No Labels is Now New And Improved!!!

No Labels has grown tired of being No Body, of No Interest, and having No point, so they are "shedding their centrist label."

For those of you who slept through the first part of this 'movie,' No Labels started out under the assumption that we could get a lot more done if we left our political labels at the door.  "Not Left.  Not Right.  Forward."  That was their slogan.

"Forward," being a the same historical buzz word for left-leaning progressive socialist publications, should have clued everyone in as to the true purpose of a group founded by progressives from both the right and the left.

Not long after No Labels was trying to look forward, the very partisan left leaning MSNBC was trying to "Lean Forward."  Obama and the Democrats ran for election/reelection in 2012 using on moving Forward.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

I repeatedly framed No Labels as ..."the latest of many left wing funded efforts to drag the right into the middle and the middle leftward."  I saw No Labels as a bivouac for progressive Republicans looking to polish their bi-partisan cred and to provide cover for lesser known radical leftists who needed to appear centrist--like then-former NH State Senator Maggie Hassan.

Hassan was at the first No Labels launch, which prompted me to ask this back in late 2010...

But could Hassan have had an epiphany?  Has her unexpected defeat resulted in a cathartic de-gentrification of her traditional ruling class elitism?   Is it possible that a woman steeped in the progressive super culture could abandon her pro-government/liberal materialism to spend forty days in the desert on a moderate vision quest? Or is this, more likely, just a flanking maneuver.

Maggie ‘The Red’ Hassan is advocating No Labels because she wants to be governor Hassan; think of it as an undocumented progressives worker program or Fascists anonymous–only it’s not about recovery or remission, it is about hiding who you really are from the voters until after you get elected.

Guess who our new governor is?  Yes, Maggie Hassan...(here's more from that same 2010 article)

This is a woman who tried to socialize medicine in-state, legislate away free speech she objects to, advocates for abortion from conception to delivery, and is committed to advance the size, scope, control, and cost of the government.  If she has a middle ground, it is not just left of center, it is far left.  So Hassan advocating No Labels is like Kathy Griffin, or Janeane Garofalo advocating tolerance.

She was there for cover...and it must have worked.

So what about that New and Improved No Labels?

They appear committed to resurrecting this monster and the lightning that will jump start it is bringing liberals and conservatives together to solve problems.   (Isn't that what congress is for?)  They are no longer, "Not Left.  Not Right.  Forward."  They are 'Committed to Fix not Fight.'

The center of the new logo says "Problem Solver."

That is an interesting notion but there is one small catch.   The biggest problem real conservatives need most to solve is how to keeping progressives out of power.  Somehow, I don't see anyone dancing that dance at the New and Improved No Labels cotillion.

So real conservatives would never go there.  They understand that most of our "problems" are the result of the Federal government doing things it was never meant to do.  The debt, all of it, ties to big government getting bigger not smaller.  And the only solution to that "problem" is to shed that authority and give it back the states.  Doing so will lessen Federal costs, debts, deficits, power, would shrink the bureaucracy and all manner of abuses at the Federal level.  It will lessen the need for lobbyists to flock to DC.  It would put the people and the states in more control of revenues and decisions that would no longer be diverted to the U.S. capital.  Can you name for me one Democrat in Congress who believes in that or would actually work to make it happen?

I'm stumped.

Everything Democrats do is designed toward central planning.  Bring it to DC, let the experts decide if or how to send it back and what and how many strings shall be attached attach.  There is nothing conservative about any of that.

So the only "problem" a No Labels Conservative will ever solve as part of this group is the problem of actually thinking they are a real conservative.  if that is in fact its true purpose than soldier on, I say.  Let's see who signs up!  But let us make sure we understand what this is.  It is just another Main Street Partnership looking for creative ways to push the center even further left.

You are reading  "No Labels is Now New And Improved!!!"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

Order Your Susan Emerson Commemorative Boo Hoo Towels Today!

The RINO from Rindge, House GOP 69 percenter Susan Emerson, has sponsored a bill to stop bullying in the State legislature.  No.  I am not. Kidding.

The Union Leader reports that HB 1533..

“….would allow the Attorney General’s Office to investigate allegations of bullying in the Legislature, rather than current rules that allow such allegations to be investigated by an ethics committee.”

The paper claims the bill has 97 Sponsors, while the bill as submitted has just a handful of support; moderates pretending to be Republicans, pining no doubt for the days when more people voted for their spineless ilk and they actually had some kind of voice in State government?   (Too harsh?)

This bill does not fix that problem, no bill could.  What it does do is create an atmosphere built on tension and self imposed censorship, where healthy debate and disagreement becomes almost impossible without fear of being branded a bully backed up by the threat of a $2500.00 fine (per incident) and the stigma of criminal proceedings.

