O'Brien Labels Concord Monitor 'Democratic Propagandists'

NH House Speaker blasts newspaper while attending Bedford BBQ.

Two weeks ago, New Hampshire House Speaker William O'Brien during a press availability.

The decision came on the heels of the Monitor running a Yet when asked today if the decision was due to the cartoon, O'Brien - who was attending the Americans For Prosperity Family BBQ in Bedford - replied in the negative.

"It wasn't just the cartoon. What has become apparent is that they have a political agenda and it maps very neatly with what the Democrat agenda is, to distract people from the issues, to talk process, to talk personality, to implement Saul Alinsky's Rule No. 5, which is to demonize and marginalize the leadership of the opposition," said O'Brien. "And I understand that, that's politics and if Ray Buckley and company want to engage in that, you know, that's fair game, but when a media outlet such as the Concord Monitor starts engaging in it then at that point you know you're dealing with the opposition party and not legitimate journalism.

"Am I going to invite them into my office? No, I'm not going to invite them into my office. Are we going to deal with them as if they're legitimate journalists? No, they're propagandists," he continued. "The decision not to include them in the press availability was, in part, to point out that this is a media outlet that has decided that they're going to propagandize for one side of the political debate and we're not going to deal with them as if they're doing anything else."

When Patch asked if O'Brien was waiting on an apology, he, again, replied in the negative.

"I don't take this personally ... it's not that at all, what it is is an indication to a newspaper that says 'we want to be dealt with as if we're legitimate journalists,' then you have to act that way," said the House Speaker. "You know, if you want to editorialize against one side or the other, that happens all the time and that's entirely legitimate. If you choose your stories and you choose your reporting against a background of the attempt to carry forward one side or the others messages then you are no longer participating as a normal media and you no longer have the right to expect to be treated that way."

So when will Concord Monitor staff be welcomed back into the Speaker's office?

"Ask the Monitor," said O'Brien. "You know, I love talking to the people of New Hampshire, (but) I'm not talking to Democratic propagandists."

Follow Bedford Patch on our Facebook page , Twitter feed , and daily newsletter and breaking news alerts.

