New Hampshire Republicans
www.NewHampshireRepublicans.wordpress.com
WWW.NewHampshireRepublicans.posterous.com
www.NewHampshireRepublicanParty.blogspot.com
www.NewHampshireRepublicanParty.wordpress.com
Andy Martin, J. D.
executive director
New Hampshire Republicans
you can call Andy:
(603) 518-7310
you can email Andy:
andynewhampshire@aol.com
you can write Andy at:
fax (866) 707-2639, or at home
144 W. Webster, #1E
Manchester, NH 03104
Blogs/web sites (partial):
www.AndyMartin.com
www.FirstRespondersOnline.us
ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com
ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com
January 25, 2013
Dear Republican Party
Leader/State Committee Member:
I promised to send you a series of serious letters setting out my views on issues which could influence your choice of a new state chairman for the Republican Party. And I have done that. More letters/statements are coming later today.
1. My efforts to become state chairman
I have spent my life as a political reformer, working for public integrity, political ethics and government accountability. In general, political party organizations are resistant to change. So party people don’t always like what I have to say.
On the other hand, while many voters dislike what the Democrats are doing they don’t trust Republicans to do better.
More particularly, ordinary people believe politicians in both parties cannot be trusted. But I have a record going back decades, a record people can trust. I have done exactly what I promise to do for New Hampshire Republicans: fight corruption, work for public integrity and political ethics, and strive for greater government accountability in New Hampshire (go to www.AndyMartin.com for my detailed biography). That’s the only way we can regain the trust of voters and win elections.
Earlier this week a long-time Republican who is a radio station owner here in New Hampshire sent an email asking state committee members to nominate and second me as a candidate for state chairman. That radio station operator represents ordinary, Main Street Republicans.
A political organization should be a service organization. What service has the New Hampshire Republican Party rendered to ordinary voters recently? None. And so it is not surprising that the radio station owner – someone in the communications industry – asked for me to be nominated. I have a record of working for ordinary people, not just party professionals.
Alas, the party insiders are not listening. No one has stepped forward to say to the radio broadcaster, "OK, let Andy run, and let’s hear what Andy has to say.” In fact, some insiders are working hard to silence me.
The radio guy got a reply from one Republican committee member, a Horn supporter, quoting Obama organization talking point smears about me. Thirty year-old smears. It’s a sad day when a reform Republican is smeared by another Republican using Barack Obama’s talking points.
I have a consistent record of public service, and I am serving the people of New Hampshire. I am ready to work for you, and lead you to victory. In my opinion, I have strong qualifications and I would like to present those qualifications to the Annual Meeting. So far, none of the committee members agree with me. And none of them agree with a New Hampshire radio station owner who has been a Republican for 40 years. They don’t want to listen, and they don’t want change. Sound familiar?
Is it any wonder we as a party are losing ground, and have lost 8 of the last 9 elections? If a radio station owner – someone for whom communications is a business – thinks you would benefit from meeting and hearing me, shouldn’t that be enough? Ordinary people would think so. So far, two committee members (nominate/second) have not appeared to agree.
So what should I do Saturday morning? Here are my thoughts.
2. Why I may not attend the Annual Meeting if I cannot be nominated
As of this morning, no one has come forward to nominate me and to second my nomination. The party is resistant to change, and resistant to new personalities. My message of “Renew, Rebuild, Reform” represents a call to hard work and searching reexamination of our approach to New Hampshire voters. Neither of those come easily.
If no one comes forward today to announce they are going to nominate me and second my nomination, tomorrow I will simply accept that fact and skip the meeting. I will not appear at the Annual Meeting. It would be impolite to campaign while others are speaking during the Annual Meeting. I do not want to be either bad mannered or disruptive.
I think it is a loss for the party's committee members when they are denied another choice, and denied an opportunity to look at new, dynamic and creative approaches to developing a 2014 campaign.
Whatever happens on the 26th I will put aside my disappointment and keep working to “reform, renew and rebuild,” on January 27th. But on the 26th I do not want to be either disruptive or disrespectful; campaigning during the meeting might be both. So, somewhat reluctantly, if no one today announces they want to nominate me to provide a choice for the committee members, I will simply step aside and cede the field to my two competitors on Saturday morning.
