Yesterday, Fox News’ medical expert, Dr. Marc Siegel, had this to say:

We are hearing rumblings of the worst kind from the Republican Party insiders—that they have encouraged their own to turn on each other. With the party having been run into the ground over the last two cycles, the thinking of most Republican voters is that the state GOP should be concentrating only on vulnerable Democrat seats in the state House and State Senate.

NO REPUBLICANS HAVE ANY BUSINESS  TRYING TO KNOCK OFF THEIR EXISTING OFFICEHOLDERS. THAT'S STUPID.

Resources are scarce. Contributions are hard to come by. Democrats are organized and have tons of Soros money and other “independent expenditure” funding. We have heard over and over that Republicans have to marshal their funds, time, and effort on going after Democrats.

And that there is no way any Republican should be challenging any of the incumbents they already have. Those are hard-earned seats that Republican voters and donors have already fought and bled for.

Nonetheless:

Yet, as we have reported: We have heard rumblings that the State Party leaders have encouraged certain sitting GOP legislators to take on other sitting GOP legislators.

We are not making this up—as bizarre as it may seem for a party as poor and as outnumbered as the New Mexico Republicans, the rumors are strong that incumbent Republicans are going to challenge OTHER INCUMBENT REPUBLICANS.

We are not talking about primaries where there are Democrat incumbents—primaries in those seats make sense. You want a strong candidate.

We are not talking about primaries in places where there are OPEN seats. Again, primaries in those places make complete sense.

But Primaries Where the Seat is Already held by a Sitting, Incumbent Conservative Republican?

The Republican leaders of the state party and of the state legislature can and will do what they want to do. We recognize that. They can encourage division if they want. And they can provide no leadership and no vision of how to capture Democrat seats if they want to. But that doesn’t make them good leaders or correct.

If there are sitting Republican incumbents bent on taking on other Republican incumbents, it is nothing more than a selfish act of ego. The differences in philosophy are not there. The differences in their votes and their platform positions are not there.

No. Such undertakings—even if they are encouraged by legislative leaders or state party leaders—are extreme acts of egotistical, self-centered, narcissism. And no Republican in his or her right mind should contribute a single dime, or pass out a single piece of literature on behalf of such a selfish effort.

What a colossal, almost incredibly stupid waste of resources, time, campaign funds and energy and effort that would be!

Republicans are at their lowest ebb in the history of the New Mexico Republican Party.

Democrats have a 47-23 stranglehold in the State House.

Democrats have a 26-16 stranglehold in the State Senate.

All Republican efforts should be solely focused on DEMOCRATS ALONE!

Bottom Line at this Low Ebb of the New Mexico GOP?

Any Republican who might be running against a sitting Republican legislator is definitely not doing so in the interests of the GOP or in the interests of New Mexicans.

He or she would be acting solely to stroke his or her own ego. They deserve the opprobrium of the Republican rank and file. And so do the leaders who either encouraged it, or stood by and provided no leadership and no vision for 2020.

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

Republican delegates are gather in Albuquerque this morning to nominate candidates for US Senate and three congressional districts. And the question on everyone's mind last night was "Will the smear campaigns directed against Albuquerque meteorologist Mark Ronchetti and Roswell businesswoman Claire Chase end up deciding their particular convention contests?"

It has been apparent for some time that the Steve Pearce cabal at state party headquarters oppose those two candidates. And the smear campaigns were all the talk last night at the various receptions.

Most delegates we interviewed acknowledged that the attacks, via email and internet posts, came from Pearce forces, or individuals everyone believes are allied with the State Party chairman. John Block has posted particularly ugly smears, as has Rick Montoya, and there was a disgusint letter that quite a number of delegates have said looks like the style and tone of one of Pearce's closest allies, John Billingsley.

In our interviews we found that quite a number of people were turned off by the posts and anonymous letters—and planned to vote for those who were attacked. But others, while acknowledging the ugliness of the attacks, nonetheless were pondering whether to follow the suggestions contained in them.

It all happens this morning, with speeches from probably some 15 candidates and the results will probably be known by noon.

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

She lies, she lies, she lies: About her career, about her ethnicity, about her use of a fake race to land positions and jobs, about her claims that she was fired because she was pregnant, about her claim that Sanders told her some wild tale. All of which were disproved in the most embarrassing manner, with the entire country watching.

And she produces proposals that make no sense, don't add up, and don't stand up to scrutiny. And then she loses. Then she says:

An attempt to attack Mark Ronchetti in the leadup to the state Republican nominating convention appears to have seriously backfired. The smear came in the form of an email, purportedly sent by a "Rick Montoya." The email fiercely attacks Republican US Senate candidate Mark Ronchetti for hiring Republican political consultant Jay McCleskey.

By implication and by photographs and copy it also, sadly, attacks Ronchetti's wife and small children.

We don't know or recognize Montoya, however, he apparently announced his candidacy some time back, and filed a declaration of candidacy in the Republican primary for the open US Senate seat. However—and this is important—Rick Montoya was disqualified shortly after filing day because he did not submit enough signatures to qualify for the pre-primary nominating convention. So his campaign is over. 

THE EMAIL SMEAR

The email in question was sent from the domain “RickMontoya2020.com.” And here’s where it gets interesting. We found that the domain was registered by a "Mike Raczynski" who listed his address as 1319 Lima Place in Albuquerque. This domain was registered the same day the attack email went out.

Raczynski happens to be the husband of Jared Hamilton—a paid consultant for Mick Rich for U.S. Senate—and the couple resides at the same listed address.  Is that a smoking gun that proves Jared Hamilton is really behind the attack? We don't know. But it certainly doesn't look good at all.

Does Involvement of a Mick Rich Consultant in the Email Attack Create Campaign Finance Issues? 

Given Hamilton’s role as a paid consultant for Mick Rich, the email seems to create a number of thorny issues. For starters, the email uses a disclaimer that reads: “Paid for by the Committee to Elect Rick Montoya.” However, Montoya’s short-lived campaign committee had a different name. That by itself is a violation.  

But even more serious is the fact that Rick Montoya is no longer a candidate. As noted, he was disqualified for failing to submit enough petition signatures. That would seem to make this expenditure—the smear campaign we are discussing—a third-party expenditure.

Now, any involvement by a consultant of another candidate in the same race with a third party entity, or an independent expenditure committee, constitutes coordination.  Coordination by a candidate, his campaign, or his committee with third party entities is expressly prohibited. It is a clear violation of federal campaign laws. 

Raczynski Denies Involvement—Which Raises Even More Serious Issues

We called Raczynski and asked him about the domain registration. He claimed to know nothing about it.  If that’s true and Raczynski really has no knowledge of it, then someone may have committed identity theft, or the interception and dissemination of stolen information or fraud—both of which are felonies—by falsely registering the domain in Racyznski’s name. 

How serious is that potentially? We note that this is falsely registering a domain and the stealing and disseminating of private emails is what Jamie Estrada did in 2011 in order to illegally intercept Governor Martinez’s emails. This led to Estrada being convicted of multiple federal felonies and serving time in federal prison. Is this something federal authorities need to investigate? 

Attack Misses Wildly

And the point of the smear campaign is for what exactly?  The attack itself misses the mark. The email attacks McCleskey for running PACs for former Governor Susana Martinez. Okay. As we have pointed out before, those PACs were actually responsible for Republicans winning control of the state House in 2014—giving the GOP control of that body for the first time in 60 years.

Those same PACs were responsible for the defeat of the Democrat Senate President Pro-Tem, Tim Jennings and the Democrat Senate Majority Leader,  Michael Sanchez, among numerous other Democrats.

While it’s true opponents lodged complaints to the feds about the PACs, McCleskey was completely exonerated (by the Obama Administration no less) and found to have done nothing wrong. Like McCleskey or not, and we don't particularly, he has by far the best record of winning statewide elections of any Republican consultant in the state (Bush, Martinez twice, Nakamura, Hanissee, among others).

The Anti-Ronchetti Motive in All of This

And what does all of this have to do with Mark Ronchetti? It appears that whoever is behind this is continuing to push the intraparty strife and dividions that we have chronicled and described in great detail for several years now. They simply will not let up.

They’re trying to pigeon-hole Ronchetti as someone who is what? We don't know.

The attack misses wildly. Ronchetti has assembled a diverse leadership team for his campaign that demonstrates the fact that he is reaching out to everyone in New Mexico. The man has no role in any of the shenanigans we have documented. He appears to be as clean as a whistle.

In fact, Allen Weh—Susana Martinez’s bitter 2010 primary opponent—is one of the Chairs of Ronchetti’s campaign. Former Speaker of the House Don Tripp, a strong supporter of Yvette Herrell, is also a chair, along with Mark Veteto, a strong supporter of Claire Chase.

And Ronchetti’s campaign manager came from the Trump campaign without ties to any faction of the party.

Sadly, it appears the person who may end up most hurt by the senseless attack on Ronchetti is the person who pulled the trigger in the first place…whoever that is...

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

Nearly 11 months ago, we boldly predicted that the then-front runner Joe Biden would definitely not become the Democrat nominee. Now, after South Carolina and Super Tuesday, a number of readers are gleefully taunting us about being “wrong.”

We also have heard from so many people—even Republicans—who are “relieved” that “Biden will beat Bernie.”

At the same time, the MSM and Democrat leaders who have been pushing Biden 24/7 for weeks are now telling everyone that it’s over—talking constantly about how now “no one can catch Biden.”

Not so fast. We may be alone—we have been before—but we still believe that Biden will not make it. (It’s been almost a year and a half since we said the same about Warren, though she went on and on, completely unaware she was toast after her DNA stunt.)

UNLESS HANDLERS INTERVENE

In our view, the only chance Biden has is to systematically draw back from the public eye—to reduce his exposure. If they are intent on winning, Biden’s handlers will let him appear only for a few minutes of entirely scripted events a few times per week. However, we don’t believe they’ll end up doing this.

Those who can figure out what is going on—people other than James Carville (who believes he and the Democratic Party have been “saved” by Biden’s sudden victories)—are on the horns of a dilemma. They know that they need to keep Biden under wraps, yet they know it’s almost impossible for modern candidates to win elections without being seen or heard.

DEBATING WITHOUT a CAST of THOUSANDS

As the Democrat field has dwindled from 25 to 20 to 15 to 10 to 7, Biden has only had to speak for a few minutes in any given 2-hour period. And dramatic and acrimonious exchanges among several other candidates have further obscured him and reduced his exposure. All of these things—the arguments between others and the heavily divided time allotted to candidates—have worked to Biden’s advantage.

Those favorable factors are slipping away. If there are only three or four candidates in a debate—Biden, Sanders, Warren, and maybe Gabbard—Biden is in increasing danger. If it were to get down to only two: Biden v. Sanders, Biden will be in extreme peril. It’s one thing to utter 4 or 5 minutes of pre-planned talking points, it’s quite another to have to go toe to toe for two hours with only one other speaker.

We believe Bernie Sanders will beat him badly in a debate—not necessarily because Bernie is “correct” on the issues, but because he is vastly more fluent and can remember things. The next debate is March 15. We believe it will be pivotal.

FOUR DEBATE PREDICTIONS

1) Bernie will eat Biden alive rhetorically.

2) Media “moderators” will not moderate at all, but will see it as their “duty” to try to help Joe and hurt Bernie. They will fall all over themselves trying to set up Bernie for traps and pitfalls—trying to trip him up in as many ways as their staffs and network researchers can discover.

3) Debate moderators are going to try to “rescue” Biden repeatedly—so thoroughly and desperately that it will put the likes of Candy Crowley and Martha Raddatz to shame. (It will be so dramatic that those two ladies will be seen as fair and balanced.)

4) Biden—if his handlers allow him to debate at all—is going to commit massive gaffes, which will include verbal incoherence, linguistic errors, memory lapses, misstatements of facts/history, and inaccuracy about his own record (his whereabouts at particular times and other details) in a manner so historically inept that it will make Brian Williams and Hillary Clinton look like Will and Ariel Durant.

And Reiterating a Point we have Made More than 20 Times!

The Hunter Biden and Joe Biden Ukraine story will NOT go away. Republicans and Independents will not let go of it, AND it's not out of the question that progressive DEMOCRATS may yet throw their hands up and conclude:

We cannot let Biden be the nominee, he's got no answer for these monumental questions of ethics, legality, and just plain "swampism." He's going to get hammered. Bernie may not be the answer, but Joe is definitely not the answer: 

In Sum

Biden is not going to be the Democrat nominee. It may not be Bernie either, but it won’t be Biden.

(By the way, we keep asking: “Why does Donna Brazile still have any degree of credibility” at all? And everyone steadfastly refuses to answer. But we digress.)

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

Sheep-like Conformity and Following Orders

Our first impression of tonight’s results is the sheer amazement at the sheep-like conformity with which the Democrat Party rank and file dutifully follow the instructions of their media allies and their bosses in the Democrat establishment.

On Tuesday evening, Joe Biden said:

A key event occurred 34 minutes into last night's debate when Mayor Michael Bloomberg was responding to questions about Democrat congressional winners from 2018. He said:

"Let's just go on the record. They talked about 40 Democrats. 21 of them were people that I spent $100 million to help elect. All of the new Democrats that came in, put Nancy Pelosi in charge and gave the Congress the ability to control this President, I bough..  I got them."

That's correct: Bloomberg came within on phoneme (in this instance the "t" sound) to finish the word "bought." But the American people got the message. Most likely the Republican National Committee also got the message, as did the National Republican Congressional Committee along with all the 21 Republican challengers who are taking on the 21 Democrats whose seats Bloomberg has now said that he purchased, apparently for cash. 

Will you hear about this in the coming fall campaign? We think so.

Campaign Contribution Limits? How Effective Are They?

Finally, what does Bloomberg's Blunder say about Campaign Contribution Limits? One guy openly admits he spent $100 million?

So how effective are all those "good-government" Democrat laws that try to prevent" the influence of money?

Isn't Bloomberg the exact kind of "dirty money" character that the Democrats' "reforms" are supposed to eliminate? 

Or has he also bought organizations like "Common Cause" so that billionaires can be enabled to buy seats?

New Mexicans should be asking themselves if Bloomberg bought their elected officials?

Governor? Check.

Attorney General? Check.

Secretary of State? Check.

WARREN: The Fraud Continues, Unable to Answer Simple Questions. Easily Fooling the Media

The candidates were asked: Would you move the US Embassy in Israel back to Tel Aviv?  (From Jerusalem where Donald Trump moved it.)

Elizabeth Warren had this disingenuous, inaccurate, and ridiculous response:

"It's not ours to do."

The question came to her again: Would you move the embassy back to Tel Aviv?

Again she answered:

"It's not ours to do. We should let the parties determine the capitals themselves. We should let the parties determine the capitals themselves."

This answer was wrong on several counts:

1) The embassy IS ours. It is our determination whether we put it an embassy in a capital city or whether we choose some other city at random.

2) What "parties"? Only the sovereign nation itself (not "themselves") determines what its capital is. (Was this a slip of the tongue in which she was implying that the Palestinians have a say on where Israel's capital is?) In any case, there is only one party, and that party—Israel—has already determined that its capital is Jerusalem. There are no "parties" and there is no "themselves."

3) The question was not about where a capital is located—Warren changed the question entirely—and the media panelists facing her did not even notice. The question was whether the United States should move its embassy. The question did not ask where the capital is. Or if the capital would be or should be chosen by Israel or any other entity. 

Warren's answer was as disingenuous and ignorant as it was cowardly. 

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

(Democrats are Demonstrating it Right Now!)

—THE “GUSHER” of GENERAL ELECTION ADs Produced to Benefit the Other Party!

What does Bloomberg's entire campaign say about Campaign Contribution Limits? One guy openly admits he spent $100 million?

So how effective are all those "good-government" Democrat laws that try to prevent" the influence of money?

Isn't Bloomberg the exact kind of "dirty money" character that the Democrats' "reforms" are supposed to eliminate? 

Or has he also bought organizations like "Common Cause" so that billionaires can be enabled to buy seats?

New Mexicans should be asking themselves if Bloomberg bought their elected officials?

Governor? Check.

Attorney General? Check.

Secretary of State? Check.

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

We have received a number of questions on this topic, as well as comments and posts. So we will tackle the issue of "How to take a historically correct view of the orthodox conservative Republican position on the subject matter."

Some folks have been posting memes like “Should Republicans Support Unions?” and engaging in far-reaching, tangential discussions. Here is our take.

Those three New Mexico state senators killed the bill that would have permitted wide open absentee voter fraud.

To the extent that President Trump has a chance of carrying New Mexico, Trump would have had no chance at all if HB 229 had become law. The reason for that is that the bill would have been a total license to steal absentee votes. And we have seen before what motivated Democrat campaigns have done with that opportunity.

Last night, a horrible election bill, House Bill 229, was set to pass the state senate and go to the eager fingers of Governor Grisham for immediate signature. The bill would have wiped out all of the safeguards that were put in place in March of 2019, to ensure that there are at least some means of reviewing absentee ballots for voter integrity.

The bill would have allowed outside groups and organizations to flood all districts in the state with absentee ballot application and have those ballots come back without having any review of the information provided on the outside envelope flaps of the ballots when they came back. 

If President Trump had, or has, any chance at all of carrying New Mexico, this particular bill would have killed any and all of his chances to do that. And now, if Trump ends up carrying the state in 2020, he will need to send a very special thanks to Senators Pirtle, Sharer, and Brandt for what they accomplished on February 19, and 20, 2020. 

The bill would have given license to steal elections.

But Senator Cliff Pirtle of Roswell—the Farmer—put on a "call of the Senate" Wednesday night, forcing every senator to be rounded up before the Senate could proceed. Some senators had already gone home, so the bill had to be carried over till today. 

And today, Senator William E. Sharer of Farmington held the floor for more than an hour until the time expired for the bill to be considered.

Republicans in the state owe an enormous debt of gratitude to both Pirtle and Sharer, and also to Senator Craig W. Brandt of Rio Rancho who prepared a slew of amendments to try to fix the bill and to extend the time of the debate on the bill. All three did a tremendous job for the entire State of New Mexico—not just Republicans, but also all Democrats and Independents who care about elections integrity. 

House Bill 229 died on the floor. 

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

New Mexico has a very informal process for determining who will be on its Presidential Primary ballot. Since it is held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June, New Mexico's primary takes place with the very last group of states, meaning it has no real impact on any presidential nomination. 

Over the past few decades, New Mexico has participated on the same day as North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, New Jersey, and California. Though this year, California has opted out of their traditional place, choosing instead to be a part of Super Tuesday on March 3.

The Informal Process for Presidential Candidates in New Mexico

The New Mexico Election Code assigns the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to chair a committee consisting of the Speaker of the House, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Minority Floor Leaders of both the House and Senate, and the State Chairmen of each major political party. The committee is to meet and nominate candidates for each major party not later than February 15. 

The guidance in statute is to name those individuals "generally advocated and nationally recognized or supported by any major political party in the state..."

This year the committee met on February 11. Here are the names submitted to the Secretary of State:

Democrats                  Republicans                   Libertarians

Michael Bennet                    Donald J. Trump                      Max Abramson

Joseph R. Biden                                                                   Sorenne Ardeleanu

Michael R. Bloomberg                                                          Ken Armstrong

Pete Buttigieg                                                                       Daniel Behrman

Tulsi Gabbard                                                                       Lincoln Chafee

Amy Klobuchar                                                                     Jacob Hornberger

Deval Patrick                                                                        Jo Jorgensen

Bernie Sanders                                                                     Adam Kokesh

Tom Steyer                                                                           John Monds

Elizabeth Warren                                                                  James Ogle

Andrew Yang                                                                        Sam Robb                       

                                                                                             Arvin Vohra

                                                                                             Mark Whitney

This Is NOT Final However

You may believe the Libertarians have overdone it somewhat. We doubt their list of names complies with the "generally advocated and nationally recognized" guidance in statute, but that's what they came up with. And the Democrats named three people who had already quit the race by the time the committee met: Michael Bennet, Deval Patrick, and Andrew Yang.

But, an additional provision in the law requires the SOS to notify each of the nominated individuals "in writing by certified mail, with return receipt requested" that the person's name will be printed as a candidate on our primary ballot "unless the person requests in writing otherwise."

