Most people who have been paying attention for quite some time already knew the writing was on the walls. The state Royal Family has selected Kelly Ayotte to be the darling favorite candidate for governor. It was obvious that Papa Smurf already approved her and just a matter of time before Baby Huey would make his endorsement official. That big day happened to be Wednesday, 8/7. When the announcement was released, my first thoughts were “what took him so long?,” and “why now instead or earlier or closer to the primary?” The answers came the very next day because Thursday, 8/8, was the 3rd annual Super 603 Day, an event where His Excellency the Narcissist gets followed around the state by the camera crew as he plays the fun-loving vacationer and attention seeker addicted to social media. This time, however, it was with Kelly Ayotte in tow as his playmate, something that ought to fill up Dr Sherman’s appointment calendar or create a rush for Pepto Bismol.
It was time to talk to my own “personal political armchair shrink,” if you will, about my thoughts on it after an equally nauseated friend vented to me about it this morning. I will refer to this extremely well-versed person as “K.” K surmises that the dog and pony show that occurred, marketed as yesterday’s Super 603 Day on steroids, was political revenge against Chuck Morse, compliments of the Uniparty establishment elite.
Chuck unleashed the first attack against Kelly on 4/9 in the LOB, which can be found in a quick internet search and was factual and warranted, and it wasn’t his last. If Greta were a member of polite society, she would join the Ayotte camp with her signature “how dare you,” followed by condescending remarks on how unfortunate it is that Chuck must resort to such tactics. The revenge dish served cold is the plausible deniability of counterattacking. The counterattack was the Damn Emperor’s endorsement immediately followed by a full day of acting like teenagers on a date, albeit preapproved by Mr Ayotte and Valerie. I will also add that WMUR was glad to oblige in doing its job covering it in addition to already airing those expensive pro-Ayotte commercials.
I think most readers are already familiar with the most common arguments against choosing Kelly Ayotte, and I outlined some of them in my earlier article, “The Case for Chuck Morse.”
However, I am just floored by the number of good people who are choosing Kelly Ayotte. They include decent people, gun people, locals (She hails from and votes in Nashua.), and people I am required to be polite to for one reason or another. Don’t they know she’s a red flagger? Don’t they know she answered to McCain rather than Granite Staters? Don’t they know that she was a complicit attorney general while unspeakable things were happening to NH’s most vulnerable and helpless youth at the facility? Don’t they know she refuses to promise to sign important bills that, if still alive at the finish line, would be a 2nd or 3rd attempt at legislation vetoed by the Damn Emperor or snuffed out by his legislative water carriers? School mask policy, gender policy, Gunstock audit, and the Parental Bill of Rights are just a few that come to mind. And what about the whole 2016 Trump thing? I asked K what’s up with their cognitive dissonance and received an interesting answer that has to do with being bedazzled by charismatic or photogenic Hollywood traits that give politicians like Ayotte and His Excellency undeserved popularity. Good people are often lured such that they are willing to compromise some of their most passionate issues. One example would be gun people supporting a red flagger. Another would be a Cornerstoner willing to turn a blind eye to any hint of pro-choice language, but I won’t go any further because you get the picture. Mitt Romney would fall into the same bucket as the Damn Emperor and Kelly Ayotte at being able to mesmerize people who would/should be voting for the more conservative offering.
And let’s not forget that we still have open primaries, despite a recent failed attempt to exclude Dems disguised as undeclared voters or truly independent people.
Prior to my discussion with K, the only logical answer I could fathom was the fear of losing the Corner Office (which is a very reasonable fear), and people feel compelled to vote for the candidate with more money and a bigger household name. I knew it was a plausible answer but a weak one because of an encounter I had with Sharon Carson a few months before she threw Nashua and other communities yearning for city hall transparency under the bus with her OTP motion as Judiciary Committee Chair on the RTK tax. Sharon did not become Queen Sharon by being stupid, so I asked her if she thought Chuck could beat the enemy camp’s November offering, and she said yes. I will point out that much of the Senate has to feel the same way because it would take a special kind of stupidity to accept the thought of a blue Corner Office in today’s political landscape.
I’m not sure what the best approach is to politely flipping some of our valuable peers in the Big Tent from Team Kelly to Team Chuck, but suggestions are welcome.
