Also on today’s menu at the News Café:
Fighting For Americans’ Right to Debate and Decide
Both Political Parties Support Solving Transportation Deficit
Two letters published by the Laconia Daily Sun demonstrate what the Democratic Party is doing wrong. At a time when the Republican Party has been hijacked by an ideology sustained by a series of myths that create perpetual feelings of desperation and panic — and a leader with no interest in public welfare or serving the people, instead seeing the presidency as a vehicle for private enrichment for himself, his family, and his allies, and to solve his legal, financial, and other problems — it is important for Democrats to work together and restore our democratic republic.
Instead, Democratic Party leaders are trying to dictate who gets into office and which state should be the first to vote. That is repugnant and alienating to those they attempt to disenfranchise.
Read on:
Before a kid graduates from grade school, they’ll learn the concept of payback.
If a friend shares their snack, defends someone if they are bullied, or helps them with homework, someone better be there for that friend or never expect help again.
That’s why I wonder why the average citizen doesn’t check out these huge “PACs” that fund almost every politician running. Who are these folks who slip millions to the candidate? Why do they? And most importantly, what do they ask in return?
Or take the less complicated route and vote for a candidate who doesn’t take PAC money and believes in what you believe in?
Easy, right?
Not really. My candidate, Karishma Manzur, takes no PAC money. Her campaign is powered by small donations from people. People like me who hear her speak are wowed by everything about her.
Voters would think the Democratic Party would showcase her. Be proud that she will represent no one but the people of New Hampshire.
Sadly it is quite the reverse. At her party’s Democratic events, Manzur was sent to the back of the room and denied the right to display her banner stating a simple fact — that she accepts zero AIPAC money. Why? Because the Democratic Party wanted to show “unity” with all four of our federal delegates who take AIPAC money.
This year before choosing a candidate — find out who chose them.
For the record: Karishma Manzur has accepted $0 from PACs. Her opponent Chris Pappas has received over $300,000 from AIPAC alone, with an additional $10 million in outside PAC money being spent on his behalf.
The average person knows that money in politics is bad for our country. Readers should do homework — follow the money.
Patty Thibeault
Laconia
And…
Democrats who want to strip New Hampshire of its first-in-the-nation presidential primary are making a serious mistake. For over a century, New Hampshire has provided voters with a unique opportunity to meet candidates face to face, ask tough questions, and evaluate them beyond television ads and campaign spending. That tradition has strengthened our democracy, not weakened it.
Critics argue that New Hampshire does not reflect the nation’s diversity. While no single state can represent the entire country, the solution is not to diminish New Hampshire’s role. Instead, candidates should be expected to campaign broadly and compete in every region. New Hampshire’s small size forces candidates to earn votes through personal engagement rather than relying solely on money and media.
Many Democrats also overlook the practical consequences of ignoring New Hampshire law, which requires the state to hold the nation’s first presidential primary. Many Granite Staters see this as punishment for New Hampshire, and it breeds resentment and weakens trust in the Democratic Party.
Republicans and independent voters cannot remain silent while a tradition spanning more than a century is being undermined. If readers believe New Hampshire’s role and state sovereignty deserve protection, make their voice heard at the ballot box by supporting Republican candidates who protect our FITN primary. If Democrats are willing to do this to our FITN primary, what else might they do if they win in November? Will they push for an income tax and a sales tax?
Democrats should practice the inclusivity they preach instead of alienating a state with a proud history of civic involvement. New Hampshire’s FITN primary has tested candidates from both parties for generations and remains an important part of the presidential selection process. Disrespecting our tradition means dismantling a process that rewards accessibility, accountability, and direct engagement with voters.
Rep. John Sellers
Bristol
It makes no sense to support a Republican candidate while the party remains entrenched in MAGA lunacy, but Democratic candidates who are willing to go along with efforts to sideline certain candidates of their own party, and who accept the idea of defying New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation election law, are blind to the damage they are doing.
While I cannot vote for any Republican at this time, Rich Logis points out that we should not assume that, because someone once embraced the Make America Great Again creed, they still hold those views. President Donald Trump has failed them, as well, and Rich has acknowledged that fact. He established Leaving MAGA to assist those disillusioned by what has transpired since Trump’s re-election and whose views have alienated family members:
Dear MAGA Americans:
I was a devoted member of MAGA nation for seven years; it made me feel I was part of something important: a movement that was trying to save American democracy.
But starting in 2021, I realized I had been mistaken. It took me a full year to finally break away. During that time, I came to understand that MAGA is sustained by a series of myths that are intended to create perpetual feelings of desperation and panic.
Succumbing to these predatory myths does not mean you are unintelligent, weak, or lack good character and morals. I have a Bachelor’s degree; have been a working professional my entire life; am a family man; and consider myself a relatively honest and intelligent person. I think the same about you.
