (Washington Post, 7/28/10)

"Moreover," I continued, "when Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve for nearly 20 years, was asked if he agrees with Republicans who say that tax cuts pay for themselves, he said simply, 'They do not.' (Reuters, 8/2/10) If tax cuts were magic stimulators of the economy and generators of tax revenue, then why have the Bush tax cuts of 2001 left the nation with such a huge budget deficit? However, I can see that we don't agree on tax cuts, sir. Can we turn to another topic? Who do you favor in the race for member of Congress from the 1st Congressional District?

"No doubt in my mind," answered Bedford-Amherst, "no doubt at all. I support the Republican candidates - they're from my class you know. According to public records, Shawn Mahoney lists diversified investments valued between $11.4 and $35.6 million; Rich Ashooh earned $391,213 last year as a lobbyist for BAE systems, and has a savings account holding between $100,000 and $250,000. Bob Bestani received $116,835 last year from a pension and consulting fees. Bestani lists investments worth between $726,000 and $1.366,000."

"Finally," Bedford-Amherst went on, "Frank Guinta has between $89,000 and $355,000 invested; owns two properties assessed at a total of $758,700; and has somewhere between $267,000 and $580,000 in savings. The incumbent, Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter? Tut-tut. She's a ragamuffin. Shea-Porter lists savings and investments totaling less than $30,000. Oh, my."

"Excuse me, sir," I responded, "but we have a representative form of government. That is, elected representatives are expected to be like the people they represent. That way, elected officials can understand the problems of their constituents and act effectively in their best interests. Carol Shea-Porter experiences the same economic conditions as the vast majority of people in her district. She has walked a mile in their shoes and knows the challenges they face. Her modest financial condition is an advantage, not a disadvantage."

"One other thing," I added. "As Harry Truman said, 'You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook.' I guess we can be pretty sure that Congresswoman Shea-Porter is honest."

This column first appeared in The Forum. It appears here with the permission of The Forum.

Shea-Porter's Opponents Sound Pretty Desperate

by: Lenore Patton

Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 16:03:09 PM EDT

Shea-Porter's Opponents Sound Pretty Desperate
Gary Patton 03.JUL.10

"Hey, Patton, what's up?" Crawford Notch's voice sounded hollow, and it echoed a little. I couldn't see him anywhere. "Crawford," I replied, "where the heck are you?"

"Over here," responded Crawford, "I'm down here in the sewer. I'm just collecting some sewage to throw at Carol Shea-Porter."

Crawford's head popped out of a manhole in the center of the street. His face was greasy and grimy; his hair matted; and a faded flower had found its way behind his ear. "Crawford, you look dreadful. Every time you try to smear Congresswoman Shea-Porter, you just make yourself look bad."

Frank Guinta's new website YourHouseYourVoice.com

by: TimothyHorrigan

Sun Apr 18, 2010 at 10:55:16 AM EDT

(One irony I will mention on passing is that Guinta, like most neocons, likes to deride his opponents as "Marxists," "Communists," and "socialists"--- while himself espousing Marxist ideas. His whole concept of letting government wither away and letting corporate entities run everything is straight out of Lenin's playbook.)  

The site contains a checklist of what he believes are the most important issues facing him as a hopeful US Representative.  He is missing a few pretty important issues, and the ones he includes are all about protecting corporate persons from being interfered with by the government (which is run by natural persons.)  It might be fun to show the list.  You are supposed to pick 5 out of 10:

Epping selectmen may vote Tues. to ban Carol Shea-Porter

by: Steve Fowle

Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 00:41:18 AM EST

There will be an article in the Union Leader tomorrow [Tuesday, Dec. 22] stating that the selectmen may vote to reconsider/retract an invitation it had approved to let Carol Shea-Porter hold a town hall in Epping next month.

Long story short.... there are Navy seals who will have a trial by a court martial for charges relating to the capture of a very evil al-Quaeda operative that involved charges the suspect may have been assaulted while in custody in Iraq.  Republican Rep Dan Burton has circulated a letter to other US Reps demanding the Defense Dept. quash the charges.  Carol did not sign the letter and so now her patriotism is being questioned.

