Michael Gaynor
Governor Palin, please reconsider your NH Republican Senate primary endorsement
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By Michael Gaynor
September 1, 2010

While Palin apparently believes that Ayotte is a pro-life warrior, Dr. Douglas Black, who performs abortions at the FeminIst Health Center in New Hampshire, knows better and is displaying a Kelly Ayotte for U.S. Senate on his property. Palin and New Hampshirites need to know the facts, and Palin needs to withdraw her endorsement of Ayotte and support the candidate whom Laura Ingraham derscribes as 'the only true conservative in a very important race" Ovide Lamontagne.

Is it more important to stick to your guns even when you are shooting at the wrong target or to switch to the right side?

The answer is obvious.

Former Governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin endorsed conservative and pro-life Joe Miller against less conservative incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski in the Alaska Republican Senate primary.

No mistake there, either on the merits or politically. Palin knew the facts and made the bold and right choice.

But Palin made a big mistake when she endorsed former New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte for United States Senator instead of the true conservative, pro-life Ovide Lamontagne early in the race.

Palin is a staunch pro-life conservative and proud of it.

Obviously she thought Ayotte was too.

But...the facts show otherwise. Palin is supporting the wrong candidate.

Perhaps Palin did not know when she endorsed Ayotte that Ayotte had been reappointed New Hampshire Attorney General by a liberal Democrat Governor, John Lynch.

That's a clear sign that especially careful investigation is in order.

Such investigation would have precluded an Ayotte endorsement (unless Palin had decided to flip flop on key issues and become an "establishment" Republican).

FACT: Ayotte would have supported the confirmation of now Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and said so publicly.

FACT: Ayotte supported earmarks earlier this year, then flip-flopped and said she no longer did.

FACT: Ayotte encouraged people to take advantage of the stimulus, and apply for the money...now she says she would have opposed the stimulus.

FACT: Ayotte as NH Attorney General signed a letter saying that she wanted LIMITS on carbon emissions...but now she says she opposes such limits. The letter said in part: "More jobs would be created by more aggressive air pollution control programs such as EPA's CAIR, but without the job-eliminating loopholes of this bill. A more stringent program that required the installation of scrubbers or the use of new clean coal technologies will both create more jobs and allow the continued mining of high sulfur coal. Addressing carbon dioxide would also create additional jobs related to the development of new technologies to control this pollutant."

FACT: Ayotte as NH Attorney General signed off on the unconstitutional theft of $110,000,000 in private funds that the NH Supreme Court later ruled unconstitutional.

FACT: Ayotte did not "win" the Planned Parenthood case as she claims. The State of New Hampshire was required to pay $300,000 to Planned Parenthood with her approval because Planned Parenthood, NOT the State of New Hampshire, was the "prevailing party" in that matter.

Ayotte is the GOP "establishment" candidate the fact that retiring Senator Judd Gregg (who recently voted in favor of the confirmation of Elena Kagan as a United States Supreme Court justice) and the Washington establishment are behind Ayotte is a signal to conservatives to look elsewhere. Obviously, doing what the establishment wants (especially the GOP establishment) has gotten us nowhere.

Ayotte is an empty vessel who has no record of standing firm on anything. She willingly oversaw dispensing Obama stimulus money, etc.

Lately Ayotte has been busy beating up self-financed millionaire Bill Binnie, who as an entrepreneur closed his plant in California and send the jobs into a new plant in Mexico.

Binnie and the fourth Republican hopeful, Jim Bender, are overtly pro-choice. Ayotte claims to be pro-life but her record suggests not really. Winners don't pay losers' legal fees, and New Hampshire no longer has a parental notification law on the books.

Here is what pro-life Palin and New Hampshirites need to know about Ayotte and the life issue:

Premise: Conservatives have looked at Ayotte as good (or good enough) on life because her name is on a lawsuit (Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood), and she defended this case, arguing it against Planned Parenthood in the United States Supreme Court. This has given her a free pass with many pro-lifers. She claims she won, and Palin, when endorsing her, said she also won the case.

Problem: Ayotte didn't win. New Hampshire is the only state EVER to have a parental notification law on the books that was removed, and the State was required to pay Planned Parenthood $300,000 in legal fees as the prevailing party.

The Facts:

In June 2003 a parental notification law was passed HB 763 http://gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2003/hb0763.html requiring physicians seeking to perform an abortion on a minor to notify parents within 48 hours prior to performing the abortion.

This law was challenged by Planned Parenthood and others in federal court in November 2003, and former Attorney General Peter Heed (NOT Ayotte she was not NH's Attorney General yet) took up the defense of the challenge. Heed, not Ayotte, is the one who took on the case and brought the State's defense. Federal District Court ruled portions of the law unconstitutional and Heed (not Ayotte) appealed to the First Circuit, which affirmed the lower court. Heed resigned under a cloud and Ayotte was appointed as his replacement on July 14, 2004, picking up the case from Heed. Her oral argument before the Supreme Court (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_1144/) was poor.

