Rep Steve Vaillancourt


False Outrage Over "Binders" Demeans Democratic Hacks

When you say something so stupid, no matter where you say it, you deserve to lose all credibility.  That's why my first task here is to be honest and point out the foibles of both parties equally.  Thus, even if you don't agree with me on a given issue, my credibility should remain intact.
For me and for many others, Democrats who are assailing Mitt Romney over his "binders" of women comment from Tuesday's debate are losing all credibility.
Of course, Biden the Buffoon, the Delaware Dolt, jumped into the fray...we could expect that from the body behind a grin, but other Democrats including someone who goes by the name of Elwood with the blueblogbigots has also made an utter fool of himself by attempting to score points out of this issue.
In fact, Mitt Romney should be congratulated for going out of his way as Massachusetts governor to seek qualified women to fill positions.  To way to locate good people is to get resumes which often come in binders.
Thus, to make fun of Romney for this remark only lowers the credibility of those making the stupid remarks.
I know, I know, Democrats are afraid that unless they scare enough women, Mitt Romney will narrow the gender gap and win the Presidency, but the fact is that the Demagogue in Chief has had problem with women in his White House, that he plays women less than men, that Romney has a much better record of hiring women that Obama himself.
This is not an area Democratic hacks should be pursuing but in their usual attempt at a cheap shot, they seem to be rushing headlong into the abyss.
And that's the optimal truth.
Shame of you, Delaware Dolt; shame on you Elwood; and shame on anyone else who thinks getting resumes of qualified women is a bad idea.
This one truly falls into "you just can't make this stuff up" category.

Not An "Optimal" Day For...

Your assignment, should you choose to accept Mr. Blogger, is to use the word "optimal" as many times as possible herein.
That's in honor of the Demagogue In Chief's declaration on John Stewart's comedy show yesterday that his handling of the death of four Americans in Libya was not "optimal".
The weather is certainly not optimal for going door to door today, but I'm halfway through Ward 8 with plenty of time left, so the less than optimal weather doesn't hurt all that much.
On the other hand, this seems to be an optimal day for catching up on this blog.
It's probably not an optimal time for putting too much credence in Gallup polling.  If you only watch Fox News (with Sean Hannity especially fond of cherry picking only the polls which agree with his pre-conceived opinions), you would probably think that Romney is about to win in a landslide.  Gallup Thursday had Romney's lead up to seven points (52-45) nationwide, but those seeking optimal information should look elsewhere.  Rasmussen (which the less than fair and balanced crew at Fox used to site when it was the one ray of hope for Romney) has a 48-48 tie Friday.
Nate Silver at, noting that Gallup counts about 12 percent in his weighting, has Obama back up to a 70-30 chance of winning re-election.  Silver has entitled an article "Gallup vs. the World".  For optimal information, check it out.
The Real Clear Politics and Pollster averages both have Romney up only three-tenths of a point.
While RCP has moved Romney ahead 201-206 in the electoral college projection, it still has Obama winning 281-257 if no toss-ups are allowed.  If Romney were to lose Ohio, he would have to carry New Hampshire (4), Iowa (6) and Nevada (6) to turn the electoral college around...a long shot indeed...unless, of course, he gets Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or Michigan, even longer shots.  RCP already gives Romney Virgina, North Carolina, and Florida as part of his 257 total.
Optimally, you should take whatever you hear on Fox with a shaker of salt...don't get me wrong, I'm voting for Romney and hope he wins, but beware false pundits.
Here are two optimal notes I've had crowding the back of my head for a few weeks now.
Am I the only Republican who thinks it's not an optimal situation when the candidate for Governor (yes, that would be Ovide!) supports gambling in the state but only at the one location (yes, that would be the Rock) that his law firm has made scads (I prefer that word to tons these days) of money lobbying for.  My optimal opinion is that it stinks to high heaven!
Then there's the less than optimal Manchester barrister Ed Mosca who, as Speaker Bill O'Brien's in house legal counsel, embarrassed the House and the institution by such outrageous comments before a judge recently that he had to be reprimanded.  Of course, I didn't read that in the Union Leader.  That would never be part of its optimal coverage.  I learned of it only by scouring Concord Monitor stories.  When Billy the Bully goes, we can only assume that Mosca the Embarrassment will also go.
I could go on and on with optimal thoughts, but I see the sky is clearing and that little community behind the Goffs Falls Road Post office beckons...about 100 houses there, a very mixed neighborhood.
Not an optimal appearance for the Demagogue in Chief!

Three More Republican Seats In Jeopardy

My insider sources--names are withheld to protect the innocent--tell me that three additional New Hampshire State Reps seats, which I had in the Republican column, are in jeopardy.

If you don't like the news, don't blame me, I'm only the messenger, and I'm not changing my predictions, but I hear that one of the two Newport seats (not to worry Bev) could go Democratic; that John Tholl is in trouble in Coos Country; and that despite winning the signage battle, Jon (no H please) is in trouble in Allenstown.

If my source is correct and all three go Democratic, it could tilt control of the House in that direction, bt the very same source is saying a Democratic insider has the number of likely wins as 185, short of my 198 prediction.

As always, I will maintain anonymity for sources if you'd care to drop a dime...

All together now...Bye, bye, Billy The Bully...


Candy Blocks For Obama

Imagine a football game wherein the referees abandoned their striped uniforms and started to lead downfield blocking for the team with the ball.

Or imagine a baseball game wherein, rather than call the play at the plate, the umpire started blocking the plate for the offensive team to score.

Or a basketball game wherein the referee jumped up to block a shot.

Or a hockey game wherein, just as a shot was about to get by the goalie, the referee jumped in to make the save.

I could go on and on, but you get the gist.

Officials are supposed to be neutral.  In fact, lest we lose all confidence in the sport, officials must be neutral.

In politics, the same rules must apply when it comes to moderating debates...yet CNN's Candy Crowley was just as guilty last night as those wayward sports officials would be if they did what I noted here.

First, she allowed Barack Obama to have the last word on so many issues that he ended up getting three more minutes of talking time (just like in the first debate and like in the Biden debate), but then she actually interjected misinformation on the Libya question.  It was so blatant that Obama exhorted her to say it louder.  Of course, today she was trying to say it softer--that she screwed up.

If she would have just shut up last night and done the job she was supposed to do, she wouldn't have to fess up today.

Candy Crowley may be a boon to CNN (I wouldn't know), but she was an embarrassment as a debate moderator.

The format, of course, was bad in itself.  It's time to get rid of questions from the unwashed public.  I mean really...guns and women's salaries and how Romney would differ from George W. Bush.  Are these what Americans care most about.

But then, consider who was picking the questions.  Yes, that would be the Candy Woman!

Who is moderating the foreign policy debate Monday night?

Bill O'Reilly?  He could be fair.

Sean Hannity?  He would be no more partisan the the Candy Woman.

But you can be sure it won't be either of those illustirous journalists.

Maybe they'll dig Dan Rather out of mothballs...or Chris Wallace...or I hear Keith Oberman is looking for a new gig.

Debate planners, get real and get a real neutural moderator from now on!



The Week In Polls--Oct. 17--Gallup Has Romney Up Six!

            Talk about a conundrum. The same CNN poll which had Obama winning Tuesday night’s debate 46-39 also had Romney winning most internal numbers and some by a rather wide margin.

            Romney led 58-40 on ability to handle the economy, 49-46 on health care, 51-4 on taxes, and 49-46 on who would be the stronger leader.

            So how do you get to the seven point lead for Obama overall?  All I can figure is that Obama didn’t beat Romney by seven, but he beat the Romney from two weeks ago.  In other words, while the Demagogue in Chief won the expectations game, he lost in other areas that count.

            In fact, there was a 25-25 tie on the question of whom the debate would make you more likely to vote for.

            Go figure.

            Meanwhile Gallup is out with the worse news yet for Obama.  He’s down six points (51-45) in today’s tracking poll; he was down four yesterday.  This tends to verify polls earlier this week which showed Romney pulling virtually even with the women’s vote after being down double digits prior to last week’s debate in which the Delaware Dolt, as noted here, came across as a boorish buffoon, not at all the type of man women have confidence in.

            The Real Clear Politics average (prior to the Gallup result) had Romney up 47.4-47.1, and even the liberal Huffington Post average had Romney pulling ahead 47.1-46.9.  If only we could get another debate from appearance from the Smirking Dolt, team Romney would probably wrap this thing up.

            Just kidding. continues to have Obama likely to win the presidency although his odds are down to 65-35 today (they peaked at 85 percent a few weeks ago), and there are indications that Nate Silver is cherry picking which data he wants to use, sad but true since I’ve been a Silver defender until now.

Anyone wanna place a bet on exactly when 538 tips it in Romney’s favor?

            538 now has Obama winning by 1.2 points (50.1-48.9) and winning the electoral votes 287-251.  However, it has moved not only North Carolina and Florida into the Romney column, but Virginia and Colorado as well.

            No wonder Team Obama seems to be focusing on New Hampshire, Iowa, Ohio, and Nevada today.

            Rasmussen has Obama up one (50-49) in New Hampshire today, but Suffolk/Channel 7 had it dead even at 47-47 yesterday, and as reported her last week, ARG has Romney up 50-46.   However, at 538, Silver, in giving Obama a two to one chance to win our small state, continues to use not only the UNH poll which has Obama up 6 but the one from the previous week which had him up 15.  Even Andy Smith admitted that the only about half of the six-point poll was taken after the first debate which changed anything, so Romney could very well be ahead here now.  Smith says he’s not going to release another poll until the week prior to the election. 

            Nate Silver needs to get his data updated or he will lose credibility from this corner.

            For governor, it’s a 2-2 tie.  Suffolk has Maggie up three points over Ovide (41-38) and Rasmussen has her up two (48-46), but ARG has Ovide up six (46-40) and UNH has him up four (39-35). Average them out, and Ovide is up a point or so.

            UNH (or should I say WMUR/Granite State poll) nearly inexplicably had Frank Guinta moving from ten down to ten up (45-35) in the first c.d. while Kuster leads Bass by thee (38-35) in the second c.d. with one in four still undecided.

            In Connecticut, Obama is up 16 (53-38) from Siena, important because Republican Senate candidate Linda (wife of Vince) McMahon is down only two (46-44) for the Senate.

            Quinnipiac actually has Romney within four (50-46) in Pennsylvania; Dick Morris (not one of my favorite pundits) has said all along that Romney would win there enroute to a substantial victory nationwide.  In an unreal development, Democratic Senator Casey is only up three points (48-45) there and Morning Call has him up only two (41-39), and no one had that on the radar screen as a potential GOP gain.  However, in a bit of good news for Democrats, Rasmussen has incumbent Senator John Tester back even at 48-48 with Dennie Rehberg; that would be an upset.

            Also good news for Democrats is Rasmussen’s latest generic Congressional ballot which shows Republicans trailing again this week, albeit only 43-42.

Rasmussen has Obama up only 15 points (57-42) in Massachusetts.  Remember, I’ve opined that anything less than a 20 point Romney win would not be enough for Elizabeth Warren to unseat Scott Brown in the Senate.

Isn’t this fun?