Cloudy
38°
Cloudy
Hi 38° | Lo 29°
Report to Readers

Report to Readers: A blizzard of mail, all about Ayotte

In a letter to the editor to be published later this week, a reader from Amherst criticizes the Monitor for publishing an “inordinate” number of letters about U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte in the past several days. I’m not sure exactly what he means by “inordinate,” but the volume of mail has certainly been extraordinary.

Ayotte has drawn the attention of readers for her opposition to a bill in the Senate that would have expanded background check requirements before gun purchases. Since the vote, we have been deluged with letters, the vast majority critical of Ayotte’s decision. I’m not surprised at the sentiment expressed by readers – it mimics the polling on this issue in recent weeks, both nationally and in the state, which has found about 90 percent of Americans and New Hampshire residents in favor of background checks.

What has surprised me is the huge number of readers who have written in – and who have aimed their anger at Ayotte.

How many are worth publishing? Here’s the way I’ve been thinking about it:

We publish nearly all the mail we receive from readers in greater Concord, regardless of the topic. The letters column is a forum for the local community, and we want to be generous with that space. The letters critical of Ayotte may seem redundant, but the sheer volume is making a point about the fury of local residents over the vote in a way that news reporting hasn’t. Consider the writers’ language in describing Ayotte: “out of touch,” “enabler” of mass murderers, “spineless” and “disgusting.

We’ve also received unprecedented mail about Ayotte from out of town, out of state and even out of the country. (Message to Canadians: Ayotte doesn’t represent you!) Among those, I’ve been far more choosey. In fact, for the most part, the far-flung letters we’ve published have been the ones in favor of Ayotte’s vote – in an attempt to make room for minority viewpoints, even if they comes from far away. These have included letters from a former police chief in Grantham, a former local resident now living in Florida and a man in Londonderry.

Last weekend, I took a couple days off from reading the Ayotte letters to attend a family celebration in Philadelphia. It was a big party with people I hadn’t seen in many years. Among their first questions for me: What’s up with that senator of yours?

Related

Hot Topic: On Kelly Ayotte, the Senate and the fight over gun laws

Thursday, April 25, 2013

The Monitor continues to get letters about U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s vote against gun control legislation last week. Here’s a sampling: Simplistic thinking I am so saddened the U.S. Senate is incapable of passing the compromise legislation for a universal gun background check. Every day we hear of a child or other family member being slaughtered with a gun. How …

Legacy Comments19

Bad new Monitor: Kelly Ayotte is favored by a 2:1 margin by an independent polling firm. So your Astro-Turfing of Senator Kelly Ayotte is a failure. In the future people if PPP, the Monitor and the Democrat Party are all involved with something you know it is Astro-turfing.

Now now Van, the CM has made it very clear that they make sure that letters, forum post etc, are all looked at with a watchful eye to make sure they are civil, do not get out of hand and are never inappropriate. How could you possibly think that terms like,an enabler of mass murderers, spinless and disgusting falls into the category of rhetoric that should be censored? The Marland cartoon of Ayotte is the same deal. Nothing offensive, inappropriate, or uncivil about it. After all, this is the same folks who thought O'Brien as Hitler was just fine also.

First, if guns don't kill people, but people kill people, why do you need guns? Second, people will keep speeding and run through red lights, should we get rid of all traffic lights? Yes, let's! Pesky lights, i hate them. Third, let's conclude that Ayotte and her supporters love the Adam Lanza MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more than those 20 six year old with an average of 5 rounds per body. Lanza probably increased their bodyweigth with 10 percent. Ayotte, always ready to hand assault rifles over to the crazy people, that's soooo cool!! Who would support the mentally unstable criminal element, if not the RepuKKKelican'ts? Always the Chicago fallacy! Maybe there's more gun violence in Chicago than in Podunkadunk Bubbaville, Kansas, but that's because there's FAR more people living in Chicago. Gun violence isn't caused or prevented by gun laws alone. First, Chicago has a higher poverty rate (which is caused by Republicans), then Chicago has higher unemployment (which is caused by Republicans), third, Chicago has worse health care, especially mental health care (which is caused by Republicans), by worse we mean: there's no mental health care services whatsoever, on account of measures that shovels money from poor to the extreme rich. Gun ownership plays a part, and distribution of wealth. So claiming that tougher gun laws don't help is stupid, if all these other contributing factors aren't addressed.

