A retiring NH rep reflects on life in Concord

Lenette Peterson on being a state rep: "the experience was phenomenal."
Lenette Peterson on being a state rep: “the experience was phenomenal.”

Lenette Peterson was elected in 2010 to represent Merrimack in the New Hampshire legislature. She served two terms, and then retired. She’s a friend and neighbor and hiking buddy, firmly pro-life. We sat down for coffee just before Christmas so I could ask her to look back on her time in office.

Why she’s leaving 

She’s been a sponsor of some important pro-life bills. As constituent, I supported her in two elections. I had to know: why is she leaving office?

“I two-termed myself.” Along with her husband, she prayed and thought about running back in 2010. “I asked [husband Erik] if he’d give me two terms. First term would be a learning experience. Second term is when I’d actually hopefully be doing something good.” She laughed as she added, “And I said only two terms, because we now have two children in college. State rep salary really doesn’t help pay for even a lunch card.”

That salary is $100 a year, plus mileage. New Hampshire in effect has a volunteer legislature. That hundred dollars a year is fixed. It doesn’t vary if session days run long or if a representative’s committee assignments are especially time-consuming. I hate seeing good, conscientious representatives choose not to run for re-election, but I can understand it – even if we’re losing a solid rep from my own town.


 

Why she ran 

Is the life issue one reason why she ran? “Yes.” No apologies for the social issues here.

She recounted a story from her early days in office in 2011. “I remember my freshman year, before we met for the first session. The majority leader at the time was meeting with groups of freshman [legislators]. Someone mentioned social issues, and the majority leader said ‘You guys can put all your social issues aside. We’re not going to deal with anything social this year.’ When he got to me, I said ‘first and foremost, I ran on social issues. That was on every piece of literature I passed out. Parental notification came up. Repeal of same-sex marriage came up. I ran on social issues so don’t tell me they don’t matter. I got elected by talking about social issues and Second Amendment issues. Social issues will be dealt with.'”

She hadn’t intended to run before 2010 – but she was asked, or more-or-less drafted, by a conservative legislator who had her eye out for likely candidates.

“If you had told me in April [2010] that I was going to put my name on the ballot, I would have told you you were nuts. That May, my oldest daughter and I were in Kohls. Lo & behold, we run into the Honorable Nancy Elliott.” At that time, Nancy was a Merrimack state representative in her third term, and Lenette had worked on her campaigns. “I said ‘I’m ready for your next campaign’ and she said ‘I’m not running again.'” At that point, Lenette walked right into trouble by asking, “So if you’re not running, who is?” Nancy Elliott was ready for that question: “Well, I’m praying about you running.”

Lenette shook her head as she recalled hearing that. “I said ‘are you nuts?’ My daughter said, ‘Mom, it’d be great!’ Nancy said to me ‘At least pray about it.'” L

enette was teaching at the time, at Milford Christian Academy. Being a legislator would put a crimp in that. Her husband realized what a commitment she’d be making if she went to Concord. It took a lot of prayer and thought. When filing period came in June, Lenette took the plunge and ran. She was elected that fall. She won again easily in 2012, a year that saw a lot of other Republicans lose.

What got done, and what didn’t – and why

What is she happiest about, in terms of legislation from the last two terms? “We kept [expanded] gambling out. That was huge. Parental notification [for abortion] was huge.”

And what’s been left undone? “Oh, my word – so many life bills. The life things, for sure. Statistics from abortion clinics: facts are facts, and it makes no sense that we don’t collect these. Why should [abortion facilities] get to stay in the dark? We didn’t get a 24-hour notice [waiting period before abortion]. Also, right to work needs to be passed here in New Hampshire. Those three in particular. And we’ve got to get rid of the Unaffordable Care Act. Medicaid expansion is going to bankrupt the country; we failed in getting rid of that.”

She credits Bill O’Brien, Speaker of the House in the 2011-12 session, for helping to get parental notification passed, over Governor Lynch’s veto. “I don’t think it would have happened without Bill.” Noting that the House elected in 2010 had the largest number of freshman legislators in recent memory, she compared the group to “a huge litter of Labrador puppies. I thought [O’Brien] did a phenomenal job.”

