The New Hampshire democrat party–in a typical game of misdirection–is all lathered up about some tenuous connections between Senator Gregg–leaving the Senate, John Sununu–no longer in the Senate, and Kelly Ayotte–not even in the Senate, accepting contributions from two billionaires from Texas who have been charged with securities fraud. The operative word is “charged” not convicted, but the NHDP is already calling them ‘Hypocrites.‘ They are hypocrites for compaining about Hodes and his Rangel cash, while the GOPers apparently have taken “thousands of dollars” of their own. Remember the word “Thousands” as we try to take a look at the cry babies complaint.
Contested Primaries
Carol SEIU-Porter
Paul Hodes Found Someone…
…he thinks he might be able to b
eat in the New Hampshire Senate race. Lord knows he can’t beat anyone actually running. She polls better than he does, but she’s not from New Hampshire, so that improves his odds a little bit. That’s right, Paul Hodes is now apparently running for the Senate….against Sarah Palin.
He’s got an entire page of his campaign website dedicated to defeating Sarah Palin.
So let me see if I have this right.
Attack adds against a single primary candidate months before the primary.
Push polling against the same candidate months before the primary.
And now he’s running against the ex governor from Alaska. Hey Paul, why don’t you run against Rico Petrocelli?
Wait. I think he’s polling better than you are as well. That’s rough.
That’s ok. You just keep spending that out of state money. It wont help you win this election, but then it’s a lot like the stimulus. That cost a fortune and didn’t do much either.
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2010/07/hodes_found_someone.htmlThe Past As The Present
I picked this up from RedState who got it recently from the Chicago Tribune where it was apparently published back in 1934. We are invited to read the list on the sign in the bottom left hand corner but there are plenty of interesting things to catch the eye.
“It worked in Russia.” And there’s Uncle Joe telling us about “How Red the sunrise is getting.”
We’ve got intellectual elites drunk on power leading the cart while money is shoveled out the back.
Just add Obama and you can re-run this as is, just swap out Stalin for Soro’s and “it worked in Europe” (where it did not work either) for Russia.
History repeats itself.
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2010/07/the_past_as_the_present.htmlOr…
The Union Leader has a bi-weekly feature sponsored by McLane Law Firm called Know the Law. Here’s this weeks Q and A. (With an additional comment from me at the end.)
Q: We have owned lakefront property rights on the water for many years and would like to expand the old house, upgrade the permanent docks and stone wall along the shore, and do some landscaping to enhance the grounds and our view of the water. The town approves of our plans. Can we move forward?
A: If your house was built at the water’s edge before 1994 it is a grandfathered non-conforming use, but because it is within the 50-foot shoreland setback requirement, you cannot expand its footprint, nor can you upgrade permanent docks or the stone wall along the shore without obtaining the necessary state approvals. To make the changes you propose, it will be necessary to comply with both the state Shoreland Protection Act and the Wetlands Law.
The SPA regulates shoreland property within 250 feet of the water’s edge and prohibits the construction of primary residences or the expansion of existing residences within the 50-foot waterfront buffer. The percentage of a lot covered by impervious surfaces is strictly regulated.
Impervious surfaces include the roofs of all structures, pavement, gravel and dirt roads as well as patios, decks and the like. Natural vegetation may not be removed within the 50-foot waterfront buffer except to provide for a 6-foot wide path to the water.
Tree removal is restricted under the SPA, but an allowance is made for the removal of tree limbs in order to maintain a view.
It is equally important to understand the reach of the state, federal and local wetlands laws, each of which apply in all cases. In general, the installation, repair or expansion of seasonal or permanent docks, breakwaters, walkways, stairs or any other structure on the bank or in the water may require state approval. An existing wall along the shore may be replaced in kind and in precisely the same location based upon a properly prepared permit by notification to the Department of Environmental Services.
Finally, it is highly recommended that you document, including photographs, the existing conditions on your property before you make any alterations. New Hampshire’s shoreline protection laws can be unexpectedly complicated and frequently trap the unwary. Violations, even though they are inadvertent, of these requirements can bring protracted delays, transaction costs, and fines and penalties in the thousands of dollars.
Anyone contemplating these kinds of property improvements should obtain sound advice before proceeding to undertake any field work.
Or… you could vote for legislators who will repeal the State law (returning these property rights back to the owners) and let the towns and the people decide what works best for them. And while you are at it, make sure they want to repeal the ‘View Tax’ as well.
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2010/07/or.html
Got Hate?
In another round of “Who’s Really Got the Hate” liberals win again. This time the liberal hate comes from a producer for an NPR program called “Left, Right, and Center” from affiliate KCRW. (It’s NPR so it’s more likely Far left, Left, and Mostly left.”)
In today’s example a member of the impartial media comments on what they would do if Rush Limbaugh was having a heart attack right in front of them.
(Source: Daily Caller)
In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists,(Sarah) Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.
In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.”
No word if or when New Hampshire Democrats will “denounce” this latest example of Left Wing hate. If you recall, failing to denounce hate in your own party–or anything else for that matter–makes you an advocate of it. Since they’ve defined the standard it’s up to us to make sure they are held to it.
