Skip to content

Why did the NH Democratic Party say Rep. Lambert isn’t in the NH House?

June 12, 2013

Edit: I should point out that this post is not in any way George Lambert’s idea. He had nothing to do with this. I am glad he did respond to a question about this issue. This post is also not in any way Harrell Kirstein’s idea. Unfortunately, the NH Democrat’s Communications Director refused to communicate on this issue.

As previously reported, the New Hampshire Democratic Party Communications Director Harrell Kirstein claimed that New Hampshire Rep. George Lambert is no longer in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. Why did Ms. Kirstein claim that?

The most obvious explanation would be that Ms. Kirstein made a mistake. We all make mistakes. Bloggers make them. Certainly, even major political figures frequently make mistakes. Perhaps there is another reason? Let’s explore the mistake hypothesis first, though.

If the headline and first paragraph of the press release are wrong, is it possible that the NH Democratic Party made other mistakes in the statement? Without a doubt the press release if full of errors and hypocrisy.

For example, Ms. Kirstein said that Rep. Lambert voted for the “O’Brien-Bradley budget.” No such budget ever existed. Rep. O’Brien was in charge of the NH House last session but Sen. Bradley wasn’t in charge of the NH Senate last session, that honor went to Sen. Bragdon. Perhaps that’s just another error Ms. Kirstein made and nothing intentionally misleading? Nope. The NH Democratic Party has repeatedly made the same mistake in press release after press release after press release. Either the leadership of the NH Democratic Party doesn’t remember much about the last legislative session or they are intentionally trying to trick the good people of New Hampshire.

As for hypocrisy, Ms. Kirstein claims that Rep. Lambert supported the ability of the New Hampshire government to “nullify federal laws.” I have no doubt he did. Guess what, almost every major political leader in the New Hampshire state government since 2006 has supported the nullification of federal laws by the state of New Hampshire. Democratic Governor John Lynch is famously known for signing a bill into law that did just that when he signed the bill to prevent the federally required implementation of the federal REAL ID law or any similar federal law in the future in New Hampshire. Gov. Lynch thanked the Democratically controlled New Hampshire House for overwhelmingly opposing REAL ID. Gov. Lynch supported the Democratically controlled New Hampshire Senate for overwhelmingly opposing the mandatory federal program called REAL ID.

Don’t think that just the most popular Democratic governor in NH history and the Democratic NH House and NH Senate leadership in 2006 support nullifying federal laws. All three Democratic candidates that ran in 2012 to replace Gov. Lynch of as the NH governor campaigned strongly on a violate federal law and legalize medical cannabis in New Hampshire policy. In fact, the majority of Democrats and Republicans in both the NH House and the NH Senate recently voted to legalize medical cannabis in NH is strong violation of federal law. Most Democratic elected officials in New Hampshire don’t want to just stop there. The Democratic controlled NH House voted 214 to 115 to decriminalize cannabis. What do the Democratic voters of NH want? Polls show that they want cannabis to be regulated like alcohol in NH. If Ms. Kirsten doesn’t support nullifying federal law, she is in agreement with a very small minority of her Party.


Ms. Kirstein was asked for comment on her inaccurate press release. Unfortunately, as of the publication of this story, New Hampshire Democratic Party Communications Director Harrell Kirstein has not responded. If Ms. Kirstein does respond, this story will be updated.

Stay tuned for an exploration of other possible motives Ms. Kirstein might have had in making her mistakes.

  1. While the legislation against Real ID constitutes nullification of federal law, I don’t see how the legalization or decriminalization of cannabis does. It simply removes state penalties. The federal government claims the authority to prosecute users regardless, but that’s a different issue.

    • wordpressandstuff permalink

      You bring up a good point. Though, why did the state create such harsh penalties in the first place? It was because of federal pressure. Perhaps nullify is the wrong term. Perhaps completely reject and ignore authority over would be a better description.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: