Why do they go to New Hampshire?

Tuesday – June 21, 2011

Why do they go to New Hampshire?

On this date, in 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution

Today, Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah and former Ambassador to China, formally entered the 2012 Republican presidential race with a platform based on new jobs, energy independence and a simpler tax code. He is now going straight to New Hampshire, one of the many sites of the nation’s 2012 Republican Primaries.

Unknown candidates who are viewed with some suspicion have only one campaign strategy option. They have to pick an early state, bet their entire campaign on winning there and then, do exactly that. If (and it's a huge "if") they can show first-place strength early in the process, they can ride that momentum to a very strong showing in the states that follow.

Back in 1788, the fate of the Constitution virtually hung in the balance during the summer of that year. It is true that Madison only needed the affirmative vote of one of those three state ratifying conventions and the Anti-federalists needed all three. But if you take a look at the predicted vote going in, then Madison has some very real problems. New Hampshire was 52-52, Virginia was 84-84, and New York was 19 in favor and 46 against by what today we might call "entrance polls." That seems to me to be an extremely close call.

By the end of May 1788, proponents of the Constitution had secured the approval of eight state ratifying conventions. Along the way, however, they made a critical tactical decision and an important, albeit non-binding, concession in order to deny the Anti-federalists their first victory. In New Hampshire, facing sure defeat, the proponents secured an agreement at the ratifying convention to postpone a final decision, consult with the voters, hold a second election, and reconvene four months later. In Massachusetts, also in February, ten delegates abandoned their opposition to ratification in exchange for the proposition that "subsequent amendments" would be considered in the First Congress. This Massachusetts Compromise proposal—"ratify now, amend later"—moved an equally divided Convention to adopt the Constitution.

Securing the ninth state was not going to be an easy task. In fact, North Carolina and Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until November 1789 and May 1790 respectively. They did so only after the First Congress sent twelve amendment proposals to the states for ratification. Everything rested on the three remaining states: New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York. The best evidence suggests that going into the three ratifying conventions, the Federalist-Anti-federalist delegate split was 52-52 in New Hampshire, 84-84 in Virginia, and 19-46 in New York. And all were scheduled to meet in June: Virginia on the 2nd, New York on the 17th, and New Hampshire on the 18th.

In preparation for the June New Hampshire ratifying convention, the Federalist leaders were far more active in their campaigning than in February. Even then, it turned out that the vote was virtually even going into the convention. It turns out, that five delegates adopted the Massachusetts Compromise in New Hampshire and after three days of debate the Constitution was officially ratified on June 21, 1788 by a vote of 57-47. According to Jere Daniell, only calculated and manipulative political maneuvering by Sullivan and Langdon carried the day.
I hope that the delegates that will cast their votes will be skeptical of many who have entered the race and who have actively campaigned in Hew Hampshire.

Jon Huntsman should be reviewed and be reviewed again. “We will not be the first generation that lets down the next generation,” Hunstman said in his announcement speech. “We have the power, we have the means, we have the character to astonish the world by making from adversity a new and better country.”

His voting record is classically fiscally conservative, yet Huntsman has supported civil unions, reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants.
“I respect the president,” Huntsman offered of his former boss. “He and I have a difference of opinion on how to help the country we both love.”

"For the first time in our history, we are about to pass down to the next generation a country that is less powerful, less compassionate, less competitive and less confident than the one we got," Huntsman said. "This is totally unacceptable and totally un-American."

In a departure from the roughness of some political campaigns, Huntsman vows to run for the White House without tearing down his opponents or trashing Obama.

"He and I have a difference of opinion on how to help the country we both love," Huntsman said. "But the question each of us wants the voters to answer is who will be the better president; not who is the better American."

Obama's re-election campaign took aim at Huntsman. "Like other Republican candidates, instead of proposing a plan that will allow middle-class families to reclaim their economic security, Governor Huntsman is proposing a return to the failed economic policies that led us into recession," Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said.

As I see it, one side hasn’t let up on the negative campaigning. There were no words of respect for the president’s former Ambassador, from the president’s re-election campaign!
With the importance of the New Hampshire primary and what it meant to ratifying the Constitution so that other states would follow I think it only appropriate to use the strong words that Huntsman is shy of using. This is not a diplomatic mission he is on. This is not Huntsman courting members of Congress in Utah to pass laws. This is Huntsman confronting a president who is ruining the country that the citizens of New Hampshire, back in 1788, wanted to grow and prosper.

Jon Huntsman chose the backdrop of the Statue of Liberty, the same backdrop Reagan chose, when he announced his bid for office. Jon Huntsman used similar themes, but he didn’t use the words of Reagan in 1980: “Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”

My fear is that many of the Republican candidates, like Jon Huntsman, are afraid they will turn people off with negative campaigning. It is not negative when you tell the truth and articulate to America just how wrong the current direction is. These candidates must remember that we have 235 plus years of evidence on what works and what doesn’t work. Reagan didn’t have the fear that many do today. The result of his strength and his actions and his words gave him the victory.

Reagan was just plain mad at what Carter had done to the country. No one called him a racist for being mad. He knew what was right and what was wrong. His passion drove him to articulate just how mad and angry he was. There is nothing wrong with taking it to the man, because the man has been taking it away from us!


Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives

A footnote: It’s ok for a candidate to be angry, I hope the people of New Hampshire will continue their traditions and I hope they will recognize who is articulating the truth and who will take it to the man. After all, this is why they go to New Hampshire.