Carol Shea-Porter has strongly supported our veterans and soldiers. A member of the Armed Services Committee, she has brought increased medical care to NH veterans.  She has sponsored legislation to stop the burning of toxic wastes in Iraq and Afghanistan that has caused widespread medical problems for returning veterans.  She sponsored an amendment to hold defense contractors accountable for shoddy work such as poor wiring that has killed and injured US soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.  She has voted to approve increases in the defense budget and has traveled to both Iraq and Afghanistan to visit soldiers.  These are just a few of the things Carol has done on behalf of our men and women in the armed forces.

I think the selectmen will back down if we show up with a group to speak our case.  How ridiculous that the selectmen want to interject themselves into Defense Department issues. How more ridiculous that, instead of looking forward to address their concerns directly to Carol Shea-Porter, they want to tell her to go away.  How childish!  How irresponsible to want to deny Epping residents their Constitutional right to directly petition the government- face to face- to redress their grievances!  

Pres. Clinton Rallies the Vote on Sunday!

by: Judy Reardon

Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 11:26:46 AM EDT

Noon - Rochester Opera House - Pres Clinton rally with Jeanne Shaheen and Carol Shea-Porter

2:30 - Nashua Greeley Park (outdoor rally) - Pres Clinton rally with Jeanne Shaheen and Paul Hodes

4 pm - Manchester High School Central - Pres Clinton rally with Jeanne Shaheen, John Lynch, Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes  

For exact addresses etc, you can go to http://www.jeanneshaheen.org/e...

21st Century Democrats endorse Carol Shea-Porter for Congress

by: Mark Lotwis

Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 14:33:12 PM EDT

21st Century Democrats endorsed 24 candidates today. You can find the entire list here.

The Blue and the Grey (and the Red)

by: GreyMike

Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:08:13 AM EDT

Pending bills S.206/H.R.82 repeal the so-called Government pension offset (GPO) and windfall elimination (WEP) provisions of the Social Security Act. These provisions penalize some public employees (teachers, cops, firefighters, etc.) in some states (Mass., for example) by either cutting or completely eliminating Social Security benefits they or their spouse earned.

By way of full disclosure: as it stands I will be one of the victims of this as a public employee in MA, and all of the Social Security benefits I have earned and continue to earn over 40+ years of employment in NH are at risk. And, to make matters worse, should I be survived by my spouse, survivor benefits accruing to her will be denied as well.

This legislation is currently languishing in committee since its last hearings in Nov. 2007, but it's interesting to note who's who when it comes to co-sponsors:

Rep. Paul Hodes - Yes
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter - Yes
Sen. Barack Obama - Yes

Sen. Judd Gregg - No
Sen. John Sununu - No
Sen. John McCain - No

Easy to see what consideration we "greys" are given by the Blue. Red, not so much.

Social Insecurity with Sununu and Gregg

by: susanthe

Thu May 29, 2008 at 18:08:20 PM EDT

From the story:

The Alliance voting record examines 10 key Senate votes and 10 key House votes in 2007, showing the roll calls on blocking Social Security privatization, lowering Medicare costs, expanding access to affordable health care, stopping oil price gouging, and protecting voting rights.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., was 10 for 10 in voting against New Hampshire's seniors, while Sen. John Sununu, R-NH, voted against New Hampshire's seniors 9 out of 10 times. Representatives Paul Hodes and Carol Shea Porter had perfect scores of 100 percent, having voted favorably on all 10 issues in the interest of New Hampshire's seniors.

This is more bad news for John E. in an election year - seniors vote! In an increasingly unstable economy, the idea of privatizing Social Security makes even less sense.

CD 1 voters were riled up about privatization in 2005/06. Jeb Bradley's town hall meetings were packed with folks who were mighty angry at the mere thought of it. No matter how clear it was that NH did NOT support privatization, he kept shilling the Bush plan. I firmly believe his stance on Social Security was a factor in his defeat.

We can all be proud that Shea-Porter and Hodes are standing up for NH seniors.  

Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter's Position on Iran

by: mountainboy

Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 08:57:51 AM EST

I asked the Congresswoman if she would oppose military action against Iran in light of these recent revelations.

Here is the respose I received:

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I support having a strong national defense. However, that does not mean rushing to war without clear provocation, as we did in Iraq. The Iraq war has destabilized the region, weakened our military, and inflamed terrorist organizations worldwide. Our nation is far less safe because of the President's reckless march to war in Iraq.

We should not be naive about the potential danger from Iran, particularly if that nation should acquire nuclear weapons. However, I believe that there is no compelling reason to go to war with Iran at this time.

