Prominent Republican Holm O. Bursum, III passed away on Tuesday, December 4, at his home in Socorro. He was a third-generation New Mexican whose grandfather, Holm Olaf Bursum, was an Iowa-born Norwegian-American who had come to New Mexico Territory from the Hawkeye State as a 14-year-old in 1881. His story is in the next paragraph. (The Holm O. Bursum III story is below.)

HOLM OLAF BURSUM, 1867-1953 (Pictured at right)

Holm Olaf Bursum, a 14-year-old with his family from Iowa, settled near Socorro in 1881 and engaged in ranching and other business interests. The pioneer Bursum was elected Socorro County Sheriff, a member of the Territorial Senate, Mayor of Socorro, and Chairman of the Territorial Republican Central Committee. He was also a prominent member of the New Mexico Constitutional Convention of 1910.

Bursum was a four-time delegate to the Republican National Convention, and at the 1908 convention he was largely responsible for the Republican platform plank advocating statehood for New Mexico. He was appointed, then subsequently elected, to the United States Senate, succeeding fellow Republican Albert B. Fall.

Senator Bursum died in 1953, when his grandson, Holm O. Bursum III (shown below) was 19 years old. 

Holm O. Bursum, III, 1934-2018

Holm III was born in Roswell, NM on August 24, 1934, to Holm Jr. and Elizabeth Puckett Bursum. Holm was raised on a ranch 30 miles East of Socorro in an area known as Jornada del Muerto Basin. His father went into banking in the late 1940s, as a co-founder of First State Bank, and Holm III succeeded him as bank president.

Holm graduated from Socorro High School and attended New Mexico State University where he studied agriculture and received a Bachelor of Science degree in animal husbandry. While at NMSU, Holm received a commission in the college's ROTC program which led him to the United States Air Force. He served three years in the Air Force with the Strategic Air Command. 

During his time in the Air Force, on a trip home between transfers, Holm was introduced to his future wife Earle by a cousin. Earle agreed to meet Holm and have a "coffee ONLY" date with him. Fortunately for both, their coffee date turned into 56 years of marriage, four wonderful children, ten beautiful grandchildren and one great-grandchild.

Sadly, Earle passed away in November of 2014. In 1959, Holm went to work for Albuquerque National Bank and remained with them until April 1, 1966, when he chose to return to Socorro and go to work for his father at First State Bank. Holm became President and CEO of FSB in December 1987 and remained so until his death.  His son, Holm Bursum IV (Cuatro), proudly served alongside his father as Vice President and Chief Operating Officer.  

First State Bank

First State Bank was founded and opened for business on July 1, 1947.  Shortly after that, in the early 1950's, the bank began offering scholarships to Socorro and Catron County students wishing to attend the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

Holm has supported New Mexico Tech through the years, promoting an ongoing and cohesive working relationship between NM Tech and the Socorro Community.  One of Holm's many accomplishments that he is most proud of is being confirmed twice by the New Mexico State Senate as a member of the New Mexico State Highway Commission.

He served over eight years on that prestigious board, from 1995 to 2003, becoming its longest-serving chairman in New Mexico State history. During this 8-year period, the New Mexico State Highway Department constructed a record 653 miles of new four-lane highway mileage, more than in the previous 83-year history of the State Highway Department.  

That achievement, when combined with the upgrades to four lanes of approximately 500 miles of two-lane highway, meant that New Mexico had added a total of over 1,100 miles of four-lane highway by the end of his term as Chairman.  

Looking back on his tenure as Chairman of the Commission, Holm noted:

“When we started the four-lane highway project, every community in New Mexico with a population of 25,000 or more was connected to a four-lane highway. When we finished the 653 miles, every community (with the exception of Silver City) with a population of 8,000 or more was connected to a four-lane highway.  This was true economic development.” 

Holm was preceded in death by his parents; wife Earle Bursum; brother Michael F. Bursum and his beloved dog, Oscar.  

Survivors

Holm is survived by children, Holm O. Bursum IV, Elizabeth Spencer and her husband Ben, Julia J. Bursum, and Michael Bursum and his wife Lori Keleher Bursum. He also is survived by ten grandchildren, Holm O. Bursum V, Bruno Aguilar, Andrea Smith and her husband Harrison, Caroline J. Bernitsky and her husband Alex, Anne E. Spencer, Ben F. Spencer Jr., Matthew S. McNaney, Jack B. McNaney, Katherine Bursum, and Samantha Bursum.

Additionally, he has a great-granddaughter, Maya G. Smith. He also leaves behind his dog, Par.

Funeral Services

Funeral Services will be held on Tuesday, December 11, 2018, at 10:00 AM, at The Garcia Opera House, 110 Abeyta Street, Socorro, NM with Pastor Ted Mattie officiating.  

A private interment will be held at the Socorro Cemetery.  

Pallbearers will be Holm O. "Cuatro" Bursum IV, Michael Bursum, Ben F. Spencer Sr., Ben F. Spencer Jr., Matthew S. McNaney and Joe Estrada.

Honorary Pallbearers are Fred Robinson, Jerry Armijo, Don Tripp and John Howard.  In lieu of flowers, memorial donations may be given in Holm's honor to the First Presbyterian Church of Socorro or to the Socorro County Fair Board.  Donation accounts have been opened at First State Bank, PO Box Z, Socorro, NM 87801.

To view information or leave a condolence, please visit www.danielsfuneral.com. 

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

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST CLINTON

THE KEY MOMENT for TRUMP, MUELLER, CLINTON, and AMERICA

For Mueller, and for the legitimacy of the US Government itself, the key point came when Hillary Clinton and her staff attorneys—all of whom were and are officers of the court—decided openly and without any thought or consideration of conscience, to violate the law by not only the use of unsecured communications systems, but by also deciding to try to cover up what they had done by destroying over 30,000 emails.

In addition to using a program called BleachBit, they also used hammers to destroy all of their cell phones.

