Rep Steve Vaillancourt



Monday
Jun112012

"Nobody Knows It" Prompts Ignorant Responses

It seems my “Nobody Knows It” posting Saturday has induced an email trail.  I share pertinent portions here.  Since my comments are first, it might be best to start at the back and read forward. 

Actually Tony, my district (ward) is one in which it's easier to get elected as an R than a D.  You could go back to straight ticket voting numbers; or analyze top of the ticket voting in ward 8.  Courage in running as an R or a D is simply a function of where you are from.  Some districts are virtually sure locks for Democratic candidates; some for Republicans; some are pure toss-ups.  You don't have to be a genius to figure which is which.  We could give them all ratings on a 1-10 scale.  I have and that's how I make predictions.  My ward (8) is the most Republican one in Manchester due to the suburban type growth in the ward in the past 20 years.  If a 10 is solid Republican, I would rank Ward 8 a 7. In my ten year top of the ticket analysis of all districts in the State (100 being pure Republican, 0 pure Democratic), Ward 8 comes out as 56.07 for the past decade after being 54.15 in the 90s.  (Ward 5, on the other hand, is around 46, but even more Democratic than that once you get away from top of the ticket)..  Some districts showed greater changes in the 10 years spans, much of Rockingham county becoming more Republican; much of the north country more Democratic for example.  (I'd be happy to share numbers with anyone individually and will post them all when I have lots of time to type).  Along with a Laconia ward or two, Ward 8 is the only city ward in the entire state that voted for John Stephen over John Lynch, and there are numerous other examples like this.   

However, I've topped the ticket as both a Democrat and Republican in the past (in every state primary and general election since 2000, but then people would accuse me of being egotistical when in fact, I'm just point to facts; I would hasten to add that I always do poorly in low turnout city elections; a presidential year turnout is bound to be very high; that's why I'm not really worried about me personally).  And Ward 8 may--correct me if I'm wrong--is the only ward in the city to never elect all three Representatives from the same party dating back to the 80s, maybe even farther back than that.  (Ward 1 on the other hand used to elect all three Republicans; it now elects all three Democrats--not so Ward 8).  Look it up!  How so?  Ray Buckley was able to win there when most Democrats would not have won--the Fran Riley, Jackie Domaingue days. 

Tim Horrigan is NOT right about my decision to leave the Democratic party.  That's probably because he listens to rumors when I would be happy to tell him the truth, the whole truth.  In capsulated form, you should check the history; my switch was just after the Democrats in 1999 (with much Republican support) managed to get an income tax through the House (albeit not a final version).  I have always been extremely fiscally conservative and Democrats clearly became more and more the party of big tax and spenders (a rather recent development--Democrats in the 19th century were the fiscal conservatives--Grover Cleveland is one of my favorite presidents).  Meanwhile at the same time, Republicans had become the party of fascists in my mind.  By 2000, Republicans seemed to be moving away from their fascist tendencies (perhaps best embodied by Jesse Helms).  Bottom line--Tim's analysis is more psychobabble than anything else.  I probably should have been a Republican all along (I would have won in 1994 had I been--the Steve Merrill landslide buried most Democrats, certainly in places like Ward 8), but I could not live with myself--always the number one consideration--and be in the same party of people like Jesse Helms. 

His Vileness, as usual, is totally wrong.  I did say that I wouldn't run if Scamman ran, and in fact, he did not run that year; so His Vileness thinks he has a scoop, but in fact, he's got the years wrong.  A little knowledge is a dangerous thing in the hands of one committed to deceiving people who don't know better.  His Vileness spends his life pretending to know what he is ignorant about.  I waited till the very last minute in 2006 and then decided to run only when Scamman did NOT file.  It was 2008 that Scamman decided to run again but I was told he would NOT be involved in leadership--he sure wasn't.  Democrats took control.  One would think people like Jasper would be ashamed of constantly being wrong, but they have no shame!

I find it endlessly amusing to see so many people weighing in to say they don't care what I do.  Such unmitigated foolishness! you didn't care, you would simply say nothing.  You are after all reading this and no one has a gun to your head, forcing you to hang on every word (Are you hanging?)  The fact that someone goes out of his or her to say something proves he or she really does care, that he or she feels some need to respond. Perphas I should quote a passage I read from a new book, The Heartbreak of Aaron Burr by H.W. Brands--maybe June 27...or better yet, maybe when I review it here later this week.   