I understand the reasons you have for supporting MAGA. And I know many of us traveled different paths to get there. I gravitated to Donald Trump because I have always been suspicious of our two-party system, and I saw him as the right man at the right time.
I have a sense that some of you have quietly left MAGA already, or are increasingly regretful, confused and scared. All of this can be doubly upsetting, since some of your sincerely-held beliefs may have alienated you from friends and family. That certainly happened to me.
It’s perfectly OK to feel this way; leaving MAGA was a tumultuous roller coaster of a process for me. It may be one of the most difficult endeavors you embark upon. In the end, it brought me an inner peace, and a newfound clarity about what is happening in our beloved country.
I founded this organization, Leaving MAGA, because I wanted to create a safe, non-judgmental community for those who leave MAGA, as well as for those who are having doubts about, or remorse over, their devotion to Trump and MAGA.
Our Leaving MAGA community will celebrate how acknowledging mistakes empowers you and America.
It’s difficult for a democracy to function well when millions are estranged from those closest to them.
You do not deserve to have your anxieties about change exploited. You deserve to know the truth. And with Leaving MAGA, you don’t have to feel you would be alone if you leave the movement.
Leaving MAGA is possible. Recognizing that we were wrong, and acting on that knowledge, makes us all more invested in democracy and in the continued work of perfecting our union.
Sincerely, and humbly yours,
Rich
Fighting For Americans’ Right to Debate and Decide
The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization advocating for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions. In today’s piece, the former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security who make up the Steady State explained their focus: “We are not silent on Gaza or climate change or abortion or immigration because we think those questions don’t matter. We are silent because we believe the structure through which Americans have the right to debate and ultimately decide those questions is itself in danger.”
Our membership is composed largely of people who spent their careers in intelligence, diplomacy, national security, law enforcement, the military, and government oversight. And that gives us a particular reason not to believe that we should be deciding the great questions of domestic policy.
We have seen what happens in other countries when people from backgrounds like ours decide that ordinary democratic politics is inadequate to the task. Intelligence officers, generals, police officials and national-security professionals begin intervening in political questions because they believe the stakes are too high, the politicians too incompetent, or the public too divided to handle them.
History offers plenty of examples of where that road can lead.
It does not want intelligence officers deciding climate policy, generals settling questions of reproductive rights, or law-enforcement officials determining tax policy. However honorable their intentions or distinguished their service, people entrusted with the instruments of national security and state power have no special democratic entitlement to decide those questions.
Indeed, one of the principles many of us spent our careers defending was precisely the opposite: in a democracy, members of the national security institutions serve the elected government and the Constitution. They do not govern.
The piece continues:
We are participating, as a group, in domestic political life because we believe the threat to the democratic system itself has become extraordinary. Growing autocracy is an existential threat to our democracy. …
The second reason for our narrow focus is simpler.
We don’t agree.
The Steady State includes Democrats, Republicans, and Independents; conservatives, liberals, and people who fit comfortably into none of those categories. Ask our members about Israel and Gaza, climate policy, immigration, taxation, abortion, or any number of other questions, and you will hear vigorous disagreement.
But there is one thing on which we have reached an extraordinary degree of agreement: American democracy itself is in danger.
That agreement is what brought us together.
Our purpose is not to tell Americans what policies they should choose. It is to help preserve their ability to choose them.
Both Political Parties Support Solving Transportation Deficit
Leaders in both parties are hoping to overturn Governor Kelly Ayotte’s veto of the Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan due to its provision for raising turnpike tolls to cover the increasing cost of road improvements. The Senate added the revenue measure to the 10-year plan, prompting Ayotte’s veto.
The toll-hike proposal would double the turnpike toll rates for drivers without a New Hampshire E-ZPass transponder, including those with an out-of-state transponder or those paying with cash. As part of the change, the state would provide free New Hampshire E-ZPass transponders to anyone applying within the first 10 months.
In her veto message, Ayotte wrote, “I do not support raising the tolls. I will continue to focus on making New Hampshire more affordable for all and a destination for tourists in the region.”
Discussion: In response to the state’s highway revenue shortage, the Executive Council eliminated 34 projects, valued at $106 million, and delayed another $199 million worth of projects, as well as pausing municipal grants for bridge repairs and other projects. The toll hikes would allow improvements on Interstate 93 in Concord and Manchester to proceed, while building revenue for other projects. Unfortunately, the plan unfairly targets out-of-state travelers, just as calls for a sales tax would serve as a way of forcing out-of-state residents to pay for New Hampshire expenses — classic taxation without representation. A toll hike is necessary, and it’s good to see the two political parties coming together to solve the problem, but they could do so while treating all E-Z Pass holders the same.