inside sources print logo
Get up to date New Hampshire news in your inbox

O’Malley: Gun Control Is A Winning Issue For Democrats In 2020–And Beyond.

Martin O’Malley, former Maryland governor and 2016 Democratic presidential contender, brought a message of unabashed optimism to Tuesday’s “Politics and Eggs” event. Optimism–and liberalism.

“I bring good news,” O’Malley told the crowd at St. Anselm College. “It’s springtime. There’s goodness in this country, and it longs to be called forward.”

The “Politics and Eggs” event hosted by the New England Council and St. Anselm’s Institute of Politics is a mandatory stop on the presidential-contenders New Hampshire circuit.  O’Malley used this return visit to call upon Democrats to embrace the energy and idealism of young Americans. He specifically pointed to the leaders of the #MarchForOurLives rally for gun control, which he attended with his son.

“If you want to know where a country is headed, talk to its young people,” O’Malley said. “What I heard from that stage was the best of America.”

O’Malley made light of his previous less-than-successful bid for the White House, calling his return to the Granite State “a triumph of hope over cruel experience.”  He also took a pot shot at his previous POTUS rivals (“I was the only lifelong Democrat who ran for President in 2016”) and offered praise of a sort for the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:

“Donald Trump is the most effective tool for candidate recruitment we Democrats have ever had.”

On policy, O’Malley toed the progressive line on issues from gun control to immigration to social spending—even calling for an expansion of Social Security at a time when many analysts are concerned about its long-term solvency.

But the specific issue most on the mind of the crowd and the candidate was guns. “America is the only developed nation on the planet to allow people to buy combat assault weapons,” O’Malley said repeatedly throughout his remarks.  When a questioner asked what he would do about school violence “without repealing the Second Amendment,” O’Malley laid out his extensive record on gun control while governor of Maryland: Requiring fingerprints and gun training for all purchases; imposing a mandatory 7-day wait period; banning the sale of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition; and banning the sale of what O’Malley insists on calling “combat assault weapons.”

The NRA calls these same guns “45 specific types of commonly owned semiautomatic firearms” and Maryland passed O’Malley’s gun law in 2013 over their strenuous objections.  Interestingly, the homicide rate in Maryland has actually increased since the 2013 gun ban went into effect. In fact, the city of Baltimore alone had almost as many murders in 2017 (343) as the entire state had the last year O’Malley was governor (363). Why would gun crime increase in the wake of a gun ban, and at a faster rate than the nation as a whole?

“It’s hard to measure prevention,” O’Malley said, before laying the blame for increased homicide rates at the feet of the two Baltimore mayors,  Stephanie C. Rawlings-Blake and Catherine Pugh, who were elected after he left the mayor’s office to become governor.

O’Malley claimed there’s “a strong correlation between states that make it harder for pope to buy combat assault weapons and lower rates of both homicides and suicides,” an opinion some researchers do not share.

“In Baltimore there were a number of things we did during the 10-year period [when O’Malley was mayor] we led all cities in the rate of reduction of crime, and I was not able to make many of those things permanent. Upon my leaving, my two successors starting making different policy choices.”

O’Malley paused, then added: “There really wasn’t much journalistic scrutiny about those reversals of policy and as a result a lot of people are being killed again in our poorest neighborhoods.”

So does Martin O’Malley believe that gun control is a winning issue for Democrats in 2020?

“Yes I do. In 2020, and beyond.”

NH Dem: Repealing Second Amendment “A Good Discussion To Have”

Is it time to repeal the Second Amendment?  Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an op-ed for the New York Times urging just that, and at least one New Hampshire Democrat thinks it’s worth considering.

Rep. Katherine Rogers (D-Merrimack) has long been active in the New Hampshire state house pushing gun control measures (she prefers the phrase “gun violence prevention”) and in an interview with the NH Journal, she said “it’s an interesting discussion that we should have.”

“I think that the United States Constitution is a living, breathing document and it’s always time to revisit and to look at our Constitution,” Rep. Rogers said.

“So I think having this discussions is good, and maybe the op-ed by Justice Stevens leads to a lot of interesting discussion. That’s a good thing. I don’t know if I’m ready to say let’s get rid of the Second Amendment, but I think it’s an interesting discussion for everybody to have,” Rogers said.

