*With apologies to Jim Nabors/Gomer Pyle

Your Words Can Come Back to Bite You in the Butt

As can be gleaned from almost daily news stories from all 50 states, child protection services are all too frequently embroiled in the most bizarre controversies, often involving incompetent decisions made by bureaucrats—or resulting from indecision or outright neglect.

In New Mexico, most of the responsibility in this area of children’s’ lives rests with the Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD).

But no matter what a state’s name for these agencies may be, what is crucial for each is the existence of some form of independent and objective monitoring.

In New Mexico, as is the case in every state, all government entities must be closely watched because such oversight is essential to protect and improve outcomes for our most vulnerable.

It’s also crucial in avoiding the most egregious, embarrassing, and infuriating horror stories we have all seen pop up from time to time.

The Substitute Care Advisory Council (SCAC) is statutorily authorized to provide a permanent system for independent and objective monitoring of children placed in CYFD custody. While changes have been made to try to increase the effectiveness of the SCAC, they have not been enough.

On February 1, State Senator Gay Kernan (R-Hobbs) and State Representative Marian Matthews (D- Albuquerque) stepped forward with a bill to provide the crucial protections our most vulnerable children need to have. Their bill, Senate Bill 242, provides those kinds of protections, strengthening the SCAC’s ability to do its job.

EVERYONE RECOGNIZES THE NEED FOR THE OVERSIGHT

This didn’t come about out of the blue. On the contrary, the need for the legislation has been thoroughly documented.

The photos shown here, tragic and heart-breaking as they are, don't even begin to represent the tip of the iceberg of examples of neglect and error by CYFD.

Oversight is needed. It's not a question for debate.

In its annual report, the Council documented the statutory changes needed to meaningfully provide oversight of CYFD and to effect child welfare system change (they are found at the SCAC website at www.nmscac.org). SB242 addresses all these needed changes.

THE GRISHAM ADMINISTRATION ADMITS THE CHANGES ARE NEEDED

CYFD Cabinet Secretary Brian Blalock has also been vocal about his support for oversight and accountability of CYFD.  In a February 2020 press release titled Big Plans for Increased Transparency & Accountability from CYFD, Secretary Blalock stated,

“… as a government agency, the public’s involvement in oversight and expectation of accountability are crucial elements of ensuring we stay on the right path for kids.”

Secretary Blalock has further shown his support by designating SB242 an “agency bill,” meaning they are backing it. 

The bill was heard in the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee (SHPAC) on February 22nd.  An SB242 committee substitute received a “ Do Pass” from SHPAC and it was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC).  The current version of SB242 was scheduled to be heard on March 6th in SJC, but without explanation it was removed from the agenda during the hearing.

As of today, March 10th, SB 242 has not been rescheduled in SJC.

What is going on? What is Senator Joseph Cervantes doing with this crucial legislation?

Cervantes is the powerful chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Time is running out for the session. This is not an issue that is appropriate for legislative or political games and subterfuge.

In Summary

The question is not whether we need a structure for independent and objective oversight of our child protection agency. We know we do. The statutory directive already exists in the authorizing Act and the framework exists with the Council.

SB 242 makes the Council’s oversight of CYFD and the Council’s collaboration with the department, the court, and the legislature stronger. SB242 ensures not only the vital element of collaboration, but the absolute requirement for transparency and accountability.  

Failing to take action on this bi-partisan, bi-cameral legislation in the 2021 legislative session not only fails New Mexico’s most vulnerable children, it fails all of New Mexico.

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

On this date—and throughout this era—Republicans were powerless to stop the racist policies of the Democratic Party.

President Biden Makes a Mockery of Title IX and Girls’ Sports

The Biden Administration has dropped support of Trump’s lawsuit that had been brought on behalf of female athletes. Trump sought to block biological males from competing in girls’ sports in Connecticut. Former Attorney General Bill Barr and Trump's Department of Justice had backed the lawsuit, saying the Connecticut law violated Title IX.

On Wednesday night, February 24, Alanna Smith, one of three girls who had brought the lawsuit, blasted the Biden Administration, saying,

“Fairness needs to be restored in our sport and all other women’s sports … these biological males are just taking it away from us.”

The Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC), which has permitted boys to compete in events and win awards that would otherwise have gone to girls.

Biological boys have taken 15 women’s state championship titles (titles held in 2016 by nine different Connecticut girls) and have taken more than 85 opportunities to participate in higher level competitions from female track athletes in the 2017, 2018, and 2019 seasons alone.

Smith began her comments, saying:

“I got involved after I ran against the biological males at the New England meet because in the 200 meter I took third place when I  should have gotten runner-up...”

“And it’s not really about placement but it’s all about knowing that I work so many hours a week to be able to get runner-up in New England’s [championships] as a freshman.

And I am really disappointed in the news, because me and the other girls, Selina and Chelsea, have worked really hard to get our stories out there, to get people to realize that fairness needs to be restored in our sport and all other women’s sports.”

The Overt Hypocrisy and Lies of the Democrats, the American Left, and the Media

One observer noted,:

“...the Left claims to always stand up for women, they’re the party of women, and yet here we are with policies that disenfranchise female athletes. And [there are] serious questions abut what this means in terms of harassment of female athletes.

