RSS Feed MenuI am running for the United States Senate in New Hampshire as a Republican.
I do so with great pride because for me the word “Republican” is more than just a political label.
To me if you’re a Republican, it means you stand for the very principles which made America great, principles such as freedom, individual rights and tolerance.
The Republican Party has championed these core American values since the days of Abraham Lincoln, who taught our nation that every citizen regardless of race or creed or skin color must be treated equally.
Yet elements within my own party have a different vision of what it means to be Republican.
They are more about imposing moral values than individualism, more about allowing government to dictate decisions on issues that should be a matter of personal conscience.
They are certainly entitled to their views and debate is healthy for our party.
Yet I know where I stand in this debate: I stand for the party’s traditional values and principles; I stand for individualism and for the rights of individual citizens.
I am willing to fight for these ideals, not only for the sake of my party, but for the sake of my country.
Now more than ever, America needs true Republican values.
That’s why I am using my campaign for the United State Senate to reaffirm and promote those values.
As a Republican candidate here’s what I believe:
- I believe in protecting the right of women to choose. I am proudly pro-choice.
- I believe in placing the power of the individual over the power of government.
- I believe in free markets, free speech and free assembly.
- I believe in fiscal conservatism.
- I believe government must be smaller, less costly and less intrusive.
- I believe America needs a strong, well-equipped militarily to fend off both foreign invasions and terrorist attacks.
- I believe in the family.
- I believe too much government interference and regulation in businesses and in our individual lives, stands in the way of progress and creativity.
Of course, these are ideals the vast majority of Americans support.
They are the ideals, in other words, we Republicans can use to unite Americans and to become what we truly are – a majority party.
Yes, admittedly it’s sometimes difficult to live up to such lofty principles.
And sometimes we Republicans make mistakes. Sometimes, for instance, when in government, we spend too much; sometimes we tax too much; sometimes we don’t treat individuals with the respect they deserve.
When that happens we need Republicans who will have the courage to point out our party’s errors and who will seek to push it back on the right track.
As a United States Senator that’s what I will do.
I will go to Washington and stand for the principles I believe in.
That means I will vote for lower taxes and less spending even if it means displeasing the party’s establishment.
That means I will also proudly speak out for tolerance and for individual freedom even if it means offending a faction within my party.
Why is any of this important? Why does it matter?
It matters because the stakes in our next election will be high. In the primaries, Republicans will be determining the future of their party; in the general election Americans will be determining the future of their country.
That’s why if you support my vision, if you believe in freedom, if you believe in a party that stands up for the individual, you should consider supporting my campaign.
Together we can make for a better America, a better New Hampshire, and a better Republican Party.
MSheridan // Sep 7, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Well, good luck. I mean that. It’s nice to see that traditional New England Republicans are not yet extinct.
However, I do have a question for you. When you say you are for “lower taxes,” what do you mean by that? How much lower? The reason I ask is that “lower taxes” has been a Republican mantra since before Reagan, but I seldom hear any serious discussion of exactly how low you’d like taxes to go. Saying that you’re for lower taxes is almost meaningless at this point, because all Republicans say that (and seem generally more concerned with the top marginal rate than with the marginal rates below that). If you gave figures you’d like to aim for, people might listen.
Fairy Hardcastle // Sep 7, 2010 at 1:58 pm
I find the candidate’s statement is highly intolerant of traditional Judeo-Christian values. As if the majority of Americans who want to stick with the traditional concept of marriage are the ones who are aggressors here.
Exactly what does he mean by “vast majority?” The last Gallup poll showed a majority of Americans identified with the pro-life cause. And what about Prop 8 in CA? Where is the vast majority dear candidate?
The candidate says he stands for the party’s traditional values. Since when have pro-abortion policies been in the party platform?
The candidate says he is interested in the respecting the dignity of the individual. What about the unborn individual?
