Advertising

 

 


 

 

Rep Steve Vaillancourt



Tuesday
Nov222011

Media Watch--McQuaid Can't Handle The Truth; Monitor Doesn't Know The Truth

Union Leader publisher Joseph W. McQuaid, the consummate bully when it comes to attacking Presidents (only Democratic ones of course) when they come to New Hampshire, sure can dish it out, but like any bully, McQuaid has proved this past week that he can't take it.

In the wake of this column blogging about the uprising against McQuaid on Loeb Drive (including the WWLD stickers reporters are sporting--yes that stands for What Would Loeb Do), czar McQuaid has arranged to have everything sent to him from this post deleted.

In other words, McQuaid doesn't want to be burdened with having to listen to unpleasant truths.  Here's the proof.

mail.unionleader.com rejected your message to the following e-mail addresses:
mail.unionleader.com gave this error:
Sender Rejected

A problem occurred during the delivery of this message to this e-mail address. Try sending this message again. If the problem continues, please contact your helpdesk.

So that no one in the media can ever claim ignornace when it comes to anything I write, I have created two lists of people who automatically receive everything you see posted here, a media listing and a friends listing.  If you want to get on either, just drop me a line at steve.vaillancourt@leg.state.nh.us.

Apparently, W isn't concerned about getting on.  In the spirit of an ostrich sticking its oversized neck in the sand, McQuaid has decided to block everything coming from here. 

Isn't it strange that McQuaid remained happily on the list for nearly 11 months (note at the bottom of this blog that I've written more than 100 pages of entries since signing aboard here in January--that's more than 500 items)?  Did he just discover the joys of blocking? 

More likely, he's decided he just can't take any more  Only when I exposed the Union Leader, using its own personnel as sources, did McQuaid the coward decide to bug off.  In true patrician fashion ("Oh Lovey, could you find out how to ban that Vaillancourt material from my tender eyes?"), McQuaid has removed himself from this source of truth.  Even if you don't always agree with me (and I suspect no one does--always), who could deny that this blog is a worthy source of material--at least occasionally?

McQuaid could deny it, that's who.

Next thing you know, he'll probably insist upon the departure of others to whom he dictates, the half dozen Union Leader personnel who also receive everything you see here.

Yes, this is the same McQuaid who has ruined the once proud newspaper Loeb left to his witless mercies; the same McQuaid who insisted that his reporter daughter (nepotism still rules on Loeb Drive) should never support Joe Kelly Levasseur; the same McQuaid whose friendship with former Governor Steve Merrill was ruined over a petty spat involving Pat Buchanan and Bob Dole.

Whoa there, don't tell me you haven't heard that last story?  It's a doozy and is detailed at great length in a book on the 1996 election.  On a slow news day, I'll recount the entire episode.

McQuaid calls Obama a disaster of a President (I agree), but McQuaid is an even bigger disaster as an editor.

McQuaid refers to Obama as glib and clueless, but no one is more clueless than McQuaid himself who, at least in his own mind, thinks he's glib. ("Oh Lovey, he's attacking me again.  Lovey, make sure we don't ever use anthing he writes in our superb paper.  What's that you say, Lovey?  We haven't used anything he's written for years now?  Never mind, Lovey.  Can't we shut him up, Lovey?")

As well as being clueless, incompetent, and a wannabe patrician, McQuaid is also an egomaniac--note how he uses his own picture on today's front page.  He's also, of course, a coward who prefers to hide behind a veil of secrecy than to face the truth.

Could anyone be more vile (viler) than Joseph W. McQuaid, the failed publisher of Loeb's once thriving newspaper.

 

The Reckless Monitor--Normally even when I disagree with Concord Monitor editors (often), I find their editorials informative and worth a read since I expect they are telling the truth as they see it.

Someone failed that test in the November 15 editorial entitled "Another year, another school funding drama".  I actually agree with much of what the Monitor had to say in this piece as proven by my record voting against nearly every education funding Constitutional amendment put forward by Republicans.