As I noted in my blog Saturday, I am truly undecided about what, if anything, to run for.  Anyone who thinks he or she knows what I will do is simply a fool...because I don't know myself.  His Vileness always qaulifies for fool status, so I rest my case.  Now, I see that Manchester Republicans have decided to primary me if I decide to run for Rep in Ward 8.  That will not affect my decision; actually I suppose it could make me more inclined to run in Ward 8 considering how combative I tend to be, but I will make my decision on what is best for me and society as I see it.  The prime reason I would run for State Rep again has nothing to do with Concord, but I am committed to making sure someone keeps county government under control Dick Hinch and I have been more responsible than anyone else for doing that the past four years.  I see county taxes skyrocketing the next two years.  And that's highly factored into my plans.  So many fiscally conservatives become big spenders at the county level, His Vileness include

I just can't wait to see O'Brien, Ball, and Infantine attack me in a primary when my HRA score is higher than most Republican leaders.  I withstood seven vicious mailings from Democrats in 2006; if I decide to run, I think I can handle equally viciousness from Republicans who prefer those who will simply do what they are told rather than think for themselves.

Let me make this one promise--should His Vileness decide not to run, I promise I will run for State Rep in Ward 8, but I suspect he will run--and win--and continue to be a wart on the body politic.  He's no Doug Scamman.


________________________________________
From: Rep. Tony Soltani [tsoltani@metrocast.net

Tim:

        I agree with your ultimate conclusion. Traditionally , it has been
easier to get elected in most of our districts as an R rather than a D.
Steve's District is not one of them. It has also been historically more
difficult to be a D rather than an R in the House; with a four year
exception. That is one reason I admire my friends who run as Democrats based
on their principles and not for the convenience of the times, or the
fleeting of the popularity of a party. This is not new for me. Since 1998 I
have always said that two most important ingredients of any democracy in
action are a loyal opposition and a free and vigilant press. Throughout the
years I have learned from and worked with my Democrat friends. Just look at
my most recent post on my facebook page! I must know the other perspective,
even if I am sure they are wrong at the moment. The bottom line is all of us
as fallible human beings can never be absolutely certain that any particular
vote that we cast is the right one. We have to admit the possibility that we
might be wrong, as passionately as we might believe in our position or
cause. I have a history of being a pest and sticking up for the unpopular,
or as my friend Gene Chandler put it " for the underdog". It is easy to
promote popular causes, not so easy to speak unpopular words.
Regards
Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: Horrigan, Timothy [mailto:Timothy.Horrigan@leg.state.nh.us]

Rep. Vaillancourt was formerly a Democrat and ideologically he would fit in
better with the Democratic House caucus.  He is more conservative than the
average House Democrat, but there are some who are more conservative than
him.  There is a long and sad story about why he left the Democratic party,
with two very different sides to it--- but suffice it to say that it was
personal issues more than political issues which drove him out of the party.

I agree with Rep, Accornero that it takes less courage to run as a
Republican than as a Democrat.


________________________________________
From: Accornero, Harry

Does anyone really care if Vaillancourt is going to run or not? Everyone
knows he's a Democrat running as a Republican because he does not have the
courage to run as a Democrat!

Response—People like Rep. Accornero need to check HRA scores to see who is more Republican before they insist on making fools of themselves, ad infinitum.

 

From: duffyd.sixigma@gmail.com [duffyd.sixigma@gmail.com]

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for
illusion is deep.  Saul Bellow

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID


-----Original message-----
From: "Jasper, Shawn His Vileness"
Nobody asked me but.. I give the odds of Rep. Vallancourt running again to
be near 100%. A few terms back (when he was still talking to me) he told me
that if Doug Scamman ran again he would not. He told me that he would not
serve with that man again. Well guess what Doug ran and so did Steve. 

 

Response--Wrong, wrong, wrong, as noted above.

 

Saturday
Jun092012

My Political Plan? "Nobody Knows It"

A German friend of mine spoke good but not perfect English.  When a question called for the answer, "I don't know", he used to say, "Nobody knows it."

When people ask me if I'm running again, I've always told the truth.  I am incapable of telling anyting but the truth.  DJ might be a pahological liar; I'm a pahological truth teller.

The truth is, "Nobody knows it."

In other words, "I don't know."

I'll make up my mind by Friday, the deadline for filing, but at this very moment, "I really have no idea."  I will have a firm idea, but at this time, I don't.

Wir werden sehen.

I actually give odds to myself as to how at a give time I feel about it; maybe 50 percent yes, 50 percent no, but the odds are always changing.

I had planned to write a thousand word essay here explaining how I feel about running, about serving, about the questions I need to answer in my own mind because as you'll know from the previous post, I believe if you plan to run, you ought to be willing to serve not just some of the time, but 100 percent of the time required!

