Democrat newcomer Melanie Stansbury, a symbol of the new out-of-state Anglo dominance of the Democratic Party of New Mexico, swept to an easy victory in yesterday's special election in Congressional District 1. We expected her to win, after all the Democrats have a big edge in the district, she had an enormous fundraising advantage and much more dark money as well.

What was somewhat unexpected was the margin. Just seven months ago, Congresswoman Deb Haaland had defeated Republican Michelle Garcia Holmes 58-42. A couple of factors led us to expect a somewhat closer margin in the special election.

First of all, the Democrats control the White House—that usually militates in favor of the party out of power. Second, the turnout was, as is always the case in a special election, very low—another factor that works in favor of the GOP. Third, New Mexico isn't doing that well economically, as the policies of both Biden and Governor Grisham continue to adversely impact New Mexicans' lives.

While it is true that last Friday's absentee and early voting totals showed a huge advantage for the Democrats, 42,325 to 19,869 (with 8,776 independents and others), that kind of advantage is not that unusual, and was similar to 2020.

All things considered, we were expecting something closer to a 55-45 result. We certainly weren't expecting the outcome to be worse than 2020. But it was. This morning's totals show Stansbury with 60.33% and Republican Mark Moores with 35.66%.

That's a winning margin of 24.67%, just over 50% higher than Haaland's 16.38% margin just seven months ago.

What Happened?

The Republicans nominated their best candidate. Moores was easily the best choice available, but he was vastly outspent, and dark money from the usual national Leftist actors flooded the state.

But the complaint we heard most loudly from Republicans, both last night and in the days leading up to election day, was "Where is the state party?" "What exactly is Steve Pearce doing?"

As the results poured in last night the complaints got even more vociferous.

Last month we reported the news (first given to us by a Republican state senator) that Pearce is calling around the state to drum up support for his own run for governor next year—it would be his fourth try for statewide office.

Last evening, a former Republican state lawmaker told us that:

"Pearce isn't interested in helping anyone other than Steve Pearce. The only money he's interested in raising for the state party is whatever he can direct to his own race."

We've heard many similar comments.

The consensus bottom line from New Mexico Repubicans appears to be that Mark Moores was a competent, articulate candidate who was left hung out to dry by the Republican Party of New Mexico—a party that is controlled by Steve Pearce and his sycophants, and that is interested only in the personal goals of Steve Pearce.

This is, perhaps, not an opinion held by every single Republican, and certainly not by those who are still disciples of Pearce, but it certainly reflects the predominant opinion held by Republicans.

One former Republican officer who has moved out of state told us last night:

"How many losses will NM Republican insiders stomach before they demand a change in party leadership? There is no bottom for this group of knuckleheads. And it's only going to get worse with redistricting on the horizon."

He was of course referring to the Pearce insiders who became extremely jealous of the electoral success of former Governor Susana Martinez and who broke ranks with her after she had led the charge — by raising and spending some $3 million — to capture the state House of Representatives in 2014.

The dissident group, which, as we have reported before, included Pearce, John Billingsley, Harvey Yates, Mark Murphy, Anissa Galassini Ford Tinnin and others, quickly made a shambles of Martinez's monumental achievements, losing the House back immediately and compounding their blunders by driving the numbers down. They lost 14 seats in just two cycles. The former operative went on:

"It is amazing to see what the anti-Susana group has done. They ruined it all for petty shit. They have truly burned it to the ground. And they'll never pay a price for it."

That is true. The culprits will not pay the price. Instead, it is New Mexicans who are suffering as they are forced to watch, helplessly, as the "progressive" policies are forced on them. No, Pearce and the gang will not pay the price. But their victims will pay the price for years to come. 

Results Table

Unofficial results, thus far, are shown below. As you can see, Moores ran behind the 2020 Republican pace in all five counties. As an example, he should have carried Torrance County 2 to 1, but won by only a 54-33 margin. Similar results are visible everywhere else. In 2020, the GOP carried the Valencia County portion with 53% of the vote—yesterday, Moores did manage to win the county, but with less than a majority.