Jonathan Weinberg, one of the student leaders of the #MarchForOurLives rallies in New Hampshire singled out Rep. Rogers, along with state senator Martha Hennessey (D-Hanover), for supporting students’ efforts on gun control. Last week, students from the group presented a petition signed by several hundred area students to Gov. Sununu and the state senate urging the legislature to change state law and allow local school districts to declare their schools gun-free zones. The measure failed 14-9.

Meanwhile, the New Hampshire GOP is following the lead of President Trump, seizing on the Stevens op-ed to urge gun-rights supporters to get involved in the 2018 elections.  Just hours after President Trump tweeted about Justice Stevens’ call for repeal (“NO WAY! We need more Republicans in 2018 ad must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!”) the NHGOP posted “StopTheGunGrab.com,” featuring a video by party chairwoman Jeanie Forrester. In the video, she warns New Hampshire residents that “The Left is openly advocating the repeal of the Second Amendment…It’s unconscionable.” (See full video below)

Forrester demands elected Democrats like Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, Sen. Maggie Hassan and Rep. Annie Kuster “must denounce this un-American threat to our liberties.”

For their part, Democrats don’t seem worried. Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley responded to the video by mocking the GOP.

Is welcoming a conversation about repealing the Second Amendment and mocking gun-owners concerns a sign that the New Hampshire Democratic Party is moving left on the gun issue, along with their national party?  Do they believe that gun control could be a winning issue in the Granite State?

“Oh, please,” says Republican Bill O’Brien, former Speaker of the NH House, “throw us in that briar patch!” O’Brien believes that even among Democratic voters, support for gun rights in New Hampshire is strong.

“We’re not afraid of guns here,” O’Brien to the NHJournal. “I don’t know who [the Democrats] are talking to with these messages—maybe the academic crowd, college students? Let them run on gun control and see how most voters react.”

 

Democrats Fight Against Voting Reform, Fetal Homicide Bills Come Up Short in N.H. House

It wasn’t a good day for Democrats in the New Hampshire House. Lawmakers who were opposed to bills like election law reform and fetal homicide legislation saw that their efforts were futile in convincing a Republican-led chamber to defeat them.

Thursday marked the final deadline for the House to act on legislation that originated in the Senate before conference committees are set up on bills to reconcile any differences between the two chambers. Naturally, some of the most controversial bills were saved for this day and most of them passed the House despite protests and hard campaigning from Democrats.

The House passed Senate Bill 3, a bill tightening the identification requirements for people registering to vote, by a 191-162 vote. Only two Democrats voted for the bill and nine Republicans opposed it.

“I commend the support of the House in strengthening the residency requirements for voters in New Hampshire as there is nothing more sacred as a citizen of this state and this nation than the right to cast a ballot in a free and open election,” said bill sponsor Sen. Regina Birdsell, R-Hampstead. “This legislation does nothing more than ask a resident to provide proof that they live where they say they do and provides an additional layer of protections increasing the integrity of elections in the state of New Hampshire.”

This was one of the most hotly debated bills of the legislative session. Proponents say it closes a “domicile loophole” where people are allowed to vote in the state without being required to prove it. Opponents believe it’s a GOP bill to suppress voters, especially young people.

“Today’s vote in support of SB 3 was a partisan sabotage of the election process that will do nothing but confuse and intimidate new voters,” said House Minority Leader Steve Shurtleff. “This legislation adds over 350 words to the registration form that new voters will be required to read, and swear to understand, with the pressure of a growing line behind them at the polls on Election Day.”

The bill heads back to the Senate, which is expected to concur with small changes made by the House. If they approve of it, the bill will go to Gov. Chris Sununu’s desk where he is expected to sign it into law.

Democrats accused that the bill further perpetuates President Donald Trump’s claims that there is rampant voter fraud in the United States.

“This legislation was clearly designed to placate those who buy into President Trump’s discredited assertion that fraud cost him the popular vote in New Hampshire,” Shurtleff said. “Leaders from both parties denounced those assertions, and as we know from the reports released following every single New Hampshire election, voter fraud is not an issue in our state.”

SB 3 also has the backing of Secretary of State William Gardner, a Democrat. He said he doesn’t believe the bill places undue burdens on any voter. He was recently asked to sit on Trump’s voter fraud commission.

The bill also garnered interest from outside groups that spent money in the state to convince residents to contact their legislator to oppose the bill.

“As host of the first-in-the-nation primary, New Hampshire has the obligation to ensure our system is beyond reproach,” Sununu said in a statement. “This bill does exactly that and as such, I support SB 3 and commend the House of Representatives for their actions today.”

