Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
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
Tuck demolished the various falsehoods in Facebook Governor Sarah Palin's endorsement of Kelly Ayotte, and I've highlighted this particular one, but here is some more context from NARAL that is worth mentioning:
Her description of anti-choice Senate candidate Kelly Ayotte's record requires clarification. When endorsing Ayotte, Palin wrote that, as attorney general, Ayotte "battled all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the rights of New Hampshire parents - and won!" Well, that statement is a surprise to the Supreme Court justices who voted to send Ayotte's case back to a lower court. In short, she didn't win. She didn't even come close.
Furthermore, the law in question was repealed by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers in New Hampshire about a year after Ayotte failed to make her case before the Supreme Court.
Of course, Sarah Palin's endorsement has nothing to do with principles or ideology and is all about Sarah Palin looking out for herself and her 2012 chances in key primary states.
But did Palin just hurt Kelly Ayotte's general election chances?
Ayotte's stridently anti-choice record and positions have taken a back seat for much of this race. But Palin just put them front and center.
This might help Ayotte stave off Bill Binnie's momentum for the Republican primary, but it could seriously kneecap her chances against Paul Hodes if she makes it to nominee status. And I say that leaving aside the net negative of a Palin endorsement per se among undeclared voters.
New Hampshire is a solidly pro-choice state. How solidly? In 2005, when SurveyUSA polled all fifty states on the "pro-life v. pro-choice" question, a whopping 67% of Granite Staters surveyed self-identified as "pro-choice". Only Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont had higher percentages than that.
It'll be interesting watching a nominee Ayotte try to thread that needle. I don't think she can.
Well, Diaper Man Dave Vitter, Republican Senator from Louisiana, is at the center of yet another controversy involving women, this time regarding a former aide who was arrested for violence against a woman.
Furer was arrested for attacking a girlfriend with a knife in 2008, but Vitter nevertheless kept him on staff for two years until the altercation was publicized, at which point he was ousted, supposedly for failing to disclose unrelated DUI charges.
Then it came out that Furer was Vitter's "point man" on woman's issues. How interesting. Vitter denied this (bold and parentheses mine):
Vitter faced the press again -- this time in Alexandria, where reporters again asked him why Furer's portfolio included women's issues. According to Vitter, "he [Furer] handled issues including abortion issues, including several other issues, but not women's affairs."
This revealing comment, comes from a so-called "family values" hypocrite who impeached President Clinton over Monica Lewinsky, all the while cavorting with prostitutes who were forced to diaper him as part of his sex play. The other fetishes mentioned in the post linked to above can only be surmised.
We're talking about, among other things, Diaper Fetishism. That's right folks, according to a trusted inside source, Vitter was well known among other Canal Street Brothel patrons to like diapers as well as other bizarre "fetishes"
Here is a press release from Vitter's website.
U.S. Sen. David Vitter today announced that he plans to use every procedural tool under his senatorial rights to filibuster, "hold" or block the Freedom of Choice Act from moving forward in the Senate. FOCA has not yet been introduced in the 111th Congress, but U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer authored a version of FOCA in the 110th Congress.
"The new make-up of this Democratic Congress and the Obama administration are much friendlier to abortion advocates," said Vitter. "I plan on making sure that the views of the many Americans who find this practice to be abhorrent are represented and to raise awareness about all the facts related to this expansive abortion legislation before it is quickly passed into law."
It is very telling about the real motives fueling many in the anti-choice movement. It has nothing to do with "saving babies", if that were its concern, US child and maternal health wouldn't be as bad as it is. The real motives in Vitter's case have to do with personal issues (I'll leave the diaper thing to Dr. Freud) and the desire to control women.
Over the past six months, my opponents have constantly reminded me of how crucial this race is. Whether it's a woman's right to choose or a family's right to affordable health care - they've shown us time and time again what we all stand to lose if Kelly Ayotte, Bill Binnie, or Ovide Lamontagne wins.
Earlier this morning, after a great pancake breakfast with more than 200 supporters, I officially filled out the paperwork to become a Democratic candidate for the US Senate.
I want to thank those of you who joined me this morning at the Statehouse. Not only was it a truly humbling show of support for Peggo and me, but it was also a great sign of things to come as we get close to November 2.