In years past, a number of candidates who have dropped out have written the SOS requesting that their names not appear on the ballot. We expect that will happen this year too. They have until March 31st to notify the SOS. 

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

Couy Griffin, the leader and chief spokesman for Cowboys for Trump, made an impressive speech last night at a regular meeting of the Republican Party of Santa Fe County.

In the course of his speech, Griffin gave a nod to the editor of New Mexico Political Journal (who was present on a visit to Santa Fe) and said, "Thank you for calling for unity in the Republican Party, I appreciate that."

And Griffin's reiteration and acknowledgment of the idea was also greeted with great applause.  

Griffin also asked that NMPJ not report on a scene that was made by some folks early on in the meeting—to which the editor stated that there is no way he would report on it—and NMPJ will of course honor our pledge and will not report on it at all, nor will we identify the people involved.

Griffin's speech was very well received, as he made a strong case for re-electing President Trump and for focusing on Democrat officeholders—which was again the precise points being made repeatedly by New Mexico Political Journal—something Griffin acknowledged and strongly supported.

Candidate Speeches: Alexis Johnson and Joey Tiano

Alexis Johnson

CD3 Congressional candidate Alexis M. Johnson spoke and received an enthusiastic response. Johnson was born Alexis Martinez in Portales and grew up in Roswell. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Engineering from the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. She lives in Santa Fe with her husband and four children. 

In the upcoming Republican primary, she faces at least three opponents: Audra Lee Brown of Portales, Karen Evette Bedonie of Navajo, Harry B. Montoya of Santa Fe, and possibly a fourth, "Anise" Anastacia Golden-Morper of Angel Fire, who has been "disqualified" by the Office of the Secretary of State. However, in reviewing the justification for SOS actions, NMPJ believes Golden-Morper was unlawfully removed from the ballot.

The other four Republican candidates were at a similar meeting last night at the Sandoval County Republican Party. 

The winner will face one of seven Democrats—an array of candidates that includes the semi-ridiculous (though very attractive) Valerie Plame, who was a mid-level analyst at the CIA in Langley, Virginia, but claims (in a manner similar to Pete Buttigieg's Rambo impersonation) that she was a veritable James Bond running around in flying cars with ejection seats and guided missiles hidden in her fountain pens.

The other Democrats include John Blair, Teresa Ledger Fernandez, and Marco Peter Serna, all of Santa Fe, Joseph L. Sanchez of Alcalde, Kyle J. Tisdel of Taos, and Laura M. Montoya of Rio Rancho.

Joey Tiano

Joey Tiano is a native of Santa Fe who is running for State Senate District 39, currently represented by Democrat Liz Stefanics, who is from Minnesota. Tiano made a fine speech, well-received, making the case for unseating Stefanics, and emphasizing his roots in the district. Tiano's family immigrated from Italy in 1895 and he is a 4th-generation New Mexican, part of a large family that had a popular business years ago called Tiano Sporting Goods, though he pursued a career in law enforcement.

Tiano is a graduate of the New Mexico State Police Academy, and was a New Mexico state policeman for seven years, before serving on the police force in Las Vegas, Nevada. He finished his career on the Los Alamos police force, retiring there after 16 years.

Tiano faces another Italian-surnamed candidate, Susan Vescovo of Alto, who is the daughter of Democrat Senate President Pro-Tem, Mary Kay Papen. Papen has announced her support of Stefanics. So we are given to understand that blood is not "thicker than water" in all families.

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

Opinions from Lea County

If the Republican Party of New Mexico is organized and thinking ahead, it has by now recruited candidates in all winnable state House and Senate districts. There are only 22 days left before filing takes place on March 10.

It is far from clear where the party is heading, but the focused effort does not appear to be happening, as a number of readers have contacted us with serious opinions and concerns to the contrary:

“Steve Pearce is focused on himself and getting ‘his people,’ you know ‘allies of Steve,’ rather than recruiting people who can actually win. He also appears focused on other Republicans rather than Democrats.”

"We lost so damned many seats in the legislature in 2016 and 2018. Everyone who is left up there is a solid conservative. There aren't any RINOs up there. If Steve Pearce spends one dime trying to gin up a primary against any of our outnumbered Republicans, well, I think he should just about be hauled in on criminal charges. 

"Seriously, that kind of thing would be practically a criminal waste of Republican money—like flushing it down the toilet."  

“He’s not focused on any of that. He’s focused on his buddies, and those who don’t suck up to him. You watch. They will end up spending Republican dollars against other Republicans. Steve is not focused on the Democrats.”

And:

“Steve Pearce is all about Yvette Herrell. He doesn’t concentrate on anything else.”

If that is true it is sad. And it appears it is true. We got this from a Lea County Republican activist:

“Steve Pearce showed up at our county convention with about 60 people none of us party members had ever seen before, and probably won’t see again. His only goal was to elect all the delegates he could to back Yvette Herrell and deny delegates to Claire Chase.” [Note: Herrell and Pearce have been remarkably close for several years.]

Republicans Urged to Run Against Other Republicans?

Lea County opinion points to Pearce as being behind a potential Republican challenge to incumbent Republican Senator Gregg Fulfer. Word out of Lea County is that incumbent Republican State Representative David Gallegos is being urged to give up his House seat to take on Fulfer.

Gallegos is a close ally of Pearce. However, this turn of events would be particularly strange given Fulfer’s long-time support of Pearce. 

We have never heard any information that Fulfer is not friendly with Pearce, but it appears that Gallegos’s tireless work on behalf of Pearce’s gubernatorial campaign, as well as his all-out effort in support of Herrell against Lea County’s own Monty Newman, may have been enough to endear Gallegos to Pearce.

Pearce has apparently pledged his support. If true, this would result in a Republican primary race in which as much as $200,000 to $300,000 could be wasted on an intra-party battle.

All Republicans we have heard from strongly believe that that kind of money should be spent against Democrats—trying to GAIN seats rather than just moving one Republican from the House to the Senate.

Is Steve Pearce listening to that kind of reasoning?

Or does he value building a personal coterie of personal, dedicated supporters OVER the waste of so much Republican campaign funds?

We have noted that Pearce, and his Executive Director, Anissa Galassini Tinnin, who was an integral figure in working with Democrat State Party Chair Sam Bregman in the famous email stealing incident and working for a Democrat district attorney candidate over the Republican candidate may be violating both state law as well as party rules by favoring certain GOP candidates over others.

Rumors are also circulating that Republican Representative Candy Spence Ezzell, also a close Pearce and Herrell ally, may be being talked into running against incumbent Republican State Senator Cliff Pirtle of Roswell. Pirtle unseated then Senate-Pro Tem Tim Jennings in 2012.

That brought an end to Jennings’ 34 years in the legislature. It also has to be noted that the current Republican National Committeeman for New Mexico, Harvey Yates, a close Pearce ally, strongly supported Jennings over Pirtle—he even wrote a book about why!

No! We are not making this up. This ONLY happens in New Mexico. If you are trying to understand why the Democrats RULE New Mexico, look no further than people like these folks. Their goals seem to be personal aggrandizement, power, influence, and position. Is this any way to grow a party? 

Focus on Herrell—No One Concentrating on the Democrats

Two years ago, State House Minority Leader Jim Townsend spent lots of his time trying to get all of his caucus to endorse Yvette Herrell’s run for Congress. He got about 25 of them or more. Meanwhile his own member—who he should have been concentrating on—got shellacked.

So did he learn anything? Apparently not. He’s back at it, together with Steve Pearce, trying to round up supporters for Herrell again, and trying to defeat the fresh face, newcomer Claire Chase from Roswell.

He doesn’t have nearly as many house Republicans endorsing Herrell this time—of course that’s because a lot of them got beat while Townsend had them distracted from their own races and instead farting around with a congressional race—something that was completely out of their lanes.

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

Some social media warriors have been hard at it, apparently with the encouragement of the Republican Party of New Mexico and its Chairman, Steve Pearce. 

They have been asserting that no matter how much any Republican may support Trump, there can never have been any questioning of any Trump tweet. EVER!

Not only that, they assert—apparently at the urging of Pearce—there has to be some sort of litmus test that disqualifies anyone from party membership if he or she has ever questioned anything Trump has ever said. We can't begin to tell you how dumb this is. 

And there's someone else who should be concerned with how dumb this is: Steve Pearce.

Pearce Attacked Trump in 2018: Opposed Trump on the Border Wall

In a gubernatorial debate in September 2018, Pearce said he has "taken on Donald Trump in two instances while serving in Congress."

Pearce and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Michelle Lujan Grisham were asked for their impressions about Trump. Pearce responded that he had:

“contended with him pretty earnestly” at times.

Those "times" included

"Trump's plans to build a bigger wall at the US-Mexico border and a refusal to support one initial proposal to repeal the Affordable Care Act."

PEARCE WASN'T FOR TRUMP IN 2016 EITHER

As the Albuquerque Journal reported in 2016

"While Pearce hasn’t advocated dumping Trump in Cleveland, he is among many high-profile Republicans struggling to fully embrace the presumptive nominee, whose bombastic comments...offended millions of Americans during the long primary campaign."

Pearce added:

“I’ve said all along that I will vote for our nominee over Hillary Clinton. He wasn’t my first choice or even second choice, but he is our nominee – so absolutely.”

Pearce went on to explain why, though he would support Trump, he did not want to formally endorse Trump:

“I’ve always gotten some good support from the Democratic community, but a lot of my Democrat friends, when Obama was running for president the first time, said, ‘Hey man, I’m going to support you but I can’t endorse you – I can’t say anything publicly’…. People out there understand the difference.

“Support means I’m going to vote for Trump over Hillary Clinton. I couldn’t ever imagine trying to get her elected under any circumstance by not voting for our candidate. An endorsement is saying, ‘I’m going to go out there and put my name beside yours’.”

"And that’s not something he said he is quite ready or willing to do for Trump."

“I’ve gone to the Trump campaign and said, ‘Hey, if you want an endorsement from me being in the 2nd District of New Mexico we’re going to need to get this relationship with the Hispanics repaired’,” Pearce said. “We’re having that ongoing discussion. They’re (Trump’s advisers) catching me at events and saying, ‘Here’s what we’re doing – take a look.’ So, we’re having a good conversation. They understand exactly what I’m saying and they intend to correct it.”

According to some RPNM minions, that makes Pearce a "Never Trumper."

And Pearce wasn't alone. As reported by Reuters, in 2016, he was among scores of Republicans in Congress who criticized what they called "Trump's inflammatory tweets."

What is the Point?

Our point is a simple one: There is no use in having the Republican Party of New Mexico attempting to exclude the 62% of Republicans who don't believe that Trump should ever tweet at all.* That's 240,000 Republican voters in the RPNM's own party ranks who their "leadership" is trying to paint as "bad" or disqualified from the party. How stupid is that? How are they going to win elections?

Trump is Viewed Very Differently by the Voters and that Image is NOT TRANSFERABLE

After almost five years, the American people—or about half the American people—now tend to shrug off every single tweet Trump sends out. It doesn't matter if they are offensive, inaccurate, outright tall tales, contain misspellings, bad geography, or whatever.

The standard response by now is "That's just Trump being Trump. Pay no attention to that." He gets a pass, no matter what. And with the ardent supporters—the Trumpistas—all the tweets, no matter what they say, are viewed as wise, astute, or "Trump playing Chess while everyone else is playing Checkers." In other words, his most intense base considers all of them works of genius.

Trump being Trump is something only HE can get away with. He is unique. And we take our hat off to him for being able to pull that off!

But we have news for you: That image, that take on the tweets, is NOT TRANSFERABLE. A regular Republican candidate running for the legislature, or county office, or for statewide office, will NOT get a pass on those tweets.

Those candidates aren't Trump and they won't be viewed the same. They will be asked if they support Trump's individual tweets. And if they agree with ALL of them, well, they won't get elected. 

If voters—and that includes Republican voters and elected officials—do not understand this last point, well, they're going to be in trouble.

 Morning Consult poll, 10 December 2018

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

ump to navigation

Jump to search

Maya Rockeymoore Cummings
Maya Rockeymoore Cummings in 2019

Maya Michelle Rockeymoore Cummings, widow of the late Elijah Cummings, a Democrat House committee chair who became famous for hating Trump, will not succeed him.

Baltimore Democrats instead went wild for Kweisi Mfume, a former congressman and former Chairman of the NAACP. Mfume crushed Cummings like a bug, 29,650 to 11,722. (Final returns of both primaries are shown below.)

Mfume is a Poster Child for the Great Society

Mfume, who was formerly named Frizzell Gerald Gray, is more or less famous for fathering five children by five different women, none of whom he married. 

As such, he can probably lay claim to being the poster child of LBJ's Great Society, which had the unintended consequences of reversing the growing stability of the black family and encouraging an enormous spike in out-of-wedlock births. 

In 1965, before the Great Society, 76% of black babies were born to two-parent, intact families. Today, that figure is only 23%. Apparently, role models like Mfume are what today's black voters look to as guideposts.

Rockeymoore Cummings Will Have Another Shot

The most recent special election primary held just six days ago, is not the end of the story. The regular Maryland Democratic primary will be held on April 28. Oddly enough, that's the same day as the Special Election "General" Race between Mfume and the Republican nominee Kimberly Klacik (shown at right and below).

The winners of the regular primaries on April 28 will face each other in November.

It is likely that the candidates will again be Mfume and Klasik, though it's theoretically possible that Cummings might beat Mfume on the April 28th, as turnout in the Democrat primary was extremely low.

The chances of Klasik winning are practically nil.

---

 

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

There is one huge thing about the Democratic presidential field that no one mentions—or maybe even notices or knows:

Despite the press and the talking heads classifying—actually sort of anointing—this candidate or that as “moderate” or “centrist” or “in the middle lane” or using some other political euphemism, the honest truth is that NOT A SINGLE Democrat candidate is actually a moderate.

Every single one of them would have nominated Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor to the Supreme Court—people who reflect the exact same philosophy as the 9th Circuit—judges who don’t give a hoot in hell for what any statute or any provision of the Constitution actually says in plain, black letter language.

ALL of them firmly believe the courts are where politicians should simply ENACT POLICY. Forget the legislative branch.

TEST WHAT WE ARE SAYING BY ISSUES:

Abortion: Watch and see if ANY one of the candidates can, when questioned, bring herself/himself to oppose partial-birth abortion or the killing of an unborn baby in the final passage through the birth canal, or even condemn the Virginia governor’s view on the born-alive issue. They CANNOT. Not Klobuchar, not Biden, certainly not Buttigieg. No. They ALL have identical positions.

Borders/Illegal Immigration: Try to find a single one of them who will insist on any means of ensuring we have a form of controlled, monitored legal immigration. You cannot. They all—to belong to the Democrat Party—and they must now support open borders.

Second Amendment: See which one embraces the 2nd Amendment as a pre-existing right that shall not be infringed. Answer: Zero. (Oddly, Bernie comes closest.)

We could go on and on, but the reality is there is no actual moderate lane in which “centrist” candidates are elbowing each other for running room. Think about it—not a single one of them could possibly have advanced to their positions if they were milling about any place other than in the mainstream of the modern Democrat Party.

Media Types Help Mislead, Whether Accidentally or on Purpose

Yes, you get “happy talk” TV analysts who drone on about Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and who knows who all, supposedly competing in their “lane” of opportunity.

But one of two things is taking place. Either:

1) The analysts have genuinely been fooled by the “cosmetic” or “stylistic” or “ rhetorical” distinctions some of the candidates are employing merely as “separation tactics”:

(For one example. Klobuchar’s “I’ll pay for it...” remarks—or Buttigieg’s endless and fluid “word salad” happy talk, which ends up mesmerizing audiences into believing he is saying something—anything at all—or makes them think he’s saying something “different” from the others)

Or

2) The talking heads know better. But are trying to fool YOU into believing all of the above.

The reality is none of the candidates will “pay for” anything. And none of them will deviate one iota from the “platform” of the modern Democratic Party.

And, to be precise, it appears that Buttigieg is the phoniest of them all, and the most poll-derived, totally artificial construct we have ever seen in American politics.

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

It's one thing if State Senator Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, D-Albuquerque, is so embarrassed by her own inarticulateness that she doesn't want cameras to record her input, it's quite another thing when a conservative Republican chimes in to support the covering up of committee hearings.

Enough damage is being done in Santa Fe to basic constitutional principles, including the highly controversial "Red Flag" law and other attacks on Second Amendment rights. It's unimaginable that anyone professing to be a conservative or a Republican would want to join Democrats in hiding what is going on.

On the contrary, voters need to be able to see who is pushing what—as well as seeing who is standing up for them. What kind of arguments are being put forth in support of trampling on the Constitution?

But Sedillo Lopez interrupted a Senate Conservation Committee hearing Thursday to say:

“Excuse me, excuse me madam chair, I don’t mean to interrupt but there’s someone filming and I was wondering if you’ve gotten permission or if you’d like to request permission."

That was bad enough. But it got worse when State Senator Pat Woods, R-Clovis, piped in with this:

“There’s adequate ways this footage can be gotten in other ways. I just prefer this not to be spliced and edited to be used against someone and have someone not be totally truthful in their comments in a bill because they’re worried how something might be splashed and cut in a newscast.”

He just prefers? Well isn't' that special.

We have seen Woods in action before, and he is a conservative, and he's generally done a reasonably good job representing those principles. But this is bad. In fact, it's just plain stupid. Especially when at least one Democrat, Senator Jeff Steinborn of Las Cruces (who is a hard Lefty to boot) is willing to go on camera in support of transparency.

What's worse is that two other Republican senators in the same committee meeting, Ron Griggs of Alamogordo and William H. Payne of Albuquerque, just sat there like bumps on a log, apparently too cowed to raise a voice for openness and transparency. 

We can't emphasize this enough: It makes Republicans look downright stupid. Just plain ignorant.

They're sending the message, however unwittingly, that Republicans stand for closed meetings, while Democrats (who actually wrote the rules to shutdown committee hearings) come off as mere bystanders, or—in the case of Steinborn—appear to be supporters of 'open government." Which they are decidedly not. How dumb can you get?

Click here to see the video of this incident https://bit.ly/39hVqoU

The Senate has Always Been Reluctant to Let Sunshine In

Just yesterday, former Senator Mark Boitano (R-Albuquerque) publicly noted, in a Facebook post, that in 2011 only three Republican senators stood up to demand a vote to institute webcasting. It takes seven senators to demand "a call of the senate" forcing a vote of everyone who can be located.

Most senators, even including Republicans, were following the "cover-up our actions and hide from the public" position pushed by then-Senate Pro-tem Tim Jennings, D-Roswell, and then-Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, D-Belén. But according to Boitano, he, along with Senator Rod Adair, R-Roswell, and William E. Sharer, R-Farmington (who is still serving), joined four Democrats to force the vote. 

And those were the only seven senators out of 42 who were willing to go to the mat on the issue of transparency and openness. The rest, by and large, did not want it at all.

At that point, as if often the case in politics, hypocrisy, and shame kicked in. What do we mean by that? Well, we mean the bill passed unanimously.

As so often happens in legislative bodies, if you can force a vote then the very same people who have been trying to hide the issue, or not take a stand at all, are then forced to vote correctly just to avoid the embarrassment of being on the wrong side. 

After the Fact, Private "Apologies" and Other Political Nonsense

The KRQE reporter, Rachel Knapp, who captured all of this, later reported that:'

"Senators Joseph Cervantes and William Soules, who were on that committee, followed Knapp after she was kicked out and said they were upset about the way this was handled."

Right. Sure they were. Once the reporter gets more experience and learns more about politics she will realize that she fell for a meaningless political trick. And she will never again give these cynical yahoos "credit," for supposedly "really being sincere" or for being "on the right side of the issue," or some other thing they don't deserve. 

Wrong. In politics, the only thing that matters is what the elected official is willing to do in public, in front of his or her peers, in front of the media, in front of the voters. One has to note that neither Soules nor Cervantes was even close to being willing to stand up for what is right when the moment occurred or when the camera was rolling.

And THAT—the public statement—is the only true test. 

Nothing said merely in private is a test of anything at all, let alone the true test.

Additionally, this same reporter who was told to leave reported this: 

After the incident, Sen. Woods apologized but stuck to his guns, saying [she] should’ve asked permission.

What guns? He may wear a cowboy hat, but he doesn't have any guns—if by guns you mean something important to stand up for. 

