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
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.
Kathy Sullivan had a great post on this earlier today, but I wanted to take a second and talk about Kelly Ayotte's statement this morning that taking drilling in New England "off the table" would be a "huge mistake."
It was unbelievable, especially as millions of gallons of oil continue to pollute Gulf waters and coastlines
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.
I thought the best way we could honor Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's slavery-free declaration of Confederate History Month would be to highlight our role in the Great Rebellion.
New Hampshire Governor Ichabod Goodwin to the General Court, 5 June 1861:
Turns out, it wasn't the Tea Party. The small rally was organized by the Massachusetts-based white supremacist group North East White Pride.
"The Citizens Alliance seems like they were in error," said former Democratic Party chairwoman Kathleen Sullivan, who had called on local Tea Party-affiliated candidates to denounce the rally.
END UPDATE.
Shouting down the health care reform vote that will benefit working class families and small businesses all across the country isn't the only teabagger activity of choice today. Here in New Hampshire, people passing by the State House earlier today were treated to the "Don't Tread on Me Flag" flag flying proudly beside a "White Pride" banner.
While I won't bother to link to this racist material here, I did a quick search and it is, indeed, White Pride Day. Given the activities in DC over the weekend, how fitting that members of the group in New Hampshire should expose some of the real basis for their opposition to our country's leadership.
Staffers from NH Citizens Alliance caught this story today when they looked out their office window and saw the signs on display. Director Sarah Chaisson Warner issued an immediate rebuke, calling the behavior "disturbing" and "unpatriotic". She also stated:
"The elected officials and candidates in New Hampshire who have frequently spoken at Tea Party events and curried favor with them should quickly condemn this growing and disrespectful behavior before more damage is done."
Update: 3/15/10 from New Hampshire Freedom to Marry. The numbers to-date are: 88 towns and all 13 NH cities refused to take up the issue in the first place, while 70 towns that did voted against the anti-equality warrant article. 88 + 13 + 70 = 171 (73%) of New Hampshire's 234 cities and towns stand for equality. If you calculated this based on population, the percentage would be even higher.
Equality wins the popular vote with seventy towns having already rejected the anti-gay resolution. "Once again the people of New Hampshire have spoken and said we believe in equality and individual liberties and we do not believe in amending our constitution to take away peoples rights" said Mo Baxley, Executive Director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry.
Here is a list of seventy towns that rejected the resolution. This list does not include 88 of New Hampshire's 231 towns and all of New Hampshire's 13 cities that refused to take the issue up.
These results are totally consistent with UNH Survey Center polling that demonstrates 74% of New Hampshire citizens are not bothered by marriage equality. Opponents of equality having failed miserably in their effort. They have failed to reach a simple majority of New Hampshire voters let alone the 2/3 necessary.
You know, sometimes it's great to be wrong. Last week I was feeling gloomy after the first set of New Hampshire towns voted overwhelmingly for the non-binding petition ("warrant article") that asked their state legislators to put an anti-marriage equality constitutional amendment on the statewide ballot. Although most towns voting on March 9th did pass the bigoted article, I incorrectly extrapolated that result to the entire state. How happy I am today to read that, as we factor in the results from towns that had town meeting yesterday, March 13th, 77% of New Hampshire towns and cities have rejected the call to put discrimination into their constitution!
Final numbers have yet to be posted, but here are the stats to-date:
According to the Union Leader, 133 of the New Hampshire's 221 towns had the anti-marriage article in their town hall warrant. This means that, from the start, 88 of New Hampshire's towns refused to take the issue up in the first place. That's almost 40% of towns that couldn't muster the few dozen people needed to sign a petition to place the anti-equality article on the warrant.
None of New Hampshire's 13 cities entertained the question at all.
During earlier deliberative sessions, 15 towns amended their anti-equality warrants, rendering them meaningless or turning them into pro-equality statements.
Of the 133 towns voting on it, the warrant article's sponsor reports that it passed in its original hate-mongering form in 53 towns and failed in 43 towns (23 towns via direct vote and 20 towns via tabling).
Passing the article in only 53 towns out 234 towns and cities means that barely 23% of New Hampshire's towns and cities voted to put discrimination in New Hampshire's constitution. In other words, 77% of towns and cities rejected institutionalized bigotry. This is a resounding failure for the anti-equality activists because 2/3 of voters are needed to ratify an amendment to the New Hampshire constitution. Clearly, when the New Hampshire House in February voted against the marriage equality repeal bill, and voted against the anti-equality constitutional amendment bill, they were quite faithfully representing their constituents.