I also find that a good chunk of the statements he makes are easily made by your friendly neighborhood liberal Democrat. “I believe in the family” I believe in “freedom, individual rights and tolerance” “I believe in free markets, free speech and free assembly” If Binnie wins, I think New Hampshirians would do better voting for the Democrat who will at least be more consistent in his erroneous policies.
jjv // Sep 7, 2010 at 2:03 pm
■I believe in protecting the right of women to choose. I am proudly pro-choice.
The “vast majority of Americans” do not support abortion on demand. They do not because of the “individual” involved in the termination. If the “vast majority” did so believe the Left would not be so hysterical about returning the decision to the elected branches.
Also, what does this “tolerance” consist of? Have polygamists been unfairly maligned by the Republicans for too long (since their first platform in fact!). If you are going to use code words tell us what they are code for. Who and what are Republicans intolerant of?
Carney // Sep 7, 2010 at 2:04 pm
“They are more about imposing moral values than individualism, more about allowing government to dictate decisions on issues that should be a matter of personal conscience.”
Really? So Binnie favors abolishing all private-sector anti-discrimination laws? Aren’t they a prime example of government imposing moral values on private citizens? After all, Binnie has called for “free assembly” – what’s freedom of association without freedom to choose whom NOT to associate with?
“I believe in protecting the right of women to choose. I am proudly pro-choice.”
The right of women to choose WHAT?
Is Binnie committing himself to permitting a female business owner the right to CHOOSE whom she will hire, promote, fire, allow on her property, or do business with, even if her reasons or apparent reasons for her choices morally offend some others? How about permitting a female homeowner the right to choose whom she will sell or not sell her home to, for whatever reason she chooses?
Is he in favor of allowing each woman to CHOOSE whether to carry a weapon or whether to remain a helpless victim of her first armed assailant, or one who is faster or stronger than she?
Is he in favor of allowing each woman to CHOOSE whether to join a union, rather than forcing her to do so or give it “dues” as a condition of employment?
Is he in favor of allowing a woman to CHOOSE whether have her retirement savings dumped into a big government kitty that she does not own or control , where it will be immediately spent by politicians to buy votes and replaced with an IOU making a promise (held by the Supreme Court to be non-binding and legally unenforceable) that it will give her a miserable 1-2% rate of return if she lives long enough (and if not, zippo); or whether instead to CHOOSE to have her retirement savings go into an account she personally and individually owns and controls, which can offer a far higher rate of return, and which she can will to her heirs?
Non-Contributor // Sep 7, 2010 at 2:32 pm
It seems more important to be a Republican than an American, more important to believe in God then an individuals rights. Isn’t that the problem with all politicians that what they believe is more important than anything else?
ktward // Sep 7, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Yet elements within my own party have a different vision of what it means to be Republican.
As evidenced nicely by a few commenters on this thread.
Fortunately for you, Mr. Binnie, you’re running in NH– it’s not likely that you will suffer the ugly Tea Party pitchfork fate that befell Mr. Inglis in SC. In NH, it can only help you that Palin endorsed your fiercest primary rival, Ayotte. (And to really help Ayotte, Palin endorsed and then ran far away.)
I’m not in NH, so you don’t have to worry about influencing my vote.
But I am in IL, and I too have a so-called moderate GOP Senate candidate, Mark Kirk. As a long-time registered Indie, what worries me to no end is that you so-called moderates will predictably cave into the Party-of-No/pandering-to-the-base GOP machinery that we’ve had to deal with on the Hill for the last two years.
Do you believe we’ll just hand you GOPers even more obstructive seats simply because you’re pro-Choice?
Today, given the option of a pro-Choice GOPer and, say, a pro-Life Dem a la Bart Stupak, I’d pull the lever for Stupak.
JeninCT // Sep 7, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Too vague and gauzy to really mean anything, especially “I believe in the family.” Sorry but this whole essay put me to sleep. Kelly Ayotte will most likely win the primary anyway.
