Democrats in New Hampshire are losing a fighter. State Senator Peter Burling's retirement at the end of this year, hopefully only temporary, takes off our bench someone with character and the ability to take on Republicans on issue after issue.
Peter is always quick to "engage" and "go into action" for those causes in which he believes, and that's been one reason I've respected him through all these years. I appreciate those who can put on a good fight, then win or lose go onto the next issue and perhaps, perhaps, on that next one you're on the same side.
Republican's shouldn't rejoice too much, and probably aren't. It's good to have people in each political party who can fight hard, and win or lose go onto the next issue. Legislative debate is at its best when people get passionate over the issues, make clear their positions, and do it all with class. Peter Burling has been that kind of leader. Republicans have had some too, and not to compare him in the same league with Peter, I think Senator Bob Clegg is one of those who is also up front in whatever position he takes, and after the debate and the vote goes onto the next issue. Senator Ted Gatsas is another. I'd say the Democrats have more, like Senators Molly Kelly, Lou D'Allesandro, Maggie Hassan, Jackie Cilley, Martha Fuller Clark, Sylvia Larsen, Joe Foster, and I could go on. "We" as Democrats have some depth on our bench.
But back to Peter -- as a State Representative back in the 1990s, then as Democratic House Leader, Peter worked during the more lean years and then some of the greener times of Democratic politics. Despite not having the numbers of members in the House to his advantage, he many times was tremendously effective at taking the fight to the Republicans, catching them off-base, and stopping bad things from becoming worse. He and now Democratic Chair Ray Buckley, who also can put on a good fight, teamed up and put together a coalition of House Democrats which stuck tightly together on most good causes. Democrats can't ask for much better service than that.
.
In 2002 and again in 2004, had circumstances been a bit different, Peter Burling would have, could have, been elected Governor. In early 2004 I pledged to him I'd support him if he ran for Governor. It would have been a good campaign, and Craig Benson had to be defeated. Things turned out well for Democrats that year -- with John Lynch coming forward with his candidacy, and Peter ran for the State Senate where again he's done some good things.
.
I've enjoyed watching Peter Burling at work in his committees and on the floor in debate. The New Hampshire legislative process benefits when people of conviction are willing to use their talent and life's experiences to help problem-solve. Peter Burling earned his $100-a-year salary many times over by giving so much of himself. That's what a good "citizen" is all about, and that is even more descriptive of Peter Burling than the title "politician."
.
Throughout the years, there's been a clarity and a commitment in what Peter Burling has said, and they way he says it. That has led to much respect from both Republicans and Democrats, and that will last him through his retirement, and will be waiting for his return if he decides to do so.
Rep. Jim Splaine
9 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (9)
His one admirable trait was he had the good sense to back down when in the face of clear opposition from regular folks. In early 2007 he did that at least twice in my presence. I didn't see him after that point but I know the General Court ran rampant and was openly contemptuous of those voters they interacted with. I'm not aware of Burling bucking that trend.
Why would he withdraw from politics now of all times? What does he know that we aren't being told?
Thanks for this tribute to Senator Burling.
The words of his detractors here say volumes about his character and what he and other have been up against all these years.
The NHLA "ratings" are so very off base. I would consider a lot of the bills that they rate an "A" for are bad bills, and some of those they assign an "F" are the good ones, when it comes to protecting and preserving libery, justice, and the American way!
The NHLA in 2007 favored the so-called "right-to-work" law, which would limit the right for working men and women to unionize so they can negotiate together to get better wages and conditions from the out-of-state corporations they work for, the NHLA opposed a 4 year term for governor so the governor doesn't have to raise mega-money every two years and focus just on his or her reelection, and the NHLA opposed increasing minimum wage to a level still below the poverty line, but somewhat a little more reasonable for men and women to make a living.
The NHLA opposed continued almost non-limitation of placement of leg traps, which can cause injury to humans as well as animals they're not intended for, and the NHLA opposed allowing senior citizens to have a reasonable property tax exemption.
My goodness, the NHLA also opposed a program to provide insurance for children, legislation more clearly defining what is at least an "adequate" education for our kids, and a reasonable bill to protect workers in restaurants and bars from having to work in an unhealthy smoke-filled room.
Even worse and just plain cruel, the NHLA opposed very good legislation to stop unlimited demonstrations at the funerals for military men and women who died in Iraq or Afghanistan, where groups encouraged by a weird Kansas-based Church have held up disgusting signs saying America is hated by God because this country is more accepting of gays today, and that God is punishing us all. THAT is disgusting.
1) defining an "adequate" education takes that power away from towns to be able to choose for themselves what is best for their own children... LESS FREEDOM
2) Banning smoking from restaurants takes away the rights of PRIVATE property owners the ability to choose for themselves if they wish to allow an activity or not that is legal outside in PUBLIC.... LESS FREEDOM.
3) Banning protesting at funerals takes away freedom of speech and I would have to believe that if challenged in court this will be tossed out as unconstitutional.... LESS FREEDOM.
They also rank bills so minor freedom restrictions do not effect ratings as much as a major one such as taking away freedom of speech.
If we ban speech simply because we agree it is in poor taste (and I agree with you that these protesters should have been taken behind the wood shed and taught some manors) we open the door for other speech to be likewise banned because a majority find it in poor taste. Maybe I can get 51% of the people to agree with me that any pro homosexual discussions are offensive... should that be banned next? You created exceptions to a constitutional right and now opened the door for other exceptions to be made simply because you and a majority see it as "offensive". The first amendment defends ALL speech, not just that we like.
You also out right misrepresented bill SB115 the right to work bill.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2007/sb0115.html
"This bill prohibits the state from deducting mandatory labor organization fees from state employees’ wages."
Mandatory fees? That equals LESS FREEDOM any which way you read that. If you CHOOSE to join a union you can... this bill would FORCE you to pay even if you choose not to join. Quite a bit different then what you claimed above.
The fact remains you and Peter have voted to take away freedom time and time again. You can try to paint any picture you want but you take away freedoms. If you really think you are voting FOR freedom then that really worries me.
Freedom isn't a fetish, but you wouldn't know it by viewing the NHLA ratings.
The Liberty Alliance scorecard is so ideologically driven that reasonable people just chuckle and shrug.
Letting the most disgusting and rotten wack jobs from out of state disrupt the funerals of Fallen NH soldiers is not an example of freedom of speach.
The families of these soldiers deserve a day of dignity and peace. This is a no brainer.
When Senate Republicans were only looking at dollar signs and flying in "homeland security experts" from DC to justify this federal intrusion, Burling took a stand for privacy and civil liberties. When Sen. Barnes got up and said Real ID, like the internment of Japanese-American citizens during WWII, is just something that needs to be done during wartime, Burling stood up and blew him away. That was my first impression of both men, and the impression endures...
Matt