Democrats were also not happy about the passage of Senate Bill 66, legislation that defines a fetus at 20 weeks and beyond as a person for purposes of criminal prosecution of murder or other violent crimes.It contains an exemption for abortion. The bill passed 186-170.

Democrats tried several times during the session to table the bill, but those attempts failed. The bill was originally retained in the House Criminal Justice Committee a couple weeks again and lawmakers expected to work on it over the next few months. In a surprise move last week, Republicans reconsidered the bill and voted it ought to pass to the full House.

“Today, the House of Representatives passed a critical fix that allows prosecution of individuals who criminally end the life of a viable unborn baby,” Sununu said. “It provides security and addresses injustice for women who may have been in abusive situations that resulted in the death of a fetus.”

The bill will also go back to the Senate to concur on a House amendment and then on to Sununu’s desk, if approved.

There was a bright spot for Democrats when the House overwhelmingly passed Senate Bill 191 to fund full-day kindergarten in the state. The final vote was 231 to 100.

Approximately $1,100 per pupil would be sent to school districts for the program with the funds coming through revenues from Keno, the electronic bingo game, which is currently illegal in New Hampshire.

“The House of Representatives deserves high praise for moving full-day kindergarten forward and recognizing that this is a priority for many families in both considering the quality of a community’s public education and in their decision-making process when choosing a place to raise their children,” Sununu said.

The bill heads back to the Senate, which has historically rejected Keno. Democrats blasted the Senate budget for not funding full-day kindergarten in its proposal, but it’s not clear if tying Keno revenues to the program will deter it in the Senate.

“This bill is a long-overdue recognition of those benefits, and a signal to working families and the business community that we understand our obligation to offer all New Hampshire children the opportunity for a high quality education,” Shurtleff said. “Support of full day public kindergarten is a top priority for House Democrats, and I am pleased that the Republican majority has joined us in recognizing the benefit of this investment.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

New Hampshire Democrats Moving Further to the Fringe

This week, the New Hampshire Democratic Party will hold its annual state committee meeting to elect new officers to serve through the 2018 elections. Judging by their honored guest and keynote speaker, the Democrats have failed to learn anything about the 2016 Presidential election and are instead doubling down on a dangerously extremist leftwing ideology.

On Saturday evening, Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison will share his vision for America. It’s a vision that will no doubt make the likes of Annie Kuster and Carol Shea-Porter stand on their chairs and cheer. But it’s a vision that should make regular working Granite Staters shudder.

Ellison comes from the extremist wing of the Democratic Party – the wing that puts ideology over the needs and concerns of working families. Consider Ellison’s authorship of an “alternative” budget in 2015. Ellison’s budget called for a breathtaking $4 trillion in job-killing tax increases. He’d want us to believe these were just tax increases on the “rich.” But the truth is Ellison’s budget was no friend to American taxpayers. It advocated for an increased gas tax, increase taxes on retirement savings, restricted itemized tax deductions, jacked up taxes on savings and investments, and imposed a new carbon tax, among other terrible ideas. Ellison’s budget was a smorgasbord of loony leftwing policy ideas that would have put government in control of just about everything while crippling family budgets.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said Ellison’s budget “offers a more liberal alternative than that proposed by either party or the President.” The President to which they were referring was Obama. Incidentally, Hillary Clinton was too conservative for Ellison, too. He called her a Republican while declining to endorse her in September, 2015.

Worse still, Ellison’s budget represents something of a conservative compromise for him. In it, he calls for a top tax rate of 49 percent. Elsewhere Ellison has advocated for tax rates as high as 63 percent. “There’s plenty of money,” he argued. “It’s just that the government doesn’t have it.”

It’s not just financial freedom that Ellison opposes. He’s against personal freedom, as well.

Rep. Ellison is openly hostile to the rights of gun owners. In Congress, he has proposed legislation to severely limit the amount of ammunition sold and called for a so-called assault weapons ban.

When asked by Bill Maher in a 2014 interview why the Democratic Party didn’t “come out against the Second Amendment,” Ellison responded, “I sure wish they would. I sure wish they would.” Understand Ellison here isn’t calling for gun control – he’s calling for the full repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

What is the New Hampshire Democratic Party saying about itself by showcasing Rep. Ellison? It appears fully embrace this radical worldview, which is so belligerent to regular working folks. It’s an odd takeaway from an election in which working people walked away from the liberal policies of the Democratic Party in droves.

