Rep Steve Vaillancourt


Media Watch--Define Soft Porn, Ms. Carlson

on photo


Lame Stream Media exemplar extraordinairre Margaret Carlson, even for a left wing loonie as she constantly proves she is, sunk to a new low (and that's saying quite a bit) when she was asked on Bloomberg's weekend show (it runs over and over again; hosted by Al Hunt) to name a U.S. Senate race that could prove a surprise.
She mentioned how with Democrat Chris Murphy such a bad candidate in Connecticut, Republican Linda McMahon might just spring an upset.
But Carlson couldn't leave it at that.
It wasn't even enough to mention that Linda McMahon, who was defeated two years ago, is into the wrestling business. We all know that she and husband Vince have made a small fortune with the WWE, and Linda doesn't hesitate to spend millions on her races in the Nutmeg State.
Fair enough, but loonie Carlson didn't stop there.
She felt the need to taint candidate McMahon as being in the "soft pornography" business.
Does Carlson know something the rest of us don't know?
Is Linda McMahon out there filming porn some place or does loonie Carlson simply consider the WWE to be in the soft porn business?
I don't get the wrestling channel, but the last time I checked, there were indeed some scantily clad ladies (not to mention men) parading in front of the cameras on wrestling extravaganzas.  Hey, give the people what they want!
But if you're going to call that soft porn, what about Fox News which insists on bring us the short-skirted long-legged ladies sitting on stools every weekday morning at 5 a.m.  No desk allowed, please; after all we need to see those legs and a hint of what lies beyond.
What about NFL cheerleaders strutting their stuff (and showing their cleavage) every weekend?
Then there's Sunday Night Football.  I just happened to set Daniel Webster aside to watch the intro last night, an intro no longer featuring "Are You Ready For Some Football?" with the male singer but now with a skimpily clad female...I didn't catch her name (Faith Hill maybe?), but it seems every bit as soft pornographic as the WWE.  (The Pats should have used their time outs when Baltimore was waiting to kick the winning field goal...we knew it was going to be good; using the time outs would at least have given the Pats a few seconds left to come back; how stupid can a legendary coach be!)
But I digress.  Margaret Carlson, if she's going to tar Senate candidate Linda McMahon, a true capitalist, the sort of elected official we need to get this country back on its feet, as a soft pornographer, then she should at least explain what she means.  If all she refers to is WWE, then she should retract the reference.  If that's what loonie Carlson calls soft porn, she ain't seen much porn, soft or otherwise.
By the way, I was ready to blog that Elizabeth "Professor" Warren needed to be rescued by her handlers throwing in the towel in her debate with Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown last week.  That's how bloodied the Indian woman was; she was just awful, a fact Dan Ray alluded to on WBZ radio and Andy Hiller noted on Channel 7 news.
But no, there was loonie Carlson on the same Bloomberg show saying that Warren won big, trying to convince the entire nation (does anyone watch Bloomberg other than me?) that Brown came across as snarky when in fact he appeared most dignified and landed haymaker after haymaker on the Indian professor.
Margaret Carlson is perfect proof that certain members of the media will say or do anything, will make up anything, to get their out of favor point across, to foist their poison into the body politic.
This isn't the first time I've singled out this loonie for a thumbs down.  Wanna bet it won't be the last either?
Boo to you, Margaret Carlson, soft porn indeed!
Spell check apparently wants loonie as loony...oh well...I'll try to remember that next time I have to write about a left wing fanatic like loonY Elizabeth Warren or Margaret Carlson!