Mom!  He’s Bullying me!

So why bother?  We got through four years of Democrat majorities and all kinds of reported bullying of Republicans and Democrats (also here) without Emerson creating the boo-hoo bill.

Well, you see,  this bill is “necessary” because of a he-said she-said disagreement from a year ago between Emerson–who wanted to add 27 amendments to last year’s budget Bill, and Speaker O’Brien–who didn’t.  Whatever happened after that, Emerson has had time enough to listen to the little blue devil on her left shoulder, the one who keeps whispering about how she probably had more power and influence when Democrats were in charge.  I guess she couldn’t afford Gloria Allred; instead we get fuel for the left wing narrative and a piece of legislative-dung worthy of Maggie “The Red” Hassan’s brand of statutory intimidation and Kathy ‘Lawsuit” Sullivan’s Kitchen Table.

(a)(1) “Bullying” means a single significant incident or a pattern of incidents involving a written, verbal, or electronic communication, or a physical act or gesture, or any combination thereof, directed at another member which:

(A) Physically harms a member;

(B) Causes emotional distress to a member;

(C) Interferes with a member’s legislative opportunities;

(D) Creates a hostile environment; or

(E) Substantially disrupts the orderly operation of the general court.

(2) “Bullying” shall include actions motivated by an imbalance of power based on a member’s actual or perceived personal characteristics, behaviors, or beliefs, or motivated by the member’s association with another person and based on the other person’s characteristics, behaviors, or beliefs.

Emphasis mine.

So does the bill come with tissues and a blankie?  (I admit to being surprised that there is no prohibition on brandishing a firearm.)

Interesting progression. The Blue Dog Republicans send Emerson into the budget fray (undercover?) carrying fiscal water for the left.   (She did get .0075% of the votes for House Speaker.)  They want to debate over two dozen proposed budget amendments that no one in this legislature is going to pass–probably as roll call vote campaign fodder.  The speaker and House Leader see it as the waste of precious time that it is, try to get her to combine or whittle the list down to just a few  amendments, but Emerson says no.  She says no.? Not one of those proposed amendments was worth debating unless the other 26 were?  Not one? All or nothing? To quote Admiral Akbar…’It’s a Trap! ‘

The actual House Speaker says no deal, no thanks.   Emerson goes for the boo boo towel.

But what did she expect?   Every single elections since 2006 has seen the decline of moderate Republicans in the legislature.  No one is interested in their squishy left leaning legislative agenda.  We have Democrats for that.   (Been there done that.)  And the only reason she is probably still even in the House is name recognition.  This was clearly a set up.  And now she’s back with the Emerson ‘Boo hoo’ bill.

Susan, when back-benched Democrats have had enough “bullying”  they suck it up or just quit.  You can quit the House.  We don’t mind.  I’m sure we can replace you with a real Republican, or more likely a real Democrat.   At least they stand on their lack of principle.   As for back-benched, tax and spend moderates, acting like cry baby Democrats is not going to win you any points with real Republicans or even real independents.   And writing an in-House bullying bill?  Really?  Waaaahhhhhhhh!

Wait, here’s an idea.  Instead of marketing left wing pabulum and writing pointless intimidation legislation that will make it almost impossible to disagree with someone with any degree of passion or enthusiasm for fear of being charged with being a bully by some relegated cry-baby, try finding more people to sell your political priorities to the people instead.  If they elect enough like minded legislators you can get back the power you so desperately crave.  If they don’t, suck it up or get out.

cross posted Order Your Susan Emerson Commemorative Boo Hoo Towels Today!

Out of State Influence Gets 'Republican' Kevin Janvrin Elected.

I can't get enough of Democrat Ray Buckley, Kathy Sullivan, and even Governor Lynch unloading two barrels of hypocrisy on the issue of out of state money or the excessive influence of PACs on local politics.  Sitting atop their mountains of out of state money they are forever demagoging the issue.   So I am waiting patiently for them to denounce the newly elected Republican House Rep from Rockingham county, Kevin Janvrin, who has finance reports that just scream "Shill to extremist, outside influence."

Here are a few examples.

CWA District One - Union PAC based in New York City

IAFF -Union PAC - NY (DC) ( $1000.00 6/2011)

IAFF - Union PAC - NY (DC) ($1,000.00 7/2011)

Uniformed Professional FF - Union PAC - Connecticut

Andover FF - Union PAC - Andover Massachusetts

We also have contributions from the PROF FF MASS, TENN Prof FF, Prof FF Vermont, and the IUPAT, all out of state Union PAC money.

All totaled the 'Republican' Janvrin, has received almost $5,000.00 in donations from hostile out of state unions, to both win the primary, and the general election, for one New Hampshire House seat.

