Cloudy
60°
Cloudy
Hi 65° | Lo 50°
Capital Beat

Marilinda Garcia announces campaign for U.S. Congress

State Rep. Marilinda Garcia, of Salem, talks to the media after announcing her candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives in the lobby of the Legislative Office Building on Wednesday, January 22, 2014. 

(ANDREA MORALES / Monitor staff)

State Rep. Marilinda Garcia, of Salem, talks to the media after announcing her candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives in the lobby of the Legislative Office Building on Wednesday, January 22, 2014. (ANDREA MORALES / Monitor staff)

Republican state Rep. Marilinda Garcia kicked off her campaign for Congress yesterday with a promise to shrink the federal government.

“The continuous flow of government mandates, regulations and taxes are literally making it impossible for local government to solve local problems,” said Garcia, a four-term state representative from Salem.

She is running for the seat in New Hampshire’s 2nd Congressional District now occupied by U.S. Rep. Annie Kuster. Garcia will face a primary for the Republican nomination against former state senator Gary Lambert of Nashua.

Garcia said in November that she would run for Congress. With the support of more than 70 current and former Republican state representatives yesterday afternoon, she formally announced her candidacy.

She attacked Kuster for supporting the Affordable Care Act. Kuster, a first-term Democrat from Hopkinton, was not in office when the health care law passed in 2010, but she has said she is committed to improving the law since it launched last fall.

“Rep. Kuster supports Obamacare, the law that caused tens of thousands of New Hampshire families to receive policy cancellation letters and caused thousands more to pay even higher insurance premiums,” Garcia said. “This law must be dismantled because it’s bad policy, but it’s also an example of what’s wrong with Washington.”

Frank McCarthy, a former state representative from Conway, introduced Garcia yesterday as “a new generation of conservative leadership.”

Garcia, 31, noted that she has more legislative experience than either Lambert or Kuster. She said she will focus her campaign on individual liberty and personal responsibility. The federal government needs to move away from its path toward “bigger and more government,” she said.

Garcia’s father is Spanish-American, though she said yesterday that she is not running simply to expand the Republican Party’s base.

“I don’t think the party’s been very good about communicating what it is we believe and why, and our vision for the country,” she said. “So I just intend to, you know, communicate that message, my message, and if by virtue of being who I am that helps expand our base, that’s great.”

(Laura McCrystal can be reached at 369-3312 or lmccrystal@cmonitor.com or on Twitter @lmccrystal.)

Gallup, a record 72% believe big government is the biggest threat to the U.S. future, compared to 21% for big business, and 5% for big labor.

Garcia is a 10th Amendment Stateswoman. That is the kind of LEADER we need in DC. For the LIDV that does not know what the 10th Amendment is ... "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - the return of power and our money to the State Capitals is the only way to save America from the big tax, spend, borrow, bond and big debt democrats.

It may be refreshing for Ms. Garcia to run until reality kicks in. Nothing against her, it's just Washington is all about power and freshmen Representatives have none. This is where the special interest groups and PACs come into play, especially in this age. It's very hard to get elected on principles without special help. "Special help" always comes with a price. I have become cynical, it's not about what is best for us as NH residents, more than it's about outside groups and what they want. That goes for both parties, and that is what has to change. Now for my sappy slogan. Somewhere along the line it stopped being We The People. It's now We The Party............ Good-luck Marilinda.

Sadly the art of compromise has gone the way of many things that were beneficial to most of us. Compromise is the basis for relationships, raising kids, and a host of other things. Compromise means that each party gets something. They both come away with a sense of accomplishment and the fact that they each got a share. Somebody should inform Harry Reid that we all win when we compromise. Otherwise we have nothing getting solved. Just a bunch of Pols standing their ground and we pay the price.

Kuster's embarrassing Town Hall debacle went viral nationally and she embarrassed NH nationally. She has to go. Only a LIDV could vote for her again. http://wolfgil.forumotion.com/t2126-new-hampshire-embarrassment

I would love to hear a clear example of how “The continuous flow of government mandates, regulations and taxes are literally making it impossible for local government to solve local problems.” If it's so literal, then it should be easy to come up with lots of examples. My advice to the Republican party, vis a vis the Tea Party - when you're in a hole, stop digging. You cannot govern by digging in your heals. Governing requires compromise, and compromise seems to be a dirty word for Tea Party candidates.

When do Democrats "compromise". They act as if "compromise" is the right reaching left and Democrats holding their ground. Let me give you an example of compromise. Compromise would be each party giving up half of what they want. So one side wants tax increases, they must give up somehting that the other side wants and vice versa. If everyone could "win" something, then we all would be better off. Democrats pulled a dirty thing when they passed Obamacare, backroom deals combined with our way or the highway rules and regulations, no compromise, in fact they hid from the press most of the time and passed a bill which no one read......now look at the mess and guess what, Republicans offered many ideas which were shot down by Democrats saying "oh that idea again" or "that won't work".

