N.H. Senate nominee George Lambert responds to Vaillancourt prediction of his demise


Image: facebook.com

Predictions of my political demise by Rep Steve Vaillancourt appear to be greatly exaggerated,” Rep. George Lambert (R-Litchfield) wrote on Facebook after his convincing win over Manchester School Board member Robyn Dunphy in the District 18 state Senate primary.

Lambert was reacting to a piece the outspoken Manchester Representative had posted on his blog yesterday predicting Lambert would lose:

In District 18 (Manchester Wards 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and Litchfield), look for Ward 6 School Board member Robyn Dunphy to handily turn back Litchfield Rep George Lambert who is unique in the political world. I happen to like many politicians (mostly Democrats) with whom I disagree on issues, but Lambert is about the only person I’ve ever agreed with on most issues but still manage to despise. Only he could get away with heckling an homage to the late Warren Rudman on the House floor and then be allowed to stand at the well while voting was in progress. To know George Lambert is to never vote for him, and I suspect he’s well enough known now to be gone forever. Besides, I’ve received two very effective mailings from Dunphy and nary a word from Lambert.

Lambert posted a picture of a large black bird amid a formal place setting and wrote, "In response I offer Steve an invitation to a meal, here is a little bit of crow for him to chew on."

Rep. Vaillancourt: ‘Witless Walt’ strikes out

imageRepublican gubernatorial candidate Walt Havenstein made headlines last week when he promised to veto a constitutional amendment barring discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Writing in his blog, state House Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester) says the position taken by “Witless Walt” places the party on the wrong side of history, is bad politics and misstates the constitutional role of the governor in the amendment process:

That’s strike three in my book. […]

Havenstein should perhaps rethink his position on sexual discrimination, lest his party—my party—be branded as even more troglodytic and Neanderthal than many of us had hoped.

Every time Republicans seem to be making a bit of progress, such as with Congressman Dent‘s announcement today, we are dragged back into the 18th century by the likes of Walt Havenstein.

Rep. Vaillancourt on N.H. GOP’s ‘anti-gay sentiment’

Writing in his blog, state House Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester) says last week’s vote by House Republicans opposing legislation that “would have to be termed pro-gay marriage” is a “sad indication” that GOP “animosity” to marriage equality continues.

Senate Bill 394 clarifies language recognizing out-of-state marriages, allows couples from other states that do not recognize marriage equality to marry in New Hampshire and changes the language to non-gender specific terms.

Following unanimous approval in the Senate, the House passed the measure by a 217-119 vote. "One needs to look at the party breakdown," Vaillancourt writes, "to fully realize just how out of step New Hampshire Republicans remain on the issue" of marriage equality:

At the same time every single Democrat in the hall voted for the bill, all 182 of them, more than three out of four Republicans (77.3 percent; 35-119) voted against it. Included in Republican opposition were more than a few supposedly Libertarian (or freedom loving) Republicans whom one would have expected to vote for the bill. […]

All of Gene Chandler’s GOP leadership team and all House Republican Alliance leaders (Pam Tucker, Al Baldasaro, and Carol McGuire) voted against the bill, so there can be no doubt that the anti-gay sentiment still comes from the top of the New Hampshire Republican Party, at least in the House.

Does this mean we can expect the return of David Bates, former R-Windham, and an effort to repeal gay marriage next year?

Quote of the day: I draw the line at needless torture

Hey, as I’ve always said, you should be able to harm yourself if you so choose (not that marijuana is all that harmful) and you should be able to eat animals, but I draw the line at needlessly torturing them before we roast or tan them!

— State House Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester) on House Bill 1579, which would ban most fur trapping in the state

Rep. Vaillancourt on Stilettogate: ‘Much ado about nothing … unless you specialize in feigned outrage’

State House Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester) “not only admits but openly boasts” that he likes both Rep. Marilinda Garcia (R-Salem) and Rep. Peter Sullivan (D-Manchester) — subjects of the latest State House brouhaha.

What I don’t like,” he writes in his blog, “is ginned up phony outrage, a more and more common staple in our political diet these days.”

Vaillancourt came to Sullivan’s defense after hearing talk-show host Howie Carr condemn the Manchester Democrat for describing Garcia as a combination of Bill O’Brien and Kim Kardashian and for referring to her as “Al Baldasaro in stiletto heels:”

Howie Carr somehow took [the Kardashian reference] to mean that Rep. Sullivan was calling [Garcia] immoral or a porn star. Howie, unlike I, knew that Kim got her start in porn and felt free to extrapolate that must have been Rep. Sullivan’s reason for the reference, an absurd conclusion in my humble opinion, but then I don’t have four hours of talk radio to fill each day.

Howie hasn’t a clue as to who Al Baldasaro is, so he took the reference to imply that Rep. Sullivan was saying Rep. Garcia is into cross dressing. How absurd!

Those of us who know Rep. Baldasaro would certainly not go there. In fact, Rep. Sullivan deserves credit here—it’s a pretty good line, and it has nothing to do with cross dressing.

Rep. Baldasaro and Rep. Garcia are leaders in the House Republican Alliance, the ultra conservative Republican wing of the New Hampshire legislature, the group that Bill O’Brien appealed to when he became speaker. I say this not a pejorative but simply by way of explaining that they are cut from the same political cloth with the exception that one is male; one is female. That’s why it was such a good line—Al Baldasaro in stilettos is in fact no insult (unless you detest Al Baldasaro as some Democrats do); it is rather a statement of fact, colorful to be sure, but we often need color to make points. [typographic errors corrected]

QOTD: Republicans who brandish the Constitution

Maybe other state constitutions would allow such a tax credit (Charlie Arlinghaus and graybeards take note), but our Constitution clearly does not. Democrats understand that. Judge Lewis understands that. I (and a few other Republicans) understand that, but the saddest thing is that the very Republicans who brandish the Constitution when it suits their ends are quick to ignore the Constitution when it goes against them.

— State House Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester) on yesterday’s court ruling that the state’s education tax credit law is unconstitutional.

GOP downplays special election win: “I’d like to think it is a good sign but I can’t. I know better”

By a 322 - 246 margin, voters in Claremont Ward 2 selected Republican Joe Osgood over Democrat Larry Converse to fill the vacant Sullivan District 4 House seat in yesterday’s special election.

New Hampshire GOP chair Jennifer Horn breathlessly declared the win was “a repudiation of Governor Hassan’s irresponsible agenda and her failed fiscal leadership in Concord.” Her troops obviously didn’t get the memo.

While Republicans will undoubtedly boast about the pick-up, don’t read too much into it,” wrote Republican state House Rep. Steve Vaillancourt.

Spec Bowers, Sullivan County Republican Committee chair, was honest. “Special elections never have real implications,” he said. “I’d like to think it is a good sign but I can’t. I know better.”

‘Stand your ground’ conversation turns ugly (part ii)

Just before the House vote on the repeal of the state’s “stand your ground” law, state House Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester) published examples of the hate mail he had received on the issue. Those who voted for repeal are now being targeted with even uglier messages, writes Vaillancourt:

Here’s a modest example (unedited, so be prepared) of the type of message which some people apparently think is appropriate. I just received it, and sadly, it’s all too typical.

From: Tim Bourgeois [tbourgeois99@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 10:27 AM
To: Vaillancourt, Steve
Subject: Stop ignoring gun owners, Steve. No on HB-135!
whats up with you ,,,why are you voting with the enemy,,thats right
the enemy,,,,,you suck you f-cking trator ...you probally voted for
oshitbag as well,,,

And if that’s not shocking enough, a fellow lawmaker told Vaillancourt he received an email expressing the hope that one of his relatives gets shot in the back.

Union Leader: Blah-blah-blah, blame Democrats

A Union Leader editorial blames “a cabal of Democrats who want more revenue and libertarian-leaning ‘anything goes Republicans’ ” for passing a bill that would allow the state’s bars to stay open an extra hour:

The House vote on extending “last call” to 2 a.m. at bars may end up being the last straw for New Hampshire voters who thought they would change things up in Concord this biennium. Apparently, a cabal of Democrats who want more revenue and libertarian-leaning “anything goes” Republicans decided that selling booze in the wee hours makes perfect sense.

For the record, Republicans voting for the measure included virtually the entire GOP caucus (128-15) rather than a small group of unruly libertines. A significant majority of House Democrats (80-108) voted against the bill.

h/t: Rep. Steve Vaillancourt

Stand your ground repeal ‘strikes delicate balance’

Tomorrow, the New Hampshire House is scheduled to vote on legislation that would repeal the state’s two year old “stand your ground” law. House Bill 135 would reinstate self-defense provisions that served the state without controversy for 34 years.

When he addresses the House tomorrow in support of the bill, Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester) will base his argument on Article 3 of the New Hampshire Constitution.

“When men enter into a state of society,” it states, “they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others, and without such an equivalent the surrender is void.”

Excerpts from Vaillancourt’s speech, as prepared for delivery, follow:

[W]e have a responsibility here today to act not as demagogues but rather in what is in the best interests of our society, of accomplishing the always delicate balance of preserving individual freedoms with society’s need for protection.

That balance is an age-old quest, and this bill merely takes us back to the days when you could in fact stand your ground, when you could use force to defend yourself but when you could not abide by law of the jungle, of the cave, of the lynch mob, of the less than civilized man who preferred to shoot first and ask questions later.

In Leviathan, Hobbes postulated a state of nature, a time before men had formed themselves into societies…. No laws, except the law of the jungle, got in our way in this Hobbesian state.

Hobbes theorized that we give up that state of nature and form societies for one very important reason…because…here’s the line…”Life in nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

Only through civilization, through regulated societies, and yes through government, do we succeed in making life less solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

You know I speak as a libertarian who believes that government should leave me alone when I do nothing except indulge in a practice harmful merely to myself.

However, clearly and sadly, man is capable of engaging in many activities which are both harmful and fatal to fellow man.

We limit, never sacrifice but in fact limit, our freedoms so we can live safer lives in society.

This bill represents a compromise in the finest sense of the word. It preserves the long-standing tradition of safeguarding our natural rights, while at the same time keeping us from reverting back the state of nature when as Hobbes said, “Life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

Union Leader flips on ‘stand your ground’

Union Leader editorial (May 31, 2011), opposing proposed “stand your ground” legislation:

Under current law, deadly force is not justified if a person knows he or the other party can retreat from a conflict with complete safety. An exception is made if one is in one’s own home. There, no retreat is needed. The bill expands the home exception to include anyplace a person has a right to be. 

We don’t agree with critics who predict mass mayhem if that provision passes. But we also don’t see why the change is needed. Current law doesn’t forbid the use of deadly force outside one’s home; it prohibits it as the first response to a threat if one knows that the safe escape of either party is an option. That’s a reasonable restriction.

Union Leader editorial (March 18, 2013), opposing repeal of “stand your ground” legislation:

For those who irrationally fear guns, evidence and data are irrelevant. The use of firearms is to be restricted and curtailed to the greatest extent legally possible regardless of the consequences - because guns are scary things. That impulse is the motivating force behind House Bill 135, to repeal the “stand your ground” law.

We do not have shootouts in bars and restaurants by gunslingers whom the law has emboldened. That is because responsible New Hampshire gun owners are not bloodthirsty desperados itching to kill, which is how so many legislators seem to imagine them. Repealing this law now would be a premature and irrational act based on fear and mistrust. It would be the legislative equivalent of shooting first, asking questions later. How ironic if the bill passes.

h/t: Rep. Steve Vaillancourt

'Stand your ground' conversation turns ugly

As the vote to roll back New Hampshire’s “stand your ground” legislation nears, House lawmakers are being inundated with email from constituents. Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester), who negotiated the compromise that was approved by the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, has published some of his hate mail. A few excerpts:

To respond to your personal bouts with trouble makers you were very lucky not to get killed or seriously hurt. Who came to your aid at this time? So your plan is for everyone to be like you and accept a beating?

I stand my ground MR. Turncoat. … You try to make us into gun toting thugs. WE ARE THE LAW ABIDING, SAFETY MINDED GUN OWNERS. NOT THE CHICAGO OBAMA THUGS THAT ARE PUSHING YOU IDIOTS….

Think about your family; want to see your son, or daughter raped right in front of you? Not have to RIGHT to defend them? OH, okay… run. … See your mother beaten and raped? OH, okay…run. The woman who have you life! The woman who more likely than not taught you COMMON SENSE and a SENSE of RIGHT and WRONG! Voting for HB-135 is just like spitting in your mothers face. Shame on you. Pull up your big boy pants and VOTE NO!!

Hey Idiot, No to you and your POS HB-135. This tramples our right to self defense. Shame on you. Zombies like you should stay in your hole. John T

And speaking of zombies, Susan Bruce got her hands on an email sent to every House lawmaker from the Society for Preparation Against Zombies, “a well-established organization in New Hampshire promoting zombie prep and combat training:”

Those opposed to the Stand Your Ground law argue that it will promote a more violent society, but the facts are these: zombies bite healthy New Hampshirites, thereby creating more zombies, who will in turn bite more New Hampshirites, which will, of course, create more zombies; furthermore, the only way to control (and hopefully eradicate) the rapidly-growing zombie population is through gun violence— stopping the zombie outbreak before it is truly, terrifyingly out of control. Stand Your Ground holds the key to the protection of the world at large.

Miscellany Blue