MSheridan // Sep 7, 2010 at 4:36 pm
@JeninCT,
You’re quite right that Ayotte is almost certain to win the primary. Magellan Research polled recently and has Ayotte at 34%, followed by Ovide Lamontagne (21%), Bill Binnie (17%), and Jim Bender (13%) . Unfortunately that doesn’t answer what I think is the most interesting question in this race. Who would the majority of Republican voters least like to see elected? Without knowing that, there is always the possibility that in a divided field our winner take all system of voting will allow the least popular candidate to be elected by a minority of the electorate. That’s a major reason I support Instant Run-off Voting (IRV).
easton // Sep 7, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Ha Carney, good one. I don’t agree with it all but that was still good. Sorry, but this is pablum:
* I believe in protecting the right of women to choose. I am proudly pro-choice.
OK, this is clear. He is a pro-Abortion Republican. I disagree but at least he is up front about it.
* I believe in placing the power of the individual over the power of government.
Meaningless. We are a society of Laws, Laws which are enforced by the Government but enacted with the will of the majority. We are the Government.
* I believe in free markets, free speech and free assembly.
Who doesn’t?
* I believe in fiscal conservatism.
Meaningless, what do propose to cut? At least Carney lays out his vision. I would sooner have an honest man like him.
* I believe government must be smaller, less costly and less intrusive.
Meaningless again. What Laws and programs do you wish to do away with?
* I believe America needs a strong, well-equipped militarily to fend off both foreign invasions and terrorist attacks.
Who doesn’t?
* I believe in the family.
This is retch worthy, do you also believe in puppies and apple pie?
* I believe too much government interference and regulation in businesses and in our individual lives, stands in the way of progress and creativity.
Meaningless assertion. The greatest leaps in progress and creativity happened during WW2 and the Space race. I would like to have seen you develop the Nuclear bomb or the Saturn 5 rocket in your garage.
As I said, Carney was clearer in half the time.
mistevens1155 // Sep 7, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Binnie is a conservative businessman, which is EXACTLY what this country needs right now. I stopped believing in the while right vs. left paradigm a while ago, and just support people who I think are able to get think country back on track. We need businessman, not career politicians, who can pull this nation out of its recession. If Congress were acting more like a business and actually budget their spending, then we wouldn’t be in the situation we are in now…
mpolito // Sep 7, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Well all know the sort of candidates David supports, Mr. Binnie is no different. He is not a “libertarian” Republican, because libertarians tend to not be hawks. He is a liberal Republican. New Hampshire is not Massachusetts, and Kelly Ayotte would be a better candidate in my estimation.
As for the whole pro-choice thing: the Rudy experience demonstrated how this just cannot work on a national scale. Let me also say, however, that its effectiveness on a local scale is likewise limited, although certainly greater than its national effectiveness. I live in Connecticut, and I am therefore quite familiar with Republicans like Mr. Binnie. Republicans here (and in New England generally, with the exception of NH) manage to get defeated despite being generally pro-choice, which indicates that the voters’ problems with them runs far deeper than just the so-called “social issues.” Rob Simmons, Nancy Johnson, and Chris Shays were all defeated in 2006 and 2008, despite all being the sort of Republicans David really likes. Their support for the war in Iraq (which David supportedly passionately) ultimately did them in. Despite nominating similarly pro-choice candidates statewide, Republicans currently have 12/36 seats in state senate and 37/150 in the state house. This is not to denouce David’s approach entirely, which will work in some places. I just think he overestimates the number of places it will actually make a difference.
dante // Sep 7, 2010 at 6:45 pm
I care less about what a politician “believes”, than what he will accept when political necessities arise. He’s for lower taxes, great. He’s also for fiscal responsibility, great. He’s for a strong military, also great. But what happens when circumstances prohibit all of those things from working at the same time? What happens when economic woes mean that we can’t afford our bloated military. What happens when extending the Bush tax cuts would mean adding hundreds of billions of dollars to our national debt?