This post is ridiculous. When the leaders of the Republican meet on the night of Obama's inauguration and decide he is going to be a "one term" President, war has been declared and there is no chance they will cooperate with any thing he tried to do. Democrats are upset with how Obamacare turned out. It was completely watered down with trying to please the Republicans, who decided it was in their best interests to oppose it after all.

The Dems obviously had no clue what was in the ACA. None of them read it. The Reps did and warned about what a poorly enacted law it is, and how it would destroy jobs, cause folks to lose their insurance and a host of other issues. Your party is ignoring all this. The Reps were told to sit in the back of the bus. Reid and Pelosi had no desire to compromise with anybody. The fact is that the left refuses to discuss the ACA and what is in it, mainly because they have no idea on what they voted for. It is obvious by the posts on this forum that none of you want to address the problems with the ACA. Instead, you ignore them and attack the messenger. Sit back and watch the ACA have more problems that you folks did not bother to be informed about. It is not the website that is the issue.

Maybe if the Repubs would stop trying to sabotage it by trying to trick younger people from signing up, it might have a chance. But of course that would not be good for them would it, that millions of people would now have health insurance.?

The fact that young folks are not signing up for the ACA is pretty simple. They feel invincible, will sign up when they get sick and not before. That is how young folks think. They would rather spend their money elsewhere. Not sure how the Reps are sabotaging them, as most young people are Dems. We all where when we were young. The issues with the ACA have just begun. We are dealing with the individual mandate now, next is the business mandate. Already talk of Insurance Companies like Aetna considering pulling out of the ACA networks. If that happens, the insurance companies will be crying for bailouts. How come you never discuss any of this Tillie? Has nothing to do with politics now, it is law and you do not seem worried about what is going on.

"already talk"? "most young people are Dems'? "crying for bailouts." What do you know? This is some fact filled post .. The Repubs and their allies (think Kochs) have put out ads targeting young people telling them terrible things would happen to them if they signed up. They held non signing up parties on college campuses. I happen to think this country needs health care for every citizen. I can discuss what ever I feel like, if you don't want to comment on it, don't.

Now who's post is ridiculous. I don't think any young person has needed to be "tricked" into not signing up. Obamacare does that all by itself.

again - NO source for the daily democrat FALSE Rhetoric. just another unbelievable democrat political grenade. Truth tells a different story.

Itsa, did I miss the post where you listed the names of all the countries that hate their failed socialized medicine?

If she's going to do anything why doesn't she start with getting rid of the legislative "golden parachute" benefits? Why is it that once elected to congress they live on much different benefits than the folks they represent? Veritas is right, lets stop with the suppression of the benefits of the people and start with the wealthy ponying up some of the George Bush and Ronald Reagan tax breaks that were supposed to help the country. New candidate old rhetoric.....

Those tax "cuts" helped everyone, not just the rich and they were not "cuts", they were a change in the rate of the taxes. The constant blaming of tax reductions from 30 years ago is a canard.

"The constant blaming of tax reductions from 30 years ago is a canard. " As long as you define "canard" as the root of the problem. Then, yes your are correct. Must be using Sail's dictionary on this one.

ITSA - so if lowering the tax rate is not a cut then raising taxes would not be an increase. It would be a "change in the rate of the taxes". Therefore you should have no objection to returning to the "same" old tax rates prior to the Regan cuts.

Yes, I would have an issue with that as it is regressive and would kill the economy. If you allow people to spend more of their hard earned money it will put more money into the economy and job growth will follow. The issue is that progressives want a larger part of a limited supply of money to spend as they see fit. It is better for the folks who earn that to have it and spend it as they see fit. We can do both, just look at the GAO duplicate spending and waste report, pork barrel spending, even Obamacare. Take those things off of the table and things get better.

What is Obama's jobs plan after 6 years? How are Obama's policies working out after 6 years. Oppression of wealth? That is hyperbole.

2013 was a very good year for the richest of us all, their combined assets grew by $524 billion dollars. So much for the idea that the rich are being treated unfairly

5 years of democrats & Obama policies haven't fixed that? Heck - they haven't even proposed a law to fix their perceived problem - sorry.... pathological democrats don't have a leg to stand on in that issue

Perhaps just once you could present an answer to a topic instead of outrageous rhetoric. Pathological democrats ???? Where do you come up with this garbage. I fail to truly understand your notion that there really is such a thing as a jobs bill. What you mean is the democrats have failed to grant even more tax cuts and credits to businesses that are more concerned with their investors than the American people as a whole. I don't see the rich exactly suffering, thats left to small business and the middle class. Get a grip.

But, answer the question: Why aren't Obama's policies working after 6 years? Time for a different kind of "hope", "change". It is the other sides turn to take a crack at it.

It's called the party of "NO" No cooperation, no compromise, do anything to make Obama a one term president. I seem to remember from my Governments class that presidential policies take on average of 3-5 years to see results. Now had Obama been given more support, I do believe we would be seeing more of his policies working. If you havn't noticed, even without the assist of the conservatives, this Country has slowly climbed out of what is known as the worst recession since 1929. It would have been much faster with decent cooperation.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.