Press Releases


Entries in Editorial (30)


Garcia For Congress (CD2) - ICYMI: Amnesty? Garcia is against it 



In case you missed it, the New Hampshire Union Leader recently featured this editorial which addresses Gary Lambert’s dishonest claims regarding Marilinda Garcia’s stance on immigration. According to the article:

“In the Republican primary in the 2nd Congressional District, moderate Gary Lambert has been hiding his own lack of substance by misrepresenting Marilinda Garcia's positions.”

The article went on to say “Lambert now charges that Garcia is for amnesty for illegal aliens. He does not know what that means, either. Garcia advocates securing the border and apprehending and deporting those who are streaming over it.

Close observers of this primary are coming to the conclusion that on issue after issue, Gary Lambert has no idea what he is talking about. 

Marilinda Garcia is by far the best candidate in this race. She has the vision, intelligence and integrity to be a great representative in Congress. Republicans will make a big mistake if they let misleading, ignorant attacks deter them from choosing Garcia on Sept. 9.”

To read the full article, please click here.








 In Case You Missed It:
Foster's Daily Democrat: Brown Is On Top Of The Issues

 By Editorial, Foster's Daily Democrat
August 1, 2014

It’s fair to say Scott Brown brings a laser-like focus to the task in front of him. That task is winning the Republican primary race for the United States Senate and the right to challenge Democratic incumbent Jeanne Shaheen.

During our hour-long editorial board meeting with Brown Wednesday, there was nary an issue on which this former U.S. senator was not up to speed.
>From immigration and the deficit to any one of a number of foreign policy concerns — Israel, Iran, Iraq, etc. — Brown had done his homework.

This is not to say we agree with Brown on all the issues covered, such as his approach to making college affordable. What impressed us was the breadth of knowledge and his ability to communicate his point of view.

It is fair to say (or write, as is the case) that it has been a long time since a candidate, for any office, was able to cogently cover as many topics in such a short time as Brown.

While Brown has a game plan on issues like veterans affairs and the federal government’s role in education, he is not an ideologue.

In Brown’s case, however, he comes closer to native status than many of those we have elected to public office from both parties. And we would argue his ties to New Hampshire — from his familial history in settlement years of the region to his parents’ time at Pease Air Force Base, to moving here to be closer to his mother in her later years — all add to his qualifications to serve New Hampshire.

Click here to read the full article



NHDP - Telegraph Editorial: When failing is a badge of honor 

Telegraph Editorial: When failing is a badge of honor


A House member who received an “F” from AFP was labeled an “opponent of prosperity.”
Some would call it a badge of honor.
they do the state a disservice when they champion the politics of division by attempting to couch themselves as knights of prosperity holding off legislative dragons who would bankrupt the state by casting reckless votes for better roads and schools, improved mental health services and health care for the poor, to name a few.
The real offense committed by AFP’s dragons is in not being a slave to narrow-minded dogma.
The implication that those not aligned with AFP-NH and the tea party somehow care less about the prosperity of New Hampshire is an affront to the state’s history of public servants whose preference for keeping taxes low was established well before AFP was even a glint in the eyes of the billionaire brothers Koch.
Our public servants have long valued low taxes, but also good roads, the environment and the well-being of the state’s people. Because they’ve also understood that a slave to even the best ideology is still, in the end, just a slave.

NHDP - ICYMI: Concord Monitor Editorial Calls Out Scott Brown And Walt Havenstein for "Disingenuous" Rhetoric on Women's Health

Key Point: "Contraceptive services are a fundamental and at times life-saving aspect of women’s health care. By ruling the way it did, the Supreme Court has opened the door for religion and politics to control access to those services. Despite their protestations to the contrary, that is exactly what Brown and Havenstein are championing."

Concord Monitor Editorial: Talk is cheap when it comes to women’s health

If you hear the words, “I’m not racist, but . . .” you can be certain you are about to hear something racist.