This is nothing more than a “I like puppies and ice cream” type of essay, with absolutely no credibility. Yes, we all want everything without having to pay for it. The question is, how are you going to govern when the tough choices prevent that?
Oldskool // Sep 7, 2010 at 6:56 pm
■I believe in the family.After scolding the rest of your party for how they treat others you use some of the same coded language?
Nice bumper stickers, few ideas.
balconesfault // Sep 7, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Exactly what does he mean by “vast majority?” The last Gallup poll showed a majority of Americans identified with the pro-life cause.
Yes, but virtually every poll shows that when provided the options abortion should be always available, available with limits (ie – our current system), or illegal in all circumstances, the last choice consistently polls only 15-25% in national polls.
If the “vast majority” did so believe the Left would not be so hysterical about returning the decision to the elected branches.
The Left is well aware that there are jurisdictions which would completely strip a woman’s right to choose in a heartbeat were it possible. Since they don’t think this is a right that should be subject to a local majority vote any more than conservatives believe the right to bear arms outside of being a member of a well regulated militia should be subject to a local majority vote.
JeninCT // Sep 7, 2010 at 10:55 pm
MSheridan wrote:
” That’s a major reason I support Instant Run-off Voting (IRV).”
Thanks for mentioning IRV; I’d never heard of it! It looks like an interesting idea, but the voter education involved would be daunting, don’t you think? And can you imagine the chaos involved in a recount?
JeninCT // Sep 7, 2010 at 11:00 pm
mistevens1155 wrote:
“Binnie is a conservative businessman, which is EXACTLY what this country needs right now.”
A businessman? Really? Then he should’ve mentioned that in his essay.
drdredel // Sep 8, 2010 at 1:05 am
IRV will never happen in this country because it would take both the Right and Left to vote it in and both parties know that IRV will very quickly break both parties’ backs. The way IRV works, people can confidently vote for who they REALLY want in power, while casting as their backup vote the person they’d make do with… Without IRV everyone has to, basically, vote against the person they DEFINITELY don’t want in office. So, for example, I really wanted to vote for someone in both the Bush elections but since this someone had absolutely no chance of winning and I didn’t want to take the chance of accidentally (and inadvertently) supporting Bush, I voted for the Dems (not wanting either of them in office). If everyone knew they could vote their heart’s desire, we’d suddenly actually have a representative democracy! And we know that wouldn’t work for Exxon or Verizon, so, we’re stuck with what we have.
Carney // Sep 8, 2010 at 10:20 am
Thanks, easton.
Peter Ferrara // Sep 8, 2010 at 11:27 am
Maybe it’s just me, but I think when people go into the voting booth, they’re going to know we need more businessmen in the Senate like Binnie. Maybe then we can stop this government meddling with the economy and get people back to work.
MSheridan // Sep 8, 2010 at 11:51 am
drdredel,
I have zero hope that IRV will be implemented at the state or federal level anytime soon. But it’s already been used in a few places on the local level and I’d like to see that expanded. Perhaps someday enough people will be familiar with it that a version of it, perhaps Top 2 IRV, might get used at the state level somewhere and gain in popularity. I’m not holding my breath or anything, but it’d be a hell of a lot better and more truly democratic than the system we’ve got now.
moderategoper // Sep 8, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Bill Binnie and his campaign represent all that is wrong with centrist candidates (of which I support) candidates like him only think locally, and they don’t understand that the “far right” has a nationwide extensive online network that propel candidates like his primary rival, Ayotte. Online networks like “Conservative HQ” work behind the scenes to attack centrist candidates like him months before an ad is even up and running. He and other moderate Republicans are so out of touch with reality and because of this he will loose. Until he and other moderates began to rebuild a centrist infrastructure within the party – they are doomed. Instead of spending thousands on TV ads, you need to take your party back. Take, your party back and you will win again. Sit back on your ass and close your eyes to reality and you will never win.