Was this all really just about marriage? Dean Barker adds this perspective:
The bottom line is: if this were an actual vote on a binding constitutional amendment, it would have been hugely unsuccessful. But let's be clear on what this really is - the first effort from the state GOP to scare up social issue voters for November. Being bankrupt of ideas, and peddling the same economic policies that brought us to the brink when they were in charge, they've got to GOTV somehow.
Below are reports from some of the town meetings held on Saturday, March 13th, as reported in the blogs and online Sunday papers.
Update: Just wondering if NOM will also admit they were wrong in prematurely stating that "New Hampshire Voters WANT a Vote ON Marriage".
As Jim Splaine is quick to remind us, political support, like many things, swings on its own pendulum. Clearly, after two strong elections in a row, and staring at a mid-term in which the minority party typically makes gains, all signs point to a challenging election year.
It would be foolish and counterproductive to ignore that tendency. But on the other hand, it is equally unwise simply to assume New Hampshire is forever in a state of competitive swing between the parties. The larger trend, one that played out in the Nineties as well as the Naughts, is a shift away from a reliably red state, to a true swing zone, to one, perhaps based on long-term demographic changes, leaning to the left.
Gallup released its 2009 state-by-state party ID polling today. Predictably, it showed some ground being lost from the year previous (though, interestingly, one point less ground lost than all the states bordering us). Here are the years I was able to track down from Gallup:
This will be a tough year in which to hold on to seats. Democrats in office, thanks to the jobless recession, may pay the price for the disastrous economic policies put into place from Reagan onward and in full flower under W.
But that said, there is every reason to fight, and fight hard, for every vote. As our demographics change, we are slowly becoming, imho, more and more like Vermont and Maine in our politics. And at the moment, our party ID still gives us a significant edge.
Among the states most likely to "lose" are Delaware, Nebraska, and New Hampshire as well as the District of Columbia. Each of these states has a relatively lower-than-average proportion of uninsured residents, and each would fall in the "High Cost" category under either of the financing options.
We're among the biggest losers regardless of whether the financing is done via the House's plan of taxing the wealthy, or the Senate's plan, the one Obama prefers, of taxing Cadillac plans the middle class.
And, of course, the cherry on top:
The overall pattern therefore shows a curious alignment: States with the most to gain under health care reform are overwhelmingly represented by Republicans, while those states likely to do worse are much more likely to have Democratic senators.
A memo to New Hampshire and Maine politicians: While it doesn't appear the Census Bureau's 2009 population estimates suggest the state will lose a U.S. House seat soon, it could be another story 10 years from now, a prominent demographer says.
"If this pattern of extremely low growth continues, it would not surprise me at all if we lost one of the congressional seats in 2020," said Peter Francese, a demographic forecaster with the New England Economic Partnership. "I think both states are vulnerable."
..."The U.S. as a whole is growing at approximately 1 percent per year," he said. "The last time I looked, New England was growing at approximately 1/10th of 1 percent per year."
But before you get too worked up:
"Not in my lifetime," [Clark Bensen, the founder of Polidata] said of the chance that either state could lose a House seats.
On a more fundamental level, what does our aging population mean for New Hampshire as a whole? What challenges will it offer, and how do we need to modify what we do to thrive?
There's cold. There's New Hampshire cold. And then there's New Hampshire cold in January when even for a boy from Boston, it was freezing. I still remember how incredibly bitterly cold it was the Saturday before the primary in 2004 (yes, more than five years later, I still am warming up.) I was there working for the Kerry campaign, and we were doing a series of events to promote John. As I stood listening to his speech I noticed that one of the people who braved the bitter cold to attend the event that morning was a New Hampshire man in his 50's. With him was his 10-year old son. He had a notebook and listened intently to what Senator Kerry had to say. After our event, I spoke with him and learned that father-son team planned to go hear Senator Edwards speak, and then Governor Dean. The father was both making up his mind by listening to each of the candidates' views, and teaching his son a powerful lesson in fulfilling his duties as citizen of the United States of America. For anyone who has asked me since what I think about New Hampshire having the first primary, I always tell this story because, to me, they deserve to have it.