About two weeks ago, one former high-ranking Republican official expressed his fairly severe annoyance with Aubrey Dunn's constant party-switching and publicity-hound shenanigans, telling us:

"I certainly hope Dunn does very poorly, and I doubt he'll get even five percent of the vote."

We actually believed the gentleman would be wrong and that Dunn would get about 5%. But the Republican was correct—Dunn got only 2.68% of the vote. Apparently, most New Mexicans are tired of Dunn's shenanigans as well. Dog tired.

TV talking head pundits tell lies all the time, most of the time with little or no pushback from hosts or other talking heads. In that regard, KNME’s New Mexico in Focus is little different from most CNN, MSNBC, or other cable news shows.

We don’t talk much about New Mexico in Focus, mainly because—as is the case with most PBS affiliates—no one is watching, so little harm is done either way. We mean no disrespect to Channel 5—they have the same low viewership as other public TV stations. They work hard at producing a quality show. Low viewership is just the way it is with public TV.

Now Martha Burk is probably the most consistently egregious liar in the show’s lineup, but this past May 14 the erstwhile "contributor" let fly with a genuine whopper. Here’s what she had to say during one of her trademark rants:

“By the way, I did the math once again, and if the minimum wage had kep [sic] up with inflation since the last minimum [sic] was passed in the 1980s, you know what it would be today? $44 an hour. “

No, she didn't. (Or if she did, her "math" was something well below Pre-K standards.)

The host, Gene Grant, responded with his normal “wow!” This is unfortunate, but it’s the consistent response from the affable Grant, who appears to be bowled over with amazement at virtually every single comment from a left-wing commentator—not only taking them as gospel, but expressing genuine gratitude for what he considers to be uniformly brilliant insights.

Grant does occasionally push back on those he considers right-of-center, but most of the time, pre-COVID at least, the panel has been either 4 to 1 or 5 to 0 left-of-center. (And quite a number of those who are there occasionally to supposedly provide a "conservative" perspective are far from that.) But we digress.

We are not Asking People to be "Mathematicians," But Rather Just to Think for a Moment

Now, keep in mind that the work year is 2,080 hours. So, if you do the math, Burk is alleging that the minimum wage—if only it had kept up with the Reagan era standard—would result in an annual wage of $91,520. Seems reasonable, right?

Now, we’re not asking everyone to multiply by 2,080 immediately, but they could multiply by 1,000 or 2,000 and have a general sense that the lady is suggesting that the annual minimum salary would be, say, $88,000. You don’t have to be a math “wizard” to do that in your head.

But again, no pushback from the host. And later in the same segment, pundit Laura Sanchez, a practicing attorney, said, “Martha has a point.” No, Martha doesn't have a point. Or rather, she may have one, but it’s totally fake, as are most of her “points.”

Burk calls herself both a "Political Psychologist" and a "Women's Issues Expert." Pretty proud titles, albeit self-annointed ones. But one thing she is not is a graduate of an 8th Grade Math course.

The “1980s” Were Not the Last Time “the minimum” was Passed

The most recent change to the minimum wage was in 2009, when it reached its current level of $7.25. But changes were also made in 2008, 2007, 1997, 1996, 1991, and 1990—all of which Martha apparently overlooked when she did her “research” and “did the math once again.”

Martha, do the show and its numerous viewers a favor: Stop doing the math.

The last adjustment to the minimum wage that occurred “in the 1980s” was the rise to $3.35 an hour in 1981. That would be equivalent to $9.84 an hour today. Not $44.00.

What Really IS True About the Minimum Wage and Current Value?

For those of you interested in something factual (the opposite of a Martha-ism) here is a timeline chart with the minimum wage changes through the years and their current values in 2021.

The original minimum wage, put into effect on June 25, 1938 was 25¢ an hour. That would be the equivalent of $4.73 today. The peak apparently occurred in 1968, when that year’s $1.60/hour would be worth $12.28 in today’s money. But at no time did anything ever approach “forty-four dollars an hour.”