According to FBI documents, 13 devices that they had requested be turned over for investigation were destroyed by the use of a hammer.

In all of these acts, Hillary Clinton and her team violated a fundamental precept of law by destroying evidence under subpoena. Destruction of evidence in this manner is a felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

What did the FBI do? Nothing. They “say” they carried out an “investigation,” but admitted that they did not record any questioning, that they allowed all subjects to refuse to answer, and that in any case none of the questioning was conducted with anyone under oath. The “cost” of such an exercise was probably about $150—if it cost anything. It is, in effect, a joke, and a very bad one.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST TRUMP

IT IS TRUE THAT MUELLER’S INVESTIGATION COMES AFTER THE NON-INVESTIGATION OF CLINTON. BUT HE IS SCARRED AND RESTRICTED NONETHELESS: IT IS A FAILURE TO ADHERE TO PRINCIPLES OF LEGITIMACY

The Mueller appointment as special investigator was for the purpose of looking into allegations that Trump supposedly colluded with “the Russians” to win the 2016 presidential election. Significantly, these claims came from Clinton appointees while they were leaving office in January 2017. Almost all of the accusers have been shown to be among the biggest liars in US government history and among the most biased Trump-haters in the entire country.

Over the course of more than 18 months, the Mueller investigation has spent some $25 million and has changed its focus numerous times. It is fair to say that the entire effort no longer has anything to do with the original charges. Now it has shifted into trying to discover any and all kinds of financial transactions, people lying to the FBI or misleading investigators.  

There could not be a sharper contrast in the conduct of the United States government’s own investigators actions than in comparing the actions of investigators who looked at Clinton and the investigators who are looking at Trump.

There is no comparison at all.

Clinton, whose actions were clearly illegal—and which would have resulted in prosecution and conviction had they been carried out by any other citizen—was not investigated at all.

Trump, on the other hand, has had allegations made against him with no evidence whatsoever. The investigation quickly hit a dead end, and has been changed numerous times to adjust to the ever-changing circumstances involved.

WHAT IS LEGITIMACY? WHY IS IT VITAL TO ANY FUNCTIONING GOVERNMENT?

The essential undergirding foundation of the American Experiment is what political scientists call “legitimacy.” It is a concept thoroughly discussed by John Locke, whose writing was the greatest single influence on our Founders.

Locke analyzed and described legitimacy from many angles in his Second Treatise of Government. But at the heart of the concept is how a people come to an understanding of the acceptance of authority—whether that authority is manifested in a particular law or in an entire system of government.

Government cannot have a right—or any kind of justification at all—to exercise power unless it is seen as something worthy of having the consent of the governed—the acceptance of the people themselves. And that worthiness comes from demonstrable proof that a system of government is justly constituted, its principles are applied over and over again in consistent form, and that a general societal understanding exists that such a government is equitable, just, and fair in all of its functions.

Locke notes that political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which a government will suffer deadlock and collapse. The American Experiment has seen its own revisiting and revising in the ongoing efforts to retain and sustain legitimacy.

THE 14th AMENDMENT, TRUMP, CLINTON, and MUELLER

One of the most important milestones in the continuing effort to maintain and sustain legitimacy in government was the Republican Party's passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Though opposed at the time by Democrats—who actually continued to oppose it for the next full century—it stands today as a guidepost that announces what we are about as a people.

The 14th Amendment consists of four sections and over 400 words, but Section 1 holds the key section for this discussion, and the key phrases are here—especially the last one which we have capitalized:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS."

There absolutely NOTHING in the Clinton and Trump investigations which even remotely attempts to achieve the goal of a uniform and non-discriminatory approach to law enforcement. Trump, as compared to Clinton, has in no way enjoyed “equal protection of the laws.”

All the power of the United States government has been employed to seek out every possible charge that can possibly be conjured up against not only Trump, but to seek out everyone who has ever known Trump and try to get them to admit to any charge possible.

With Clinton—who had committed crimes already known to the government—the US government simply decided they would not do anything.

The contrast in actions violates the entire spirit of the 14th Amendment, and because of that, it simultaneously causes the US government to become illegitimate.

This is why Democratic Party governments in the post-Reconstruction South became illegitimate.

This is exactly the kind of approach that Southern juries used to take with regard to acts of violence or murder committed by the Ku Klux Klan or other Democrat Party operatives, while vigorously prosecuting blacks for “vagrancy” or Republicans for “disturbing the peace,” simply because they were trying to register African-Americans to vote.

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

New Mexico Republicans meeting in Albuquerque Saturday afternoon, December 8, gave their state chairmanship to congressman Steve Pearce, following his 100,000-vote loss in the gubernatorial election.

That loss carried with it a catastrophic loss of 15 statewide and congressional district races as well as the loss of nine state house seats.

Pottery Barn’s slogan is “You break, you buy.” And by a margin of 276 to 101, the GOP State Central Committee essentially delivered that same message to Pearce. 

So Pearce inherits a job with the party in shambles. Only time will tell if he can put the massive breakage back together again.

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

We knew absolutely that Joe Monahan would not be able to resist. Exactly as we predicted, anti-Republican blogger Joe Monahan issued a glowing endorsement of Steve Pearce for Republican Party chair this morning.

How did we predict this? How did we know beyond any doubt that this would happen? As we pointed out on several occasions, Monahan wants his SOURCES — the Republicans who are willing to steal emails, publish them (so he can publish them), attack any Republican who is having success (Susana Martinez), and help him in his never-ending quest to continually divide the Republican Party. 

Pearce and his team are not only supportive of Monahan's efforts, Pearce actually HIRES people who steal emails from Republicans. He HIRES people who campaign against Republicans.

NOTE: We are not saying that Pearce is not a conservative. He is. And we objectively admit he may be just as good a choice as anyone to lead the New Mexico Republican Party (he has worked to destroy).

