Video: A quiet moment with Ovide Lamontagne
posted at 9:15 am on January 10, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Yesterday, I had the pleasure of meeting with Ovide Lamontagne, the one-time Tea Party favorite for the Senate seat that Kelly Ayotte eventually won. Lamontagne immediately endorsed Ayotte and campaigned for her after barely losing the primary in New Hampshire, which Ovide worried at the time would alienate his Tea Party followers. The opposite happened; they saw, as Ovide did, that with the primary over, the critical task was keeping liberal Paul Hodes out of the Senate. With Lamontagne’s help, Ayotte succeeded.
After a year to consider his options, Ovide has returned to electoral politics, this time seeking the governor’s office from which John Lynch will retire at the end of the year. I spoke with Ovide at his office yesterday for quite a while, away from the presidential horse-race events that have dominated my visit to New Hampshire, to discuss his gubernatorial bid. He tells me that he sees this as a natural extension of his mission from 2010, which was to use a Senate seat to get the federal government out of the business of the states. It’s at least as important, Ovide argues, to have governors willing to stand up to Washington and fight jurisdictional incursions as it is to have conservatives in Congress trying to rein in those impulses from the opposite direction.
When asked what state-level issues will drive his election, Ovide says they’re not that different from the national issues — jobs and the economy. The state’s relatively low unemployment level (5.2%) masks a lot of pain, and Ovide made a point of telling me that he doesn’t want to govern to the averages. He wants to roll back job-killing regulatory interference in the state as well as from Washington DC, and ensure that enough economic growth occurs to include everyone who wants and needs an opportunity to earn a living. Ovide was pretty gracious with his time despite me twice mispronouncing his name on tape (even after I asked him before the tape rolled!), so this runs a little longer than most interviews, but it’s worth it. I interviewed Ovide two years ago at CPAC, and it’s good to see him continuing his efforts in public service.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Jazz thinks Stuart Stevens is a serious person. Bless his heart.
steebo77 on April 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM
Your idea is stupid too… the problem isn’t who is moderating the debates but the idea that debates need moderators to begin with.
Just set a debate topic and let the candidates speak on their own… and then let them ask questions to each other.
ninjapirate on April 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM
So far the Rs are proving to be LESS SMART on so many levels.
CoffeeLover on April 6, 2013 at 11:41 AM
The 2016 primary is a bit unusual in that there is a clear top-tier of candidates (whoever runs from the Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie group.) As a result, it’s likely to be easier to control the debate process if they can be convinced that’s in their best interest to limit appearances.
Mister Mets on April 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM
Nevermind… I just skimmed over and I thought your entire idea was have Hugh Hewitt et al moderate the debates…
I think we need to just do Lincoln Douglas the whole way though… just have random drawings to keep the debates small at the beginning.
ninjapirate on April 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM
That’s a great idea. I’d also say that each candidate should be given equal speaking time, to use as they wish – give them a button to activate their microphone, and cut it off permanently when they’ve run out of allotted time. If one guy wants to talk for 10 minutes on a single topic and then have no time for any other exchanges, let him.
Inkblots on April 6, 2013 at 11:44 AM
How is this any different from a series of interviews? Presumably, the candidates will be engaging in more than enough of those?
The emphasis on policy proposals is a bit problematic since it ignores other things that will determine whether someone can be an effective President, such as their accomplishments in the past. In a discussion that is just about policy, there’s nothing to distinguish a failed state legislator from a popular Governor.
Mister Mets on April 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM
I say run a tournament of one-on-one debates.
Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Imagine Candy Crowley moderating the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and therein lies the problem…
Khun Joe on April 6, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Sounds good.
Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:51 AM
I agree with Jazz, Republicans are running to be the Republican NOMINEE not the DEMOCRAT Party nominee. I don’t get why they want to appear on Democrat news. If they want to go on ONE big cable news it should just be Foxnews moderated by Hannity and Erick Erickson.
Rush should also have his own debate forum. Republicans should just stick with going on blogs and conservative places like Glenn Beck.
No MORE going to debate hosted by Marxist.
BroncosRock on April 6, 2013 at 11:52 AM
From what I remember, the moderators of Lincoln-Douglas debate don’t get to ask questions. It’s a strait up one-on-one point and counterpoint about a single topic.
Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:53 AM
How about a radio debate on Rush’s show?
Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:54 AM
How about duct taping the mouths of the leftard moderators and let the candidates talk?
Old Country Boy on April 6, 2013 at 11:55 AM
A new way to handle primary debates…..
Don’t listen to ANYONE connected to the failed gop that has had anything to do with any national election since 1988.
Limited government Conservative values haven’t been on the ballot since 1984 (and to be honest that wasn’t really smaller government). It at least had the veneer of having someone at the head that preached it constantly (and appeared to believe it).
PappyD61 on April 6, 2013 at 12:02 PM
View the DOTUS and all his glory (his fundamentally transformed United States of America) here.
http://glennhenson.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/image001-obama.jpg
2017 here we come.