Republicans Should not be Carrying Water for those Who are Actually in Power

Republicans in both the Senate and the House (for reasons that lie at the feet of the Gang of 8, discussed in articles of November 8, 2018, and December 4, 2018) are almost completely powerless.

There are only 16 Republicans in the Senate and 26 Democrats. If Democrats want to run rough-shod over the First Amendment, or exclude the media, or pass ridiculous rules or laws, they have complete power to do so. They should own everything that comes out of the legislature. 

It is politically tone-deaf and clueless for a Republican to come to the aid of bad Democrat rules and regulations, and it's downright dumb for any Republican to step up and act as a spokesman for such policies. 

Bernie Sanders defeated Pete Buttigieg by over 6,000 votes to win the Democrats’ Iowa Caucuses.

In what the Democrats call a “second vote,” Sanders still led by over 2,600 votes. However after an as yet unexplained and mysterious process, “Mayor Pete” emerged with two more “state delegate equivalents” than Bernie.

The Count arrives in Des Moines! All is well!

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

We believe JOHN TOWER SAID it BEST

We recall the 1978 US Senate race in Texas when Senator John Tower came under heavy media criticism for refusing to shake hands with his Democrat opponent, Bob Krueger.

By Former State Senator Rod Adair, Editor Emeritus, NMPJ

Watching Nancy Pelosi all night, but especially after she tore up the speech, I couldn’t help but wonder how her behavior might affect the small percentage of Americans who aren’t sure if the entire impeachment ordeal was fair and warranted or purely motivated by sheer hatred and frustration.

I kind of think all of her actions—including the unprecedented smirks, nervous gestures, and bizarre paper tearing—may have subtly or even subconsciously convinced millions of people, in ways that words could not and cannot, that the Pelosi-Schiff impeachment was motivated purely and simply by hate.

I could see where her behavior could cause such a conclusion to dawn on even the most clueless voter.

Irony of Clueless Irony. But they are blissfully unaware.

Dozens of Democratic lawmakers — all women — strutted into the House chamber this evening wearing white, supposedly to send a message to President Donald Trump when he gives his State of the Union address. The Democratic Women's Caucus in the House organized the effort.

And the Democrats are going to stop the Russian hackers? Lol. It appears that they can’t run a 2-car funeral. Much less develop an app.

Protect us from cyber attacks? That appears to be out of the question!

It’s after midnight in Iowa and 0 Precincts of 1,765 have reported.

Is it incompetence? Or are Democrat big shots arguing about how to screw Bernie over—again?

We have now reviewed Adam Schiff’s speech from earlier today and we are appalled. We now know why we have received so many texts, emails, and posts from people who (jokingly, we are sure) actually expressed a desire to do bodily harm to him.

A typical comment is this:

Because of the format—it is not a straightforward election—it is almost foolish to predict the outcome of the Democrat Iowa Caucuses. It is a bunch of people standing around horse-trading for votes.  If you don’t get at least 15% at your local caucus location, you go stand in a corner and consider offers coming from other candidates.

For some precincts, you have to get 16.7% or 25%, and in the very smallest your candidate has to get an outright majority and the other candidates' supporters are not counted at all.

In most instances, quite a number of folks have to decide who their second choice is and glom onto some candidate who has made the cut. Or, it's also possible that they can get together with other also-ran enthusiasts and come up with a high enough total to get one of their first-round losers over the minimum threshold.

Because of all that hubbub, predicting the result is a complete crapshoot. It is a highly distorted and distortable process.

Nonetheless, we will try. And we'll do so based on the notion that it's more or less straightforward, which it isn't.

[Note: The results from Republican Iowa caucuses are almost indistinguishable from primary elections—people just vote. But the Democrat process is that local people are electing 11,402 delegates to the county conventions, then 2,107 delegates to the state convention, and so on until they finally determine who the 41 national convention delegates are. Then there are the 8 additional super-delegates, but that's another story.]

OUR POSITION GOING IN

For the better part of a year now, despite enduring a great deal of ridicule, we have been maintaining that Bernie Sanders must be considered the leader in the Democratic nomination process. We even argued that his heart attacks would not have any effect. That resulted in even more pushback. But we think we have been proved correct on that.

We still believe he is the candidate to beat in Iowa tonight and again in New Hampshire eight days later. We fully acknowledge that we could be dead wrong. There could be a massive surprise win tomorrow, but we’re giving it our best analysis.

Here’s Why, Since April 2019, We Have Thought that Bernie Would Prevail

1)  A Following

Bernie has had a loyal contingent of fans and supporters for five years now. They are young, committed, ideological, and determined. They are convinced that America must have Bernie’s brand of socialism for our nation to survive.

They are also bitter—bitter at the Democrat Party establishment for cheating them in 2016, bitter at people like Donna Brazile for cheating them during the debates.

2) The Emergence of AOC

The energy and the surging, ascending power in the Democratic Party has been that of the Hard Left. (They are the counterparts to the Tea Party/Gun Enthusiasts/Pro-Life/Trumpista element that plays the power role in Republican primaries.) The emergence of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been a boon to Bernie’s fortunes. Like their counterparts on the right, they may or may not have a general election majority in place, but they have the energy to produce a nominee.

3) ?A Lack of Strong Alternatives

a.  The Original (and to many, the current) Frontrunner, Joe Biden

Almost nine months ago, despite all the overwhelming polls to the contrary, we stated that Joe Biden will not get the nomination. That has gotten us a lot of pushback as well.

However, two things became clear to us:

The Easter Egg Phenomenon.  It was by then obvious that Easter Egg hunt organizers could readily and fairly allow Joe Biden to hide his own Easter eggs because they could have great confidence that he would not remember where he put them. On the campaign trail, it has now become obvious that that assessment is more accurate than ever. A Democratic voter who is paying attention does not want Biden and Biden’s “memory” on the debate stage in the general election.

Ukraine.  Eight months ago, it was already obvious that Biden had huge problems with both his own and his son’s shenanigans in Ukraine. The impeachment inquiry and proceedings have raised the awareness level of that issue by a factor of 1,000.  Again, an intelligent Democrat voter can envision the ads that will appear about that sorry episode. It isn’t good. We think it’s fatal.

b.  The Second Frontrunner, Elizabeth Warren

More than 15 months ago, we posted that Elizabeth Warren is out, but that she simply doesn’t realize it. It was the day that she published her semi-idiotic DNA test, which she touted as “proving” she had “Indian blood.” Yeah, like maybe she was related to Folsom Man—provided that Folsom Man was an Indian. It was a goofy thing to do to start with, but a completely idiotic thing to tout, precisely because it showed her to be LESS likely to be an Indian than the majority of native-born Americans.

While that was enough for us, totally enough, Warren has only compounded her problems since then by lying incessantly about her past—she emphatically stated she never got any advantages by falsely claiming her “minority” status. We now all know she did. So do Democrat voters. They don’t want those ads either.

She also fared badly in designing and scripting an artificial “confrontation” with Bernie Sanders: “You called me a liar.” This was so poorly choreographed that even the national media had to acknowledge it as poorly thought out. It also backfired by reminding people that she has lied—several times. Smart Democrat voters don’t want those ads either. We still believe she is done, and has been for 15 months.

What Happens if we are Correct?

Where Have you Gone, Michael Bloomberg? Our Nation Turns its Lonely Eyes to You! Woo Woo Woo, Woo Woo Woo...

Except that Mayor Mike has not “left and gone away.” He’s here.

The Democrat Party establishment is already scared out of its collective mind at the thought of Bernie as the nominee. They have even jumped through hoops to make an emergency rule change to put Michael Bloomberg on the next debate stage.

Many people say that “money doesn’t win in politics.” Many people say “money wins more often than it doesn’t.” We don’t want to debate those statements. We will just say this: “There is money. Then there is money.”

What that means is, it’s one thing to talk about a Governor candidate or US Senate candidate putting in $20 million, or $50 million, or even $87 million of his or her own money—and winning (or purchasing) and election in Wisconsin, or Ohio, or New Jersey. It’s quite another thing to pour in TWO BILLION DOLLARS!

Never mind Bloomberg's fellow Democrats, even those Trumpistas who defiantly say they’re not scared about that are whistling past the graveyard. No one knows for sure how much THAT AMOUNT of money can or will play out. The fact is no one knows, because that kind of purchasing power has put us into uncharted waters.

In a desperate situation, the entire forces of the Democratic Party establishment, joining together with all the other Democrat candidates and special interest groups, could well turn to Bloomberg as their “Man on horseback”: “Ready booted and spurred to ride, and millions ready saddled and bridled to be ridden.”

THE FIVE PERSON RACE—COULD FORESTALL A DESPERATE TURN TO THE MAN ON THE HORSE

Months ago, while we were eliminating Joe and Elizabeth, we also included “the field” as a possibility. While we acknowledged that someone or a two or three might emerge, we also believed some in the field were foolish and non-starters. Cory Booker was an example. He didn’t get the Obama model.

Obama was vague. He spoke to hope and change and all kinds of imprecise notions and undeveloped mile-wide, inch-deep “ideas,” believing he could get white liberals and independents to engage in massive virtue signaling and to become wildly enthusiastic about “the first black President.” He was right about that.

Booker, however, didn’t get any of that. Neither did Kamala Harris (who we erroneously did believe would be formidable). They both instead jumped out and touted themselves as “the black candidate,” much as Sharpton and Jesse Jackson had done in the 1980s and 1990s. So they bombed. Too dumb to learn the lessons from history.

On the other hand, it was not out of the question that one or more—Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Young, Steyer, Gabbard, or someone else could catch hold. Months later, however, we don't think Buttigieg has, nor do we believe Steyer has, and, though to us she's the best of the lot, we don't think Gabbard has.  

But it does appear that Klobuchar may have caught on with a substantial number of Iowans. And it's possible that Yang has.

OUR BEST ESTIMATE

[Note: We actually called the Iowa Caucus Hotline and asked if voters could choose Michael Bloomberg, even though he's not running in the Caucuses. The answer was "yes." So we believe he will make a showing, at least 2% if not more, despite not running at all and having no organization.]

Bernie Sanders: 24.2

Joe Biden: 19.8

Amy Klobuchar: 16.5

Pete Buttigieg: 14.2

Elizabeth Warren: 13.1

Andrew Yang: 6.5

Tulsi Gabbard: 2.4

Michael Bloomberg: 2.0

Tom Steyer: 1.1

All Others: 0.2

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

(Trump tweeted at 8:24 PM, then, after staff saw the error—another good reason for having an editor—he did correct it at 8:27 PM.)

Please don’t attack us—we supported Trump in 2016 and have already endorsed Trump for re-election and acknowledge his highly successful administration.

ROSWELL— An overflow crowd was reported at the Chaves County Republican Convention last night. County Commissioner Robert B. Corn is the County Chairman.

We were told there could be a showdown among the CD 2 candidates, Yvette Herrell, Claire Chase, and Chris Mathys. We received these photos of Corn and the crowd.

Nothing much came of the event except a great deal of confusion. 104 people attended. 40 precinct representatives were chosen from the various county precincts. They selected 28 delegates to the Republican state pre-primary nominating convention.

Delegates were believed to be roughly split between the advocates of Yvette Herrell and Claire Chase. Mathys is thought to have little support here.Each of the candidates spoke for two minutes.

All five US Senate candidates were present. All were greeted with polite applause. They spoke in the following order: Gavin Clarkson, Mick Rich, Mark Ronchetti, Louie Sanchez, and Elisa Martinez.

Interviews with attendees indicated that Mark Ronchetti generated the most enthusiasm as he was seen as the most comfortable and enthusiastic speaker. 

"He seemed to have the crowd with him after a few seconds," noted one observer.

Another attendee remarked,

"Louie Sanchez was impressive. He is a real businessman and entrepreneur in the health care industry. That shooting range stuff is just a sideline."

For the record, we had never heard of Sanchez before a month ago.

All the candidates in both major races did very well for the two minutes they were allotted.

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

Adam Schiff has repeatedly said he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is. He has said no one knows. No one in the Senate knows. No one in the House knows. None of the house managers knows. Rand Paul doesn’t know.

So how does Chief Justice Roberts know that one of the two people named in Rand Paul’s question was the whistleblower?

Ben Ray Luján, the de facto Democratic Nominee

Lujan is a 47-year-old Congressman for Northern New Mexico with a notably undistinguished record in elective office. In fact, he only came to political office solely by virtue of his father’s fame, influence, and intervention.

In 2004, he won a four-way primary for Public Regulation Commission, and in 2008, he did it again, winning a six-way primary for Congress, beating a well-financed Donald Wiviott, 42-26. In both instances, his father, the then-Speaker of the House, pulled out all the stops and called in every chit to ensure that little Ben got the nomination.

He easily won CD 3 in the general election. He’s only had one highly serious Republican opponent, Thomas E Mullins in 2010. But the district is so heavily weighted toward the Democrats that even that election was decided by 14 points. Lujan has won all the others by a minimum of 23 points, usually 26, and he won the most recent contest by 32 points.

What is Ben Ray's background?

Ben Ray Luján was born in Santa Fe and attended schools in Pojoaque. His only civilian job was as a blackjack dealer at Lake Tahoe, NV, and then later at a northern New Mexico tribal casino. After his stint as a dealer, he attended the University of New Mexico for a spell, and 12 years later finally got a degree at New Mexico Highlands at age 35 while he was serving on the PRC.

(Of course, Ben's father was Speaker of the House, and New Mexico Highlands has always more or less been at the mercy of politics, but we digress.)

Meanwhile, his dad got him political appointments in the Office of the State Treasurer and at the Department of Cultural Affairs, before running interference for him in his PRC and Congressional primaries.

Why should he be Vulnerable?

Ben Ray has never run for office outside the highly gerrymandered PRC and Congressional seats in the north that tilt heavily to the Democrats.  He’s never really been tested at all—not in either of his daddy-aided primaries, and certainly not in any general election.  

In a state in which the oil and gas industry not only does all the heavy lifting for the state’s economy, but contributes more to the state budget than any other entity, Ben Ray makes a big deal of being a member of the Hispanic Green Caucus—which has taken its lead from the cock-eyed ideas of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Lujan does very little in the House, and his major role is following the Speaker around like a personal lapdog, jumping wildly to do her bidding rather than represent New Mexico.

Were it not for his father, who was holding more political chips than all New Mexico casinos combined, Ben Ray would almost certainly still be a black jack dealer at Cities of Gold or Buffalo Thunder Casino. Although it is certainly possible that he might have advanced to baccarat by now on his own skill.

(On the other hand, with the passing of his father in 2012, who was widely respected and very much admired in Democratic circles, it's certainly not out of the question that Ben Ray might well have been let go, or at best relegated to monitoring slot machines.) 

He is essentially a Hunter Biden-like creature, with no legitimate background or skills, except that he wanted his dad to help him get into politics rather than the private sector.   

Positions on Issues

In foreign policy, Lujan has been a strong supporter of the hare-brained Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which gave Iran $150 billion—not to mention the famous Obama delivery of nearly $2 billion in cash on pallets—and which threatens Israel, as well as Middle Eastern stability in general.

On domestic issues, Lujan is a conventional Leftist Democrat, with a 100% rating from Americans for Democratic Action, 89% from the ACLU, 97% from the radical union organizations, and 100% from the League of Conservation Voters—which takes radically anti-property rights positions supported by so-called enviros.

On social and cultural issues, he’s taken positions very strongly opposed to traditional values. He has a 0% rating from the Family Research Council, 8% from the Heritage Action for America, and 4% from the American Conservative Union. Regarding economic issues, he has received a 5% score from the Club for Growth.

Clearly, Ben Ray Lujan is positioned about as far to the Left as he can place himself. 

Republican Candidates

Thus far there are five declared candidates vying for the GOP nomination. All of them are very capable, each highly qualified in his or her own right.

Gavin Clarkson, a former professor at New Mexico State University, and the Republican nominee for Secretary of State two years ago. He also ran third the the GOP primary for CD 2.

Elisa Martinez, a member of the Navajo Nation, and Executive Director of the New Mexico Alliance for Life.

Mick Rich, a businessman in the building industry and the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate two years ago.

Mark Ronchetti, a former meteorologist at Albuquerque TV station KRQE.

Louie Sanchez, a businessman in the health care industry.

Any of the five, if he or she is sufficiently financed, has a real chance to defeat Lujan. “Sufficiently financed” is a very key element. The last two successful US Senate candidates in New Mexico raised $8.74 million and $6.30 million respectively.

It is unlikely that any of the Republicans can be successful unless he or she can at least “approach” those totals to some reasonable degree, say, perhaps, reaching at the very least a minimum of $5 million.

What Should Republicans Do?

Far be it from us to dictate, or even suggest what a major party should do. However, it seems that at the least the rank and file of the Grand Old Party will have to keep their powder dry and let the voters decide who their nominee will be.

At that point they will have to unite as never before, pushing aside all the naysayers that may be roving to and fro.

What Republicans Should NOT Do

One thing they absolutely cannot do is engage in the social media attacks currently being led by Twitter, Facebook, and email warriors employed, oddly, by the Republican Party of New Mexico.

In encouraging this kind destructive behavior, State Party chairman Steve Pearce and his Executive Director have not followed the legally required neutrality approach, which is also required by Republican Party rules.

Instead they are continuing to foment discontent and disunity, slamming local party chairs, expressing favoritism for preferred candidates, and encouraging their Facebook, Twitter, and radio allies to attack fellow Republicans.

This is a key point to understand: They are trying to tear down candidates behind whom the GOP would have to unite in the fall if they are to have a chance of success. 

These tactics just aren't smart at all. For example, if the Pearce-led forces are "successful" in destroying the reputations of individual candidates, they will have potentially fatally wounded whoever might end up being the GOP nominee for the general election.

So these tactics, led by a physician, a young blogger, a Rio Rancho perennial candidate, an "independent" radio guy—all very very angry sounding—and a number of other very angry men and women, just don't make sense.

We not only don’t believe this is a formula for success, frankly, we believe it is completely nutty.

If they really want to win, then regular, normal, rank-and-file Republicans should shun the negative people, avoid all these personal internecine battles, be very supportive of all of their primary candidates, and commit to getting behind the eventual nominees—for each and every office—and try to win in November.

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

Former Governor Susana Martinez has been invited to speak at the county convention. She did not ask to speak. She was invited to speak. It was a logical invitation. Martinez will talk about how important it is for all Republicans, especially in Bernalillo County, to work as hard as they can to re-elect President Donald J. Trump as well as all the other Republican candidates up and down the ballot.

How on earth, in the minds of any Republicans, is this in any way controversial?

Answer: It isn't. It's the opposite of controversial. It's a no-brainer. Martinez is the only statewide elected official in the history of the state to organize a unified effort to turn the state Republican.

She is the only statewide elected official to raise money—some $4 million—for the purpose of electing Republicans to the legislature and other offices. It was through her cooperative efforts at fundraising and messaging that the Republicans captured the State House of Representatives in 2014—and that was the first time that had been done in 60 years!

Why is Martinez, in particular, especially suited to talking about unity and winning elections? Because of what we just wrote. She is unique in that respect.

Politicians are notoriously self-protecting and self-centered, focusing only on their own political races and on protecting themselves. For all of his success, winning six terms, Pete Domenici never did the kind of unifying and cooperative spending that Martinez did. No one has. Not Bruce King for his party. Not Jeff Bingaman. Not Bill Richardson. No one. 

There is nothing at all controversial about having Martinez speak ANYWHERE to any Republican group. 

We have no idea why there is a coordinated effort by the Republican Party of New Mexico and the minions and disciples of divisive people like Anissa Tinnin and Steve Pearce to viciously attack both Martinez and the volunteer Chairwoman of the Republican Party of Bernalillo County, Julie McIntyre Wright. 

None of it makes any sense. 

The Pearce/Tinnin/Block/Aragon crowd are even spreading the lie that the Trump campaign people will not be allowed to speak. But, again, that is a lie. They are going to speak.

Immaturity and Stolen E-mails

It is our understanding that in this whole process there was a stolen email involved. One in which an exasperated and harrassed Bernalillo County party official who had gotten angry at the way he was being treated, lashed out that some unnamed people.

He did write: "After all their shenanigans and ridiculous behavior, including taking credit for things they didn't do..trying to steal (and kick us out of) the office"..."harassing Julie by accusing her of being disloyal to the president,"...and "acting literally like nazis..."

