Dem candidate caught in ethical screw-up

NH House Democratic Leader Jim Craig, a candidate for Congress, was caught using his state house stationery, postage and staff to promote his candidacy in a contested Democratic primary.

Craig sent a letter announcing his candidacy to most members of the House Democratic caucus on official letterhead. Postage was paid for by the State of New Hampshire.

This is exactly why we need a housecleaning in the Democratic Party. The big problem isn't one of ideology. It's one of integrity. If Jim Craig thinks this is acceptable behavior, then he's nearly as bad as the Republican incumbent.

....

...Tom Delay and Abramoff... vs Jim Craig of the NH House...

I can see why we desperately need to turn our guns on a fishing expedition for corruption among democrats. Rather, someone needs to desperately turn their guns on a fishing expedition...

Hardly.

Jim is a crony Democrat, and many, many NH Dems don't want him to receive the nomination.

He was AWOL from several fights on ethics legislation, showing up only to be photographed when someone elses hard work paid off.

From a tactical perspective, we can't cede the advantage on ethics by nomination guys like Craig. A guy who does something like this in COncord will be like a kid in the candystore in Washington.

We have our own bad apples, too.

thanks

http://www.theunionleader.com

Go to the left column and click on "Granite Status" in the Local Columns section.

You really have to wade through a lot to find it.
================================================

Peter Sullivan, who last year announced his candidacy for the 1st District U.S. House seat, has leveled a serious charge against the newcomer to the primary race, House Democratic leader Jim Craig.

Sullivan says Craig “misused” public funds by “announcing his candidacy for Congress on official, taxpayer-funded House letterhead.”

Craig said he sent the letter “only to members of the caucus to tell them that I had decided to run and that they deserved to hear it from me, and that I intended to stay on as Democratic leader if they would have me. It was my duty to tell the caucus what I had decided.”

====================================================

Story says nothing about postage, just letterhead.

The letter was sent out in a State of NH envelope via the NH State House mail room. That means it was paid for by the legislative branch.

It was also prepared by House Democratic Caucus staff members, who are state employees.

where do you get this information?

He sent it to the entire caucus of 150 Democratic House members, with the exception of his primary opponent.

If he thought this was on the level, why did he pull Sullivan from the list?

:shrug:

"Granite Status" political column. Go to the web site and look for the "local columns" links.

on econominc reports, stealing elections, starting illegal wars and invading countries, giving tax money to corporate friends, having oil companies decide our energy policy,.... is so right up there with mailing a letter with tax payer dollar,..... cant hardly tell the dem from repug

go get em

Zero tolerance for corruption.

Craig is part of the problem. He hides in the bathroom during votes on environmental issues because his lobbyist golfing buddy was working for a bottled water conglomerate.

He was AWOL during several fights to toughen state ethics laws.

He is a DCCC approved, say-nothing, do-nothing, lobbyist-friendly, backroom pol. He doesn't deserve anyones sympathy.

vote for the other guy in primary. if there isnt one, vote for the repug. but to even compare this democrat with postage to the autrocities of this administration, beyond any other politician or administration that i have known or studied, is.... a bit exagerated in my opinion

again, whatever.

Nobody is comparing Craig to the administration.

He's running in a primary. One of his opponents is perhaps the most aggressive advocate for ethics and campaign finance reform in the entire NH legislature. That's where the comparison should be made.

A tough, aggressive reformer or a wishy-washy character with a tin ear for ethics. Who would you rather see carrying the Democratic banner?

Hardly. Craig's camp is the one that has been smearing not only Sullivan but also Carol Shea Porter for months.

Craig is an old line politico who refuses to take a stand on anything, and plays by a sketchy set of rules. He needs to be challenged aggressively.

Blowing the whistle on Craig's antics is telling the truth, which he thinks is hell...

and i dont have the means to figure out. i am bowing out of this. ebst of luck that the best dem wins

Oh yeah- that's just horrible.

The fact that this is a news story *anywhere* while the GOP is running the most corrupt, openly criminal game this country has ever seen- just proves how screwed up our media is. We've got a president who came on television and announced that the 4th Ammendment does not apply to him, and you're talking about fucking stamps.

Sounds like an honest mistake, not corruption like Delay and them. The fact you are supporting Craig opponent in the primary makes this look like desperate attempt to slander.

Sullivan: sponsored legislation requiring stricter lobbyist disclosure;
sponsored bill to establish a cooling-off period before state officials could lobby;
sponsored legislation requiring disclosure of lobbyist $$$ on campaign finance reports.

Craig: Used state money for political purposes.
Voted for GOP voter suppression bill.
Failed to vote on critical water protection bill because of lobbyist pressure.

You tell me who is the bad actor here.

We have to be not only better than the criminal party, but beyond reproach.

Can his ass, if what you say is true.

Of course, if this is just the spreading of a rumor by Craig's opposition, then I'll make a point of tracking this Sullivan character and making sure people know that he makes shit up, rove-style.

:sarcasm:

But if he can't contain himself in Concord, he sure as hell won't contain himself in Washington.

Consider...

Craig regularly hides out in the bathroom to avoid voting on legislation that his lobbyist son in law finds troublesome.

Craig voted for a GOP measure that would make it easier for GOP activists to harass minority voters under the guise of ballot challenges.

Craig was a featured speaker at a breakfast run by a lobbyist for the gambling industry.

This is exactly the sort of guy who would be an embarrasment for the Democrats in Washington.

Sullivan has released a health care plan. Craig hasn't.

Sullivan has endorsed the Feingold censure resolution. Craig hasn't and won't.

Sullivan has a position paper on Iraq modelled on Wes Clark's proposal. Craig mumbles.

Sullivan marked St. Patrick's Day by releasing a policy proposal on Irish-American issues that addresses trade relations, immigration reform, and diplomatic initiatives. Craig went to a breakfast sponsored by a gambling lobbyist.

Sullivan has put out a plan to reform the budget process and restore fiscal discipline. Not Craig.

Sullivan has a comprehensive reform platform. You see how serious Craig is about reform.

federal offense to use government property for personal use?

wouldn't you say? Sorry for them, but if they don't know the basics, then perhaps it's best they don't make it any further. BTW, welcome to DU Sullivan4Congress :hi:
Hope that wasn't you! and good luck in your bid.

It proves that some Democrats are far more serious about doing the right thing than others.

What if he said "oops, honest mistake, sorry" and paid back the $58.50 in postage and, I dunno, say $3 for envelopes? Frankly, I find it amusing that this is coming from either a fervent supporter of his opponent in the primary, or perhaps his opponent himself.

He arrogantly defended the bad decision.

It's part of a pattern of poor ethical decisions by Jim Craig. A very clear pattern of bad behavior.

always. The voters of N. Hampshire will decide.

dem candidate you support. It's obviously personal to you.

But I can't respect, condone, nor support these types of petty campaign smear tactics on here. You want to talk integrity? Well I'll tell you what then; if your candidate has what it takes then they should be able to stand on their own principles and agendas. Promote why they are the better choice and outline their messages while maintaining a positive campaign run. That would be integrity. If your candidate doesn't have what it takes to have their merits for election stand on their own, and instead they need to promote smear tactics like the right wing does in order to belittle their opponent into a defeat, well I consider that to be far more unethical then what this gentleman did, with all due respect. I'm not thinking very highly of this sulllivan fella.