3. The long road ahead for New Hampshire Republicans
One of my conservative friends kept telling me during 2011 and 2012 that Obama was finished. He told me a “ham sandwich” could defeat Obama. I told him defeating Obama would be difficult, and that the Republican Party’s national candidates all had significant weaknesses. No matter. He still believed defeating Obama would be easy. Now he knows better.
New Hampshire Republicans are already counting their 2014 chickens. But defeating the Democrats in 2014 will not be any easier than it was in 2012. The Republican Party has still not woken up to the threat posed by Obama’s “permanent campaign.” Obama’s minions have exported the “permanent campaign” to New Hampshire and every other state. Democrats beat us in 2012, and they will be hard to beat in 2014. Their 2012 campaign machine is intact and already at work for 2014. Republicans are lulling themselves into a false sense of inevitable victory. Shades of 2012.
Let me explain why Horn, Hemingway and the national GOP is wrong. They keep using the word “messaging” to explain our defeat. This weekend, national Republicans are meeting to study why we lost last year. Both Horn and Hemingway say we need to improve the party’s “messaging.”
The problem is not “messaging;” the problem is our message.
Our political approach to the American people has been frozen in amber since 1980. While America has changed since 1980, the Republican Party has not. Our platforms have become increasingly extreme and increasingly detached from the reality of the average New Hampshire family.
New Hampshire voters are not rejecting us because they don’t get “our message.” They are rejecting our candidates because the message is all too clear. Jennifer Horn tells Republican meetings we as a party are “for women.” Women who vote don't agree. They get our message and reject it. We are fooling ourselves if we think otherwise.
No political organization can survive if it refuses to change and adapt to changing times. What worked for Ronald Reagan in 1980 will not work for candidates in 2014. Just ask Ovide Lamontagne. He ran the same campaign in 2012 that he ran in 1996, and he was attacked by the Democrats both times with the same negatives. And Ovide lost both times.
I realize that many committee members have been on the committee during the period when we lost 8 out of 9 gubernatorial elections. The party is resistant to change. Perhaps I represent uncomfortable change. But uncomfortable change is the only way the party can survive. If we go forward with a message that was locked in 34 years ago in 1980, we will lose again in 2014. Many of you may disagree with me. But you can’t disguise the track record, 8 out of 9 losses.
You may claim the Republicans’ message is not being received, but I would say exactly the opposite: we are not receiving the message the people of New Hampshire are sending us.
4. My opponents for state chairman
Jennifer Horn
“On paper,” Jennifer Horn looks like a strong candidate for state chairman. “In reality,” she is a disaster. Horn has made a lot of friends over the years. But, friendship is no basis in picking a party leader. Horn is unacceptable for three reasons.
First, Horn’s well-publicized financial problems reflect callous disregard for financial responsibility. She has over $90,000 of unpaid federal taxes going back five years. Why is she running for an unpaid, full-time position when she owes $90,000 in back taxes? She should be looking for a paying job. The Democrats will rip Horn to shreds because of her financial impropriety.
It’s not enough to say we have a “bad economy,” which is Horn’s excuse. People who are suffering from the bad economy are out looking for paying jobs, not looking for full-time unpaid work. What kind of “family first” mom puts politics ahead of earning money to support her family?
Horn has not only mismanaged her family’s finances she has apparently also mismanaged a political group she created, We The People. Seen any We The People financial reports lately? There aren’t any. There is no question that Horn is going to be investigated by federal authorities. What the result will be, I do not know. But in my opinion Horn’s personal mismanagement and political corruption have violated the law.
Why would any committee member vote for a leader who will become an immediate laughingstock for the Democrats and for the general public? Why?
Second, Horn is a “ready, aim, fire” type personality. She attacked me two years ago without ever making a phone call or attempting to speak with me. She just went out and attacked. What did Horn use as her bible? She used the talking points of Barack Obama’s political operation as laundered through Internet web sites. She admits she participated in meetings which lied to the media, and attacked me for events taking place 30 years ago.