Likewise, if a Republican candidate in New Hampshire says, “I fully support women’s access to health care, but . . .,” you can bet he or she is about to celebrate a decision that limits a woman’s access to health care.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of religious freedom to require a family-owned corporation to provide insurance coverage for contraception under Obamacare.


Not only do the words of Brown and Havenstein appear disingenuous, which the candidates seemingly acknowledge with their hands-up defensive posturing, but they do nothing but add to the noise inside the Republican vortex of unceasing cynicism. If the political schadenfreude directed at the Affordable Care Act doesn’t convince voters that candidates like Brown and Havenstein are more interested in destruction than construction, then nothing will.

Contraceptive services are a fundamental and at times life-saving aspect of women’s health care. By ruling the way it did, the Supreme Court has opened the door for religion and politics to control access to those services. Despite their protestations to the contrary, that is exactly what Brown and Havenstein are championing.

NH Sen. Carson in the Union Leader 

For your weekend reading, here is Sen. Sharon Carson’s column in the Union Leader regarding yesterday’s Supreme Court decision striking down buffer zones.


NH avoids Unconstitutional Buffer Zones

By Sen. Sharon Carson


It’s not often that a new law is wiped away before it even goes into effect. But the U.S. Supreme Court helped New Hampshire achieve this dubious honor this week with its unanimous decision in McMullen v Coakley.


The McMullen decision declares that states can’t unilaterally restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens to speak on a public sidewalk. Massachusetts had imposed buffer zones around the state’s abortion clinics to prevent counselors from speaking to patients entering these facilities. Supporters argued that the restrictions were necessary in order to ensure safe access to and from the clinics. But the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot go further than absolutely necessary when curtailing speech.


In writing for the rest of his colleagues, Chief Justice John Roberts defended the long held right of Americans to speak about controversial topics on public sidewalks.


“Petitioners wish to converse with their fellow citizens about an important subject on the public streets and sidewalks-- sites that have hosted discussions about the issues of the day throughout history.”


Supporters of the buffer zone law want to shield young women seeking abortions not only from public protest, but from counselors seeking to provide comfort and support.


The Court struck down the Massachusetts buffer zones in large part because the law imposed blanket restrictions on public speech as a way to address crowd control issues at a single clinic in Boston. But as Roberts notes, “Any such obstruction can readily be addressed through existing local ordinances.”


As I noted on the Senate floor during debate over New Hampshire’s nearly identical buffer zone law, there are better ways to address the crowd control issues at a single abortion clinic in Manchester than by limiting speech at all such clinics.


In Massachusetts, the Court found “the zones thereby compromise petitioners’ ability to initiate the close, personal conversations that they view as essential to ‘sidewalk counseling.’” The same is true in New Hampshire.


So why did Governor Hassan rush to sign an unconstitutional breach of the First Amendment into New Hampshire law. We tried to warn her that it would not survive the summer. In fact, the Court’s imminent decision seems to have rushed the Governor into signing the bill.


Given the McMullen decision, New Hampshire’s buffer zone law is null and void. The Legislature can’t officially repeal it until next year, but there is no way the Attorney General’s Office or local police departments should waste resources attempting to enforce an unconstitutional statute.


New Hampshire should protect access to health care facilities and public safety. Thankfully, there have been no such issues at the clinic in Manchester. The city’s police department has done a fine job ensuring that no one is blocked from entering or leaving the facility, and that traffic flows safely through the neighborhood. Should existing laws ever prove inadequate to serving these needs, the Legislature should find a solution narrowly crafted to preserve access and safety that does not “burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.”


Abortion is a controversial issue. Our beliefs are personal and deeply held. Anything touching on this subject becomes polarized. But this week’s unanimous Supreme Court decision should convince us that the unconstitutional buffer zone law has nothing to do with abortion. Rather, “it imposes an especially significant First Amendment burden.”


Going forward, I hope that we can all agree, much like the liberal and conservative Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, on the right of all Americans to speak freely on public sidewalks.


Senator Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry) chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.