We are simply saying that he adheres to no standards whatsoever when it comes to hiring people who will do his bidding and help him pursue his goals. And Monahan benefits greatly from leaks and gossip from Republicans. It shores up his Democrat base of readers. 

(Though it merits pointing out, regarding Pearce, that he has never won an election outside CD2, a district that is actually one point better than the state of Texas in GOP performance. The two times he has been a statewide Republican nominee, Pearce has not only lost in landslides, he has taken every single other statewide and congressional Republican candidate with him—all 15 statewide contests, all 6 congressional races and a total of 15 losses in legislative seats. That's a total of 36 races lost in the two times he headed the GOP ticket. Pretty sobering stuff.)

What are the Facts that Monahan has Distorted on Behalf of the Pearce-Yates-Billingsley Cabal?

Underlined below are claims made by Monahan in his blog, followed by our corrections of his claims:

References to "The Martinez Machine" in state GOP politics.

“The Martinez machine” hasn’t been involved in state GOP politics since 2013, when Pearce best friend and disciple John Billingsley was elected chair—with the stated mission of running Martinez out of the party. Martinez supporters did oppose Billingsley at that time, and lost.

People wearing Cat-in-the-Hat outfits or walking around with goofy vests festooned with 300 souvenir pins, or moaning about gasoline being 3¢ cheaper in the next town over, all voted for Billingsley in droves. (He and his associates do great among the bitch and moan crowd—that's right in their wheelhouse.) 

Billingsley of course promptly ran the party into the ground. He was the first of what might be called "The Fifteen-hundred Dollar Chairmen," a tradition Ryan Cangiolosi has fought hard to preserve. ($1,503 on hand on November 1. Amazing. But we digress.)

"The machine candidate is ABQ businessman John Rockwell"

This is just plain dumb. Martinez has 25 days left in office. She has no "machine," she has no candidate and is doing nothing, nor his her political team. Her political team does far more work in other states than they do in New Mexico and actually could not care less about who leads the state GOP. (With the Yates-Cangiolosi-Billingsley-Pearce "triumphalism" and "run Martinez out" attitude, the Martinez team was left with no role to play in the state party.) 

It also appears that Rockwell, who is a nice man, is also doing nothing. He seems hardly to be aware of a campaign in general, much less running one himself. It's beyond absurd to claim that Martinez has a candidate. 

"The Martinez faction had former NM GOP House Speaker Don Tripp issue an endorsement of Rockwell over Pearce."

This is sheer chutzpah on the part of Monahan (and presumably his Pearce-Yates-Billingsley associated allies): No one has ever "had" Don Tripp do anything. The wealthy, independent Socorro businessman has always operated on his own.

It has to be remembered that Tripp endorsed Yvette Herrell in the CD2 Republican Primary, while Martinez supported Monty Newman. To claim Martinez told Tripp to do anything is just plain ignorant—or an attempt to deceive uninformed Central Committee members.

It's highly unlikely that pushing this story to Monahan will endear the Pearce crowd to Tripp, but he is also very composed, even aloof in many ways, so we doubt he will react at all. 

NOTE: We just checked with Tripp via text. Here is what he wrote: "John asked me to [endorse him]. Only John."

In addition to his fabrication, Monahan then goes on to try to launch another anti-Tripp narrative that tries to blame Tripp for the Republican situation:

"But Tripp served only one term as speaker during which he did little to advance the GOP's chances of holding on to the majority in the chamber. They promptly lost to the Dems after only one term under Tripp."

That's just stupid. And it certainly appears such a suggestive narrative could only come from a very devious source, very likely one of Monahan's numerous sources in the Pearce camp.

"Pearce has secured the endorsement of incoming state House Minority Leader James Townsend of Artesia and State Rep. Yvette Herrell of Alamogordo"

Why name only those two? We published the names of the numerous politicians who have endorsed Pearce. 

"It will be interesting to see how many votes will go against Pearce."

Not that many, we suspect.

"Another argument against him is that he has not sworn off any 2020 run for the southern congressional seat he gave up to run for Guv."

We are not sure who is making that argument. We have published the fact that Pearce could certainly easily win that seat back from Xochitl Torres Small. But this particular issue may be an important consideration for any thinking Republican activist—is Pearce truly concerned about rebuilding the state GOP, or left without a position as he now is, is he simply seeking a position from which he can concentrate on putting himself back in Congress?

"But Pearce brings to the table money--lots of it--and he has enough of his own so he won't be forced to kneel before the altar of Martinez acolytes like former GOP National Committeeman Pat Rogers who was ousted by much of the same central committee that will pick the new chair."

Again, a dumb comment on many fronts (but if you're wearing a Cat-in-the-hat outfit, you're probably impressed). "Having" money, and "spending" and "raising" it are two entirely different things—or maybe three entirely different things. No one doubts that Pearce is vastly more wealthy than Michelle Lujan Grisham (unless investigations of Delta Consulting reveal even more skimming than has been published already, but we digress). But she certainly raised and spent more. (And she didn't pay her fundraiser $306,000 even as they vastly outraised Pearce's.)

Which, incidentally, highlights more absurdity from Monahan:

Remember all the Monahan posts about how much money the Martinez team was “raking in” from her campaigns and PACs? This line—very suspiciously coincidentally—was precisely the argument John Billingsley and Harvey Yates used starting in 2013 and then repeatedly trotted out in their campaigns for state party positions

So why is it that Monahan has not virtually lost his mind about Andrea Goff being paid an absurd $306,000 to be Pearce's finance director? After all, that's a figure way outside the industry standard for a gubernatorial campaign. Why hasn’t Monahan asserted that Pearce’s media consultant was “paid” $2.6 million from Pearce’s campaign?

Here's why:

Monahan ignores the $306,000 issue because Goff has been a good source for him—leaks and gossip are all good for Monahan.