A state chairman has to be someone who can act with restraint.
Third, if Horn is elected some people will continue to work against her to see she is removed as chairman as soon as possible. I have spoken to many Republicans who know Horn is dead-in-the-water if she is elected chairman, but they are still supporting her because they are afraid to make waves. People who are afraid to make waves can still drown. People who oppose Horn will continue to work against her. Horn is a polarizing candidate, the most polarizing candidate of the three candidates.
If “friendship” and long acquaintance are your sole criteria for voting, then Horn is your candidate. But don’t say you are surprised when Horn turns out to be a disaster.
Andrew Hemingway
I like Andrew Hemingway and if he is elected I will offer to work for and support him in any way he asks. But I am not sure he is the right man for chairman. He represents the future of the party, maybe not yet the present.
First, and most obviously, Andrew is a young man building a business. The state chairman’s role is not “part-time.” It is more than “full-time.” A state chairman is on call 24/7. There is no way someone building a new business can devote adequate time to the business and also be working full-time for the party. It simply isn’t possible.
Second, Andy is supported by a segment of the party that feels aggrieved. Will they be in a mood for compromise if he wins? Or loses? I am not sure. The Horn vs. Hemingway dynamic may continue to play out after the election. Brining the party together will not be easy. In an earlier letter I suggested only half-jokingly, “Vote for Andy; No one Likes Him.” Sometimes contesting factions can accept a neutral leader more easily than accepting the winner of a factional fracas.
Third, Republican Party bylaws/rules bar a chairman from being involved in primary campaigns. If he cannot be involved in advising primary candidates in New Hampshire Andrew may find a conflict arises between his political consulting business and serving as chairman.
I do not doubt Andrew has many technical sills. But a state chairman’s role is not about technical skill, it is about techniques, techniques of leadership. A state chairman has to be a team builder, not a computer whiz.
As I said, if Andrew wins, I will offer to support him. But I think his political skills might need more seasoning, seasoning that only comes with experience, and experience that only comes with the passage of time.
5. Why I am still the best and only serious candidate for state chairman
I told you earlier in this letter about the owner in one of New Hampshire’s leading local broadcasting companies who sent out an email asking Republicans leaders to make arrangements to see I am nominated Saturday. This broadcaster is (not yet) a close friend and only knows me by efforts on behalf of political reform and New Hampshire working families.
The broadcaster is a long-time Republican who is who is not satisfied with the current candidates. He wanted more candidates for state chairman and, unfortunately, he was apparently rebuffed by Republican leaders. Not surprisingly, someone sent him a link to an article authored by the Obama campaign and inserted in a supposedly-neutral database that attacks me. That Obama and his team try to undermine me is no surprise. I was Obama's first opponent and I have been Obama’s most consistent and conscientious opponent.
But why would any Republican regurgitate 30 year-old accusations about me?
In a way, the stale smears against me are a compliment to a life well-lived and cleanly-lived. No one gets to advanced years without the occasional misstep, and without accumulating the odd baggage. My life in politics began 48 years ago. Forty-seven years ago I used to line up rural mail carrier jobs for the party faithful. I have done it all and seen it all and have overall acted with a general sense of decency.
If my opponents, who apparently include Horn supporters disseminating the old slurs, can't find anything more current to smear me with than 30 year-old accusations, I think you will agree I have led a pretty good life.
And guess, what: in the same vein I would probably be a pretty good chairman.
In closing, here’s an interesting question: What should the lack of a positive response by committee members to the radio station owner’s effort to nominate me tell you? My thought: That I have more support among ordinary Republicans than I do among the state committee members.
Unless someone contacts me today I do not plan to attend tomorrow. If, in the end, you only have two choices on Saturday, the Republican Party itself will be diminished. The Annual Meeting will appear to have been “bossed,” “brokered” and “bought” in advance. In other words, more of the same old, same old.
With God’s help and – some day perhaps even your own help – I hope we succeed. Until then, I will keep trying.
Sincerely,
Andy
(c) Andy Martin 2013 All Rights Reserved