Then we have the local union PAC's, NH SEA; NH Educators; MA & NNE Laborers; Nashua FF; MPFFA, IBEW, SMWIA, Plumbers and Steam Fitters, IRON Workers Union, and Granite State Teamsters, all union PAC's, donating in total, over $2500.00 to the 'Republican' Janvrin.

David Lang the head of the PFFNH has also donated personally to Janvrin and Janvrin has even paid the PFFNH, from his campaign, for yard signs.

So a laundry list of out of state Union PACs, hostile to the Republican party platform, and who historically donate exclusively to democrats and left wing causes, have had a disproportional impact on an in-state election.  As a special interest group, union donations from all sources account for over $7500.00 dollars  to this 'Republican' candidate.  In fact almost all of his donations are from democrat run unions, and democrat union supporters, (close to 90% of all donations), with only a few exceptions, like former state senator Bob Clegg, and the Rockingham County GOP committee.

Kevin Janvrin was elected by union money and  union power, to vote the union agenda.

Now, I get that the GOP state party and even elected GOP officials, have to be welcoming and cordial.  That's just part of the PR presence and should not necessarily be used as a measure of their 'Republican cred.'  But  Janvrin is a Hostile Democrat/Union plant, and you'd have to be incredibly naive to think that he is not expected to vote the union democrat agenda from his "Republican" House seat.  So for those of you thinking about calling me divisive, I couldn't break the 11th commandment if I tried because this guy is not a Republican.

And in case you had not noticed, the silence from the NHDP only confirms this.  The unbalanced, corrupting influence of out of state money and special interest donors, on a local election, is suddenly inconsequential when it is democrats donors and outside union influence that helped get Janvrin elected.  He is one of them.  How could they possibly object to how he attained his office?

SoS Report filings

http://www.sos.nh.gov/2011%20r&e/Kevin%20M%20Janvrin%20061511.pdf

http://www.sos.nh.gov/2011%20r&e/Kevin%20M%20Janvrin%20062911.pdf

http://www.sos.nh.gov/2011%20r&e/Kevin%20M%20Janvrin%20083111.pdfv

http://www.sos.nh.gov/2011%20r&e/IAFF%20Firepac%20Non-Federal071311.pdf

Additional links to related groups and PACs can be found in this previous post.

Did You Watch That New Reality TV Show Called 'The Debate?'

I didn't watch the GOP debate. I'm just not that into them. A debate is not a test of every candidates qualifications to lead.  It is not even a place to hear a lucid oration on their policies.  It is a stage on which lawyers or quick witted con men will look best, and the media is permitted to frame them.  I'd rather watch paint dry.

To be fair, living in New Hampshire, and being a political blogger with a shiny "new media" by line attached, I not only have access to most if not all candidates, I am encouraged to have access.   I get to press the flesh, write about them, even do live streamed or podcasted interviews with them; and I can develop a comfortable disinterest after twenty or thirty in-box invitation to meet "so-and-so" at "such-and-such" house party, picnic, monthly committee meeting, or fundraiser.  Not everyone has that opportunity, in fact most people don't, so call it a luxury of New Hampshire convenience, one that I do in fact cherish.  Small state, big Primary, so debates can be viewed at a distance (even DVR'd), and oh yeah, the Patriots were on that night as well.

This is not to say I do not scroll through the reams of coverage and commentary afterwards. That is the convenience of modern advancements.  DVR, Internet, Facebook, Google +, Blogosphere, and so on.  Why kill it yourself when you can get it shrink wrapped on the cheap?  Did I mention the Patriots were on that night?

I am also privy to a stream of inter-party, partisan remarks, from people whom I respect, about why their candidate won "Best in show."  Social media, of which email is certainly a slower participant, provides me an almost endless series of fly-in-amber declarations from every choir.  Articles, opinions, personal commentary, coffee, mouse click, and go.  Information, observation, and opinion are in abundance, and I horde them in neat little virtual folders like a squirrel collects acorns for winter.

Not everything the social media funnel sends my way is 'expert activist' opinion.  There are also novice interjections from folks who stumble out of the political hinterland every quadrennial without having left a proper trail of breadcrumbs from the last go-round.  (Though the trail keeps getting shorter and soon, I suspect, the inauguration will be doubling as a campaign whistle-stop/fundraiser for the re-election.) In any regard, lacking the necessary cultural immersion, these electoral equivalents of the dead-beat dad, when discussing their observations about a presidential debate, can sound like Kelly Bundy describing the modularity theorem for elliptic curves.