Ellison is a close ally of New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley. The Democratic National Committee rebuffed their alliance, which would have made Ellison the party’s national chair and Buckley a high-ranking party official. Apparently, their liberal worldview was too much for the national party to bear. Instead they chose a Clinton insider to head the party.

But this liberal tandem isn’t going away. They’re just bringing their goofy leftwing routine to New Hampshire in hopes of radicalizing the Live Free or Die state.

Dem Rep. Says Parental Notification Bill Shrinks Importance of Sex Education

Some New Hampshire Democrats believe a bill that would require school districts to provide parents at least two weeks’ notice about material related to human sexuality is overstepping the state’s role in local education.

“My concern is that it mandates a two-week notice,” said Rep. Mary Heath, D-Manchester. “The biggest problem is that this will not solve the problem. Every school principal needs to talk with their teachers about the importance of parent communication. It should be a local matter as to how that policy is developed based on the school and [grade] level.”

Rep. Victoria Sullivan, R-Manchester, is the prime sponsor of the bill (House Bill 103) and she introduced it after her 8-year-old son said he watched a video at school that depicted a young boy being sexually abused by his uncle and confronting his abuser alone.

Sullivan said the bill would “simply give parents more control and a stronger voice.”

“Local control begins with the parents and the taxpayers,” she told NH Journal. “We have seen parents pushed further and further out of the conversation when it comes to education.”

This isn’t the first time this bill has been in the Legislature. Former Gov. Maggie Hassan previously vetoed the legislation in 2015. It was then reintroduced in the House in 2016, but ultimately failed in the Senate.

State law already allows parents or legal guardians to have a say if they believe that material put in front of their children by schools is objectionable. They would need to notify the school principal in writing of the material they object to and then the student can participate in an “alternative agreed upon” curriculum by the school district and the parent that still meets state requirements for education in that subject area.

Heath said the two-week parental notification is unnecessary because parents can already “opt out” their student if they find any curriculum to be questionable, and the bill undermines the importance of sexual education in schools.

“Good communication with parents is essential,” she told NH Journal. “At the same time, some parents and especially those to the ‘far right’ don’t believe their children should learn anything beyond the ‘basics.’ I understand that, hence the ‘opt out’ [option]. However, House Bill 103 sends the wrong message about the importance of comprehensive sexuality education.”

The national Republican Party platform includes a section on the importance of returning control of public education to the states, school districts, and parents of students. In regards to sexual education, they call for a replacement of “family planning programs.”

“We renew our call for replacing ‘family planning’ programs for teens with sexual risk avoidance education that sets abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior,” the platform states.

The New Hampshire Republican Party platform does not include anything about sexual education.

Currently, 22 states and the District of Columbia require school districts to allow parental involvement in sexual education programs. Three states — Arizona, Nevada, and Utah — require parental consent before a child can receive instruction.

The bill will now head to the Senate Education Committee to debate the bill and with Republican Gov. Chris Sununu in the corner office, it’s possible that he would sign the legislation into law. He has not indicated if he supports the bill yet.

 

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

How Democrats Who Refuse Compromise Could Wind Up Hurting Their Party

There are 19 groups in New Hampshire that have signed on to completely resist President Donald Trump, and they’re trying to take a page out of the Tea Party’s playbook.

A new national organization called “Indivisible” is going back to the basics: push back against Trump from the grassroots level. The group published a manifesto, essentially a manual on how to resist the Trump agenda, written by former Democratic congressional staffers.

“We examine lessons from the Tea Party’s rise and recommend two key strategic components: A local strategy targeting individual members of Congress; a defensive approach purely focused on stopping Trump from implementing an agenda built on racism, authoritarianism, and corruption,” they wrote.

Indivisible, which has more than 2,400 local groups registered with them, is advising voters to assemble at the local level and have members focus on their respective elected senators and representatives by speaking out at town hall meetings, asking their elected officials questions at local photo-ops and ceremonies, showing up at their district offices for meetings, and overwhelming their phone lines with coordinated calls.

“We can all learn from their [the Tea Party] success in influencing the national debate and the behavior of national policymakers,” the group wrote. “To their credit, they thought thoroughly about advocacy tactics.”

Many progressives are trying to recreate the circumstances that led to a wave of Republican victories in Congress and state legislatures in the 2010 midterm elections. Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, gained more seats in the Senate, and flipped several state legislative seats, mostly campaigning on conservative ideals and anti-President Barack Obama rhetoric. But liberals could find it difficult to implement a similar strategy and might find more success if they work with Trump when possible.