However, here's where the Monitor has deceived its readers.  It's this line--"Should O'Brien eventually get the House to approve a constitutional amendment of his liking, it probably wouldn't have the backing of the governor."  The second part of that statement is correct, but the "should" clause would lead anyone conversant with the English language to believe that Speaker Bill O'Brien has in fact failed to get the House to approve a Constitutional amendment of his liking.

That is simply not the case.  In what I considered to be a stunning upset earlier this year, the Speaker in fact rounded up the 240 votes (with room to spare) necessary to pass an amendment of his liking.  I was not for it, but that does not diminish the magnitude of the Speaker's achievement nor the magnitude of the Monitor's error in its attempt to ignore his achievement.

Had the paper said that O'Brien was unable to pass an amendment of his liking through the House and Senate, it would have been correct since the Senate-passed amendment is not the same as the one the House passed, and before a version can go to voters, the House and Senate will have to agree on the precise wording.

However, O'Brien succeeded in the hard part (herding 240 cats) whereas only 15 cats need to be rounded up in the Senate.

Of course, everyone should know that the governor, any governor, has nothing to do with getting an amendment on the ballot.  It requires 60 percent of House members and senators with no veto possible.  Of course it's true that the Governor can work to defeat any amendment once it gets to the people, but in Lynch's case that might be more difficult since he's chosen to make himself a lame duck.

We expect cowardice and constant misstatements from Joe McQuaid who surrounds himself with incompetence--in fact he rewards incompetence on Loeb Drive--but we expect better from the Monitor.

At least, the folks at the Monitor are educable while McQuaid, like anyone who refuses to listen to the truth, is beyond redemption.

Happy Thanksgiving W--be careful not to eat yourself, you turkey!

Ouch!

Tuesday
Nov222011

REDISTRICTING--County Plan (Within 10%)

A Statewide Redistricting Plan (For 400 Reps)
 
Statewide Average Per New Hampshire Rep 3291 (3291.175) – 1,316,470/400
 
 
County            Rep         Per Rep   Districts  Floats      Deviation - % +% /Over %
 
Belknap           18            3338               10            2              -3.5% + 4.8% / 8.3%
Carroll             15            3188                9             2              -5.0% + 0%   /  5.0%
Cheshire             23            3353               11            1              -3.3% + 4.3% / 7.6%
Coos                10            3306                 5             0              -1.8% + 1.8% / 3.6%
Grafton            27            3301               15            2              -3.6% + 4.6% / 8.2%
Hillsborough    122          3285               45            8              -4.3% + 5.0% / 9.3%
Merrimack       45             3254               26           5              -5.0% +4.1% / 9.1%
Rockingham    90            3280                35           7              -4.8% + 4.7% / 9.6%
Strafford         37             3328               20            5              -3.0% + 4.9% / 7.9%
Sullivan           13             3365                8             2              -4.0% + 4.6%  / 8.6%
 
Statewide       400            3291              184          34              -5.0% + 5.0% / 10.0%
Tuesday
Nov222011

REDISTRICTING--Merrimack, The Final County

Here's the redistricting plan for the final county (Merrimack).  To get within a 10 percent overall deviation (exactly 10.0 percent as it turns out), minor alterations have been made in Belknap, Cheshire, and Strafford Counties.  A rather major alteration has been required for Sullivan County.  They will be posted soon along with a ten-county cover plan.


A Redistricting Plan For Merrimack County

 

Population:  146,445

Representatives:  45 (44.50)

26 Districts, 5 Floats

Population Per Rep:  3254 (3291 Statewide Average)

Deviation:  9.75 percent (-4.7%; +5.05%)

DEV means deviation; Pop means Population

 

Hooksett—4 Reps—13,451 Pop (3363)—DEV  +2.2%

 

Concord Ward 1—1 Rep Plus Float A—4381—(3288)—DEV -0.1%

Concord Ward 2—1 Rep Plus Float A—4465—(3348)--DEV +1.7%

Concord Ward 3—1 Rep Plus Float A—4328—(3258)—DEV -1.0%

Float A—1 Rep—13,174 Pop (3294)

