Archive for New Hampshire

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) holds big lead over Scott Brown (R-Bqhatevwr)

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

scott brown tweet  bqhatevwr

Hey, did you hear the one where Scott Brown of Massachusetts is now pretending to be from New Hampshire so he and his truck can run for the U.S. Senate? He blew it big time when he lost badly in Massachusetts back in 2012. Just ask Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Ooo! Ooo! And remember how Scott Brown was really, really proud to be from Massachusetts? Me too! Ari Melber, take it away:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Now Scott Brown is running against Senator Jeanne Shaheen, and he has fewer than eight months to overcome her double digit lead, as well as convince New Hampshire voters-- to quote former witch, Christine O'Donnell-- "I'm you."

So far this appears to be their resounding response: Bqhatevwr.

Via American Research Group:

If the 2014 election for US Senate were being held today between Scott Brown, the Republican, and Jeanne Shaheen, the Democrat, for whom would you vote - Brown or Shaheen? (names rotated):

chart Jean Shaheen v Scott Brown 2014

Among registered voters who are undecided about how President Obama is doing his job (they account for only 9% of those registered), Shaheen has a huge lead, 73% to Brown's 7% (20% are undecided).

The breakdown goes a little something like this: Brown appeals more to GOP voters and men (Wait, aren't the two synonymous?), but Shaheen is preferred by independents and women.

More here.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

How Embarrassing - Obamacare Works For Former N.H. GOP Chairman

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Obamacare

Sometimes you can't win for losing, or so the old adage goes. And in New Hampshire, Fergus Cullen, the former chairperson of the Republican party, found himself on the short end of the stick -- by winning. How embarrassing is that? And this whole red-faced situation was provoked by that God-awful federal program called Obamacare.

Here's the problem -- the former chair of the New Hampshire Republican Party will save $1,000 a month in premiums for his family's health care package after signing up for a new policy through the federal Obamacare exchange. This sounds good, but how's he going to explain the windfall to his fellow GOP'ers who staunchly oppose the Affordable Care Act because it's bad? If it's found out that it works, then how do the Republicans in the House explain 50+ votes to defund or abolish it?

Have no fear. He's a Republican so he's found a way to spin it -- he's taking the Rumpelstiltskin approach, only backwards. He's going to take gold and spin it into thread. From HUFFPO:

But Fergus Cullen said the savings aren't enough to turn him into a supporter of the new health care law. He said he anticipates higher out-of-pocket costs with his new Anthem-administered plan, and he's frustrated by what he sees as a lack of information about coverage options. His old plan, which was pricey but covered what he needed, was cancelled by his insurer because it didn't meet Obamacare regulations.

It costs less. Covers more. Guarantees he can't be dropped for pre-existing conditions. Can be carried over regardless of his employer. Yes, it sure does seem like Obamacare has it in for Cullen. Poor guy. He's stuck with savings.

He claims he's forced to carry coverage in the new policy that he probably won't be using. True. He favors the À la carte  method of insurance where you buy only what you need. I wonder if that comes with a crystal ball or tarot cards because how do you know what you'll need until that catastrophic and unexpected surprise comes a knockin' on your door?

Now he'll have all that extra money and as a Republican, he'll probably want to see his savings grow. Lucky for him he has the nearby Foxwoods Indian Gaming Casino. He can try his luck there with $1000/month house money. And if he becomes addicted to gambling, he can blame that on Obamacare. Luckily for him psychological and substance addictions are now covered with the Affordable Care Act.

Damn. Maybe they'll just have to change the expression now to "Obamacare-- you just can't lose for winning."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Utah Seeks Political Power By Giving Up 3/4ths Of It

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Salt lake city

Aside from salt and religion, not too much comes out of Salt Lake City -- well, unless you're a Mormon. And most of what I know about being a Mormon I learned from The Book Of Mormon -- the musical. I can't say that lifestyle is for me.

But I don't think that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints members are stupid by any means. They may be horny  (Utah leads the nation in pornographic purchases) but they are pretty savvy as a whole. They number 15 million members world-wide. Yet if they are the motivating factor in this latest scheme to become more relevant in the political world, they may have crested with Mitt Romney and now are walking back from that experiment.

According to The Hill:

In 2016, an unusual state could snatch the coveted first-primary spot away from New Hampshire if its legislature gets its way: Utah

The Utah state House voted overwhelmingly on Monday in favor of a bill that would allow the state to hold its presidential primary a week before any other state in the nation, via an entirely online system, according to the Salt Lake Tribune.