Monahan ignores the $2.6 million issue because he well knows that the vast majority of the $2.6 million Pearce “paid” his media consultant actually went to pay for airtime at TV stations and that commission for media consultants—in New Mexico and elsewhere—are identical. He knew those same facts were true with Martinez and McCleskey as well. But making the sensational claim that Jay McCleskey “made” millions helped his principal goal: inflaming poorly informed Republicans (who know little of the technical ins and outs of media expenses) and therefore providing fodder for division within the GOP.

"The Machine appears to have flipped one R who has become prominent in recent months--Michelle Garcia Holmes."

Really? Where does he get that? As we have pointed out, there is no machine. So we are sure no one with Martinez "flipped" her. Has Michelle Garcia Holmes even had one word with the “Martinez machine”?  We highly doubt it.

NOTE: We reached out to Garcia Holmes, as we did with Tripp, but received no reply.

In any case, why put down yet another female Hispanic Republican, as Monahan always does (and some in the Pearce-Yates crowd do)? What's with that? She is perfectly capable of making independent decisions. Why attack? 

Answer: It serves the Pearce cause and the cause of all those who leak information to Monahan.

So the putdowns must be inserted, as these are:

"She was an unsuccessful independent ABQ mayoral candidate in 2017 ...She has now turned on Pearce...and announced her support of Rockwell. But she is a newcomer to the party and has little influence with the central committee."

How does he know she "turned on" Pearce? How close were they to start with? Does Monahan even have a clue? We doubt it.

"Ultimately it is that change that most insider Republicans hunger for and which Pearce represents."

Claiming Pearce is somehow "change" is downright laughable. Cangiolosi was his hand-picked candidate. For all intents and purposes, Pearce and his anti-Martinez crowd around him ran everything in the Party throughout the last cycle. The only change anyone will get is from the name "Cangiolosi" to the name "Pearce." No other changes will be made. 

Bottom Line

Monahan knows that every significant allegation in his endorsement today is a fabrication. But he also knows that Pearce and his people will help him with leaks and in his never-ending quest to divide the party. The Democrats love what Monahan does. That's why he does it. They also appear to love the idea of Steve Pearce as GOP State Chair.

The Democrat Party of New Mexico published yet another tweet today along the same lines as Monahan, but bragging that they are "preparing to govern." Republicans may be wise to consider how convenient it is that the Democrats and their mouthpiece (Monahan) are both encouraging the election of Steve Pearce.  

And this should also serve as an important reminder for journalists—Monahan is always pushing an agenda. His posts are not just the latest leaks and gossip of the day. They’re his efforts to push one side or another of his agenda. And he’s willing to be breathtakingly dishonest about it.  

And again, we have never said that Rockwell or Pearce is the better choice. We actually don't believe either of them has a plan or a vision for how to maneuver the party through the difficult waters ahead — difficulties engendered by the Pearce-Yates-Billingsley cabal.

But just because Rockwell played no role in the catastrophe, while his opponents directed the entire thing, doesn't mean he has a plan for how to recover.

And we have always been willing to publish articles or opinions on either side. We do believe that everyone participating in the process needs to have as much relevant information, history, and background as can be provided.

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

New Mexico Political Journal has now received complaints from members of the New Mexico Republican State Central Committee, citing "irregularities" as Saturday's State Central Committee meeting approaches.

[NOTE: We are not taking sides in this dispute or the election itself, we are merely reporting what has been sent to us.]

Here's what has Happened

Steve Pearce sent out a letter yesterday, Tuesday, December 4, at 1:14 PM, stating that in order to get to vote for State Republican Party Chair, either by being present or by voting by proxy, you had to register by 5:00 PM that very day. In other words, just 3 hours and 46 minutes after his letter went out.

A number of Central Committee members have cried foul, stating that there's no such provision in the by-laws. We checked with the Rockwell campaign and they knew nothing about this alleged deadline. 

Rockwell partisans are claiming that under such an artificial, suddenly-invented "rule," the Pearce forces may have arranged to have all their supporters register by the deadline they themselves are announcing, while leaving the Rockwell backers unawares and perhaps not registering until Wednesday, Thursday, or even Friday. 

We don't know what is or is not true about this, or whether it is in fact a trick, as some Rockwell supporters are claiming.

Editorially, we would question why such an extraordinary early deadline would be necessary. Logistically, with such a small number of voters—there are only about 400 members—there is no reason at all why central committee members (just like convention delegates at much larger state convention gatherings) could not register on the day of the meeting. This is not rocket science. 

However, it would appear that both sides have something of a point, possibly attributable to the incompetence of the Republican Party of New Mexico. In the party's official call for the State Central Committee meeting, emailed on November 19, the instructions contain two separate contradicting dates for the deadline for eligibility. Shown below, one passage says the deadline is Tuesday, December 4, while another inset schedule clearly says the deadline is December 6. 

HERE IS WHAT IT SAYS IN THE RPNM'S CALL for the CENTRAL COMMITTEE MEETING

If payment for the State Central Committee Meeting is not paid prior to 5:00 pm on Tuesday, December 4th, 2018, for any State Central Committee members, State Central Committee proxies, self-nominees, and/or guests, you will be considered unregistered and therefore not eligible for participation in the State Central Committee Meeting.

All of this Looks Bad for the RPNM

Republicans are falsely accused of "suppressing the vote," just because they have always favored no-brainer, common sense laws like Voter ID. The Democrats of course want everyone to vote, including non-citizens and other ineligible voters (as their officials in Georgia and Florida recently admitted to). 

But there is no reason, other than sheer incompetence, for Republicans to try to keep their own state central committee members from voting. No legitimate reason that is. Unlike non-citizens and unregistered or other ineligibles that Democrats always want see vote, the SCC members meet all the criteria for voting. 

One central committee member told us:

"The NM GOP secretary said that registration closed yesterday at 5 p.m. because they can't be prepared with too many people coming. They claim that they communicated in every way, but people that I know did not receive any emails with them with the deadline, nor is it on their website."