However, I see my hour on the library computer is just about over.

I've only revealed my plans to one media source, The Concord Monitor.

Why?

Becaue only The Monitor asked.

So, you just might see yet another scoop in The Sunday Monitor, but then considering my indecision, it won't be all that big a scoop.

Hint--don't you just love that guy Beaudry!

Saturday
Jun092012

Filing And Failing To Serve Is Fraud!

Considering the long history of absenteeism from Manchester Representatives, a practice which in effect disenfranchises voters, one would have thought that the Union Leader, as part of its Friday editorial urging citizens to seek public office during this filing period, would have stressed that if you file, you really ought to plan to serve if elected.

That should go without saying, but in recent years, people have been coerced into filing by their party simply to fill spots on the ballot or have filed simply to get the glory of being elected but with no real intent to serve.

It's sad, but it's ever so true.  I intend to prove it here.

Don't get me wrong.,  Everyone has lives outside the State House, and no one should be expected to record perfect attendance, perhaps not even 90 percent or not even 80 percent...so let's quantify one's intentions.  You should discover how much effort will be involved in serving and if you, for any reason--even the most noble--caluclate that you cannot be on hand for House sessions and committee hearings at least 75 percent of the time, you should not file to run.  I would consider that a minimal number, but many Reps show up closer to zero than to 75 percent of the time. 

By the way, the 75 percent landmark would disqualify Will Infantine, who as Manchester Ward 6 Reprsentative, served as chairman of the city delegation until the redistricting scandal.  He's been on hand just more than 60 percnet of the time this year, and he was Labor Committee Vice Chair.  Imagine someone in a leadership position not showing up!  Infantine was supposedly considering run for State Senate.  Go figure,  but don't expect to hear of his absentee rate from the Union Leader.  He is after all one of the paper's Golden Boys.  Apparently the paper has no qualms about endorsing those with a No Show history.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Let's keep an eye on what Infantine does this coming week.

However, clearly people are already filing who have a no-show history and most likely will be no shows again if elected.

Caveat voters!

Take the Katsiantonis brothers from Manchester.  In 2007-08, George from the West side had an attendance record in the 20 percent range yet actually got re-elected in 2008, then proceeded to not show up again, and he probably would have been re-elected again in 2010 but for the Republican sweep.

His brother Tom, from my own ward 8, has missed nearly 80 percent of House roll calls this years.  For whatever reason, he's failed to show up for nearly four out of five votes, but he had no problem showing up down at city hall on Thursday to file so he can not show up again!

Disgraceful!

Then there's the case of Jean Jeudy, perhaps shades of Dan Healy.

Perhaps you remember old Dan--well, I guess he wasn't always old, but he sure was when I knew him.  He's the Manchester Rep, a very conservative Democrat and a fine gentleman, whose picture is placed right outside Reps Hall because he served 50 years.  However, maybe you've heard this story...his final term was my first term, 1996-97.  During filing period, he apparently managed to get free from a New Jersey nursing home and somehow found his way down to file at Manchester City Hall (the details will not be revealed here).  Of course he got elected easily, and he only showed up two or three times in the next two years (I actually recall him giving one very short speech on the House floor--nobody understood much of what he said).  He had served honorably and well for decades, but he should not have filed to run that final time.

Earlier this year, the director at the Manchester public TV station asked me if I could come in earlier on Mondays to tape my show.  Sure, I said, but why.  He explained that  Rep. Jean Jeudy had been taping earlier (in French as I recall) but he was extremely ill and could no longer do his show.

Now, I've never really liked Rep. Jeudy, not since the time he sponsored that Tawana Brawley fraudster The Reverend Al Sharpton in a Manchester appearance.  However, as I saw Rep. Jeudy's seat vacant week in and week out at the State House, I actually began to feel sorry for him.  I kept asking whether he is still alive.

Apparently he is because although he hasn't been able to show up in Concord, guess what?

You're way ahead of me.

The same day the House was voting on CACR12 and every vote mattered, Rep. Jeudy was not in Concord, but he was well enough to make it down to City Hall to file for re-election.

There was not a word of this in the Union Leader which in the past has had to call Reps to task for their no-show proclivities.  Disbarred lawyer Michael Farley, for example, won from my ward and he actually ran again in 2010, only to lose the third spot to fellow no show Katsiantonis.

