On December 29, 2016, on the program, All Things Considered, Moises Gonzales told the National Public Radio audience that "The Spanish fantasy is a myth." What he forgot to tell his audience was that he, himself, is largely a myth.

UNM professor Moises Gonzales is the man leading the charge against any and all vestiges of Spanish or Mexican influence in New Mexico. He has allied himself with such entities as Black Lives Matter and Antifa. Whether, like them, he has actively encouraged violence against peaceful protesters we will address at another time. 

For now, we will just deal with his schtick—his claims to be all Native American, and to share the struggle with his fellow Indians, against the European oppressors. 

But Gonzales forgot to take down his Facebook posts from a few years back. In one of them, he posted this: A graphic showing that he is some 65% European. To be specific, he is 57% Western European and 8% Sephardic Diaspora, which is synonymous with Iberia, or Spain and Portugal. 

His "New World" roots—in DNA from North American natives—represent only 25% of his ancestry. 

He went on to ignore most of the information provided by whatever service he used. 

It's What You "Identify" As

Gonzales is playing the modern game of "identification." It goes something like this:

"Okay, I'm not a biological woman, but I IDENTIFY as a woman, and want to dress like a woman, and live and interact in society as a woman."

Instead of identifying based on gender, Gonzales is "identifying" based on ethnicity. But it doesn't make it so. 

A few years ago, we published a story of the 36-year old California man who "identified" as a 6-year old. He famously led his T-ball team to the league championship. 

The story was comical in that his teammates attempted to hoist him up on their shoulders in celebration after the championship game, but were unable to pick up the large 230-pound man. Along the way, the "self-identified" six-year-old absolutely shattered every league record.

With a 1.000 batting average, 52 home runs, and an incredible showing at first base, second base, shortstop, third base, and pitcher, the man is being called an inspiration to other six-year-olds everywhere.

He even enjoyed an orange slice and juice box with his teammates after the championship. 

The story, of course, is absurd. And complete fiction. Just like Gonzales' "identity."

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

Because of the invisible social pressures of social media, we have a number of people, who clinically present as conservatives or even Republicans, who are, sadly, caught up in virtue-signaling—and end up actually advertising about supporting BLM, or even donating to BLM, or other groups.

Video: https://bit.ly/30BwFBk

This reflects their transition into “people” rather than remaining a “person.” It is indicative of a lack of confidence in their own capacity for discernment. But worse, it’s a plea for others to see them in a certain light—a light they believe (because of the strong influence of both media and social media) to be reflective of some higher virtue that they want others to perceive in them. But it isn’t true.

Guest Editorial Column by the Editor Emeritus, Former State Senator Rod Adair

So Black Lives Matter has decided to attack a statue of the very Founder of the Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson. In a certain sense, it is somewhat comically ironic. Ironic in that the very political party that supports BLM and ANTIFA might have its founder attacked, with attempts to pull down the monument, à la US forces v. Sadam Hussein, circa 2003.

Yes, of course, they are ignorant. We know that. Otherwise, they would not be trying to destroy the country by means of riot, violence, and vandalism. What is puzzling is why a major US political party sides with them. Especially the party whose Founder their allied groups are trying to wipe out of history. 

These are amazing times. And it is not just the Democrats who puzzle us. Every day we read posts by formerly intelligent people, independents and even Republicans, proudly announcing their support—even bragging about giving money to Black Lives Matter. 

This is what even the lefty pundit Andrew Sullivan makes fun of, saying:

"These white liberals are in a WOKE-OFF to prove their own virtue, an intra-elite competition to impress their peers." 

Exactly. Only it isn't only "liberals." Largely, we believe, because of Facebook many conservatives or people who have at least considered themselves conservatives (some even libertarians) are engaged in barefaced Woke-off contests, trying to prove to their neighbors, friends, and followers just how concerned they are about "justice."

They appear to be very very unsure of their actual virtue, because they feel they have to "prove" it by uttering inanities about BLM, bragging about donations to them, and advancing all kinds of incongruent arguments.

"A PERSON IS SMART, BUT PEOPLE ARE DUMB" — The Social Media Connection

About a decade ago in the popular movie Men in Black, the lead character told his assistant he was training, "A person is smart, but people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

What does this mean? It means that if left alone, to think, to reflect, to truly contemplate what is right, wrong, true, false, what makes sense, and what is illogical, most individual persons—without interference from the news media, or especially now, from SOCIAL MEDIA—will stumble through the reasoning process (as we all do from time to time) and get it right.

But that's not the society we live in any longer. 

With the advance, takeover really, of social media, perhaps especially with Facebook (though Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and other platforms have their influence), the "person" is almost disappearing. We are a nation now not of persons, but of people.

In an atmosphere in which an individual—formerly perhaps an independent thinker—is surrounded by hordes of people, he or she increasingly loses himself or herself. The individual, personally-developed thought process tends to give way to the expectations of "people."

In our view, it is almost certainly unconscious, perhaps subconscious, and certainly not—at least not initially—willful. One begins to "perform" for the people by emoting, rather than consciously trying to hew to an intellectually grounded approach to social discourse and political or societal intercourse.

Admittedly, intellects may vary. But it really doesn't matter. Even persons of modest ability will do much better left to their own reasoning than they will do when they become aware of the social pressures of saying the "right thing," or reflecting what they believe the people believe or want to hear.

Then comes the feedback, and the piggybacking of comments to assure someone that a reader of their posts is just as "caring" or, nowadays, unfortunately, "woke" —which has seized the initiative in the current era. 

In Any Case, We Are Torn—Andrew Jackson?

Sure part of us says, "Okay, take it down, you morons, you have no idea that you're tearing down the Founder of the Party that is your only hope in American elections.

Until the late 1930s, the Democrats' principal fundraising tool was called the "Jackson Day Dinner." It was the counterpart of the Lincoln Day Dinner Republicans have long used to raise campaign funds. 

In the late 30s, Franklin Roosevelt made a concerted effort to claim Thomas Jefferson as the founder of the Democrat Party. It isn't correct, but he had probably become disenchanted with Jackson's image. Who knows? In any case, since then the Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner has become the staple of the various state and local Democratic Party fundraising efforts. Just as the Lincoln Days remain for the GOP.

So as much as it is tempting to laugh at the foolishness and not object, it probably isn't wise. History is there for us to learn from. It isn't for us to erase. In reality, that is what Stalin did. That is what George Orwell wrote about. His book, 1984, is replete with ministries in the central government of the story that do little else other than change "history," in fact simply eliminating entire historical figures as well as erasing everything about entire epochs that the central government doesn't want to be known. 

This is where we are. We can't really support the iconoclasm of the modern Left. We just can't. But well-meaning people, caught up in the pressures of Facebook and social media PC should really think twice about "supporting" BLM or ANTIFA, let alone donating to them, so as to appear "woke."

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

The initial Bubba Wallace "noose" story broke Sunday night, June 21st, with multiple reports describing a noose as having been found in the racing garage stall of Wallace and Richard Petty Motorsports. 

Everyone went wild, with no one actually taking a photo of the alleged "noose" or following up for any corroboration. NASCAR went wild, reporting the "incident" as a "hate crime."

Fellow race car drivers flooded the area, trying to out-woke each other with concern over the incredible depth of "racism" in America. 

THE FBI ARRIVES on the SCENE—with FIFTEEN (15) AGENTS

Between 2015 and 2018, there were six extremely high-profile “hate crimes” involving nooses. Every single one of them turned out to be a hoax. But not before every single morning show and every single news media outlet went crazy—as celebrities and pundits fell all over themselves in efforts to appear to be “woke.” This is yet another—and this doesn’t even count the ultra-absurd Jussie Smollet incident.

With the NASCAR thing, we suspected hoax from the very beginning, as the story didn’t seem to add up. Nonetheless, drivers and retired drivers and all kinds of folks made total fools of themselves in overt efforts to show their “wokeness.”

KEEP YOUR EYE on SANTA FE

On that note, the latest Santa Fe, New Mexico story, the attack on the India Palace restaurant—which was unquestionably a senseless act of vandalism, was probably done by Leftists in an effort to harm Republicans. (After all, this is what they’ve done over and over again.)

Let’s wait and see how good a job the Santa Fe Police Department does with this, but our money is on it having been carried out as a stupidly misguided effort by the “Woke” crowd to try to disparage Republicans. We could be totally wrong, but that’s where our wager lies.

Meanwhile, Bubba Wallace looks an awful lot like Jussie Smollet. Not nearly as bad, but it looks as though he was trying to play a similar game.

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

Which Candidate Should Earn Your Vote?

On China, Biden represents the Obama “Devil May Care” approach which won him support on Wall Street and at major universities. Trump is the first president not only to recognize the long-term threat, but to be willing to buck big business and big academia.

Local media, the New York Times, and other national media, will not report the truth about the violence at the Oñate statue on Monday, June 15. We will. Other media have edited or refused to show the actual moments leading up to the shooting. It doesn't fit their agenda. We will show it.

Here: https://youtu.be/Ufg46i4wTDc

We are showing all the video of the attack on a lone, innocent man, Steven Baca. Baca showed up at the statue of Don Juan de Oñate, with perhaps only one other pro-Hispanic Heritage attendee, praying quietly.

In the course of events, Baca was surrounded by thugs, was continuously assaulted and threatened by a violent mob of Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and anti-Hispanic Heritage rioters and vandals. 

The man continuously bragging about organizing and inciting innocent young minds is Moisés Gonzales who supposedly is some kind of professor at the University of New Mexico.

While the Mayor of Albuquerque, Tim Keller, had his police do nothing to protect innocent people—they were all "holed up" a long way from the site, either unwilling or unable (reports vary) to do anything.

The mayor was shamelessly plotting his own personally-engendered plans for official vandalism—the tearing down and removing of a work of art with no legal basis, no authorization by any public body, and no vote and no voice for the people.

The crowd is heard shouting:

"He's a cop. Get him. Get his license plate. Get the fuck out. We're gonna fucking kill you. Kill him."

They attack him, start beating him while he's on the ground. Then one of the thugs comes at him with a knife.

The mainstream media, and the Democrat Party, and many other people caught up in the practice of thoughtless, mindless attantion-seeking and virtue-signaling, will tell you that an innocent peaceful demonstrator was shot for no reason. They will post messages about donating to Black Lives Matter to show that they are "woke."

New Mexico Political Journal will not go along with the crowd, or with the mob. 

America, New Mexico, Albuquerque, and our communities have had enough of this. Political leaders thus far have lacked the courage or the will to do anything. Albuquerque Mayor Keller and Santa Fe Mayor Alan Webber are part of the problem. Not the solution.

They are, in essence, BLM, Antifa, and anti-Hispanic Heritage mobsters themselves. 

Webber has had the statue of Don Diego de Vargas removed from the Plaza. This, after he pressured local Hispanic leaders to put an end to a century-old tradition of the Entrada, and curtail the Fiesta. We don't know which is more shameful, his ignorant, outsider, condescending attitude toward New Mexico's Hispanic community and their history, or the acquiescence of Hispanic community leaders in meekly surrendering to his pressure.

Neither is worthy of a "profile in courage."

As has been prophesied, all of this will continue as long as these domestic terrorists remain unopposed and the people take no stand. As long as the rioters, looters, and vandals are rewarded they will continue to up the ante, tearing down more and more of our cities and streets. 

If our state lets this happen—and Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham is a certified Kellerista and Webberista, so she is also in league with domestic terrorists—we will wake up someday and find ourselves the cultural and community values equivalent of California or Massachusetts-West. 

Next, our cities will be covered in human feces. Shootings and lootings will be the norm. And, who knows? Maybe these thugs will take over part of Albuquerque and we can have our own little Seattle-inspired separate "no-go zone."

God Save New Mexico and the United States of America!

It's one thing for a business owner to try to direct state government agencies to come down hard on a competitor, but for elected officials to sic the dogs on constituents? Well, that seems pretty intense.

Nonetheless, that's what State Senator Bill Soules of Las Cruces is doing to his voters. And he's not only ratting out businesses in his hometown, he's doing it to folks in his own senate district. Soules really has it in for guns, gun owners, and gun shops in particular.

Here's the email he sent to Teasha Roybal of the Department of Public Safety:

"Miller Guns and Ammo on North Telshor in Las Cruces appears to be in open violation of the state orders. There are cars there every day...Gun stores are not deemed to be essential..."

This is not surprising in that Soules either does not respond to questionnaires from groups like the National Rifle Association, or when he does he gets fairly low ratings.

Soules has also ranks number one (or at least tied for #1) in the State Senate in contributions from groups that are either anti-gun or pro-gun control.