Conclusion? Chicago is electing too many Republicans. What absolute twaddle.

They sure come out at the Monitor. Chicago has been dominated by democrats for decades. But this is just an example of how the Monitor and the Democrats are Astro-turfing Kelly. They are getting all the nut jobs from around the country to make this look like a ground swell.

Too many Republicans is not good for anyone. And furthermore, only a pretentious, uneducated Republican would use the word "twaddle."

Van, Somehow I don't think the good citizens of Bow would love Freestaters de-funding one of the best schools in the State.

NHDriver. What? What is Mao's little black book tell you about Free Staters? Free staters do not like government interference in their life. They like smaller government and are likely to home school but to defund schools. I don't think so. We have Free Staters in Bow and there is no big Free Stater Campaign to defund the schools.

Report to educated readers this is another example of the Monitor's Astro-turfing. There is no ground swell of of outrage just some just a bunch of regurgitated talking points. You not fooling anyone, Monitor.

Canada had a long gun registration program for over 10 years. It cost over a $100 million to run it over that time. Total number of crimes solved through it's use: 0. That's right. Not one. So they got rid of it. How many homicides in the U.S. would have been prevented through universal background checks? The guns used in the recent well-publicized shootings were bought by someone who passed a background check. "Every day we hear of a child or other family member being slaughtered with a gun." How many of those people's lives would have been saved if there was such a thing as universal background checks? So far I've been given no proof that it would have been anyone. Why do you expect people to support a law that will not accomplish the object it is supposedly being instituted for? BTW, the study that the President keeps citing about "40% of guns are purchased without a background check"? Not true. First: the study was done in 1994 and 1995, and half the data in it came from the time before the Brady bill was passed requiring Federally licensed firearm dealers to do background checks. So it's hardly surprising that a lot of them didn't have background checks done. Second - the study counted firearm *transfers*, not firearm *purchases* - including gifts and inheritances from family members or friends, etc., which artificially inflate the number that did not include background checks. So the President is mis-citing information from a bad study. Third, it included many people who did not know whether or not a background check had been done - those were counted as a "no" when the answer should have been "unknown". And there were only 574 transfers total in the data set, hardly a representative figure in a country with 300,000,000 civilian guns.

GWTW, get a grip. This is about our representitive failing to represent us. Plain and simple. If Ayotte can't represent the people of NH, it is time for her to step down.

I will not forget Kelly Ayotte's cowardly, nonsensical vote AGAINST universal background checks for gun purchases! Ayotte must be defeated, must be run out of office, for betraying the safety of the citizens she represents. DEFEAT AYOTTE IN 2016! If you want background checks, vote Ayotte out of office. I WILL NOT FORGET!

In my opinion, this is more of a failure of Obama. Democrats say this bill was a tweak, small changes, and the man could not get it done. Democrats are angry...not so much at Ayotte, but because Obama looks more and more like a lame duck.

I'm an Ohioan. I hope your citizens will defeat her in 2016 hopefully on Hillary's coattails?

No surprise that you are not from NH. It is amazing how outside liberals try to mess in our business.

Funny Van....its even funnier how many Free Stater's are moving to NH to try and mess w/our business.

When did you move here Kevin?

Listen Kevin, I was born in NH and as a NH native I have a welcome mat out for free staters and lovers of liberty. They sure beat arrogant liberal flatlanders.

Van you forget that "tolerance", "inclusion", "diversity" all exist in a bubble with progressives. They are principles which they practice when it benefits them but when it provides them with a challenge, their high minded, self congratulatory principles of enlightenment go out the window.

Post a Comment

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