Also in ward eight, a few terms back, Democrats were afraid that I would get written in on both sides of the ballot so Chairman Raymond Buckley assured (lied to might be a more apt terminology) Maureen Nagle that if she filed and happened to get elected, she wouldn't really have to spend much time serving.  Guess what?   After filing (after all, it's hard to say no to Raybo), she twice tried to get off the ballot.  However, the Secretary of State's office informed her that only death, leaving the ward, or a newly acquired illness would allow her to step aside.  She met none of those qualifications, so her name remained on the ballot; and she was elected.  Of course, she failed to show up most of the time, thus disenfranchising Ward 8 voters, setting the precedent for Farley and Katsiantonis.

Then there's the famous case of Democrat Judy Courchesne in Manchester, Ward 11.  She won, never once showed up in two years (except to get her license plates), ran again (Peter Burling even came down to campaign for her), won again, and never showed up again until her absences were noted in the media--no, not the Union Leader (I believe it was the Lawrence paper)--and she finally resigned in disgrace.

Those all happen to be Democrat disenfranchisers, but it's not limited to one party.

This term in Manchester, Tom Beattie from the West Side has almost never been there.  Word is that he works (or at least was working) for WalMart down in Arkansas.  Once in a great while, I've seen him in the hall; and my first reaction is, "Who is HE?"

Another Republican, Norma Greer Champagne, accomplished the virtually impossilbe in November, 2010.  She won in highly Democratic Ward 5 (Dan Healy's old ward).  Her attendance was spotty at best in 2011 and downright awful this year (she spent the winter in Florida).  She won a seat which Rick Olson, a blogger on this site, would most likely have otherwise won, and he would have served well.

When I saw Rep. Champagne in the hall Wednesday, I thought, "Great!  Republican leadership has coerced her to be here soas to put another vote in the CACR12 column."  I was wrong--she voted against the amendment.  Congratulations Norma, if you have any idea of spending next winter in Florida (or anywhere else warm), do us a favor.  Do not file to run (not that she'd win anyway--don't expect any Republicans to win in Ward 5 come November).

I know Manchester best, so I've covered only Manchester here, but we have about eight percent of the population, so you can imagine there are probably ten or 12 times as many no show stories from other parts of the state.

Attendance has been so bad this session that Speaker O'Brien has been forced a half dozen times or so to lock Reps into the hall, summoning police to force us to stay lest we fall below a two-thirds quorum. 

It's true.  Would I lie?  Of course not.

When I first ran in 1994 (and first won in 1996), I promsed to take however much time was required to get the job done, in other words to be there all the time.  In 16 years, I have in fact missed one session day.  I'll never forget the day; Benson was governor; I was so sick that I literally fell back into my bed as I tried to get out the door.

I kid you not.

Yet we have shameful people like the Katsiantonis brothers who run with no intention of showing up to get the job done.  Apparently the Greek government provides a free trip to Athens once a year for any elected official with a Greek heritage.  No wonder Greece is going bankrupt!

Don't laugh.  It's deadly serious when voters here are disenfranchised.  Thumbs down to the Union Leader (and other media) for not stressing, during this filing period, the need to serve if a candidate is in fact elected.

Friday
Jun082012

RUMOR MILL--O'Brien Wants New Ed Funding Amendment

Not being a Republican insider, I have no way of verifying this rumor, but it's out there that House Speaker Bill O'Brien is planning to bring yet another Constitutional Amendment forward either when the House meets again on veto day or at some other time soon.

I've received an email from a reliable source to this effect.  In fact, my source reveals that the Concord Montior is about ready to run with the story.  That wouldn't be a surprise; the Monitor is great at scoops.

However, I guess I would be slightly surprised if O'B tries such a maneuver.  After all, even if an eleventh hour pass were completed in the House, the Senate would have to go along in order to get anything on the November ballot.

Still...knowing the games the Speaker played with calling for a vote on the right to work override, anything is possible with this egomaniac wielding the gavel.

Another rumor is that O'Brien will forego running for one of the two seats in Mt. Vernon/New Boston, and will file for the floterial which will include those two towns and rather Republican towns of Hollis and Milford.  In fact, it's been said that O'Brien insisted that Hillsborough County be screwed up in redistrciting just to provide him with such an advantage.

Wir werden sehen.

At the very least consdier, this a good chance to see how accurate my rumor mill is.

It turned out to be on the money with former Governor Steve Merrill's rumormongering that Mrs. DJ was pregnant.  I've heard the marriage has already taken place?

Has it?         

