Well, here we are, with only 141 days left until the Iowa Caucus, and 149 days till the New Hampshire Primary. Of the 27 Democrats who declared for their party’s nomination, 8 have dropped out, and 19 remain. Of those, the Democratic National Committee has decided that only 12 can be on the stage tonight.

The most recent Real Clear Politics average has Biden in the lead with 29.4%, followed by Warren (23.4), Bernie (15.6), Buttigieg and Harris both at 5.2, O’Rourke (2.6), Yang (2.4), Booker (1.6), Klobuchar (1.6) Steyer (1.4), Castro (1.0). Bennett (0.8), and Gabbard (0.8). However, Bennett did not qualify for tonight’s debate, while Gabbard did.

We are on record for many months now as having said that neither Elizabeth Warren nor Joe Biden will be the nominee. We know that goes against the grain, but we have stated our reasons. We also go against the conventional wisdom in believing that Bernie Sanders was not eliminated due to his heart attacks.

We are not saying he is going to win the nomination, but we believe he’s still in it. Our view is that the nominee will emerge from the pack (like betting the field in craps. Biden is probably like betting on 7, and Warren more like betting 8 or 6. But we digress).

As we get closer and closer to Iowa and New Hampshire, the odds increase dramatically that one of those in the pack, maybe in the back of the pack, will speak out about the obvious weaknesses of the frontrunners (discussed below). It could happen as early as tonight. The only constraint would be among those who see themselves as vice-presidential candidates and who will be more reticent to attack their future "running mate."

OUR UPDATED THUMBNAIL SKETCHES

Joe Biden:  As we said some eight months ago, he won’t make it. While he has recently been seriously harmed by the Ukraine business, and the obvious corruption involving his son, we have always believed that his garrulousness—the single word that best describes him is “garrulous”—will play a role in his downfall. It’s just a matter of time until he utters something catastrophic. It could happen tonight. Odds: No Line.

Elizabeth Warren:  As we noted almost exactly a year ago, her fake Indian story will ultimately destroy her. And since then it has gotten worse: It’s been shown that she has repeatedly lied not only about how much she used her “Native American” status to advance herself, she’s also been caught in lies about losing a job because she was pregnant. She won’t make it. Odds: No Line.

Bernie Sanders:  We still believe he could emerge. He has a loyal following, and many people believe in socialism, especitaly in the Democrat Party. Odds: 7-2

Pete Buttigieg:  He’s smart. He pretty much only wants to talk about his sex life, but he’s articulate when he (almost always factually incorrectly) addresses issues. He’s able to speak to issues in ways that appeal to Democrats. But mostly he just likes saying, “I’m Gay.” Odds: 5-1

Kamala Harris:  She’s not done. She’s been to the mountain top, or near the summit, seen the other side, then slipped and rolled back down the defilade side. But she got a taste, and she’s hooked. She may be the one to again take on Biden, or Warren. Odds: 5-1

Robert Francis O’Rourke:  Toast City. A real joke. Odds: 750-1

Andrew Yang: Intriguing still. But too easy to lampoon. Odds: 50-1

Cory Booker:  Megalomaniac and narcissist, consumed by his own fascination with himself and his brilliance. Odds: 30-1

Amy Klobuchar:  One of those from the field who could conceivably catch a spark. Odds: 15-1

Tom Steyer:  Never count out anyone who can spend a billion dollars or buy whole elections. He also has a real niche within the Democrat Party. Odds: 25-1

Julian Castro:  Whining bawl bag of a candidate. Comes across as way too harsh. Can’t quite get the right tempo or style. Odds: 75-1

Tulsi Gabbard:  We’ve always kind of liked her. Don’t get us wrong—she takes pretty much just as lunatic a position on virtually every single issue. But she has real style. And she may be best suited to make the comments that take down either Biden or Warren from their artificially lofty perches. Odds: 10-1

THIS JUST IN: NMPJ EDITOR EMERITUS, former State Senator Rod Adair will be on News Radio KKOB, 770 AM tomorrow at 1:00 PM, as a guest of Talk Radio Host Darren White, whose show follows Rush Limbaugh each weekday from 1:00 to 3:00.