(From the candidate himself. - promoted by Jennifer Daler)
I want to take this opportunity to offically announce that I am running for Congress in NH-02. While I am sure that this does not come as a surprise to those of you on Blue Hampshire, it seemed like the right time to make this official.
I have been listening to people across the district for the past several months. Their message has been clear; if they have jobs, they are worried about keeping them. If they don't have jobs, they are worried about providing for their families. Everyone is worried about healthcare; what Congress will pass and how it will change their lives.
I am running for Congress because I share these fears, and I know what it takes to be the voice that working families need.
I have been fighting these fights in the New Hampshire House for the past 4 terms (7+ years). In fact, I have been fighting for working families my entire adult life: as a social worker, a firefigher and a State Representative.
As a State Representative, I have been successful in passing legislation both as a member of the minority and the majority. More than 30% of the bills I have submitted have been signed into law. I have been involved with several important pieces of healthcare legislation including Michelle's Law and the NH Rx Advantage, that I co-sponsored with Senator Larsen.
I share the growing concerns that Americans have about our involvement in Afghanistan.
The one thing that you will find about me is that I am not afraid to take a clear stance on the issues. Some will agree with me, some will disagree, but I look forward to a full discussion of the issues that are on the minds of voters across the district.
I will not reprint my enire statement here, but I invite you to read the press release and my full statement.
This visual bomb of the dysfunction of our state revenue system brought to you via this study (.pdf) (h/t here).
The bottom 20% of earners in New Hampshire give 8.3% of their income to the state.The top 1% of earners gives 2.0%.
This is the definition of a regressive taxation system. Dude, where's my tea party protest?
Adding: In Vermont, by way of a regional example, the bottom 20% and top 1% of earners both give a little over 8 cents of every dollar earned to the state (8.2% & 8.4%, respectively).
That's what I had to do last Saturday to get an H1N1 vaccine for someone I know in a high risk group.
With no guarantee, after all that time waiting in the windy, thirty degree cold at the other end of Vermont, that they wouldn't run out of doses before we got in the door.
I'm not always a fan of pols publicly promoting their disdain on every fresh scandal. But I am very glad Paul Hodes is out in front seeking answers for that maddening sweetheart Wall St. vaccine deal (email release):
"While New Hampshire families face uncertainty over whether there will be enough vaccines for them, it is intolerable that Wall Street executives move to the front of the line. The H1N1 vaccines should be distributed to those who need it the most, not those who have already benefited from billions of dollars in taxpayer assistance."
Northern New England tends to be similar in so many respects.
H1N1 vaccine availability? Not so much.
Check out Maine's extensive chart of impending public clinics throughout their state. Or Vermont's database of the same, searchable by town, date, or county.
We have zero public clinics in the works at this time. Here's the latest (evening of 11/1) from the great Granite State:
Based on the current H1N1 Influenza A vaccine allocation to the State of New Hampshire and New Hampshire's Vaccine Distribution Plan, the following people are eligible to receive the H1N1 Influenza A vaccine through their personal health care providers: (10/15/09)
* Health Care Workers and First Responders with direct patient contact
* Pregnant women
* Children 6 months to 5 years with chronic medical conditions for which the available vaccine is appropriate
Additional population groups will be added to this list as more vaccine comes into the state.
Note the date in the blockquote: that info hasn't been updated in over two weeks' time.
A few days ago, Forbes investigated the H1N1 vaccine disparities throughout the states. At 45 doses per 1000 citizens, it turns out New Hampshire has the 7th worst stats in the nation. And why?
Tom Skinner, a spokesman for the CDC, says that the variation reflects the planning efforts in different states. Some may have waited to order the vaccine until they decided precisely how it would be distributed, while others requested their allotments early.
So if the CDC isn't spinning (and I have no way of knowing), we were slower to order it than most of the US.
At my age, my circle of friends includes lots of families with small children. Now, we Granite Staters are a hardy bunch, and are accustomed to frugality almost as a point of pride. But we're also reality-based, and the number of incidents of H1N1 relative to other years is obvious to anyone who can eyeball a graph.
I hope in the next few weeks this basically becomes a non-issue. But for the past month or so, it's been frustrating.
James Pindell's latest column for NH Magazine takes on that sacred NHGOP myth, and busts it up a little:
[New Hampshire] is directly linked to Boston commerce and sports teams and culture. The state's population growth, while slowing, is the biggest in New England. Politically, the once reliable Republican state is changing, but in an odd way where natives are voting more Democratic and it's the newbies settling on the southern border who are helping preserve the GOP tradition.