In a press conference this afternoon, NH's attorney general officially objected to a proposed merger between Manchester's Catholic Medical Center and Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center.
The planned acquisition had raised red flags for a number of patients and advocates on all sides of the issue. The hospitals cited cost-savings for merging governance and consolidating services, but some DHMC patients, along with organizations like NH ACLU and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, raised concerns that the merger would risk depriving women and families access to the reproductive health services, support and education currently provided by Dartmouth. This is because, pursuant to the affiliation agreements, Dartmouth OB/GYNs must comply with religious directives in the provision of clinical care in their offices, facilities and hospital.
In the strange bedfellows of opposition to this bill, Catholic laity also came out strong against the merger in concern that DHMC wouldn't adhere to these same directives.
The interested parties teamed up in support of a House Concurrent Resolution, HCR 30, which urged the AG to fully investigate the proposed transaction. Though HCR 30 passed just last week, NH's Charitable Trusts unit had already started looking into the merger and today the AG's office released its findings.
If we wish to know where candidate for the Republican nomination for US Senate Kelly Ayotte stands on the issue of a woman's right to bodily integrity, aka the "right to choose", we can surmise from present associations and past actions that she is an anti-choice extremist.
Why else take a law that was found unconstitutional over and over again all the way to the US Supreme Court, against the will of the Governor?
Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, who replaced Heed in 2004, appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States over the objections of Benson's successor, Governor John Lynch.
From an article in USA Today (bold mine)
The justices said they would review a lower court decision that struck down New Hampshire's 2003 parental-notification law because it lacked an explicit exception for health emergencies.
In other words, her actions show Ayotte believes it is better for a young woman to die or have permanent damage to her health rather than to be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without special permission. If that isn't extreme, I don't know what is.
Last I looked, New Hampshire was a pro-choice state. And it's a bipartisan position, or at least it was.
Also, it seems palling around with Palin and her ilk in DC was more important to Ayotte than shedding light on the FRM debacle If serving the people of New Hampshire, rather than right wing ideology, is her goal, that would have been a better use of her time, in my opinion.
On Monday, Kelly Ayotte released a statement announcing that she had filed the appropriate paperwork to run for U.S. Senate but neglected to tell anyone why she's running. While it's clear she is interested in advancing her political career, it is very unclear why the people of New Hampshire should support her candidacy without knowing who she is or where she stands on the issues.
As Attorney General, Ayotte was a vocal supporter of President Obama's plan for economic recovery. Just last week, Ayotte publicly endorsed a program to solve cold case crimes which is funded by money from the federal Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In May, Ayotte also released this statement in support the Recovery and Reinvestment Act:
"in times of economic uncertainty and with the potential for increasing crime, we need to continue to support these programs."
Now that she is running for Senate, will she change her position and stand in the way of President Obama's economic recovery plan?
As Attorney General, Ayotte used her role to argue against a woman's right to choose and marriage equality. She took an assault on a woman's right to choose all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. Will Ayotte stand behind her anti-choice past now? Ayotte also filed a court brief to delay marriage equality in California. With polls showing that a majority of Granite Staters support marriage equality, will Ayotte favor equality now?
(Posted by Victoria Bonney, Communications Director at the New Hampshire Democratic Party)
CONCORD-New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Raymond Buckley today released the following statement regarding Kelly Ayotte's filing for U.S. Senate:
"It's troubling that Kelly Ayotte announced her candidacy today without saying a word about why she's running or who she is. With so much at stake, the people of New Hampshire deserve to know where she stands on the issues.
"Does she still support the President's plan for economic recovery? Where does she stand on a woman's right to choose? Is she for or against providing health insurance to the nearly 45 million uninsured in America?
"It's time Kelly Ayotte stop talking about her political ambitions and start talking about the issues."
(Posted by Victoria Bonney, Communications Director at the New Hampshire Democratic Party)
Yesterday, a respected doctor with a national profile was assassinated by a right-wing anti-choice extremist - just as was predicted in that much-attacked DHS report earlier this year. This was substantial news, all over CNN, major national newspapers, even Fox. The Concord Monitor put it on the front page, and their electronic edition has comments up.