One disappointment was the failure of a bill to repeal same-sex marriage. “I said from day one, put it on the ballot. Let New Hampshire voters decide.” Instead a repeal bill was introduced. “Repeal of same-sex marriage was killed by Republicans, or people who ran as Republicans.” She said it was “unfortunate” that the leading Republican advocate in the House for restoration of traditional marriage tried to go it alone. “He wanted no help. He had it under control, he had it organized. And they ate him alive. So ignorance and ego killed that one.”


On being Republican

“I’m a Republican,” says Lenette. “Take away the social issues and a Republican is nothing but a Democrat.”

She’s a Republican. I’m an independent, or as I think of it, a recovering Republican. She is not going to follow me onto the Undeclared column. “I am definitely staying Republican, first and foremost because sometimes when you say ‘I’m an independent,’ no offense to the blogger, but are you that wishy-washy? You can’t decide?”

Lenette is an inveterate bestower of nicknames. (I am “Mother Hubbard,” a hiking reference whose origins I will save for my Granite State Walker blog.) Among her more stinging references: “Demo-rat,” instead of Democrat. Harsh, is it not?

“Sometimes I say Demo-rat and hear ‘that’s offensive.’ I say not really, and I explain why I use the word Demo-rat. What do rats do? They’re in back alleys eating out of dumpsters. They don’t do anything for themselves. They take what everyone else has. At least the rats take the leftovers. I say, what do you people [Democrats] do? You raid people’s pockets, you add tax after tax and fee after fee and call it revenue, but you’re just raiding someone’s wallet. You’re nothing better than a rat. Most Republicans agree with me. Dems just kind of look at me and shake their heads.” She hastens to add, “I give nicknames to Republicans, too.”

The recent vote for Speaker of the House

A recent power play in Concord saw the Democratic House caucus join with a minority of Republicans to elect Rep. Shawn Jasper as Speaker of the House, after O’Brien on the first ballot fell four votes short of regaining the Speakership. I asked Lenette for her comments.

The recent Speaker vote was “a total embarrassment. Jasper let his ego take over the House. There was a [Republican] majority choice for Speaker already.”  Lenette was in the gallery that day and witnessed the goings-on. On the second ballot, Rep. David Bates – an O’Brien supporter – made a motion to make subsequent votes for Speaker public, as opposed to the secret ballot normally used. Lenette said, “As soon as he went up there, I knew nothing good was going to come of this.”

She knows about the anger of O’Brien supporters who have vowed not to support a Speaker who has effectively been chosen by the minority party. Some of those supporters have also indicated reluctance to work with committee chairs appointed by Jasper. “It’s tough. There are some good reps who are pulling back. They’re frustrated, they’re furious. And I can see their point to a certain degree.” She said the situation will be very challenging for members of the House Republican Alliance, an informal conservative caucus that has been influential in policy discussions in Concord. “Whose allegiance are those HRA members [going to be with]? They’re going to disagree with leadership on more than [a few] things.” Lenette believes the Speaker vote will lead to bitterness at the polls. “This is not good, and it’s really going to hurt us in 2016.”

She wrapped up the subject with a blunt observation. “Jasper sold his soul to the devil, meaning Ray Buckley [chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party], and Ray Buckley is going to collect. Anyone who sells his soul to Ray Buckley is just deplorable.”

How to testify

Lenette served on the Judiciary Committee – a plum assignment for a first-term rep who’s not a lawyer. Judiciary has a heavy workload, including most of the life-issue bills. I asked her how a citizen coming to testify before the committee could get a point across.

“Keep it short, and keep it to the facts of the bill. Tears and sob stories are wasting time, in my book. Stick to the facts, and keep it short. That made more of a difference with me than anything else.”

And what would she tell her replacement on the committee? “No matter where they stand, pro-choice or pro-life, I’d advise them to go in and just listen. Facts are facts.”

She counsels brevity to House members as well as citizens coming to Concord to testify. “If you can’t make your point in three to five minutes, forget it. You’ve noticed that when certain representatives walk to the well [to make a speech about a bill], the place clears.”

“I’d encourage anyone to run …the experience was phenomenal.”

So a hundred bucks year, intraparty bickering, and six months a year of hearings and votes. Would Lenette recommend this to anyone else?

Certainly.

“I’d encourage anyone to run. If you have the time, and don’t need the money, run for office. The experience was phenomenal. The opportunities are just phenomenal. And with New Hampshire being First in the Nation, you get a chance to meet every candidate running for office. I was on a first name basis with some of them.”