He did not say that anyone was a "Nazi." He said they "acted" like it. In the same vein as the famous Soup Nazi. 

What would a mature party leader and party leadership do?

They might call or talk to people to try to reach an understanding or an accommodation of some sort. Just calm people down.

But what did Steve Pearce and Anissa Tinnin do?

They went public with all of it. Publishing rebukes and accusations and repeating stuff. 

Folks, that is not what mature, calm, thoughtful, intelligent party leaders—or any kind of leaders—actually do. It just isn't.

Tinnin is highly suspect in this whole thing as she has massive experience in stolen emails. It may be her forte.

Why Pearce believes in stolen email and these kinds of nonsensical actions are beyond us. We have no idea. 

FACTS FOR THE PUBLIC TO CONSUME

• Susana Martinez was invited to speak by a hard-working volunteer party chair. That is logical and sensible.
• Martinez has only one message: Unity and hard-work for Trump and the entire Republican slate.
• Tinnin and Pearce raised a tempest in a teapot to public view. That is very dumb.
• Wannabe politicos Eddy Aragon and John Block both piled on, apparently hired or encouraged to perpetuate division.

Eddy Aragon attempted to run for Albuquerque City Council in 2017 as an independent (he's been in multiple parties); did not file proper paperwork, nor accurate reports of fundraising, got into shouting matches over it, filed a false police report, and ultimately dropped out of the race (he was never competent enough to actually get in). He also is continuously making noise about running for the US Senate.

John Block worked for Democrat Tim Keller during the 2017 Albuquerque mayoral race. He also interned for Democrat Senator Martin Heinrich. So he has converted, and that is fine. (As Catholics say, "there's no one more zealous than a convert.") But it is a bit rich for him to lecture to anyone about the "purity" or longevity of their Republican commitment. 

Bottom Line

If Republicans want to be successful, they have to realize that they either need to stop listening to the divisive messages constantly being preached by Pearce, Tinnin, the Gang of 8, and the Galassini Cult in Alamogordo.

Their only hope is unity and hard work at the local grassroots level, ignoring the social media attacks that the state party and their allies constantly produce to try to discredit Republicans they don't approve of.

The state party needs to get out of the business of :

• Attacking fellow Republicans
• Choosing favorite candidates in legislative races
• Trying to force candidates to hire particular consultants or staff (with the threat of recruiting a primary opponent)
• Stealing emails (for heaven's sake, this has to finally stop!)
• Choosing favorite candidates in congressional races
• Attacking Republicans for not being among the 25-30% of primary voters who initially supported Trump
• Trying to discourage millions of Republicans who didn't vote for Trump in the primary, but DID SUPPORT him in the General Election

All of these things are not only divisive, they are downright stupid.

Republicans must change these approaches—PROVIDED they are serioius about winning.

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

We cannot understand why the "leadership" of the Republican Party of New Mexico continues to work as hard as they can to divide the New Mexico GOP. The end-of-year voter registration showed that Democrats outnumber Republicans in the state by nearly 200,000 voters (579,409 Democrats, 384,937 Republicans).

Add to that an enormous number of Decline-to-State voters, 285,111 to be exact—a huge percentage of which registered that way when they signed up for some form of government assistance—and you have a situation in which Republican candidates must face a highly unfavorable electorate.

So it is bizarre that state party officials Steve Pearce and Anissa Galassini Ford Tinnin, along with erstwhile "Republican" radio show host Eddy Aragon* (who has also been a Libertarian, independent, and who knows what all) and various other divisive minions on social media have set their sights on Republicans.

If their goal is to win elections, and if they're going to take aim at anyone, it should be Democrats. 

Susana Martinez—Her Remarkable Record is Largely Unknown to New Mexicans 

That's what 8 years of Criticism by the Gang of 8 and the Galassini Cult will Get You

It is an irony of ironies that none of the RPNM people and their toadies can stop vilifying Susana Martinez, the only governor they actually criticize, and whom they have attacked nonstop for eight years.

Largely because of propagandizing by Pearce, Tinnin, Aragon, and the Galassini Cult based in Alamogordo, almost no New Mexicans even know that Martinez was rated as the most successful governor in the US—the only governor in 2018 to receive an A+ from the CATO Institute, a fiscal watchdog group. Yes, Martinez left the state with an all-time record surplus of $2.2 billion a Martinez 

Inviting an ex-Governor to Speak is a Crime?—And NO, She is not and Never was a "Never Trumper"

Aragon has spent days attacking the Chairwoman of the Republican Party of Bernalillo County, Judith McIntyre Wright, for having the temerity to invite Susana Martinez to speak at an event. He did so apparently at the behest of Pearce and Tinnin. Why? Because they continue to hate her—for no reason other than childishness. 

Aragon claims that Martinez can never be allowed to speak at any event because, he says, she is a "Never-Trumper." But he is lying. And we wonder why. But the reality is that she never has been any such thing. We spoke directly with the former governor, and here is what she said:

"I voted for Trump. There is no way I was ever going to vote for Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson. Were there were moments when I wished Trump had used language that was different from what he used? Of course. But that puts me in the same category as approximately 30,000,000 other Republicans. 

Sure there are times I wish he wouldn't say or text certain things. So what? That doesn't make me a "Never Trumper. I am in complete support of his policies, from national security to border security—which is much the same thing—and all across the board, to his ensuring that our law enforcement officers are safe and many other things. He has delivered and I strongly support his re-election. It is ridiculous for anyone to claim that I am a 'Never Trumper.'"

Phony, Made-up Issues

A number of party volunteers and stalwarts, including county chairs, are pushing back against the "Us against Them" mentality of the Pearce-ite party officials. The RPNM has been playing favorites, helping preferred candidates, pushing narratives that try to harm candidates that are not necessarily in their little clique. 

If the Republican Party says you can't be a candidate or you can't be a Republican unless you were on the escalator with Trump when he announced, then they are disqualifying more than 70% of the present membership of the GOP. Trump only got 25-30% of the vote in his early primaries. And in the final analysis, more than 55% of Republicans supported someone other than Trump in the nomination process.

That includes party favorite Yvette Herrell who was part of the Ted Cruz team early on. It also includes Eddy Aragon too, who was also for Cruz. It also includes Pearce, who was very unhappy with Trump from time to time in the early going. 

Bottom Line: The Republican Party "leadership" needs to clean up their act, get over their constant airing of grievances, and concentrate on growing the party, not shrinking it.

Either that or get out of the way. 

* NOTE: According to ratings providers, his show has fewer than 150 listeners. Also, Aragon has announced as a US Senate candidate, so he may be in trouble with the FEC for his antics.

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

It certainly appeared to us that Elizabeth Warren very carefully planned her little confrontation with Bernie, ensuring that there were open mikes. Her purpose was:

1) damaging Bernie’s overall image as “woke,” but especially among women; and
2) conveying the idea that she is a “strong” leader.

Friday it was announced that the Virginia Legislature voted to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. In so doing, it became the 38th state to approve the amendment. Virginia’s action is alleged to mean that the long-awaited ERA has finally satisfied the Constitutional provision that requires that ¾ ths of the states must ratify an amendment for it to be adopted.

We Doubt It However

However, there is a glitch. When Congress passed the amendment and sent it to the states, in 1972, it included a clause requiring that the states must ratify the resolution within seven years from that date. That period lasted from 1972 to 1979—without the necessary 38 states approving it. So Congress then granted it a controversial three-year extension—but 1982 came and went and it still wasn’t ratified.

Now, nearly 38 years after the last deadline passed, Virginia claims to be the decisive 38th state. You can see the controversy immediately. Proponents claim that the deadline clause is somehow "unconstitutional." We don't see how that can be reasoned.

It is true that most constitutional amendments have not had "deadlines" for ratification. However, four of them do. The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) was the first to have the "seven-year deadline" tacked on. Apparently, Congress believed that the temperance movement was eventually going to die out and the enthusiasm for prohibition would fade in a few years. It didn't, as we all know.

The 20th Amendment (Dates of presidential and congressional terms; inauguration) also had the deadline added on, And the 21st Amendment (Repealing Prohibition) contained the deadline—with Congress probably hoping the states would be encouraged to hurry up. The ill-advised 22nd Amendment (Two-term presidential limit) was the last to contain the seven-year clause.

But there's more: Even if you believe there is somehow something "improper" with there being a deadline, there's the additional issue that has arisen because five states have repealed their own ratification of the ERA. Are those states' actions allowable?

Or does a state get only one shot at deciding on constitutional amendments: Up or Down?, One time? If that is the case, then why have states taken several votes before ratifying certain amendments? Is ratification a one-way street: You get to try to approve an amendment as many times as you want to, getting second chance after second chance—or third or fourth chance;  BUT, you don't ever get a second chance NOT to ratify. 

In other words, proponents get unlimited chances, while opponents get only one. Seems an odd concept. Yet some people insist that's the way it should be.

Many Believe the ERA Issue will End up in the Supreme Court

For all the reasons discussed above, we aren't sure this will make it to SCOTUS. There does not appear to be a valid case. It seems that proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment should have to start all over. And maybe this time ensure that there is no time-limit clause.

But if the Case were to Reach the Court, How Would Justices Rule?

A case like this one will present a classic example of the difference between so-called "conservative" and "liberal" justices and their approach to the law.

The Liberals

Because they strongly favor the ERA, four of the justices (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan) would all vote (and we use "vote" because they do see themselves as having a legislative function) in favor of saying that the ERA has been ratified.   

1) They would say that the time-limit is somehow disallowed (they'd come up with some reasoning, regardless of how tortured it may be) and:

2) They would use the same approach to "reason" that no state can "rescind" its ratification. 

Again, they would do this not because the law actually says they must, but because THEY FAVOR the policy—a certain outcome of the controversy. They would not be reaching their decision based on the black letter reading of the legislation in question, or based on perfectly constitutional and proper actions taken by legislatures.

They can't. The laws, the proposals, and the resolutions don't say what they want them to say. Likewise, the actions of the states are not what they want to see either. But it's important to understand that judicial liberalism means enacting what you want to see adopted as public policy by means of court rulings. They will agree with the Virginia Legislature. Why? Because they want to. 

The Conservatives

Among the five conservatives, one or two of them, perhaps all of them, may also favor the ERA, believing it to be good public policy. Or some or all of them may have their doubts. We don't know. However, the rationale for their ruling will be very different from that of the liberals.

If they are judicial conservatives, they will rule that the time limit has expired. Why? Because it has expired. They will acknowledge that it's up to Congress to propose the amendments, not the courts. And the Congress can write the resolutions any way they desire. 

Bottom Line

The four liberals will try to overcome any obstacles that may exist in order to get to an outcome they want to see—the adoption of the ERA.

The five conservatives, assuming they are jurisprudential conservatives, will follow the actual law as written, and rule against efforts to circumvent legal, prescribed deadlines. 

The differences between judicial conservatives and liberals are not based on public policy preferences, but rather how they approach the questions. "What does the law say?" As opposed to "What do I want to see happen?"

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

Apparently, Governor Grisham made some pointed remarks today about James Hallinan, her former staffer who made very specific allegations of sexual assault and abuse against Grisham. NMPJ broke that story, publishing Hallinan's detailed accusations on December 26.

HERE IS A STATEMENT GRISHAM APPARENTLY ISSUED TODAY, ATTACKING HALLINAN

(Although the wording or syntax, apparently either drafted by the Governor's staff, or spoken by Grisham, is sketchy):

"It’s unfair to victims. It’s completely false.  There are real victims every single day and in this poisonous climate that’s what happens, right? that they use these things and they hide from real things do happen. I hope he gets help, but I’m proud of who I am, what I stand for and what we are going to get done.

HALLINAN ISSUES THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IN RESPONSE

I have issued the following statement:

"Governor Lujan Grisham’s comments are inappropriate and damaging, only serving to revictimize Mr. Hallinan and countless other victims.

"We look forward to a court’s assessment of who the 'real victims' are and who truly seeks to 'hide' from the 'real things' they have perpetrated against employees and associates over the years.

"We are hopeful that other victims will come forward to further expose the truth."  

          – Rachel Berlin Benjamin, lead legal counsel for James Hallinan     

    Buckley Beal, LLP, 600 Peach Street N. E., Suite 900, Atlanta, Georgia, 30308

WE ARE NOT SURE, BUT IT APPEARS THAT HALLINAN HAS A HIGH-POWERED LAW FIRM

(If that's the case, Governor Groin-Grabber may not be out of the woods so quickly—or as quickly as she thinks...)

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

19 days ago, at 1:07 PM on Thursday, 26 December, we broke the story of James Hallinan’s first-hand, personally-delivered report stating that Governor Grisham grabbed him in the groin in front of witnesses. Since then, the story has been read on our sites nearly 50,000 times:

                10,659 on our website (www.newmexicopoliticaljournal.com

                13,482 on our Twitter handle (@NMPolJournal)

                25,197 on our Facebook page (@NMPoliticalJournal)

For a grand total of 49,338 readers.

We called out both the Mainstream Media as well as the four leading Democrat social media blog sites. “Why are we the only ones covering this story?”

The answer, unfortunately, was one that comes under the familiar title “Only in New Mexico.” That is to say: because it involves not only the state’s leading Democrat, but a progressive Democrat, the media did not know whether to poop in their pants, go blind, or look around for any other possible option. There was clear panic in the newsrooms.

But not just in the newsrooms. The Republican Party of New Mexico did not know what to do or say, and still doesn’t. The same goes for the Galassini Cult—a group centered in Alamogordo which has effectively destroyed the Republican Party of Otero County—and is the de facto controlling element of the RPNM. More on those two later.

Suffice it to say that the Republican Party should be all over this story. Demanding answers, keeping it in the public eye, insisting on the same kind of coverage that would occur if the alleged perpetrator were a Republican.

Can you imagine the wall-to-wall coverage this story would have been having for the past 19 days if Susana Martinez were the alleged perp? No. Don’t bother. You cannot even begin to imagine the level and intensity of media sensation that would surround us.

Missing the Point: The Story is not now and Never Has Never Been About the Provable Guilt or Innocence of Grisham: But the Hypocrisy of So Many—Including the Mainstream Media, the #MeToo Movement, and the Established Democrat Party

A Local TV Station

After breaking the story and calling out the media, we got this from a KOAT-TV reporter:

“James Hallinan posted these on social media moments before leaving the country for vacation, and as he mentioned, he has declined media interviews.

"Without an interview or a criminal complaint/lawsuit filed, it would be irresponsible for any journalist to run with this…If Hallinan agrees to do interviews, and any similar incidents are corroborated, I assure you this will get plenty of media attention….”
 

Our response was, essentially: what part of Journalism 101 did KOAT not understand? Hallinan DID do an interview. And the KOAT reporter read it—that’s how he knew that his station and all the other TV stations and other media were being called out.

“Hallinan did a first-hand, on-the-record interview. He also posted tweets that are, by definition, first-hand, on-the-record statements. There is no denying that.

We asked the reporter:

“Did KOAT interview the Kavanaugh accuser? Answer: No, you didn’t.”

 “Did [the accuser in that case] file a lawsuit? Answer: No. She did not.”

 “Did she go to the police? Answer: No. She did not.”

But:

  “Did KOAT run the story? Answer: Yes. You did. Many of them.”

Corroborated? Corroborated? Whoa! When did the media EVER ask for a Kavanaugh story—or countless others—be “corroborated” prior to begin covering the story? You’re right if your answer is “NEVER.”

The reporter got angry and sent several more emails he probably regrets.

The station eventually covered the story without:

•     A police report

•     A lawsuit

•     Any "corroboration" by anyone

Better to be shamed into covering the story than not to cover it ever.

A Local Albuquerque FM “Talk Radio” Station (which claims to be “libertarian” or “Conservative”

[NOTE: This station is not at all like KKOB, which is the established 50,000-watt talk radio leader in New Mexico. Instead, this station broadcasts with only 250 watts of power and has an estimated audience of fewer than 150 listeners.]

Here is what the station manager/owner had to say about the Hallinan-Grisham Story:

"This is not a story”…“Sorry folks…I smell BS…PAY NO ATTENTION TO THIS!”

“It has to be corroborated…” Has he gone to law enforcement? Does he have an attorney?

“As much as I would like to cover this and wouldn’t mind this being true, he’s going to need a lawyer and a criminal report before his claim can be legitimized.

"There’s no one to corroborate his claims…If he actually contacts law enforcement then we can “play ball” folks! Let’s see                what happens."

We have to tell you—because intelligent voters, Republican or Democrat would not believe it otherwise—that we are not making this up.

Normally, given the extremely tiny “reach” of this station, we wouldn’t pay that much attention. But several readers sent us these bizarre, unintelligible comments, and other comments on Facebook.

We decided to include these comments only because the station—despite its irrelevance—has a close relationship with the RPNM. In fact, we are told that Steve Pearce actually PAYS the station to have his own show taped and broadcast on Saturdays. (The radio station operator also claims to be ready to announce his own run for the US Senate.)

To Sum it Up

The Hallinan report, which we believe is far from over, is about hypocrisy. The Weinstein trial is ongoing. Hypocrisy and double standards abound.

Yet, the only elected official or candidate the Republican Party of New Mexico and all its divisive allied "But-Boys" ("we can't cover this, but...we can't register voters, but...we can't win any elections, but....we can't manage a message, but...we can't organize any campaign at all, but...") have ever seen fit to criticize is…wait for it…Susana Martinez. (All apparently because of personal, petty feuds cooked up by Pearce, Harvey Yates, among others.)

Martinez, by the way, left the state with a $2.2 billion surplus and is the only governor in America to receive an A+ rating from the CATO Institute—in recognition of her fiscal leadership, numerous vetoes to reduce government spending or stop unnecessary spending proposals, and her vetoes of ALL proposals to raise taxes or fees.

She left office as the highest-rated governor in the country. Yet, the Gang of 8, which currently runs Republican headquarters, fought her and criticized her every step of the way for eight solid years. A truly amazing and ridiculous story.

(The same goes for their allies in the Galassini Cult of Alamogordo which has destroyed the Republican Party of Otero County. But more on that ongoing soap opera in a later edition.)

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

Clearly not wanting to interfere with the massive statewide celebrations of New Mexico's 108th Birthday, Albuquerque meteorologist Mark Ronchetti waited till the morning of January 7 to announce his candidacy for the US Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Tom Udall.

Ronchetti will compete for the Republican nomination in the primary which will take place on June 2. Already in the GOP race are Gavin Clarkson, Mick Rich, Elisa Martinez, and Louis Sánchez, who just entered the race. None, so far, has sparked the level of excitement that Ronchetti's announcement has immediately received.

A Late Entry—But There are Reasons Ronchetti is an Intriguing Option

In reviewing US Senate races over the past several decades, it is difficult to find a serious major party candidate announcing his or her candidacy at this late a date—fewer than five months from the date of a primary. However, we see Ronchetti as an intriguing candidate for several reasons:

1) Bernalillo County. The state's largest county has been migrating leftward for some 30 years, and increasingly so over the past decade. It hasn't voted for a Republican presidential nominee since 1988, though Republicans continued to carry the county in some off-year statewide races through the years.

But Ronchetti has been a very popular local fixture on KRQE-TV for 13 years. And there is precedent for a very well-known local Albuquerque Republican to do well and buck the trend. The most recent example is in 2016, when Bernalillo County District Court Judge Judith Nakamura, running in a presidential year, carried the county by more than 24,000 votes on her way to winning a seat on the Supreme Court.

She did so even though Trump was losing the county by yearly 49,000, an amazing swing of some 73,000 votes. Ronchetti almost certainly has even higher name recognition than Nakamura.

2) Ronchetti is an outsider. In fact, he's so much an outsider that he's an outsider's outsider. With a completely fresh start, not coming from politics at all, and having never run for office, he can bring what well may be seen as a fresh voice, an non-politician's perspective.

3) He has the potential to unite all forces in the Republican Party, as well as independents and non-Hard Left Democrats. We have heard rumors/speculation that Ronchetti's team—perhaps meaning key supporters, or those willing to endorse or get deeply involved (we're not sure)—may well include folks from disparate wings, so to speak, of the Republican Party.

He may have prominent support from those who have supported current and previous GOP primary opponents. In other words, Ronchetti may have the backing of some who support CD 2 candidate Yvette Herrell as well as supporters of her opponent Claire Chase. He may also be backed by Susana Martinez supporters as well as those who supported her first primary opponent Allen Weh. 

