NH Dems Shift Far To the Left
Shea-Porter's (D) Leftism Leads the Way for NH DEMs
By Adam C Posted in 2008 — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Fergis Cullin, the NH GOP chair, has an interesting take on the recent shift in NH politics. Kerry won the state in 2004 as the culmination of a long standing shift of the libertarian-leaning state (motto: live free or die) moving toward the Democrats partly because of the increased religiosity of the Republican Party and partly due to the influx of Massachusetts liberals.
In 2006, Democrats won both congressional seats from the Republicans and took both the state house and state senate in landslide. The 2 Republican Senators are now on everyone's shortlist of vulnerable seats.
Shea-Porter's anti-war, activist message was a change from the usual moderate Democratic stance taking by successful NH Democrats. Below, Cullin explains the effect of her win in 2006 on the state's left wing and Democratic Party.
Shea-Porter's victories were watershed moments that emboldened and empowered the left wing of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. Democratic activists looked at her successes and concluded that no longer do New Hampshire Democrats need to pose or act as centrists. Why go slow? Why seek incremental change? Why compromise for half a loaf when they want the whole thing? The party defined for a decade by Shaheen's cautious centrism gave way to a party embracing Shea-Porter's liberalism.
In Washington, Shea-Porter settled immediately on her party's left flank, even voting against funding New Hampshire soldiers serving in harm's way overseas while moderate Democrats from other states voted to support the troops.
Fellow freshman Rep. Paul Hodes, given cover by Shea-Porter, has tallied a virtually identical liberal voting record. No politically expedient rush to the middle for either of these two.
In Concord, Gov. John Lynch and the seasoned Democratic legislators who lead both houses found the tail wagging the dog as more than 100 freshmen Democrats who have never known life in the minority voted for every left-wing bill introduced. The Democrats increased state spending by 16 percent while raising taxes. They redefined marriage by adopting civil unions and allowed minor children to have abortions without their parents ever finding out their daughter became pregnant.
House Democrats passed a $250 fine on the release of helium balloons, voted to legalize hemp, nearly legalized marijuana, and voted to require seatbelt use. They told private businesses what their smoking policy must be and attempted to regulate how food is cooked in their kitchens. (These measures failed to pass the Senate.)
When given a chance to strike moderate compromises, the Concord Democrats refused. On parental notification, a compromise would have been to amend the old law to address the court's concerns, not repeal it. On civil unions, a compromise would have been to study the issue and hold hearings, then campaign on the issue next year and let the voters decide. And of course House Democrats shot down a compromise education funding amendment, ignoring the pleas of their party's governor and the good-faith efforts of Republican leaders.
New Hampshire could be a model for a new age of Republican politics. It could be a leader in the school choice movement, the Tax Payer Bill or Rights (TABOR) efforts, and an example of market-oriented health care reform. Hopefully, the NH GOP is able to counter sooner rather than later. The GOP can ill afford to lose two of the remaining 4 Northeastern GOP Senators (the other 2 being from ME).
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | PA-04: Lynn Swann (R) to the rescue? — Comments (4) »
NH Dems Shift Far To the Left 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
partly due to the influx of Massachusetts liberals.
Are we talking about retired, wealthy lefties here? Pensioners, who have a steady stream of income? Or, is there a stream of liberals who commute daily to/from workplaces in the Bay State? Did liberal-friendly companies move into the Granite State, and in so doing sow the seeds of good wages and job opportunities that have gives us this bumper crop of liberal voters?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Over the last decade, many major employers have moved here to southern NH for tax advantages. Many of their employees relocated to NH from states like MA to avoid having to pay state income tax since NH has none.
Fergis Cullin, the NH GOP chair, has an interesting take on the recent shift in NH politics. Kerry won the state in 2004 as the culmination of a long standing shift of the libertarian-leaning state (motto: live free or die) moving toward the Democrats partly because of the increased religiosity of the Republican Party and partly due to the influx of Massachusetts liberals.
Like most Republican "leaders" these days, Mr. Cullin is out of touch with the voters. I've lived in New Hampshire for twenty-five years and I have seen the changes firsthand.
Mr Cullin claims that a move by libertarian's toward the Dems was due to "an increase in religiosity of the Republican Party". I'd loved to know where he got that idea from? As if our motto "live free or die" means that most of us are libertarians. The fact is this state has been Republican for years and has trended otherwise for a variety of reasons. Chief of which (which he claims is only part of the reason) is an influx of Massachusetts liberals. We here in the north country call the southern part of the state "Massachusetts North." For decades now "Flatlanders" (that's what we call them) have fled Massachusetts for NH because of low real estate prices (past tense), low taxes (no income tax) and relative peace and quiet. For some reason, after fleeing Mass because it is anything but that, they are now turning NH into a carbon copy of the state they fled from!
Also, because Republicans became complacent--coupled with the fact that most here have a very low opinion of GWB and his running of the war-- and you can understand why change occurred.
What about senators Gregg and Sununu? My guess is that they are gone no matter what they do. Like GWB, their base is deserting them because both of them are turning into RINO's because of the state trending liberal. So why would Mass. liberals vote for them when they can have the real thing? Kiss NH good-bye, Republican Party!
that led them to not really try to hard to create any kind of coherent message.
I can say one thing around here (Lakes Region) that has hurt the GOP is the war in Iraq, but there have been a lot of rumblings from the people that voted in the democrats last November at the state level over some of the far left/nanny state type laws they have either passed or tried to pass. I am not sure that the dislike for a war that a state legislature has no control over will carry the democrats much further at the state level, if they keep it up-at least not in this area, but what happens South and East of here is another thing.
I do think the GOP needs to do everything it can to support Sununu in '08 and Gregg when he comes up for reelection. Sununu's survival has a lot to do with what democrat is chosen to run against him-but he sure enough isn't going to have an easy time of it, and even if he works his tail off he may not survive the election, which would be a real shame. Iraq can still hurt him, I am not so sure people are going to listen too much longer to campaigns built around Iraq at the state level though.
Call me crazy, but I don't see "increased religiosity" as a central feature of this op-ed at all...
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070623/FOSTERS05/106...
Since when was there any "increase in religiosity of the Republican Party?" That is nonsense! If there has been any change at all, it is a decrease in "religiosity" of their opponents, especially young voters. The liberals in the media just made that up.
the GOP candidates were voting against the war-I didn't hear a single person say anything about the GOP being too religious or whatever-around here it was all about the war. NH in general I find just really isn't that much behind the war efforts, and they blame the GOP for it at all levels.
I do think the democrats and the media work really hard to paint the GOP is a bunch of religious kooks, and to some degree they have succeeded-it serves them well to have the boogyman of the "religious right" because it has pretty much no real definition, and can mean anything they want it to mean, whenever they go looking for boogeymen to blame.
NH is a small state, easily reached and populated by leftys. Its current populace doesn't sound like the kind of people who normally favor school choice or decentralized government. Maybe they once were, but not anymore.
I'm sorry if this means we're likely to lose two more Senate seats to the Dems---but what can we do about it? I mean, these people are raising taxes on themselves, and the population seems to be screaming for more. I suppose that the typical NH citizen makes enough money so he/she can afford to be taxed more.
If NH turns out to be a regular competitor with VT for the title of "Berkeley of the Northeast," then perhaps it's best for the GOP to write it off. Focus instead on states where more moderates (and fewer kooks) live and thrive. PA, OH and NJ come most easily to mind.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)