Gov. Maggie Hassan (D), of course, is running for Senate in New Hampshire next year. Complicating that? New Hampshire’s heroin epidemic… yes. Yes, there is one in New Hampshire. It’s been going on for a while now, right under the nose of one, well, Governor Maggie Hassan.
The New Hampshire Union Leader is distinctly unimpressed with Gov. Hassan’s behavior in this situation, and it’s not even remotely surprising why. Let me explain: there was a fairly vicious budget battle in New Hampshire this year. Back in June the Democratic governor vetoed the budget that the Republican legislature had put together; this went around and around for the rest of the summer. Hassan eventually ended up on the short end of the public opinion stick, given that the budget proposal would have doubled state funding on heroin treatment; this proposal had strong bipartisan support, and not having it go into effect caused a lot of grumbling, including from outlets that Gov. Hassan would like to have on her side next year. Which meant that the governor eventually had, as Citizens for a Strong New Hampshire put it*, to call for her own veto to be overruled.
Which leads to the Governor’s recent gambit; Maggie Hassan is calling for a special session of the Legislature. Why? …To get some emergency work done on New Hampshire’s heroin problem, of course! That’s what a leader does, after all: redress delays in the law, and all that. And that’s why the Union Leader is annoyed, because after all it’s Governor Hassan’s fault that there was a delay in the first place.
Can’t say I blame them much.
*With malice aforethought and not a small amount of relish.
6 thoughts on “Hometown paper rips into Gov. Maggie Hassan (D) for heroin showboating.”
Maggie Hassan illustrates the need for comprehensive immigration reform . Like a plague of locusts these liberals move into once proud conservative states and bring their crack addled SJW politics with them . Hassan was born and bred in Mass and should have been required to live out her nasty mean life with her fellows instead of fouling the once proud State of NH . NH , once my home, until taxes and the politics made staying too expensive and angrifying .
Ah, no. Immigration reform does nothing to stop liberals from moving into and ruining functional states. What you want to do, and it is oh, so easy, is to raise residency requirements to vote. To ten or fifteen years, say……
Can’t work, for federal elections anyway.
That said, you don’t *have* to make registering *easy*, eh?
Or .. just embrace the Dem love of non-consolidated elections…
Yeah, what we really need to do is bring back literacy tests and the poll tax. Alas that the Democrats poisoned both wells…..
I’m not convinced we can’t do a political-awareness quiz or a taxpayer-test.
The former would involve doubling the size of the ballot (well, the part dedicated to people, not initiatives and bonds anyway) and would require identifying the current office-holder in order for your vote for the next office-holder to count.
This seems, to me, to be a reasonable level, not of literacy, but of civic competency .. if you can’t be assed to learn the name of the current office-holder, then you’ve no business voting for the next one .. and besides, it’s easily bypassed by picking up a “voter’s guide”.
The latter is harder, in light of Ms. Lerner, but .. basically, if you file a 1040, you get back a ticket .. and you must present your ticket to receive your federal ballot. No 1040 filed, no ticket, no *state* vote ..
..but it’s not a *tax* because there are plenty of reasons (EITC) to file a 1040 when you don’t owe money.
Both ideas are pretty far out of the box, but the current situation is increasingly untenable… except that both parties like the mess.
typo above – no *federal* ballot should be no *state* ballot .. i.e. you can still vote in federal elections, but not for state and municipal offices.
Comments are closed.