This is quite interesting on a number of levels. First, the primary is to be totally online. Yep, no open polls. Only internet voting. That's pretty progressive if you ask me. The state is 68% Mormon. I just never thought of all of those folks as being so progressive. Actually, the opposite might have been my first thought. I see now that I was wrong. You learn something new every day.

Yet here comes the confusing part. The state wants to up its profile as being politically meaningful. By pushing to become the first state in the nation to hold a primary, a spot normally held by New Hampshire, Utah very well might become more relevant. It could happen. But there's something else that could happen too if they choose to make this move. They'll have to face the wrath of Reince Priebus and the entire RNC.

Currently the state sends 40 delegates to the GOP nominating convention.

If Utah goes through with the change, its 40 GOP delegates to the national convention will be cut down to just nine.

Nine voices for a state that could have 40. That's roughly a 3/4 cut. Does that make them more or less relevant and meaningful or just another small voice at the convention?

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Bad Taste And Contempt For Women - Republicans In New Hampshire

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Republicans

Above is an actual Facebook post by Kyle Tasker. Who? State Rep. Kyle Tasker (R. New Hampshire) and a self-proclaimed domestic violence expert.  He's one of the new breed of Republicans. Raw Story:

The lawmaker [Tasker] posted the image during a discussion on comments made last year by another New Hampshire Republican, Rep. Mark Warden, who suggested that “a lot of people like being in an abusive relationship” during a House panel hearing on domestic violence legislation.

As for his defense of the tasteless and totally uncalled for off-color and offensive post made by another Republican representative, Tasker had this to say:

According to the blog, Miscellany Blue, Tasker laughed when his post was criticized as “grossly inappropriate.”

“Nah,” Tasker said. “I ran it by the [domestic violence] lobbyist [and] she laughed. Now if we went around wearing the T-shirt that wouldn't go over well.”

50,000 battered women tee shirt

There you have it. If you were ever wondering where taste draws the line, it's in tee shirts. And evidently VIP's get a discount. Posting to potentially millions of people on Facebook isn't quite at the tipping point.

Maybe I'm being too tough on Tasker. If you think so, consider this:

In addition to his controversial social media posts, which include suggestions that he must drink alcohol before meeting with Democrats and viral videos that imply black women are unfit mothers, Tasker is probably best known for dropping a handgun during a public safety panel hearing.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

GOP'er Signs Bill Then Calls It A Turd

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

turd

Hokay... now let's do a quick catch up, then boil it all down. But first, I want to go on record as saying I'm not really into name calling, it brings out the bullying in people. But when they name call themselves, then I don't have as much of a problem. Add to that a Republican name-calling his own actions and behavior as 'sh*t,' and though it's not quite champagne, I do get a kick out of it.

via HUFFPO:

A New Hampshire Republican seems to be feeling regret after backing a bill to expand the use of mental health courts, lamenting on Facebook that his "name is attached to this turd."

According William Tucker, writer for the blog miscellany: blue, Rep. Kyle Tasker (R-Nottingham) is one of the sponsors of HB 1442, which would allow circuit and superior courts to establish mental health courts. Those courts could lead to treatment for mentally ill, nonviolent offenders rather than incarceration.

Now this house bill in N.H. that Tasker put his name onto sounds like a very fair and compassionate action. After all, mental illness is just that, an illness. It's involuntary and those afflicted don't have the same faculties or abilities to assess and analyze their actions the same was as "sane" folks.

So what's wrong with this bill and Tasker putting his name on it? Logic for one:

But on a Facebook post from Feb. 2 and 3, Tasker commented that "[t]he idea that being crazy is a shield against the full force of the justice system is laughable."

"Crazy people need to face consequences equal or greater than everyone else," Tasker wrote.

"The idea that being crazy is a shield against the full force of the justice system is laughable," he continued. "Texas doesn’t have any problem executing the mentally ill."

"Damn it this is why you need the full language before you sign off on bills like this...now my name is attached to this turd," Tasker said in a separate comment.

A screen grab of his Facebook entry:

KYLE-TASKER-570

So crazy people (Tasker's term, not mine) need equal or GREATER punishment than everyone else? Are you crapping me? One of the great things about our system of justice, flawed as it may be, is that we distinguish between limited or impaired capacity of perpetrators of crimes. Judges and juries must know whether the accused is capable of understanding that they are breaking the law.