“Does this mean that biological males are allowed to go into the locker room as well as compete against them and take away scholarships and placement in state championships?

To be clear, the lawsuit will move forward, but it is significant that the Biden Department of Justice will now oppose the young women—siding with radical activists over female athletes.

Additionally, it is now clear that the Biden Administrationand the Democrat establishment are determined to gut legal protection for women not just in is not just Connecticut, but throughout the country.

Biden and all Democrats in Congress are now pushing the so-called Equality Act, which ignores the real physical differences between men and women and threatens women’s privacy, women’s homeless shelters, and yes, even women’s sports on a national level for female athletes.

Democrats constantly parrot the line “It’s only fair” to allow biological males to compete.

So we are left wondering if the American people realize that a lot of actual biological females have missed out on numerous events?

So-called “transgender” athletes (boys) have taken spots on the podium at district, regional, and state championships that belong to biological females.

As Alana Smith stated:

“We train for so many days a week, so many hours to be able to be the best in our state and the best in our region, and these biological males are just taking it away from us and we really deserve it.”

Biden and the Democrats in Congress are Bent on Destroying Title IX

Title IX was designed to ensure that girls have a fair and level playing field, have a chance to showcase their talents, to be champions, and frankly, to earn those college scholarships.

The Trump Administration wanted to see women’s sports protected across the country. The Biden Administration wants to see women’s sports destroyed.

One Connecticut girl noted that she lost four girls’ state championships and two all-New England titles.

Biden and 100% of Democrats in Congress View the East Germans as the Model for American Sports

Americans used to joke about “the East German Olympic team” in female events—the whole scheme used by the former Communist nation was viewed as a laughingstock and a disgrace.

But now, 100% of Democrat elected officials see the East German model as legitimiate and someting to be proud of—and to adopt as our national policy. Biden sees the East Germans as his new American ideal, the new model for sports.

Barr had it Right

Barr had stated in March 2020:

“Under [Connecticut's] interpretation of Title IX...schools may not account for the real physiological differences between men and women. Instead, schools MUST [emphasis added] have certain biological males — namely, those who publicly identify as female — compete against biological females. In so doing, [Connecticut] deprives those women of the single-sex athletic competition that is one of the marquee accomplishments of Title IX."

Virtue Signaling Housewives (and Househusbands) of Albuquerque's Northeast Heights

Many voters who claimed to be "conservative" or "moderate," both nationwide and in New Mexico were going all-out to virtue-signal about how anti-Trump they were because of his stupid tweets and often-ridiculous verbal "asides" and unscripted comments (which, to be fair, were often ignorant and embarrasingly inaccurate).

However, we have maintained that the overriding question in all elections in a democracy has to do with public policy. The conclusion we reached was that the Trump Administration was not only pursuing the right policies—foreign and domestic—but was remarkably successful. The fact that Trump talked too much and too dumbly had, in the final analysis, no effect at all on policy.

Trump's policy regarding women's athletics was correct. People who voted for Biden out of the desire to virtue signal ended up voting for a whole host of policies that would make the former East Germany, the current China (and Russia) and scores of other bad actors in the world and in America very proud.

In our view, millions of Americans will come to regret those votes.

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

Something repeated on the Sunday talk shows approximately 150 times.

Something you should really PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO:

Democrats yesterday and again today are continuously referring to the Constitution as:

                        “a technicality”

Have you noticed this?

If that doesn't grab your attention, either you're not paying attention, or you don't understand it.

Caveat lector

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

The entire impeachment proceeding gives every voter who cares about the role of the courts in the United States an opportunity to see very plainly a clear example of the great chasm in jurisprudence that has increasingly divided both voters and elected officials.

Fundamentally, it is a question of what our laws mean—what our Constitution means. Does the law mean what it says, or what we wish it to mean? Do laws provide the agreed-upon, established, printed rules of American life? Or are they merely pages in a book that can be referred in a general way so as to provide an alleged reference even as the actual words themselves are ignored?

It comes down to this: Do you see the Constitution in the manner of Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe, or Judge Robert Bork?

This becomes the essential question of what is law about? Do we have laws that codify the will of the people in plain language—language that provides equal treatment for all people? Or do we merely have documents or books that we "call" the law, while ignoring the actual texts contained therein?

Do we approach events, circumstances, and political or criminal situations with a view toward what we as a people have codified? Or do we approach legal questions with only the goal of a desired outcome? Is the question of justice one that is resolved if we "feel good" about what we want to see happen? Or is it about really and truly applying the law, consistently, uniformly, and equally for all?

Judge Richard Posner said that Lawrence Tribe's view is that:

"the Constitution is what we want it to be...and that what we should want it to be is the charter of a radically egalitarian society."

Judge Bork on the other hand, believed that the text of a statute or of the Constitution means what it says in the plain language it is written.

The Senate Vote in the Impeachment Trial Reflects the Reality of the American Divide About What Law Truly Is

We already know that all modern Democrats believe that the Constitution—and American law itself—law is merely a theoretical tool. There is no section, no clause, no phrase which cannot be turned into whatever "we want it to be," "or whatever outcome achieves 'justice' as we see it." So the votes of the 50 Democratic senators were nothing surprising at all.