He supports all Red Flag legislation, background checks, even for individual sales to family members, and essentially all restrictions that are proposed.

Of Course, That's NOT Really the Point

Certainly, Senator Soules has every right to vote his conscience and his philosophy. That's not what we are picking up on. 

More important in this environment of state-encouraged snitchery and ratting out, what catches our eye are the choices that citizens make—and the organizations that politicians decide to report.

In other words, there are hundreds of businesses in Las Cruces and Doña Ana County. And there are scores and scores that were not precisely complying with the governor's orders.

But how many did Senator Soules turn in? And which one did he pick on? Was it health-related? Food-related? Did any of the social distancing violations that other people spied catch Soules' eye? Did he care?

Apparently not. Just the gun store.

What does that say about the uniform and non-discriminatory application of the law? Do we just attack those businesses that annoy us? While all others doing the same thing don't bother New Mexico state government officials?

Those are questions worth asking.

Are the Governor's Agents Really Applying her Orders Fairly?

Or in an Unconstitutional, Arbitrary, and Capricious Manner?

We have noticed that some entities have been cited for violations. But others have been levied staggering fines. While others—such as the Lujan-Grisham's own jewelry store—have been caught red-handed in violation of the orders, but received no notice whatsoever.

In at least a couple of cases where the state has come down hard, the entities being fined and threatened with having their licenses revoked, happen to be businesses whose owners criticized the orders and criticized the capricious manner in which they were being enforced.

Is this what we really need a state government to do? Are Lujan-Grisham and Senator Soules about equal protection of the laws? Or are they about using the coercive power of government to zero in on those whose political views they dislike?

Think about it.

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

New Mexico's mercurial Governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, has announced that she wants to address the “ugly truth” of racism, that she claims is embedded in core institutions. 

So she says she is going to create something called a "Racial Justice Czar." This czar will supervise a "Racial Justice Council" and that panel will identify "potential policy changes." (Most people are probably left betting that those will be doozies.)

So who does Grisham turn to—to fix New Mexico's alleged "racial" problems? None other than perhaps the most famous racist in New Mexico—State Representative Sheryl Williams Stapleton (D-Albuquerque). 

News reports indicated, "the council's make-up is still being finalized," but one thing for certain is that among its members will be the, apparently indispensable, House Majority Leader Sheryl Williams Stapleton, D-Albuquerque.

With the choice of Stapleton, it's pretty clear that Grisham herself is engaged in racial profiling. After all, she's certainly not choosing her because of her intellect or character, but only because she's black.

Stapleton and "The "Mexican on the Fourth Floor"

In late 2011, Representative Stapleton got really steamed at Republican State Rep. Nora Espinoza, R-Roswell, who questioned Stapleton's double-dipping. Stapleton was (and still is) being paid legislative per diem while in Santa Fe AND simultaneously being paid by Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) for working on exactly the same days. 

APS has long been a famous bastion of flakiness on myriad levels, with its top-heavy administration, scores of extra staff, hired lobbyists, and public relations and media spokespersons ALL on the payroll for education.

So to compound things, under then-superintendent Winston Brooks, APS actually made it approved "policy" for Stapleton to double-dip. (And you wonder why people have chosen so many charter schools and private schools in Albuquerque?)

In any case, Stapleton flew into a rage and hollered at Espinoza at least three times for everyone to hear:

"You’re carrying the water for the Mexican on the Fourth Floor!"

Stapleton was referring to then-Governor Susana Martinez, who had acknowledged that her parents were Mexican-American. 

Stapleton was widely criticized for the racist outburst, and the House Democrats subsequently deposed her as Majority Whip, replacing her with Albuquerque Representative Antonio Moe Maestas.

(Though it has to be said that the semi-tone-deaf Democrat Caucus allowed Stapleton to make a roaring comeback and installed her as Majority Whip once again in 2017.)

As a comical aside in the entire furor, both Stapleton and her then-sidekick, State Rep. Mimi Stewart both pled innocent to the very idea that angrily referring to Governor Martinez as "that Mexican on the fourth floor" was anything other than polite routine speech.

And both Stewart and Stapleton comically (though almost certainly insincerely) invoked what might be called the George Costanza* defense:

"Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing is frowned upon... you know, cause I've worked in a lot of offices, and I tell you, people do that all the time."

Stapleton at First Claimed She "Had no Idea" She had Made a Derogatory Comment

Stapleton's "Costanza" approach consisted of saying she "did not mean the remark in a derogatory way or as an ethnic slur." Going on to say "I would never say anything derogatory,” as she apologized "If I offended anyone." (Using the modern-day "apology" style of putting the burden on the offended, rather than having the offender (Stapleton) take responsibility.)

Stapleton then went the extra mile, so to speak, by making the bizarre, Elizabeth Warren-like claim, that she considers herself "at least partly Latina." [NOTE: She is actually from the US Virgin Islands and speaks a kind of broken Spanish, which she sometimes invokes as she insists on shrieking off-key renditions of birthday songs on the floor of the House, which both horrifies and victimizes her colleagues in both parties.]

Later, Stewart weighed in—speaking as someone who was also simultaneously in a teaching position while attending legislative sessions. Stewart, who is from Massachusetts, said she "did not think Stapleton meant the remark about the governor to be an ethnic slur."

Both Stewart and Stapleton are said to be huge fans of George Costanza.

Stapleton Apology Seems to Contradict both Herself and Mimi "Costanza" Stewart

But later, Stapleton admitted she was lying when she had previously claimed that she had no idea she had said anything in an offensive way. Admitting, as her voice began to break:

"I lost it, ladies and gentlemen. I expect more of myself. This is not my character."

As Stapleton's remarks were reverberating throughout this Hispanic-plurality state, she followed up with a more thorough apology:

“I am publicly making an apology to the governor of the state of New Mexico, I am publicly making an apology to my district and I am publicly making an apology to the people of New Mexico as an elected official."

This, of course, left her buddy Mimi Stewart alone by herself, twisting slowly in the wind, in the embarrassing position of continuing to own the obviously false claim (as long as Stapleton claimed it) that there was no offense at all, all in good fun, nothing to see here.

Stewart was not warned by Stapleton that she was about to leave her alone, claiming the ridiculous.

Grisham Obviously Used Racial Profiling in Selecting Stapleton

Stapleton made the excuse that "I was under extreme stress." 

Well, maybe so. But this raises the question: Can the governor find no one else in the entire state for this expert panel who does not fold under pressure and stress and whose first instincts when excited or stressed is to blurt out ethnic or racial slurs? 

After all, this panel of authorities will be charged with defining, finding, identifying, and rooting out racism. It appears that Grisham is using the lamest approach, effectively telling New Mexicans: "I chose Sheryl because it takes one to know one."

And of course, all of this begs the embarrassing question: Just how many black leaders does the governor know? Apparently, very, very few. Almost none. A few political cronies. No one else. For panels like this, shouldn't she be looking for leaders? People of unimpeachable character? The right stuff? 

And the Governor's answer to all these questions is Stapleton? 

All this while the governor goes on to intone:

"We have a tendency to wrap ourselves in that particular cloak and pretend sometimes that we don’t have the kind of inequalities, institutional racism and hatred that exists.” 

“We have institutional racism embedded in every construct in American society. The fact you might not see it every day means you’re not looking for it every day. It exists.”

We can argue about whether any of that is true or not (neither the governor nor anyone else gave any examples for New Mexico) but just saying those things with a straight face, while simultaneously deciding that Stapleton is the judge and jury on these questions is nothing short of bizarre.

What this means is that Grisham used the most barefaced and obvious racial profiling, completely ignoring character, intellect, and articulation of issues, and shamelessly choosing based on race alone. The very thing she claims to oppose.

2009 Bill Prohibition of Profiling Act

New Mexico already has a 2009 law that allegedly bans "racial profiling." This bill purported to prohibit the used of certain information in the identification of criminal suspects based on descriptions that might include race, ethnicity, color, national origin, language, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion, physical or mental disability or serious medical condition

That bill passed the New Mexico House of Representatives, without a whimper, by a vote of 62-0. But when it arrived in the State Senate, its sponsors faced some questions from senators, including then-Senator Rod Adair (R-Roswell):

Is it racial profiling to identify suspects or subjects of investigations based on testimony from witnesses or cameras, which might include descriptions of skin color, or guessed ethnicity, or gender, or if someone might have been on crutches, or had spoken a foreign language?

The sponsors couldn't answer.

Are there any data or studies of any kind to show that new Mexico law enforcement are engaged in racial profiling?

The sponsors had neither.

What if a Hispanic state police officer from Albuquerque tells a Hispanic deputy sheriff in Deming that he believes a suspect is Hispanic, female, about 5' 4" tall, 125 lbs, and that she had black/brown hair and brown eyes? Is that profiling?

Confused answers. Much debate and arguing ensued. 

Are we just copying some things being done in other states right now, especially back East?

Sponsors admitted that other states were passing similar bills.

The bill ended up passing the Senate, 32-10. In addition to having Adair vote "No," others voting No included Vernon Asbill of Carlsbad, Sue Wilson Beffort, Mark Boitano, Kent Cravens, William Payne, and John Ryan, all from Albuquerque, Dianna Duran from Tularosa, Stuart Ingle of Portales, and William Sharer of Farmington. 

The remaining five Republicans joined 27 Democrats in voting in favor of the bill.

Governor Grisham Statements and Nationwide Hysteria Aren't Justified by Actual Data

Grisham expressed regret this past week for having taken an aggressive approach to combating violent crime, particularly when she decided to send 50 State Police officers to patrol certain areas of Albuquerque last year.

The two-month “Metro Surge Operation” cost about $1 million. It resulted in 14,674 traffic stops and netted 738 arrests—the majority of which were for felony or misdemeanor warrants. The governor said Thursday that such decisions would be viewed through a different lens going forward.

“It is a public health emergency and New Mexico will treat it as such,” Lujan Grisham said.

But the data don't support all this regret and Nationwide Angst 

Statistics compiled by Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute reveal the following:

• In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015.
• That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects.
• In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population. 
• The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. (It must be noted that the Post defines “unarmed” broadly and loosely, counting as "unarmed" a suspect in Newark, NJ, who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase.)
• In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019.
• By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer. 
• On Memorial Day weekend in Chicago alone, 10 African-Americans were killed in drive-by shootings.
• Such routine violence has continued—a 72-year-old black Chicago man shot in the face on May 29 by a gunman who fired about a dozen shots into a residence
• Two black 19-year-old women on the South Side shot to death as they sat in a parked car a few hours earlier
• A black 16-year-old boy fatally stabbed with his own knife that same day.
• This past weekend, 80 Chicagoans were shot in drive-by shootings, 21 fatally, the victims overwhelmingly black.
• Police shootings are not the reason that blacks die of homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined; criminal violence is. 

MacDonald went on to note:

The latest in a series of studies undercutting the claim of systemic police bias was published in August 2019 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The researchers found that the more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that a member of that group will be fatally shot by a police officer.

There is “no significant evidence of anti-black disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police,” they concluded. 

A 2015 Justice Department analysis of the Philadelphia Police Department found that white police officers were less likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot unarmed black suspects. Research by Harvard economist Roland G. Fryer Jr. also found no evidence of racial discrimination in shootings. Any evidence to the contrary fails to take into account crime rates and civilian behavior before and during interactions with police.

The false narrative of systemic police bias resulted in targeted killings of officers during the Obama presidency. The pattern may be repeating itself. Officers are being assaulted and shot at while they try to arrest gun suspects or respond to the growing riots.

Police precincts and courthouses have been destroyed with impunity, which will encourage more civilization-destroying violence. If the Ferguson effect of officers backing off law enforcement in minority neighborhoods is reborn as the Minneapolis effect, the thousands of law-abiding African-Americans who depend on the police for basic safety will once again be the victims. 

The Minneapolis officers who arrested George Floyd must be held accountable for their excessive use of force and callous indifference to his distress. Police training needs to double down on de-escalation tactics. But Floyd’s death should not undermine the legitimacy of American law enforcement, without which we will continue on a path toward chaos. 

*Costanza is a character on TV's Seinfeld. He used this "defense" while in the process of being fired by his boss for having had sexual intercourse with the cleaning woman on the desk in his office. 

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

[A guest editorial, by Editor Emeritus, former State Senator Rod Adair]

A few observations:

Can the President use the Army to enforce the law and to quell riot and violence, and to protect lives and property?