The Supreme Court invalidated portions of the statute, but not all of it, remanding it to the federal district court to consider legislative intent and severability.

While the remand was pending, the New Hampshire legislature in 2007 took up an outright repeal of the statute, and successfully repealed it (since the 2006 elections saw a big Democrat takeover). HB 184 effected the repeal, mooting in some regard the matter. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2007/HBO184.html.

Once the case was mooted, Planned Parenthood sought its attorneys fees as the prevailing party in the lawsuit. The State objected, but the court agreed and said Planned Parenthood was in fact the prevailing party, and entitled to fees.

In 2008, the State and PP reached agreement on a payment of fees. The order is found here. http://xa.yimg.com/kg/groups/2546438/176018832/name/3-16-09%20Order%2Epdf and here: http://xa.yimg.com/kg/groups/2546438/718571778/name/4-1-09%20Order%2Epdf.

The Portsmouth Herald ran the following article by Karen Dandurant on September 4, 2008 concerning the State's payment of PP's legal fees:

"GREENLAND The New Hampshire Department of Justice will be paying the attorney fees for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England over a lawsuit filed in opposition to a parental notification law for underage teens seeking abortions. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England challenged a law requiring teenagers to notify parents before getting an abortion. They successfully proved it was unconstitutional because it didn't contain an exception in the case where a pregnant woman's life was in danger.

"The law was passed in 2003 and repealed in 2007, making the lawsuit moot. In the interim, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England was able to obtain an injunction that kept the law from ever being enforced. Attorney General Kelly Ayotte and her staff pursued the case all the way to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Nancy Mosher, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, said their position was upheld at every level of the court system. In an opinion released on Aug. 12, United States District Judge Joseph Di Clerico said Planned Parenthood is entitled to attorney fees and court costs. He ordered both sides to meet and make their best efforts to resolve the amount, to avoid further court proceedings.

"'The reason we pursued this it that it's been very costly to take this case as far as the Supreme Court,' Mosher said. 'It wasn't in the budget. At this point we're grateful to be at the end of very long case and we are pleased that the unconstitutionality of this law has been upheld. Our primary concern is the health and safety of every woman and we feel that has also been upheld.'"The amount of the fees were never released.

However, a New Hampshire Legislative Budget Assistant confirmed when asked that the State paid $300,000 to Planned Parenthood to cover its legal fees as the prevailing party.

An email from the legislative budget assistant to a third party states:

"Good afternoon

"The total amount paid under the settlement agreement was $300,000, made in two $150,000 installments.

"As to who made the decision the answer is the Attorney General, based on RSA 99-D:2 which reads in part; The attorney general shall have the authority to settle any claim brought under this chapter by compromise and the amount of any such settlement shall be paid as if the amount were awarded as a judgment under this chapter.

"I hope this is helpful,

"Jeff'

It was Ayotte, as Attorney General, under RSA 99-D, who signed off on paying these legal fees.

Conclusion:

1. The Planned Parenthood case fell into Ayotte's lap; she takes credit for it now, but she didn't bring it originally. She only chose to go to the Supreme Court from the First Circuit because her predecessor resigned due to inappropriate behavior.

2. Ayotte didn't "win" the Planned Parenthood case, as she (and Palin) now claim.

Afterward, Ayotte declined to be a pro-life advocate.

In 2007, the then Democrat New Hampshire legislature took up and rammed through an outright repeal. During her tenure as Attorney General, Ayotte testified or otherwise got involved in other matters such as gambling, medical marijuana and capital punishment. But despite "heroically" defending the law, SHE REFUSED to testify against the repeal effort. The corresponding news report said: Ayotte said she will not testify on the repeal legislation, believing her duty is to defend the law as enacted by the Legislature: http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleld=45864264-6d01-46a1-bd02-4b99959d236&headline=Notification+law+challenge+halted. Not exactly a pro-life warrior. Ayotte said she did her job and no more. And consequently the legislature repealed the law.

Look at Ayotte's website www.ayotteforsenate.com. See any reference to life or abortion on there at all? Me neither.

Further, Ayotte says she is pro-life except in cases of rape, incest and "medical emergencies," http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090812/FRONTPAGE/908120375/1037/NEWS04, and as most pro-life veterans know, "medical emergencies" are not limited to cases where the life of the mother is at stake but is a loophole that means abortion whenever a woman or a doctor says she should have an abortion e.g., it is a "medical emergency" if the doctor (who is also the abortionist) says it's an emergency because the woman's mental health will suffer if she does not get an abortion. Ayotte also has made statements that she thinks women's medical rights need to be protected under health insurance reform....she was against the Stupak amendment before she was for it, etc.