Their unfamiliarity with the left-leaning histories of otherwise above-average Republican orators comes to the fore.  They suggest that people like  John McCain​ or  Mitt Romney​ are Conservatives which is only true compared to someone like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and only then if we've moved Overton's window for the across-the-aisle-crowd over to where the blue dogs used to be. (Pelosi had them put down so there is some space available.)  Moderate or even liberal (r)epublicans maybe, but conservatives? I have to guess that Russel Kirk​ and Edmund Burke​ might disagree.  They say "who?" and off we go.  I have to send them to search between the digital couch cushions with about as much promise for success as when I send one of my children, unsupervised, to clean their bedroom.  In all likelihood the follow up will be one in which we debate the definition of "clean," or in the case of the drive-by voter, why CNN and Newsweek are the kinds of internet neighborhoods where they hide democrats under tiny little (r's) and try to pass them off as what America is looking for until it is time for the general election, at which point they club them into unconsciousness and leave them to bleed out in a poorly lit alley.  The only thing better to a leftist in the media than someone who is almost a democrat is the real thing.  It's basically an ideological honey trap.

But do not discount the occasional activist.  They did not all come to the debate thinking that this was just another new reality television show to check out during the off season.  Having lived outside the sausage factory they can bring fresh perspective and intuitive observations.  I know, I used to be them. And hey, they want to vote.

But back to those debating (r)epublicans.   This time around a few of the candidates--those with some left wing baggage in their not distant enough pasts--have decided to either admit to an indiscretion or two (where their actions ran to the left at a right angle to the Republican Party Platform), or are defending those mistakes despite the risks.  It's a refreshing strategy. And honestly, who hasn't at one time or another caught the Georgetown flu at the local Target, in the wake of that emotionally charged Gay-Pride Flash-Mob musical  you witnessed in menswear, (briefs half-off until Tuesday). You wake up with a hangover in some rhetorical rat-trap motel room of the mind, only to realize you have been ideologically unfaithful.  You quickly grab your Smartphone to make sure you haven't tweeted pictures of it to any Young Republicans.  But it's far worse than that.  You are quoted in the press, or maybe you've actually passed something decidedly Marxist, just as an experiment. You know, to try it out.  It happens.  And everyone should be able to reflect on their infidelity to first principles.  But does that drive by voter know it was a six month affair?  Or maybe it just ended when they decided to run for the party nomination for President.

Whatever the rate or regress I'm happy to see them acting as if they are on the GOP 12 step program and happily in remission but I'm not declaring them converts.

(1) I admit that I am addicted to the power of government

(2) There is a greater power in my life than government.

(3) I will examine past errors with the help of my campaign staff...

(4) I will convince voters that I will make amends for these errors

Doh!

I am not suggesting that they are disqualified as competent to run the nation because they have dipped a toe (foot, both legs, gone swimming) in the progressive holy water.  After Obama, my dog appears considerably more competent.  and what we need to do can't be done all at once and done safety with the consent of the governed.   While I would prefer the most conservative executive available, just removing Obama, and all his bureaucratic courtiers and hangers on, would be such a huge step in the proper direction that I am willing to suffer with a less than perfect choice if I must; though I will do what I can to influence that.  To that affect the political hinterlanders must be guided at all cost toward basic conservative ideas from which they might then view the policies of some participants as less than ideal examples of how best to run a constitutional republic. (And yes, you may have to explain what a constitutional republic is.)   Every email, every comment, every curiosity is an opportunity to ask them questions about the relationship between the fruits of their own labors and property rights.  We can compare real choices to those mandated by bureaucrats and politicians and ask if freedom suffers as a result?  And would they feel more comfortable allowing those mandates, if truly necessary, to be managed closer to home or far away in some distant capital.

These are a few of the questions whose honest answers lead to introspection about your personal relationship with the super state you are being asked to pay for.  I don't happen to think a debate answers any of these questions, but if it serves as a gateway to a deeper interest in the process, then debate away.  I'll be watching something else, no worse for wear, waiting for the email to start pouring in.

 Cross Posted

Re: Uncomfirmed Rumor Department [Updated] [Updated again.]

    

It has come to our attention that the poster boy for New Hampshire RINO's , Derry( r) Ken Gould, Rockingham Dist 5,  has had enough and he aint taking any more.

The rumor is that he has resigned from the New Hampshire House because he is tired of all the attacks on him.  (By attacks he probably means, talking about or showing people that seven times out of ten he votes with the democrats.)

We are working almost as hard to confirm the rumor as we have worked to show people his voting record. (Here, Here, Here, ...too many to link.)

But in the mean time, if this happens to be true, we couldn't be happier....you know, for Ken.

(woo hoo! /fist_bump)

[Update]: Ken is retiring because he is moving out of his district. He is moving to Kingston. People of Kingston! Don't let him back in!

[Updated Again]: We may now have enough votes to override Right to Work in the NH House. The election to replace Gould will not happen in time to replace his no vote in the House. Just to be sure though, vote for Honey Puterbaugh this Tuesday!

cross posted