“Lynch Lingo”
October, 2006
P. Gardner Goldsmith

Tell me if these words sound familiar:

“Together, working in a bi-partisan way, we… Uh, came together! Partnering in an inclusive fashion, to put partisanship to one side, to move forward for the people of New Hampshire and impact the wellness of all our children, all our seniors, and all our working people. That’s what leadership is all about.”

If you watched the WMUR/Union Leader debate between Governor John Lynch, and Representative Jim Coburn, you probably recognize lots of those phrases, and if you’re like I, you didn’t appreciate them.

The lyrical drivel emanating from our current governor’s mouth in this political battle is about as empty as a jar of space, and the citizens of the state deserve better.

When he’s not posing for commercials in rolled-up shirt sleeves, or meeting “the people” in set-ups on the streets of Manchester, he’s hard at work sidestepping the questions of reporters faster than Mario Lopez can do the Tango.

Case in point. John DiStaso asked John Lynch this question:

“Governor, you’ve said that you agree with the principles of the 1997 Claremont Two school funding decision, which says that the state has the singular, sole responsibility of funding an adequate education state-wide. Yet your targeting plan would require local property taxes to pay some of those costs, apparently in violation of the Claremont decisions. How do you rationalize supporting the Claremont principles while proposing a plan in violation of its holdings?”

John Lynch never answered the question. Instead, he patted himself with pride for the “progress that we’ve made” and then changed the premise of the question, telling people what his education goals are. You know, they’re those rare, politically risky goals of making sure “every child in New Hampshire should have an equal opportunity for a quality education; all of our (our?) children should, regardless of where they live or their economic background. Now, I proposed a plan, and had strong bi-partisan support (yes, we know, Governor, it’s all the rage, we’re ‘partnering for our wellness’) for targeted real state aid to the children and the communities that needed it the most.”

But we know that. It was in Mr. DiStaso’s question. Regardless of the man’s position, be it governor or garbage collector, what would you the reader do if someone answered you in this way? Would you get a sense that you were being dealt with honestly? Lynch’s answer continued, but did not touch upon the fact that he cannot reconcile his position of agreeing with the Claremont decisions, and his desire for targeted aid. If he favors uniform state funding, as the decisions “mandate”, then how can he support targeted aid? The two are irreconcilable.

Lynch’s fancy footwork can’t hide his shoddy shoes. Likewise his rhetoric can’t hide his lack of substance. For example, when asked by NH Public Radio’s Laura Kinnoy to define what he believes is an “adequate education”, something the Supreme Court ordered the legislature to do by mid-2007, he shocked the audience by, yeah, you got it, never giving her an answer.

Instead, he said, “The court has asked us to come up with a definition of an adequate education by June 30th, (really, thank you for repeating Laura Kinnoy’s observation) and I’m absolutely convinced that we will be able to do that. I don’t particularly like talking about the word ‘adequate’…”

Let’s pause for a moment and review. Laura asked him a simple question, which is based in turn on the court “order” for the legislature to definition “adequate education”. But Governor Lynch doesn’t like talking about the word “adequate”. Could it be that he has trouble defining something that, by its nature, is subjective? Hmm… But let’s continue with his illuminating answer.
“I like talking about quality education…”

He certainly does. He brought it up with DiStaso. But, just like the term “adequate”, “quality” is subjective, as well. The trouble that John Lynch is having ought to tell him something about civics and economics. It shows him that it is not possible to define in any objective way that which is by its nature subjectively measured. And this false assumption is at the heart of the recent
Supreme Court mandate, something John Lynch refuses to acknowledge.

But don’t think this is unusual. John Lynch has an uncanny knack for simultaneously retaining two clearly contradictory thoughts, and telling voters this is healthy. For example, when asked about local property taxes, the Governor said that he “favors local control” of education. Unfortunately, just a few minutes earlier, he had praised the standards of the State Board of Education, which crushes “local control” with regulation after regulation. He is also rabid about mandating to the localities that they keep their students in school until the age of eighteen. Can someone explain how his love of “local control” is exemplified by the promotion of increased state regulations? Isn’t local control just that? Or am I missing something?

The fact the John Lynch rarely gives straight answers to questions cannot be denied. The most obvious example of this came when Scott Spradling asked both John Lynch and Jim Coburn what programs they would cut, in the next term.

“The best way to answer the question,” cooed the Governor, “is to talk about what we’ve done.”

Actually, Governor, the best way to answer the question is to answer the question.

“I believe we’ve shown, that you can keep your eye on the bottom line, and still look out for people. Now when I started, we were faced with a $300 million deficit (false), we were able to eliminate that deficit without new taxes (again, false).”
There is something to be said for a man who can so shamelessly avoid answering a question, and promote falsehoods in the same breath. Not only did John Lynch not submit a balanced budget to the House, which in turn did not submit a balanced budget to the Senate, but he pushed for $80 million in new cigarette taxes over two years. Of course, he gets slick by playing semantics, saying “without new taxes”, but that should tell people something. John Lynch is afraid of speaking plainly, and instead tries to deceive through word choice. I don’t appreciate it, and perhaps the people asking the questions didn’t either.

Just for the record, a message to Governor Lynch: If reporters go to the trouble to show up at a debate, and to prepare questions to ask you, the least you could do is have the courtesy to answer them. You do a disservice to the debate process, and show great disrespect to the people in the audience, by sticking to tired, rehearsed, lame platitudes that may sound good in our politically correct world, but are either deceptive or meaningless.

Thanks for showing up.