It must be said however, for anyone who is still being fooled by the verbal gymnastics and numerous political somersaults of Joe Manchin of West Virginia, that no, he is not sincere, and never has been. He and Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona (beauty that she may be) have firmly established that they are in reality no different from their colleagues. (Don't look for them to uphold the filibuster rule either—regardless of their prior statements).

On Saturday, 13 February, Republican Senators Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Toomey, Burr, Cassidy, and Sasse annnounced to their constituents that they are Tribists. For whatever reason, hatred of Trump or whatever, they did not follow the letter of the Constitution. 

Sasse is very disappointing. He has demonstrated clear intellectual capability and has intelligently articulated public policy and the role of government on many occasions. His votes over the past week ar the most surprising and disappointing.  Cassidy and Burr are puzzling.

Collins has to tread a very careful line, though that is no reason for poor reasoning.

Murkowski is, for lack of a better name, something of a scam artist: she knows she cannot get a Republican nomination in Alaska, so she has fashioned her own cynical "coalition" of non-philosophical Republicans, Democrats, and fairly clueless independents. That is her "formula" for forging a general election majority and she is sticking with that, regardless of what she has to do to attract it.

(Murkowski and Manchin are probably the very worst of the worst in the Senate. You can't really include the rest of the Democrats—they openly admit and advertise their ideologies. They aren't really trying to deceive anyone.)

Do you Follow the Plain Language—the Rule of Law—or the Desired Outcome?

Senator Mitch McConnell, regardless of what you may think of his opinion about what Trump did or did not do on January 6th, did very carefully and logically lay out what the Constitution says. You simply cannot get around the plain language: It is impossible to get around the words "removal," "president" and the plain reading of the text.

It does not say anything about former officers, nor does it give any other authority. It says what it says.

50 Democratic senators predictably, said nothing matters other thanthe outcome we want. Sadly, seven Republicans joined them. There is no rationale for the GOP to renominate six of these seven. All but Collins come from states where actual Constitution-respecting Republicans can win general elections. Collins is a separate issue.

Murkowski, Romney, Toomey, Burr, Cassidy, and Sasse should never again receive a GOP nomination for any office.

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

Background

On January 27, the House Health and Human Services Committee held a hearing on House Bill 7. The bill is titled “Repeal of Abortion Ban.” It refers to a relatively weak “prohibition” law passed by the New Mexico Legislature in 1969 and signed by moderate Republican Governor Dave Cargo. (* See the explanation of why it is a relatively weak law in the footnotes below.)

The law, of course, is invalid, having been superseded and rendered obsolete by the US Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade four years later.

However, it is important to keep in mind that there are quite a number of existing statutes or even Constitutional provisions, not just in New Mexico, but in all states, that have been made ineffective or of no consequence because of case law that has invalidated those very laws. Sometimes states go through the process of amending or removing the state statutes; sometimes they don’t. There is no imperative to do so.

As an example, for 45 years following passage of the 26th Amendment that lowered the voting age to 18, the New Mexico State Constitution continued to “require” voters to be 21. It also required voters to have resided in the state, county, and precinct for 12 months, 90 days, and 30 days respectively, despite having those requirements struck down by the Supreme Court. (All the all the above were repealed by voters in 2016.)

The point is that state legislative action on “unconstitutional” laws or laws made ineffectual by case law is not mandatory. That cannot be used as a rationale for casting a vote.  

The Committee Vote and Reaction

The committee vote was 8 to 3 in support of repealing the so-called "abortion ban"— New Mexico's law that was passed four years before Roe v. Wade. GOP Representative Phelps Anderson of Roswell joined seven Democrats voting to repeal the ban. Three other Republicans voted “no," to keep the prohibition on the books.

Representative Anderson told us he was very impressed with the testimony at the hearing and that it really had an impact, making him think and reflect on the issue.

The response has been something of a firestorm from Republicans, many of whom have called for Anderson to resign. Anderson represents Chaves, Lea, and Roosevelt Counties, and the GOP chairs for Lea and Roosevelt have asked him to resign.

We asked if he was going to do that. He responded,

“Unless I’m wrong, it’s my call. I am not going to resign. I am not a quitter.”

When we asked if he would run again, Anderson replied:

“I don’t know about that. Filing date is a year away. But if I had to answer right now, I’d say no.’”

Representative Anderson added that the bill was “going to pass anyway.” But of course, that is never a good reason to vote for anything. Tie votes, or one-vote margins are relatively rare in legislative roll calls.

What this means is that 97% of the time, or more, any bill is going to be passed or defeated “anyway” regardless of how one votes.

What constituents expect, and what everyone should do, is vote for what one believes is correct, right, or just. It doesn’t matter if the vote is 8 to 3, 7 to 4, or 10 to 1.  Or for that matter 69 to 1 on the floor of the House.

So, any mention of an ultimate outcome is really irrelevant. One must do the right thing at all times. We can only presume that Representative Anderson did what he thought was right for him.

Abandoning the Republican Party

The reaction was so strong that Anderson surprised everyone in his hometown of Roswell by publicly announcing that he was leaving the Republican Party.