All of these underlying feelings had the chance to emerge in our politics last year. The Republican candidate for governor felt there was a sense of fear that the state was changing as Democrats in charge of the Statehouse pushed for higher spending and more liberal social policies. He came up with the campaign theme: "Keep New Hampshire, New Hampshire."
He got crushed come election time. But, really, what does he know? He was born in Massachusetts.
While the reality of voter identification as it relates to region and natives v. non-natives is different from the prevailing myth, it has received precious little attention in the press.
Who needs Republicans when you have a Villager press that is so desperate for a horse-race that they sum up the Granite State in a tidy package like this:
Can The GOP Take Back The House?
...Next year, New Hampshire is likely to be an all-out battlefield. The Senate race will probably pit Democratic representative Paul Hodes against former state attorney general Kelly Ayotte (other potential GOP candidates include lawyer Ovide Lamontagne, publisher Sean Mahoney, and country-club owner Bill Binnie). The governor's race is not yet competitive. Republican Charlie Bass, who represented the 2nd District for six terms before losing to Hodes in 2006, is likely to run for his old seat, and Manchester mayor Frank Guinta looks strong against Democratic representative Carol Shea-Porter in the 1st District.
I'm sure a careful analysis of NH-02 voting demographics went into play when plastering the BassMaster up in the Take Back the House! billboard. Back in Reality Land, I don't even think he can win his shrinking CD2 base against talk radio Republican Jennifer Horn for the nomination.
Below is a press release I received today from the NHDP. Why does Sununu continue to trash the Granite State? To me, that strategy seems likely to fail...
PORTSMOUTH HERALD: John H Sununu Continues His "I hate N.H. tour" Republican State Chair & former governor continues to ignore reality, insult the Granite State
Concord-Republican State Committee Chairman and former Governor John H Sununu continued his "I hate NH tour" yesterday. Despite a long record of raising taxes, deficit spending, and fiscal irresponsibility as governor, Sununu continued his reckless and duplicitous rhetoric on the responsible and balanced budget recently passed by the Democrats.
"John H Sununu should stop playing politics with the state budget," said Mike Brunelle, executive director of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. "When he was governor, spending increased by an average of 22% per biennium. He raised taxes, left our budgets in deficit, and used one-time money on several occasions to cover for his fiscal irresponsibility.
"When it comes to passing responsible, transparent, and balanced budgets, John H Sununu has no credibility," continued Brunelle.
In fact, the balanced budget recently passed by Democrats made significant cuts, including unfunding 200 state positions, continuing the freeze on purchases, and closing five court houses and the Laconia state prison. And the Democrats, under Governor John Lynch's leadership, did so while keeping taxes low. According to the Tax Foundation, the tax burden in New Hampshire is actually the 4th lowest in the nation.
Given Sununu's hypocritical comments on the budget and record of raising taxes, it's no surprise that the only plan the Republican Party has offered is a back door property tax that would have led to the largest increase in local taxes in the history of New Hampshire. Over 40% of the budget is aid to cities and towns. Under the GOP proposal, state assistance would have been cut by 13%, robbing municipalities of over 200 million dollars that is used to fund schools and invest in first responders.
"Saddling property owners with the burden of balancing the state budget when they are hurting the most is not only irresponsible it's just plain wrong," said Brunelle. "Sununu and the Republicans in the state house should say what they want to cut, instead of just launching attacks from the sidelines."
You will not be surprised to see that the other New England states show higher approvals, given how recently we left "swing state" status compared to them (Gallup lists us as "Solid Dem," something I still have a hard time acknowledging).
Maine is at 66%, Rhode Island 70%, Connecticut 71%, Massachusetts 73%, and Vermont 74%.
Of note: "competitive" North Dakota exceeds us by one point at 63%. And in only two states, Alaska and Wyoming, is POTUS job approval under 50%.
When FiveThirtyEight's Nat Silver writes about the National Republican Party, his words work just as well as a perfect description of my very favorite Zero-Population-Growth reject John Sununu the Elder:
Big Papi Sununu is nothing more than a grumpy, searching, direction-less, leadership-deficient, infighting naysayer offering no new ideas, too much feigned outrage, and opposition largely for opposition's sake - all as he steadily loses his grasp on the attentions and imaginations of New Hampshire voters...