As a Merrimack voter, I’m certain that had Lenette run for state rep again, she’d have won. In fact, she did win an election this year as a delegate to the state GOP convention, which she proudly attended with her daughter Sheila who was elected delegate along with her. Any second thoughts about that state rep seat?

“I could have run for a third term, not put as much time into things, maybe asked for a less crazy committee, but I would hate it. If I couldn’t do it 110%, I didn’t want to do it.”

Jim Rubens on social issues and why he should replace Shaheen in U.S. Senate

Jim Rubens, GOP candidate for U.S. Senate
Jim Rubens, GOP candidate for U.S. Senate. Ellen Kolb photo.

Jim Rubens told WMUR’s James Pindell last May that he wanted a “temporary truce” within the GOP on social issues during the 2014 campaigns. He sat down with me last week to elaborate on that, the day after he announced that he’s seeking the GOP nomination to replace Jeanne Shaheen in the U.S. Senate.

Rubens is straightforward about his main issues: jobs, government spending, and what he calls “trust crises” that have undermined public faith in elected leaders. But what about that “truce” remark? What does he have to say to and about New Hampshire’s pro-life voters?

On the life issues, and how he helped shape the NHGOP platform

Rubens spoke carefully about Roe v. Wade, pausing frequently to choose the right word. Whatever his views on the life issues, they’re not canned.

“On the life issue, we have Roe v. Wade. That’s been in constitutional law for a long time. Does it resolve the differences between people who would be called pro-life and pro-choice? It doesn’t. But it’s constitutional law, and because of the stare decisis doctrine, respected by the Roberts court, it’s unlikely that that will be changed. It’s unlikely there will be a constitutional amendment. Even a highly popular constitutional amendment, for example, is very, very difficult to get passed. Because of that, I’m proposing that Republicans focus on issues that we can agree upon, that are vitally necessary, that deal with the country’s serious challenges that we face right now – challenges as big as anything we’ve faced since World War II and the Great Depression.”

Debates on the life issues are not new to him. He served in the state senate while Shaheen was there, and in 2000, he chaired the NHGOP’s platform committee. His enthusiasm for the collaborative process is evident. “We dealt with that issue [in 2000].  We had hearings all over the state, and that platform was a breakthrough. We had actual concrete examples of what Republicans support, not conceptual statements but actual statements such as ‘we oppose partial-birth abortion, we support parental notification.’  I chaired that process, I shepherded that process, reaching agreement.

“Did everyone agree with all those things in that platform? No, but we [had] a good degree of agreement. And that platform has been used in the decade-plus since then by things like the House Republican Alliance to measure whether people are voting consistently with the body of Republican goals. Not just the principles that are loose, but actual specific goals.

“I agree with those elements of the platform, I shepherded it into being, and I believe it’s led to New Hampshire laws becoming more consistent with the views that reflect this difficult tension between the poles of opinion on that issue. And I believe it’s moved New Hampshire toward the position of life, consistent with Roe v. Wade, consistent with the views of the people of this state. So that’s what I mean by truce. I mean by truce that these things [Roe] are laws, they’re not going to change, and if you spend a lot of energy fighting each other on them, we end up being less able to deal with Obamacare, for example.”


On Shaheen: “She is as aggressively pro-choice as you can get.”

So does he think Shaheen will go along with a truce in the general election? His answer was swift, if not direct. “She is as aggressively pro-choice as you can get. Her position is different from mine. People have a wide range of opinions, but there’s a body of Americans that inhabit someplace between Jeanne Shaheen’s position and a place of banning all abortions under every circumstance. Her position is outside of that place that Americans have mostly come to terms where if there’s a situation for example which is beyond viability, unless there’s a threat for the life or health of the mother, Americans oppose that kind of abortion. And I agree with that position, personally.”

On the definition of marriage: in NH, “a settled issue”

Rubens commented briefly on New Hampshire’s law recognizing same-sex marriages.  “Gay marriage is an issue that’s important. There was a vote on that here in the [NH] House [spring 2012], a very Republican House, and the House voted 2-1 to keep gay marriage. It was one of those unusual circumstances where it wasn’t a court decision, it was an actual legislature. I respect the House. It’s the people’s House. And that vote tells me that at least in New Hampshire, that issue is a settled issue. I’m not proposing that Republicans re-litigate the issue.”