Darren White wants to expand on a discussion he has been having about the possibility of New Mexico going for Trump in 2020: Is that a realistic thought? Is it Unrealistic? Is there an analytical approach to exploring the question? What do the state's electoral history and political demography reveal?

The show can be heard live over www.newsradiokkob.com. Thursday, October 10, at 1:00 PM.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

Steve Pearce put something of a downer on an otherwise spectacularly successful Republican fundraiser in Hobbs this past week. The Annual Pig Roast is a major event for the Lea County Republican Party, and this year was no exception—but for the Pearce scare. 

Pearce Hogs Spotlight—Spoke Non-Stop for a Half-Hour—Arbitrarily Cut Speaking Time for Candidates

Former Congressman Steve Pearce was the emcee for the meeting, but rather than act as master of ceremonies, he took advantage of the position to speak for almost a half-hour. As a result of his speechifying, and the realization that he had taken so much time, Pearce then arbitrarily announced that the other speakers—the five candidates running for US Senate and US House—would be allowed only one minute each. (They had been told they would have three minutes.)

As one observer told us, "You can't say anything in 60 seconds." So Senate candidates Mick Rich and Gavin Clarkson, along with House candidates Chris Mathys, Yvette Herrell, and Claire Chase, all had to rush through what they had planned to say. Some (if not all) were visibly irritated by Pearce's last-second decision. 

BUT THE BIG NEWS: Pearce is Contemplating Another Run

With the backdrop of the five Republicans running for the two seats on Capitol Hill, Pearce talked with the Hobbs News-Sun, which reported:

"he's not ruling out running himself."

Pearce then went on to throw considerable shade on the five GOP contenders:

"There are people who have been encouraging me and I'm trying to stay in this position, but also I'm listening to what they're saying out of D.C..."I've had those calls, so we're trying to stay exactly where we are."

Of course this implies that people in Washington are taking a look at the two fields and are somehow begging Pearce to rescue the lot of them. This seems something of a stretch, especially with regard to the Senate race. Everyone in Washington and New Mexico knows that Pearce has been a disastrous statewide candidate.

However, could he win back his old house seat?  Well, maybe. Nine months ago we would have said yes, that he could easily beat Torres Small. But since then we have heard from gobs of people in Lea County especially about just how badly Pearce divided the local party there when he went against local favorite Monty Newman in the CD2 Republican primary, and went all out for Yvette Herrell.

That caused deep wounds that have not come close to healing—and some may never heal. One Republican official went so far as to tell us, "A lot of people here just flat-out hate Steve for what he did."

Our feedback, especially regarding any thoughts Pearce might have regarding any kind of statewide race, has been overwhelmingly negative. In fact the thought of such a run has lots of Republicans scared out of their wits. "He would do the same as he did before, and that spells disaster."

But Pearce may be very serious. This could explain why he hogged the mike for nearly 30 minutes and decided to limit his potential opponents to only one minute each?

A BEWILDERING PASSAGE in the HOBBS NEWS-SUN

One blurb in the Hobbs newspaper which caught a lot of people's attention was this:

"Pearce said he would prefer to continue his role as chairman of the Republican Party of New Mexico, rebuilding a party demoralized by a slate of losses in New Mexico in 2018..." 

This, of course, makes no sense at all. Pearce was one of the leading architects—if not the heart and soul—of the total destruction of the party. So having him "rebuild" the party makes as much sense as the Democrats bringing back Hillary Clinton to "rebuild" their party.

Party regulars know that in 2018 the Republican Party of New Mexico was ALREADY being operated by a slew of Pearce insiders and long-time Pearce team members: Harvey Yates and his Sancho Panza, Ryan Cangiolosi, along with John Billingsley and Mark Murphy. All of them have been together with Pearce for many years, united in their opposition to Governor Martinez—which of course sowed the seeds of discord and the disaster to which the group led the Republican Party.