My guess is they’ll fall back on the standard, “I’m rubber You’re glue defense,” but that may be premature. They may actually build a shrine to her.
For now let’s just add this to the list of things they should have denounced so we can keep up with all the “denouncing” that might one day come pouring if any one of them is ever struck with a cumulative bout of guilt about their own raging hypocrisy.
I Stand Correcte
For the record, there is a PDF available of Sean Mahoney’s individual donors at the FEC but it is not as easy to access nor review on line as any of the other FEC data for New Hampshire candidates. Perhaps I should be clearer. Out of the 19 candidates reporting receipts to the FEC in all the federal level races for New Hampshire only Wesley Michael Sonner Jr, Timothy Vanblommesteyn (Both in CD-2) and Sean Mahoney do not have their detailed data available on the front end FEC candidate list page for each respective race. I know what you are thinking. Who the hell is Timothy Vanblommesteyn and why are he and Sean Mahoney being dissed by the FEC.
All the other candidates’ details were easily accessible in HTML lists you can export to Excel, (example), filter and sort in seconds or even compare side by side on line. Why not Sean’s? I mean what the heck? Someone over there needs to pick up the phone and do some legwork to fix this FEC thing.
Despite that it was incorrect of me to suggest that there was no detailed filing to look at. It is there, and we can look at it, it’s just several scrolls and clicks further away from all the other ones. My bad. I didn’t realize Sean was as special as Timothy Vanblommesteyn. I stand corrected.
Also, for the record, commenter(s) to the first blog took me to the wood shed for my oversight (which is fine), but when I asked if someone could just send me an excel copy of this oh-so accessible “hey dumb ass it’s right there” donor list, I was told that I should do my own damn digging. The exact quote is…
“”Don’t throw out false claims and then demand others do your leg work for you.””
They then proceed to basically misquote me and…how do I phrase this…throw out a false claim.
“”If you knew anything about politics you would know there is no such thing as anonymous donations to congressional candidates.””
ooooh…
So do Mahoney supporters believe a working knowledge of campaign finance and the FEC web site are a prerequisite to “knowing anything about politics?” I’m not sure what part of the constitution that’s in. Maybe it’s hiding inside one of those shadows or penumbras, you know like the one he found in my original post that invents “anonymous donors” I never mentioned.
The actual quote is “unknown number of individual donors.”
What that means is that there are donors, we just didn’t know how many there were because the Mahoney donor list was not where everyone else’s was. I make no mention of anonymity; something a little leg work on their part might have revealed, I merely state that we cannot demonstrate who besides Mr. Mahoney is donating to Sean Mahoney.
Whether or not that has any bearing on “knowing anything about politics” I shall leave that to my readers who are free to make up their own minds. For my part, I do know you cannot donate anonymously and I can’t wait for Sean’s next glossy mailer in which he invokes the well-worn Founders maxim that everyone be able to read or understand the goat-innards of modern campaign finance before they are entitled to their first amendment right to free speech and the redress of grievances regarding those in political office or who aspire to it.
While we wait for that little ray of sunshine, let’s finally review the PDF data that is there.
I took the 76 page PDF report when I located it, and not only did the leg work I did the extra leg work their unique filing situation required. So the number of the donors has been identified. Mr. Mahoney has approximately 130 donors on this report making about 150 donations plus or minus a few.
His donors do not donate in denominations below $250 with but two visible exceptions; one for $100 by a donor who also gave 2400.00 and the other is for $150 given by GOP county committee member Carolyn Geiler. Everything else is of the 250, 500, 1000, and 2400 variety or some number in between.
No small dollar donations were evident–you know the 20, 35, and 50 dollar variety that the dirty little commoners like to give. (For the record only Guinta and CSP have donors of this sort in any abundance on report. Ashooh has one $50 spot from a guy in Virginia, and nothing else under $250 in this public record. Bestani has four at $100, everything else is above that. Guinta’s report has 72 donors at 100 or less.)
I won’t assume that Mahoney, Ashooh and Bestani don’t have small dollar grass roots donors just that there are none in evidence given what I have at hand. I happen to think that matters when talking grass roots so if anyone has other data feel free to share it. Even the twisted panty, do your own leg work crowd is invited to send data if they can get over themselves long enough to swing it. Worst case we report it as sent without commentary–as boring at that might be.
Only about 32% of the donations to Mr. Mahoney are from out of state addresses accounting for about 44% of the total “individual donations” which is a plus. We like to see more in state money that out. Everyone else is near or within the 45-55 split for out of state addresses except Guinta. Over 85% of the donors on his FEC file report living in the state.
Sean is currently about 83% self-funded. The only other federal candidate besides Mr. Vanblommesteyn who comes close in Bill Binnie who should just give every voter 100k and get it over with.
That’s about it. I did not waste time slogging over particular names, though a casual review shows plenty of professionals and business owners—people in his peer group—which seems only natural. But it would be a marked improvement for his “grass roots” cred to see more small donations from less well-heeled advocates. Take that to mean whatever you like. Barring any further invitation, I’m not going to spend any more time on this report unless my ignorance about FEC reports inspires further retribution from my detractors.
The New Media Militia 