William Eib July 23, 2012 at 06:25 AM
Jane: I don;t care about capital gains. What I do care about is this: The Middle Class is diminishing everyday. The door to opportunity is about to close on people like yourself. Your choice of future leadership, Mr. Romney, does not give a rat's ass about you. Especially if you count your money in 20s, 10s, 5s, 1s and change. If so, you are part of the underclass, your only value to the Elites like Romney, is you will be willing to work longer hours for shorter wages. He made his money on the backs of people like you. His company, Bain, is about to shut down a company in Michigan and send the jobs to China. Romney and people in his world of wealth, look at you as dispensable. They are wealthy and you are not. That's the reality of it. Sorry to bum you out. But, your part of the underclass, so deal with it. It's all you got coming to you from Mr. Romney and his pals. So, whatever dreams you have, you're going to have to put them on hold. You ain't gonna have the money for it. The banks aren't happy to loan to the underclass. So sit tight, your future is being determined for you as we speak. Vote for Romney and please don;t have kids, it's only going to be worse for them.
William Eib July 23, 2012 at 06:45 AM
Jack: Americans have become a commodity. The Middle Class is slowly being eliminated. Poverty is approaching historic numbers. If people count their money in 20s, 10s, 5s, 1s and change, they are definitely destined for commodity hood. They will be expected to work longer hours for shorter wages. No benefits. That's the America Mr. Romney and the GOP have in store for America. They intend to reduce taxes on the uber rich, to the point the uber rich will be paying nothing. The entire burden of the debt will fall on the working class, or as it is destined to be the underclass. These guys have no loyalty to this country. They serve profit. Where ever the money is is where they are headed. Wealth inequality in America is one of the worst in the Western World.
Jane Aitken July 23, 2012 at 01:10 PM
Dear Gary: "Jane wants smaller government and less regulation, lower taxes so she's votin' Romney and Republicans." I wonder how it is that you know who I am voting for and what I am thinking? Apparently you don't follow my blogs. I am totally against all the things you have mentioned in your post above, including candidates like Romney.
Jane Aitken July 23, 2012 at 01:12 PM
Dear William, I have a complete idea of what I am NOT "buying into". I just love how all of you are claiming to know how I'm voting and what I'm thinking. It's comical.
Jane Aitken July 23, 2012 at 01:15 PM
Dear William, I love watching you try to convince me there is no opportunity for people like me. I guess you missed older posts where I said I was retired. Also I love how you are trying to make a case against Romney when I have never said a word about him, certainly I have never promoted him. But keep it up, it's fun to watch. :)
Jane Aitken July 23, 2012 at 01:19 PM
Dear William, Right away your racist comment means you should not be included in this discussion. But I will say this one last thing to you: If you don't already see that the shoe you describe fits the very person you have idolized for his color, the very person charged by corporate globalists with destroying the country in the very same ways you've described (these past four years of worsening economy and jobs situation should be enough evidence ) then I hold no hope for your comprehension of the idea that there is really no difference in the two parties.
Gary C. Behling July 23, 2012 at 02:13 PM
Well then Jane, Are you simply one of those people who argues just for the sake of arguing? There are only 2 directions this country is going to go after 2012. Pick one: 1st-- The Marxist-Socialist OBAMA where we will all be forced to live on collective farms and pay 80% of our wages in taxes. OR 2---- The Romney plan where he lowers ALL of our taxes to less than 15%, business THRIVE, mass job creation and hiring spring to life in less than a year and everything is Rosy again for decades. Which one is it Jane?
Jane Aitken July 23, 2012 at 02:28 PM
This original article was about O'Brien, the CM, and how the CM censors or shows bias in their reporting and is now angry that they are getting a taste of their own medicine. It is the rest of you who devolved into an argument about taxes, the election, and even racism accusations, loudly proclaimed as if it were cogent to the discussion but based on nothing anyone has said before it. (Bravado from bullies like @Tru doesn't trump the truth.) Perhaps in the future we should disallow off topic comments and/or people should not answer them. Your demand that I 'pick' one or the other is why this country is in the trouble it is in. If you still think you have a choice, you are sadly mistaken. If you think anything will be done differently you're deluded.
William Eib July 23, 2012 at 03:02 PM
Jane: Let me extend an apology. I came in long after the back and forth, and was not aware of the content of the article. I receive emails from patch and if the discussion is heated i like to jump on in. Again, please accept my apology for anything I said that was off point.
Jane Aitken July 23, 2012 at 03:24 PM