 

Concord Ward 4—1 Rep Plus Float B—4137—(3313)—DEV +0.7%

Concord Ward 5—1 Rep Plus Float B—4077—(3274)—DEV -0.5%

Concord Ward 6—1 Rep Plus Float B—4165—(3331)—DEV +1.2%

Concord Ward 7—1 Rep Plus Float B—4251—(3387)—DEV +2.9%

Float B—1 Rep—16,630 (3326)

 

Concord Ward 8—1 Rep Plus Float C—4141—(3135)—DEV -4.7%

Concord Ward 9—1 Rep Plus Float C—4342—(3243)—DEV -1.5%

Concord Ward 10—1 Rep Plus Float C—4408—(3285)—DEV -0.2%

Float C—1 Rep—12,891 (3223)

 

Allenstown (4322), Pembroke (7115)—3 Reps Plus Float D—

11,437 Pop—(3263)—DEV -0.9%

Pittsfield (4196), Chichester (2523), Epsom (4566)—3 Reps Plus Float D—

                        11,195 Pop (3203)—DEV -2.7%

Float D—1 Rep—22,632 Pop (3233 per Rep)

 

Andover (2371), Danbury (1164), Wilmot (1358)—1 Rep Float E—

            4893 Pop—(3237)—DEV -1.6%

Sutton (1837), Warner (2833)—1 Rep Plus Float E—

Pop 4670—(3138)—DEV -4.6%

Float E—1 Rep—9563 Pop (3189)

 

Bow (7519), Dunbarton (2758)—3 Reps—10,277 Pop—(3427)—DEV +4.1%

 

Franklin (8477), Hill (1089)—3 Reps—9566 Pop—(3189)—DEV -3.1%

 

Northfield (4829), Canterbury (2352), Loudon (5317)—4 Reps—

12,498 Pop—(3125)—DEV -5.05%

 

Hopkinton (5589), Boscawen (3965), Webster (1872), Salisbury (1382)—4 Reps--12,808 Pop—(3202)—DEV -2.7%

 

Henniker (4836), Bradford (1650)—2 Reps—6486 Pop—(3243)—DEV -1.5%

 

Newbury (2072), New London (4397)—2 Reps—6469—(4235)—DEV -1.7%

Monday
Nov212011

Secretary Gardner on More Politically Alert

Due to a scheduling conflict, Secretary of State Bill Gardner was not on More Politically Alert as promised last week, but he'll be on this week.  We're taping the show Tuesday afternoon (thus, no calls please) for broadcast in the usual time slots of Wednesday and Thursday at 9 p.m., Sunday at noon, and next Tuesday at 11 p.m. (usually posted on vimeo.com/channels/mpa by Friday afternoon).

Here was the problem last week.  Having me stand out in the cold is one thing, but after the locked door trauma two weeks ago, I couldn't really risk having a dignitary of the status of the Secretary of  State standing down on the street unable to get it, so we're taping prior to the building going in to lockdown mode.

Why me?  Why am I the only one to have my show stolen while unable to get into the building?  One would think it would happen to Backus/Farley, but oh no, it has to be me.

In looking through my tape files for my reading of Truman Capote's A Thanksgiving Visitor (I couldn't find it) and A Christmas Memory (I found it and it'll run Christmas week with background footage of Mancheter decked out for the holidays), I happened upon an interview I last did with Secretary Gardner--in November 2000.  You can guess what was number one on the agenda at the time (the Florida "tie").  Maybe I'll use a clip just to show how we looked 11 years ago.

For the November 30 show (on the eve of my Sweet Six--TEE birthday), I hope to have footage of places I grew up in Vermont, not to mention of where Ethan Allen fought the good fight creating a state between the greedy colonial masters of New Hampshire (Benning Wentworth) and New York.  I might even get to the spot in Montreal where Allen was captured in October, 1775 while leading an unsuccessful assault on the province--he was forced into the most despicable confinement one can imagine on British ships for the better part of two years.  Outrageous!  Damn British!

But that's another story...I sense a book review coming soon.

