They were fighting about gun regulations in the New Hampshire House of Representatives, specifically about a modified “Stand Your Ground” bill, HB 135. Republican Rep. Steve Vaillancourt got up on his hind legs and made a long speech in support of the bill, saying it was wrong to portray it as a gun grab. He gave a number of instances where he had avoided conflict by retreating, as opposed to whipping out a gun. An argument between local high schools, hostile locals objecting to his actions in various places he visited, etc. (The bill passed the House.)

Vaillancourt posted the speech on House internal email, and another Republican, Peter Hansen, attacked this in a somewhat inchoate email, as described on the susan the bruce blog.

There were two critical ingredients missing in the illustrious stories purporting to demonstrate the practical side of retreat. Not that retreat may not be possible mind you. What could possibly be missing from those factual tales of successful retreat in VT, Germany, and the bowels of Amsterdam? Why children and vagina’s of course. While the tales relate the actions of a solitary male the outcome cannot relate to similar situations where children and women and mothers are the potential victims. The presence of one or both ingredients demands that a potential totally different outcome might have prevailed and that is the factor which I believe was dismissed in the HB 135 debate and vote.

Did people object to Hansen’s referring to women as vaginas? Oh yes. Including Rep. Rick Watrous, who said “Are you really using “vaginas” as a crude catch-all for women? Really? Please think before you send out such offensive language on the legislative listserve.”

Hansen fought back (rather than retreating). “Having a fairly well educated mind I do not need self appointed wardens to A: try to put words in my mouth for political gain and B: Turn a well founded strategy in communication into an insulting accusation, and finally if you find the noun vagina insulting or in some way offensive then perhaps a better exercise might be for you to re-examine your psyche.”

Oh, and “If I had to do it all over again, I would use the same words. It’s clear there are many people who don’t appreciate the nuances of good writing. There are always going to be those on the other side who don’t care about context but I’ll pay no attention to them.” He stood his ground.

In a phone call with the Nashua Telegraph, “This is something that has been totally blown out of proportion.” Never retreat!

Then came the terrible you-don’t-get-me apology. “It was not, and is not, my intention to demean women at any time. It is apparent that the intent of my remarks has been misinterpreted, the true goal of the message lost and for that I apologize to those who took offense.” (To whose who didn’t take offense? High five!)

A friend asked of Hansen’s original remarks, “What does the hell does that even MEAN?!”

Was that well-educated man Hansen trying to reference the brilliant Wanda Sykes and her meditations on the detachable pussy? Now, that’s good writing.

No, he told the Concord and the Amherst Patch that he “was trying to show a scenario in which a woman was with children and might not be able to retreat.” Sure you were.

Later, seeking clarity, he emailed that “I continue to be apologetic for my thoughtless use of the word however in no way, however it is interpreted, was it my intent to refer to women in the context of the word used. I regret the use of the word but in no way was it my intent to substitute one word for another.” In other words, women are not the same as vaginas, and he never thought they were. He just said some stuff. And then said he’d say it again.

Then came calls for his resignation or recall, and the improved apology:

I want to apologize to my constituents, my colleagues and women, especially those in my life, for the blatantly offensive, insensitive and, frankly, stupid language I used in my email with House members regarding the Stand Your Ground legislation. I am embarrassed, to say the least. There is no place or need in the public discourse for the words I used. The people and the process deserve better than that.

…The debate over the rights of everyone to protect their home and family is too important to be overshadowed by the clumsy and disrespectful way in which I tried to make my point.

Rep. Watrous was absolutely right to call me out for my choice of words and in the forum in which I was using them – namely the House email list serve. The world certainly does not need another loud-mouthed politician shooting his mouth off, adding to the already toxic political environment and steering attention away from the important issues that we should be discussing. Unfortunately, that is what I have done and I am truly sorry.

Those that know me know how hard I work on behalf of my town and my state and how seriously I take my role. It is entirely fair to judge me for this remark, but it is my hope that my intentions and my record of service will be weighed in the balance.

I like how “the nuances of good writing” became “blatantly offensive, insensitive and, frankly, stupid.” True.

This guy is fighting for his political life, and he finally came up with a decent apology. (Almost… a retreat.) After a series of unpleasant bungles.

What a prostate.