Nor is anything on their website. Throughout the year, we received scores of complaints about there being "nothing" on the RPNM website. No candidate listings, no events, no updated information. A couple of readers told us "The only thing they have on their website is their employees' names."

So, we have no idea what will happen Saturday, but it looks as though the RPNM is vulnerable to charges of trying to play games with the process. There could be a showdown over credentials. Certainly the Rockwell forces appear to have a case. (But then again, the call for the convention was so incompetently prepared that the Pearce forces could make a case as well.)

Solution? Let all legitimate central committee members vote and let all those who send proxies have those count as well.

Steve Pearce's Letter Claiming that Central Committee Voters Had to be Registered Four Days Prior to the Vote. Also, Here are the Names of a Dozen Republicans Who have Endorsed Steve Pearce

From: Steve Pearce
Date: Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:14 PM
Subject: Standing Together for New Mexico
To: 

Lea County Deep Pocket Republicans Very Unhappy with Pearce

We are hearing a lot of grumbling coming out of Lea County these days, and we heard it almost as strong in the months leading up to the general election. It seems a lot of former Pearce backers were more than a little upset at what they consider to be Pearce's virtual sponsorship (if not invention) of Yvette Herrell as his heir apparent.

His decision to do so came at the expense of popular Hobbs Republican Monty Newman—again, supposedly just because Newman had been a cooperative state chair who worked very effectively with Governor Martinez.

Pearce's hand-picked selection did defeat Newman, but the whole affair left a sour taste in Lea County—not to mention the fact that Herrell turned out to be a very weak candidate. 

Many angry Lea County Republicans believe that Monty Newman was far and away the stronger candidate and a solid conservative.

They believe Monty would have easily defeated the Democrat in the general election and believe that Pearce’s intervention—and specifically the hundreds of thousands of dollars that Pearce Finance Chair Mark Murphy spent against Monty in the primary—ultimately backfired in that it ended up costing the GOP the congressional seat.

After all, Trump carried CD 2 by 10 points—one point better than he did in the entire state of Texas. Does anyone believe the GOP cannot win Texas? The loss of CD2 is devastating, and many Republicans lay it at the feet of Pearce.

Payoff for Pearce Operatives?  

Pearce's run for GOP Chair surprised a lot of people, but many see it as a means of providing a payoff for Pearce operatives. Will Andrea Goff retain her unusually lucrative sinecure as the Pearce machine fundraiser. (See below for how much she cost the campaign, compared to the exact same position in the Martinez organization.) Also, what kind of roles will disastrous administrators like John Billingsley, Harvey Yates, Cangiolosi, and Murphy have? These are just some of the questions being raised.

It is true that the Pearce political machine has established that it can assemble on short notice the usual Pearce supporters, paid and volunteer, to push his personal ambitions to success, at least within the party structure. However, it is also true that Pearce ’s traditional flops in his three efforts at statewide office (he also ran for US Senate in 2000) are also attributable to these same paid and not-paid supporters and his traditional focus on the existing party insiders. 

Pearce’s "inside-baseball" appeal, in large part, has been based on his team’s attack on what may be the last Republican Governor for a generation or more. That kind of stuff has played well with the kinds of easily disgruntled and constantly griping central committee members who wear goofy Cat-in-the-Hat hats, or dress in vests festooned with 350 pins from places they've been or Kiwanis Club chapters they've visited. In some conventions, those kinds of "activists" have actually held a majority.

(We are not picking on the GOP. Democrats tell us their Central Committee has similar kinds of members.)

Pearce's tactics have also played well with some disappointed job seekers and favor merchants, but there are time limits for these kinds of games, and—as Pearce has proven time and again—they are not springboards to actual success where it counts: in general elections against the Democrat Party. 

A Major Difference in Fundraising Between the Pearce Camp and the Martinez Party Operation

It has been pointed out to us that Pearce's long-time fundraiser Andrea Goff made $306,000 off the Pearce campaign this year. That's an awful lot of TV and other media. In sharp contrast, Governor Martinez's fundraiser earned $7,000 per month—but raised more than twice as much money!

It certainly appears that Goff found the proverbial "bird's nest on the ground" when she signed on with Pearce.

Another Interesting Fact to Consider: Pearce has run for Statewide Office Twice 

We are also hearing from soon-to-be former legislators who are thinking about trying to win their seats back. What has disturbed many legislators and those hoping Republicans can make a comeback next cycle is Pearce’s track record when leading the party. 

Pearce has run statewide twice, in 2008 and 2018. In both elections, Republicans got destroyed in key swing counties and in swing legislative districts. Here's what worries them: 

• In 2008, Pearce set the all-time record for votes against a statewide Republican candidate, as his Democrat opponent Tom Udall racked up just over a half million votes (505,128) winning 61.3% to 38.7%.
• With Pearce at the top of the state ticket, Republicans lost three House seats and three Senate seats, for a total of six legislative seats. 
• In Pearce's second run for statewide office, with his team in full control of every aspect of the state party, Republicans lost an astounding nine House seats.
• That's 15 legislative seats lost in just two cycles when Pearce has headed the ticket. Sobering.

Whether meant to be a joke or not, it's not surprising that the Democrat party of New Mexico sent out a tweet endorsing Pearce’s candidacy for state chair. 

What they probably mean they plan to do is to make Pearce the actual symbol of the Republican Party in New Mexico. As someone with such a high profile, Pearce will not be like other party chairs who did work behind the scenes and let various candidates be the face of the Republican Party.

Pearce can't do that: he will be the face of the Party. And unlike lower profile chairs, each time Pearce attempts to critique the Lujan Grisham Administration, the Democrats will simply say "sour grapes." That's the difference between being a chair with a low profile and one with a huge profile.