4) He will be a hard target. We all know and lament the extreme negativity that seems to permeate the airwaves in every single political campaign these days, from local school board races all the way to President of the United States.

The bulk of the ammunition used in such attacks comes from the voting records or public statements made on the campaign trail in previous races. People who have been in political office have taken tough votes or have worked to enact ordinances on a city council or county commission, or they have sponsored bills in the legislature.

All of those actions provide rationales for negative attacks, often unfair, but attacks nonetheless. Ronchetti has none of that ready-made baggage.

Of course that doesn't mean he won't be attacked—he will be. But the attacks are likely to based on trivial or contrived matters, which will in turn likely make him a more sympathetic figure than most political candidates. Opponents will have to be very careful so as to not have their attacks backfire.

Ronchetti's Statements

"Like all New Mexicans, I want my kids to grow up in an America where opportunities are created right here in New Mexico—where the American dream is as strong today as it’s ever been. I’m concerned that Washington is standing in the way of that bright future."

“Sadly, politicians like Congressman Ben Ray Lujàn are focused more on fighting one another than fighting for us—and that’s why I couldn’t sit on the sidelines anymore.” 

“New Mexicans are fed up with the petty partisan politics that has gotten in the way of progress for New Mexicans.”

“Hatred for your political opponents can never be stronger than your love of New Mexico—when it is, nobody wins. When partisanship is all that matters, it’s the people that get left behind—I will always put New Mexicans first.” 

Ronchetti describes himself as "a political outsider" who has worked in television news for more than 23 years. He is a pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment conservative Republican who believes in low taxes and that government’s number one job should be to protect freedom and liberty and keep our families safe.

He is the grandson of immigrants who says that his family "has impressed on him the importance of serving one’s community, and that the promise of the American Dream is what makes the United States a truly great and unique country."

He states that he will take a "pragmatic, outsider perspective to Washington" and "always prioritize the future of New Mexico families—and the protection of the American Dream for every child—above all else."

His Campaign Goes on to Say

"New Mexico deserves a senator who has not been part of the problem in Washington, but a senator who will represent true New Mexican values.

Mark will be New Mexicans’ voice in the nation’s capital, where he will work to preserve and grow New Mexico’s role at the forefront of our national defense, secure our southern border, and bring much-needed federal help toward the daily fight against crime. He is ready to bring new leadership to Washington."

Ronchetti is 46, lives in Albuquerque, where he and his wife, Krysty, are raising two young daughters. They say they are "proud New Mexicans who want their children to be able to chase and realize their boldest dreams—right here, at home."

The Bernalillo County Factor: It Cannot be Overstated

In thinking about the decision that Republican primary voters will have to make, we have to return to the concept of the popular local Albuquerquean. Overcoming the devastating results that Bernalillo County has produced for the GOP is a consideration that simply has to be made.

Long gone are the days, 35 years ago when the county went for Ronald Reagan by 37,000 votes, leading to a statewide margin of 106,000.

Despite supporting the local builder Gary Johnson twice in off-year elections, by the turn of the century, Albuquerque had drifted far enough Left to produce a 4,000 vote margin for Al Gore, as the state ended up in a virtual tie, with Gore winning the state by only 366 votes.

Then four years later, in 2004, an all-out, unprecedented Get-out-the-Vote campaign by both parties drove up Bernalillo County turnout by over 24% in just one presidential election cycle, as more than 257,000 Albuquerqueans voted in 2004, compared to 206,000 in 2000.

That same GOTV push was being made all over the state as statewide turnout surged by 28%. President Bush carried the state by 5,988 votes, but John Kerry prevailed in Bernalillo County by 10,800. 

The weak candidacy of John McCain led to a landslide by Obama in 2008, as he swept Bernco 171,556 to 110,521, a county presidential record margin of 61,000 votes. in 2012, Romney fared somewhat better, losing by "only" 44,000 votes.

But in 2016, there were a couple of mixed messages: 1) Trump saw the GOP margin of defeat climb back to nearly 49,000 in the presidential race, while 2) Nakamura—the popular local—reversed those numbers, carrying the county by over 24,000 votes. Elsewhere in the state, she led by only a little over  6,000, giving her a margin of victory of 30,500 statewide in an otherwise disastrous year for the Republican Party.

Hope for the GOP. Concern Among Democrats

Again, no one knows the thinking behind any of the candidacies or campaigns that have been launched. We can only speculate—e.g. Ben Ray Lujan wants to move up from the House, etc. And we haven't spoken with any of the other candidates in weeks or months, and we've never spoken with Ronchetti.

However, in thinking about Ronchetti's image, and looking at the Bernalillo County voting dynamics and its impact on New Mexico elections, we can see how it's not unreasonable that New Mexico Republicans may very well become very enthusiastic about a Ronchetti run for the US Senate. There is a lot to consider in the numbers that can make Ronchetti a potential game-changer. 

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

Alexis Johnson is one of seven Republican candidates vying for the GOP nomination in the open northern NM congressional district being vacated by Democrat Ben Ray Lujan.

This afternoon she issued a press release titled:

Fairly well illustrated in these photographs.

This is another consideration for voters as America heads into 2020. Trump, if anything, has been far LESS interventionist than his predecessors. Yet, he has shown that he can and will take decisive action when required.

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

Leading Democrats and their (de facto) campaign managers in the mainstream media took to the airwaves yesterday to bemoan the creepy, unrelenting, inexplicable racism that persists within their own ranks.

NBC's Andrea Mitchell led the self-loathing discussion, clearly recognizing the Democratic Party's traditional association with racism, the Klan, Jim Crow, and segregation, almost tearfully declaring:

"as of now there are going to be five white candidates on the next debate stage."

Mitchell, who became famous last April for having assumed that Castro was Cuban because his last name is, well...Castro, simply had no words to describe her despair.

The painfully non-introspective Mitchell droned on about the lack of diversity within the ranks of the Democrat contenders, ignoring the fact that all of them express virtually identical views on all the issues being pushed by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

Castro, for his part, had contributed one of the more bizarre policy positions in recent centuries—when in a debate in June he became the first candidate in any party to ardently and vociferously insist on "abortion rights for transgender women."

When informed after the debate that transgender women are actually biologically male, have no ovaries, and cannot become pregnant, Castro angrily declared that he would "look into it." Following this "controversial" policy initiative, Castro's campaign, which had never exactly surged, went either downhill or remained the same. It was difficult for analysts to determine which. In any case, he's done now.

One additional note: Castro tried desperately to base his campaign on identity politics, effectively shouting "I'm Hispanic, I'm Hispanic, I'm Hispanic" over and over again—entirely oblivious to the obvious racism inherent in identity politics (but then, the entire Democrat Party is also oblivious to it).

However, Castro—just like the now-forgotten "Beto" and the currently forgotten Cory Booker—could NOT actually speak Spanish. He spoke Spanish like some Gringo tourist who just got off a plane somewhere, talking like Steve Martin:

"doan day ess tah el bahn yo?"

In short, he was hilarious. And he will be missed.

[NOTE: This is NOT a parody, even though it sounds like one.]

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

“This is very simple: General Soleimani is dead because he was an evil bastard who murdered Americans.

“The President made the brave and right call, and Americans should be proud of our service members who got the job done.”

America must resolve in #2020 to stop the kinds of #AntiSemitic attacks shown in this video https://twitter.com/i/status/1211798042027970560 and carried out by the #Left’s #AntifaDomesticTerrorists, #BLM thugs, and others inspired by the Democratic Party. We must stand up to the Democrats' promotion of #BDS — Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions — all aimed at Israel. 

And we must call out the college professors and lecturers, as well as even high school teachers who are indoctrinating the ignorant oncoming generations to be anti-Israel.

We must also call out their leaders in their racism and antisemitism: Leaders such as Ilhan Omar, a Democrat Congresswoman from Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat Congresswoman from Illinois, Al Sharpton, a Democrat Party stooge, fraud, and con artist from New York, and Minister Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam and also a con artist extraordinaire.

Call Out Those Who Tolerate Them

Hold them to account. It is bizarre the extent to which neither the Democrat Party nor any talking head in the Mainstream Media will condemn any of the most virulent antisemitic acts or attacks carried out by any of these people.

As Massachusetts voter Josh Eibelman has written to his Congressional Representative, Ayanna Pressley:

"... I have become increasingly disappointed and concerned about your silence with regards to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Omar and Tlaib, members of the “Squad” which you are proudly part of, have in the past engaged in anti-Semitic rhetoric. They have also slandered and defamed the world’s only Jewish state. So I was concerned about your membership in “the Squad.” But I became more hopeful when I learned you supported the bill condemning the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

But I expected you to condemn the anti-Semitic rhetoric your “sisters” are spouting. I thought you would call out Miftah for its vile Jew-hatred. I hoped you would reaffirm the shared values of democracy and freedom that the United States and Israel stand for...

Instead, your statement made you a bystander to the hate and ill-will Congresswomen Omar and Tlaib have for Israel — and for Jews.

... you wrote, “Congresswomen Omar and Tlaib are my dear friends, my sisters in service and hardworking Americans who have been subject to some of the most vile and vicious attacks simply for being who they are.”

Congresswoman Pressley: Members of The Squad, which you so proudly represent, are dealing a grave injustice to American Jewry. You have a moral obligation to stand up for your Jewish brothers and sisters, especially those in your District. We are pained by your silence, and willful ignorance of the vile rhetoric propagated by your “sisters in service.”

As an American, I am shocked by your silence, and as a Jew, I am outraged by it. And as a voting constituent, I hope you will find your voice."

We noted the Democratic Party's dangerous-looking moves toward antisemitism some 25-30 years ago in its party leaders' refusal or reluctance to condemn people like Sharpton. Since then, the Democrats' media organs have, most bizarrely, given Sharpton his own platform on their flagship media outlet. 

Over the past decade or so, the drift toward antisemitism among the Democrat faithful has turned into a flood.

2020 should be a year in which it is confronted by decent Americans throughout the country. 

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

Another blunder for doofus ole Joe. Where would America be without him? Read it hear: https://bit.ly/2F5S9Me

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

One of Trump's most vocal critics is the pussy hat-wearing Governor of New Mexico. She is also a woman who demanded that State Senator Michael Padilla not only quit the race for Lieutenant Governor, but immediately resign from the State Senate—based on allegations of sexual harassment that were ten years old. 

Numerous New Mexico Democrat-favoring blogs weighed in breathlessly and angrily. They demanded that people who were faced with unsubstantiated charges be railroaded. Immediately.

These were folks like Padilla and others like former State Representative Carl Trujillo (who passed a lie detector test, which his accuser refused to take). In Trujillo's case, the charges "went away" once Andrea Romero who used the charges against him, won the Democrat primary in June of 2018. Mysterious.

And the bloggers were successful, as New Mexico Senate Democrats led by Peter Wirth and Mimi Stewart (who directly benefited from Padilla being kicked out of his job) decided to run Padilla off. 

Those blogs included NMPolitics.net, led by Heath Haussamen, New Mexico Political Report with Andy Lyman and Matthew Reichbach, New Mexico in Depth with Trip Jennings and Marjorie Childress, New Mexico Politics with Joe Monahan, along with the Associated Press with Morgan Lee and Russell Contreras, the Albuquerque Journal, the Santa Fe New Mexican, and the Las Cruces Sun-News, all of whom went ballistic. 

They all sang right on cue and right in key. 

Well, where are they now? The story of Grisham's groin-grabbing is 48 hours old. What do we have? Silence. Again, right on cue, and right in key.

Grisham isn't now just known for gun-grabbing, but for groin grabbing. (The Marines might say both are the same, but we digress.)

It appears that Governor Grisham has problems of her own regarding not sexual harassment, but sexual and physical abuse. And that there is no shortage of witnesses. The question that will arise is whether those witnesses will come clean under oath. 

The James Hallinan Story

Mr. Hallinan responded to our request for an interview, by calling this afternoon. He stated that the most egregious physical and sexual abuse occurred at the home of State Representative Deborah Armstrong. That would place the event at  2015 Dietz Place NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico. In the 87107 zip code.

He then said, "It involved a bottle of water. It was at a staff meeting, but at this point, I'd rather not describe the incident in detail." 

We then responded: "Well, we have a narrative from another source." And Hallinan replied, "Tell me your narrative." So we did. It went like this:

Governor Grisham in plain sight of everyone at the event, approached Hallinan and took a bottle of water and threw it in Hallinan's groin area, completely soaking his crotch. She then reached down and grabbed him by his sexual organs, loudly stating, "Is this real, have you really even got anything down here?"

At this point, Hallinan responded: "I will not deny that account. I will not argue with that."

He then went on to describe a miserable work environment in which he was hardly the only victim. 

"It left me really fucked up," he said, "this really fucked me up for all time. It eats at me, every day, all day, all the time. I resent the way she holds me under her thumb, living in fear of some sort of retaliation or vindictive action she might take, to hurt my business, to discourage clients, to keep me from getting work. She is the most vindictive, petty, and mean-spirited, individual I have ever known."

"I think of all the pushing back I did for her. It was constant. I had to try to kill stories, pushing back continuously on stories that she was sleeping this person or that, making sure she wasn't identified with anyone the Democratic Party leaders did not want her to be associated with."

"I've never seen, much less experienced the kind of pervasive manipulation of human beings, pervasive and calculating," he said, "she is so smart with abusing the power dynamic, she is a complete bully. She abused me in full view of my supervisors and my staffers, in addition to everyone there who worked for her, including Dominic Gabello, who sat right there at the table with his staff, and with Representative Armstrong right there as well."

We pointed out that none of these people—all of whom are totally #woke and virulent #MeToo enthusiasts—has ever said a thing. 

"Everyone lives in fear," he said, "of retaliation, and of retribution."

"But it never stops. I get calls from people like [Albuquerque City Councillor] Pat Davis passing along threats, and with his own threat that 'the Albuquerque City Council won't fund Somos ABQ,' which is a client of mine. I had to laugh and tell him 'I don't make any money off Somos ABQ'. Although the City does provide funding for it, which is why Davis threatened me. But people are so afraid of the administration that they pass on threats that don't even make any sense."

Hallinan finished the conversation by admitting that he is afraid for his own safety.

"I'm public enemy number one right now of the Democratic Party of New Mexico, And I may be public enemy of the national Democratic Party once I make it known that I am recommending to the Democratic Governors' Association that they definitely do not make Michelle their new chair. That would be disastrous for the DGA."

Hallinan is scheduled to return to New Mexico in January, from somewhere in the Dutch West Indies. (We narrowed it down to six islands owned by The Netherlands.) But he allowed as how "if the Government of The Netherlands were open to granting me asylum, it is something I would consider." 

Finally, We Still Ask

Where are the media? The mainstream media? All the little Democrat blogs that give themselves awards for brilliant "fair" journalism? Silent. NMPolitics.net, led by Heath Haussamen? New Mexico Political Report with Andy Lyman and Matthew Reichbach? New Mexico in Depth with Trip Jennings and Marjorie Childress? New Mexico Politics with Joe Monahan?

Right on cue. Right in key.

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

Think for just a moment. If some prominent political operative came up on the internet with allegations of sexual assault against Susana Martinez (or any prominent* Republican) how long do you think it would be until there was wall-to-wall coverage of the story?

On every TV station in Albuquerque? On El Paso or Lubbock TV? On KKOB? On the front pages of the Albuquerque Journal? The Santa Fe New Mexican? The Las Cruces Sun-News?  On every tweet or blog posting by the Democrat Party spokesman—little Joey Monahan?

We can answer it for you: It would be non-stop! It would be bigger than the headlines on Pearl Harbor.

(Hell, it would be huge even if it was for running a red light or maybe even talking loud in a restaurant. But sexual assault? Holy moly! Heaven forbid! It would be beyond HUGE!) 

Think about this: Former State Representative Brian Moore—a Republican—fished in the wrong place without a proper fishing license. What happened? Front-page story in the Albuquerque Journal. (You really can't make this stuff up about the New Mexico media.)

JAMES HALLINAN?

James Hallinan was the Communications Director for Michelle Lujan Grisham's run for governor.

When he was recruited, she was up by 4 points.

But after he had done all of her commo, her research, created her digital platform, killed all of her negative press stories (okay, admittedly not a terribly difficult task with New Mexico's Democrat-friendly media), and solicited and "earned" tons of positive stories (okay, again, not that hard in NM) she won by a whopping 14 points on election day! 

Hallinan did the same thing for the new State Auditor, Brian Colón.  Before that, he had worked for Hector Balderas for three years, driving the messaging about the AG that got him on the national media stage, and numerous appearances on CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC. 

The point is, this guy is a big deal within the Democratic Party. He's not some drunk guy stumbling in from a ride on ART to some sort of wild party scene in Albuquerque. 

This is so very different from So Many Sexual Assault Stories or Claims

Hallinan was not only close to Grisham and all Democrats, he is going on the record!  How is this different from so many of the #MeToo stories that have been so popular through the years? Let us count the ways:

• 1) He is telling it first hand—this isn't someone waltzing in with a story he "heard" from someone else, or from two or three people removed.

• 2) Hallinan is not suddenly "recounting" a story from 30 years ago—that he didn't tell anyone else.

• 3) He is not coming up with a deal about "This happened when I was in high school."

James Hallinan has already posted the tweets shown above.

Coverage of this Story is a Real Challenge: But only in New Mexico

If this were occurring in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, or Texas—it doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or Republican state—a state with a mature, highly professional, "get-the-story" media, Grisham would have been front-page news this morning, and wall-to-wall TV all day.

But New Mexico has a small, largely in-bred media culture—one that is hand-in-glove with the Democrat Party establishment. The media regularly cover up or grossly slant political stories to fit the Democrats' goals and objectives (even government-centered shows like New Mexico in Focus on PBS frequently have a 5 to nothing Lefty panel, though usually, it's only 4 to 1, and largely utter or regurgitate inanities copied from the DPNM.) 

The coverage of Governor Grisham's administration has been icky sweet to downright promotional. This contrasts extremely sharply with the coverage of Susana Martinez, which went hunting—almost always "snipe" hunting—for any invented "controversy, no matter what.

Examples

• The State Fair Commission

The Fair Board is an excellent example. Egged on by the Democrat Party, through spokesman Joe Monahan, Martinez's efforts to put Expo New Mexico on sound financial footing was made into three or four YEARS of stories. They manufactured a phony "crisis" and then bounced it around. 

The message Democrats lobbied the New Mexico media to tell was that there had to be "something" wrong there. Yet it turned out to be about NOTHING. Expo was saved by an open bid lease that poured badly needed capital into the entity. The story finally died of pure exhaustion because of its non-existence to start with. 

Compare that with Grisham, who appointed a slew of political operatives, cronies, and hacks to the same board. She even appointed Eric Serna, who serves as the chair.

Serna is so badly tainted with a reputation for corruption that he is the only Democrat to ever lose a race for the strongly Democrat Third Congressional District. Even Democrats turned against him. Can you imagine New Mexico media reaction if Martinez had appointed Serna? Whoa! But Grisham? Crickets. Just crickets. 

• Grisham's Veto of Mental Health funding for UNM athletes

Grisham vetoed the bill because she was "pissed off" about the Soccer program being cut (something she could have insisted be saved if she really wanted to). Then a Lobo football player committed suicide. 

What would have happened to Martinez? The Democrats would have issued a press release blaming Martinez. Monahan and the purely political operatives on the city council and in the state legislature (Pat Davis, Jacob Candelaria, et. al) would have been on the "story" immediately.

People like Colleen Heild, Milan Simonich, or Jolene Gutierrez Krueger would have written front-page stories of the "thoughtless cruelty." Then "news" reporters and editorialists would have banged away at it for at least a year, probably inventing a nickname for Martinez along the way.

• It took Grisham six months to appoint a cabinet secretary for the new Early Childhood Education and Care Department.

If it had been Martinez dilly-dallying around, the same process listed above would have occurred. The media were on record hammering Martinez even for vacancies of six weeks. 

• Grisham appoints as her Deputy Chief of Staff, Diego Arencon, a firefighter union guy who had been suspended from the Albuquerque Fire Department for falsifying time cards

Martinez would have been fried. New Mexico media with Grisham? "Nothing to see here, folks, keep moving. Go on home."