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

Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican

TV talking head pundits tell lies all the time, most of the time with little or no pushback from hosts or other talking heads. In that regard, KNME’s New Mexico in Focus is little different from most CNN, MSNBC, or other cable news shows.

We don’t talk much about New Mexico in Focus, mainly because—as is the case with most PBS affiliates—no one is watching, so little harm is done either way. We mean no disrespect to Channel 5—they have the same low viewership of other public TV stations. They work hard at producing a quality show. Low viewership is just the way it is with public TV.

Now Martha Burk is probably the most consistently egregious liar in the show’s lineup, but this past May 14 the erstwhile contributor let fly with a genuine whopper. Here’s what she had to say during one of her trademark rants:

“By the way, I did the math once again, and if the minimum wage had kep (sic) up with inflation since the last minimum was passed in the 1980s, you know what it would be today? $44 an hour. “

No, she didn't. (Or if she did, her "math" was something well below Pre-K standards.)

The host, Gene Grant, responded with his normal “wow!” This in unfortunate, but it’s the consistent response from the affable Grant, who appears to be bowled over with amazement at virtually every single comment from a left-wing commentator—not only taking them as gospel, but expressing genuine gratitude for what he considers to be uniformly brilliant insights.

Grant does occasionally push back on those he considers right-of-center, but most of the time, pre-COVID at least, the panel was either 4 to 1 or 5 to 0 left-of-center. (And quite a number of those who are there occasionally to supposedly provide a "conservative" perspective are far from that.) But we digress.

We are not Asking People to be "Mathematicians," But Rather Just to Think for a Moment

Now, keep in mind that the work year is 2,080 hours. So, if you do the math, Burk is alleging that the minimum wage—if only it had kept up with the Reagan era standard—would be $91,520.

Now, we’re not asking everyone to multiply by 2,080 immediately, but they could multiply by 1,000 or 2,000 and have a general sense that the lady is suggesting that the annual minimum salary would be, say, $88,000. You don’t have to be a math “wizard” to do that in your head.

But again, no pushback from the host. And later in the same segment, pundit Laura Sanchez, a practicing attorney, said, “Martha has a point.” No. She doesn’t. Or rather, she may have one, but it’s totally fake, as are most of her “points.”

Burk calls herself both a "Political Psychologist" and a "Women's Issues Expert." Pretty proud titles, albeit self-annointed ones. But one thing she is not is a graduate of an 8th Grade Math course.

The “1980s” Were Not the Last Time “the minimum” was Passed

The most recent change to the minimum wage was in 2009, when it reached its current level of $7.25. But changes were also made in 2008, 2007, 1997, 1996, 1991, and 1990—all of which Martha apparently overlooked when she did her “research” and “did the math once again.”

Martha, do the show and its numerous viewers a favor: Stop doing the math.

The last adjustment to the minimum wage that occurred “in the 1980s” was the rise to $3.35 an hour in 1981. That would be equivalent to $9.84 an hour. Not $44.00.

What Really IS True About the Minimum Wage and Current Value?

For those of you interested in something factual (the opposite of a Martha-ism) here is a timeline chart with the minimum wage changes through the years and their current values in 2021.

The original minimum wage, put into effect on June 25, 1938 was 25¢ an hour. That would be the equivalent of $4.73 today. The peak apparently occurred in 1968, when that year’s $1.60/hour would be worth $12.28 in today’s money. But at no time did anything ever approach “forty-four dollars and hour.”

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

In a representative democracy—a republican form of government—elections are everything. The people must trust their electoral systems, otherwise there will be a spirit of chaos operating on one, two, or all sides of the electorate.

While there are in America today exaggerated claims of 1) election results infallibility on one side—the idea that we have a structurally sound system and that everything is just fine—and 2) massive fraud everywhere on the other side, neither claim is true.

