Advertising

 

 


 

 

« Democrat Protester Spotted At Rally | Main | Light A Candle »
Friday
Apr162010

Lynch Lied

 

The NHDP has it's panties in a bunch about an ad campaign claiming governor Lynch is a liar on the issue of same sex marriage.  This is to be expected from a party that sold spendocrat Jeff Goley as a small government anti-tax champion.

The analysis of this question is relatively simple.  John Lynch said he was for civil unions but against same sex marriage.  When presented with a bill legalizing same sex marriage, (which only passed the House after some stiff arming of reluctant state reps) he signed it. 

The NHDP's objection is of course predicated on the same litmus by which they interpet everything. If they want it to be true then it is.  The constitution is a flexible, living entity except when such an interpretation would deny them something they desire.  Tax and Spenders are actually tax advocates if for no other reason than that there are literally thousands of taxes they have not imposed upon voters----yet.  And John Lynch is not a liar, but he is.

 

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (11)

When NH was debating the bill to allow children to get abortions without their parents knowledge I wrote Lynch asking him not to strip parents of their rights over their children. He wrote me back (a letter I still have) saying he would never think of taking away parental rights yet when that bill hit his desk he signed it in a heartbeat.
April 16, 2010 | Registered CommenterRick Barnes
Scan it in and post it as a photo or a pdf.
April 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterSteve Mac Donald
Better yet, can I get a copy?
April 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterSteve Mac Donald
Regardless of what you think on the civil unions/gay marriage issue or any other issue, a lie is a lie and if someone can't be trusted, it will extend to other issues.

The NHDP can't own up to a lie, we knew that.
April 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterNH
Now I'm hearing in the news he will veto the video slots bill, but can we trust him?
April 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterNH
Not really. We can't beleive him. And I agree. And this is not about the position on the issue, it's about the lie.
April 18, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterSteve Mac Donald
I just saw the Out-of-state, New-Jersey-produced Ad to which you refer. If you really want to get rid of Lynch, I can't imagine a more counter-productive piece of garbage.

First, the attempt to move the discussion away from Marriage Equality and towards "Let the People Vote" was a disaster. I think even the most ardent conservative spin-doctors were shocked and embarrassed at their poor results when they *did* allow the people to vote to Town Meetings. It proved that the world has moved on without them.

Second, that critical point has been lost on the producers of the current NOM TV ad. Having failed at moving the argument away from 'gay marriage' to "let the people vote,' the ad campaign attempts to move it away from 'gay marriage' and towards "the politician lies.' Unfortunately for the GOP, the people of the state can see through this sleight of hand as well. And a hell of a lot of people, having changed their opinion on Marriage Equality but don't see it as a central issue, take umrage at the notion that NOM is equating changing one's mind with 'lieing.'

And that suggestts my last point: it is precisely the aility to change, to grow, to use sound judgement, to chage one's mind...and yes, even to 'repent and change' - that makes a human noble and a politician a statesman.

It is the insistence on a rigid, tenacious grapsing of inviolale idoology that marginalizes a politician and makes him or her inconsequential as the world moves on.
April 18, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterThom
If you want to talk about HATRED, just look back on March 31 at what Buckley, aided and abetted by his ragtag hateful bunch in the NHDP, did to mount a smear campaign using baseless statements of libel, for which they are now being sued. They & friends are going to pay dearly for jumping the shark and not making good on it.

What a reckless lying hypocritical bunch of tax and spenders, no matter what you think about preserving marriage. (Most towns voted overwhelmingly to vote on it) Any politician that attacks people for merely expressing their preference for hetero marriage as an 'ideology' is out of their mind and is guilty of the very things you accuse them of doing. They are not going to get anyplace like that. It's OK to express YOUR prefernce but no one else can do the same... yet the irony is lost on you.

And please, let's not talk about "out of state money" ----- which is what these evil Dems rely on from their astroturfed Soros groups to the money behind their legislative pushes.

Out of state, out of country -- communist money -- the enemy is within. The marriage issue is but one more way to smear people who simply want no more government intrusion or bureaucracies created based on special interests, to the exclusion of others.
April 18, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterAnonymoose
HATRED? Why did you ask if I wanted to talk about hatred? Please point to the place in my comment above where I accused anyone of HATRED. Please, I can't wait.

And I must say that your anonymous signature speaks more than anything you actually wrote.

In fact, it sheds quite a it of light on them.
April 18, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterThom
Thom, I fail to see how you can claim the "let NH vote" was a disaster, it passed in the majority of towns it was put up in. I have no horse in that race since I could care less either way but the facts are what they are, the majority of people in NH voted to pass the question to call a vote.

Granted it does fall into a gray area because while the majority voted in favor of the "let NH vote" a super majority needed to pass a constitutional amendment did not. It allows both sides to claim a victory where neither really has one.

That said, it is clear that the majority of voters do not support same sex marriage and while a constitutional amendment takes a super majority, a regular election does not and politicians who lie to the NH voting public about their views do not go over well with voters.
April 20, 2010 | Registered CommenterRick Barnes
No, Richard...a clear majority of towns either turned it down....or, in the case of SB2 towns, killed it via amendment befoe it ever got to town meeting. And when you include the towns where it couldnt even get on the ballot in the first place...and then conisder the supermajority that would e necessary...this was a disaster for the NOM crowd.
April 22, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterThom

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.