Former Speaker Don Tripp Endorses John Rockwell

Former Speaker of the House Don Tripp has now weighed in on the New Mexico GOP Chairman's race. Tripp sent out an endorsement letter (shown below) in favor of John Rockwell, rather conspicuously breaking with Steve Pearce, albeit in highly diplomatic language that emphasizes his friendship with all candidates. 

Tripp's opinion is significant, not just because he was the first Republican Speaker of the House in 60 years, but because he was positioned to observe the maneuvering by the "Anti-Martinez" Clique that drove the Governor's team out of its leadership role in Republican campaigns AND cost them the House, and cost Tripp the speakership. (Of course Pearce was and is a central player in that clique.)

Tripp is also married to Rosie Tripp, the Republican National Committeewoman for New Mexico who is probably the most popular Republican in the state among the GOP faithful. With Pearce ally, Harvey Yates, serving as Republican National Committeeman, both Tripps have been able to observe the Pearce-Yates shenanigans up close and personal for years.

They haven't said so of course—and  it's important to point out that Rosie Tripp has said nothing and has taken no position on the upcoming contest—but the couple have certainly seen the Pearce-Yates-Billingsley hands at the levers, and it would certainly appear that they surely have not been impressed, at least not favorably.

Pearce is Probably Very Strong—In the Narrow Universe of the GOP Central Committee

Whether Tripp's endorsement will make a bit of difference we are not sure. It would appear that Pearce — at least within the narrow confines and the limited universe of the 400 people on the state central committee—has as strong a machine as any Republican in the state. In that small group of people we would probably have to guess that he wins the upcoming contest.

In a nutshell, this is the difference: Pearce's letter promises to keep his “experienced”’ team together (without any suggestion the team is 3rd or 4th rate), while Rockwell suggests it’s time to roll out the welcome mat to new and particularly young voters. The problem for Rockwell is that the State Central Committee is not made of “new and particularly young voters.” Advantage Pearce. 

And again, the task before the new chairman is so massive we are not sure anyone can meet the challenge, or that anyone even has an actual plan to do so. 

The Tripp Letter

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

So Eddy County's absentee voters favored Democrat Xochitl Torres Small over Yvette Herrell by a margin of 875 to 725, 55% to 45%? 

That's what the official returns say. Why would that be unusual? All the other Eddy County voters—those who voted at early voting sites and those waiting to vote till election day—supported Herrell overwhelmingly, 9,688 to 4,323, or 69% to 31%. 

Is such a wide disparity unusual? It is. Very.

In fact, it's a difference of 77%. In other words, the Eddy County absentee voters were suddenly 77% more likely to support Torres Small than all other voters in the county. Explained another way, only 309 voters out of 1,000 early and election day voters supported Small, but when they voted absentee, Small's totals soared to 547 out of every 1,000 of those voters. That's a bump of 77% just by voting absentee.

Otero County Absentee Voters Turn on Hometown Herrell—That's What the Results Say

You read that right. After election day and early voters supported Alamogordo's Yvette Herrell by a margin of 61.3% to 38.7%, and a margin of 3,483 votes (9,441 to 5,958) the absentee results showed up with an opposite result: Democrat Torres Small carried the absent voter precinct by a landslide, 56-44. 915 Otero County voters chose Small compared with 735 voting for Herrell. That represented a surge of 43.4%, going from 387 Democrat votes per every thousand voters to 555 votes for Small provided they voted by absentee ballot.  

Sierra County Follows the Same Pattern

In the area surrounding Truth or Consequences, the consistently Republican voters supported Herrell by a margin of 2,389 to 1,752 (58-42) until it came to the absentee votes. They went for Small, and it wasn't close. The final count was 300 to 222 — 58% to 42% in the opposite direction. It was the first time Sierra County has had such an occurrence.

Doña Ana County

In the troubled and controversial ballot handling that took place in the greater Las Cruces area, Torres Small did win the election day and early voting by a 25-point margin. So that's to her credit. But that was nothing compared to her 56-point margin among the record 8,425 absentee votes cast. Those were only a tiny part of the reasons Republicans asked for the ballots to be impounded. 

A Las Cruces judge denied the request for impoundment—without explaining why—even though New Mexico statutes essentially commanded him to do so. We have no idea why. Finally, after 17 days went by, the judge relented and reluctantly obeyed New Mexico law yesterday, permitting a review of whatever records may or may not remain. 

In the intervening time period, the Doña Ana County Clerk made wholesale changes to the Absent Voter Register, changing headings, and filling in information that was not shown at the time the impoundment was requested. The "new" Absent Voter Register is now "pristine," having been heavily edited during the 17-day gap provided them by District Court Judge Manuel Arrieta, an active Democrat in the county party.

[NOTE: We are not implying the judge did anything to aid in any kind of deception, or in any effort at all to alter the results or help anyone hide or obscure actual results. As far as we know the judge is honest and above-board in every respect. However, we do maintain with total certainty, that the judge did act unlawfully, and made rulings that clearly contradicted black-letter law. And he did so without explanation. That is on him.]

Here is what the first 15 lines of the Register (from columns S through Z) looked like at the time the impoundment was requested: Here is What the "Same" document Looks Like Today

Unnecessary Restrictions and Impediments to the Process

Meanwhile, in addition to his earlier orders outside the law, the public record reveals that Judge Arrieta ordered an additional number of unusual restrictions and redactions, including requiring the Herrell campaign to make copies of all documents. We cannot say if these additional extralegal requirements are for the purpose of attempting to hamper a comprehensive review of the returns or not. We can only note them.

As a result, based on what has been publicly reported, and based on what we would anticipate might need to be examined (absentee ballot applications, absentee ballot outer envelopes, electronic applications, and redacted voter registration documents) we can see that many thousands of copies might have to be produced.

Given the judge's ruling and the "rules" set forth, we would not be surprised if the process takes the full ten days allowed for in Article 1-14-11 of the Election Code. We are concerned that there may not be enough time for a thorough examination of the process to take place.