Rebuild? He is still surrounded by the same gang. Only worse. They've hired people who helped steal emails from Republicans and who actively worked to defeat Republican candidates. They've hired women who 1) drove to Ferguson, Missouri to attack the local police there and participate in the completely fake "Hands up, Don't Shoot" demonstrations; 2) Mercilessly heckled former Senator Pete Domenici during his last public appearance; and 3) Led an assault on the Albuquerque Convention Center to try to disrupt a Trump campaign event; and 4) apparently perpetrated a ridiculous hoax, claiming the RPNM building had been "vandalized."

This is Pearce's "Rebuilding" Team? We don't think so.

What Pearce Owes ALL Republican Candidates—And All Rank and File Republicans in New Mexico

Our readerhship clearly believes that Steve Pearce needs to steer clear of trying to make any comebacks. However, if he is even remotely contemplating such a thing, he owes all Republicans an honest statement about his intentions. There should be no misleading of people, nor should he be seen as someone who is planning to undermine announced or unannounced Republican candidates.

And playing games, or making side-eye remarks to the Hobbs paper, makes Pearce appear to be doing just that, or to be thinking about doing that. That's not a good look for someone many regard as a statesman.

Pearce needs to give all current candidates—for US Senate and for US House—a firm, solid, honest warning about what he is planning do.

By making remarks as he made last week, he is at least hinting that he is implying that the current candidates are not up to speed, or that they are not worthy of the Republican nomination. That just isn't fair to them, or to the voters.

If Pearce goes against the views of most Republicans and decides he wants to run for something again, he needs to do the right thing and step down as party chairman and allow a situation to develop in which the party chooses a new chairman and a new executive director who will follow party rules, follow state law, and support all candidates equally without favor to one.

Such a change would also eliminate the overhanging fear that the party is going to unlawfully interfere in a primary. 

Coming Tomorrow: More News from the Hobbs Event

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

RPNM TAKES SIDES WITH YVETTE HERRELL LAST WEEK

We have received a lot of feedback from our story last week regarding the Republican Party of New Mexico intervening on behalf of Yvette Herrell in the Second Congressional District Republican primary. 

The RPNM definitely violated state party rules, and almost certainly has also violated state law. Nonetheless, they have apparently plowed ahead this week with the same kind of promotional activities on behalf of Herrell.

Just two days ago, headlines popped up all over the state with an Associated Press story pushing the "Herrell was wronged" angle regarding her Republican opponent Chris Mathys's advertising about the abortion issue.

That was no accident. It may be that Steve Pearce has a friendly contact (at least for this particular story) AP reporter inside the media giant, who is willing to push the story. 

After all, the AP leans very much to the Democrats, and with Xochitl Torres Small having already beaten Herrell once, the AP insiders may see it as "positive thing to do" to push Herrell to win the nomination a second time—rather than see the Republicans nominate a stronger candidate.

Who knows? We are merely trying to make sense of a very suspicious series of articles—all of which sound exactly like the Herrell/Pearce/Anissa Tinnin press releases issued almost simulaneously. The only thing we know for sure is that the articles are not a coincidental occurence. 

HOWEVER, the AP Contact Could Be Anissa Tinnin, Who has a long history of Working with Dems

Another explanation for the spate of favorable media stories for Herrell could be the RPNM Executive Director, Anissa Tinnin.

After all, Tinnin has a very long history of working very hard on a number of fronts to undercut Republicans. So she has to have developed a number of solid media contacts—most of which of course would be willing to undercut Republicans, given the chance. (Yes, Pearce knows all of this, and still hired her.)

A number of explanations may be in play here:

1) Tinnin and Pearce may actually believe that Herrell is the best possible nominee.

2) Tinnin and Pearce may be pushing her only because she's part of their clique—this (and not the well-being of conservatives) is the strongest motivation for the anti-Martinez crowd. (See the accompanying photos of the key clique.)

3) The AP may be playing Tinnin and Pearce, with the media outlet believing it's a "public service" to help Tinnin and Pearce push what the AP regards as a weak GOP nominee  

NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT: PEARCE IS BENT ON CONTINUING TO DIVIDE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

Through Pearce and Tinnin, the RPNM appears determined to divide Republican Party voters. There is no other valid explanation for their having weighed in so hard and so frequently to push Yvette Herrell on GOP primary voters.