William, I just found it amazing that after I posted about how I too had been censored by the CM which resulted in my not having any sympathy for them now that they are getting a taste of their own medicine, the conversation devolved into a discussion of taxes, the election, and racism... None of us have said a THING that would even suggest a HINT of racism, but when known bullies like Tru get on the horn, that's all they can come up with to make their points. That said I did give my opinion on those things and was called names which is not supposed to be allowed on this forum.
Jane Aitken July 23, 2012 at 03:29 PM
And since produced using the taxpayers money, should not be censoring any opinions that might unfold from what they are doing with the taxpayers money....
Jack Starr July 23, 2012 at 04:39 PM
Jane - Your first comment is the first mention of TAXES. Jane Aitken 7:59 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012 When you people claim that Obama's comment meant the 'infrastructure' might we remind you that even THAT was not given to anyone by Obama or the government as he would love people to think? It came from the people who built their businesses and who paid TAXES. So once again, it came from THEM.
William Eib July 23, 2012 at 06:07 PM
Jack: The essential point, made by Mr. Obama, and many throughout our history, is; as de Tocqueville discovered during his journey through early America. He saw a vibrate independence of character, and a responsibility to and reliance on others. America's success was a collective desire to succeed. This spirit can be reawakened when people realize you can't do it on your own. The Elites in this country believe, that they and they alone have succeeded. Mr. Obama is a conservative, in the sense, he still thinks Americans are capable of functioning as a united front against inequity and still win through collective success. As in the Great Depression; America pulled together, Top Tax rate at the time was 96%. Average people were providing the labor, the wealthy the money. Under Eisenhower, the Top Rate was 91%, unemployment was 3%. See a pattern here. To succeed as a Country everyone has to participate. Profit taking is not participating. Job Creators,is a myth to cover up, a reduction of the Elites responsibility to the USA. Their contributions to the construction, doesn't match the back breaking labor it took to build the roads and bridges. The Elites want longer hours for shorter wages. It's a form of profit maximizing. Workers once got a better cut of the pie. It's down to a sliver. Next is crumbs. They have no say in the matter. The underclass has become a commodity. Labor.
William Eib July 23, 2012 at 07:20 PM
GARY: Marxist-Socialist. You did not think up that piece of silliness on your own, no F'ing way. Here's something; Your stating by lowering the tax rates, and they are not on every one. The corporate rate of the Elites, we be disproportionate to the money you earn and what they earn. This is more Corporate welfare. A quick stroll through recent history. During the Bush years, the top rate was lowered to 35% and there was deregulation of the Financial Markets. Trickle down theory. The same one you, are suggesting now. The results of that largess was a collapse of the economy, and a loss of millions of jobs. Obama extended the tax cuts for 2 years under the promise, by the GOP, it would stir the Job Creators. No jobs. Trickle down. it failed under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II and the GOPers want another shot. Are you a masochist. Wages went down, unemployment went up.. We have to get out of the yoke of Corporate influence in Government. Romney is a supply sider. During the Great Depression: American workers provided the labor for a fair wage and the Wealthy provided the money. Top rate at that time 96%. Eisenhower, 1950s, top rate 91%, unemployment 3%. See a pattern? Average Americans can not keep contributing cheap labor for profit takers who contribute nothing. If you count your money in 20s, 10s, 5s,1s and change you are officially part of the underclass. You know, the gum stuck on the sole of Romney's custom made shoes
William Eib July 23, 2012 at 07:26 PM
Did you miss the apology i posted? I apologized for jumping in to the middle of a fracas. I misunderstood the thread of the debate. Again, please accept my apology for wrongfully characterizing your positions.
William Eib July 23, 2012 at 07:51 PM
Jane: "Dear William, Right away your racist comment means you should not be included in this discussion. But I will say this one last thing to you: If you don't already see that the shoe you describe fits the very person you have idolized for his color, the very person charged by corporate globalists with destroying the country in the very same ways you've described (these past four years of worsening economy and jobs situation should be enough evidence ) then I hold no hope for your comprehension of the idea that there is really no difference in the two parties." What is your addiction to throwing around statements such things as " corporate globalists" whatever the hell that is. Of course they don;t like him, he believes the American worker can no longer afford to contribute for lower wages, while the Corporate Globalists contribute nothing. The economy is doing fine,. Corporations are bringing in historic profits and unemployment is still high, We're being snookered. They got lower taxes and deregulation under Bush and we all know what happened. Obama threatens the America the Corporations have built for themselves. Less wages for more hours, and no benefits. Walmart hands out food stamp applications to their part time workers. There's a Corporate Globalist company for ya. Eisenhower in the 1950s, 91% top rate, 3% unemployment. The economy did fine. He was able to beat inflation by standing firm on NO tax cuts. What racist comment?? Forget my apologies.