The three-way Republican US Senate primary promises to be an interesting race to watch Tuesday night.  Supporters of Gavin Clarkson and Elisa Martinez are claiming that the race is very tight and say it will provide the surprise of the night. 

We don’t necessarily agree with that analysis, but we can't help but notice that there have been developments worth reporting.

In early April, Mark Ronchetti released a survey, which we wrote about, that showed him with a strong lead over the other candidates. However, on April 27th, a video surfaced in which Ronchetti was shown jokingly referring to President Trump as "the orange one.” This video was from some time back when he was still working for KRQE-TV, where he served as its chief meteorologist for many years.

Ronchetti's opponents pounced. Gavin Clarkson notified this publication and had a YouTube video up within hours, followed by TV ads.  

Ronchetti Situation became Similar to the Herrell-Chase Argument: Who Likes Trump? 

Clarkson was the first to put a television attack ad together on the subject, and then Martinez followed suit. With the Ronchetti video surfacing five full weeks ago, Ronchetti's opponents have had tons of time to drive home their negative message. And they have.

To be fair to Ronchetti, since he entered the senate race, he has consistently stated that he supports President Trump and his policies, but that did little to stave off the attacks. Clarkson and Martinez had picked up on lessons from the Herrell-Chase contest and had decided that—all other issues be damned—voters needed to decide the nominee on the basis of the purest and longest-lasting Trump love.

We have covered this same ridiculous "debate" before in our analysis of the CD2 GOP primary.

Readers of NMPJ know how we feel about this completely anti-intellectual, philistine, 100% lowbrow approach to political discussion and debate: We absolutely hate it. We think it is beyond ignorant and is totally demeaning to the voting public.

This is for a number of reasons. Perhaps most ironic of all—and to be fair, irony is lost on thousands of voters—Trump himself has hired his most vocal critics, including his current press secretary, who was brutal to him. At least Trump apparently recognizes that you need people of ability, even if they've made fun of you before. But what do we know?

In any case, we must ask: "Is Ronchetti strong enough to weather the storm?" His supporters think so and argue he is the strongest candidate with the most compelling message. 

Anti-Ronchetti Forces in Full Attack Mode

In fairness, the anti-Ronchetti forces have been in full attack mode since he entered the race in January and long before any video surfaced. Many chalk that opposition up to jealousy on the part of Republican Party elites and insiders who felt entitled to choose the Republican nominee themselves. They were apparently very offended by the entry of an outsider like Ronchetti stealing their thunder.

Albuquerque radio talk show host Eddy Aragon (at left) began attacking Ronchetti immediately and has only grown more venomous over the past few weeks. To be fair to Aragon, last fall he said that NONE of the Republican candidates were any good—he dismissed not only Clarkson and Martinez, but also then-candidates Mick Rich and Louie Sanchez as simply not measuring up to the stature required to beat the former casino dealer Ben Ray Lujan.

And who did measure up? Well, Eddy thought it was Eddy himself. In dismissing all of the Republican candidates, he said he would actually enter the race, as his ability to articulate the issues is essentially unparalleled. However, after that announcement didn't go over that big, Aragon announced he would run as an independent.

Then that didn't go over so well either. Ultimately, he failed to file for the office in February and in a reappraisal of the situation ended up declaring that Elisa Martinez was "the one" after all, and that he was "all-in" for her. 

UPDATE on Eddy: Aragon switched his endorsement from Elisa Martinez to Gavin Clarkson in May, noting that Clarkson had raised the most money and complaining that Martinez had "texted, rather than called," the one donor Aragon is influential with to ask for a contribution. We presume Eddy considered that to be "dissing" his donor, and that was just too much for him to take.

Since then, Aragon has spent the better part of this month relentlessly attacking Ronchetti on his radio show and in social media. Many dismiss Aragon as having a tiny audience, but Aragon claims to possess a megaphone capable of flipping races. He has told numerous people that he has a daily audience of many thousands. 

In any case, we’ll soon find out if Aragon is as powerful with Republican primary voters as he claims, or if his megaphone is really that of a carnival barker, with an actual audience of about 150, with him going unheard by the overwhelming majority of Republican voters.

Social Media Warriors: Crusaders or Trolls?

Meanwhile, former Democrat intern and campaign volunteer John Block has emerged over the months, continuously and mercilessly attacking Ronchetti on social media. The irony of a former Martin Heinrich intern and volunteer for Mayor Tim Keller's campaign awarding himself the position of judge and jury of the conservative Republican purity test has been noted by many.

Yet, Block (shown while working on the Keller mayoral campaign) is oblivious and, with a straight face, claims to be channeling the feelings of Republican primary voters and Trump supporters.  Block has gone so far as to expend funds on Facebook ads asking voters to vote against Ronchetti (this spending might raise a few eyebrows over at the Federal Elections Commission, but that’s a different subject). Again, we will find out on Tuesday if John Block is the shepherd of Trump voters like he claims.  

The Money Race

To his credit, Gavin Clarkson has surprised us, raising and spending the most money of anyone in the campaign, which refutes the narrative that we had actually believed, which was that Ronchetti probably led in fundraising. Clarkson correctly pointed that out to us recently. Clarkson's latest report showed $1,088,918 raised. 

Mark Ronchetti did raise an eye-popping $675,000 in his first quarter of fundraising and has continued to receive strong financial support even after the COVID-19 economic shutdown slowed fundraising for all candidates. Ronchetti’s campaign says his fundraising has been driven by thousands of small-dollar contributors who are looking for a conservative outsider. His most recent filing, however, has him at $850,343, lagging behind Clarkson by some $238,000.

As far as being outspent, the Ronchetti campaign says it is unconcerned and asserts it has been far and away the most efficient with its resources, avoiding the pitfalls that waste hudreds of thousands of dollars on consultants and vendor projects that do little to move voters. 

While Elisa Martinez had been lagging behind her competitors in overall fundraising, she has received a notable boost down the stretch with the help of a maximum contribution from the husband of State Republican Party Executive Director Anissa Galassini Tinnin and a handful of other party insiders, including Mark Murphy of Roswell.

Given that infusion, we can only conclude that her recent surge is extremely strong, as she has a vastly greater statewide TV presence than either Clarkson or Ronchetti. That being the case, we would presume that her $418,554 on her last report is not reflective of how the donations will have been in May, which have to have pushed her into something on par with Ronchetti now, and possibly even close to the fundraising frontrunner Clarkson.

It is clear that the establishment elite has tried to coalesce financial support behind Martinez in the closing weeks. This has allowed Martinez to come with a huge broadcast television buy down the stretch, which as we noted earlier, attacks Ronchetti for his “orange one” joke. 

This must bode ill for Ronchetti. The simple reason for that is that it would be bizarre and counter-productive for Republican Party leaders to fund an attack ad like Martinez's against someone who had increasingly been seen as the presumptive Republican nominee, UNLESS they sincerely believe the race is neck and neck and that such an ad could pull it out for Martinez.

We would further note that if that is not the case, then it would raise some extremely serious questions about their judgment and about their commitment to Republicans winning the seat in November. 

Insiders Coming on Board for Martinez

House Minority Leader James Townsend

Along a similar vein, Martinez has also earned the endorsements of many political insiders, including Republican House leader James Townsend. It begs the question again why Townsend would wade into this race at this late stage, unless he believed his endorsement would sway the electorate.

Either he believes that very strongly, or he will have quite a bit of egg on his face on Tuesday. This is especially true since he is the Trump campaign chair in the state. Having the position of Trump Campaign Chair would cause most thoughtful and knowledgeable political leaders to remain strictly neutral during a primary season—in every single race—so as not to offend Republicans whose unified support they will need, and so as not to embarrass the President.

But Townsend is defying that norm, running all over the state, involving himself in every primary he can weigh in on. Of course, this is the same Townsend who is one of the architects of the devastating and historic loss, in 2018, of over one-fourth of his own caucus, while he was spending all of his time playing in a congressional race (CD2) that he also lost. So who knows?

Former Senate candidate Louie Sanchez

Another very curious development is the new role taken on by former senate candidate Louie Sanchez, who has become a very vocal supporter of Martinez and a rabid critic of Ronchetti. This has occurred since mid-March, when Sanchez dropped out of the race after he was unable to secure 20% support at the GOP state nominating convention, and after he had raised only about $50,000, while spending over $100,000 and ending up in debt.

We say this is curious for him to suddenly claim to be the voice of the Republican grassroots because Sanchez has had no involvement at all in Republican politics prior to his short-lived Senate campaign. In fact, Sanchez had never even voted in a Republican primary. So, it is very strange for him to act as though he’s been working tirelessly in the Republican trenches for decades.

Nonetheless, this hasn’t stopped Sanchez from posting shrill attacks on Facebook against Ronchetti about the need to elect “true” Republicans. Some claim this is all driven by Sanchez’s consultants who are trying to set Sanchez up to run for Governor in two years. 

We see that as a plausible rationale for his advisors and handlers, however, we question the wisdom of this strategy. Rather than make a great name for Sanchez, this "strategy" seems more likely to mark Sanchez as some sort of troll and to increase the number of Sanchez detractors. In other words, his inexplicable vitriol and divisiveness could ultimately lead to a Sanchez campaign for governor being as short-lived as his ill-fated Senate bid. 

Nevertheless, Sanchez is all-in with Elisa Martinez and—along with Aragon, Townsend, and other state party leaders—we’ll find out how persuasive he is with Republican voters on Tuesday, or if he’s shot himself in his other foot. 

What About the Ronchetti Campaign?

For his part, as best we can tell, Ronchetti appears undaunted by the attacks and has stayed largely focused on taking his message directly to Republican voters via social media and advertising. His television and radio ads have remained positive and they have driven a conservative message with a notably and relentlessly optimistic bent.

Those positive ads stand out on airwaves that have been flooded with negativity the past few weeks. It seems to us that Ronchetti is seeking to appeal to Republican primary voters in a specific and unique way that he hopes will also attract independents and conservative Democrats. 

To us, his approach has been one of textbook image-making, a candidate who is giving a positive, conservative message, while holding out the possibility of winning over voters in the fall. It's the same approach used by extremely "likable" candidates in campaigns past. Ronald Reagan comes to mind. It’s why so many Ronchetti supporters believe he is the only one capable of defeating Ben Ray Lujan in November.

It has to be said, however, that Ronchetti hasn't completely ignored his opponents. He has responded to the attacks against him in direct mail. We sift through post office trash, and we've found mail pieces in which he is pointing out that Elisa Martinez failed to pay her 2010 state income taxes for 8 years and previously worked for a liberal immigration group called the “Libre Initiative.”  That group openly supported amnesty for illegal aliens.

We've also seen mail in which Ronchetti has responded to Clarkson’s attacks by pointing out how Clarkson has supported liberal candidates and causes, including attending a pipeline protest in North Dakota in 2016 with a leftwing "environmental" group.

These mailers probably represent a very small part of the Ronchetti advertising campaign, but they are great uses of resources. He is able to target likely voters with the kinds of messages they need to see about both his opponents.

Meanwhile, the overwhelming bulk of his messaging has been conducted on television, where all voters, including Democrats and independents, are watching and where everyone can get a feel for his vision. Significantly, Ronchetti doesn't even mention his opponents at all on the TV screen.

We have to admire this approach in which his negative messaging is targeted via direct mail to likely primary voters, while his TV is all positive.

But will the Ronchetti strategy of remaining positive on TV work? Or will the negative attacks of his opponents—funded and supported by party elites—seal this outsider’s fate? 

We’ll find out on Tuesday evening, most likely by around 9 PM. Although, with this COVID-19 effect, the tabulating of absentee ballots may push that timeframe to 10 or even 11 PM. Who knows?

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

A Key Issue that—If Left Unchallenged—Will Adversely Impact the 2020 New Mexico General Election

Last month, the Democrats filed suit to try to get the Supreme Court to implement an “ALL mail-in” election for 2020. 

The New Mexico Supreme Court denied the Democrats' all mail-in election idea, but instead ordered the Secretary of State (SOS) and the county clerks to mail to all “registered” voters an absentee ballot application. (Many people erroneously still believe we are having an all-mail primary, but we are not.)

The Significance of an All-Mail Election (Which Most People Still Don't Have Straight in the Minds)

If the Democrats had had their way with the Supreme Court, then every Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian would have been mailed an actual ballot—ready-to-vote—in early May.  Or at least that would have been the idea. The reality, however, is that a ballot would have been mailed to every mailing address listed in the voter file.

In other words, there are no real means of ensuring that individual registered voters are actually having a ballot delivered to them. The only thing that can happen is that ballots are mailed to either a residential address where a voter says he or she gets mail, or to a Post Office box, if a voter has indicated that preference for mail delivery.