“I decided to re-register as a Decline to State. People ask if I can win a primary, well, that’s not a question that has to be asked because I’m no longer in the Republican Party.”

His decision to re-register was surprising because Anderson has a lifelong pedigree as a prominent member of the Republican Party. His father, the late Robert O. Anderson, had been a pioneer member of the Chaves County GOP, and Phelps followed in his footsteps, serving in the State House of Representatives from 1976 to 1980, then serving the Republican National Committee as New Mexico’s National Committeeman from 1988 to 1996.

We asked why leave the Republican Party. His answers took us by surprise:

"I've been I’ve been very disappointed with the Republican Party. In particular, the events of January 6th were just so disappointing that they led me to consider re-registering as DTS. I’m demoralized by my party. Their defense of January 6th was just so disappointing.”

We found this to be more or less stunning, and pushed back by pointing out that we could find no Republicans who in any way justified the January 6th riots. In fact, we pointed out, every single Republican we have seen or read about has denounced the violence. (In fact, it is the Democrats who have not denounced the widespread violence that has taken place for nearly a year.)

But Anderson pushed back on our pushback:

“I disagree with that. There’s lots of political spin about what happened on January 6th. There’s lots of video imagery. I disagree with what happened on that day and will always disagree with it. Trump encouraged that mob. People were killed inside the building. It just tears me up that that’s my party.”

So, what to think about all of this? Has Anderson, like lots of Americans, Reacted Emotionally to Recent Events

Anderson admitted that he’s always found the abortion question to be a troubling and difficult one, telling us that he’s “always voted pro-life on bills that have come up,” but admitting that he has struggled with the issue in general.

Not openly stated, but certainly broadly hinted, it is likely that Representative Anderson has always been pro-choice at heart. We discussed that matter. He is clearly uncomfortable with the GOP’s pro-life platform, but he has lived with it. Till now.

What pushed him over the edge? It clearly has a lot to do with the riots of January 6th. But in that regard, Rep. Anderson sounds more like the media talking heads than a dispassionate observer. Anderson says, “People were killed inside the building.”

Let’s look at the facts about that. Who was killed?

Five People died on January 6th

None of what happened in the invasion of the Capitol by the mob is in anyway excusable. All those who violated the law should be prosecuted and sentenced to jail. The rioters were, and remain, idiots. There is no way any of that is attributable to the Republican Party.

To do so is an emotion-based, media-inspired reaction.

But was anyone actually killed?

Yes. One person: A Trump supporter, 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt, a military veteran from San Diego. She was unarmed. But she was shot as she tried to crawl through a broken window.

That’s all we know. Authorities have refused to release the name of the man who shot her explain why she was shot. We may never know the answer to why her life was taken from her.

Four Other People Died, but none was “killed.”

Rosanne Boyland, a 34-year-old woman from Georgia. Authorities say she died of a “medical emergency.” Some have said she “may have been trampled accidentally.”

Kevin Greeson, a 55-year-old who had a history of high blood pressure. His wife said “In the midst of the excitement, he suffered a heart attack."

Benjamin Phillips, 50 years old. He died of a stroke. But he apparently died outside on the grounds of the Capitol and never entered the building.

Brian Sicknick, a 42-year-old Capitol police officer. His union chief announced that he “died of a stroke.” Media reports have falsely stated, many times, that he was “beaten to death with a fire extinguisher.” But this is simply not true. He was not beaten with a fire extinguisher or anything else. No one knows where this story came from.

The lie about the beating led to the Democrats having Officer Sicknick lie in state at the Capitol, where Democrats (who are relentless critics of the police, calling them “racist” for the past year) made a histrionic scene of solemnly streaming past his body—used essentially as a prop—to build an emotional case for their impeachment case. They finally found a police officer they could use for political purposes.

But he wasn’t killed by anyone. He died of a stroke. And there was no evidence of any kind of trauma. For whatever reason, he was immediately cremated, and his autopsy has been sealed.

The Bottom Line

Representative Phelps Anderson is a sophisticated, educated, thoughtful person who has wanted to serve in political office and has done so in a conscientious way. He is a gentleman and gregarious, friendly man.

The reality is that, as all human beings’ life experiences change them over time—none of us is static, unchanging, or unaffected by our experiences—Rep. Anderson has probably been, perhaps unconsciously, both culturally and socially disaffected with and alienated from the Republican Party for a number of years.

The committee meeting simply brought clarity to his current thinking. It became a moment of decision and he made that decision.

*As US abortion prohibition laws go, the New Mexico law is relatively “moderate,” in that it provides for all manner of exceptions—not only in the cases of rape, incest, or life of the woman, but it also contains provisions that permit abortion when the woman or her parent or guardian asserts that the pregnancy is likely to result in “grave impairment of the physical or mental health of the woman” or the child will probably “have a grave physical or mental defect.”

Nonetheless, pro-abortion advocates have long been irritated by the law, and with the election the hard-Left Governor Grisham in 2018, they have been champing at the bit to repeal the law

In other words, the reality is, even if there had never been a ruling in Roe v. Wade, abortion would not really be prohibited in New Mexico. The provisions of the law were such that abortion could not actually be prevented, provided the woman wanted an abortion and is able to obtain written certification from a special hospital board to back up her request.