What is True? We Lack Structural Integrity throughout the Country's Numerous Elections Systems

One thing that is true is that there are enormous gaps in the structural integrity of our elections systems. Those gaps will continue to exist until each state places in statute a series of checks and balances. Among those steps, the following are absolute requirements:

1) The only addresses that can be recipients of ballots are those addresses from which a voter actually requests a ballot;

Every entity in America—whether it is a Secretary of State or a County Clerk's office—that mails ballots out to locations or addresses, without having received a request for that ballot, is merely mailing blind. That's why people see piles of ballots at post office trash cans, in dormitories, retirement villages, assisted living facilities, nursing homes, and all kinds of group quarters.

All such ballots represent the seed money, the seed capital, from which all mischief, perceived mischief, and—most important—permanent doubt will inevitably grow.

2) The only in-person voter who can receive a ballot is one whose eligibility can be verified;

This is nothing more than common sense. You cannot withdraw money from your own bank account without identifiying yourself. Hell, you cannot even extract information from hundreds of almost meaningless online accounts you may have without a secure means of identifying yourself.

People will argue, "Yeah, but voting is a sacred right" (or somesuch formulation), and the answer is "EXACTLY, with regard to a functioning representative democracy, voting is far more important than these other things. That's why security is even more important for voting."

3) All requests for ballots must be validated by means of some form of verifiable link between the request and requester;

There must be some form of uniform, verifiable, data-related system which can be trusted to validate requests for ballots. New Mexico's online requirement to provide a driver's license number, along with the "last four" of one's social security number, combined with verification of address, and an oath, are all good examples of this approach.

4) Voter ID (which is consistently supported by 75% of voters in all polls, with strong majorities from all parties) must be a part of the system;

Such an overwhelming majority of the American people support positive photo ID because it is a daily—often multiple times daily—occurrence in all of our lives. The arguments against it are hollow and require the listeners to be either:

        a) willing to deny the reality of their own lives' experiences constantly; or

        b) remarkably stupid—believing they are fooling their fellow Americans by claiming that proof of identity is impossible to possess; or

        c) simply willing to lie for a perceived partisan "cause."

It is remarkable that there are 196 countries in the world, and the United States is the only one in which people can vote without being required to identify themselves. This shows the remarkable effectiveness of both illogical propaganda and the Democratic Party's use of that propaganda.

5) Returned ballots must have a system of validation, confirming the voter’s address, his or her last 4, and a signature that is verifiable.

The same verification process used on the requesting end must again be applied on the receiving end when the requested ballot has been returned. The process cannot be allowed to be hijacked.

Legitimacy

In political science, governmental legitimacy is based on the popular acceptance of, and recognition by, a governed people or society that the authority of the governing regime rests that very authority on a rational and legal system of institutional procedure.

In that system of institutional procedure, legislative bodies establish laws that outline logical means of protecting and preserving the public interest, and executive authorities enforce those laws.

When those procedures are properly followed, the governed people will then view their laws—in effect, their protections against illegitimate government—as right and proper.

In a representative democracy, the very foundation of legitimacy (on which all acceptable/accountable governance rests) is the election process.

In a society that depends on elections, as long as any segment of that society—be it Left, or right, or middle—does not have trust in the counting of votes, that society is laying the groundwork for perpetual instability and divisiveness.

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

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

If the Republican Party is to have success in the near term, it must do several things. One of them is to ensure that no one from either extreme of the party plays a significant role, especially not a leadership role, or any role in formulating or articulating public policy.

The reason for that is that the Republican Party itself must be totally united. Going forward, they have to have buy-in from Republican rank and file voters at a level of near 95% in favor of the party platform and its candidates. Having someone at one of the extremes will cause internal party support to fall (perhaps plummet) to a losing level.

What is a losing level?

Because the Republican Party is smaller than the Democratic Party, and possibly smaller than independents, a losing level in one in which fewer than 90% of Republicans are in agreement with each other.

After all, in 2020 Trump held that floor, with 94% of Republicans voting for him, and yet he still lost the election. So, it is imperative that they never have a candidate who cannot retain at least 90% of internal party support.

(Democrats can probably fall to the low 80s in their internal support and still be competitive. The GOP simply cannot do that.)

What Does this Mean?  It Means NO to Q-Anon and NO to Never-Trumpers

The Republican Party simply cannot have leaders who believe in wild conspiracy theories about forest fires in the west, or pizza parlors swarming with child abusers, or any of scores of other things alleged by people like Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene or talk show host Alex Jones and others.

Support for the belief in those kinds of notions are not only killers in general elections, they drop intraparty support down to the 50s.

At the same time, anyone who is now or ever was a “Never-Trumper” is a non-starter as a future leader of the Republican Party. After all, the Never-Trumpers supported Biden—and supporting Biden means:

• open borders with unfettered, advertised, and promoted illegal immigration.

• killing the Keystone Pipeline

• encouraging minors to undergo sex-change operations

• destroying girls’ high school sports, women’s athletics

• supporting a stupid policy regarding Iran’s nuclear program

• allowing rich European countries to not pay their own way in national defense

• supporting statehood for the District of Columbia

• opposing any form of elections integrity, providing all means for potential election fraud

Support for these kinds of policies is anathema to orthodox conservative Republicans and other common-sense voters

Liz Cheney is a Never-Trumper

So, the decision about her race with Elise Stefanik for House Conference Chair is a no-brainer. Republicans should not elect her any more than they should elect Marjorie Taylor Greene.

In addition to encouraging people to vote for Bidenism (which has turned out to be a lurch to the Far Left) one has to ask:

“Why is Cheney still talking about Trump?”

What is the point in May of 2021 of even talking about Trump? Just as a stand-alone event, talking about Trump right now shows very bad judgment. That whole thing is over. And it doesn’t help her party to continue to talk about it.

Yes, many Republicans already know that Trump is a jerk. They voted for him nonetheless because in the final analysis the future of the United States lies with the choices Americans make in the realm of public policy—not in whether any politician stands at the podium too long—or makes too many nonsensical asides, ad libs, and simply incomprehensible claims or assertions.

Just watch Joe Biden. He’s a trainwreck when it comes to the “personality” factor. But it is vitally important to note that it is NOT those traits which will wreck America. It is HIS POLICIES that will do so.

NEVER TRUMPERS WHO WILL DIVIDE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

It isn’t just Liz Cheney. Here are others who cannot be allowed to play a significant role in the party going forward. (Otherwise, they will fatally divide the conservative vote.)

Never-Trumpers

Senators (or former Senators) Mitt Romney and Jeff Flake;

Congressmen (or former Congressmen) Jim Kolbe, Jim Leach, John LeBoutillier, Frank LoBiondo, Susan Molinari, Connie Morell, and Justin Amash.

Former GOP National Chairman Michael Steele

Governors (and former Governors) John Kasich, Mark Sanford, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Larry Hogan, and Phil Scott.

Anti-Constitution Republicans

Additionally, as in the case of Cheney and Romney, the following Congressmen and Senators should not play a role. This is not because they are “Never-Trumpers,” but because they voted for an unlawful impeachment.

Regardless of how one views Trump’s role in the attack on the Capitol (and reasonable arguments can be made on both sides) it is plainly unconstitutional and unlawful to carry out an impeachment proceeding against a private citizen.

Republican leaders must—like Republican judges—understand how important it is to follow the Constitution and adhere to the rule of law.

Those other nine congressmen who voted to “impeach” are:

Tom Rice, Dan Newhouse, Adam Kinzinger, Anthony Gonzalez, Fred Upton, Jaime Herrera Beutler, Peter Meijer, Rep. John Katko, Rep. David Valadao.

The other six senators who voted to “convict” are:

Lisa Murkowski, Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Ben Sasse, and Pat Toomey

Again, this is not about Trump, it is about the Constitution. We have never been afraid to discuss the dumb things that Trump says or does. It is just that we already have too many judges and politicians who violate the Constitution or believe it is only a set of suggestions.

Having Republicans do the same is simply inexcusable.

Finally, we are not saying that these people cannot participate in Republican functions or attend conventions—as the Democrats do in forbidding pro-life Democrats from being able to speak. We are simply saying that they should not have leadership roles in the party.

The country is too confused as it is. The GOP doesn’t need to send mixed messages.

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