An all-mail election is particularly problematic for New Mexico because the statewide voter file is not maintained. For just one example of the bloated condition of the voter file, a recent Bernalillo County School Board election that was "all mail-in" resulted in more than 30% of the ballots being undeliverable. 

All that mail was "undeliverable" because the registered voters had long since moved. And while a number of those moves may have taken place only a couple of years earlier, many of them had taken place 7 or 8 years ago, or possibly as long ago as a decade. That's how terribly inaccurate the voter file is.

We Have a Primary in Which all Eligible Voters Have Been Sent an Absentee Ballot Application

Instead of an actual votable ballot, which the Supreme Court would not allow the Democrats to mail—because the law says the SOS/Clerks cannot do that—the SOS was limited to sending out applications for a ballot. So individual voters have to decide if they want a ballot sent their way or not.

HOWEVER, MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, though she was denied the “all-mail election,” the SOS decided to seize the opportunity to unilaterally change the absentee ballot application form. On these new absentee ballot applications which you have been sent, the SOS has:

1) pre-populated every voter’s name—even though that is information which is supposed to be provided only by the voter

2) printed each voter’s unique random identification number—something no voter even knows exists, and which is also not allowed by law to be printed on the application

3) provided a bar code, so the county clerks can scan the applications when they come back in—which is also not permitted by law to be printed on an application, much less a ballot

Our Election Code very clearly provides that an application shall be designed so that spaces are provided in which the name, registration address, and the year of birth can be filled in. However, it is also clear that all of that information is "to be supplied by the applicant." (§ 1-6-4 (B))

What Can be done with this Unauthorized Information on the (previously blank) Form?

Anyone—any candidate, individual, party organization, or special interest group—who can purchase a statewide voter file, can simply filter the unique voter identification numbers provided by the SOS and immediately have the means of filling in the registration address and year of birth—to go with the voter’s pre-printed name, which the SOS has furnished.

At that point, anyone in possession of these applications has had the ability to send in a perfectly valid request for an absentee ballot. And the additional bar code will make for immediate processing. In fact, the bar codes—now supplied on ballot outer envelopes as well—actually encourage the elimination of any kind of manual verification of data. 

Danger Lies Ahead

While the implications for the primary are relatively insignificant (after all it’s only D v. D and R v. R), the groundwork is clearly being laid for this same process to be used in the General Election. And the potential for misuse/fraud in absentee balloting is very clear: with some 30% of our statewide voter file completely out of date, hundreds of thousands, perhaps 350,000-400,000 of our 1.3 million registered voters, will not be at the address to which these applications will be delivered.

The presence of upwards of 400,000 absentee ballot applications with names already printed on them, with unique identifiers on them, and with bar codes for easy processing on them presents an enormous opportunity for the mail-in of thousands of completed applications that may be completed by someone other than the actual voter who is supposed to cast the vote. 

Groups with questionable reputations, like the infamous ACORN (now disbanded) and its successor organizations like OLÉ (which is very active in New Mexico), are specially positioned and suited—due to their experience and practice (discussed below)—to take enormous advantage of the information provided in the new unlawful absentee ballot applications.

In other words, ballot harvesting has just been made vastly simpler and less time-consuming for any group willing to participate. And in New Mexico, those groups are more than willing to participate.

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

Many people are calling us, telling us their views that the Rio Grande Foundation, a tax-exempt, so-called "non-profit" organization, which styles itself as a "think tank," has begun to get way out over its skis. One caller told us she had just "un-liked" the RGF Facebook page over its extreme meddling in Republican primaries, as well as its gross misrepresentation of issues to the voters.

We have to say that we can see where the RGF's lecturing to conservatives about "just how the cow eats the cabbage" can become not only tiresome, but downright irritating. This is especially true for those voters who really understand conservatism and the myriad differences between conservatism (which is not an ideology) and libertarianism (which is an ideology). 

One thing Republican voters, especially conservative Republican primary voters—everywhere, not just in New Mexico—must keep in mind, is that the Rio Grande Foundation is NOT a conservative organization—not by a long shot. Not even close. It has always been oriented toward libertarian politics, featuring programs and guest speakers who promote the thinking of the famous Ayn Rand. Rand, unlike conservatives, was an avowed atheist.

As for its recent activities in New Mexico Republican primaries, "weighing in" is what the group calls it. It's their euphemism for "taking sides." And that's a risky thing for an organization that lives off its tax-exempt, special protections that most Americans do not enjoy.

Libertarians (Rio Grande Foundation) v. Conservatives: What are the Differences?

It is true that there are some similarities between conservatives and libertarians. They both believe strongly in individual liberty, limited government, and free markets. So many times those shared views can lead to cooperation on a number of public policy issues.

However, there are also stark differences on matters such as national defense, the armed forces, foreign policy, immigration—including illegal immigration—the death penalty, drugs (and across the board drug legalization), surveillance, marriage and the family, and the ability of individuals to express their faith, including the recognition of the role of religion in our nation's history, as well as its influence on public policy.

Here are just a few of the issues of the day, and where libertarians and conservatives line up on each:

Issue                                     libertarians                                                               conservatives

Taxation                                  Oppose increased taxes                                           Oppose increased taxes

Immigration                            Oppose Restrictions                                                  Believe in Restrictions and limits

Illegal Immigration                  Support Open Borders (liberty)                                 Strongly Oppose, must have control of borders

Abortion                                  Support, without limits                                               Oppose, or oppose except in certain circumstances

Legalization of hard drugs      Support legalization of practically all drugs (liberty)  Oppose

Recreational Marijuana          Support                                                                      Many conservatives support, many oppose

Medical marijuana                  Support                                                                     Most support, minority opposed

Death Penalty                         Oppose (they believe it comes from "religion"         Support (though not all conservatives do)

Marriage                                 Support for any persons who "love" each other       Tend to support "traditional" marriage

Gun Rights                             Support the Second Amendment                             Support the Second Amendment

Religious Expression              Emphasize the "establishment" clause                    Emphasize both "establishment" and

                                                                                                                                "free exercise" clauses

Gender                                   Support "liberty" ("however many there are")           Believe in two basic, biological sexes

Libertarianism shares a number of public policy positions that are supported by traditional conservatives. But these tend to be related to economics and taxation. With regard to social and cultural issues, libertarians tend to be much more aligned with liberals and the modern Left.

Libertarianism sees itself as being a political ideology that asserts the natural order of things is total liberty. As one example of this ideology, it embraces the view that a woman, for example, has "total control" of her own body and therefore can do whatever she wants with a fetus, up to and including the ultimate stage of birth.

Conservatives, on the other hand, would argue that a fetus is not merely an organic "part" of a woman's body—much like a kidney, gall bladder, or spleen—which can and should be dispensed with in whatever manner she chooses. Rather, they would argue that a fetus is a separate, living entity, and not merely an incidental body part.

Libertarian RGF Butts in on the Senate District 41 Race: David Gallegos v. Gregg Fulfer

Yesterday, the Rio Grande Foundation butted in to the campaign for State Senate District 41, by siding with current Representative David Gallegos. 

All around the state, dark money operatives are going overboard to win elections, breaking all precedent in terms of outrageous claims and slanders against their targeted enemies—and those "enemies" always turn out to be the most conservative, common-sense candidates in the contests.

Senate District 41 in the far southeast corner of the state is no exception. In a district that consists of the southern halves of both Eddy and Lea Counties, incumbent Republican State Representative David Gallegos is challenging incumbent Republican State Senator Gregg Fulfer.

Gallegos has come under some criticism for making the race, considering that Republicans hold precious few seats in either house, and that many rank-and-file Republicans believe precious and scarce campaign funds should be directed at unseating Democrats rather than spent to merely satisfy personal ambitions about moving to the upper house.

Gallegos Announces His Motives—And they Aren't Pretty

On March 1st in the Hobbs News-Sun, Gallegos began his campaign by telling voters that he was motivated by anger at not being chosen to replace retiring Senator Carroll Leavell, 17 months ago. In his full-page ad, Gallegos 
described the Lea and Eddy County Commissioners as criminals for not selecting him, accusing them of violating the law, engaging in backroom deals and dishonest, secret plots. 

What was the reason for those charges? Gallegos had been sending out emails for several months, essentially telling anyone who would listen that it was time for Senator Leavell to step down. And in those same emails, Gallegos was lobbying hard to have himself appointed to replace the 82-year-old senator. 

So when the Eddy and Lea County Commissions voted, 3 to 2 and 4 to 1 respectively, to appoint Gregg Fulfer, the only thing Gallegos could conclude was that the county commissioners must have committed some sort of criminal act. At least that's what his allegations amount to.

In addition to these reasons for being motivated to run, Gallegos also said on Facebook that he wanted to have "a four-year term rather than just a two-year term."

As far as we know, none of the commissioners Gallegos has accused of crimes has turned out to be enthusiastic about his candidacy.

Unprecedented Tactics

Fulfer ran a very positive campaign throughout April and early May, with very little being heard from Gallegos. Then Gallegos suddenly struck on radio, in mail pieces, and in newspapers, attacking Fulfer in very vicious terms, accusing him of being every possible negative descriptive they can invent. 

Gallegos has repeatedly attacked Fulfer for being a "lifelong Democrat" who supposedly changed his party affiliation "just before" his appointment. This is weird because both Gallegos and Fulfer have been Democrats most of their lives. Gallegos changed his registration a few years ago and Fulfer changed five years ago—long before his appointment. 

A Federal PAC is Now Smearing Fulfer—And it's a PAC that has Joined Forces with Democrats

In recent days, a PAC headed up by a pro-abortion political operative who has strongly supported Democrats in the past, has jumped into the race with a smear campaign against Fulfer. The same organization, using radio and TV ads produced by a couple of anti-conservative Republican operatives in Austin, Texas, has been deeply involved in smear campaigns against conservative Republicans in the past. 

Even though Fulfer is the only candidate in the race who has opposed Governor Lujan Grisham on all of her extreme issues, this PAC accuses Fulfer of being an ally of Grisham.  

According to one observer, "one dead giveaway in the ad is that John Billingsley is the only person we know who would spell oil with two Ls."

Ironically, considering their smears against Fulfer, this same PAC is working alongside the progressive Democrat PAC, Patriot Majority, as both of them are engaged in smearing Republican Claire Chase on behalf of Yvette Herrell—trying to persuade Republicans to nominate the weakest candidate, so that the Democrat can prevail in the general election.

Though this PAC which is now attacking Fulfer has nothing to do with Trump, and in fact goes against Trump ideas, the men behind the group chose to disguise their goals by naming themselves "Make NM Great PAC." The PAC is not registered in New Mexico, even though New Mexico law explicitly states that it must do so:

"If a political committee is located in New Mexico, and is required to register as a political committee under this rule, the political committee must register with the secretary of state even if it is also registered with the FEC."

—New Mexico Administrative Rule 1.10.13.10 (A) (4)

So in addition to blatantly false attacks on Fulfer, this deep-secret PAC is also violating New Mexico law in that it is not registered at all and is not filing campaign finance reports of contributions and expenditures.

Gallegos Using Campaign Funds Inappropriately

A New Mexico registered campaign committee called "Committee to Drain the Swamp" is running radio ads and sending out mail exposing Gallegos' use of his campaign donations. Gallegos has filed campaign finance reports using such terms as "reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses." Such line items are not allowed under New Mexico law.

Gallegos has apparently "reimbursed" himself or his wife for "expenses" by paying off credit card charges.

Some of the entries state they that the "reimbursements" are for "campaign expenses" (which are not itemized or described) while some claim to be reimbursements for such things as "signs" or "materials."

In any case, even if all the entries happened to be truthful or accurate, such accounting is not allowable under New Mexico law.

Altogether, Gallegos has used some $38,000 of campaign funds in this manner.

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

What has become the most important issue for Republican primary candidates running in Congressional District 2 or in the US Senate Primary?

If you're thinking how to deal with the COVID-19 plague, you're wrong. If you think it has anything at all to do with rebuilding the economy you're also wrong. You're also wrong if you think the top issue is healthcare, or international trade deals, or China, or Russia, or border security, or the Middle East, or most anything else you're likely to think up.

No. Believe it or not, the top issue is "When did you first love Trump?" 

Or on what date can a forensic investigation determine when you first said something negative about Trump?

And then at what point can detectives determine when you subsequently had your "conversion experience" that was sufficiently satisfactory to prove to investigators that you are now in the Trump fold?

How many professions of faith in Trump can dance on the head of a pin? 