Take children for instance. We alter justice for them because of their age and ability to understand right from wrong. Take pornography. If the participants are 18 or older, it's determined they have the ability to understand the consequences of their actions and it's legal. If they are under that age, it's a felony for anyone to have possession of this content.

Now move onto murder even in adults. If a person is not capable of knowing right from wrong, they're not generally punished the same way as a non-crazy person. A defense available is diminished capacities or temporary insanity.  (Personally I think most people who commit murder are temporarily insane but that's another story).

So what's Tasker thinking here? It's certainly outside the norms of jurisprudence. He wants to heap additional burdens on the impaired?

Wait -- he does cite precedent: Texas. They execute the mentally challenged. Caution to Rep. Tasker -- don't visit Texas. You  might get executed because you won't have your diminished mental capacities defense taken into consideration.

Maybe Tasker is a turd. But because of his own words, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's one of the crazy people who deserve special consideration. He's seemingly afflicted with diminished capacities. So his self-proclaimed guilt for backing this bill will be taken into consideration. But this court mandates that he seek and receive mental health care/treatment until such time as he proves to the court that he's capable of sane decision making. Until then, Mr. Tasker, you will , just like your reference to this bill, be referred to as a turd. Smile. You've earned it.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Look Who The GOP Favors In New Hampshire For 2016 Presidential Race

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Ghostbustersw398h203

Does this sound familiar? Courtesy of elyrics.net:

If there's somethin' strange in your neighborhood
Who ya gonna call?
(Ghostbusters!)

If it's somethin' weird an' it don't look good
Who ya gonna call?
(Ghostbusters!)

I ain't afraid o' no ghost
I ain't afraid o' no ghost

Now rejigger or reconcile this with the latest findings of the Purple Strategies Poll reported by the BOSTON GLOBE on January 30, 2014:

Romney Ghost

In a hypothetical 2016 presidential field, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney would be the front-runner in the Granite State GOP primary field, with 25 percent of the vote. Behind Romney are Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, at 18 percent, then New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, at 17 percent, and former Florida governor Jeb Bush, at 13 percent.

At first I had to laugh, then I took a few minutes to digest this and think it through. Mitt's high rating might just be a result of him being a former Massachusetts governor and his familiarity in the region. Add to that his two presidential campaigns in the state in 2008 and 2012. He's spent time there and people know him. Just as they know him all across the country based on his presidential run in 2012 nationally. Whether a punchline to a joke or a Jeopardy answer, "Who blew his election on his 47% comment?", people know who you're talking about.

So what can we read from these tea leaves? In second place is Rand Paul. He's the acorn that didn't fall too far from his father's tree. If Ron Paul couldn't win over his party with some very outrageous contentions and claims, it's unlikely that the Ayn Rand-worshiping Kentucky senator will gain much national attention. Could he gain enough traction to grab the nomination from the right wing conservative or evangelical Republicans who seem to control the GOP's ultimate nomination? Highly unlikely.

Coming in third on this list with plummeting approval ratings is scandal-plagued Chris Christie. With more and more revelations about the New Jersey governor's leadership coming out daily, his chances are fleeting. Either you believe his associates were wreaking havoc without his knowledge which makes him a poor executive or he was actively involved in the scandal, which isn't the quality a party looks for in it's standard bearer. Day by day, the likelihood of a successful Christie run are diminishing.

Then with roughly half the popularity of Romney you find Jeb Bush. He's been out of politics long enough that he can hope that people have forgotten that he's one of "those" Bushes. The big problem for Jeb is he's just a wishy-washy guy. He came out with a book where he proclaims he's all for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented residents and then he does the famous flip-flop and denies that stand despite it being printed in his book. He has nothing but family name to run on and I'm not sure the Republicans are ready to want to defend another Bush presidency. He'll be running away from his family's disastrous tenures in office. It just doesn't seem to be logical, but these are the Republicans I'm writing about. Logic is far down the road of qualifications for doing or saying anything.

So that leaves the hind titty. Those are Sen. Rubio, Gov. Walker, Sen. Cruz and... that's just it. There doesn't seem to be an 'and'.