The result could easily be a nominee who ends up with a second loss in the 2020 CD2 race—which will be the last opportunity the GOP has to capture the seat BEFORE the Democrat legislature tears the district boundaries apart in the redistricting session, set to take place in September of 2021. 

If that happens, New Mexico Republicans will be angrier than ever. They will be like the Democrats' Bernie voters, who were (and are) so steamed that the Democratic National Committee tilted the playing field so hard that they forced Hillary on the party—leading to their November 2016 debacle.

Right now, it is obvious to many of our readers that the RPNM is trying to force feed Herrell as the nominee. And they don't like it. 

To many Republicans' perceptions, the view is that Pearce's goal has never been to win anything. Rather, he is determined only to have folks inside his particular team, whatever that is.

We are Not Anti-Herrell. Not in any way. We are FOR Party Neutrality in Primaries.

As we have said, Mathys's "argument" or "debating points" make no sense, and are arguably just plain dumb, signalling that he has no business being a candidate. HOWEVER, in a primary, it is up to his opponents to take issues head on and make the case we have made about his "reasoning skills."

One entity to whom it is NOT left to referee a primary, let alone blow a whistle or call foul, is the Republican Party of New Mexico, or any other local Republican Party. They are supposed to remain neutral, not take sides.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

FBI INVESTIGATION: WHAT THEY MUST DO

Since there is an FBI investigation of the Ford-Kavanaugh allegations, one part has to be Kavanaugh and his friends, but another, absolutely indispensable part of the investigation has to be a deep background look at Christine Blasey Ford. The FBI investigation will not be fair or accurate in the least UNLESS they:

1. Ensure that all of her friends and acquaintances are ALSO interviewed, with questions such as:

Yesterday, the Republican Party of New Mexico (RPNM) sent out a notice which, while accurate in identifying incorrect statements made by GOP Congressional candidate Chris Mathys, was incorrect in signaling that the party's role in primary elections is to weigh in on disputes between candidates. This is what they said:

"...the party will hold to the standard of truth. When ads or mailers are untruthful, RPNM stands ready to speak out and condemn the ads and the actions by any candidate and their team."

The RPNM is just flat wrong on this point, and all political parties will always be wrong if they weigh in like this, because it not only violates party rules, it also violates New Mexico law. 

(One exception might be in a case where a candidate for a party makes racist remarks or otherwise sullies a particular party's reputation in a similar way—but such a case would have to be in an aspect of comparing a candidate to a party platform, and not be an opinion about a dispute between two candidates in a primary.) 

Mathys, as we covered the story yesterday, did make illogical claims about a state House bill concerning late-term abortions. So the party may be correct in concluding that, just as readers of NMPJ and all voters may reach the same decision. But individual voters making comments is one thing. It's an entirely different thing for a political party to do it. 

It's just not the RPNM's role to ride herd on the campaign literature, ads, or speeches of Republican candidates, or to give their opinion as to what candidates might or might not be telling the truth. 

RPNM WARNING IS OMINOUS

In its statement released yesterday morning, the RPNM gave its opinion that Mathys "has made intentional misstatements of the facts and untrue accusations." This is actually true—except for the "intentional" part.

After all, none of us has any way of knowing if his illogical view of a bill is an "intentional" thing that he has contrived, or if he sincerely believes (because his brain works in an odd way) that a vote to prevent abortions after 20 weeks means the voter supports abortion prior to 20 weeks.

(Many voters are illogical, and they are that way sincerely. This is one of the reasons why America and New Mexico have a number of incompetent public officials.)

The problem is that it is the job of Mathys's rival(s)  — and perhaps publications (such as NMPJ), newspapers, and individual voters or the entire press — to correct any false or misleading claims that he might make. It is not the role of the party. 

HERE IS WHAT NEW MEXICO ELECTION LAW SAYS

§  1-19-1  A. No contribution of money, or the equivalent thereof, made directly or indirectly to any political party, to any political party committee, to members of any political party committee or to any person representing or acting on behalf of a political party, and no money in the treasury of any political party or political party committee shall be expended directly or indirectly in the aid of the nomination at a primary election of any one or more persons as against any one or more other persons of the same political party running in such primary election. 