We are not making this up. For CD 2, it's all about whether Claire Chase or Yvette Herrell supported other presidential candidates in 2015 and 2016—and what was their attitude toward Donald J. Trump four to five years ago.

For US Senate hopefuls Elisa Martinez and Gavin Clarkson, it's their whole campaign: Did Mark Ronchetti make a joke about being anti-Trump?

Yeah, he did. Like millions of Republicans—even millions of Republicans who voted for him and who are going to vote for him again.

NEWS BULLETIN: Millions of Republicans—including Republicans who are his strongest supporters—make fun of Trump every single day!

As Seinfeld's Frank Costanza would say: "What the hell does that mean?" Answer: Not a damn thing.

How Logical is This? (Spoiler Alert: Zero—the "Logic Quotient" for this Issue is 0 — Zilch, Nada)

Five years ago, Kayleigh McEnany called Trump a "racist" and a "showman" who was an embarrassment and "not a serious candidate." Today, she is his press secretary, the spokesperson FOR TRUMP himself! 

This is proof positive that the Trump Administration is not following the Elisa-Gavin-Yvette-Claire logic, but instead is using the following kind of logic:

It's not what you thought of Trump five years ago, it's whether or not you support his policies today or believe that his administration has been successful.

But getting back to New Mexico. How's the Trump Administration logic playing in the Land of Enchantment?

Answer: It isn't playing at all. It hasn't cracked the Billboard top 100. Nobody is listening to it.

Yvette Herrell and Claire Chase are beating each other senseless over which one of them made a profession of faith in Trump the earliest.

Why does Trump himself and why do his handlers understand that the New Mexico "logic" makes no Sense?

Because if you actually believe the allegations made and the questions posed by the New Mexico candidates you have to disqualify far more than half of the Americans who ended up voting for Trump over Hillary Clinton. That's right, after all was said and done in the GOP nominating process in 2016, more than 55% of Republicans wanted someone other than Trump.

Does that mean that Trump needs to rail against them, holding a grudge over that? Or are the Trump advisors smart enough to realize that what is important is that the voters who supported Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Ben Carson, and a dozen other Republicans turned around and voted for Trump in the general election?

We think they get that. Otherwise, Hillary Clinton would be president. And if they didn't get it, they'd be headed for certain defeat this November.

But do GOP candidates in New Mexico get it? And more important, do New Mexico Republican voters get it? Answer: We won't know until about 10 PM on Tuesday, June 2nd. 

But Wait, HERE COME THE DEMOCRATS

One group of people who are loving all of this is the Democrat Party brain trust, laughing their butts off at the nonsense. It's so damn funny to them that they have begun running ads on behalf of Yvette Herrell.

They are openly reinforcing the message offered by Herrell, which is: 1) do NOT vote based on each candidate's position on crucial issues, or 2) each candidate's ability to appeal to the general election, or 3) a candidate's ability to stand and deliver in debate, or 4) articulate the conservative argument, or 5) make the case for something better than Xochitl Torres Small, or 6) raise money, or 7) broaden the appeal of the Republican message, or 8) who has the greater winnability quotient?

No. None of that. The Democrats are copying the exact message of Herrell (and Clarkson and Elisa Martinez): any Republican who has not been continuously in love with Trump for five years is a bad candidate.

Think about it. If the Democrats are pushing that same "reasoning" process, how smart is it really? 

Will Republicans get it? As our previous article showed, they have a habit of not getting it. 

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

It appears any pretense that the Republican Party of New Mexico might actually adhere to party rules and remain neutral in various primaries around the state, has been lost.

Everywhere we look, Pearce appears to have deeply embedded himself—and his Sancho Panza-like Executive Director Anissa Galassini Ford Tinnin—in Republican primary campaign after campaign. Sidekick John Billingsley also shows up everywhere with "contributions" and verbal support for the Pearce team, in opposition to those Republican conservatives who are even more conservative than Pearce himself, but who will not join the Pearce personality cult, pledging total fealty to Pearce and the odd team of email thieves he's surrounded himself with.

After all, shouldn't the state party focus on winning more Republican seats? Instead of creating more life-long intraparty disputes and squabbles? Just so Pearce and Tinnin can maintain an up-to-date "enemies list" for themselves? 

To us at least, all of their machinations, picking favorites, and endless scheming seem pointless and destructive. 

Yesterday we learned that Tom Tinnin (recently married to the RPNM Executive Director) had donated $2,500 to US Senate hopeful Elisa Martinez. Reports recently made public establish that Anissa's mother, Rocky Galassini, filed with the Federal Elections Commission as the registered Custodian of Records for the Yvette Herrell campaign. Philip Pearce, Steve Pearce's brother, is the Herrell's campaign treasurer.

All of this kind of interference while simultaneously insisting that what we are seeing with our own eyes—improper meddling by the state party in Republican primary contests—is not really what we are seeing. And the kicker is that they expect us to believe that.

Lea and Eddy Counties

Everyone in Lea and Eddy Counties has complained about Pearce's takeover last winter of the Lea County Republican Convention, and his near-takeover in Eddy County. His purpose was to ensure that all state convention delegates in both counties would support Herrell over Claire Chase. 

In both instances, Pearce pushed out (or in Eddy County, attempted to push out) long-time activists and volunteers and imposed a group he had gathered up. One Lea County Republican stalwart told us: "Steve showed up with about a hundred people we had never seen or heard of before, and never will see or hear from again."

In Lea County, numerous political observers state that it was Pearce who recruited, or strongly encouraged, incumbent State Representative David Gallegos to challenge incumbent Republican Senator Gregg Fulfer. This of course has resulted in an extremely expensive primary battle that in the end will probably have cost Republicans hundred of thousands of dollars. That is money that could have been used to take on sitting Democrats.

According to our sources:

"Steve would rather have folks on 'his team' or his own 'devoted followers' in office, even if the sitting Republican is a strong conservative and doing a good job."

This is certainly the case in State Senate District 41, where incumbent Gregg Fulfer is endorsed by the National Rifle Association, recommended by Right-to-Life, has continuously battled Governor Lujan-Grisham, and has the endorsements of such stalwarts as Eddy County Sheriff Mark Cage—one of the most vocal and influential conservatives in the state.

Fulfer also did something no first-year legislator has been able to do: he got $350 million to four-lane the state's most dangerous roads, and make huge improvements on US 285. (Gallegos, oddly, we are told, actually voted against that funding.)

CAGE ABANDONS HERRELL: SWITCHES TO CHASE BECAUSE OF HERRELL's UGLY AD CAMPAIGN

Tuesday, Sheriff Mark Cage announced that he has withdrawn his earlier endorsement of Yvette Herrell. Cage endorsed Herrell when she was the only candidate in the race.* Cage had this to say about his earlier endorsement and his change of view:

The race for the GOP nomination in CD2 is dominating the airwaves, and in a very negative way. Both sides are carpet-bombing TV news programs and highly-rated syndicated game shows with devastating hits on each other.

HERRELL'S ANTICS HAVE ATTRACTED THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA and GARNERED NATIONAL ATTENTION

Former State Representative Yvette Herrell, who lost the Republican-leaning seat in 2018 (even while Trump was carrying the district) has come in for serious criticism from the Associated Press as well as the Washington Free Beacon.

It seems the Herrell has gone well beyond any basic sense of decency, digging into the personal life of her main opponent, Claire Chase. Most candidates and consulting teams steer clear of trying to attack such things as marriages, child custody, things that are said in divorce proceedings, and the like. NOT Herrell. She's dug deep—in a manner that has really bothered even her strongest supporters. One close observer of the race sent us this comment:

"Everyone I've talked to is absolutely disgusted by Yvette's actions, and her decision to collaborate with a known criminal to fabricate allegations against her opponent may end her political career."

The Associated Press and the Washington Free Beacon

Yvette Herrell is desperately trying to run away from her boneheaded political attack

This week the Associated Press and Washington Free Beacon reported on Yvette Herrell’s partnership with Roger Rael, a political meme-maker, who is currently facing charges for criminal damage to property and disorderly conduct. Apparently Herrell – who has herself been divorced twice – thought it would be a good idea to push fake accusations about Claire Chase’s first marriage.

According to the Free Beacon, Herrell offered Rael $200 if he would put out a meme falsely accusing Claire Chase of cheating on her ex-husband, Ben Gray, with her current husband, Chance Chase, while Gray was in Afghanistan.  

AP: “In an interview with The Associated Press, retired U.S. Marine Jared Richardson said Herrell called last month after he announced his support for Chase on social media and told him that Chase cheated on her first husband while he was deployed in Afghanistan. But according to Chase, she met her current husband after her divorce and two years after her former husband’s return from deployment.”

Washington Free Beacon: “But Rael told the Free Beacon on Tuesday that he created the cartoon at Herrell's direction. ‘She asked me to make a meme for her and put it out there, because she didn't want ties to it,’ Rael said, adding that Herrell offered to pay him $200 for the task.”

Unfortunately for Herrell

Chase was able to immediately produce documents proving the attack was false. Chase hadn’t even met her current husband, Chance, when she and Gray divorced. Herrell appears to have made it up out of thin air. Chase’s ex-husband even blasted Herrell for smearing him and using his service to our country in this boneheaded political attack.

Here is how the national media covered this aspect of the story:

Washington Free Beacon: “Chase's campaign says the allegation is false and provided information showing that Chase and Gray were not divorced until two years after he returned from Afghanistan. It also says the divorce was finalized months before she had met her current husband.”

AP: “Gray, Chase’s first husband, said in a statement he and Chase are still friends and he is a member of the Veterans for Claire coalition and the rumors are false. ‘I can’t believe Yvette Herrell would try to use me in this false, disgusting attack,’ he said. “What kind of person would smear a veteran to win a political campaign?’”

Text Messages Show that Herrell Appears to be Lying About her Relationship with Rael

Yvette Herrell is now is claiming she doesn’t even know Rael and had nothing to do with the attack, but The Free Beacon and Associated Press have her text messages personally editing the meme and describing her long-time relationship with Rael.

AP: “According to the text messages obtained by the AP, Herrell offered suggestions about a meme created by Roger Rael that showed Chase with her current husband, Chance Chase, while her former husband, Ben Gray, looked on confused. ‘The second Claire is spelled wrong,’ Herrell texted back after receiving the meme. ‘It should say golddigging, not good digging.’ Herrell then writes, ‘Let me send them in the morning. There are a couple of more.’”

Washington Free Beacon: “Herrell has attacked Rael's credibility, pointing to pending criminal charges against the cartoonist, and said she had no relationship with him. But the string of text messages, which began last November and stretches until this February, suggest otherwise. Among the text messages Rael provided to the Free Beacon, one message from Herrell refers to the ‘long time’ they've known each other. ‘I know you know me better than to buy into this crap,’ Herrell wrote in a Feb. 17 message. ‘You have known me a long time and you know my priorities are the people of New Mexico.’”

Herrell’s Campaign in Damage Control

Yvette's campaign seems to be in damage control mode at this point. She is no longer responding to requests for comment about her attack on Chase and refused to attend the first major debate of the race.

Free Beacon: “Herrell's campaign did not respond to requests for comment.”  

Associated Press: “The first major debate among GOP hopefuls in a crucial U.S. House race in New Mexico had a noticeable absence — a Republican who skipped debates in 2018 and lost the seat. Former state lawmaker Yvette Herrell declined Thursday to participate in the debate with two of her opponents on KIVA in Albuquerque. It was the first radio debate in an increasingly nasty Republican primary fight.”

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

We realize there are lots of analyses—all over the map—both praising and downgrading Trump’s performances on the daily briefings.

The shows appear to have been helpful early on, but as time has gone by Trump has appeared to lose ground—as shown in the polls.

Each year, on average over the past decade, the State of New Mexico records some 18,650 deaths. That means approximately 4,600 New Mexicans die from all causes every quarter, or about 6,200 during every third of the year—each four months.

Thus far to today, through the 23rd of April, with one week to go in the first third of the year, 65 New Mexicans have died of COVID-19 (or perhaps we should say that many deaths have been "attributed to" COVID-19).

Meanwhile, approximately how many other New Mexicans will have died in the first third of the year, ending 30 April? Based on statistical averages from the National Vital Statistics Reports, here are the answers to that question:

Total deaths in New Mexico: 6,220

Deaths caused by:

1) Heart disease: 1,300

2) Cancer: 1,205

3) Accidents: 480

4) Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease: 320

5) Stroke: 290

6) Alzheimer's: 240

7) Diabetes: 200

8) Suicide: 160

9) Flu & Pneumonia: 110

10) Nephritis: 100

Other causes of death include homicide, which in New Mexico occurs, on average, about 55 times every four months.