It is our patriotic duty, as citizens of a great democracy, to hold our leaders to the highest standards, especially in matters of war and peace. Thank you for your vigilance.

Sincerely

Carol Shea-Porter
Member of Congress

Like the Congresswoman, I believe that Iran should be prevented from attaining nuclear weapons. But military action would not be in the best interests of the United States, or the Middle East, at this time. The administration's approach to Iran's nuclear program appears to be based largely on speculation, rather than on verifiable intelligence. America should never engage in military action on such a basis.

I hope to convince other members of Congress to go on the record on this issue as well. We need to know where our representatives stand on this issue. If you live in the 2nd Congressional District in New Hampshire and are interested in contacting Congressman Paul Hodes about this matter please contact me.

David Anderson
davewanderson@care2.com
http://reasonableforeignpolicy...

Hodes and Shea-Porter do us proud once agian

by: Jon Bresler

Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 21:08:26 PM EST

http://www.nytimes.c...
"Democrats Divided as House Passes Peru Trade Bill"

Hodes and Shea Porter buck the majority and vote no. Hillary says she'd vote yes, yet oppose future bills. This parallelogramulation is beyond me. Either you stand with Labor or you don't. Whether its here, in Peru or Korea.
http://feeds.reuters...

"I support the trade agreement with Peru. It has very strong labor and environmental protections. This agreement makes meaningful progress on advancing workers' rights, and also levels the playing field for American workers," Clinton said in a statement.

"However, I will oppose the pending trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama," she said.

"The South Korean agreement does not create a level playing field for American car makers. I am very concerned about the history of violence against trade unionists in Colombia. And as long as the head of Panama's National Assembly is a fugitive from justice in America, I cannot support that agreement."

By David Sirota on November 6, 2007 - 11:10am.

In a stunning new report on the eve of the congressional vote on the Peru Free Trade Agreement, a Columbia University legal expert shows the pact may weaken the United States' ability to enforce basic labor standards in trade agreements. The report by Columbia Law professor Mark Barenberg finds that the much-touted labor protections in the Peru deal are "even worse than existing law" and "in no respect do the Agreement's labor provisions mark a significant improvement."

The Columbia University report compares labor provisions in already-passed trade deals with the proposed provisions in the Peru deal, which congressional Democrats and the White House have sold to the public and rank-and-file lawmakers as a new and improved model. But the Columbia report shows how the Peru deal's model actually undermines existing trade laws, which he notes are already "weak, unreliable, and inadequate to the task."

"weak, unreliable, and inadequate to the task".
Well what do academics know anyway ? They've never run anything...

For example, the report points out that "if the U.S.-Peru Agreement becomes a model for future trade agreements, then those countries that have not adopted core labor rights in their domestic law will not be bound" by international labor standards. He also notes that under current law, a President of the United States has the unilateral authority to impose sanctions on a country that does not respect international labor standards. But under the Peru trade model "If the President decides that Peru is failing to comply with vague labor 'principles' or domestic labor law, he cannot impose sanctions - he can only file a complaint."

The report's findings likely explain why no major labor, human rights, environmental, religious, anti-poverty or consumer protection groups have endorsed the Peru Free Trade Agreement, while most of Washington's corporate lobbying sector has. It also explains why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has assured its members that "the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance."

Update: Mr. Edwards quickly issued a missive against Mrs. Clinton, tying her support for the Peru pact to another one of his major lines of attack against her - that she is too close to lobbyists:

  I am terribly disappointed by Senator Clinton's support for the Peru trade deal. At a time when millions of Americans are concerned about losing their jobs and the economy, it is dismaying that Senator Clinton would side with corporations, their lobbyists, and the Bush Administration in support of a flawed trade deal that expands the NAFTA model.
http://thecaucus.blo...

Why I Left MoveOn, and Why Their Censure Doesn't Matter

by: Douglas E. Lindner

Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 18:36:36 PM EDT

Meanwhile, MoveOn.org was wrong to run the ad.  I was once a member, but after this, I canceled.  It was the last straw.  I'm sick of them acting like Democrats aren't on their side.  If we had 60 votes in the Senate, the troops would be coming home, and the vast majority of Dems in Congress agree with MoveOn on 90% of what they want on Iraq, yet MoveOn keep attacking them.  This is why Republicans win elections: because their interest groups know better than to eat their own.