 B. Any person who expends money, or is responsible for the expenditure of money, in violation of this section is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

The New Mexico Election Code definition of contribution includes this: "a gift, subscription, loan, advance or deposit of money or other thing of value, including the estimated value of an in-kind contribution, that is made or received for a political purpose...

There can be no doubt that the Republican Party of New Mexico expended time and labor in the development and writing of its "opinion," and then followed that up with the printing and graphic framing—electronic or otherwise—of its message, and following that up with its statewide distribution.

In other words, they materially contributed to the interests of one candidate as opposed to others in the same primary contest. Effectively, they carried out what New Mexico law calls a "coordinated expenditure."

The definition of a coordinated expenditure includes:

"an expenditure that is made: (1) by a person other than a candidate or campaign committee; (2) at the request or suggestion of, or in cooperation, consultation or concert with, a candidate, campaign committee or political party or any agent or representative of a candidate, campaign committee or political party; and (3) for the purpose of: (a) supporting or opposing the nomination or election of a candidate...

Yesterday's statements by the RPNM reflect all these components. Additionally, RPNM may have gotten themselves into hot water with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) because this is, of course, a federal race, which has its own unique disclaimers and requirements for disclosure, none of which accompany the RPNM's communique.

The Herrell Campaign & the RPNM End up Being Clumsy in Concealing their Mutual Interaction

Within five hours of the RPNM's attacks on Chris Mathys, the Yvette Herrell campaign sent this message out:

My opponent has been using lies to attack my record and those who co-sponsored House Bill 390 to end late-term abortion. The twenty-three co-sponsors of this bill and I are Pro-Life and are proud of our work in the legislature to protect the unborn. 

Today, the Republican Party of New Mexico sent the following message rebutting the fake attacks: 

CD2 Candidate Makes Untrue Statements Against Republican Legislators

...Chris Mathys, a candidate for the 2nd Congressional district has made intentional misstatements of the facts and untrue accusations about many republican [sic] legislators.

It would have looked much better if they had waited, say, a week or so. The way they rolled out the two complementary messages made the messages appear to be pre-planned and coordinated. Which, of course, is illegal.

Subterfuge as to Motive

The RPNM attempted to provide something of a cover story by claiming that at least part of its motive was to protect "Republican legislators." (As opposed to the more obvious motive.) But the reality is that Mathys has only attacked Herrell, and no other Republican legislators have suffered any "harm" at all. This makes party statement look rather ham-handed.

No one has even looked at who all voted for the bill in question, and even an average voter would not reach the illogical conclusions that Mathys is peddling and somehow end up holding a vote for the bill against a Republican lawmaker.

So it comes back to Herrell and the relationship developed between State Party Chair Steve Pearce and Herrell, who has long been viewed as an acolyte or disciple of Pearce. (We have been inundated with reports of how much damage Pearce did to the Lea County Republican Party by pushing Herrell over Monty Newman, who is from Lea County and is very well-liked there.) 

Additionally, there is the continuing specter of the RPNM Executive Director Anissa Ford Tinnin involved in all of this. Many question not only her competence in producing awkward communication blunders like this, but also how much she can possibly be trusted with the RPNM's sensitive information, sensitive issues, and internal communications?

And who is overseeing the party's communications which are supposed to remain scrupulously even-handed, with even-handed application of party rules, and with no favor toward any candidate? Someone who, by resume, is entirely unsuited to that task?

With regard to access to and the sharing of inside Republican political information and stolen emails, Tinnin has quite a long and questionable political rap sheet, having secretly worked alongside former Democrat State Chair Sam Bregman to undermine Republican fortunes and to promote Democrat ones.

It is well-remembered that it was her work with convicted felon Jamie Estrada which resulted in the use of sensitive information from the Doña Ana Republican Party that helped Doña Ana County District Attorney Mark D'Antonio defeat Republican Amy Orlando.

Many Republicans cannot help but believe that the continuous misdirection, detours, and blunders from the RPNM are not accidental. This most recent hiccup is just one of an ongoing series.

ADDITIONALLY, HERE ARE THE PARTY RULES—PEARCE & TINNIN NEED TO READ THEM

EMPLOYEES OF THE PARTY—RESTRICTIONS

"No money in the treasury of the Republican Party of NM, nor in-kind aid given directly or indirectly to the party or one of its committees, agents or representatives, shall  be expended directly or indirectly to aid the nominee of a primary election of any one or more persons as against any one or more other persons of the Republican Party running in such primary election."

There can be no doubt that in sending out yesterday's message on behalf of the Herrell campaign, the RPNM used its email list it had developed over the years, as well as its entire communication systems, internet servers, internet service. And it did so through its employees who are paid by the treasury of the Republican Party of New Mexico. 

Did an employee write or transmit this email? Of course one did. 

Pearce and Tinnin—and everyone at the state headquarters—need to read the party rules.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

Chris Mathys of Las Cruces, who is one of three candidates who has declared an intention to seek the Republican nomination for the Second Congressional District, is under fire from numerous sides. The reason for that is his interpretation of a Late-term Abortion bill (HB 390) that passed the State House in 2015, with all 38 Republicans and four Democrats voting in favor of it.

The bill, sponsored by Representative Yvette Herrell (R-Alamogordo), one of his current Republican opponents, expanded the existing prohibition on late-term abortion by adding protections for "a viable fetus of twenty or more weeks gestational age."

We interviewed Mr. Mathys on August 15 in preparation for our article on the CD2 race which we published on August 16, https://bit.ly/2KJ4cS0. (We also reached out to the Herrell campaign via email, the only other candidate at that time, but received no response.)

In that interview, Mathys said this of his opponent:

 “There is quite a contrast on the issue of the unborn.  Yvette believes abortion should be legal through the fifth month of pregnancy. I believe life begins at conception. That’s a big difference.

This led to a discussion for several minutes in which NMPJ asked for the source of that conclusion. Mathys said it was the bill outlined above, and we pointed out that other bills with the same language in different years had also been introduced.

We also pointed out that his argument was illogical—that any legislator's attempt to reduce the number of abortions that might occur after 20 weeks of pregnancy does not mean—under ANY rationale or form of reasoning—that the sponsor of such a bill approves of abortions that might take place earlier. 

We pointed out that if someone were to support a bill that outlawed burglaries, robbery, or theft of certain legal descriptions, it would not mean the person approved of stealing of other kinds. 

Mathys responded by pointing to his Roman Catholic faith and his belief that life begins at conception. He said if he introduced such a bill it would not say "after 20 weeks of gestation," but would, rather, say "after conception."

We pointed out that that would be futile because of existing Supreme Court rulings, however wise they may be, that there can be no such prohibitions.

We also pointed out that Herrell's approach is the only kind allowed by current law, that is to say it works to impose certain conditions or restrictions without in any way trying to have a state legislature overturn a standing ruling of the Supreme Court by means of a bill.

We again reiterated that such an approach—regardless of one's view of abortion—would be a complete waste of time and would be seen as a mere stunt—to no purpose. 

But Mathys would not budge. 

We then pointed out the "Jerry Falwell approach," and asked if he had heard of the late pastor who was very much pro-life and anti-abortion. Mathys acknowledged he was aware of him. 

Falwell was once asked if he would support a bill to outlaw abortions except in the case of rape, or incest, or the life of the mother. Falwell responded that of course he would. Such a bill would save 11,999 of every 12,000 fetuses who are aborted. Only 1 abortion in every 12,000 occurs as a result of rape or incest. 

Support for such a bill, according to Falwell, was about saving babies' lives. It would make no sense to reject such an opportunity just because, like Falwell himself, one believes that life begins at conception. And it would also NOT mean that Falwell or other abortion opponents approved of abortions in the case of rape or incest.

Mathys seemed a little disoriented as this discussion came to a conclusion, and he stuttered a bit, but ultimately was bent on staying with what he said he believed was logical. We very much disagreed that it was logical, and also shared our view that it was not politically viable.  

In the end, we published his statement as he made it. 

The Republican Party of New Mexico, however, may be wrong, either legally, ethically, or in terms of its own party rules, by weighing on the CD2 race.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

Reports coming into our office reflect a startling and troubling situation at the headquarters of the Republican Party of New Mexico. 