The New Mexico Statute in Question

30-5-3. Criminal abortion.

Criminal abortion consists of administering to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug or other substance, or using any method or means whereby an untimely termination of her pregnancy is produced, or attempted to be produced, with the intent to destroy the fetus, and the termination is not a justified medical termination.   

Whoever commits criminal abortion is guilty of a fourth degree felony. Whoever commits criminal abortion which results in the death of the woman is guilty of a second degree felony.   

“Justified medical termination" means the intentional ending of the pregnancy of a woman at the request of said woman or if said woman is under the age of eighteen years, then at the request of said woman and her then living parent or guardian, by a physician licensed by the state of New Mexico using acceptable medical procedures in an accredited hospital upon written certification by the members of a special hospital board that:   

(1)     the continuation of the pregnancy, in their opinion, is likely to result in the death of the woman or the grave impairment of the physical or mental health of the woman; or   

(2)     the child probably will have a grave physical or mental defect; or   

(3)     the pregnancy resulted from rape, as defined in Sections 40A-9-2 through 40A-9-4 NMSA 1953. Under this paragraph, to justify a medical termination of the pregnancy, the woman must present to the special hospital board an affidavit that she has been raped and that the rape has been or will be reported to an appropriate law enforcement official; or   

(4)     the pregnancy resulted from incest;   

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

73 years ago today, on Tuesday, February 3, 1948, Gerald Champion, Chairman of the Republican Party of New Mexico, was killed in a plane crash atop a 9,000-foot peak, about 8 miles south ofCloudcroft, New Mexico

The wreck was finally sighted Sunday evening, February 8, on the 5th day of a search that began on the previous Wednesday.

Pentecostal, Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Catholic, Episcopal, LDS, or non-denominational?

Can one single Biden voter step up and explain his or her vote in this one?

Among the many stupid things America voted for is the absolute destruction of women’s sports. How many young girls are going to have their high school or even college athletic careers ruined by young men pretending to be female? Answer: Lots

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

Textualism Again: The Democrats’ Impeachment Scheme Offers an Opportunity to See the Differences between Conservative Jurisprudence and that of the Leftists

The Democrats are now bent on “impeaching” former President Trump.

However, the Constitution is very, very explicit on this. It really isn’t subject to creative interpretation. But creative interpretation—trying to claim that the Constitution or some particular statutes say something they clearly do not is the specialty of the modern Democratic Party and the American Hard Left that it represents.

Here is what the Constitution, in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 states:

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States…”

This is what authorizes the impeachment of a federal officer, which in turn authorizes that officer’s removal from office. It also, as can be seen above, authorizes the possible disqualification from future office. But the latter punishment depends on the wording of the articles of impeachment and the decision by Congress to include or not tack on this additional punishment.

For example, Congress has a sitting member right now whom it impeached and removed from a federal judgeship. His name is Alcee Hastings, a Democrat representing Florida’s 20th Congressional District.

Congress—for whatever reason—chose only to remove him from office, and did not choose to include in the impeachment proceedings the option they had of blocking him from future office.

However, there is no provision for Congress to leap over the impeachment and conviction process and simply bar someone from office. Additionally, without the former act (impeachment and removal) the latter sanction does not—and cannot—apply. You have to take the first step before you can decide to include the second step.

And if a president has not been constitutionally impeached and removed (which someone who is NOT president cannot possibly have happen to him) then the Senate is wholly without any constitutional power to disqualify this non-officeholder from future office.

Why is this a Case of Textualism? (Or possibly also “Original Understanding”?)

The Constitution says that impeachment is about “removal.” How is that term understood?

Merriam-Webster defines “removal” as follows:

• the act of moving or taking something away from a place
• the act of making something go away so that it no longer exists
• the act of forcing someone to leave a job

Which one of these definitions fits former President Trump, who is now a private citizen?

• How will the Senate move him or take him away from a place?
• How will the Senate make him go away so that he no longer exists?
• How will the Senate force him to leave a job?

The answers are, of course, that they cannot do any of those things. He’s already gone.

This is yet another opportunity to clearly see the difference in the way in which Republicans and Democrats view the Constitution—and the law for that matter.

Recent Republican appointees to the courts are said to be “textualists.”

(Democrat appointees on the other hand, such as Sonia Soto-Mayor, and the much-heralded Ruth Bader Ginsburg, believe that the text is simply “incidental” to the greater meaning they may want to impose over and above the text. In other words, whatever the law says is secondary to the meaning they want to give to the law—a “meaning” that allows them to accomplish whatever public policy goal they wish to achieve.)

Textualism, quite simply put, looks to the ordinary meaning of the language of the text in question, or the passage of phrases of the law which is being examined. It is not the same as “originalism,” there are subtle differences, but the two are likely to be considered cousins, likely even first cousins.

Originalism provides for an understanding of a statutory or Constitutional passage that gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. This necessarily means that that the text reflects the ordinary meaning of the words used to create the prose.

Roberts will not Preside

We now hear that Chief Justice Roberts will not preside over the upcoming sham “trial.” If this is true, it is correct and proper, for the event is not legitimate. It is best that someone well known to be merely a political hack, such as Senator Patrick Leahy, preside over such a Kangaroo-ish exercise.

If Roberts were to appear, a Senator should make a floor motion that the proceedings be dissolved as unconstitutional. Were such a thing to occur, Roberts would be on the spot.

If he is a textualist, or even an originalist, he would immediately grant the motion. If such a thing occurred and he refused the motion, then he would show himself to be on the same jurisprudential plane as RBG or SS-M.

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

"It has been amazing what has been achieved in just three days," said CNN's own Jim Acosta,"Biden's executive orders have turned the corner on this thing."

 

 

"In his first 3 hours in office, Biden boldlysought out and confronted the virus, and—virtually single-handedly—backed it down. He didn't even think about asking for back-up."

 

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

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

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

Just when you think things can’t get worse for a political party, last night the Republican Party of New Mexico said: "Hold my beer!" 

First of all, with only a handful of voters even eligible to participate, the RPNM felt it had to “contract” with an out-of-state vote-counting company. How complex is it to count 180 ballots or so? Apparently, it’s beyond the RPNM capability. How much was spent on this completely unnecessary project is not known, but—whatever it was—it was a waste of money.

Not only that, the task was beyond the capability of the company they hired, TEXT2VOTE. They blew the count. They got it wrong. So much for TEXT2VOTE.

When the totals were announced—after more than an hour of waiting (the votes could have easily been tallied by hand in less than half the time)—Pearce had won by 1 vote, beating Eddy Aragon and Geoffrey Snider 55 to 54 to 53. Eric Lucero got the other 8 votes.

But wait, more than an hour later the vaunted TEXT2VOTE company came back and said they had miscounted. The new totals were Pearce 76, Aragon 47, and Snider 41. (Lucero still had 8, so TEXT2VOTE at least had that figure nailed down.)

Tone-Deaf Much?

It’s one thing to be tone-deaf to what is going on in the world, or in the country. It’s a step beyond that to be tone-deaf to your own personal rhetoric. In other words, with Pearce joining in the criticism (and rightfully so) of the irregularities and lack of openness in election administration around the country, he should have had the self-awareness to realize the same kind of requirements must—most especially—apply to him too.

In other words, he had to realize that in an election for his own position he must provide maximum transparency and competency. A prudent, thinking chairman and executive director would have provided paper ballots, to be counted by a team that included observers from every single candidate who wanted to watch.

It was a no-brainer.

However, none of that took place.

Here’s what happened:

The RPNM sent out a list of 180 eligible voters. And they allegedly had strict rules for who could “participate.” Despite that, quite a number of State Central Committee (SCC) members who did not register on time were allowed to sit in on the Zoom meeting. Two or three of those turned out to be “tech team” members who ran the meeting and the voting process.

Additionally, Pearce crony (and a failed state chairman in his own time) John Billingsley came up with a total number of 184 eligible voters, four more than the number of eligibles.

After much squabbling and back and forth dialog with a number of SCC members trying to get the voting system to work, the voting “ended” sometime around 7:50 PM. And it was well beyond an hour’s wait after that (and long after they had said “We’ll have the results in about 5 minutes”) before they got the results—which were wrong!

This begs the question: Is TEXT2VOTE automated at all? It appears that the company is nothing more than a few people sitting around counting votes by hand, and pretending to be some sort of “high-tech” service. It would be hilarious if it were not so serious.

Besides All That, There Were Other Hilarious, Tone-Deaf Moments

Each candidate was allotted 2 minutes to speak to the entire Zoom crowd. And for most candidates it was strictly enforced.

However, after all the campaigning was over and while the voting was taking place, Executive Director Anissa Galassini Ford Tinnin (famous for turning state’s evidence in the notorious stolen email case that sent her co-conspirator to federal prison for 9 months*) invited her boss, Pearce to speak again!

Pearce seized the opportunity to drone on for 20 minutes about his claimed accomplishments WHILE THE MEMBERS WERE STILL VOTING! You cannot make this kind of stuff up!

One thing about the Pearce-Tinnin team: the rules are for amateurs. They will do what they will do. The rules be damned.

The public and the media will all have a field day with this. How dumb was this entire exercise? What kind of credibility will Pearce have in going after Democrats over election integrity issues?

Furthermore, how can Pearce present himself as a candidate for statewide office yet again? When he could not get even one-third of the votes of his own party on the initial count? And could only get 44% of the Central Committee on the revised, highly favorable relook?

You have to remember that a huge number of these 180 people have been either chosen directly or had their selection to the committee heavily influenced by Pearce (with Pearce taking over county meetings to do so). And yet, he could not come close to mustering a simple majority of this group.

It seems clear that if the Republican Party had enforced its previous rules that require a majority, Pearce would not have been returned to this office.

So, while 2022 probably looks like a great year for the GOP, the New Mexico GOP is clearly suffering.