PappyD61 on April 6, 2013 at 12:11 PM
I would love to see mark levin moderate a debate.
karenhasfreedom on April 6, 2013 at 12:12 PM
Surprised no one suggested the Republican candidates stand silently on the stage while the liberal media debates how bad each Republican candidate is compared the the Democrat running for office.
;-)
albill on April 6, 2013 at 12:12 PM
Awesome picture. That needs to be used in campaign ads next year to help dethrone Reid in the senate.
karenhasfreedom on April 6, 2013 at 12:14 PM
It is about time the GOP did what the Democrats do. Hire moderators that share the philosophy. We simply are not interested in Stephanopolis’s delusional presumptions.
pat on April 6, 2013 at 12:16 PM
Nice article Jazz Shaw..You made some very valid points..:)
Dire Straits on April 6, 2013 at 12:30 PM
Hear!..Hear!..:)
Dire Straits on April 6, 2013 at 12:31 PM
You’d think this would be the easy part, but no…… *shakes head*
GWB on April 6, 2013 at 12:41 PM
A version of this scenario is what we saw over and over ad infinitum in 2012. If Republicans allow this outrage to be repeated … They. Will. Lose. Again. And deserve it.
marybel on April 6, 2013 at 12:49 PM
The first thing I would do is refuse to have any debate on CNN. After Candy Crowley set Mitt Romney up there is no reason to give that network any recognition until such time as they recognize the harm they did and rectify the situation.
bflat879 on April 6, 2013 at 12:53 PM
No political circus would be complete without Mr. “Etch-a-Sketch,” Stevens, Andrea Saul, Mike Murphy, Kevin Madden, Alex Castellanos, Ed Gillespie or the rest of the clowns from Team Romney.
bw222 on April 6, 2013 at 12:59 PM
There have been some watchable formats that differed greatly from the ‘stand around the stage as targets’ venue.
Huckabee did a very good job with the candidates and they each got to answer questions but on their own, no back and forth, just state your position without knowing what anyone else had said before that.
The Value Voters Summit is, perhaps, one of the best venues that has happened and is a very good format style as a table-talk discussion not a ‘please indict yourself for the moderator’ junk we normally get.
Then there is always the strange concepts of asking the campaigns to each submit moderators and put their names into a hat and pick out two and then go to an online venue for this stuff.
Or ask Brian Lamb to host them on CSPAN with someone on the clock to cut off microphones.
Anything but the last two go-arounds all over again.
ajacksonian on April 6, 2013 at 1:02 PM
But, does anyone think Jazz is a serious person? Doubtful.
bw222 on April 6, 2013 at 1:03 PM
Geraghty and Erickson are the only ones from that list that aren’t total RINOs and Erickson is a complete jerk.
bw222 on April 6, 2013 at 1:08 PM
I’ve always been a proponent of the Lincoln-Douglas format with moderators serving only time-keeping functions. That just isn’t practical with eight debaters. Jazz’ suggestion of 15-minute segments would yield far more substance than the current system, but I wonder if the lack of confrontation would cause the networks to lost interest in covering them.
It is insane to allow the media to control the selection process for the Republican nomination. They are not neutral brokers, but active enemies of our side and agents for the other side.
Adjoran on April 6, 2013 at 1:14 PM
Here’s an idea: how about having real debates that force the candidates to actually answer the question by ADDRESSING THE ISSUE?! And stop allowing them to drone on and on about anything but the issue. O/T a bit, but how about fielding candidates with iron balls instead of the shriveled little ones the dweebs we now see seem to possess? And clear the field of ANYBODY who was even the slightest associated with the last election. Fresh meat is what we need.
HiJack on April 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM
At this stage the only near-”absolute” I think that needs to be corrected is a new way of picking moderators.
No more hostile lib/pro Dem questioners who live for the chance to embarrass and marginalize GOP candidates…ever. And no wire hangars either!
Sacramento on April 6, 2013 at 1:53 PM
Nein, nein, nein
Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM
HiJack on April 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM
+1
Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 2:21 PM
There need to be some debates.You can’t let candidates just get away with spouting their ideas unchallenged.And debates are good practice for the 3 in the general against the Dem candidate.Under no circumstances should any GOP candidate agree to appear onstage with a liberal moderator,and this should be insisted upon in advance by having each candidate take a pledge not to do so.If the networks want to host a debate they will provide a conservative moderator.Lastly,the sheer number of debates was ridiculous.Limit them to one each on economic policy,social issues,and foreign policy.
redware on April 6, 2013 at 2:30 PM
Maybe your problem is the answers, not the questions.
If your argument is sound, why should it matter how it gets asked… a candidate is interviewing to be president of the united states, and they’re afraid of MSNBC?
triple on April 6, 2013 at 3:32 PM
…someone should insist on it!
KOOLAID2 on April 6, 2013 at 4:20 PM
I think the moderators should be Michelle and Hussein official jock holders from the white house staff.
fair and balanced
tom daschle concerned on April 6, 2013 at 4:35 PM
I am thinking we should bring back “Win Ben Stein’s Money” to weed out the unprepared.
Jimmy Kimmel can’t be any more partisan than Candy Crowley, and far more intelligent and easy on the eye’s to boot.
Snowblind on April 6, 2013 at 4:52 PM