Happy Thanksgiving.  My brother makes the best coleslaw one could imagine, not to mention gravy; his wife is great with mashed potatoes, and I've already come up with a premature batch of Christmas fudge.  In an attempt to determine whether it's as good as usual, I had to devour ten pieces last night...just testing of course...I don't think it was quite up to par, but the ten pieces went down quickly.

Now, I have to figure out who's been promsed fudge this year, Reps. Cohn and Parison as I recall, not to mention the usual secretaries and cleaning personnel!

It'll be a three batch year.

Saturday
Nov192011

Disgraced Rep. Garrity Whines About This Blog

If you have a complaint about this blog, the proper place to air it would either be here (in a logical civil manner of course) or in your own blog.

However, that's not what No Show Manchester Ward 7 Representative Pat Garrity chose to do yesterday.  Rather than comment in the approrpitate forum, he chose to waste the time of the 19 members of the Hillsborough County Executive Committee by attacking me for what I wrote about him in this blog.

All I wrote was by way of pure reporting--that Rep. Garrity had been removed from a reinventing county government committee by Chairman Seidel for chronic failure to show up, after he had promised that he would make time in his schedule.

It was not a personal attack--I never mentioned Garrity's history of bar brawls (how the main stream media reported he broke someone's leg in a bar brawl) although that would certainly be appropriate fodder for this blog.

Oh, but Rep. Garrity, apparently wishing to highling his embarassing no show attendance (certainly he must have known that I'd respond in this appropriate space) attempted to jump through hoops by saying that one member of the executive committee should always work in harmony with other members.

Oh really, Mr. Embarassment Garrity,  was in out of respect for other members of the Exceuctive Committee that you left your own ward 7 twice to come into my ward (8) to work against me this year.  He has every right to do that, but I would never waste time of a working committee to bring it up.

Not only is Rep Garrity an embarassment, a No Show Rep, but he has proven himself to be a sublime hypocrite.

As if it's not clear by now, I feel not only the right, but the absolute duty to use this blog (and my TV show, More Politically Alert which airs live Wednesday at 9 p.m. on  ManchesterTV23 with rebroadcasts Thursday at 9, Sunday at noon, Tuesday at 11 p.m. and always is available at vimeo.com/channels/mpa) to inform Manchester citizens, indeed citizens of the state and the world who choose to tune in here, about someone of either party who pledges to do the job and then fails to show up when elected.

Note that I say of either party.  The record will show that I was critical of a Manchester Republican for absenteeism earlier this year.

The point here is not whether people have the right to know such things--of course they do--but that Rep. Garrity actually believes I should be denied freedom of speech by not being allowed to report such things either here or on my TV show.  (As I recall, I never did report it on my show because, although it was on my todo list, I ran out of time that week.  Thanks to Rep. Garrity's reminder, I'll put it back on the todo list!).

Garrity, like so many of his ilk, will spend scads of time to get elected (even to help others get elected, others not even in their own district), but when it comes to gettting the work done, he's AWOL, and yes, I can go into his history of absenteeism in prior years on the State House floor should he so desire.

As to getting along in county government, it was the very same Rep. Garrity who, following acceptance of the county budget in June, insisted on spreading vile lies in the media by suggesting that by not giving more money to the county jail, we would provide a safety hazard.  Indeed!  In fact, the outgoing jailer shortly came in with his own plan very much like the cuts I was proposing.  So much for Rep. Garrity trying to work in the spirit on comradery at the county leve.

Hey, maybe it's better when he is AWOL.

Rep. Garrity also whined that I had sent the blog to all State Reps.  Allow me to make one thing clear.  I don't believe in secrecy or behind closed doors sniping.  Anything I write I send to all; anything I say, all would be welcome to here.  That's the only honorable way to operate and I will contine to operate the only way I know how, honorably, not saying things behind people's back without everyone knowing what I say.  I suspect I am not treated as fairly by my opponents, but I can live with myself--can they?--and when all is said and done, that's what really matters.

Beware, No Show Reps, you will be outed--as long as I'm around