* The Federal Judge in the sentencing portion of the criminal proceedings also noted the incident in which Anissa and Jamie Estrada, under false pretenses,  surreptitiously accessed the files and information in the Doña Ana Republican Party Headquarters to obtain information to use against the Republican candidate who was running for District Attorney, against Jamie and Anissa's Democrat client, the Democrat candidate for District Attorney, District 3.

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

The Republican Party of New Mexico has just come through its third straight disastrous cycle—all of which have been under either the direct personal leadership or the direct influence of former Congressman Steve Pearce. Now Pearce, who is 73, is running yet again for state party chair, seeking to be the "man behind the curtain" for the fourth consecutive cycle. 

GOP State Central Committee members meet tonight—Monday night at 7:00 PM—via Zoom, to decide who will chair the party for the next two years. The Pearce organization has the upper hand, precisely for the same factors that affect everything during the "Pandemic Era" — inertia. 

COVID-19 is the go-to excuse for non-action, for keeping things the same, for eliminating actual discussion, for grotesquely affecting the dynamic badly needed in so many different aspects of life. In the case of a political party meeting, the current situation favors the existing structure, no matter what the subject matter is.

It was the Pearce organization who got the RPNM on this rushed-up schedule, just a month after the election. In our view, this is a terrible idea: It needless hurries the process for picking new party leadership just a few days after the previous election has been certified. In reality, political parties need time to sit back and fully assess what has just transpired. Rushing to set up a new structure in the middle of the Thanksgiving-Christmas season is a ridiculous rule. It should be abolished, and the chairmanship election should be set in April of each odd year.

So, is the Chairmanship even Worth Worrying About?

Probably it is. After all, lightning can strike. Biden has the potential to be such an amazing disaster that he could turn thousands of traditional Democrats against the party of their birth. Who knows? It certainly appears that 2022 could be a great year for Republicans, across the nation, and in New Mexico.

The state chair has traditionally had to be someone with the ability to raise money—to have money himself or herself and the ability to tap into wealthy donors through connections they have both in-state as well as through a nationwide network of political connections.

Pearce, though disastrous as the “leader” (whether de facto or de jure), appears, on paper at least, to likely be the only candidate with those kinds of possible connections. However, that is only in "theory." In practice, Pearce’s actual fundraising has been desultory and lots of legislative candidates got very little or no help from the oil and gas interests that he was supposed to bring to the table. 

The big money that did reach the party was from national sources that would send money to the state party regardless of who occupies the state chair. 

Nonetheless, Pearce understands fundraising and certainly appears to most likely be more capable in that regard than the other candidates. So that favors him. Additionally, Pearce—as he has bragged—has the personal organization around the state.

Of course, that personal organization has had no success in winning elections around the state, but it is extremely useful in capturing and holding the chairmanship itself.

The most alarming thing about the Pearce candidacy is the insistence among those in the know that he is once again using the position or the control of the party apparatus to advance his own plans to—once again—run for governor. It would be his fourth effort to win a statewide race. The three previous efforts have ended in catastrophic landslide defeats.

Who Else is Running?

The other candidates are  Eddy Aragon, Eric Lucero, and Geoffrey Snider.

• Eric Lucero is a popular, likable, 63-year-old (who looks much much younger), well-meaning frequent volunteer worker, but as far as we know has no experience in running a major organization, and appears to have only a limited ability to raise funds. At least he has been a Republican for a long time, and, also unlike Aragon, he's voted in every single election, 15 straight, general, primary, and municipal. 

• Eddy Aragon is a 45-year-old broadcaster. Oddly, he's only been a Republican for less than a year, which, not surprisingly, means he's only voted in one primary in the past decade. As usual, he appears to be using this opportunity for cheap publicity, to prompt more attention and business for his radio station. His radio show has (at best) an “extremely modest” audience that doesn’t actually know who he is. Those who are close to campaign organizations know that he tries to “sell” interviews to candidates, something that is not done by legitimate media organizations.

Plus, Aragon, as previously noted, has been all over the political spectrum—repeatedly threatening to run as an independent for the US Senate in 2019 and 2020, while at one time or another attacking every single Republican hopeful: Elisa Martinez, Mick Rich, Gavin Clarkson, and Mark Ronchetti, calling all of them “worthless.”

Clarkson took the hint towards the end of the primary campaign, purchased some air time, and suddenly became—in Eddy's view—a much more "worthy" candidate. Pearce himself has made arrangements with Aragon, and according to sources, has paid him quite a bit to air Pearce's own radio shows, as well as those of his protégés. (It would be interesting to see state party records to verify how much has been paid to Aragon.)

Eddy—at least in the image of his most recent version of himself (which is ever-changing)—now regularly attempts to identify with the most aggressive positions possible. His history, however, indicates that such positions are far from stable, let alone permanent.

He is related to Raymond and Michael Sanchez, and has worked for prominent Democrats, including Tom Udall and General Wesley Clark. He also brags about having been married to a “coyota” — a woman who helped illegals cross the border.

He also had an abortive run for Mayor of Albuquerque, but quit after collecting 5-dollar contributions, which he neither filed, accounted for, or returned to donors. Aragon is also advocating for equal funding of all candidates, without regard for the winnability of particular races. This of course is a naive and highly wasteful approach and one that can only end up in lots of money being directed to districts that are impossible to win, while underfunding those candidates who can win. So all that is extremely problematic.