Jane Aitken July 23, 2012 at 08:26 PM
The economy is fine? Really? Why does he do everything to benefit the globalists, like handing drilling rights to foreigners instead of our own people, tossing sums of over $500B to foreign banks, and bailing out big companies? Why is Goldman Sachs his biggest contributor? Are you one of those that believes the myths of the two party system that is used to control people? You can't act like one side is any better than the other, and blaming Bush is so passé. Both Bush and Obama and merely puppets for their controllers, who are in fact the very same. The fact that you would ever suggest that anyone pay 91% taxes... my gosh, it's hopeless to discuss anything with someone who thinks that.
Jane Aitken July 23, 2012 at 08:41 PM
Someone else brought up the controversy about the "you didn't build that" comment to which I added my comment about how he was correct because the things Obama would like you to think he gave you were paid for by people who built things.
William Eib July 23, 2012 at 09:33 PM
Is this Michelle Bachmann? 500 Billion? I think your confusing foreign aid with something else. Re: Bailing out big companies. Like the successful Auto Industry recovery? The University of California is #1, Goldman Sachs is #2. And why is that, he needs money to beat Romney, and Goldman Sachs is hedging their bets. The two party system exists, I think what you're failing to articulate is the opposing philosophies. And indeed their is some commonality in their politics, but not in their ideology. There are people who think Government is too generous to the Poor, and those who think it is too generous to the Wealthy. Blaming Bush is passe, is that how you sweep the 2nd Depression in our history under the rug, passe? . Sure go ahead dismiss a devastating economic collapse as passe. . We are all puppets to the Corporate Oligarchs at the moment. The GOPers wish to reward them with more tax cuts and deregulation, and for us, more austerity. Seems fair, don;t you think? An other example of your dimness, is I never suggested 91% taxes. I tried to illuminate your lack of historical facts regarding how higher taxes do not hurt the economy. 3% unemployment that had to impress you. And there is a correlation between the top tax rate and unemployment. Track it from the 50s; as the top rate went down wages also went down, and in 2007 thru 2009, after the top rate had finished going from 91% in the 50s to to 35% in the 00s unemployment exploded and the economy imploded.
William Eib July 23, 2012 at 09:37 PM
Michelle Bachmann (Jane) Care to translate this; Someone else brought up the controversy about the "you didn't build that" comment to which I added my comment about how he was correct because the things Obama would like you to think he gave you were paid for by people who built things. Your syntax sucks.
Jane Aitken July 23, 2012 at 10:13 PM
Yes not much editing happens when you are doing 5 other things at the same time.
Jane Aitken July 23, 2012 at 10:21 PM
I'm not even TALKING about foreign aid, that's another thing altogether. And higher taxes DO hurt the economy because it means less money SPENT. That money is the natural 'stimulus' to the economy. Speaking of stimulus and bailouts, consider this... Here is the money that represents what some foreign banks got out of the bailouts: http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/03/german_and_fren.html This is a better list of bailout money: http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list/simple Failed 'green' companies under Obama: http://www.dividedstates.com/list-of-failed-obama-green-energy-solar-companies/ Stimulus money failures: http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/08/why-obamas-stimulus-failed-a-case-study All this guy knows how to do is waste money. How much more of our treasury is this man going to loot? There will be no change under Romney.
William Eib July 24, 2012 at 03:43 AM
Do you have a reading disability? I specifically mentioned Top Tax Rates. The wealthy can not consume enough goods to make a difference. There is only a small number of them compared to the population at large. Now I see, lazy reader. AIG received their bail out money in 2008 under Bush, they then disbursed it to their creditors, some of whom were European banks. This had nothing whatsoever to do with Obama. You're way in over your head here, Darling. George Bush borrowed a Trillion from the Communist Party of China to cover the tax cuts and the War. We owe the Communist Party of China a Trillion Bucks. What is your problem? The Bail out money was authorized by the Bush Administration, it continued under Obama because the money was committed to the bail out. Geez lady, get your act together. If you're going to hang out with the grownups, get your act together. And put some qualified info up in defense of your defenseless case, whatever it might be. Are you watching TV, cooking and listening to the radio, plus writing your ambiguous comments at the same time. There seems to be some lack of continuity, and value to your criticisms. In fact , I have no idea who you're criticizing in the first place. I need a translator, or a good forensic physiologist to following your train of thought. Are you medicated?