From The "Political" Grave, Rep. Bates Haunts Republicans

One would think that, with many voters questioning whether Mormons are really Christians, the last thing Republicans would want is for a pastor to take to the podium at a Republican gubernatorial debate and urge voters to only vote for Christians.
However, that's just what happened in early September when Election Law Chair (and homosexual hunter) David Bates lined up Windham Pastor Shawn Foster to speak at the debate between Ovide LaMontagne and Kevin Smith in early September.
You probably didn't read this in the Union Leader (one could wonder why), but it was featured in a top of the page one story in the Monitor, and it certainly paints Republicans in less than favorable light.
Rightly so.
Here's what Foster said as Ovide and Smith looked on, "It is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for our rulers."
Oh really?
No Jews need apply?
No Mormons need apply?
If not, then I guess the Grand Old Party is in Grand Old Trouble, and this is written by someone who is running for State Rep as a Republican (Manchester Ward 8).
This latest blemish on the party comes on top of NH Republican leader DJ Bettencourt having to resign in disgrace, of Speaker O'Brien refusing to allow Concord Monitor reporters at press conferences (just one of his many tyrannical acts), of a Republican State Rep candidate's daughter being caught stealing signs, of the Akin flare-up in New Hampshire, and the Szabo buffoonery right here in New Hampshire, of Romney's 47 percent quote which his Vice President had to defend as not well stated.
It goes on and on.  The GOP is losing it.  While the WMUR/Granite State poll has Obama up by five in New Hampshire, Rasmussen has Romney up three, but how can Romney do well here with pastors preaching Christian values.
Last December, I predicted Romney would be the next President, but now, I'm not so sure. 
Bates and Pastor Foster may have hammered in the final nail of the Romney/GOP coffin here in New Hampshire.
By sheerest coincidence, I'm in the process of finishing Daivd Remini's massive (800 page) 1997 biography of New Hampshire native Daniel Webster (I'd promised myself to read a Webster bio for years, and this is deemed among the best).
I refer yo to page 688.  Henry Clay's Compromise of 1850 failed as an omnibus bill with only the section of Utah surviving.  (Senator Stephen Douglas went on to bring the provisions back one by one and get them passed).
Here's the pertiennt quote from Remini.  Once you read it, you'll know how Mormons were thought of back in 1850 and (with the likes of Bates and Foster set loose upon an unsuspecting public), may still be thought of today.
Page 688--fourth paragraph down--
"Two weeks later, on July 31, what Webster most feared occurred in the Senate chamber:  the omnibus bill went down to defeat.  One after the other, the various parts of the bill were killed with only the Utah territory provision surviving.  "All gone but Utah," cried the jubilant Thomas Hart Benton (a senator opposed to the bill).  "He had routed Clay!  He had smashed his Omnibus to atoms."  Seward (another Senate opponent and Lincoln's future Secretary of State) danced around the room like a top.  The "Mormons alone got thru' living," commented Elizabeth Lee, "the Christians all jumped out>"
In other words, Mormons were not considered Christians.
One can only wonder what David Bates and Pastor Foster would think about that...if they ever bother to think.
Whatever anyone thinks, it's certainly one of the stupidest comments ever for a pastor to urge Republicans to only vote for Christians as Pastor Foster (a Bates favorite) seemed to do with gubernatorial candidates Ovide LaMontagne and Kevin Smith looking on in early September.
You just can't make this stuff up!
No wonder Republicans tried to distance themselves from Foster's comment!  (Debate organizer Cory Lewandowski, of Americans for Prosperity, was quoted in the Monitor as saying he had not seen Foster's comments beforehand. Go figure!
No wonder Bates decided not to run again!
No wonder the Republican brand name is held in such low repute!
No wonder even Republican insiders are expecting the worst these days!
A little more such idiocy from the likes of Bates and Paster Fosters, and all Republicans will be doomed.

Liberty Express Focuses On Numbers, Numbers, Numbers

Not since the old days when the show was titled "More Politically Alert" have I spent as much time going through numbers, pure numbers, as on this week's edition of "The Liberty Express" which airs Monday at 10 p.m., Thursday at 9 p.m., and Sundays at 6 a.m. and noon on Manchestertv23 (always available on
I spent many hours over the weekend reviewing primary voting totals and prepared a couple dozen numbers sheet for this week's show and actually managed to get through most of them.
I would have got them all in, but I just had to run the Bass commercial of Annie running once or twice...or truth in blogging...four times!
We also went to Idaho and Mesopotamia, thanks to the B-52s concert which I had filmed July 4, 2011 in Montreal.
"Six or eight thousand years ago, they laid down the Mesopotamia"...great stuff and a fitting break from all the numbers.
For example.
There's a graphic showing that while each of Manchester's wards has about 9000 people, there are 6100 registered voters in Ward 1 and only 3303 in Ward 5 (3552 in Ward 11 and 3564 in Ward 3).  5, 3, and 11 are all highly Democratic, but people there just don't bother to show up as in the more Republican wards (5415 in my own ward eight; 5187 in Ward 6).
The charter question passed in all 12 Manchester wards...most in ward 1 (62.3 percent), least in ward 11 (50.9 percent).  58.1 percent overall.  I was among the 41.9 percent!
How about this one.
After uncontested primaries, I often compare total votes cast to number of votes received.
In Senate district 18 (Manchester Wards 5-9 and Litchfield), Republican Gail Barry outpolled Democrat Donna Soucy 2911 to 2614, but before Republicans start celebrating, consider this.  Barry received 74.1 percent of the 3926 Republican votes cast; Soucy received 85.0 percent of the 3077 Democratic votes cast.
Similarly in District 20 (Manchester Wards 3,4, 10, 11, and Goffstown), Republican Phil Greazzo outpolled Democrat incumbent Lou D'Allesandro 3053-2696, but while Greazzo received 76.8 percent of 3974 Republican votes cast, Lou tallied a phenomenal 90.7 percent of 2971 Democratic votes cast (almost unheard of for a race not at the top of the ticket)!
Both Ovide and Maggie did much better in Manchester than statewide.  Ovide tallied 77.4 percent of Republican votes cast in the city while Maggie took 63.4 percent of Democratic votes.
Aren't numbers fun?
Yes, but not nearly as much fun as watching Annie run (four times) or the Bs in Idaho or Mesopotamia!
"There's a lot of wooing going on..."