While Palin apparently believes that Ayotte is a pro-life warrior, Dr. Douglas Black, who performs abortions at the FeminIst Health Center in New Hampshire, knows better and is displaying a Kelly Ayotte for U.S. Senate on his property. Palin and New Hampshirites need to know the facts, and Palin needs to withdraw her endorsement of Ayotte and support the candidate whom Laura Ingraham derscribes as 'the only true conservative in a very important race" Ovide Lamontagne.

Since Palin endorsed Ayotte, New Hampshire's leading newspaper, The Union Leader, followed the campaign and endorsed Lamontagne in a front page editorial above the fold, in Joseph McQuaid's name, not simply on the op-ed page. No one has gotten similar treatment. Not even close. New Hampshire's McQuaid couldn't have given Lamontagne a bigger splash.

McQuaid wrote (http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Joseph+W.+McQuaid%3a+Lamontagne+for+U.S.+Senate&articleId=51033d42-09d2-4854-b963-645b99d1f8be0):

"Ovide Lamontagne is our choice for the U.S. Senate.

"He is not the flashiest candidate. He certainly is not the richest. He isn't the favorite of the bigtime professional pols or the Washington crowd.

"Ovide is just a smart-as-a-whip, honest, hard-working son of New Hampshire who says what he believes. What he believes makes sense to save our nation from economic ruin; and he will stick to it come hell, high water, or demands from party bosses to 'go along and get along.'

"We have been impressed by the number of grassroots conservatives backing Ovide. They are not the best-known, prominent Republicans (those have tended to line up with one or another of the presumed 'favorites').

"The people backing Ovide Lamontagne have been in the trenches for conservative causes and principles. They know their man and consider him, by far, the most capable person to make the tough choices needed at a crucial time for our country. They also know he can win in November.

"We agree. We hope you will, too."

Note to Governor Palin: RECONSIDER AND RETARGET!

Lamontagne, NOT Ayotte, is Palin's kind of person.

This comment by Greg Barrett of Manchester, New Hampshire explains why:

"I respect the Union Leader for being true to itself and its principles. There was no other logical choice for the paper to go then to Ovide. Although I seldom agree with Ovide on most social issues I respect his honesty, his resolve to do what he thinks is the right thing and his hard working ethic. Having a client like the present bishop isn't an easy task but, he represented his client with dignity. Being true to his prolife co[n]servative stance and opposing the taking of a human life by state execution certainly sets him apart from a candidate like Ayotte who in her ads proclaims how proud she is of being part of the revenge machine. Over the years our paths have crossed as foster parents and at class reunions for Trinity High School. I often joke with him that I bear no grudge that he defeated me for his first political victory as freshman class president. NH would be far worse off with a different Republican representing the state. Everyone who votes for Ovide can be sure they are getting what they expect. He is what he professes to be a decent man."

There's no other logical choice for Palin either!

The New Hampshire Senate race is a very big deal for conservatives and we have the opportunity to help a candidate whose conservatism is tested and real!

Sean Hannity often asks "where are the Republicans with a plan, who are willing to put their money where their mouth is."

Lamontagne is in New Hampshire, running for United States Senator in New Hampshirem and he's the only authentic, pro-life conservative in the Republican primary and the polls show he can win, so this isn't a take Scott-Brown-as-the-best-we-can-get-there deal.

The primary is September 14.

Read Ovide's Oath. No one else is coming close to doing something like it.

Here it is:

OVIDE'S OATH TO THE VOTERS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

1. I pledge that I will use every means possible to repeal the trillion dollar Obamacare takeover of our country's health care system that will increase healthcare costs, harm small business and decrease the quality and availability of care;

2. I pledge that I will refuse any earmark requests, and lead the effort to enact a permanent ban on these corrupting influences, while fighting daily to cut federal spending and government waste at all levels. I further pledge that if elected, my office expenses and schedule will be transparent and posted for all to see, so the people of New Hampshire can trust that their Senator represents their interests alone;

3. I pledge that I will introduce legislation that will repeal the failed $787 billion stimulus, and use the unspent portions of it to reduce our bloated national debt and reduce taxes for hard working Americans;

4. I pledge that I will introduce legislation establishing a constitutional Line-Item Veto for the President. The Governors of 43 states have this essential tool to veto individual examples of wasteful pork-barrel spending. It is time the President is given the same tool, to help eliminate budget busting spending programs;