His experience leading a coalition against a NH casino, and how expanded gambling is a life issue

I worked with the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling, founded and led by Rubens, that has prevailed against casino interests for nine years. Most recently, a casino bill was killed in the New Hampshire House this year by a surprising margin, despite support from Governor Hassan.

“People have known me for fighting gambling. Two conclusions I ask voters to draw from that.

“Number one, I did work with a lot of Democrats. We couldn’t have won without Democrats.  [Casino proponents] did not expect that because they had all the forces on their side. This is in the Republican party platform, and sometimes the only way to get a Republican platform item is to have some Democrats voting for it.  [Beating] this industry nine years in a row is not magic. It’s a lot of skill. It’s finding a way to communicate different people. Bridge-building is a process of finding a way to that common ground around a goal. I’m really good at doing that, and I want to bring that talent to the United States Senate. It’s winning – not just fighting, but winning. Moving conservative issues into the win column.

“Second thing about this issue is, it is a life issue also that motivates me. As we know, gambling casinos create addiction. Some folks in our coalition don’t buy into that thing, but it’s a fact. Among those people who become addicted, it’s as addictive as crack cocaine. … It would create an additional 1000 suicides in NH if one casino were put in in Salem. And that’s a life issue. And that motivates me.”

Obamacare: “a train wreck”

I asked Rubens about the HHS mandate within Obamacare and its threat to religious liberty. He preferred to talk about Obamacare in general. In his announcement the day before our interview, he said he favored repealing Obamacare “and replacing it with something better.” When we spoke, he said he is preparing fuller policy proposals, but he was happy to outline his broad vision for health care.

“To get Obamacare stopped, even if we had a more Republican Senate, and a Republican president, is going to require bringing the public along with us. And we know Obamacare is a train wreck. It’s a jobs disaster, it’s a health care disaster, it raises the cost of health care, it does nothing to improve the quality of health care. 20 million people are still uninsured; it doesn’t even fix the problem it purports to fix. Republicans can take huge high ground in persuading Americans about Obamacare. I don’t believe we’ll do it until we come back with something better, and it is definitely feasible to come back with something better.

“Republicans would have a way better chance of terminating it in all of its awfulness if we come up with a [way] to solve the problems, reduce the cost of health care, drive up quality.”  He criticized the current “disease-management-based system.”   “We can look at models around the country that have worked. And Obamacare is not that model. Obamacare reduces choices.”

Libertarians within the GOP: “amazing energy”

I asked him about the role of libertarian voters in the GOP, the so-called “liberty Republicans.”

“We can unite. We have the liberty Republicans, we have traditional social conservatives, we have mainstream people and moderates, we have the quote-unquote Establishment. We agree on a lot, these different parts of the party.  We are the only party that’s going to fix the nation’s problems. Democrats are bankrupting the country; they are the ones that gave us Obamacare. If Republicans, including the libertarian part, the social conservative part, don’t unite, there is no one to fix the country’s problems. Democrats are not going to do this. We have to do the lifting. We have to get the votes.  But we can do this if we unite. And the libertarian part brings some amazing energy into our party right now. They’re reminding us of the importance of the Constitution.  If we come together, we can reduce the size of government. We can reduce bureaucracy. We can make the government fit within the revenues that it has instead of killing the currency as we’re doing.”

“Let me at her.”

Rubens spoke at length about challenging and complex issues he worked on as a state senator, ranging from school choice to electricity competition. Jeanne Shaheen was part of all those debates, first as a state senator and then as governor. He hasn’t forgotten her State House days.

“I can take her on, because I know who she is. I’ve worked with her, I have fought her on issues in the state senate, I have seen her go into back rooms and be instructed by lobbyists how to vote. I watched it happen. It is not representing the people. It is not doing the people’s work in the state of NH. I have fought her on issue after issue after issue. I know where she comes from, I know how to defeat her. Let me at her.”

~~~

White flag, anyone?

A potential Republican candidate for Jeanne Shaheen’s U.S. Senate seat in 2014 said this week that there should be a “truce” on social issues in the campaign.

No editorial comments from me on this, yet.  I’ll have plenty to say in months to come about parties and policies and strategies in 2014. For now, what do YOU think when you hear the words “truce on social issues”?