First of all, the Trump Presidential Re-election Team has made it clear that they see New Mexico as winnable in 2020 (more on that below).

However, they appeared to take one look at the RPNM staff and leadership and said: "We'll pass on this bunch." As a result, just this past week it was announced that the Executive Director of the Arizona Republican Party, Leslie White, will head up the Trump campaign in New Mexico.

Why did this happen?

First of all, as we have reported in our November 8, 2018 issue (https://bit.ly/2lVGCJc), with further analysis in our December 4, 2018 edition (https://bit.ly/2kQQL9S), NMPJ has set forth a historical narrative in which we have opined that the current team which is parked at the RPNM headquarters worked assiduously to destroy the New Mexico Republican Party, and to undo all that had been accomplished by former Governor Susana Martinez.*

What is well-known—to the Trump team as well as throughout the political world—is that just a few years back, the current Executive Director of the state Republican Party, Anissa Ford Tinnin, was working with the former Chairman of the Democratic Party of New Mexico, Sam Bregman, to undermine not only Governor Martinez, but the efforts of the Republican Party in New Mexico.

She colluded with Bregman to ensure the release of emails that had been stolen with her knowledge and collusion, solely for the purpose of embarrassing the governor and other Republican Party officials. She also used stolen information and worked very hard to defeat the sitting Republican District Attorney Amy Orlando in Doña Ana County. 

With all the spying, unlawful surveillance, and other efforts by so many people and agencies to undermine or destroy both the 2016 Trump campaign as well as the Trump Administration, it is little surprise that Tinnin comes off as "not someone we want to see involved." The same goes for the Republican Party State Chairman Steve Pearce.

Pearce knows ALL of this, yet he hired Tinnin.

PEARCE CLAIMS CREDIT for BRINGING TRUMP to NEW MEXICO 

In addition to other massive credibility issues, Pearce just recently claimed credit for bringing Trump to New Mexico. In a rambling interview with Politico, Pearce contradicted the Trump Team's assessment it was their own internal polling and the work of their own expert, Brad Parscale, that prompted the visit to Rio Rancho.

Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale had said an earlier rally in El Paso prompted him to add New Mexico to his watch list:

“I’ve continued to say the president’s policies are a win for Latino voters across America … and one of the first symbols of this was the El Paso rally,” Parscale told reporters on a call last week. “We saw in the data thousands of voters who did not vote for the president in 2016 show up to a rally, come listen to the president and register [to vote].”

“As we started doing polling there, we saw a dramatic increase from 2016 and I went over this with the president and he said, ‘Let’s go straight into Albuquerque,’” Parscale recalled.

The Politico article went on:

By Parscale’s telling, Trump — who hasn’t visited New Mexico since October 2016 — has long been eager to return. Campaign officials believe that Johnson attracted tens of thousands of would-be Trump voters during the president’s first White House bid. And if they can just win over those voters this cycle, it will bring Trump closer to having five more electoral votes in his pocket.

It wasn’t until mid-August, though, that Trump himself was convinced of the idea. 

BUT PEARCE CONTRADICTED THIS—CLAIMING THAT HE IS THE ONE WHO HAD THE INSIDE KNOWLEDGE

Pearce, who lost the state by 100,000 votes—one of the largest margins in state history—claimed, ironically, to be expertly reading the tea leaves. Not only that, he then threw the Trump team under the bus by claiming they wouldn't believe him.  

“I started talking to them — saying they shouldn’t write off New Mexico — in January. They didn’t believe that in the least,” Pearce said.

This is a pretty bold claim by Pearce, considering the fact Pearce was not able to convince the Trump team to allow him—or anyone associated with him—to head Trump's 2020 New Mexico effort.  Yet Pearce plowed ahead with these comments:

“Eventually Brad began to watch it, and three to four months ago he said he wanted to come into New Mexico and do a little something with the party, and that morphed into Don Jr. coming with him, and then the president started wanting to come about the time of his New Hampshire rally” in August.