• Grisham gives raises of almost 50% to everyone working for her

Again, Martinez would have been criticized for her entire term. NM Media? "Meh."

It will be Interesting to See How it Plays Out: Hallinan turns to Contreras

Hallinan has identified AP reporter Russell Contreras as his "go-to" guy for his story. This will be interesting. Contreras is a "reporter" by title, but is also extremely active with opinion writing on Facebook and other media—strongly endorsing Democrat policies and candidates while bashing anything remotely conservative or even moderate.

So this puts Contreras in a tough spot: How to play this story? He will be on the horns of a dilemma. Our guess is they'll figure out someway, somehow to vilify some Republican in this process. Or go to extremes to ensure that the #MeToo narrative is somehow validated. In any case, it will almost certainly not end up being a straight story—despite Hallinan's straightforward presentation thus far. 

This is going to be interesting 

Grisham is said to be the upcoming Chair of the Democratic Governors' Association, a position of great influence in campaigns. In other words, she will have national prominence and come in for national scrutiny. Our money is on the national media getting to the true bottom of this story before the fawning New Mexico crowd figures the real story out, or even tries to. 

* We know, we know—you're thinking "thanks to Steve Pearce, Harvey, Mark, Anissa, and the Gang of 8, there aren't any left in New Mexico. Just bear with us though. Think if there "were" any. Play along.

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

It doesn’t matter if it is Doris Kearns Goodwin, supposedly waxing “historical,” or any number of talking heads running the gamut from foaming-at-the-mouth outrage to genuine bemusement. It all comes down to this: raw, crude, unadulterated partisanship.

Anissa Galassini Ford Tinnin, who has already established a record for involvement in email theft and anti-Republican campaigning, is the apparent author of an email sent out by the Republican Party of New Mexico which the Democrats will undoubtedly use against the GOP.

While, quite properly, criticizing Congressman Ben Ray Lujan (indicting him was all well and good) Tinnin goes on to write:

He said that Trump called “unfavorable press” the enemy of the people. But Trump didn’t say that. He said that “Fake News” Media—those who create deliberately false stories—are the enemy of the people.

And they are.

[Warning: Based on the messages we have received so far, and the total posts, about half the readers believe the entire country should be assholes to each other all the time—no matter what the subject matter. But, encouragingly, a stubborn other half of readers believe we should be able to separate political views and arguments from basic moments of human life and death.]

The impeachment hearings should produce a new, well-earned nickname for the Democrat counsel, Daniel Goldman: “Chicken Little.”

When questioned as to how certain subpoenas appeared—those that demanded the private phone records of House members and reporters—Goldman said he didn’t know—that they, essentially, fell from the sky.

Republican congressional candidate Yvette Herrell published a poll last week, purportedly to boost her campaign. But as we looked at it, we think she may not have analyzed it that closely.

Conducted by The Tarrance Group, a respected Republican polling company, the survey showed Herrell leading Claire Chase 43% to 13%, with Chris Mathys at 12%. While that seems to be good for Herrell, on closer examination there are some problems for Herrell.

Keep in mind that Herrell is the reigning nominee of the party, and as such she has had massive publicity for nearly two years—based on her year-long campaign in 2018 and throughout 2019 based on the publicity surrounding voting irregularities in Doña Ana County. Understanding that, consider these observations:

1) Herrell is polling only 43%.  And keep in mind that this is with her name recognition is at 84%, while Chase and Mathys probably have only around 15% name recognition (it wasn’t published).  In that context, for Herrell to be that far below 50% has to be a fairly bad sign for Herrell. It is a clear indication that Republican primary voters are not that happy with her as a choice for 2020.

2) And consider the above observation in light of Trump’s whopping 93% approval rating among these same 450 Republican primary voters.

3) 17% of these likely Republican primary voters have a negative opinion of Herrell. More than one in six. That’s not good. Why would that many Republicans—77 of them out of 450—be saying they view her negatively?

Frankly, if we were running the Herrell campaign, we would not have published this information.

Bottom Line on the Poll:

Herrell pummeled here two opponents in the weeks leading up to this poll. With Chris Mathys, she received the unlawful assistance of the Republican Party of New Mexico to attack him. With Chase, she attacked her with a strong advertising campaign on television, radio, social media, and in print media advertising and newspaper stories.

Yet, what happened? Herrell is only at 43% and has a negative rating of 17%. While there is little doubt the attacks on Chase and Mathys hurt their standing—for now—the attacks don't seem to have been nearly as effective as Herrell wanted them to be.

Additionally, the attacks appear to have raised Herrell’s own negatives—piling on to the reputation she developed with her attacks on former Republican state chairman Monty Newman last year, attacks that were perceived to be unfair.

Other CD 2 Issues

We have received quite a bit of input from current and former State House Republicans, upset with the approach the Republican House Caucus is taking in the 2020 battle for control of the legislature.

Namely, key legislators are—again—weirdly focusing on the US House race in CD 2 rather than concentrating on trying to win back the New Mexico State House.

One state rep told us:

“I’m frustrated as I can be. This is exactly what these guys were doing in 2018, running around trying to drum up endorsements for Yvette Herrell, getting involved in a primary and not focusing on their only real job, which is taking care of our numbers in the House.”

The complaint rings true, based on the highly-publicized effort led by House Minority Leader Jim Townsend of Artesia to round up endorsements.

Our records indicate that in late 2017 and early 2018, Townsend worked assiduously on his fellow representatives, eventually rounding up something like 22 House Republicans to endorse Yvette Herrell, including such luminaries as the former Speaker. 

What the fascination was we don’t know. But many now-defeated ex-representatives are alarmed that Townsend is again focusing on a federal race that has nothing at all to do with trying to gain—or even hold onto—the state house seats that have become so scarce on his watch.

“He’s doing the same damned thing,” said another rep.

This time around, however, our reports are that Townsend has been able to secure only five endorsements for Herrell. Although another report has it at six.

Coming Soon: (CD 2, Part 3 of 3) Complaints about the “Gang of 8,” the RPNM’s Controlling Clique and their Bad Advice to Innocent Political Actors.

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

We have read the articles of impeachment—they consist of only 8 pages, with only a few words on page 9. The first article is titled “Abuse of Power.” What will happen with that we don’t know.

Many voters are concerned about the long-term influence of America’s “mainstream” networks, websites, and newspapers. They see not only the bias, which has existed for years, but the relatively new phenomenon of open, unabashed, enthusiastic political advocacy—all of it to the Left or extreme Left.

The concern is that the mass media, including such entities as the New York Times, Bloomberg, Vox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC, will continue to affect the thinking of the already heavily indoctrinated members of Generation Z and the Millennials—not to mention the influence on older generations.

Elizabeth Warren is the latest to do it. After taking a big lead in early November, she’s dropped like a stone in Democrat polls over the past 4 weeks since she “clarified” her “Medicare for All” costs and budget.

But—she says—it’s SEXISM !

We are hopeful that the Conservatives and Prime Minister Boris Johnson can win not only a majority (326 of 650 seats) but a sizeable majority so as to be able to finally follow through with the British people's decision to exit the European Union and the increasingly overreaching and nonsensical European Parliament.

34 million British subjects went to the polls 3½ years ago and shocked the establishment as well as all of Europe by voting decisively, 52-48 to leave the EU. Despite that, vigorous opposition from the Labour Party and other parties, as well as the British media has resulted in roadblock after roadblock on the road to Brexit.

The Republican candidate whose signs were stolen wins the runoff election. Democrat sign-stealing efforts go unrewarded at the polls.

(watch this follow-on 90-second video, as this Leftist activist outlines his “right” to steal)

THIS IS WORTH 90 seconds of your time—it’s actually very amusing:

“I stole five signs...so let’s say that’s $100 worth of speech...a donation to Ane Romero campaign? ... Yeah, you could call it that. That’s what I’m calling it...not everyone has money to throw at campaigns. Stealing campaign signs is my free speech...”

Regardless of one’s position on the impeachment matter, one odd new standard is being established and is being overlooked by everyone:

Becoming a presidential candidate makes that person exempt from investigation.

REMEMBRANCE DAY for 2,403 AMERICANS*

It is also A TIME TO REFLECT on the QUESTION of HIROSHIMA and NAGASAKI

Like the whack-a-mole game in an arcade, the revisionists—and oftentimes totally unrepentant Japanese, including “professors” and teachers—are forever popping up. They try to make the case to themselves first, and also to the United States and the whole world, that they—Japan—are the “victims” of World War II. All this, despite the fact they are the one, singular, grotesquely racist and unrepentant people on the face of the earth.

Japan, through its politicians, “historians,” teachers, professors, and apologists, have never owned up to their barbarism, which including acts that not even the Nazis had committed. And they have taught their succeeding generations NOTHING of their war crimes, aggression, and inhumanity.

Instead, like the whack-a-mole, their lying and misrepresentations are clearly planned forever. They hope that at some point there will be no one to counter their claims, at which point their version of “history” will triumph.

YES, DROPPING THE BOMB ON JAPAN WAS A GOOD DECISION:

Why you should never give it a second thought for the rest of your life.

Dropping the bomb saved 40 million lives—more than 90% of them Japanese. It was not the mythical, wild guess “one million” casualties that talking heads attributed to Truman’s motivation. It was 40 times that.

Enough already. Here are the facts:

In 1945, Japan had a population of 72 million people. The Japanese military still had 4.5 million men on the home islands. Additionally, there were 31.5 million men and women in the "home force." They had all been thoroughly indoctrinated (yes, totally brainwashed) to be just as fanatical as everyone else in this strange, oddly hostile country.

Japan is still, quietly, a racist homeland, whose denizens still teach their children that they were "victims" in World War II, and that America, the British, the Dutch, and the Chinese were the actual “aggressors.”

On Okinawa (and previous campaigns) the Japanese had not only fought to almost the last soldier, but had also lost 30% of the civilians on the island. These were people ethnically closely related to the Japanese whom they had brainwashed into believing that Americans were going to murder them all, rape the women, et cetera.

On the home islands, things were going to be much much worse.

A HISTORY and a RECORD of DYING to the LAST MAN

Based on all the previous campaigns—from Tarawa, to the Solomons, the Marianas, the Gilberts, the Philippines, the Aleutians, and all the way to Okinawa—the Japanese had established a clear record of not surrendering.

A typical campaign would end with 5,000 dead and 17 taken prisoner. Or perhaps, 10,000 or 12,000 killed, and maybe 114 somehow surrendering. Their death toll as a defending force was always well beyond 99% of their strength.

The Japanese government had spent years preparing for an invasion of their islands. They had trained EVERYONE—old men, boys, women, young girls, old women—the works. They had all of them believing the allies would brutalize, rape, torture, and inflict all manner of death and worse.

In a conventional warfare invasion of Japan scenario, we must assume the Japanese would have lost over 25 million soldiers and auxiliaries dead, plus another 12 million non-combatant civilians.

Forget about the two A-bombs. It is vitally important to remember that plain old conventional fire-bombing killed five times as many Japanese as the A-bombs did—and was vastly more "cruel." But no one whines about that because it's not as emotional a subject as "nukes."

The 37 million people wiped out may be a low estimate, but it is a logical estimate. If you think that's high, you need to understand that the total losses in the Soviet Union were over 40 million—and they were not fanatics. And the estimate for the Japanese could be low. Very low. If they had succeeded in getting total buy-in, which was not by any means out of the question, the total Japanese deaths could have been 60 million or more.

ACTUAL ALLIED LOSSES

American losses would have been far beyond the "one million casualties" often thrown around as a cliché. They probably would have exceeded 3 million and possibly as many as 5 million. (That doesn't include the British who were committed to the invasion as well—or the Soviet Union for that matter who were by then prepared to participate too.)

The bottom line is the Japanese weren't going to surrender—they almost refused to surrender even after both bombs were dropped 6 and 9 August 1945. They finally did so 8 days after the first bomb hit. But they reached that momentous decision only after enormous consternation—and after a coup attempt.

Without the bombs, Japan was prepared to fight forever, never surrendering, retreating into the hills, mountains, and the most remote areas of their islands.

The bombs saved a minimum of 40 million lives. The Japanese (and silly Americans too) need to shut up about it.

* 2,008 Navy, 218 Army, 109 Marine Corps, 68 civilians.

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

During the "three professors" hearing, Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz showed that the “highly acclaimed” “objective and scholarly” Democrat star witness “perfessers” are all big-time heavily partisan Democrat activists and donors.

The Democrat Party and the Mainstream Media have issued joint statements indicting the Democrat Party and the entire Democrat primary electorate for blatant racism and sexism!

In the wake of the collapse of the Kamala Harris campaign, the unanimous verdict from all Democrat consultants and pundits, together with the talking heads on NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and CNN is this:

Why do all the Democrats in Congress have to try to glom onto the military service of their fathers, uncles, grandparents, or—in some cases—ancestors?

Do they really perceive that their questions or diatribes are somehow more credible or more weighty and persuasive because they can cite the military service of their parents or ancestors?

Have you noticed that the Democrat committee members read scripted questions to the three Democrat lawyers? And that the Democrat lawyers were reading—or clearly reciting—prepared answers for those questions that have obviously been provided them ahead of time? And that their questions were accompanied by choreographed video and graphics?

So weird. And, well, phony. All of it belies the notion of an investigative hearing.

A woman who is both insultingly pedantic and embarrassingly ignorant.

How great can the Stanford Law School really be? If Pamela Karlan is any example, it can’t be all that great. Like so many people who have been grossly over-promoted—or who have gotten positions based on grotesque abuses of affirmative action or some sort of quota—Karlan is embarrassingly pedantic.

As if reasonably well-read Americans didn’t already know it, Karlan felt it her duty to “teach” us that our Constitution does not permit titles of nobility. Though most of us learned that by the 4th Grade, Karlan was beaming with pride as if she were repeating a real gem of a factoid, or a key whiz-bang line out of one of her Third-year law school lectures.

As if that weren’t embarrassing enough, Karlan then said:

“While the president can name his son ‘Barron,’ he can’t make him a baron.”

Wow! How monumentally stupid! Karlan does not even know that the president’s son’s name is not “Baron.”

 

She can neither spell nor reason well. Barron has nothing to do with the word “baron.” And she is a “distinguished professor” at Stanford University. Heaven help us.

Later, when she pretended to apologize, she couldn’t even do that. She issued another version of the “modern apology” — “I’ll apologize (grudgingly) but Trump should apologize.”

Politicians use the modern apology, which is no apology at all. And maybe that’s correct for Karlan, as she is every ounce the politician. One thing for sure—she’s no jurist. God help Stanford.

To be fair, the Harvard University law professor and the North Carolina law professor were equally unimpressive. All three of them were overt activists who provided nothing that was even remotely scholarly.

What ripoffs law schools must be today! We can hope that they are at least teaching how to do wills and powers of attorney because they’re certainly not teaching any Constitutional law.

---

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

---

Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican

The Democrat professor Jonathan Turley has shown himself—despite his opposition to Trump—to be a vastly superior lawyer and jurist to the other three Democrat professors.

Turley is dispassionate, scholarly, balanced, and constantly referring to historical and legal precedent.

(And the same would hold true for any other right of center, or even center-right party that might emerge.)

Here is the video:  https://bit.ly/2Mp27wc

Sadly, it does reflect the reality of Millennials, Gen Z, and even Gen X in America. And it demonstrates the tragic and devastating malpractice in the field of education in the United States over the past three generations. While extremely damaging to young children in both primary and secondary schools, this malpractice has had its MOST DEVASTATING effects in post-secondary education.

And within that highest level of educational instruction, the MOST extreme consequences have been observed at the most prestigious colleges and universities—the ones which impart "credentials" of the highest order, if not necessarily greater knowledge or understanding of the subject matter—where tuition exceeds $50,000 per year. (The ones that parents will go to jail for—just to get their children in.)

Want to see what you get for that money? Watch the video.

[NOTE: This video is not from one of the "credential" schools, but was taken at the State University of New Jersey. However, the "thinking" reflected in the video is the same, if not somewhat less violent or aggressive than that which takes place at Ivy League schools or the more prestigious schools.]

MANY of us DID NOT NOTICE

We were oblivious for too long about what was happening—quite systematically and institutionally actually—in the American educational system. But the video below, while not representing "all" Millenials, Gen Z, or Gen Z cohorts, does, in fact, represent the indoctrinated "thinking" of millions of Americans now in the electorate. That is to say, "They walk among us and they vote." They have been ill-served through the silent and unnoticed adoption of textbooks written by ideologues and the instruction of teachers, who have been victims themselves.

It appears that among the current generation, just entering the electorate—Generation Z—perhaps as many as 75 to 80% of the cohort hold the views "articulated" in the video. For Millenials, the figure is probably 55 to 65%. Among the Generation X cohort, the "belief system" is probably between 40 and 55%. (And, yes, it's almost certain that 20% or more of Baby Boomers have converted themselves into thinking like this.)

(For an example of how Millennials/Gen Z actually talk, go to approximately 3:10. For an example of the "comprehensive philosophy," go to about 6:00.)

Yes, the future does look fairly bleak for the Republican Party.

[DISCLAIMER: NMPJ does not endorse the producer of the video, and the last minute of the video should be ignored.]

THE GENERATIONS

Gen Z: Born approximately 1997 to the present day
Millennials: Born approximately 1981 to 1996
Gen X: Born approximately 1965 to 1980
Baby Boomers: 1 Jan 1946 to 31 Dec 1964
Silent Generation: Roughly 1928-1945
World War II Generation: 1901-1927
Lost Generation: 1883-1900 (Now extinct)

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

In 2018, Yvette Herrell was unable to hold the congressional seat vacated by Steve Pearce. Okay, so sometimes campaigns don't go well. So back to the drawing board.

But our question is this: Is the recipe for 2020  to attack and vilify all Republicans who supported someone other than Trump in the 2016 presidential primaries? (Even if that group includes Herrell?) Does this make sense on any level?

How is this a strategy for success against Xochitl Torres Small? Who came up with this plan? Is it really smart? Or is it just yet another prescription for divisiveness, defeat, and disaster conjured up by the same gang of disgruntled haters who brought us 2016 and 2018?

The Gang of 8

We have reported extensively on the ongoing disaster brought on by the Gang of 8* that seized control of the Republican Party of New Mexico following the 2014 election. That Gang was jealous of the near-miraculous accomplishments of then-Governor Martinez. Martinez had just finished raising some $3 million which she and her team used to finance a brilliant strategic effort that resulted in the Republicans capturing the State House of Representatives for the first time in 60 years.

The Gang couldn’t stand it, with their hatred for her overriding the best interests of the state—and of New Mexico.

So they took control, and decided to pursue a collection of personal agendas which has resulted in systematically and relentlessly driving the party into near-complete ineffectual irrelevance.

Their “efforts” and “management” resulted in immediately losing back the House to the Democrats. Then just two years after that, their ineptitude reached world-record levels of incompetence, culminating last November in the greatest electoral disaster the New Mexico GOP has ever seen.

YET, THE GANG GOES ON: ONCE AGAIN PUSHING YVETTE HERRELL

That Gang, however, along with their allies, specifically in Alamogordo, are akin to the energizer Bunny of destructiveness. They appear to be continuously and fanatically devoted to destroying as many other Republicans as they possibly can influence or reach. The “reverse Midas Touch” has perhaps never been more starkly identified.

In 2018, the Gang pulled out all the stops for State Representative Yvette Herrell, a Pearce acolyte, to succeed Pearce in CD2. This open interference badly split Lea County Republicans by turning off and permanently alienating several thousand GOP voters who favored former Hobbs Mayor Monty Newman. 

The Gangs’ meddling in Lea County were doubly inept in that 1) Lea County is the state’s strongest GOP county, and 2) the whole effort backfired as Herrell steadfastly refused to debate Democrat nominee Xochitl Torres Small, something Newman would not have been afraid to do. The Herrell team ran a bizarrely disorganized campaign and Herrell lost by a sizeable margin.

Now, the Gang has Herrell back in the Republican primary race for a second go. This time she’s apologizing for her campaign blunders in 2018, and pledging to debate and to do “all the things she failed to do in the last campaign.”

ATTACKS on CLAIRE CHASE

Rather than run a positive campaign to inspire and motivate the GOP base (complete with the appropriate mea culpas about the blowing the 2018 general election), the 2020 Herrell team has decided to try to destroy the nascent campaign of her only serious primary opponent, Roswell Republican Claire Chase.