The GOP "Grand Obstructionist Party"

by: Ray Buckley

Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 16:36:51 PM EDT

It is sad and shameful times as Republicans are dragging their feet, holding up the legislative process, and standing in the way of progress on the issues most important to the people of New Hampshire and across this great nation. Senators Judd Gregg and John E. Sununu continue to put their loyalty to the President and their political party ahead of the interests of the Granite State and our brave men and women in uniform.  It is not surprising that in the latest polls, 66 percent of independent voters say they will vote in the Democratic primary.  This dramatic shift is because Independents in New Hampshire strongly oppose the Iraq War and are pleased at how Representatives Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes are fighting to bring our troops home.  The landslide re-election by Gov. John Lynch and historic victories by Democrats strongly indicates that Independents are realizing more and more which Party is fighting for them and which Party is more interested in standing in the way of progress.  The UNH poll is a striking reminder of how the largest bloc of New Hampshire voters -- Independents ? continue to sway toward the Democrats during this decade.  If Republicans stick to their obstructionist ways in Concord and Washington, we look forward to welcoming them into the Democratic Party, permanently. 

In their first six months in office , Representatives Shea-Porter and Hodes have been keeping their promise to New Hampshire?s voters by working to change course in Iraq. Every step of the way, Republicans like John E. Sununu, have shown that they lack the leadership and backbone to stand up to the President.  Just one day after a new National Intelligence Estimate provided additional evidence that Republicans have failed to make our homeland safe and allowed Al Qaeda to rebuild, Sununu chose to protect George W. Bush and his disastrous Iraq policy by voting against an amendment that would have begun a rollback of U.S. forces within four months and redefined the U.S. mission in Iraq.

(more)

Shea-Porter and Hodes Fight For New Direction in Iraq

by: Ray Buckley

Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 14:15:59 PM EDT

Will New Hampshire's Senators Vote to Back Up Their Rhetoric And End This War

Concord - New Hampshire's Democrats in Congress yesterday reaffirmed their support for a new direction in Iraq by voting to pass the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act (HR 2956).  The bill, which would begin to responsibly redeploy our troops in Iraq and refocus our efforts on protecting Americans from terrorism, goes to the Senate where Republicans, like Gregg and Sununu, will have the opportunity to back up their rhetoric and support real legislation that begins withdrawing our troops this year. 

"I made a promise to the people of New Hampshire that if elected I would do everything I could to get us out of Iraq and responsibly end this war.  This vote delivers on that.  Without leadership from the White House, we will continue to push for a change of course and a responsible plan to stabilize the Middle East," stated Congressman Hodes. 

While Representative Shea-Porter and Hodes are keeping their promise to change course in Iraq, Sen. Sununu has voted four times this year to back George Bush's open-ended commitment to policing a civil war.  Just this week, a USA Today/Gallup Poll showed that more than 70% of Americans favor removal of almost all U.S. troops from Iraq by April 2008. 

"The President's Iraq report shows that neither Iraq nor the President have succeeded in meeting any of the benchmarks. However, we only had to read the newspaper headlines on Thursday to see that al-Qaida is stronger, the that CIA reports that the Iraqi government is irreversibly unstable, and that once again the President's strategy has failed. While the President is determined to follow his reckless policy, the Congress will continue to pursue a responsible road map out of Iraq," said Representative Shea-Porter.

"Actions speak louder than words, and so far Republican Senators, like Sununu, have been more committed to protecting the President than protecting our troops," said New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Raymond Buckley.  "By standing shoulder to shoulder with President Bush and continuing to rubberstamp his failed stay the course strategy, Gregg and Sununu have turned their backs on Granite Staters.  Their weakness in the face of President Bush's insistence on bullying his way through this stands in stark contrast with the strong leadership from Rep. Shea-Porter and Hodes who are keeping their promise to force the President to responsibly redeploy our forces from Iraq."

###

Rep. Carol Shea- Porter at St. Anselm's Thursday evening 2/22

by: d.walderich

Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 10:48:19 AM EST

Let's let the Union Leader know that our representative has the resounding support of the majority of her constituents.

See you at St. A's on Thursday evening at 7 p.m.

Denise Walderich
Goffstown Democrat

Star Power

by: hannah

Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 17:05:40 PM EST

From The Hill:

New Hampshire, Iowa freshmen enjoy brighter spotlight and higher profile
By Sam Youngman

The four freshman lawmakers from Iowa and New Hampshire enjoy a little more attention from political heavyweights just by virtue of having campaigned successfully in states famous for their early presidential contests.