To The Daily Sun,
First to respond to Mr. Hoyt. Sounds like you're not the distorted progressive liberal I had you pegged for. After all, you voted for the last "almost great" president this nation had .... that would be Ronald Reagan. Recently traveled to Simi Valley to visit his presidential museum and it is amazing. I'm afraid BO would never understand the Americana contained within those buildings.
Anyway Jon, I'm not the far-right freak you may think I am. I'm very smart politically and will tell you that for 52 months out of George Bush's 96 months in office, he ran a good show. Then, the Bush/Cheney duo just turned awful. Believe me I was their biggest critic. Did they open a can of worms? You bet they did.
You stated if I've wondered why so many vets are becoming Democrats over Republican? Not aware of that Jon and haven't met one yet. Where are your facts and figures? Perhaps a little presumptuous on your part?
Also, your not aware if people complained about Carter. What? Oh, come on Jon, now your making yourself sound foolish. And, because FDR was elected to office four times makes the policies he spewed correct? He got into office past eight years because there was a war going on and the American public was scared and feared changing horses in the middle of the stream. Period. FDR did good and harm to this country. Don't even go there with me.
In closing, I must comment on one of your followers (I presume). That would be Bernadette Loesch and her list. Not bad Bernadette, despite 90 percent of what you report is completely incorrect. Here's my advice for you. Try reading and thinking about Tony Boutin's article as well as Steve Earle and George Dengal articles. I know it's difficult, but think seriously about what they say. Also, watch Fox News for a change, you just might learn something.
Last Updated on Monday, 06 October 2014 10:29
To The Daily Sun,
Just a quick note to clear up one little thing. Marty Valengavich decided that when Bush spoke of WMD in Iraq he was referring to nukes. Absurd. If Marty had done any research he would have learned that there are three classes of WMDs: chemical, biological and radiological.
Glad to help with your belated education Marty, no need to thank me.
Last Updated on Monday, 06 October 2014 10:25
GREENLAND — Some are calling the contest a "three-match." For the third time Democrat Carol Shea-Porter will face Republican Frank Guinta in the state's 1st Congressional District contest this fall.
In 2010, Guinta unseated Shea-Porter. In 2012, Shea-Porter returned the favor. In 2014, the race is so close recent polls show the race tied.
Of the 435 contests for the U.S. House this is the only one in the country that is a three-match. This means that for voters in Manchester, the Lakes Region and the Seacoast, who vote in this district it is deja vu all over again — and again.
Many ask if these two are really the best the area can up with. After all, if you believe the polls, neither are particularly well liked. But focusing on just these two misses the bigger picture. To understand why this is happening you also must mention others, namely President Barack Obama and two guys named Andrew Hosmer and Dan Innis.
The Shea-Porter versus Guinta match-up, after all, is the product of the current state of American and New Hampshire politics. To boil it all down, the reason we have these candidates a third time is that neither one can be defeated in a primary and then in the general election. They either ride the political wave in or out.
It is a pattern of sorts even for New Hampshire. A University of Minnesota political scientist found that since the 1850s one of out of five Congressional races in the Granite State were rematches. It has been 50 years since the last "three-match" took place in the state.
David Wasserman, a House race expert for the Cook Political Report, said "it's logical" Shea-Porter and Guinta decided to mount comebacks.
"They know well that their prospects depend more on the pendulum of the national environment and turnout than their own campaigns and personal qualities," Wasserman said.
This is where Andrew Hosmer and Dan Innis come in. Hosmer, now a Democratic state Senator from Laconia, thought he could challenge Shea-Porter in her Democratic primary after she lost in 2010. He even got some political luck during his short lived primary against Shea-Porter: Portsmouth's Joanne Dowdell, another female progressive ran and possibly splitting Shea-Porter's base. In the end, Shea-Porter had such huge appeal among those who bother to vote in our state's low turnout primaries, she could not be beat. This point became so obvious that Hosmer and Dowdell dropped out of the race before they even got their names on the ballot.
In September, Guinta had an opponent for his Republican primary, facing off against Innis, the former University of New Hampshire business school dean. But among the most active base voters, Guinta was their choice for a third primary in a row.
In this way the Congressional politics in New Hampshire is not all that different from Congressional politics everywhere else, where all that really matters are the primaries. Over decades, partisans drew up Congressional districts meant to advantage one party or the other. In Republican district, for example, all that matters is winning the primary, because the general election is no contest. The same concept is true about Democratic districts. This is part of the reason why American politics has become so polarized: For the U.S. House candidates there is no incentive to play to the political center.
Though both of New Hampshire's Congressional districts are relatively evenly split between the parties, which does make them unique. But this means they are also more susceptible to the national political swings.
This is where Obama comes in. When Obama was popular locally like in 2008 and 2012, Shea-Porter, the Democrat, won. When he wasn't so much, like in 2010, Guinta won. Guinta is hoping that Obama's low approval ratings will help him again this year.
Here is the crazy thing: if Guinta does win in November, odds are that he will face Shea-Porter again in 2016.
(James Pindell covers New Hampshire politics for WMUR. You can follow his breaking news and analysis at WMUR.com/politicalscoop.)
Last Updated on Monday, 06 October 2014 10:21
To The Daily Sun,
A recent letter the editor by a Mr. Hackmann giving a glowing recommendation of Senator Hosmer was based on events before he and his family arrived in the state. So let me pass on some relevant facts.
Number one fact, the 2011-2012 Legislature assumed office facing a tremendous budget hole of $800 million left to us when the prior Democratic Legislature overspent and even bonded operating expenses. Our states recent credit reduction is, in fact, a direct result of that lingering debt load the Democrats gave the state.
And perhaps where Mr. Hackmann came from debt is not an issue, but the New Hampshire Republicans by law had to balance that budget and we did, without bipartisan support. We did what every wise family does. We determined how much we had to spend and spent every dime we had. That alone is what forced the cuts he mentioned to UNH. Not being greedy, or mean, or shortsighted. A pure lack of money. Money that comes from taxpayers by the way.
The state government only can spend what it raises from taxation. The "massive" cuts UNH replaced almost immediately by fundraising from alumni. Just like every other state school (except UNH ) does regularly.
Finally, Mr. H. might want to ask his "education" senator, what cuts he would have made to the budget if he didn't agree with the UNH cuts. Or what taxes would he have raised to pay for them. Only two choices. Remember a finite amount of money existed and we had to correct the $800 million overspending.
Also, ask the education senator why only his kids deserve to attend schools that provide, in his words, a superior education. He voted against allowing lower-income families the same opportunity. Education only matters if you are rich?
Kenneth Kreis, Sr.
Last Updated on Monday, 06 October 2014 10:02
To The Daily Sun,
Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter used to be a gritty populist. While she might have been an extreme liberal that I rarely found common ground with, I'll give credit where credit is due, and can say that at least she wasn't just another Washington D.C., clone, loyal to lobbyists and career politicians.
Sadly though, that isn't the case anymore. Money and power changed Carol Shea-Porter. Now, she is just another pawn of Nancy Pelosi and the big money donors who control Capitol Hill. She votes nearly 100 percent of the time with her party and refuses to be accessible to her constituents with town hall meetings or forums.
I want to be represented by elected officials who care about my thoughts and want to reflect my beliefs. While I understand I might not agree with my congresswoman all of the time, I still deserve a chance to explain to her why I think she is wrong on a particular issue. Washington has change Carol so much that she doesn't even give me that opportunity anymore.
Last Updated on Friday, 03 October 2014 10:13