Right. So Pearce was the teacher and mentor for the Trump folks? And eventually they came round to seeing his wisdom and insight, and sheepishly and belatedly decided he was a genius and they had darned sure better listen to him?

We somehow doubt that. We see the Parscale narrative as vastly more plausible than the Pearce tale.

Though it is almost certain that the Trump Team, if pressed publicly, will verbally deny that they have any problems with Pearce and his personal entourage which occupies the RPNM HQ, the reality, as demonstrated by the Trump campaign's decisions, speaks volumes about what they see in New Mexico.

The true bottom line is the Trump Team definitely doesn't want the current RPNM “leadership” anywhere near the helm in New Mexico.

*An attorney for Anissa Galassini Ford Tinnin sent NMPJ a heavy-handed, chilling letter, attempting to intimidate NMPJ by threatening a lawsuit. However, our repeated requests (ten of them) for her attorney to identify any errors or to provide any opinions contrary to our own have gone unanswered. As a standard policy, NMPJ always welcomes contrary opinions.  

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

By Gerald A. Loeb, Special Correspondent to New Mexico Political Journal (see Gerald's website at the bottom of the story.)

Thirty thousand devotees parked in the prickly fields, climbed over fences and braved the gray threatening skies in Rio Rancho on Monday night as they waited patiently in line to see President Donald J. Trump make his second New Mexico appearance since winning office.

Although only a third of them got inside the Santa Ana Star Center, the rest watched the President speak on a JumboTron screen outside. Kelly and Kim Christensen from Jamestown, New Mexico said they made the journey and “made their own parking spot” because they believe in the man they voted for. “He is a good man and needs our support,” Kelly remarked.

Social media chatter before the event had raspy overtones of possible violence and intimidation by counter-protestors. One vowed to “kick the nasty Trumpers asses.” Only a few angry sign-waving lefties showed up, as the Rio Rancho Police and New Mexico State Police kept a watchful eye. Except for a few small verbal clashes with Trump supporters, there were no incidents at all. No arrests were reported and no tear gas was needed.

Compared to the President’s two other stops here in the Land of Enchantment, this was a relatively sedate affair. In May 2016, Democrat protestors clashed with Trump supporters in a full-scale riot at the Convention Center in Albuquerque. Protestors also disrupted another Rally in the Desert in 2017.

 This was much different.

It was a very New Mexican and Very American event. The smell of green chile mixed with the sounds of 20th Century, old-time rock and roll created an atmosphere of a 21st Century Trump version of Woodstock, minus the naked people dancing in ponds of water and smell of marijuana in the air.

New Mexico Proud Boys leader Bradley Burris was impressed by the event as he waited in line to enter the Star Center. “I don’t want to see violence. Nobody does. There’s already too much violence in society now.” He added his group, although only numbering in the fifties, is growing by the week and is "not a bunch of 'angry racists.' We have folks of all colors and races. We are just Americans fed up with a lot of things.”

Meanwhile, demonstrators yelled “No hate, no fear, immigrants are welcome here,” but were often drowned out by the loud rock music and virtually ignored by the rally-goers.  Twice the Rio Rancho police warned the counter-protestors to stay within a designated “First Amendment Area” and as the event progressed, they were generally held in check.

“We are here to show that we will not be bullied,” said a Resist member who refused to be identified. (Though it was unclear who was attempting to "bully" anyone.)

Zachary Davis, 16, said he showed up at the rally to support the president in his policies. “He stands for us, so we can stand for him. He is great for America. They are not,” he said as he pointed to the protestors.

Tanya Ansley said, “The entire state is on a Gimme Train here. It has to stop. If you take all the water out of the bucket, soon it will be empty.”

“With a turnout like this, we might have a chance to turn this state red,” commented Renee Weldon as she watched Trump give his speech on the jumbo screen. Others agreed with her and added this rally was a very good start.

“We love Donald Trump and we want him to know it,” she said.

“I am sorry the folks who are standing outside can’t get in here,” President Trump said at one point in his speech. “We have to get a bigger boat,” he added.

Judging from the response from the crowd and the high turnout, he might just be right.

Gerald Loeb website: http://www.themodernpoliticalderelict.com

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.