But it has to be noted that much unnecessary delay has been inflicted by an unlawful ruling by a New Mexico court, egged on by the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. So much for standing for transparency and openness.

Stay tuned.   

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

First things first: We don't have a dog in the fight for the Chairmanship of the Republican Party of New Mexico, to be decided this coming Saturday, December 8. We have described the situation faced by Republicans as akin to having a driver pop the steering wheel loose from the steering column as the car is headed over a cliff and handing it to his passenger while saying "Here, you take the wheel."

We are not sure there are any candidates who have a plan equal to the task before them. To have a say, to have a seat at the table, the Republican Party of New Mexico has to capture a net 12 seats in the State House of Representatives in an election that is only 23 months away.

Whoever the new driver might be, he or she is still facing a catastrophic situation, as we have described the calamity that hit New Mexico Republicans on November 6. The Party arguably faced its most devastating defeat since 1930. They lost everything, every single statewide office, all congressional offices, and an astonishing nine seats in the legislature. 

Such a remarkably thorough defeat of course took very careful planning. We described that exact planning in our November 8 and November 19 issues, as well as the small clique that carried it out, led by Harvey Yates, John Billingsley, Mark Murphy, and their hired help.

What we did not reveal, because we felt the pain and the raw feelings that we knew were present in the wake of such disappointment, was who it was who inspired the ridiculous effort to shove Governor Martinez aside, and to shove aside the three SuperPACs that had led to unprecedented GOP success.

A month has gone by now, and Republicans have had time to face reality. So we can go ahead and reveal the fact that the individual who is seen as inspiring that party division was in fact Steve Pearce. Ten years ago, Pearce, quite irrationally, blamed future Martinez associate Jay McCleskey for his landslide loss to Tom Udall in the 2008 US Senate race. Never mind that the election featured an Obama landslide over McCain and that no Republican could have won the senate seat that year.

[It has to be noted that the McCain landslide loss was far less overwhelming than Pearce's. In fact, Pearce holds the all-time New Mexico record for having the most votes cast against him in a contested statewide race: Udall received an astounding 505,128 votes to Pearce's 318,522.]

Pearce is among those candidate types who look for outside reasons for failure rather than engaging in introspection. And as such he was the perfect kind to inspire resentful types like the folks whose activities we have chronicled in great detail.

Now Pearce Wants to be Party Chair: Here are Some Questions That Should be Asked 

1. In the modern campaign era—the post-Citizens United era—what are you going to do to build the kind of SuperPACs through which Governor Martinez poured some $4 million in support of New Mexico Republicans, including the legislative candidates in 2012 and 2014?

2. What were you thinking when you backed a group of people who wanted to get Governor Martinez's team out of the way, and install a state Republican Party team that had no plan?

3. If your new team at the RPNM did not want Martinez's SuperPACs, why did they not replace them with their own SuperPACs?

4. What was your team thinking when they left incumbent Republican state representatives and other state representative candidates naked, exposed, and defenseless against the Democrat SuperPACs and their multi-million dollar onslaught of negative mail, radio, and TV?

5. Why should anyone have confidence that your same assortment of personal cronies will do any better in 2020 than they did in 2018? 

Of Course, Some of These Same Questions Must be Asked of All Candidates for Party Chair

Again, we don't have a horse in the race, and we would urge central committee members to ask every candidate these same questions. We are not sure any candidate has an understanding of the role of SuperPACs or independent expenditure committees in the modern era. Nor do we believe any candidate has a plan to re-establish what Governor Martinez had—what we described as the goose that was laying the golden eggs for New Mexico Republicans, but which a small cabal sought to kill.

Steve Pearce's Letter

Yesterday we got Pearce's letter which he sent to the RPNM Central Committee. It has some odd passages, including these:

"...I am asking you to share a new vision for our Party with me…”

This seems an odd request in that his team has always included the current RPNM leadership, including Yates and Cangiolosi. So replacing Cangiolosi with himself will result in a "new vision"? Maybe so, but it seems an odd thing to assert.

“…this year’s election was a disappointment…”

This is something approaching the understatement of the century thus far.

“I know there are others who will  want to run for leadership of the party but the big question is, how long will it take for them to develop the people and talent in every county?”

This is the first of several statements which makes it appear that Pearce's main goal is to perhaps go after his old seat in CD2—we are not criticizing that idea, Pearce could almost certainly defeat Torres Small in 2020, it's just that it seems he is saying he would use his organization as state chair to plan his comeback.

“I have been constantly "on the ground" in this state for the past 2 years and in the 2nd District for the last 16 years and have personally established a network of supporters and workers in every county. We have built a great organization and, yes — we are going to keep it going.”

This is the second statement that makes it appear his goal of becoming state party chair is to lay the groundwork for a comeback election to Congress.

"Looking at the raw numbers, I received more votes, with a total of nearly 300,000, than the winning candidate received to be elected Governor in 2014.”

This may be the most bizarre statement contained in the letter. Yes, Pearce got 298,091 votes this year, more than any candidate got in the 2014 election cycle which had a record low turnout. So what? Two Republican candidates for Court of Appeals, Steven G. French and Daniel Jose Gallegos, both got even more votes this year than Pearce got. Does that make them more viable statewide candidates than Pearce?

In 2016, Nora Espinoza, Judith Nakamura, and French all got more votes than the "winning candidate for Governor in 2014," (and much much more than Pearce got this year). What does that mean?

Pearce's reference to these figures borders on sounding kind of dumb. What is a candidate for State Chairman of a major political party doing picking random vote totals from random election years and trying to make some point with them? Anyone who knows anything about elections knows that what matters is how you do against your opponent in the year, and in the turnout universe you are running in. No one gets elected to office by saying "Oh, well, I got more votes than this guy who ran six years ago." People would look at such a candidate as if he had lost his mind. It's just not how elections work. 