They have hit upon the tactic of trying to use Chase’s opposition to Trump in 2015 and 2016. Herrell, for her part, is now claiming (in Orwellian-styled lingo) to have “always been for Trump,” without a single bit of support for that claim. The evidence suggests she was actually for Ted Cruz—and others—before she found it useful to claim she had “always” been for Trump.

Clearly, neither Herrell nor Chase was truly a Trump enthusiast. So what?

Are the 2015/2016 “Trump Questions” Really Fair? Or Relevant?

Or is it more relevant to be for Trump Now?

Okay, so Chase opposed Trump in the primaries four years ago, and didn’t vote for him in the primaries. So what?

That actually lines her up with the vast majority of all Republicans. When all the votes in all 50 states’ Republican primaries were counted, Trump had 14,105,993 votes. But 17,167,848 Republicans had voted AGAINST him. (Likely including both Herrell and Chase.)

That’s right: Even after all the other candidates had dropped out, and Trump was handed the final dozen or so primaries without opposition, when all the votes were counted Trump was still opposed by a landslide majority of Republicans!

And that was after all the other Republicans had dropped out. He had started out with only 24% and 35% in New Hampshire, and only 34% on Super Tuesday. Just before his last opponent dropped out, he was being opposed by some 60% of GOP voters!

So what if you are a Republican who didn’t make Trump your First Choice?

The point we are making is that it is not an unpardonable sin for Republicans not to have not supported Trump three years ago—so long as they didn’t vote for Clinton. (Otherwise, Trump would have left 17 million votes on the table, and would have lost in a landslide.)

So does Herrell’s Gang bringing all this up, and rehashing it, matter?

Does that make the 55.2% of Republicans who opposed Trump’s nomination “bad people”? Is that relevant 3½ years later? Or is the fact that 88% of Republicans now support Trump a more relevant data point?

Why is this Gang, this one group of people—who by the way were also among the 2016 Republican majority who wanted someone other than Trump—trying to get a little bit of hate going?

Do they foment divisiveness just for the sake of it? Did they not learn anything from their loss of the House in 2016? Or their historically catastrophic loss of almost everything else in 2018? Apparently not.

Herrell, presumably with the encouragement and the approval of The Gang, has now even started a separate stand-alone website whose sole purpose is to hate on Claire Chase.  Southern New Mexico Republicans can be forgiven if they ask: “That’s your campaign? That’s your rationale for being the choice to take on Xochitl?”

* The eight include the names, Harvey Yates, Ryan Cangiolosi, Andrea Goff, John Billingsley, Mark Murphy, Anissa Galassini Ford Tinnin, Rocky Galassini, and Stevan Pearce.

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

1) FIONA HILL

Fiona Hill, because she has a British accent, clearly greatly impressed the mainstream media, who are easily wowed by such superficial factors.

But Hill did something truly reprehensible. She spoke of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is a well-known anti-Semitic book. She spoke of it in faux professorial terms, as if she were talking to a high school freshman class, and acted as if she were discussing something that is little-known or obscure and that she’s some sort of monumental intellectual just because she knows about it.

Wrong. We all know about it.

The “Protocols” is a disgusting attack on Jews and Judaism. It has been discredited since its publication over a century ago. The only people who actually believe anything contained in the book are the leaders of the Islamic world—and Islamists throughout America. (Islam, oddly, is the only religion the modern Democrat Party defends, but we digress.)

Ridiculously, Hill tried to establish this outrageous claim:

 Anyone who criticizes the billionaire Democrat activist George Soros is equal to those anti-Semites who actually believe the      "Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”  In other words, because Soros is of Jewish heritage (even though he has long-since denied any belief in Judaism) if you attack him for his nefarious and fraudulent political activities, you are saying that you believe in anti-Semitic propaganda.

Anti-Soros = Anti-Semitic

What? This is nothing short of outrageously stupid. And it discredits her as any kind of scholar.

Imagine one of the Republican congressmen saying:

“Listen, you Democrats, if you attack Ronald Reagan, or Eisenhower, or Abraham Lincoln, (or Trump, for that matter) then that means you hate freedom and America and it actually means you are endorsing Hitler’s book “Mein Kampf.”

That would be stupid and groundless. Just like what Fiona Hill said. Her statements on this subject were probably the intellectual low point of the entire proceedings—and that is saying something, as there is stiff competition for that award. (How George Soros has achieved iconic status in the Democrat Party is unknown, but it's the subject for a later discussion.)

2) JIM JORDAN’S “LANDSLIDE’ LANGUAGE

Jim Jordan keeps repeating the dumbass statements by Trump that he won “one of the greatest Electoral College landslides in history."

This is not only untrue, it’s ridiculous, and it’s stupid to keep saying it. It also serves no purpose other than to establish yourself as someone who will tell tall tales.

In 2016, Trump got 304 Electoral votes, 34 more than the bare minimum necessary to win. Out of 59 presidential elections in US history, it was the 13th closest. It is absurd to call it a landslide—in fact, it’s kind of stupid in that it plays the audience as an ignorant lot. (They may be, so it may work, but it is still playing them. And it is morally wrong to insult your audience's intelligence just because you know you can, and get away with it.)

If Trump had lost Texas, he would have lost the election. Or, to use examples of states that were very close, if he had lost Florida plus one more state he would have lost the election.

The point is, Trump won the election in the Constitutionally-prescribed manner provided for in the Electoral College.

Period. He earned it. He won fair and square. That is a fact. There is nothing beyond that that can be gained by going ahead and lying about it. Or by inventing tales that make it sound more grandiose.

We don’t understand why people, including Trump, do this kind of thing. It only harms credibility, and does so needlessly.

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

[We don't approve of offensive language, and would not use this term ourselves, but others have used the term "Fart-gate" to describe this story.]

SWALWELL PASSES (considerable) GAS on LIVE TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XK797-vj4k

A secret study has been leaked by insiders at the DNC, showing that the Chairman, Thomas Perez, authorized surveillance of Democrat front runner Joe Biden this past April.

The DNC study showed that Biden has been hiding, and did in fact again this spring, hide his own Easter Eggs. Successfully. Locating only 2 of 24.

We see Campaign Ads Coming...

The Democrats may crank it up somewhat over next few days, who knows? But for now, we presume the Republicans have already captured several key moments within the hearings and they’ve already created about five devastating ads...

Question to Ambassador Taylor and Secretary Kent:

“Are either of you here to today to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call? Shout it out. Anyone?"

...two deer caught in headlights...dead silence, slight mumbling...lifeline anyone?

Question to Ambassador Yovanovitch:

“Do you have any information regarding the president of the United States accepting any bribes?”

“No.”

“Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that he has been involved with at all?”

“No.”

Then there’s Chris Stewart’s question...

After both of Wednesday’s diplomats went really long and deep about how Ukraine and the rest of the world are incredibly corrupt and rife with bribery and extortion, Stewart plays to their vast knowledge of all the corruption in the world:

“Can you give me an example, anytime, where the Vice President shows up and demands that a specific prosecutor be fired and gives them a 6 hour time limit to do so? Are you aware of that ever happening in any other place?”

More deer in the headlights...

And an immediate realization that each was “hoist with his own petard.”

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

TRUMP SENDS A DUMB TWEET DURING FRIDAY'S TESTIMONY

Every ambassador serves at the pleasure of the president. In fact, an ambassador is the personal in-country representative of the President of the United States. If he wants to fire one or replace one it’s his call.

In fact, presidents have fired ambassadors many many times throughout American history. So Yovanovitch has no basis for whining—and firing her is not grounds for impeachment.

Trump Hurts his Own Cause—Not because the Tweet is "Intimidating," but Just Because it's a Dumb Tweet

(No one except NMPJ, that is.)

NOTE TO READERS: Please provide answers, if you can

Republicans worried sick about where all of his massive support will end up now.

Former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford—aka App-Trail Mark—just now ended his presidential campaign, less than two months after announcing his bid to knock off Trump.

The Concept of the Whistleblower

• What it is and is NOT.
• The danger of not understanding it.
• A few words about the 6th Amendment
   

A “whistleblower” is someone who is afforded protection against losing his/her job for coming forth to provide evidence of wrongdoing. There is nothing in the whistleblower concept that indicates that such an individual is “anonymous.”

On the contrary, a government that accepts and uses evidence from an anonymous informant to prosecute wrongdoing need not protect an informant at all. After all, the informant is unknown. That being the case, why would such protection even be necessary?

Someone who can remain anonymous NEEDS NO PROTECTION—he or she is, by definition UNKNOWN.

MISUSE of WHISTLEBLOWER CONCEPT

If the Democrat/Media position on whistleblowers is correct, then US Government agencies could just begin to use 800 number lines, invite callers to “blow their whistles,” and then prosecute anyone they want based on anonymous messages.

The SIXTH AMENDMENT

Under the 6th Amendment, anyone accused in America has the right to:

• be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
• be confronted with the witnesses against him;
• have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and
• have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The Democrats in Congress have thus far not only disregarded these fundamental concepts, they have shown aggressive contempt for them. This should be a very sobering moment for all Americans, regardless of political affiliation.

Trump may or may not have violated a law or committed some high crime, but whether he has or has not he must be afforded the same procedural protections afforded all other Americans.

Denying the Republicans the right of calling witnesses, or to cross-examine other witnesses represents a great danger to all of us, not just the minority in Congress, and not just Trump.

IN SUM

In our view, the Democrats and their media allies are attempting to change fundamental concepts about the American judicial system.

This represents a danger to civil liberties that extends well beyond any partisan political considerations. By ignoring basic components of due process, the Democrats are counting on the increasingly evident ignorance of millions of Americans, and, sadly, are also engaged in aggressively teaching ignorance to millions more.

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

This was written in the winter of 1788, but does it sound like today? You tell us.

We list 10 phrases written by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65.*

How many of these phrases do you perceive fit the current circumstances? Let us know your number. 

...the trial of impeachments...

1. "...They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL..." [Note: capital letters are from Hamilton, not NMPJ]

2. "...The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community,

3. "...and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.

4. "...In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions,

5. "...and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other..."

6. "...and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."

7. "...The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived..."

8. "...most conspicuous characters in it will...be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning

9. "...[most conspicuous characters in it will...be too often [of]] ...the most numerous faction..."

10. "...[the most cunning] can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny."

* While Federalist 65 deals directly with the potential role of the Senate in a post-impeachment trial, it is also applicable as a means of evaluating the role and conduct of the House of Representatives in the indictment process, which is in fact "impeachment."

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

We received the following email from Albuquerque Attorney Pat Rogers, to whom we had credited the defeat of the so-called Democracy Dollars initiative, promoted by the progressive Left in the recently concluded Albuquerque municipal election.

Dear NMPJ:

Some high school pals sent me your recent Democracy Dollar article. I write, somewhat reluctantly, to give credit where credit is due.  Because I have done lots of other good things without any credit I admit I was tempted to leave the impression I whipped up on the Democracy Dollar advocates, single-handedly.

My old pals who commented about the article know me and remain convinced there must be more to the story. There is.

The Rio Grande Foundation, a free-market advocacy outfit in New Mexico, is responsible for the lion’s share of the $200 spent in opposition. The Rio Grande Foundation sponsored the first podcast against Democracy Dollars and that is still online at their site.  

They dreamed up the excellent website title:  “Go Fund Yourself”. Their website contains lots of background on the issue. Any of your readers interested in the details of the battle or the other free-market battles in New Mexico should check out the Rio Grande Foundation website.  

A worthy cause and source of information for anyone in favor of freedom and limited government.http://nowaynm.org/

Other individuals and the Bernalillo County Republican Party pitched in with letters to the editor and emails to friends.

The odds and forces aligned in favor of this latest bad idea from the coast were actually even more significant and one-sided than noted in the article.

The money that will be finally reported by the advocates of the wacky, wasteful scheme will be well over $550,000 because the leftist groups have yet to report the contributions and expenditures for the last days of the campaign, the time when the most dollars and time are usually expended.

More important, the usual suspects pushing this bad idea included OLÉ (formerly known as ACORN until a variety of illegal activities were exposed), Progress Now, Working Families, Common Cause and a host of the usual out-of-state coastal leftists that often don’t report accurately.

The last few days of the Democracy Dollar campaign also featured endorsements for Democracy Dollars by some nobodies named Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, some Texas yahoo, and some others who should never be elected to any public office. Luckily their endorsements were ignored.

Thank you for your report on this significant victory for the taxpayers and voters. Occasionally, common sense prevails.  

Patrick J. Rogers

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

Watch this short video and see what California’s massive POPULAR VOTE will lead to in the rest of America.

Remember: We are NOT a direct democracy. And Direct Democracy leads to a California.

Click here:  https://www.facebook.com/craigneil/videos/10214966635135435/

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

The Demise of Democracy Dollars

Perhaps the biggest news of last Tuesday evening was the defeat of the progressive Democrats’ scheme called “Democracy Dollars.”

It was a plan that would provide everyone in Albuquerque with a $25 voucher (paid for by Albuquerque taxpayers) that each person could “donate” to the Albuquerque city council or mayoral candidate of his/her choice.

The proponents of the scheme, who are by and large Left-wing campaign consultants and so-called non-profit leftist activists, spent more than $550,000 to win the voters’ approval for what would have been a new source for an additional $14 million in public financing.

The proposal was riddled with loopholes and components that just screamed “fraud” and “scam,” but it had a nice name.

(Opponents pointed out that that name was highly misleading and that it should be called “Democrat Dollars,” since it was being pushed so hard by New Mexico’s dominant political party.)

Democracy Dollars Goes All Out—Leaving No Stone Unturned (and no turn unstoned)

The Democracy Dollars crowd pulled out all the stops: rallies on Civic Plaza led by far-Left Albuquerque politico Eric Griego, paid door-to-door campaigning, tons of mail, radio, television, celebrity endorsements, catchy slogans, and cool nicknames like "Burque Bucks." 

The money poured in from all over Left-wing America. They touted the support of the so-called "Common Cause" organization.

(The "common" in the name apparently comes from its "common," and in fact unanimous and unwavering support for every single Left-wing idea which is broached anywhere in America.) 

They had the support of the League of Women Voters, which, as we understand

One Lonely Opponent

Meanwhile, going up against more than a half-million dollars in advertising was the lonely voice of Albuquerque attorney Pat Rogers, and one or two other supporters who, combined, spent less than $250 (that’s right, two-hundred and fifty dollars).

Rogers published an Op-ed in the Albuquerque Journal excoriating the scheme and its flaws. He then went on a PBS show on KNME’s Channel 5 (which perhaps has 500-600 viewers in all of New Mexico) and calmly demolished the entire proposal, step-by-step. He spoke to a business forum, perhaps attended by 50 or 60 people, and he went on KKOB Radio 770 for an hour.

That was it.

The result?

                YES: 39,317 (48.7%)

                NO:  41,356 (51.3%)

Yeah, the Democracy Dollars crowd, despite enjoying a spending advantage of 2,200 to 1, actually managed to lose the election.

Go figure!

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

Commemorating the ultra stupid Texas “Clock Boy” hoax that bewildered so many Democrats—Obama invited the perpetrator, Ahmed Mohamed, to the White House, believing that he was some sort of budding “scientist” or “genius-like engineer.”

What is forgotten is that Mohamed’s father the creatively-named Mohamed Mohamed (it seems his family ran out of name ideas) tried desperately to make money out of the entire ordeal, filing a half dozen lawsuits.

New Mexico Republicans can be glad that the RPNM is now acting to ensure election integrity—albeit too late to save at least 70 ballots. Nonetheless, Steve Pearce is to be commended for taking action.

In response to our article, the RPNM swung into action late this afternoon. They filed suit against the three entities we had identified for them as having acted unlawfully:

• The Doña Ana County Clerk
• The Secretary of State
• The Absent Voter Precinct Board

With Las Cruces mayoral candidate Mike Tellez as the plaintiff, they went into district court in Las Cruces. We are proud to share highlights of this RPNM press release as they read almost verbatim from our article:

REPUBLICAN PARTY of NEW MEXICO and LAS CRUCES MAYORAL CANDIDATE SUE STATE OVER ABSENTEE BALLOTS

The Republican Party of New Mexico and Las Cruces mayoral candidate Mike Tellez have filed suit against New Mexico’s Secretary of State, the Dona Ana County Clerk and the County’s Absent Voter Precinct Board. The RPNM and Tellez claim the defendants are ignoring a 2019 law that requires absentee voters to provide their name, address and date of birth.

The lawsuit charges that The AVPB had been instructed by the County Clerk, who herself was acting on the advice of the Secretary of State Maggie Oliver, to count the ballots despite at least one of the three qualifications missing. The suit claims the defendants did nothing to fix this problem.

The Republican Party and Tellez are asking the court for an injunction to stop the counting of absentee ballots. The RPNM has learned at least 70 of these ballots have at least one of the three necessary pieces of information missing. The Plaintiffs want the ballots sequestered until a ruling.

The Party is also asking for a declaratory judgment to clarify the meaning of the 2019 changes to the statute. It wants the court to set a uniform statewide standard for qualifying and counting absentee votes for this non-partisan election and future ones. While this local election is non-partisan, there are many registered GOP voters in Dona Ana County.

“What’s happening in Dona Ana County is wrong and setting a bad precedent for future elections. Our Party must stand up to this. People who vote illegally are hurting the integrity of the system. We as a Party must raise a red flag when we see people ignoring voting laws,” said Steve Pearce, RPNM Chairman. “It’s our duty to call on the State to fix these problems.”

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

In the current local election taking place in Doña Ana County, the Doña Ana County Clerk, claiming to be acting on instructions from the Secretary of State, is—once again—violating state law.

Despite explicit direction given by the state legislature, Doña Ana County is once again accepting absentee ballots whose outer envelopes do not provide the identification information a voter must provide in order for his or her ballot to be accepted and counted. The outer envelope of a returned absentee ballot must show:

• The voter’s name
• The voter’s registration address
• The voter’s year of birth
• The voter’s signature

In other words, to vote by absentee ballot a voter must provide the same information that the early voter or the Election Day voter must provide as a condition for receiving a ballot. (Outer envelope shown at right.)

In the CD2 race last year, the Doña Ana County Clerk accepted hundreds of ballots which were missing one or more of the mandatory requirements shown above.

This past March, the state legislature passed legislation making it crystal clear (it was already clear but being ignored) by inserting new, unmistakable language mandating that the information identifying the voter had to be included for a ballot to be accepted.

What has the Doña Ana County Clerk Done?

She has ordered that ballots with missing signatures, years of birth, and other omissions be accepted. Not only has she accepted the ballots, she has had the Absent Voter Precinct Board:

1)  open the outer envelopes (where the missing information is supposed to be attached)

2)  remove the inner envelopes—the ones with the actual voted ballots; and

3)  separate the inner envelopes from the outer ones, so it is now impossible to verify the voter

She has comingled all the ballots. This means it is impossible to tell legitimate, law-abiding and lawful voters casting legal ballots from those who don’t fit that category.

There are several categories of voters whose ballots may not qualify—that’s one of the principal the reasons for the existence of the Absent Voter Precinct Board. Some of those categories are:

• Voters who are qualified electors, but ineligible to vote in a particular district or contest
• Individuals who are committing vote fraud
• Voters whose names or addresses are being used by others who are committing fraud

By ignoring the law and by eliminating the role of the Absent Voter Precinct Board, the County Clerk—with the authorization of the Secretary of State—has created yet another New Mexico “goat roping” and substituted that for a legal election in which established lawful voting procedures are to be used.

[PLEASE NOTE: A decision taken by the Absent Voter Precinct Board to reject a ballot is not final and does not finally exclude anyone from voting. Instead, a rejected ballot is set aside and treated in much the same way as a provisional ballot. The voter may ultimately be able to show that his or her ballot should count--by providing a signature or correct information, etc., in which case the mailing envelope shall be opened and the ballot shall be counted.]

Where is the Republican Party of New Mexico?

The above-referenced violations of election law are setting the stage for the 2020 Presidential Election year in which all congressional seats, a US Senate race, and the entire New Mexico legislature will be contested.

And here we have the same violations committed by the same people in the same city and county where the 2018 violations took place.

We have it on good authority that State Chairman Steve Pearce was notified of these ongoing violations, but did nothing. As a result, no injunction was filed and this morning the ballots were finally opened and comingled, despite the illegality of the entire procedure.