The Week In Polls--Sept. 20--NONSENSE!

Note that in recent weeks, I've refrained from the weekly look at polling data.  Nate Silver, of, best sums up the reason why in his blog today.
Actually, that's been the case for a while now.
Silver juxtaposes an improbable poll which shows Obama up by 14 points in Wisconsin at the same time Rasmussen has him trailing by three in New Hampshire.
That's just one of many indications that the polls are wackier than ever.  It all depends on the sample and whether the pollsters are looking at likely or registered voters.
Karl Rove last night made the excellent point on Fox last night that many of these pollsters anticipate as much as a 13 point Democratic advantage in turnout.  That simply isn't going to happen, and we should discount any polls which are so skewed.
In 2000, Democrats enjoyed a three point edge in turnout when Gore beat Bush (he really did, you know!).  It was virtually even in 2004 but went up to a seven point Democratic edge in 2007.  I suspect it'll be close to even again this year...or maybe Democrats will have a slight edge.
Ideally, we should be looking for polls of likely voters with samples evenly split between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
Marist, Pew, and PPP tend to especially tilted in favor of Democrats, and since averaging outfits like Real Clear Politics tend to include those polls, even the average of polls leans heavily in favor of Democrats....Obama is up 3.1 in today's average...see, I just can't get away from these numbers.
The best thing to do today is simply look at the daily tracking polls from Rasmussen and Gallup.  I know, some pundits advise you to forget national averages and concentrate on swing states, but I continue to believe that swing states at the end of the day will follow national averages, no exactly buy fairly closely.
Let's look at New Hampshire to explain how what appears to be a polling mess really isn't so messy.  Rasmussen has Romney up three here after the Granite State Poll (WMUR/UNH) had Obama up five (45-4-) last week.  However, note that pollster Andy Smith pointed out that among those extremely interested in voting, Romney was actually ahead by four points (48-44) in New Hampshire.  Thus, it all goes back to who shows up to vote on November 6.
I suspect turnout will be very good if not great.  Thus, Obama could have a slight advantage here, but then you have to keep in mind that undecided voters usually break for the challenger, not as much as Dick Morris contends but something in the two to one range.
Since I like to look at State Rep and State Senate races, the part of the UNH poll I find especially helpful is geographic distribution.  Remember, top of the ticket matters a great deal!
Here's how it breaks down in the UNH poll--
North Country--Obama plus 11 (50-39); that means trouble for Republicans in Senate district 1, but Obama was even farther than that ahead up north in the last poll
Central/Lakes--Romney plus 4 (43-39)
Connecticut Valley--Obama plus 32 (62-30)--no surprise; Republicans should lose reps in Sullivan County
Mass Border--Romney plus 9 (48-37)--again no surprise; don't look for many Democratic gains in Rockingham County
Seacoast--Obama plus 16 (49-33)--does anyone doubt that no Republican need apply in Portsmouth, but if this carries over to Hampton, Republicans could be in trouble.
Manchester area--Obama plus 7 (46-30).  This is much closer than in the last poll.  Of course, we can extrapolate that since Romney must be up big in places like Bedford, Hooksett, and Goffstown, then Obama must be up by more than seven points in the city itself.
UNH has Romney up five with men, down 14 with women.  Among those who watch WMUR, it's virtually a dead heat, but among those who listen to NH public radio, Obama leads by 41 points (65-24). 
In a world of nonsense, that certainly makes plenty of sense!

"This American Life" Not Yet Ready

After posting yesterday about "This American Life" coming to New Hampshire for a special report on the political situation here, I learned today that the show will not be airing this weekend.
I'll let you know when it's ready and is scheduled--Saturday at 1 p.m. on WEVO.
As I expected, apparently it's highly edited.
I have verified that reporter Sarah Koenig, formerly of the Concord Monitor and Baltimore Sun, got the Speaker on tape.  I recall that when she interviewed me, she asked what I would ask the Speaker if given the chance.
My answer was simple.  "Why, Mr. Speaker, do you treat people you agree with differently from those you disagree with?  Should not all people be treated equally on the House floor?"
I suspect, if he was asked, he would deny special treatment, but then we have the streaming audio to prove that simply is not true!!!
How many exclamation points (are they still called screamers by the media?) does it take to make a point?