Small businesses being killed while Grisham is allowing “Big Box” stores to run wild!

Has anyone else noticed that the “reported” Coronavirus infections and fatalities make the United States look very bad?

SURPRISINGLY BIG LOSS for the DEMOCRAT PARTY

The Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Democrat Party's request that New Mexico conduct an "All-Mail-Ballot" election for the upcoming June 2nd Primary.

The President did a reasonable job of fending off a hostile question about why he opposes “all mail ballot” elections while, according to the reporter “you yourself just now voted by mail in Florida.”

The Mark Ronchetti campaign released a poll yesterday that showed the Albuquerque meteorologist opening up a huge lead over his remaining Republican opponents in the GOP primary race for US Senate. The winner of the primary will face Democrat Congressman Ben Ray Lujan in the open seat general election to replace retiring Senator Tom Udall.

According to Public Opinion Strategies, 45% of Republican primary voters either definitely support or probably support Ronchetti, while both Gavin Clarkson and Elisa Martinez each enjoy probable or definite support from only 11% of those same voters. 

Voters were asked:

"If the Republican primary election for US Senate were being held today, for whom would you vote between Elisa Martinez, Gavin Clarkson, and Mark Ronchetti?" (Or "between Mark Ronchetti, Elisa Martinez, and Gavin Clarkson," and other randomized combinations that changed the order of the candidates' names throughout the poll.)

400 Republican voters who were identified as "primary voters," were surveyed by telephone between the 18th and 22nd of March. 

In terms of name identification, Ronchetti also enjoyed a significant advantage, with 75% of Republican voters having heard of him, while Clarkson was known by only 41% of those surveyed and 37% were familiar with Martinez.

Significantly, core sub-groups also supported Ronchetti. Voters who identified themselves as "very conservative" gave Ronchetti 46% of the vote. Perhaps even more surprising, Ronchetti had 44% of the support of voters who consider themselves to be "strong pro-life."

The latter finding has to sound alarms with the Martinez campaign, as she has touted herself as the pro-life champion, given her role as the former Executive Director of New Mexicans for Life. 

It's Early, But this is the First Test

Of course, it's still a very long time (especially in politics) till the June 2nd primary, exactly 60 days away, and a lot could happen, especially in this strange, unprecedented atmosphere. But this early sample has to be sobering for Clarkson and Martinez as it is encouraging to the Ronchetti backers. Ronchetti could get a huge fundraising lift out of this poll, just as his opponents could see contributions dry up.

Ronchetti's favorable to unfavorable rating is an almost unheard of 56 to 3, while Clarkson's is 16 to 4 and Martinez's is 13 to 4.

One of the things that has to be concluded from this is that the constant, daily extremely negative social media attacks on Ronchetti by Martinez supporters, John Block, Eddy Aragon, and several others have simply had little effect. 

We have believed that those kinds of tactics often end up creating what might be called "a tempest in a teapot" rather than having a significant impact among the state's 370,000 Republicans or the 120,000 GOP voters who might show up in a primary. This poll appears to support our conclusions.

While we have remained scrupulously neutral in this race, as in other statewide races, we nonetheless can see where many Republican voters may see a rise in morale and a hope that their party might be able to unite behind a strong candidate for the fall showdown with Lujan.

Still, there is time for either Clarkson and Martinez to stage a serious comeback and surge to victory, in which case we are sure that Republicans would also unite behind either of them should they become the nominee. 

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

Representative Patricio Ruiloba Disqualified, House District 12 (South Valley, SW of the Big I)

In 2014, following the retirement of the late Ernest H. Chavez, the current incumbent Democrat Representative, Patricio Ruiloba, won a three-way Democrat primary with 42% of the vote by defeating Mark D. Armijo 438 to 405, with Lorenzo J. Pino getting 197 votes. Republicans did not file anyone.

As shown in the map at left (HD 12, shaded orange), the district is located west of the Rio Grande between Gun Club Rd on the south and Rosendo Garcia on the north. It is a "low-vote" district, with a higher than average "under 18" population, and fewer eligible adult voters than average. So vote totals are much lower than the average House district.

81% of the voting-age population is Hispanic.

These combinations of factors usually mean the Republicans are not competitive.

In 2016, the district voted for Clinton 4,468 to 2,013 for Trump, and 638 for Gary Johnson. Republicans last contested the district in 2012, when Chavez defeated Clyde Wheeler, 4,736 to 1,856.

Ruiloba Problems

Representative Ruiloba apparently secured a sufficient number of signatures, but failed to indicate the district number of his state representative district, writing only the words "State Representative" into the last blank (as shown on the form) instead of "State Representative, District 12."

To be fair, the Supreme Court is on record encouraging the legislature to provide an additional blank space for a district, but the legislature has ignored that direction. 

Confusion Built-in to the System

On section of the Election Code requires the following information on a nomination petition: 1) the candidate’s name as shown on the certificate of registration; 2) the candidate’s address; 3) the office sought; 4) the district or division number; 5) the party affiliation of the candidate; and 6) the party affiliation of the voters signing the petition.

However, over the past nine years, the legislature has failed to update the nominating petition form as shown in statute. Therefore that section of the Election Code requires some very different information: 1) the party affiliation of the voters; 2) the candidate’s name; 3) the candidate’s address; 4) the candidate’s county; 5) the office sought; and 6) the date of the primary election.

To make matters worse, while the Secretary of State tells candidates that the district number is required, the statute and the SOS guidance also say that the candidate’s party affiliation is required. However, there is no blank on the petition form for the candidate’s party affiliation, just as there is no identifiable appropriate blank provided for the district number. 

In short, regarding nominating petitions, the entire process, including the Election Code, the SOS guidance, and the numerous conflicting passages between various sections of the Code represent an enormous jumble of conflicting and contradicting information that is actually impossible to comply with. It will remain that way until such time as the legislature finally agrees to take seriously the Supreme Court's admonition to "fix it.

Ruiloba however, did not make any of these points in court, so, while he says he will appeal the district court's decision, he appears unlikely to prevail.

Rumors that Democrats Want Ruiloba Out? Not True, says the Speaker of the House

We have heard from many readers, Democrats and Republicans alike, that the Democratic Party and Speaker of the House Brian Egolf "don't care if Ruiloba is thrown off the ballot." In fact, say these readers "the word is out that Egolf and the Democrats are happy to see him go," that "he votes wrong on some issues and isn't in the mainstream of the party," that he "has an A rating from the National Rifle Association" and other damning traits.

Not so.  Speaker Egolf denies these rumors in no uncertain terms. "I absolutely have done everything I can to assist Representative Ruiloba," the speaker said. "I worked with other elected officials to ensure that he was able to find competent counsel." (Counsel ended up being Tatiana D. Engelmann of Albuquerque.) "Representative Ruiloba is a very collegial member of our caucus who works very well with everyone, I absolutely want him back, and will do what I can to see that that happens."

When asked about statements other Democrats had made that Ruiloba has a "bad" rating with the NRA or is part of a faction that opposes Egolf, the Speaker denied even knowing about such a dynamic. "That's the first I've heard of any of that," he said. "I value Pat, I've made him a committee chair, and regard him as a key member of the legislature."

The Speaker did, however, acknowledge that Ruiloba's problems with his petitions were "of his own making." "We offered everyone a chance to have their signature and petitions reviewed, and even reached out to him on three occasions to afford him that opportunity. He decided that." The Speaker hopes Ruiloba prevails on appeal, but is not "optimistic" about that.

So if Ruiloba does NOT Prevail on Appeal: What Happens Now to the Residents of House District 12?

Well, Ruiloba is out—individuals who have filed a declaration of candidacy cannot file another one during the same election year. So he cannot come back as a "write-in," or as an "independent," or under some other party banner. The other major parties—the Republicans and the Libertarians—did not file anyone. So they're out too.

What is left for the people of House District 12 are four options:  

1) On June 25, an independent (or multiple independent candidates) could file 300 valid signatures and provide voters with that choice for the general election ballot.

2) On June 25, a member or members of New Mexico's three minor parties—the Green Party, the Constitution Party, and the Better for America Party—could file 150 signatures and present one or more candidates from those parties as an option on the general election ballot.

3) On June 25, a resident or residents of the district (all potential candidates have to be residents of the district) could file as a write-in candidate. Such a candidate has the disadvantage of not having his or her name appear on the ballot, but it is an option.

4) No one files on June 25, Ruiloba serves out his term, and the office becomes vacant on January 1, 2021. At that point, the Bernalillo County Commission would be empowered to name a new state representative. 

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

We have received reports this evening that New Mexico State Police—apparently tipped off by passers-by (or by competitors)—have cited the owners and management of Honda-Subaru of Santa Fe for “having too many people on site.”

NMSP apparently entered the property, located at 7511 Cerrillos Road, without warning.

Delegates of the Republican Party of New Mexico (RPNM) gathered at the Hotel Albuquerque on Friday evening, 6 March, for their State Pre-Primary Nominating Convention which was held Saturday morning, March 7th. The convention is for candidates who seek statewide or congressional offices.

Only those candidates who have gathered signatures equal to 2% of their party's total votes cast in its previous gubernatorial primary may compete in the pre-primary convention. The New Mexico pre-primary convention law then requires those candidates for statewide offices and congressional seats to receive 20% of the delegate vote to be "certified" as convention-designated nominees for the primary. 

The first thing we have to say is that the convention was very well run, efficient, on-time, with no glitches of any kind that we took note of. 

Steve Pearce started the whole thing off, which as state chairman was certainly appropriate. He hawked his autobiography, which was on prominent display, though we never saw anyone buy one.

It's available in thrift stores in southeastern New Mexico for 25 to 50 cents, though to be fair, many many books are sold at that price, not just Pearce's. But Pearce did give a good, solid, rousing speech, which was fairly well-received, though certain sectors did not respond as we thought the theme merited. 

Candidate Speeches and Results

Congressional District 1

Michelle Garcia Holmes led off, making an okay speech with frequent referrals to notes, indicating some unfamiliarity with her message. She was well-received as the bulk of Albuquerque delegates present in their home town venue were in support of her candidacy.

Brett Kokinadis delivered an okay speech as well, though he also had to constantly refer to notes and was not as well-prepared as others. His themes were generally not in sync with the views of the overall convention crowd. This was probably predictable, given that he's only been a Republican for five months and his views still by and large reflect his life-long Democrat leanings.

It's one thing to change parties—that happens all the time. But in most cases, the change is made because a person realizes that his or her current party does not match his or her actual worldview or political philosophy. It is not clear if this is the case with Kokinadis, or if he instead intends to lead the GOP to embrace new policy positions it doesn't currently hold.

Attendees also told us he was hurt by an abrupt switch from the CD3 primary to CD1 that they claimed had the appearance of opportunism rather than sincerity.     

Jared Vander Dussen finished the three-candidate set by giving a well-prepared speech with no notes and he never looked down or anyplace else other than to his audience. He was one of two candidates to accomplish this (Yvette Herrell was the other). He made a generally very good impression.

RESULT:  Holmes 135 (63.4%) Vander Dussen 64 (30.3%) Kokinadis 14 (6.6%). Holmes won an impressive victory, with Vander Dussen coming through with a very respectable showing, and Kokinadis receiving very little support. By all accounts, it went about as expected, though some were surprised that Kokinadis did very very poorly, believing he had a real chance to reach 20%. 

Congressional District 2

Claire Chase was introduced by her husband, and then gave a pretty good speech, with a certain degree of energy and was well received. It must be noted, however, that at the 3-minute 50-second mark, Chase's microphone was cut off. She is the only candidate who received this treatment, though others did go past the 3½-minute time limit.

When that happened, Chase maintained her poise and reacted with grace, something the audience seemed to appreciate.

Yvette Herrell was introduced by Couy Griffin, who has built up a business enterprise called Cowboys for Trump* and has a certain following in the state.  Griffin gave a rousing, well-received speech, as did Herrell. In fact, it could be said that Herrell actually knocked it out of the park.

She had clearly spent a lot of time rehearsing the speech—which is something every convention candidate should do, but few actually accomplish. It paid off, and she was probably the best-received candidate on that date.

However, it must be noted that Herrell went all the way to 3 minutes 54 seconds (four seconds longer than Chase) and her mike was not cut. (So there was non-uniform treatment of candidates in that respect.)

Chris Mathys showed up with a hat—something we believe is usually not a good look (with the possible exception of a Land Commissioner or County Sheriff candidate). It wasn't a cowboy hat, but some sort of odd, exotic style. He gave a reasonable speech, but not anything that would move the crowd.

RESULT:  Herrell 168 (66.1%) Chase 83 (32.7%) Mathys 3 (1.2%). While Herrell's victory was reasonably impressive, it was also very much expected, as Steve Pearce had led a contingent of about a hundred people in Lea County that took over their county convention and had secured at least 90% of the delegates there.

[NOTE: Though he has escaped notice thus far (probably because disadvantaged candidates do not wish to file a formal complaint against their own state chairman) Pearce has left himself open to being cited for violations of §1-19-1 of the New Mexico Election Code.]

Pearce has engaged in similar operations, in several contested primaries, but perhaps most noticeably in the CD2 race. His involvement—and the active, ongoing involvement of the RPNM on behalf of Herrell—has been so extensive that most observers were thinking that the effort to keep Chase from reaching the 20% threshold might be successful.

Given that context, Chase's showing exceeded most people's expectations and her campaign was clearly happy to emerge with convention designation. Mathys' showing was about as expected, though perhaps a higher single figure of total votes was expected.

Congressional District 3

Audra Lee Brown appeared in a cowboy hat and delivered a reasonable speech. She got some laughs from the crowd and developed a good rapport. We later learned from a close observer that the rationale for the hat was not the cowboy motif so favored by Gavin Clarkson et.al, but rather to obscure a rainbow-colored coif that might otherwise be viewed as off-putting. In any case, Brown's speech was pretty well delivered. 

Karen Evette Bedonie, who is Navajo, brought a considerable entourage to the stage and made an appeal that was somewhat heavy on identity politics.

This is a somewhat risky tactic in conservative settings where the voters believe politics is about ideas and a candidate's stands on issues rather than overt appeals to demographic subgroups of the population. Bedonie did pretty well and seemed to make a connection with the crowd.

Anise Golden-Morper, newly back on the ballot and fresh off an easy victory over a poor ruling by the Secretary of State (who seems continuously power-hungry and overreaching) brought something of a defiant mood to the stage.

Because she is only 4' 6", the lectern had to be moved back and off to her right so she could be in full view of the convention audience. She displayed a lot of energy, but—perhaps understandably—devoted too much time to her court victory and not quite enough to the great national issues to which a congressional candidate should be attuned. Still, she made a solid impression overall.

Alexis M. Johnson made what sounded like the best-outlined and maybe the best-scripted speech of the day (with the possible exception of Herrell's). Unfortunately, in the hubbub surrounding Golden-Morper's visibility, when the lectern was moved back into place, the microphone was left dangling to the right and down and away from the speaker. Either that or her nominating speaker left it in an awkward position.

In any case, Johnson did not make an effort to ensure that she and her microphone were in sync. As a result, the volume of her voice ranged between very low to a light, mid-range level.

As she came in and out, it definitely appeared she was giving the right inflection and proper emphasis to have a desired effect, but much of that effect, if not most of it was missed, and therefore lost on the audience. The people right in front of her did react more strongly than most of the nearly 700 who had gathered in the room. It was an unfortunate turn of events for her.

Harry B. Montoya was introduced by former Congressman Bill Redmond, an experienced hand whose first move on the podium was to take control of the microphone with his hand and adjust it, and even holding it while he spoke.

We usually don't believe introductory speeches are the way to go (they take time away from the candidate, who, after all, is the subject on trial) but Redmond's recognition of the mike problem did a great deal for Montoya.

Montoya was also accompanied by an enormous entourage, one that included quite a few natives of northern pueblos. They appeared to be making it clear that Bedonie, whatever identity she may invoke, does not have a lock on the Native American vote. (It may be lost on some, but there exists a certain degree of, shall we say "disconnect" between Pueblos and the Diné—which reflects long-standing, somewhat uneasy relationships.)

Montoya made a good speech on his own and connected.

RESULT:  Montoya 86 (35.6%) Bedonie 69 (30.9%) Golden-Morper 39 (17.5%) Johnson 25 (11.2%) Brown 4 (1.8%). Montoya's victory may have caught some off-guard, as he has been attacked pretty strongly for being another recent convert.

He left the Democrat Party only 11 months ago, after more than 35 years a Democrat and having served two terms as a Democrat Santa Fe County Commissioner.

His opponents claim he switched only because the state Democratic Party told him he had no place to run as a pro-life candidate and was unwelcome as a potential congressional candidate. This did not seem to hurt him among convention-goers, though it may as the primary campaign continues.

Bedonie's operation is very well organized, and, according to most observers, is far and away the nastiest—and said to be in league with US Senate candidate Elisa Martinez, whose surrogates and spokespersons are also running an extremely nasty and overwhelmingly negative campaign, especially in social media.

Both of those candidates, who seem to be running as a team, may eventually face a backlash from primary voters disgusted with their social media operations. 

Whether it has come about via negativity or some sort of true grassroots support, Bedonie clearly has a formidable organization. Golden-Morper was clearly upset with her showing and dropped out of the race within a few days. Audra Brown did the same, having garnered only 4 votes.

For her part, Alexis Johnson vowed to continue the campaign. As the candidate who probably comes off more eloquently conservative Republican than any of the remaining three in the race, Johnson may yet have a shot at catching hold. 

U.S. Senate

Gavin Clarkson led off the senate speeches attired in his semi-cowboy motif and did his usual good job of expounding on conservative Republican themes. He appeared to connect with the audience, most of whom have undoubtedly seen him around the state, as this is the third office he has sought over just the past 21 months.

Elisa Martinez followed with a well-delivered speech, which connected with a built-in very receptive audience. As the former executive director of New Mexico Alliance for Life, she had an organizational advantage that allowed her to elect about a hundred members of that pro-life organization as delegates, leading to a real boost in enthusiasm for every part of her speech.

Martinez is Navajo, but emphasizes that she is also Hispanic, and she, much like Bedonie, made a very real identity-politics pitch. Again, this is a risky approach in a universe of voters who view identity politics with skepticism if not outright intellectual disdain.

Though to be fair, Martinez probably touched on more issues that resonate with conservative audiences than did Bedonie. Needless to say, she did well with the convention crowd.

Mick Rich, who is clearly one of the nicest people to ever run for office anywhere, simply did not come across as someone who had his full heart and soul in this race. He read most of his speech, which is almost inexplicable for someone who is running for the same office for three years. 

Mark Ronchetti came through with a burst of enthusiasm that seemed to hit home with at least a portion of the convention crowd. He seemed to elicit a more increasing welcoming and friendly response as his speech went on.

Ronchetti has been the principal, if not the only target of the relentlessly vicious attacks by the Elisa Martinez social media operation. So it was not a surprise that it appeared that a large segment of the attendees had come in with a skeptical, if not negative, appraisal of his candidacy.

However, Ronchetti's enthusiasm and well-delivered, well-crafted speech seemed to win over a significant portion of that skeptical element.

Louie Sanchez made a good speech, highlighting his entrepreneurial talents and business success. He found a receptive audience as it appeared he had a lot of committed delegates who were big fans, a phenomenon we had noticed in various locations around the state. This was impressive in that we had never heard of him till his announcement earlier this year. 

RESULT:  Martinez  241 (34.9%) Ronchetti 198 (28.7%) Sanchez 113 (16.4%) Rich 72 (10.4%) Clarkson 66 (9.6%). Martinez's win was widely expected as she had a built-in base of about a hundred votes due to her very early start nearly six months ago and the hard work planning for the convention and rounding up the Alliance for Life members.

The surprise for almost everyone, including us, had to be Ronchetti. He had only recently entered the race and had done relatively little for this meeting, knowing that no matter what happened he had over 10,000 signatures and therefore did not have to worry about reaching the 20% threshold.

As a result he apparently spent nothing for the convention: no hospitality suite, no ads, no visible effort at all. Yet he surged very strongly, probably based on how he came across. It can even be argued that if only the persuadable delegates are considered, Ronchetti actually beat Martinez something like 190 to 140, pretty impressive.

Rich seemed somewhat despondent at the surprising result, and dropped out of the race. Clarkson's showing has to be considered unimpressive given his continuous campaign for three offices that has now lasted some 2½ years. However, he vowed to soldier on.

Another real surprise was Sanchez's inability to reach the 20% threshold, considering his extremely loyal base of support that had quickly emerged and his clear standing and reputation in the business community. Surprisingly, he dropped out as well. We are told that his lucrative business interests are more or less a "hands-on" requirement for him and that he concluded that he cannot really conduct the kind of campaign he needs to do while simultaneously giving the personal attention his enterprises require.

* The organization does, however, face serious questions involving its role in advocating the election of selected candidates, and whether or not it is filing proper campaign finance reports.)

Can any Democrat out there tell us what Nancy Pelosi’s amendment, that provides:

“tax credits for solar panels,”

We already looked at the circular firing squad situation in State Senate District 19, brought about by the state's Republican leadership. RPNM and House Leadership continue to deny unlawful activities, however, it appears all of the information that our sources say came from inside discussions we have reported on has turned out to be true. The bottom line is that because of poor leadership New Mexico Republicans are going to be wasting many thousands of dollars on primaries—funds and resources that could be used on challenges to Democrats.

GOP LEGISLATIVE PRIMARIES

Senate District 41

Incumbent Republican Senator Gregg H. Fulfer of Jal is being challenged by incumbent Representative David M. Gallegos of Eunice. Fulfer was appointed to the position in December 2018, following the resignation of Senator Carroll Leavell. Following New Mexico law on vacancies in the legislature, both Fulfer and Gallegos submitted their names to the Eddy and Lea County Commissions.

The Eddy County Commission selected Fulfer by a vote of 3-2 and the Lea County board did the same by a 4-1 vote. Accordingly, Fulfer's name was the only one forwarded to Governor Susana Martinez, who appointed Fulfer.

Since they have both been interviewed extensively and have published full-page ads explaining their motivation for running, we did not need to interview either candidate. 

Representative Gallegos explained his rationale in the Hobbs News-Sun on March 1st by attacking both of the county commissions that he wants to represent. Saying that he is someone who has "always stood on principle," Gallegos appeared to repeatedly attack both the Eddy and Lea County commissioners as lacking the principles he possesses. He had this to say:

"When Senator Fulfer was chosen for this office by just 7 people who were all on Lea and Eddy county commissions, the voice of the people at that time was ignored. Some would go so far to say the decision was made in private before the public vote."

Gallegos neglected to tell the voters that the procedures followed by the commissions are exactly those that are prescribed in New Mexico law. Instead, he implies they had somehow broken the law and just dreamed up the process, making up rules as they went along. He also accuses the commissions of having violated the Governmental Conduct Act by holding secret, unlawful meetings—an odd approach to take with the governments of the counties he wants to represent.

In any case, Gallegos has made it very clear that his self-proclaimed, single, overriding reason for running is that he feels he should have been chosen 15 months ago instead of Fulfer. It seems a thin reed on which to base a campaign, especially with the Republican Party having so many Democrat targets available. 

Senator Fulfer had a strong response ad to Gallegos, laying out his support for traditional family values and the Southeastern New Mexico way of life. Minority Leader Stuart Ingle weighed in to buttress Fulfer's case by saying:  

“Senator Fulfer is the foremost expert in the entire State Senate on oil and gas issues. We look to him for the kind of in-depth knowledge of this industry which is so vital not only to Southeastern New Mexico, but to our entire state. I don’t know where we would be without Gregg’s expertise on these kinds of issues. We need him to stay in the Senate.”

On balance, it appears that Fulfer makes the stronger case for the seat, as Gallegos appears motivated by spite, while Fulfer is motivated by the ways in which he can represent the district. Making the case worse for Gallegos is the fact he's an incumbent challenging an incumbent of the same Republican Party. Meanwhile, Republicans will have fewer resources with which to take on Democrat incumbents.

Senate District 33

Incumbent Republican William F. Burt of Alamogordo is being challenged by newcomer Christopher Glendon Hensley of Roswell.

Hensley is a landman with his own company. He is from Chickasha, Oklahoma and he says he's been in Roswell about two years. He graduated from Putnam City High School in Oklahoma and he has a B.S. from Oklahoma City University. He is 39, married and has four children. 

Burt grew up in Deming and graduated from high school there. He has a B.S. in Mass Communications from New Mexico State, and he and his wife own four radio stations in Alamogordo. He is 69, married, with two children and five grandchildren.

We interviewed Mr. Hensley by telephone, asking his motivation, considering the fact that, in terms of Republicans capturing the Senate, the outcome of this race is irrelevant. 