Jack Starr July 24, 2012 at 04:29 AM
Jane just posted 4 Rebublican blogs all of which downplayed the stimulus. If she used reputable sources she would see the stimulus was a success. She just likes to read articles that misinform and then pass that misinformation on to these comment sections. It's hard to argue with someone who gets false information and tries to pass it out as truth. Here is a more logical result of the stimulus along with charts and graphs for the arguement of how the stimulus has brought us back from Bush's disastrous policies. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3252
William Eib July 24, 2012 at 05:11 AM
Trying to get a handle on what she is trying to say is a challenge. She shifts sides, contradicts previous remarks, write in an incoherent way. I am learning nothing. I general get something out of an argument. Insight on the opposing point of view, support for my outlook. But Jane just makes my head spin. At first I swore it was Michele Bachmann using a pseudonym. It was and is that flaky.
Jane Aitken July 24, 2012 at 01:10 PM
I don't watch TV or 'switch sides' but nice try. And your post above that starts off with the 'reading disability' is abusive so it won't get a response from me.
Jane Aitken July 24, 2012 at 01:12 PM
Jack we are in the deepest of trouble in this country, and nothing Obama has done has 'brought us back'. Obama's policies, I think most would admit, have made things worse. You can't name one job the 'stimulus' 'created'. To ignore these facts at this point means your blind party loyalty is not doing you any favors.
Jack Starr July 24, 2012 at 07:47 PM
Jane, you are dead wrong, you need to keep your nose out of those Obama hating republican blogs. Here is a better reading on the jobs the stimulus created. http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/technology/apple_steve_jobs/index.htm Blind loyalty comments belong to those in the republican party who don't realize their party has changed. I was a republican in the late 60's and the 70's and part of the 80's until Reagan started going after the unions. I am a retired Letter Carrier from the U.S. Post Office. I have wittnessed what some new republican governors are trying to do by making their states right to work states and watched as they attempt to suppress voters rights and what they have done going backwards on womens rights and I will never go back to that party. Back to jobs though, there is a new article that just came out today about your obstructionist party's jobs bills and they have been deemed completely worthless. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/republican-jobs-bills_n_1687647.html?1343129695&icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl14%7Csec3_lnk2%26pLid%3D183346 The misinformation and lies you are passing in these comment sections is making the top 1% very happy that you would stick up for them even though they don't care about you and the rest of the middle class and poor in this country.
Jack Starr July 24, 2012 at 08:02 PM
Mark Vincent and Jane - This whole discussion started with Marks comment about Obama's alleged statement that small businesses didn't build that. I in turn commented it was taken out of context. This should settle the arguement once and for all. Let's hope again the truth prevails over the lies. http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/entry/stephanie-cutter-president-obamas-fight-for-small-businesses?source=em12_20120724_sc_tt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=obama&utm_campaign=em12_20120724_sc_tt
William Eib July 25, 2012 at 05:13 AM
Jane: Sorry about the reading disability remark. But this comment is indicative of your style. You are just tossing out talking points. The way to kill is to take comments like deepest trouble in the country, and remember the Great Depression when tossing out such a broad sweeping indictment. From last year: The economy would have been in much worse shape without the 2009 stimulus — which increased employment in the third quarter of this year (2011) by as many as 3.3 million full-time jobs, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office. American Seating Company, Grand Rapids, Mich. has not only rehired all of its former employees, but also added 11 new workers. All this, says David McLaughlin, the company’s vice president and general sales manager, is thanks to the $8.4 billion investment in transit capital from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) With auto companies back to profitability and the overall economy picking up, the public has a decidedly warmer view toward the stimulus plan and the auto It bailout. New Pew Center poll, 61 percent said the economic stimulus plan in 2009 mostly helped the economy, while just 31 percent thought it mostly hurt. This how you make your argument with support for your suppositions. Just read past the headline.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something