What makes this most interesting is that New Hampshire is very important -- it's the first presidential primary in the nation . It follows closely on the heels of the Iowa caucuses. Not to cast aspersions on Iowa, but that's a bought and paid for caucus state. It's hardly a bellwether predictor of the ultimate winner of the nomination. Yet New Hampshire has had some success as a forecaster. Romney won there in 2012 and he ended up with his party's nomination. In 2008 McCain won and went on to get the nod. 

Will Mitt make another run for President? He's just rich enough and foolish enough to think he could win this time, "third time's the charm."

So while the Republican party, the party that took four different responses to President Obama's State of the Union speech, continues being a fractured party, there is one constant that they might unite behind. He'll be a bit more conservative this time around, and he's seasoned enough for those GOP voters to consider him viable. He's got the name and face recognition. And he's already putting out feelers. Just last week he was on Jimmy Fallon slow jammin' the news. He wasn't doing that because he loves Jimmy Fallon (or even knew what slow jammin' meant). He's just positioning himself. He's meeting with big investors. He's giving interviews. And his new documentary "Mitt" was just released on Netflix. It was the attempt to make him appear human. I saw it. And surprisingly, it does.

He's ready, willing and able. He's got the infrastructure from the last campaign. And it may just turn out that he gets his third try at the POTUS brass ring. Just sayin'...

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

"Well Shut My Mouth," Scott Brown Is Told In New Hampshire

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Ethan Allen

Well, well, well. Looks like former Senator Scott Brown, defeated by Senator Elizabeth Warren in the last Senate elections in Massachusetts has been stirring up quite a controversy in neighboring state, New Hampshire.

Scott Brown, a Massachusetts resident is about to go carpet bagger. He's planning on running for the US Senate but from the Granite State just north of his legal residence.

People move all the time. Some even do it for political reasons, say, Liz Cheney. There's an election for the senate in Wyoming so she decided to carpet bag herself there to run against Mike Enzi. She doesn't stand a chance, but she needed some place to run and her family does have some tangential connection to the state. Her father was a congressman there before he became Vice President and creator of an illegal war. So perhaps an argument can me made for her choice.

But then you get to Scott Brown. He was once the darling of the Senate, a GOP newbie who had star written all over him, until he opened his mouth and Elizabeth Warren slammed it shut. But you can't keep a determined ex-centerfold nude model down for too long. So he's openly stated his interest in running as the GOP candidate against first-term Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). He's going to do it, take my word for it. And if you want to know my record at predictions like this, I called both Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren's runs six months before they each announced. I'm a New England boy, I know these things in my backyard.

You may be wondering how well the Republican golden boy's future announcement is going over? Not well. Not well at all. But the outspoken opponents are not the Democrats who think he's border jumping just to upset the apple cart. Brown's opposition is coming from his own party. And they're mad.

How mad? If I were Scott Brown I'd start wearing a bullet proof, Kevlar vest.

Huffpo reports:

During an interview with conservative podcast Granite Grok's GrokTalk on Saturday, New Hampshire state Rep. J.R. Hoell (R-Merrimack)suggested that it may some day be necessary to use "firearms and ammo" against the government if its policies continue to be shaped by elected officials like former Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.).

Yikes, that's pretty scary. There's already too much gun violence, so to start putting out hints that guns and ammo might be necessary is outrageous.

Hoell was discussing plans to protest outside a state GOP fundraiser that is scheduled to feature Brown, who is rumored to be considering a run for one of New Hampshire's U.S. Senate seats. Hoell has characterized Brown as too liberal for the state, and accused him of supporting laws that encroach on the Second Amendment. Hoell then invoked the armed uprisings of the Revolutionary War.

Progressive thinking in New Hampshire does go back to the Revolutionary War and Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys. And sadly, that's the last time they had any sort of solid footing alongside contemporary thought or forward thinking. It's been a march backward in time since then.

When asked whether protesters should bring weapons to the rally, Hoell responds: I'm never going to tell a person not to carry a firearm ... I will recommend people carry firearms concealed. Tactically it's a better solution; it doesn't make you out to be a target.

The message needs to get out that Scott Brown does not represent New Hampshire. If things continue the way they are, there may be a day or a time where firearms and ammo are necessary. It happened in the Revolutionary War. I'd like to think we're not there yet, but as things continue to unravel, that may be the next step.

Protestors. Guns. Ammo. Concealed weapons. Targets. Revolutionary War. Firearms. Tactics. New Hampshire. Next step. Does this sound like peaceful discourse to you or a trip back down Memory Lane to 1776?

You can follow me on twitter: @Linzack

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare