Congressional candidate Andy Martin says the New Hampshire GOP has a death wish; Martin charges former Mayor Rudy Giuliani is helping the process

New Hampshire congressional candidate Andy Martin says a cabal within the New Hampshire GOP’s leadership has a death wish. The party rigs primaries to nominate unqualified candidates, engages in blatant lies and backstabbing, and defeats its own incumbents through mismanagement and corruption. Rudy Giuliani came to Portsmouth Wednesday to rescue the sinking campaign of Eddie Edwards. Andy Martin explains why Giuliani’s support cannot revive Eddie Edwards, and why Martin is the only tested and proven campaigner to take on the Democrats in November. Martin’s views may be tough reading for his opponents, but his conclusions ring true. You decide who has the better of the argument.

News from:
ANDY MARTIN /2018
Republican candidate for Congress
New Hampshire-
First Congressional District

http://www.AndyMartin2018.com
http://www.AndyMartin.com
http://www.FirstRespondersOnline.us
Headquarters:
E-mail:AndyNewHampshire@aol.com
P.O. Box 742
Manchester, NH 03105-0742
Tel. (603) 518-7310
Fax (866) 214-3210
Blogs:
http://www.AndyMartinforCongress.blogspot.com
http://www.AndyMartinforCongress.wordpress.com

To become a regular subscriber to our emails please send an email to andynewhampshire@aol.com and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line

Please feel free to forward and/or post this email

Please sign up for our Twitter feed with enhanced, original coverage


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

(Manchester, NH)(August 2, 2018) — New Hampshire First Congressional District GOP candidate Andy Martin says the New Hampshire Republican Party’s leadership has a death wish. Wednesday Rudy Giuliani helped the party on the path to oblivion in 2018 by endorsing “dead man walking” congressional wannabe Eddie Edwards.

“The New Hampshire Democratic Party has eleven (count’em) candidates for congress in the First District,” Martin says. (please see link #1 below). “They happily accommodate all eleven candidates at debates and forums. The result is that because all candidates have been treated fairly during the primary process, the party will come out of the primary with a unified front to face the Republican winner.

“The Republican Party: Six candidates originally filed in the First District. One candidate, Bruce Crochetiere, dropped out after mild criticism by one of his opponents, Andy Sanborn. Crochetiere’s campaign collapsed only hours after he participated in the notorious “dirty debate” sponsored by a self-destructive clique of Rockingham Republicans.

“There are now three GOP candidates actively campaigning for congress in the First District, myself, Eddie Edwards and Andy Sanborn. I have the most difficult job, winning the primary; but I am the only candidate who could win in November. My two primary opponents, who are supported by GOP insiders, are toxic and unelectable. Here are the details.

“Unlike the Democrats, who cheerfully accommodate eleven candidates, a handful of Republicans with a death wish are trying to exclude anyone but two favored candidates from attending many party functions.

Other party leaders reject the ‘Rockingham’ approach and warmly welcome my participation.

Unfortunately, self-destructive behavior has a long history at New Hampshire Republican headquarters. The ‘death wish’ approach to primaries started before me.

“The U. S. Constitution gives New Hampshire four (4) seats in congress, two U. S. Senators and two U. S. Representatives. Because New Hampshire is sharply divided politically, you might think the GOP would split 50-50 with the Democrats. You would be wrong.

“As recently as 2016 the Republicans had one Senator (Kelly Ayotte) and one Representative (Frank Guinta). GOP leaders managed to fumble away both seats.

“Rep. Guinta had transferred some family money to one of his campaigns. Why federal law prohibits mothers and fathers from giving money to their children escapes me. Guinta got entangled in the hyper-technical rules of federal campaign administration. While there was never any evidence of wrongdoing or improper intent, and at worst the money at issue belonged to Guinta’s parents, he had to pay a settlement to get federal regulators off his tail.

“The GOP was led at the time by the disastrous Jennifer Horn, who had already begun the process of ‘transitioning’ from conservative Republican to liberal Democrat. Horn, who had financially destroyed her own family with campaign finance violations when she was a candidate for congress, attacked Guinta for his questionable ‘offense.’

“Worse, Horn used her friendship with Senator Kelly Ayotte to convince Kelly she should attack Guinta. If there is one ironclad rule in politics for candidates, it is ‘don’t criticize those running for other offices.’

“From what I know of Ayotte, she was one of the nicest people in politics, polite, restrained and generally decent. But she was an ineffective campaigner.

“When the Democrats unlashed one of their most rabid attack dogs, Maggie Hassan, Ayotte’s campaign faltered. Instead of helping Ayotte and counseling her to improve her campaigning, which had included gratuitously angering conservatives, the GOP leadership allowed Ayotte’s campaign to wither. Still, Ayotte only lost by a few votes (I voted for her), mostly due to illegal student voting which is tolerated in this state. Republicans went from 50% representation in congress to zero.

Now back to the present.

“Last month, Chairman Wayne McDonald lied to me and said his committee had no role in tolerating the notorious ‘dirty debate.’ Monday of this week I learned McDonald was supporting the dirty debate sponsors and using the same slimy law firm as Rockingham County leaders to defend his own state committee. McDonald and his associates have implicitly approved Rockingham’s illegal favoritism to my primary opponents.

“Both the state and local GOP committees have rules – bylaws – prohibiting favored treatment for some candidates and not for others, an explicit promise of party leadership neutrality in primaries.

But instead of running an honest and open primary the way the Democrats are doing, McDonald and his co-conspirators are paying lawyers to defend their sleazy behavior promoting my primary opponents. That behavior can only engender post-primary bitterness. Not surprisingly, the fact that a handful of corrupt party leaders are violating their own neutrality rules does not sit well with me.

“But despite all of the roadblocks placed in the way my campaign is gaining altitude. I have effectively demolished my two active opponents.

“Andy Sanborn was considered so toxic by his state senate colleagues (all conservative Republicans, not ‘liberals’ as Sanborn falsely alleges) that for a time the senate leadership stripped him of his senate staff. The senate assistant assigned to Sanborn was disgusted by his behavior and felt uncomfortable working for him.

“In 2018, the year of ‘The Me too Movement’ fighting against sexual harassment, (please see link # 2 below) Sanborn may be the most toxic candidate in the state. But because Sanborn has been around a long time, he has a gaggle of diehard supporters who enjoy his speechifying about being the most conservative candidate in the race. Sanborn is a sure loser in November, but he may still have a slight lead in the primary.

“What wiped out Sanborn’s chances? My ‘Right to Know’ law filings with state agencies that exposed the truth about him. My legal work was quickly copied by the media. Sanborn had previously admitted he was ‘crass’ (please see link # 3) and attributed his ‘attitude’ to being a saloonkeeper politician (link # 4).

“The state’s evidence against Sanborn was painful to read and disclosed new accusations (removal of his staff assistant). More excerpts from the Attorney General’s Criminal Division files on Sanborn’s misconduct, which did not result in a criminal charge, are expected to be released through the middle of August.

Here’s a great slogan for Sanborn to use: ‘I was not charged with a crime; I’m just crass’. Imagine what the Democrats will make of a candidate who admits to being ‘crass’ with women if Sanborn is nominated.

“The other ‘death wish’ candidate is Eddie Edwards. In person, Edwards is charming; it’s hard not to like him. But Eddie is a world-class liar. He claims he was a great Liquor Commission enforcement ‘chief.’ The truth? Eddie filed three lawsuits (two administrative, one judicial) against the Liquor Commission alleging he was a victim of racial discrimination — after his bosses promoted him to ‘chief.’ Eddie spent more time litigating against his employer than he did policing.

Edwards’ successor says that Edwards left behind a ‘dysfunctional’ agency characterized by ‘mistrust and self-interest’. How’s that for a job reference from a former employer?

Here’s a great slogan for Edwards to use: ‘Send me to congress; I have already proven I can be dysfunctional and self-interested.’

What brought down Edwards? No surprise. My investigation under the Right to Know law. Once again, the media quickly copied my legal work.

“The Edwards demolition derby is just in its early stages. At my prodding, RTK law again, the Liquor Commission is preparing to release voluminous records about Edwards’ lawsuits against the agency. Edwards is probably in second place in the primary but he got a boost from someone he doesn’t know but who claims to know him. Rudy Giuliani.

Rudy’s prior visit to New Hampshire resulted in front-page tabloid coverage in New York. He came to Portsmouth Wednesday to read a prepared statement about Edwards. He had previously met Edwards for a few minutes. Unfortunately, by playing word games with the media, Rudy tried to embroil President Trump in supporting a ‘death wish’ candidate. The last thing President Trump needs is to be linked to the mismanagement and potential corruption of Eddie Edwards.

“Would Giuliani support a white candidate with Edwards’ record of mismanagement and incompetence at the Liquor Commission? Never. But in his declining years Giuliani has become a soft touch for the race card. Because Edwards is a minority, he is allowed to be incompetent and self-interested. The result: Giuliani is prolonging the agony of Granite State voters by trying to keep Edwards’ campaign alive.

“Who’s left? Why me, of course. Like Edwards and Sanborn I come with my own baggage; but unlike my opponents my enemies were stopped in their tracks decades ago. It’s hard not to get scratched up when you fight corruption. I exposed a federal judge as a crook, cocaine addict and philanderer. The judge was not happy. (My opposition later cost him a U. S. Supreme Court appointment.) The judge tried to retaliate by smearing me with lies, 35 years ago. It’s a pretty stale smear 35 years later. It usually backfires when media try that approach to discredit me.

“When the New York Times tried to revive the smear on page one of that newspaper 10 years ago, my approval and support skyrocketed. The smear backfired.

“Years ago, one of the nation’s leading newspapers called me ‘an absolutely brilliant campaigner.’ I have not lost any of my speed or sharpness. Just ask Sanborn and Edwards how they like running against me. But while fending off Edwards and Sanborn I have also developed the same kind of research against the Democrats that I used to demolish the Republicans.

“The bottom line: I have a difficult time getting the party to permit a level playing field so I can win the primary. But I am the only Republican candidate who can defeat the Democrat. I have proven I can take down my Republican opponents. Just imagine what plans I have to dismember the Democrat. The Democrats would love to run against Edwards or Sanborn now that I have exposed their inflated claims. The D’s are terrified I might win the primary and come after them with the same lethal impact that wiped out my primary opponents.

“And so, Rudy Giuliani may embarrass himself by reading from a prepared script and supporting someone he doesn’t know, but Giuliani cannot revive Edwards. Edwards is DOA.

“As for me, all I have ever asked for is a level playing field, and for party officials to live by the bylaws they took an oath to enforce, avoiding preferential treatment in the primary. Is that too much to ask? I’m trying to keep Republican Party hopes alive in November. But too many party leaders have a death wish and want to nominate a sure loser.

“Stay tuned; more documents and evidence to come.” Martin promises.

LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not just the underlined portion):

[1]

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/20180628/congressional-candidates-tackle-issues

[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_Too_movement

[3]

http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20171210/NEWS0621/171209243/0/PHOTOS

[4]

https://www.wmur.com/article/attorney-generals-file-reveals-second-alleged-incident-involving-inappropriate-comment-by-sanborn/22109899

ANDY MARTIN – A BRIEF BIO:

Andy Martin is a legendary New Hampshire-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. With fifty years of background in radio and television and with five decades of intelligence, investigative and analytical experience in Washington, the USA and around the world, Andy provides insight on politics, foreign policy, military and intelligence matters. For a full bio, go to: http://www.AndyMartin.com; also see http://www.BoycottABC.com/executive_director.htm

Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American politics and courts for fifty years and is executive director of the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. See also http://www.FirstRespondersOnline.us; http://www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com.

He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).

He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” [www.OrangeStatePress.com] and produced the Internet film “Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” blogging at http://www.contrariancommentary.wordpress.com and http://www.ContrarianCommentary.com.

Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester, New Hampshire over 100 years ago; today his home overlooks the Merrimack River and he lives around the corner from where he played as a small boy. He is New Hampshire’s leading corruption fighter and Republican Party reformer.

UPDATES:

http://www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA
http://www.Facebook.com/AndyMartin

Andy’s opinion columns are posted at ContrarianCommentary.com, ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com and ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com

[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs and don’t hesitate to let us know if you find an error.]

———-

© Copyright by Andy Martin 2018 – All Rights Reserved

Advertisements

GOP Congressional candidate Andy Martin: “I stand with Trump.” Andy explains why

News from:
ANDY MARTIN /2018
Republican candidate for Congress
New Hampshire-
First Congressional District

http://www.AndyMartin2018.com
http://www.AndyMartin.com
http://www.FirstRespondersOnline.us
Headquarters:
E-mail:AndyNewHampshire@aol.com
P.O. Box 742
Manchester, NH 03105-0742
Tel. (603) 518-7310
Cell (917) 664-9329
Fax (866) 214-3210
Blogs:
http://www.AndyMartinforCongress.blogspot.com
http://www.AndyMartinforCongress.wordpress.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

“I stand with Trump” says New Hampshire GOP congressional candidate Andy Martin

Andy, who has extensive national security credentials, explains why he supports President’s Trump’s policy on Afghanistan and why Trump is an effective commander in chief

To become a regular subscriber to our emails please send an email to andynewhampshire@aol.com and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line

Please feel free to forward and/or post this email

Please sign up for our Twitter feed with enhanced, original coverage

(Manchester, NH) (August 23, 2017)

Dear Granite Stater:

I want to explain why I stand with President Trump on his Afghanistan policy. You will have a choice of candidates in the congressional primary next year. Most of them will “support” the president, cautiously. But I stand with Trump. Here’s why.

1. Preliminary observations about supporting Trump

I voted for Trump in 2016. If the election were rerun today I would vote for him again. Is Trump perfect? Are you kidding? We had a choice of two candidates, Trump and Clinton. Clinton was corrupt, secretive and manifested contempt for the American people. Trump stood up to the mainstream media and understood why America was failing. He was the only choice. I suspect Trump will be a formidable campaigner again in 2018 during the midterm elections, and in 2020 if he runs for reelection. The media and liberals underestimated Trump in 2016. They are still underestimating him.

2. My “on the ground” experience

I am sure my primary opponents will be decent and honorable people. I am not running to run them down. But they simply don’t have my experience in Asia and the Middle East. I will be the only candidate who has been in Afghanistan, alone, working in the middle of a war zone. When I talk with our military, they respect my knowledge and experience in the region. (I have been going to the Middle East and Asia for fifty years.)

3. America is not an empire, but we experience the same challenges as an empire

Americans want to bring out troops home. Trump did, and still does. So do I. But we are stuck in a world where ungoverned areas such as Afghanistan pose a threat to our civilization. On September 11, 2011 I narrowly averted being caught in the attacks on the World Trade Center. The killers were directed from Afghanistan. I am not sure we know today how many extremists groups operate in Afghanistan. Pakistan, posing as an ally, is an enemy. We face many of the same challenges as former empires, particularly with threats from remote areas of the world. Ever since World War II America has repeatedly tried to walk away from any global responsibilities, but we really can’t. We rely on commerce and free navigation for our economic prosperity. If we simply packed up and went home all around the world, our economy would falter and the world would be in chaos. I want to limit our foreign commitments but I don’t believe we can safely eliminate them.

4. Can Trump’s 12,000 – 15,000 troops succeed where Obama’s 100,000 troops did not?

The question has been raised, “President Obama sent over 100,000 troops to Afghanistan, how can Trump ‘succeed’ with a fraction of the force?” The answers are very straightforward. First, Trump’s limited commitment of troops is based on an open-ended commitment. Obama announced his withdrawal date when he announced the deployment of additional forces. Secondly, Trump has defined the limited mission. Most importantly, Trump has freed the military to defeat the enemy. Let me explain in greater detail.

5. President Obama’s tactics and rules of engagement defeated his policies

To understand how Obama tied the military’s hands, read the article in link #1 below. Our forces were precluded from defeating the Taliban. Then read link #2: lawyers were controlling military operations! Our fighting forces in the field were at the mercy of lawyers in a back office. No one could win under those restrictions and, not surprisingly, we didn’t. Trump is sending forces to Afghanistan to kill the enemy, not coddle them. Military officers will make combat decisions, not lawyers. And so, yes, a smaller force can be much more deadly when it is allowed to stalk and kill the enemy.

