As we move towards the 2012 Election there has been a lot of talk about the new NH House and NH Senate districts. There has also been a lot of talk already about new people running for Governor and Senators not running again. Sen Ray White and Sen Gary Lambert already announced that they will not run for Senate again. Sen White, says that it is too much for him to be Senator and Businessman at the same time. Sen Lambert is going back to the Marine Corps. With all these changes added up it is creating new opportunities for many people. Add this with the new districts and we could see a lot of changes in the next election.
One of the more scary announcements came today when State Rep George Lambert (not to be confused with Sen. Gary Lambert) announced that: “Litchfield Republican Rep. George Lambert has talked to associates about running for the Senate seat that Manchester Sen. Tom DeBlois is vacating to try to become executive councilor.”(Link). Ugh that is enough to make me lose my lunch. I cannot wait until the voters of Litchfield elect someone else in (Rep) Lamberts place. (on a side note: does anyone remember the Eddie Murphy movie “The Distinguished Gentleman” where Eddie Murphy was elected because he had the same name as the previous representative?)
Rep. Lambert is a true TEA Partier (and Free Stater). He is one of these republicans that was elected in the “red tide” of republicans in the 2010 elections. I understand people were upset. The economy nationally was tanking, unemployment was high here in NH, and people thought we needed a change. I wonder how many of those people wish they had chosen different now?
Rep Lambert has pushed some real “winners” in the State House this year. From labor’s perspective he introduced HB 1645, the repeal of collective bargaining. He has also supported anything that in his opinion supports “Liberty, and Individual Freedom”. Many people have noticed his extreme legislation.
“State Rep. George Lambert, R-Litchfield, is behind a number of the bills. He said bills such as his – banning sobriety checkpoints and decriminalizing speeding unless a driver causes personal injury or property damage”
One of the most sweeping bills Lambert sponsored this session, HB 1531, would have established an affirmative defense for so-called victimless crimes. Affirmative defenses, such as self-defense or insanity, essentially mean a defendant can acknowledge the state’s charges but argue they were justified because of some other factor.
Under Lambert’s bill, people who are accused of crimes that don’t have a direct victim – such as drug possession, prostitution, driving without a license or dozens of other infractions – would have been able to argue that since no particular individual was harmed, there was no crime.
“It’s ‘Show me the victim,’ ” Lambert said. “I have a right to a defense and a right to challenge the witnesses against me, and if there are no victims, there is no crime. The state itself can’t be the victim.”(“Proposed bills would expand NH freedoms”)
Really, show me the victim, Really? This is ridiculous and Hillsborough County Attorney Dennis Hogan agrees. He said “the bill would have made it impossible to prosecute many crimes, including DWI, drug cases and habitual offender offenses”. So now we are going to make it ok for people to drive drunk because there is no victim at that time. Why do you think there is no victim in a DUI arrest. Is Lambert suggesting that unless a driver has an accident, causes damage, or kills someone that it should be allowed. I think that the Mothers Against Drunk Driving would have different opinion! In that case why stop there, lets remove speed limits from school zones! Unless someone hits a kid and puts them in the hospital or worse, according to Rep Lambert there is no victim right?
This is why people need to research who they are voting for. We spend a lot of time and energy trying decide who to vote for when it comes to the US House / US Senate or President, but not enough time on local politics. Would you have voted for Rep Lambert if he had said from the beginning that he wanted to take away your rights as union members, allow more drunk drivers on the roads unchecked, and allowed people to drive as fast as they want in school zones? I highly doubt it!