5. I pledge that I will work to amend the Constitution to establish term limits for all Members of Congress, to end the cycle of entitlement and inside dealing with the special interests. Our Forefathers envisioned a citizen Legislature, not a permanent political caste of powerful insiders insulated from regular Americans. In addition, I pledge to limit myself to only two terms in office, if elected;

6. I pledge that I will work to amend the Constitution to establish a Balanced Budget Amendment, a tool nearly every state has, to compel legislators and the government to balance its checkbook and end the all too familiar DC culture of debt, deficit spending and bailouts;

7. I pledge that I will work to fundamentally reform the IRS and scrap the incredibly complicated and loophole filled federal tax code, replacing it with a fairer, flatter, simpler tax code that frees families and small businesses held hostage annually by high tax rates and complicated rules and regulations;

8. I pledge that I will support the appointment of only those judges who have proven that they will adhere to the Constitution and rule of law, shown due regard and respect for private property rights, and who have shown that they will not legislate from the bench. With that in mind, I have publicly opposed the nominations of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court without hesitation, because they are activists who do not pass this fundamental test;

9. I pledge that as Senator, one of my top daily priorities will be the security of our country and her people. In particular, I pledge: (a) to continue support for our operations against terrorists abroad, and provide support for our troops in the field with the resources they need to defend freedom, while ensuring that they receive the finest care and treatment possible upon their return home; (b) to work to ensure that we treat foreign terrorists as enemy combatants subject to military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, not as criminal defendants; and (c) to stand firm against allowing a nuclear Iran to emerge, while supporting our proven allies throughout the world, including our staunch friend Israel;

10. I pledge that I will read and understand the legislation that I am asked to vote upon, to respect and advocate for the principles of federalism articulated in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, and look first to the Constitution for guidance on whether any proposed federal legislation is constitutionally permissible;

11. I pledge that I will not move to Washington to become part of the establishment culture there. If elected, I will live in my home in Manchester the same home that I grew up in and commute to my job each week on behalf of the people of New Hampshire. I further pledge that I will hold regular town hall meetings with my constituents, understanding that elected officials must be held accountable to the voters and prepared to explain their actions to them;

12. I pledge that in all aspects of my job as U.S. Senator, I will work to uphold and support the dignity of human life, from conception to natural death;

13. I pledge that I will work tirelessly to end illegal immigration. While I support the recently enacted Arizona immigration law, the federal government must finally live up to its obligation to address this serious issue. As Senator, I will work to see that our borders are secured once and for all, that we turn off illegal immigration magnets by aggressively enforcing laws against employers who hire illegal aliens, and that we ensure there is no amnesty for illegal aliens;

14. I pledge to be a strong and unrelenting advocate for the individual right to keep and bear arms, as embodied in the 2nd Amendment, and to ensure that this fundamental right is not infringed upon;

15. I pledge to oppose any iteration of the 'Employee Free Choice Act' and its card check provisions, which would deny workers the right to a secret ballot when considering unionization. I believe in the private ballot, and I further believe in right to work laws that give workers the right to decide for themselves whether to join a union or not.

Check out Lamontagne's website: www.ovide2010.com.

The race is very dynamic. Binnie and Ayotte are now attacking each other daily on TV and radio, driving up each other's negatives. It is so bad that Fosters Daily Democrat, one of New Hampshire's largest newspapers (and an important conservative voice), announced that it was no longer considering either Ayotte or Binnie.

Last week Lamontagne went live with his first radio ad 'The Oath' found on his website at www.ovide2010.com.

This week he began running a positive television commercial.

Bottom line: Palin belongs with Lamontagne, not Ayotte. Positively!

© Michael Gaynor

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Michael Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Michael Gaynor: Click here

More by this author

December 7, 2017
President Trump should privately consult Ed Rollins and appoint a new attorney general to supervise Special Counsel Mueller's investigation


December 6, 2017
Bad jury verdicts like the one that found Kate Steinle's death to be a tragic accident are shameless politicking


October 22, 2017
Sharon Waxman and Bill O'Reilly are both right. New York Times spikes legitimate exposes when they don't fit its business and/or political agendas


September 13, 2017
George Soros anointing Patrick Gaspard is bad news


August 17, 2017
Is the liberal media deliberately shilling for the far left or blinded by Trumpphobia to its misdeeds?


August 8, 2017
President Trump won't kowtow to or pay off North Korea


August 2, 2017
Tragically, aging and ailing Senator McCain teamed with "resist" Democrats and pro-Planned Parenthood nominal Republicans Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins to prolong Obamacare and postpone Trumpcare


June 12, 2017
Senator Gillibrand is the reckless liar, not President Trump!


May 31, 2017
Does the price of the Murdochs owning Sky entirely include Sean Hannity leaving Fox News?


May 30, 2017
Will President Trump invoke the Bush Doctrine to eliminate the North Korean nuclear threat?


More articles