Hi 27° | Lo 4°

Editorial: Lambert is the right choice for the GOP

Some politicians possess such a high level of integrity and straightforwardness that even when you disagree with them on most of the issues, you can’t help but respect them.

Gary Lambert, a Republican candidate for the 2nd Congressional District, is just such a man. For that reason, he deserves his party’s support in the Sept. 9 primary.

Lambert served his country in the Marine Corps for 35 years, including time as the No. 2 coalition military lawyer in Iraq, and was awarded the Bronze Star Medal in 2005 and the Meritorious Service Medal in 2000 and 2007. His military background suggests he would provide an important voice on veterans issues and a unique perspective on U.S. foreign policy, especially as it relates to Iraq.

There are not many issues on which we agree with Lambert – he is against abortion rights and Common Core, and wants to repeal Obamacare, to name just a few – but it’s plain to see that he would use his time as a congressman to fight for his constituents rather than shaping his national identity.

There would be no such guarantees should Lambert’s main opponent, state Rep. Marilinda Garcia, win the primary and go on to defeat incumbent Annie Kuster.

It’s easy to see why national party leaders have embraced Garcia: She is a fresh face and offers diversity to a GOP that could sure use it. But throughout her campaign, she has stuck to the Tea Party playbook while offering little in the way of thoughtful analysis of the economic, social and foreign policy problems the country faces.

Even when Lambert and Garcia agree on an issue, there is a sense that each arrived at their conclusion in very different ways. Lambert is guided by his experience and intellect rather than the most vocal elements of the party’s fringe.

On Sept. 9, voters in the Republican primary must choose not only who they want to represent them in the 2nd Congressional District but also what they want the party to stand for. If they value integrity and dedication to constituents highly, the easy choice is Gary Lambert.

Legacy Comments11

Again, WHO wrote this garbage? of that: "On Sept. 9, voters in the Republican primary must choose not only who they want to represent them in the 2nd Congressional District but also what they want the party to stand for" . Of haven't you read the latest Election Law Violations Report of July 31st, 2014? No, because the AG Foster has yet to sign off on it! And you do not throw light on his cover-up!? Shame on you! Lazy, of not worth the $1.00 per copy of your news rag. / / / / Plus "it’s [ NOT] plain to see that he would use his time as a congressman to fight for his constituents " of both he and she don't do it now of letting Kuster get-away with NOT having to do her Section 5 duty in the 14th Amendment to HOW the Section 2 penalty is to applied to either her/Kuster or Shea-Porter by Hassan to do her Article 51 duty too that she does RSA Ch. 643:1 "refrain" of being an Official Oppressor, but that the Law Enforcement community looks the other way too, of SHAME on them all also! of thieves of our public tax moneys to eat donuts and "chew the fat", etc. of it about time that Hassan be prosecuted for this RSA 666:3 violation! by you "pigs" to squeal in the right direction! (;-)

Mr. Haas, it's time you try explaining to us all what this Amendment XIV, Section 2 is all about and how it applies to New Hampshire (which it doesn't). Until you do, why should anybody think your posts are anything other than what they are - as the British politely say: a pile of tosh?

You're only getting the tip of the iceberg of this not tosh, bosh, or nonsense, when you read the details: " . . . when the right to vote at any election for the choice of . . . Judicial officers of a State, . . . is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, . . . the basis of representation therein shall be reduced . . . . "

Joe, what do you do - read every third word? Then you determine what the entire text says. The section that has so captivated you is a specific Reconstruction measure that (one more time) does not apply to New Hampshire. Or do you REALLY believe that because New Hampshire has appointed, not elected, judges (as do 37 other states - sheesh) our representation in Congress is to be reduced.

Trying to follow Mr. Haas' gap-filled "logic" has rendered me incapable of doing simple arithmetic - it's 27 other states that don't elect judges.

To: Gracchus, Reference your " The Reconstruction Amendments are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution,[1] adopted between 1865 and 1870, the five years immediately following the Civil War. The amendments were important in implementing the Reconstruction of the American South after the war. Their proponents saw them as transforming the United States. . . . " not just applicable to the south! Your reading of only to the later at: of; "In the history of the United States, the term Reconstruction Era has two senses: the first covers the complete history of the entire country from 1865 to 1877 following the Civil War; the second sense focuses on the transformation of the Southern United States from 1863 to 1877, as directed by Congress, with the reconstruction of state and society. " is thus WRONG! of now who is taking such out of context by only putting the light on the latter and calling that half the whole!? When I put the dot dot dots that is for instead of listing ALL the elements like in an ABC alphabetical soup, to just deal with this one element. This IS that of THE law that of not just applicable to being the requirement for those states from the south wanting back into the Union. From the first wiki page here: " The second, third, and fourth sections of the amendment are seldom, if ever, litigated. " so to see if some judge or jury rules in a decision to this opinion of yours that you think that we are exempt. And WHERE did you get that there are 27 states that don't elect judges? According to: " Judges are either appointed, . . . or elected. " & " Appointment by governor with collegial body consent 10 states " so 50-10 = 40 by election is the correct math.

old tax and spend ideas from liberal lawyer lobbyist Kuster is a disgrace to NH. I bet Lambert & Garcia could circle the Middle East on a map.

Still wouldn't help them find Benghazi.

dont worry..ISIS will find it....

silly girl - It is right there in the middle east - LIDV.'s...sheeeeeesh !

that's a lot area to cover LIRV'S sheeeeeeeesh!

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.