If these kinds of violations are allowed to continue, then not only do Republicans have no hope whatsoever of seeing a Republican presidential candidate carry New Mexico, they have very little chance of winning all the other elections.

What Does the Applicable Law Say about Absentee Voting?

1- 6- 8. Mailed ballot envelopes.

C. The reverse of each official mailing envelope shall contain a form to be executed by the voter completing the mailed ballot. The form shall identify the voter and shall contain the following statement: "I have not and will not vote any other ballot in this election". The official mailing envelope shall contain a space for the voter to record the voter's name, registration address and year of birth. The envelope shall have a security flap to cover this information.

1- 6- 9. Mailed ballots; manner of voting; delivery methods.

A. When voting a mailed ballot, the voter shall secretly mark the mailed ballot in the manner provided in the Election Code for marking paper ballots, place it in the official inner envelope and securely seal the envelope. The voter shall then place the official inner envelope inside the official mailing envelope and securely seal the envelope. The voter shall then complete the form on the reverse of the official mailing envelope, which shall include a statement by the voter under penalty of perjury that the facts stated in the form are true and the voter's name, registration address and year of birth.

6- 14. Handling mailed ballots.

A. At any time after mailed ballots have been sent to voters and until the fifth day before the election, the county clerk may convene an election board to meet during the normal business hours of the office of the county clerk to qualify the mailed ballots that are returned. Before opening an official mailing envelope, the presiding judge and the election judges shall determine that the required information has been completed on the reverse side of the official mailing envelope.

B. If the voter's signature or the required voter identification is missing, the presiding judge shall write "Rejected" on the front of the official mailing envelope. The judge or election clerk shall enter the voter's name in the signature rosters or register and shall write the notation "Rejected- - Missing Signature" or "Rejected- - Missing Required Voter Identification" in the "Notations" column of the register. The presiding judge shall place the official mailing envelope unopened in a container provided for rejected ballots.

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

He's giving a Medal of Honor to a Green Beret, but NOTHING to Hunter Biden for his 30 days’ solid service in the Navy Reserve before being discharged for failing a drug test.*

Hunter later went to New Mexico Tech and became an expert in Petroleum Engineering. He then parlayed those skills into huge million-dollar “consulting fees” as an international expert. (Wait. No. He just used Clintonesque pay-to-play techniques.)

This is—very sad to say—how far the Democrats have sunk. Previous Democrats, like Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, or Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson, or Senator John F. Kennedy, would have safeguarded US secrets. 

But in the modern Democratic Party there is no one left who will not leak classified information for partisan political purposes.

READERS' RESPOND

• Juli Adcock The president made a wise decision not to tell them and doncha know that they're eating their hearts out over it.
  TENOR
•  
•  
  Frank Drinkwinre Communists

  Jan Hinkle Adam isn't doing his job.
•  
•  
•  
• Jackie Sanders We the people can't trust democrats ! They hate our America , and our freedom
  Nolan Gonzales Did they get Baghdadi nuf said now next
•  
• Billy Dalton Interesting Read...??
  LET THEM GO AHEAD AND IMPEACH TRUMP ... HERE'S WHAT HAPPENS THEN...... CHUGGA CHUGGA CHOO CHOO
  By: Hyram F. Suddfluffel, PhD, (Political Science)
  
  I have a degree in Political Science, and I am a card-carrying Libertarian. I've been studying politics and political history for the past 30 years. My specialty is U.S. Presidents. That said, I hope that the House of Representatives impeaches Trump. Let me tell you what will happen next!
  
  1. The House can pass articles of impeachment over the objections of the Republicans and refer to the Senate for trial.
  
  2. The Senate will conduct a trial. There will be a vote, and the Republicans will vote unanimously, along with a small number of Democrats, to not convict the President. Legally, it will all be over at that point.
  
  3. However, during the trial, and this is what no one is thinking about right now, the President's attorneys will have the right to subpoena and
  question ANYONE THEY WANT! That is different than the special counsel investigation, which was very one-sided. So, during the impeachment trial, we will be hearing testimony from James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Glenn Simpson, Donna Brazille, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Christopher Steele, Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, James Clapper, and a whole host of other participants in this whole sordid affair and the ensuing coverup activities. A lot of dirt will be dug up; a lot of truth will be unveiled. Finger pointing will occur. Deals will start being made, and suddenly, a lot of democrats will start being charged and going to prison. All this, because, remember, the President's team will now, for the first time, have the RIGHT to question all of these people under oath – and they will turn on each other. That is already starting.
  
  4. Lastly, one more thing will happen, the Senate will not convict the President. Nothing will happen to Trump. Most Americans are clueless about political processes, the law, and the Constitution. Most Americans believe that being impeached results in removal from office. They don't understand that phase 2 is a trial in and by the Senate, where he has zero chance of conviction. Remember, the Senate is controlled by Republicans; they will determine what testimony is allowed -- and *everything* will be allowed, including: DNC collusion with the Clinton campaign to fix the election in favor of Hillary, the creation of the Trump dossier, the cover up and destruction of emails that very likely included incriminating information. They will incriminate each other for lying to the FISA court, for spying and wiretapping the Trump campaign, and for colluding with foreign political actors, especially George Soros. After the Senate declines to convict the President, we will have an election, and Trump will win. It will be a backlash against democrat petulance, temper tantrums, hypocrisy and dishonesty. Even minorities will vote for Trump, because, for the first time, they will see that democrats have spent 2+ years focused on maintaining their own power, and not doing anything at all about black murders in Chicago, homelessness, opioids, and other important issues that are actually killing people. And, we will spend the following four years listening to politicians and pundits claim that the whole impeachment was rigged.
  
  So let's move on to impeachment.

  Annie D. Cook He didn't tell you Nasty Nancy because you would have leaked it....traitor

  ---

  Email us with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

  Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican

  

Republicans in Albuquerque are getting outspent $500,000 to $0 by outside groups. That’s not a typo, nor an exaggeration. 

Back in the day, under previous leadership—including former State Chairmen Allen Weh and Monty Newman, along with Governor Susana Martinez—the Republican Party of New Mexico (RPNM) recognized how important municipal elections could be.

And the Republican National Committee has long preached the need for a “bench”, an all-out effort to attract Republican candidates for local offices, school boards, etc. (Just as Democrats have—it's where people like Martin Heinrich came from.)

In those days, the state party spent money in municipal races, targeting specific precincts, trying out different messages, with different demographic groups and interest groups, seeing where the vote trends were migrating in the Democrats’ favor while identifying places where Republicans might have opportunities to make inroads. And—most important—targeting campaign messages in support of those Republican candidates who were willing to put their names on the line.

This kind of attention to detail, combining tactical thinking and strategic planning, paid big dividends. In Heather Wilson’s last congressional campaign, her 861-vote margin of victory (105,986 to 105,125) was directly attributable to precise targeting in decisive Albuquerque precincts.

It was based on crucial information that had been gleaned by the state party from its activity in the previous year’s city election.

Today’s RPNM? Nothing Happening at All. Leaving Republican candidates on their own.

Unfortunately for Republicans, those kinds of skills and expertise no longer exist within the RPNM.

Today, the current Republican Party of New Mexico is doing nothing at all while Democrats spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to elect their candidates. 

In addition to the $500,000 they have reported spending on the ground, California radical environmental groups are even pouring in cash. KOAT recently reported that “two California-based environmental advocacy groups have contributed a total of $50,000 to help support a City Council candidate

 "It's not illegal but it definitely does not look good,” said Paul Gessing, president of the taxpayer watch group Rio Grande Foundation. “It is a lot of money coming into a city council candidate from outside our state."

Candidate Maurreen Skowran has received $40,000 in taxpayer money for her campaign. “Public records show that the Sierra Club, based in Oakland, California and Green Advocacy Project located in Palo Alto, California, both donated $25,000 to a separate political action committee with the express purpose of helping Skowran.

Trudy Jones, Skowran's opponent, is calling foul.

"This is skirting around the system,” she said. “It is blatantly skirting the system.”

RPNM response: Crickets chirping in the evening silence.

DEMOCRAT DOLLARS—Things are about to get a lot Worse!

If the progressives’ most recent scam—the ballot question they have named “Democracy Dollars”—ends up passing, Republicans are in for a lot worse. The real name for the proposal that is on the ballot should be “Democrat Dollars.” If passed, this initiative would provide each “resident” (not just registered voters) with a voucher worth $25. That could amount to some $14 million in taxpayer dollars being diverted to political campaigns.

The term “resident” makes everyone eligible—all ages, citizen or non-citizen, convicted felon or not, temporarily here or not. Albuquerque is a sanctuary city and its increased population of non-citizens will simply give OLÉ more “voters” (legal or not) to round up and skim money from.

The ballot measure is being supported by sleight-of-hand “contributions” being transferred from pot to pot to pot by the likes of “ABQ Democracy Dollars,” the Left-wing front group that goes under the name “Common Cause,” the so-called “Working Families Party,” and OLÉ—the new name for the infamous “ACORN” group, the Obama-led organization that registered hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voters, and whose members ended up in jail.

These groups have reported having over $450,000 as of mid-October.  

Where is the Republican Party of New Mexico on all of this? Nowhere. The Democrats are playing Chess, while the Republicans are playing “who threw paint on the wall of our building” and other ridiculous diversions. (The answer, by the way, is a couple of Pearce-Tinnin recruits.)  

Democrat Dollars is such a bad idea that the progressives may have an uphill battle getting it approved by voters. But the progressives are smart in pursuing the ballot measure aggressively—because they understand that even if "Democracy Dollars" were to fail, their Left-wing city council candidates will be benefiting from the massive investment in voter turnout that is part of the ballot measure push.

In other words, they may get some Lefties elected even if the ballot measure fails.

CONSEQUENCES?

It takes a certain amount of courage to run for public office—to expose oneself to criticism, unfair attacks by both opponents as well as the media, and the potential humiliation of losing, or losing very badly at the ballot box. For Republicans in places like Albuquerque, all those risks are doubled—with the city migrating steadily leftward.

In other words, if there’s any place where the state Republican Party organization needs to show support and encouragement it is the Duke City. You can't leave candidates hanging out to dry.

By being disorganized, and completely unaware and uninterested in city elections, and leaving Republican women and men exposed to unrelenting attacks and overwhelming spending from a united hard-Left coalition, the Republican Party of New Mexico is forever discouraging intelligent, dedicated Republicans from running for office.

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

The Alamogordo Daily News has reported that the "Cowboys for Trump" is supposedly under investigation by the State Auditor, Brian Colón. This has to do with supposedly questionable travel reimbursements surrounding a trip made by the organization's leader, Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin. 

There has been much upheaval and consternation both in the local newspaper as well as on social media, no doubt causing a good degree of anguish within the Cowboys for Trump circle. Griffin, for his part, has engaged in very reasonable, indeed much-praised lobbying and advocacy in support of his constituents.

Regarding mismanagement by the federal government on such issues as the federally-sponsored infestation of wolves, poor forest management, and a whole host of property rights issues, Griffin articulates the views of not only Otero County residents but also those of rural New Mexico at large.

Activities Must be Presumed Legal: Long-Time Republican Leader is Griffin's Treasurer

The Daily News quotes Griffin: 

Griffin said after consulting with Otero County's attorney and manager about possible violations of established travel requirements, it was the "right thing to do." The money returned to the county was first donated to Griffin from area businessmen, according to an Oct. 18 Facebook post on the Cowboys For Trump page.

We are bewildered at the suggestion there is a problem, mainly because Griffin's financial adviser and the treasurer of his only campaign account has been steeped in the ins and outs of political committees for some 30 years.  

 

His treasurer is Rocky Galassini, the long-time de facto leader of the Republican Party of Otero County. Galassini has also led the county's Republican Women, as well as a series of splinter groups she has created to compete with the official Republican organizations during those periods of time when the regular Republicans have deposed her. 

 

Galassini is the individual who recruited Couy Griffin for the job of County Commissioner and she became his treasurer and financial adviser. With her three decades' experience in politics, it is not only reasonable for Griffin to believe Galassini knows what she is doing, it is inconceivable to us that she can have steered him down a path of questionable conduct, let alone any suggestion of illegality.

 

After all, her daughter, Anissa Galassini Tinnin, is the Executive Director of the Republican Party of New Mexico. Given Galassini's day-to-day oversight of Griffin's campaign account, as well as

 

her close and immediate connections to tons of expertise in the persons of both the Chairman and Executive Director of the State Republican Party, we have to presume that Mr. Griffin has a significant defense and explanation for what may well be entirely appropriate arrangements and activities.

 

After all, the Galassini's have reviewed all 13 of Griffin's campaign reports and have advised him now for years. He has no doubt trusted their advice and counsel. It seems incomprehensible that they could leave a political newcomer exposed to such criticism and attacks.

 

We certainly hope that is the case. Otherwise, because Griffin supports Trump and also a number of conservative New Mexico causes, the Left and their allies in the media will seize on any matters about which they can try to discredit him. For our part, should any such blame game occur, it would seem unfair that the political novice should be the one to shoulder it. 

---

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

---

Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican

 

IN THE DEMOCRAT DEBATE #4, which took place this past Tuesday, October 15

The CNN "moderators" actually posited a question to Joe Biden like this:

CNN: Trump has totally lied about you and your son regarding your son’s work in Ukraine and China. Do you have anything to say about that?

Biden took that softball and knocked it out of the park, effectively saying:

In the debate, California Senator Kamala Harris stated that neither Kavanaugh nor anyone else could name a single law that tells a man what he can or cannot do with his body.

We disagree. Here are some examples:

• Every single drug law is a law that tells men (and women) what they can do with their bodies.
• Every single anti-suicide law does the same thing.

And we would also add "the draft," which one reader (shown below) pointed out was another way in which the government can and has exercised total control over men's bodies.

The thing about the word "body"

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

Well, this pretty much takes care of THAT issue.

“We did absolutely NOTHING wrong, and we won’t ever do it again. So there. So let’s get back to the Trump impeachment thing.”

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

There is a certain amount of absurdity in the debates among the six candidates vying to become the next Prime Minister of Canada.

No moderator will stop the candidates from talking over each other. You can’t hear a word any the candidates say. They make US debates look relatively civilized by comparison.

What is it about the parliaments and political traditions of all the [de facto] British Commonwealth nations that make their political discourse so damned rowdy?

We have reviewed the debate among the 6 party leaders fighting to become the next prime minister. The election is 8 days from now, Monday, 21 October.

We could hear enough to determine that several candidates mimic the very same clichés and catch-phrases used by their US equivalents.

The Green Party candidate, Elizabeth May, the (frankly ridiculous) current Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the New Democrats’ Jagmeet Singh (who wears some sort of loud orange turban) are the most egregious—they all sound exactly like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and, well, sadly, like the “new” Joe Biden, not to mention the rest of the Democratic Party’s field.

Euro-socialism, abortion at any point (maybe as late as a week after birth), massive taxes (to achieve “income equality”) stopping all “pipelines,” hammering Alberta’s oil and gas industry, giving money to the impoverished Maritimes and Quebec, are all the rage.

Another Country that Cannot Criticize the US Electoral College

Despite worldwide criticism of our Electoral College, the outcome of the Canadian election—as is the case in most democratic countries in the world who have adopted a parliamentary system—will not be determined by popular vote. Rather it is determined by which party wins a majority (or perhaps a near-majority) in the House of Commons. It is much like choosing the US president based on the number of Congressmen each party ends up with.

Unlike in the US, few Canadians pay much attention at all to the names or proposals of their own districts’ (called “ridings”) individual candidates for parliament. Instead, they vote almost entirely on who the national party leaders are, basing their decisions on who they want to see become the next prime minister.

The latest polls are the same as they have been for months, with the Conservative Party ( Conservative Party of Canada - Parti conservateur du Canada) and Liberal Party Liberal Party of Canada | Parti libéral du Canada) in a virtual dead-heat, each with about a third of the vote.

The Leftist New Democrats (Canada’s NDP / Le NPD du Canada) poll at about 15-20%, the hard-Left Greens (Green Party of Canada) get about 10%, the Bloc Québécois has about 6%, and the new People’s Party—running to the right of the Conservatives—are left with only about 2%.

But of course, just as in the US, the outcome is not determined by the final popular vote.

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

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.

This is a perfect illustration, via cartoon, of what Governor Michelle Grisham and the Democrat Legislature are doing to New Mexico. (Cartoon By John Trever of the Albuquerque Journal.)

Email us 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:

In our view, this is a direct result of the ideology and resulting attitudes that originated within the Obama Administration, mainly pushed and then encouraged by people like former Attorney General Eric Holder, Obama advisor Van Jones, Michael Eric Dyson, and other prominent Democrats like Cory Booker.

All these individuals, in our view, are—at best—ardent “racialists,” and—at worst—overt racists. Their work has confused, and in many cases poisoned, the minds of millions of young people.

In many cases, these same young people have acted out or attempted to approximate non-existent scenarios in a manner they apparently believe will validate (in some bizarre way) what they have “learned” about the "ugly, hateful, genocide-based, country" known as the United States of America.

And despite not being able to find such a place in real life, they are attempting to show that the America that is described by the likes of Barack Obama—or perhaps Michelle Obama—really and truly does exist. Even if they have to create it themselves.

Sadly and humiliatingly, they’ve now been caught hundreds of times. But even more sadly, the race-baiters who encourage these simple souls into making fools of themselves and their families are never held to account. Instead, they are rewarded either with TV shows of their own or ever-more exposure as talking heads and "experts on American culture" at venues like CNN and MSNBC.

As a result, the hating of America and the dividing of our nation continues unabated.

Are we wrong in our analysis? Are we missing something? Let us know. Please.

MEANWHILE, here is the dreadlock-gate story from the New York Times:

VIRGINIA GIRL RECANTS STORY of BOYS CUTTING off HER DREADLOCKS

The 12-year-old-girl’s story drew national headlines and a police investigation last week. Her family has apologized. (As well they should.)

By Niraj Chokshi, Sept. 30, 2019

It was a story bound to unleash a storm of news coverage: A black 12-year-old girl reported that three white boys had pinned her down in a school playground and cut off her dreadlocks.

It was the same private Christian school in Virginia where the vice president’s wife was a part-time teacher, which only fueled the social media outrage.

The police said they were investigating. The girl and her family gave interviews to TV networks and newspapers.

But in a matter of days, the story fell apart.

On Monday, the school announced that the girl had admitted the story was a lie, and that her family had apologized.

“While we are relieved to hear the truth and bring the events of the past few days to a close, we also feel tremendous pain for the victims and the hurt on both sides of this conflict,” the school’s principal, Stephen Danish, said in a statement.

He continued:

“We recognize that we now enter what will be a long season of healing. This ordeal has revealed that we as a school family are not immune from the effects of deep racial wounds in our society.”

[NMPJ Note: These "deep racial wounds," after some 50 years of genuine healing had taken place, have been re-inflicted to a large degree, by cynical race-baiting politicians and now media hacks over just the past decade.]

Mr. Danish also thanked the Fairfax County Police Department for its “diligent work” investigating the complaint.

The school also provided a separate statement from the girl’s family, in which they apologized for her actions and asked for forgiveness from the accused boys, their families, the school and the community.

“To those young boys and their parents, we sincerely apologize for the pain and anxiety these allegations have caused,” the family said.

“To the administrators and families of Immanuel Christian School, we are sorry for the damage this incident has done to trust within the school family and the undue scorn it has brought to the school. To the broader community, who rallied in such passionate support for our daughter, we apologize for betraying your trust.”

In an interview with The New York Times on Friday, the girl, Amari Allen, had said that she was attacked during recess on Sept. 23 by three boys who held her down, covered her mouth and cut her dreadlocks.

“They were saying that my hair was ugly, that it was nappy,” she said.

Cynthia Allen, Amari’s grandmother and legal guardian, said in an interview on Friday that Amari was reluctant at first to say what happened to her hair, but broke down crying on Wednesday and made the accusation against her classmates.

The family did not immediately return phone calls on Monday.

The school enrolls kindergartners through eighth-graders at its campus in Springfield, about 15 miles southwest of Washington. It was briefly in the news when Karen Pence accepted a part-time art teaching position there in January.

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

2016: All Republicans are deplorable.

2017: All Republicans are Russian agents.

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.

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.