The letter goes on with some boilerplate phrases, including all kinds of goals and objectives that make you wonder: if he couldn't accomplish these things he's talking about in the letter with the $5,000,000 he had this year, how is he going to do it with the $1,500 the state party had a month ago?

We don't know. And to be sure, for all we know Steve Pearce may be the best candidate for state party chair. Again, we're not picking sides. But we do believe the voters need to ask some tough questions, especially about fundraising—of Pearce and all the other candidates as well.

Finally, Some Other Moral Concerns People have Raised

We have heard from a number of Republicans and moderate Democrats who expressed concern about Pearce's "moral" approach to politics. A Doña Ana County voter told us, "Those Republican staffers who hated Martinez and who got involved in the stolen email scandals, actively worked down here to defeat Republican Party nominee for District Attorney Amy Orlando, just because she was a close friend of Governor Martinez. And Steve Pearce hires them? Hires them to be on his staff? That's wrong. It's immoral. That's why I couldn't vote for Steve."

Another Republican told us, "He deliberately hired people who leaked stolen emails and worked against Republicans just because he also personally dislikes Martinez. What kind of man does that?"

The names Anissa Ford and Andrea Goff have come up over and over again—from folks in Lea County, as well as Otero County. 

Readers also don't like the fact that there is extreme coziness between the Pearce team and anti-Republican blogger Joe Monahan. "All of that just looks like the national scene where there's a big swamp," said one Republican, "New Mexico has a swamp too, and Monahan, the Democrats, and Republicans who work with both of them are all part of our own swamp."

Our Take on Some of This

It has not gone unnoticed that Steve Pearce affects (and we are not in any way questioning his sincerity on this) some degree of piety in his speeches and in his communications with voters and fellow New Mexicans. In other words, he does openly and actively express the idea that he is someone of deep Christian faith. (Again, we don't question that, or his sincerity. In fact, where genuine, it is seen as a very positive thing.)

What is incongruent is not only the toleration of the immoral—but the active promotion of it. Several people have pointed out the extreme inconsistency involved in outward expressions of Christian morality on the one hand, while on the other hand aggressively pursuing people to hire who have willfully engaged in the most heinous crimes—including efforts to personally destroy people and destroy careers—just for the sake of political revenge or out of hatred. 

"A sincere, honest Christian just does not do those kinds of things," said one voter, "I just couldn't support that."

Whether these views are shared by very many Republicans, or whether they matter to them, or whether such actions will hurt Pearce, we have no idea. But these things have long been, and still are in the ether. We report. You decide.

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

This week we noticed fairly interesting threads on social media that help explain a lot of our studies of the American educational system, and the familiarity the average voter has or does not have with the American Experience.

We know that many everyday voters mean well, or at least we presume they do, and to the extent they say things that are misleading or untrue, they do so out of an innocent ignorance and not out of a willful malice. We also recognize the power and influence of the incessant drumbeat of 85% of all media being to the tune of “Republicans as racist, misogynists, bigots, and the like.

That is part of what might be called the Jim Acosta view of America. So the fact that people are moved by all of this no longer surprises us at all. We recognize the past 50 years of the dumbing down of America as one of the great tragedies of our history, and perhaps our biggest threat.

While Cynthia Hyde-White may not be the brightest bulb in the refrigerator, her comment about a "public hanging" — as ALL COMMENTS of REPUBLICANS TODAY are treated—was immediately “transformed” by talking head “scholars” into something that it was not.

Her turn of phrase is an ancient one and comes from times gone by when LAWFUL executions were conducted in public in the United States as a follow-on custom we inherited from Great Britain. Of course, this custom slowly fell out of favor over the years and is now seen as a gruesome requirement for the public to sit through. All legal executions are now conducted in relatively private settings, though members of the public may be permitted to witness them if they apply through proper channels. 

Nonetheless, the phrase Hyde-White used comes from that tradition. It did NOT come from the Southern Democratic Party’s tradition of lynchings—which were usually carried out by the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camelia, or other groups that Professor Eric Foner of Columbia University refers to as the “paramilitary wing of the Democratic Party.”

The overwhelming majority of those Democrat-driven lynchings were never “public executions.” They were carried out by hooded or disguised people, often at night, and often on the spur of the moment or in the course of general rioting or bursts of violence. They were nothing like the customs followed as late as the early 20th Century in places like Fort Smith, Arkansas, where legally-ordered public executions were scheduled and carried out as if part of a county fair or festival.

HERE’S THE IRONY

Despite the facts of the matter, the Jim Acostas, and the modern-day Democrats, and TV talking heads insist on turning the phrase into a reference to lynchings. Guess what? That’s also really really dumb. Democrats should NEVER talk about lynchings. In an educated electorate, Democrats talking about lynchings would by like Rap stars talking about how bad profanity is. An educated populace would laugh at them. We are no longer an educated populace. 

Yes, Mississippi had its pro-rata share of lynchings through the years, but they were carried out by Democrats, never by Republicans. From 1866 to the 1930s, some 4,700 lynchings occurred in the South, most of them between 1866-1900. Almost all of them were related, at least peripherally if not directly, to politics. The Democrats were determined to end all efforts by Republicans to make the South a competitive political field. Some 700 of those lynched were white Republicans—called “carpetbaggers” if they were from the north, or “scalawags” if they were southerners. 

Additionally, Republicans attempted some two dozen times to outlaw lynching by federal legislation. Democrats—including Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt—joined in blocking the legislation every single time. How many people in these social media threads know that? (Our best guess would be: A Big Fat Zero.) Democrats and their presidents blocked anti-lynching legislation because they valued the “unity of the Democratic Party” over any kind of humanitarian value.

The 2016 movie Free State of Jones is actually a very accurate picture of what Democrats did in using murder and intimidation to stop Republicans, especially black Republicans, from registering to vote. It ought to be required viewing, especially for Mississippians. Especially for Democrats.

So all of this hand-wringing on social media about how “embarrassing” the election was is in fact embarrassing, but for all the wrong reasons.

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