6. What about Afghan corruption and infighting?

Afghan warlords are defeating themselves and destroying their country, please see link #3. The situation is a mess. But Trump has limited the mission. He said “no blank check.” Do you think Trump is going to let the warlords continue to defeat our efforts? He will yank the entire mission if the warlords continue with their hijinks. Not only has he put our enemies on notice, he has warned our ally to cut the crap.

7. Is Trump making “crazy” decisions?

Liberals like to pretend Trump is crazy. Their behavior is despicable. Trump can be difficult, and often speaks out of turn, but he is a hands on leader who demands answers before he makes decisions. Take a look at what the “failing” New York Times had to see about how Trump supervised the evolution of his Afghanistan policy (please see link #4). Trump forced his military advisers to justify their proposals for more troops in Afghanistan. Trump did not write a blank check to his generals any more that he is writing a blank check to Afghanis.

8. Why Trump may be a brilliant commander in chief

Trump may be the best commander in chief in my lifetime. First, let me ask a question: why does America keep “losing” wars in the modern era? Answer: communications satellites. Before Viet-Nam, communications between battlefield commanders and Washington were fitful. During the Viet-Nam War, communications satellites made it possible for live satellite conferences between Washington and Saigon. As a book on the topic (please see ink #5) makes clear, more communications capacity led to more control of battlefield operations from the Pentagon and, ultimately, the White House. The result was disastrous. White House staffers became military managers, and combat effectiveness suffered. White House supervision of the military reached its peak when a room full of high officials watched live TV feed of the attack on Osama Bin Laden’s hideout. Trump is the first president to put decision-making authority back in the Pentagon and back on the battlefield.

While Trump has been ridiculed by Democrats and the media for his January decision to delegate authority back to military officers, his approach is brilliant for its simplicity and acknowledgement that White House staffers are not better combat managers than actual battlefield commanders. By letting the people fighting our wars make decisions about how to fight them, and how to defeat the enemy, Trump reversed a fifty-year trend of military micromanagement from the White House. Trump’s approach is already showing results in Iraq and Syria.

9. Summing up

Trump can be difficult, obviously, but he has assembled the best national security team since World War II. They are making progress cleaning up the mess from eight years of Obama incompetence and arrogance.

I stand with Trump. When he is right he will have my 100% backing and when I believe he is wrong I will loyally tell him so. I am the only GOP congressional candidate with the national security experience to make a positive contribution on day one. If you value judgment, experience and even wisdom, you can support my campaign with the confidence I would be an effective congressman who could stand up to the Democrats and work to Make America Great Again. No other Granite State GOP congressional candidate can make that claim.

Sincerely,

Andy

—–

LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not just the underlined portion):

[1]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-military-rules-of-engagement-in-afghanistan-questioned-1454349100

[2]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/afghan-war-rules-leave-u-s-troops-wondering-when-its-ok-to-shoot-1466435019

[3]

[4]

[5]

http://www.history.army.mil/catalog/pubs/91/91-12.html

New citations after emailing:

ANDY MARTIN – A BRIEF BIO:

Andy Martin is a legendary New Hampshire-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. With forty-eight years of background in radio and television and with five decades of intelligence, investigative and analytical experience in Washington, the USA and around the world, Andy provides insight on politics, foreign policy and military matters. For a full bio, go to: http://www.AndyMartin.com; also see http://www.BoycottABC.com/executive_director.htm

Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American politics and courts for over forty-five years and is executive director of the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. See also http://www.FirstRespondersOnline.us; http://www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com.

He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).

He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” [www.OrangeStatePress.com] and produced the Internet film “Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” blogging at http://www.contrariancommentary.wordpress.com and http://www.ContrarianCommentary.com.

Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester, New Hampshire over 100 years ago; today his home overlooks the Merrimack River and he lives around the corner from where he played as a small boy. He is New Hampshire’s leading corruption fighter and Republican Party reformer.

UPDATES:

http://www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA
http://www.Facebook.com/AndyMartin

Andy’s opinion columns are posted at ContrarianCommentary.com, ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com and ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com

[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs.]

———-

© Copyright by Andy Martin 2017 – All Rights Reserved