One of the great heartbreaks of election night 2010 (a night that saw a lot of heartbreaks) was Ann McLane Kuster's narrow loss in New Hampshire's second district to Republican Charlie Bass, who had previously represented the district from 1995 to 2007 before being defeated by Paul Hodes. It was a heartbreak not just because the loss was so narrow—48.3 percent for Bass to 46.8 percent for Kuster, the second-closest open seat loss for Democrats—but because Kuster was such a good candidate.
Annie Kuster was an Orange to Blue candidate in 2010, running an amazing grassroots campaign. She's the kind of candidate who didn't just come to Netroots Nation in 2010 for a panel or a reception—you ran into her at after-hours gatherings, hanging out and talking to people. That kind of engagement is how she raised money and how she campaigned in New Hampshire.
That's the kind of campaign she's running once again: Kuster continues to be a strong fundraiser, outraising Charlie Bass last quarter and having more cash on hand than him. But once again she's doing it by relying on small donations, while Bass relies on PACs and big donors, and is being supported by advertising by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Kuster continues to be an outspoken progressive; you can see her answers to our Orange to Blue questionnaire below the fold, and more recently she's also weighed in strongly on the recent Republican attacks on access to birth control, not just nationally but by Republicans in New Hampshire. She writes:
The truth is that contraception saves lives, prevents unplanned pregnancies, improves outcomes for children and reduces the number of abortions. As an adoption attorney, I know firsthand how difficult and how private these choices are for New Hampshire women. [...]
Congressman Bass and Speaker O’Brien partnering up to repeal the birth control coverage benefit will roll back one of the biggest advancements for women’s health under the guise of respecting religious freedom. No one—not Congressman Bass nor Speaker O’Brien—should be able to pick and choose the health care women in New Hampshire can access under their private health insurance coverage.
Her election announcement referred to her support for collective bargaining, and said:
I am a frugal Yankee and I believe we need to cut wasteful government spending -- like the billions in subsidies for oil companies, the corporate tax breaks for moving jobs overseas, and the billions more spent on redundant weapons systems that our military leaders have identified as wasteful and unneeded. But instead of these cuts, the US House of Representatives is cutting what we need most: education, public safety, and the clean energy research that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It makes no sense.
That's the kind of frugal Yankee we need in the House. Please,
contribute $6 to send Annie Kuster to Congress and beat Charlie Bass.
Go below the fold to read Kuster's answers to our Orange to Blue questionnaire.
1. Do you support:
a) A public health insurance option, offered by the federal government and tied to Medicare reimbursement rates plus 5% (H.R. 3200, Subtitle B, including § 223(b)(1)(A), as introduced in the House, 111th Congress)?
b) The Medicare You Can Buy Into Act (H.R. 4789, 111th Congress), which would allow all citizens or permanent residents to buy into Medicare?
I support a public health insurance option, and I am proud to have championed it on the campaign trail last year and to have fought to include it in the national healthcare reform.
I was disappointed that the final version did not include either a public insurance option or access to buy into Medicare for younger Americans. Both of which were under consideration during the debate.
If I am elected to Congress, I will pursue the best way to pass a public insurance option at that time, and I would likely support the approach that you cited. But as the landscape continues to change I am not wedded to one approach to passing it at the exclusion of others.
2. Do you agree that any immigration reform bill should:
a) Contain a meaningful path to citizenship — one that does not include overly-punitive fines or a touchback requirement — for law-abiding undocumented immigrants currently in the United States;
b) Ensure that expanded legal permanent immigration, rather than expansion of temporary worker programs, serves as the United States' primary external answer to workforce shortages; and
c) Ensure that any non-agricultural temporary worker programs maintain current caps on the total number of non-agricultural temporary worker visas issued, and also include a meaningful prevailing wage requirement keyed to the Service Contract Act and the Davis-Bacon Act?
Yes. Sensible immigration reform will strengthen our economy, our homeland security, and our country. Illegal immigration hurts our country, but legal immigration is part of what has made America great for over 200 years.
I believe immigration reform must include a path to citizenship that rewards those who work hard, obey the law, and love our country. I don’t support a punitive ‘touchback’ requirement and I believe that the path to citizenship should include fair fines (such as back taxes owed), with a realistic path towards payment so that undocumented workers don’t try to continue living in the shadows instead. I believe expanded permanent legal immigration strengthens our country and is always preferable to temporary worker programs. I do think that there is a place for some temporary worker programs in our immigration mix, because in a state like my home of New Hampshire, these workers have helped create new companies and grow jobs, and often such temporary visas are a path toward a green card and citizenship.
But programs like this must be closely monitored to ensure that they aren’t used by employers to lower wages and pressure American workers to accept the wages of the developing world. The best way to do that is to require guest workers to be paid the prevailing wage in that locality consistent with the Service Contract and Davis-Bacon Acts, and that we should always find ways to prioritize permanent residency and citizenship over temporary visas.
3. Do you oppose each of the following changes to Social Security and Medicare:
a) Raising the retirement age;
b) Eliminating or reducing the cost of living adjustment;
c) Directly reducing benefits;
d) Means-testing recipients; and
e) Privatization, so-called "personal accounts," and vouchers?
Let’s be honest – this list is just a variety of ways to cut benefits or limit eligibility for hard working Americans and I oppose doing that. Here’s my position – Social Security and Medicare are critically important and I will continue to advocate for the social contract that provides a safety net for American families.
4. Do you support the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 1409/S. 560, 111th Congress), including the provision known as "card check"?
Yes.
5. Do you pledge to vote against any efforts to extend the temporary tax cuts for income over $250,000 (Public Law 111-312)?
Yes.
6. If elected to the House, do you pledge not to join the Blue Dog Coalition?
Yes.
7. If elected to the Senate, do you pledge to restore majority rule to the Senate and work/vote to end the filibuster?
I am running for the House, but I support majority rule in the Senate and ending the filibuster.