The Democratic Party enters the Trump presidency completely shut out of power, with Republicans in control of the White House, House, Senate, and even most state governments. And they’re already divided amongst themselves with progressives versus moderates, and whether they should oppose Trump or work with him on common interests.

Just after his first week in office, it looks like many Democrats and progressive activists want to resist him at every step. The American Civil Liberties Union already filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s executive order that temporarily bars entry to refugees from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen due to terrorism concerns. A federal judge granted an emergency stay Saturday to stop deportation of people with valid visas who landed in the United States.

But if they continue that mentality, they might run into some trouble in the 2018 midterm elections and even the 2020 presidential election. Even though the party in charge usually doesn’t do well in midterm elections, many House seats will still favor Republican control due to gerrymandering. And Democrats have to defend 10 Senate seats in Republican-controlled states. The political terrain isn’t favorable for them right now.

By refusing to compromise, Democrats may be unable to influence policy even when the president’s agenda aligns with traditional Democratic interests. It’s true that rejecting compromise can reveal internal differences and struggles within the president’s own party, such as with the ongoing Republican debate on repealing Obamacare. More damage could be done by working with Trump and exposing the internal divide in the Republican Party that’s been there since the rise of the Tea Party movement in 2009.

An area some Democrats and Trump could work on together is infrastructure spending, albeit with some disagreements on how to fund it. Trump will almost need Senate Democrats to help get it through Congress. Some of his ideas resemble the “big-government conservatism” of George W. Bush that upset many Tea Partiers. Working out a few deals with Trump could anger some Republicans, and it might do more damage to the president than being vehemently opposed to everything he does.

If the Democrats could unify around that message, they could be in much better shape to retake Congress and the presidency, and ultimately be able to govern themselves and the country better than before.

Uncompromising Democratic opposition is essentially saying the party wants to be more like the Republican Party, by trying to emulate what the Republicans did in 2009. But while the Republicans were “unified” by being anti-Obama anything, they didn’t take the time to rebuild as a party and create a clear message for the base. That was evident by the loss of Mitt Romney in 2012. And now, look at them. They ended up nominating a candidate who barely aligns with their platform. They have full control over the federal government, but they still are struggling to be unified over how to run it, as exhibited by disagreement over many of Trump’s policies.

While it’s understandable that Democrats and progressive activists would want to go about rebuilding their party the same way the Republicans did in 2009, it’s better for their party to engage with Trump in policy debates because those issues are ones they can build a campaign on, and not just on partisan rhetoric.

The Democrats have a prime opportunity to genuinely build their party from the grassroots level up. If the loss of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election taught them anything, it’s that they need to listen to the working class in Middle America again and create a message that appeals not only to their base, but also to disenfranchised voters who feel left out of the system.

It’ll prove to be difficult for them to do that though, especially with some major players on the national stage that see the party going in a different, more radical direction.

Just look at the confirmation hearing battles. Several Democratic senators who are looking to run for president in 2020 won’t vote for anything put forward by Trump out of fear from attacks to their left. John Kelly was confirmed as secretary for homeland security by a vote of 88-11. Some of those “no” votes came from Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). The more moderate Democrats might feel pressure to vote a certain way in order to follow suit, and especially when the media reports that former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, Warren, and Booker voted one way, it could make it seem like the Democrats who don’t fall in line aren’t supportive of the party.

An unpopular Trump could win another four years if the next Democratic presidential leader is too far outside of the political spectrum.

And speaking of leaders, the race for the next chair of the Democratic National Committee is revealing to show how anti-Trump and against compromise the Democratic Party could be. While members of their party were participating in the Women’s March earlier this month, most of the 10 candidates for DNC chair were at a private fundraising conference held by liberal political operative David Brock. The message that could send to grassroots leaders is that the Democratic Party hasn’t learned its lesson from its recent defeat and instead, continues to listen to big money rather than voters.

The latest forums between the candidates have also shown that there aren’t many disagreements between them; they don’t have many new ideas to jumpstart the party, and they all have zero desire to work with Trump.

“That’s a question that’s absolutely ridiculous,” said New Hampshire Democratic Party chairman Ray Buckley at one of the forums, when he was asked about working with Trump.

If the Democrats try to imitate the Tea Party movement, don’t create a unifying message for its voters, and resist Trump at every turn, then they’re in for a long eight years.

 

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.