You will, by now, have heard of the sordid tale of Sonia Prince and alleged antisemitism. Sonia is no Liberal Wallflower, and her latest outrage isn’t anything new except that she was aiming it at a Democrat because she supports that candidate’s opponent.
If you missed it, Prince called out Executive Councilor and Democrat Gubernatorial Primary Candidate Cinde Warmington for her connection to Purdue Pharma. Purdue is an opioid devil we know, Warmington being one of its lobbyists during the Oxycontin heyday and very positive (back then) about how wonderful a drug it was. But it wasn’t the association that got Sonia in trouble. It was a failure to separate it from antisemitic content.
Sonia is doing a little hate speech thing, or at least that is what it would be if the other side did it. Prince is reported to have apologized for not realizing there was antisemitism afoot and removed the content, but this is the same woman who, when Iran wanted to assassinate President Trump, gave them directions.
That’s Sonia being Sonia, and while it has some level of intrigue, it is not nearly as interesting as the can of opioid worms it has opened. Exhibit one is the Warmington campaign response to Prince and the Graig Campaign.
“Cinde’s own father struggled with substance use disorder, which is why she has spent decades advocating for expanded access to treatment for families facing addiction. This effort to smear Cinde Warmington with a 22-year-old attack organized by Joyce Craig’s allies disgracefully exploits the pain of New Hampshire families struggling with substance use disorder and shamelessly parrots Kelly Ayotte’s attacks for Craig’s own political gain,” said Miles Cunning, Warmington campaign communications director.
Miles isn’t very cunning. First, if we fisk social media (Cinde’s, her staff, Craig’s staff, any Democrat), will we find similar deference toward efforts against Republicans like Donald Trump or judges like Brett Brett Kavanaugh? Did these Democrats declare those decades-old smears disgraceful exploits? I’m guessing without looking (mostly from memory) that they were critically important features of the individual’s character. Defined them. Made them unsuited for the office. The other distinction I see is that Trump and Kavanaugh didn’t do the things they were accused of, and Warmington did. Cinde’s association and advocacy for Perdue separated children from parents, brothers from sisters, and husbands from wives. That “miracle drug” with “very few side effects” broke homes and ended lives. I can’t say what Cinde ‘Lou’ knew when she knew it, but if her Republican opponent had that history or any suspect 22-year-old smear, do you think her campaign would ignore it? Nope.
Team Craig should not ignore it either, and if Warmington wins the primary, neither should her Republican challenger because Cinde’s complicity on the question of opioid addictions and overdoses is less than 22 minutes old. New Hampshire, all of America, has been hard hit by an opioid crisis perpetrated by the border policies of two Democrat Presidents whom Warmington (Craig, Prince, and most nearly every other – at least loud-mouthed Dems) have praised. Policy they defend to this day. Advocacy that allows opioids to pour into the state and nation, killing kids and destroying lives.
I suppose the solution to that is expanded access to treatment. Don’t stop the drugs. Don’t enforce the law. Take money from hard-working Granite Staters to backstop government-mismanaged bureaucracies that get fatter while the problem gets worse. Isn’t that the Democrat answer to everything they break? And if advocating opioid access that results in unnecessary addiction and death makes Warmington ineligible, Sonia, shouldn’t that apply to every Democrat in every race?