If you read the Union Leader online, you might not have heard about it at all. It never appeared on their online edition all day yesterday, and the only appearance today is on the glossy picture that can be found of the physical front page by clicking through a link - and that just references an article on A3, not accessible online. The Union Leader is terrified of giving New Hampshire Republicans a chance to show their disgusting bigoted selves in the public eye.
Attorney General Kelly Ayotte is recommending a review of fetal homicide laws across the country in the wake of a New Hampshire Supreme Court decision that found a 7-month-old fetus killed in a reckless car crash could not be a homicide victim, because the fetus was not "born alive."
Some kids rebel against their parents. My mother hated long hair, and in retribution for thousands of awful pixie cuts with bangs up around my hairline - just in time for class pictures - I grew my hair at age 14, and kept it waist length for years. I was 44 when it occurred to me that I didn't have to hold on to that resentment any more - at which time I cut my hair.
My daughter grew up surrounded by my politics. As a preteen she was constantly dragged off to anti-nuke meetings and demonstrations. She loved the anti-nuke stuff, but became tired of the endless political discussion that began to permeate our lives. Her response was to rebel, and become completely apathetic. (It could have been worse - she could have joined the young Republicans.)
As those of you who are parents of adults know, there is a balance that must be achieved, and sometimes we parents have to know when to back off. As far as I know, my daughter has never voted. When I ran for the NH House, she put one of my signs on her lawn, but I don't think she voted that year. It's become something we don't discuss.
So, it came as a great surprise to me that this morning on the phone, she initiated a political discussion, and asked me about the presidential candidates. She is most interested in choice and health care, so we talked primarily about that. I was biting my tongue nearly in half in an effort not to ask too many questions, when she announced that she was going to register and vote in the upcoming election, and that she wished she were in NH so that she could vote for my friend Carol. To that, all I said was a casual "me, too."
I waited to cheer until AFTER I got off the phone, thereby not damaging my current status as reasonably cool for a parent.
I found this op-ed via Bill Siroty's New Hampshire Newslinks.
The author, Virginia Battles-Raffa, is speaking for many Republicans, at least in the state of New Hampshire. She is obviously saddened and a bit flabbergasted by the shift to the right on social issues.
She compares the religious right to the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The Taliban once required Afghanistan's male citizens to wear a beard based on religious convictions. Our country fought to free their people of that fanatical regime. We criticize China for placing reproductive restrictions on women and Muslim countries for their oppression of women. How can we support legislation that deprives our female citizens of their right to choose? This is a private decision.
She concludes with this:
We are the party that was once led by Abraham Lincoln in his efforts to abolish slavery and support every individual's right to control his or her destiny, regardless of color, creed or sex. I am a Republican, but a woman and a mother first.
We all must realize the potential ramifications of this election, regardless of party affiliation. If the Republican platform continues to support candidates who rally behind legislation that restricts our private choices, then we must choose a candidate who will protect them. If that means voting for a Democratic nominee, then so be it.
After the orchestrated defeat of Rep. Hager in Concord, and other attempts to unseat moderate Republicans in Amherst, it seems the Republican tent is growing smaller and smaller.
Remember Hillary's eleventh hour anti-Obama mailer here on the issue of choice?
Well, it looks like it has caused some blowback. Lorna Brett Howard, former president of Chicago-area NOW, switched from Clinton to Obama over it:
Obviously this is being promoted by Team Obama, so take it for what you will, but it's interesting to me that what goes on here in the final minutes of a hard-fought campaign can nonetheless reverberate far and wide elsewhere in the age of email and YouTube.
There has been a lot of talk on this site today about whether it is appropriate for the Clinton campaign to detail Senator Obama's present votes on choice while in the Illinois legislature. I have said before this issue is critical to me; I remember when abortion was illegal, and I do not want to go back to the days when the government controlled a woman's health care decisions. That is why no matter how you slice it, voting "present" is not acceptable, no matter what the justification - it is a basic issue.
These votes are, to me, a very legitimate issue for discussion. But it is not just me; here is a letter from pro-choice activists across the state supporting Hillary, and questioning Senator Obama's votes:
Hilary's latest salvo against Obama falsely accusing him of being soft on women's reproductive rights is either desperate or despicable. She has now shown herself to be no better than Karl Rove and the Swift Boaters. The information is entirely false and there's a wonderful letter rebutting it that was penneed by a local board member of Planned Parenthood that I'm copying here.