Friday
Jun082012

The Week In Polls--June 8--538 Gives Obama 71 Percent Chance Of Winning NH

            Fivethirtyeight.com has become my absolute favorite web site for political developments, especially polling data.  It's a must see on a regular basis (almost daily, in fact).  I've actually registered, under my real name, and post comments there occasionally.  About Wisconsin, I wondered, as a result of Juan Williams comment on Fox News, how many people were voting for Walker but would have voted against him had it been a regular rather than a recall election.  I've seen no polling data on that question.  Have you?

            Now more than ever, political junkies should check out Nate Silver’s analysis on the site because he’s beginning a more in depth look at individual states and national trends this week.

            It will be updated frequently.

            Even as right wing zealots like Sean Hannity appear ready to wet themselves, so giddy over the Wisconsin results are they, 538 has Obama winning 289.5-248.5 electoral votes at the starting gate.  Don’t ask about the metrics that go into this; you either have faith in Silver or you don’t; I do.  In fact, he stresses that this could get closer and notes how several individual state polls tend to favor Obama even as Romney makes progress (albeit still trails by two to three points) in national polls.

            Guru Silver has Obama winning New Hampshire by five points, about half the margin he did four years ago, 52.4-47.6 percent.  The great thing about 538 is that it also gives chances of winning.  Right now, Obama is given a 71 percent chance of winning New Hampshire (29 for Romney).

            These numbers are based on most recent polls, so expect them to change as new polling data arrives.

            Not surprisingly, Silver has Ohio as the closest state.  He has Obama winning 49.3-49.0, but only a 52 percent chance of winning the state.

            Colorado appears to be the next closest with Obama projected to win only 49.8-48.9 (a 55-46 chance).

            Virginia is also close, 50.8-47.9 for Obama (but a 63-38 chance).

            So too is Nevada where Obama leads 50.8-47.9 (66-34 chance of winning it).

            It’s great stuff at 538.  He has Romney rather safely ahead in Florida, Missouri (no surprise to me but apparently it will be to PPP), North Carolina, Arizona, and of course, Indiana.

            He’s got Obama ahead but not all that much in Michigan and Pennsylvania, and—this is a surprise at how close it is—Oregon.

            Even with Republican Scott Walker’s seven point win in the Wisconsin recall, Nate Silver expect Obama to win there 52.7-46.0 (a rather high 82-18 chance of winning, not that Hannity will tell his listeners that).  I would concur with Silver’s contention that if Romney pulls out, Wisconsin, it will be icing on a very well baked cake.  In other words, he’ll have won big in other places; he’ll win going away—not likely to happen.

            The latest nationwide polls also would tend to douse Hannity and Republican enthusiasm this week.  Fox has it tied 43-43.  Gallup has Obama up one, 46-45; Rasmussen has Obama up two, 47-45; and Monmouth/Survey USA has Obama up one, 47-46, not exactly the type of numbers the GOP would like to see in the wake of Wisconsin.

            Fox News also has Obama’s job approval at plus four (49-45) while Rasmussen has it at minus three (48-51) and Gallup at minus one (46-47).

            By the way, as alluded to hear, PPP was left with egg on its face in Wisconsin polling, but it wasn’t the worst polling outfit.  American Research Group has analyzed the polling results.  With Walker winning by seven, Marquette nailed it perfectly.  Angus-Reid (I believe that’s a firm out of Canada), with a six point margin, was second best.   PPP had Democrats doing four points better than the final result, but Lake (although Democratic pollster) actually had a 49-49 tie.

            The moral once again is that you really can’t trust pollsters too closely aligned with one party or the other—certainly with PPP.

            For example, PPP last week had incumbent Missouri Senator Clair McCaskill one point ahead of Steelman.  Rasmussen today has Steelman up double digits, 51-39.  Even if McCaskill is closer than that, PPP is most likely way off, and as I’ve said all along, Democrats can count on losing that seat. 

            However, Rasmussen has Democrat Tim Kaine leading George Allen by two (46-44) in the hotly contested Virginia race; my projection that Allen would win is somewhat shaken, but "wir warden sehen".

            On the silly side, Rasmussen has American approving of the Queen (that would be LizII) 69-15 with 17 expressing no opinion (put me in the 17 percent category—who cares?).

            On the more serious side, Rasmussen finds approval of public employee unions—and this was taken since the Wisconsin vote—at 49-46 positive.

            Gallup weighs in with what could only be termed “Oh Really?” numbers.  Romney leads Obama big among Mormons, 84-13, but Obama leads among Jews 64-29.

            All together now…”Oh, really!”

            If you plan to follow this blog on a regular basis, you need to know the translation is “we will see” for “wir warden sehen”.  It’s one of my favorite German phrases, even more than “Siel Heil”.