Here are excerpts from that interview: 

Hensley: "I don't have a negative thing to say about Mr. Burt. I just feel we need new blood, and certain people have asked me to do this." 

NMPJ: Are they willing to go public with that?

Hensley: "No."

NMPJ: Are you familiar with the notion that when anyone takes on an incumbent that person is saying the incumbent should be fired? You're essentially saying Mr. Burt should be fired.

Hensley: "I get that. And again, I don't have anything to say about Mr. Burt, but the state is in poor position. We are just about last in every category, except crime. If you've had a job for close to ten years, it can be time for change. 

NMPJ: Well, Republicans might argue "Hey, we aren't the ones in charge. We aren't the ones who have put the state in this position. Why run against us? Why not against the Democrats?

Hensley: "Some people say that. But here's the thing: new blood can find different ways to work together to change things. 70-80% of the issues are non-partisan—education, healthcare, we have only 2 million people and we're last in everything."

Hensley was cordial throughout. 

We also interviewed Senator Burt by phone, asking his view of the impending contest. Here is his take:

NMPJ: Do you know Mr. Hensley or why he is running?

Burt: We have met and talked. He's a nice guy. I don't know, no one seems to know him. But yes, I do have an idea of who is behind his running.

NMPJ: Can you say who that is?

Burt:  No, I'd rather not right now. Let's wait and see how things go. There might be an appropriate moment to talk about that at some point, but not right now.

NMPJ: What do you think of his statement that New Mexico is last in everything?

Burt: "There are lots of reasons why we are last or near last in some categories. Everyone wants to improve. It's what path we take that matters. Most issues are certainly not non-partisan. Republicans and Democrats have different approaches to just about everything."

NMPJ: So you've had a cordial meeting?

Burt: "We have. I certainly don't want anything negative. Win, lose, or draw, I don't want to lose a good Republican. I encouraged him to get to know people, let people get to know him, for him to get to know the state, the politics of the state, and the system."

Senator Burt was cordial and forthright. 

RATINGS

We again consulted the American Conservative Union (ACU)* to see what their 2019 rankings of New Mexico legislators might reveal. It turns out that Senator Burt has a rating of 53%, which ties him for 10th place out of 16 in his caucus, with Senator Candace Gould.

His ranking places him 3 points behind the Senate Minority Whip, William Payne of Albuquerque and one point ahead of the Minority Leader, Stuart Ingle of Portales. The Minority Caucus Chair, Steve Neville of Farmington is in the same grouping, standing 8th, at 57%.

Mr. Hensley, as a first-time candidate, has no votes and no record with which to compare.

Republicans end up being urged to run a circular firing squad. As we tentatively forecast, based on reports we had received about the activities of Steve Pearce, Anissa Tinnin, and others, several Republicans are now challenging sitting Republican incumbents in the legislature. The RPNM had denied this, but we turned out to be correct. 

It now appears they have guided even currently sitting Republican state representatives to spend enormous resources attacking other Republicans who already hold seats. This may represent hundreds of thousands of dollars of expenditures that could be spent trying to unseat Demcorats. Democrats hold the state senate 26-16 and the State House, 46-24. Only in New Mexico would you see a state party so ill-led as to have these undertakings. 

GOP LEGISLATIVE PRIMARIES

Senate District 19

Incumbent Republican James P. White is being challenged by a sitting Republican State Representative, Gregg William Schmedes. 

We interviewed Representative Schmedes by telephone, asking his motivation, considering the fact that, in terms of Republicans capturing the Senate, the outcome of this race will not move the ball one inch down the field. Here are Schmedes' responses:

Schmedes: "Jim is a good guy and primaries are misunderstood. Jim is a nice person. But the district is a conservative district and it deserves to have conservative representation."

NMPJ: Are you saying Senator White is not a conservative?

Schmedes: "I won't say that. I feel it's best to let Jim describe himself."

NMPJ: Well, if you say the district should have conservative representation, that implies that you believe the district does not have conservative representation at this time.

Schmedes: "Yes, it does. That's right. This was not my personal idea in the first place. It came from people I met with who wanted different representation. Jim is a good guy. It's going to be a good race. We have talked and we've agreed to remain collegial in the campaign."

Representative Schmedes was cordial and forthright. 

We also interviewed Senator White by phone, asking his view of the impending contest. Here is his take:

White: "I believe we are both good legislators. The bad thing is that one of us will have to go home, and that's a shame because we shouldn't really be having this [primary]."

NMPJ: Representative Schmedes says the distinct deserves a conservative to represent it. How do you respond to that?

White: [laughs] "I don't see that as accurate. As I understand it, he's giving up his seat in the House because he's got a tough opponent and he doesn't think he can win that race. So he might as well try for the Senate seat."

NMPJ: What does this mean to you?.

White: "Well, there's a Democrat running for this seat also. So we now have to spend a lot of money on the primary that we really need for the general election." 

NMPJ: He says you two have talked about the primary.

White: "We have. I called him, and we agreed that we want to keep it clean and have no mud-slinging or that kind of campaign."

Senator White was cordial and forthright. 

RATINGS

Since Schmedes is assuming the role of the "conservative" in this race, we decided to try to obtain some kind of objective information about both candidates.  The American Conservative Union (ACU)* rates legislators in all 50 states as well as members of Congress. Their 2019 ratings for New Mexico are online.

It must be noted that the House and Senate ratings are based on different criteria. The House ratings include seven votes that senators did not get to make, and the Senators are rated on four votes that House members did not have a chance to vote on. So there are a total of 46 votes included in the survey, but 11 of them are not available to one chamber or the other. 

Those differences result in very different scores between the two houses. For example, the average Senate Republican score is 61%, while the average House Republican score is 80%—but the average scores would be much more similar if they were graded on the same criteria. 

The ACU rates Schmedes 22nd of 24 Republican state representatives. His rating is 71%, nine points below the average House Republican rating, which is 80%, though well ahead of the average House Democrat, whose rating is 15%.

Oddly enough, the two Republicans Schmedes placed ahead of are Rebecca Dow of Truth or Consequences (66%) and Bill Rehm of Albuquerque (66%). Neither Rehm nor Dow is considered to be a "liberal" or a "progressive." To the contrary, both enjoy strong conservative reputations in their districts as well as throughout the legislature.  

For his part, White comes in tied for 12th among the 16 remaining Republican senators. Significantly, one of the senators he is tied with is the Minority Leader, Stuart Ingle of Portales, hardly considered a progressive. The other is Gay Kernan of Hobbs, who is also not considered to be a liberal.

Their ratings are both 52%, which—as in the case of Schmedes in the House—is also 9 points below the Senate Republican average of 61%, though well above the 19% average enjoyed by Senate Democrats. In addition to tying Kernan and Ingle, White finished ahead of Ron Griggs of Alamogordo (50%) and Sander Rue (46%) of Albuquerque. Neither of those legislators is considered objectively progressive. 

Conclusion: Based on objective ratings, it would appear that Schmedes does not have a case for challenging White on the grounds that he himself has put forth: that the district needs a conservative. If Schmedes' logic is to be considered strong, then Steve Pearce (or Stuart Ingle himself) should have recruited people to run against Kernan, Ingle himself (oddly), Griggs, and Rue.

Likewise, Pearce or Jim Townsend should have had someone recruited to run against Schmedes, Rehm, and Dow. 

The point we are making is that Schmedes "logic," if that is what it is, fails of its own weight. It appears to be more of a conjured pretext rather than an objectively derived rationale. We must conclude that White is most likely closer to the truth in asserting that Schmedes saw a tough race ahead and decided to try for an office with a four-year term rather than a two-year.

(A review of the 2018 election returns shows that Schmedes won his house race by only 140 votes out of more than 16,000 cast: 8,198 to 8,058. This is much closer than it should have been, as Trump carried the district comfortably two years before, and the previous representative, James Smith, won his races by between two and three thousand votes. That kind of relatively weak showing may be part of Schmedes' motivation, especially since the 2018 Democrat nominee is running again this year.)

In any case, the motive has to be judged as likely springing from personal ambition and a personal desire, rather than to ideas or the welfare of the conservative movement or the Republican Party. 

* We also took a look at something called the Freedom Index, published by the Rio Grande Foundation. The problem with the Freedom Index is that the criteria used appear to be arbitrary, inconsistent, and subject to sudden changes and readjustments. One senator told us that "the RGF has switched its weighting of the issues two or three times since they were first published." 

Additionally, the RGF tends to be "libertarian" rather than conservative. This can end up misleading Republicans, who tend to be conservative. As an example, libertarians generally: favor abortion rights, support the legalization of controlled substances, support sanctuary cities, favor citizenship for illegals, support the transgender movement, and oppose a border wall. While libertarians and conservatives have many shared views—on taxation and the economy for example—it would be misleading to the bulk of Republican voters to evaluate elected officials based on libertarian criteria. 

BIDEN’s LOWEST LOWLIGHT for NEW MEXICO

“No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill. Period.”

With the Democratic Party’s nomenklatura issuing orders to all its membership to END THE NOMINATION PROCESS NOW, Sunday night's CNN Debate between Biden and Sander’s could very well represent Bernie’s last chance to change the dynamics of the Democratic race for that party’s nomination.

After losing the first three contests—badly—Biden has made a dramatic turnaround, first by winning the South Carolina primary. At which point, the hierarchy of his party excitedly seized on the moment to enlist their numerous media allies, who enthusiastically joined forces with the party to drive home the message: BIDEN’s the ONE! Bernie must be stopped!

Oddly, for a party that sees itself as intellectually superior to the Republicans—and especially to Trump supporters—the Democrats responded remarkably like sheep. Suddenly Biden was hailed by Democrat apparatchiks in unprecedented terms—and in terms dramatically and embarrassingly at odds with those same individuals’ appraisals just days before.

It simply didn’t matter.

“Who cares what we said before? Who cares if we believe any of this?” As James Carville and equally influential members of the Democrat “Politburo” shouted on TV:

“Everybody shut up! This thang is over! Just stop. Vote for Joe! Nothing else matters!”

The sense of the party is this:

If Joe can get by Bernie tonight, unharmed, without a self-inflicted wound, then we will be home-free. We will have a nominee behind whom we can all unite to defeat Trump. We must knock Bernie out tonight.

And, the thinking goes, there’s no need for any special maneuver or “punch” by Joe Biden tonight. All he has to do is survive—to make it to the bell. He can even take a lot of punches—doing the equivalent of a “rope-a-dope” for two hours. He only needs to be on his feet and breathing at 8:00 PM Mountain Daylight Time.

We have no idea if Bernie realizes the fate of his campaign is resting on tonight’s event. But it most likely is.

BIDEN can also be seen as a PLACE-HOLDER

We also believe that Biden represents not just his own candidacy. We suspect he is also being viewed as a place-holder. That is to say, once he is used to vanquish Sanders, the Democrats may well see him as someone who can be replaced—if need be—should his incapacity to lead become glaring obvious to all.

NEW RULES for DEMOCRAT DEBATES

For a satirical view on the Democrats’ debates (though one with possibly a great deal of truth), see our Editor Emeritus’s take here:

Washington, D.C. (AP) THE DNC’s NEW DEBATE RULES DISCOVERED; AND LEAKED TO MEDIA

??Beginning Sunday, all presidential debates are reduced from two hours to 30 minutes.

??Permanent moderators will be Donna Brazile, Candy Crowley, and Martha Raddatz. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is the timekeeper and host.

??Because she has experience in this, Brazile has full discretion to provide all questions in advance to Biden.

??Biden will also be provided a TelePrompTer.

??Crowley is permitted to disagree with Sanders on the “facts” he may offer—and explain Bernie’s errors to the viewing audience.

??Raddatz is permitted to mildly harangue Sanders for “misstatements,” and admonish him as the need arises.

??Wasserman-Schultz will introduce the show with a 5-minute explanation of the rules and the assurance of neutrality by the Democratic National Committee.

??Moderators will ask one question each.

??Questions offered by moderators will last at least two minutes each, providing the background and a full explanation of the issue to be discussed.

??Sanders will always answer first and is given one minute to respond.

??Biden will always follow Sanders and is allowed a maximum of 30 seconds, though moderators may cut him off earlier, if mind-wandering is detected.

??There will be five 3-minute commercial breaks. The breaks will feature ads for Biden.

??Sanders is given 30 seconds to close.

??Biden will be thanked for his straightforward answers and will be asked to nod and smile as the credits roll.

??The delegate threshold for Tulsi Gabbard to qualify has been raised to one thousand.

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

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 gathering 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 disgusting 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.