• This leaves 43-year-old Geoffrey Snider. We don’t know if he can raise money, but he says he can, and he has definitely written the best letters to the central committee. He owns his own business, FOAC, LLC, and, again unlike Aragon, he has voted in every single election of all kinds for the past decade.

Snider has recently been serving as the Executive Director of the Bernalillo County Republican Party, where he says the party has set an all-time record in fundraising. His letters discuss his ideas about ways to redirect and reorganize and focus the state part

It appears that Snider is far and away the best choice at this juncture.

To Recap the Last 8 Years:

• In 2014, a Susana Martinez-led coordinated effort captured the statehouse for the first time in 60 years. When the dust had settled, Republicans held a 37-33 advantage in the State House.

• In 2016, a Pearce-led effort persuaded House Republicans to abandon Martinez’s successful strategy, with the result being the loss of 5 seats—and the majority it had taken six decades to achieve.

• For 2018, as Pearce gave up his safe CD 2 seat to run for governor, he secured the chairmanship for his acolyte (and fellow Martinez hater) Ryan Cangiolosi, resulting in the most disastrous cycle for the Republican Party in 106 years of statehood: Republicans lost an additional 8 House seats, making a net loss of a whopping 13 seats in just two years. Democrats held a 46-24 advantage. The GOP lost all twelve statewide races plus all four federal contests, for an astounding 0 for 16 result—something that had never happened before.

As part of the catastrophe, Pearce’s hand-picked replacement ran a weak race and actually managed to lose CD 2, which is designed to be a Republican seat.

• As for 2020, just a month after his 2018 debacle, Pearce got himself installed as Chair for the 2020 cycle, by bragging about losing the governor's race by 100,000 votes (we are not making this up) and promising “a new vision.”

In Pearce’s 2018 Letter, He Made a Number of Promises

Here is what Pearce stated:

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

“I have been constantly "on the ground"…for the last 16 years and have personally established a network of supporters…We have built a great organization and, yes—we are going to keep it going…This provides me with a strong base of "new friends" that I can build on for the party.

COMMENT: The problem appears to have been his continuous references to what he personally had established for himself—to win election to state chairmanship, to arrange to win primaries for candidates who belong to “HIS” organization, as opposed to the state party itself.

He claimed to have “invested $5 million” in developing what he called “a base message that the State GOP can build on even further for 2020.”

He went further, stating that:

“I am a seasoned communicator. I  know all the key people in the TV stations, all the radio stations across the state and am well acquainted with those in the print media…No one else in the party…has a skillset of campaign and business experience, the grit, the network of committed volunteers that I have assembled…No one…has been to more towns and villages that I have been in, or developed the relationships in every county that I have…

He went on:

“I have personally talked and listened to over 10,000 people…and have gone to every county and over 100 small and large towns, to reservations and chapter houses…I know and work well with leaders in all cultures; Hispanic, Native American, African-American, Asian and Middle Eastern. Anyone else who might be elected as State Party Chair will start at ground zero and need years to travel to the places that I have been and organized over the last 16 years.

Of course, these claims tended to beg the question: If Pearce has everything in the world going for him, how come it doesn’t result in a victory—of some kind? Or, possibly this question: How does all that result in getting beat by 100,000 votes? But we digress.

Pearce went on:

“We are going to recruit more [millennials] …and put them in key positions in the party as we move forward…We are going to recruit new, younger, and talented people. “We will create a strong social media presence…Speed and commitment are essential. Our leaders must hit the ground running in January 2019 to prepare for 2020-with new energy, new commitment and new turnout targets for winning each and every election when called upon.

"We will also establish a statewide policy coordinating committee to hold elected officials accountable for their actions, and I believe we must also have our own independent polling operation.

“The renewed Republican party will function like a growing business…

He promised to “act boldly…be more strategic…inclusive, and united, to build coalitions,

So, did Any of that Take Place? As Best We Can Tell, NONE of That Actually Happened

So, what really did happen?

Pearce spent his entire two years engaging in divisive, grudge-holding maneuvers, making sure that the first Hispanic female governor in the history of the country—and by all measures, the most successful—was not invited to conventions, and was never used as an example of what can be done.

Pearce again used divisive tactics in primaries—inserting himself and state party assets into intra-party contests.

The result was—again—the loss of every single statewide race—all five of them! Republicans did regain CD2, which should never have been lost in the first place, because of the design of the district. Republicans also picked up one (1) of the 13 state House seats the Pearce team had lost over the previous two cycles.  But they lost a seat in the Senate. When all was said and done, the Pearce-led coalition of “Republican leaders” have gone from a 37-33 Republican House and 18 Senate Republicans to a 25-45 House deficit, with only 15 Republican Senators left.

Additionally, Trump lost the state in a landslide, despite Pearce’s promises. The one bright spot was the showing of Senate candidate Mark Ronchetti, who was ignored by Pearce, mainly because Pearce “sees him as somehow an ally of former Governor Martinez.” Some leadership. 

So' Pearce Declares “Victory” and Boldly Announces He Needs Another Term as Chairman

Just a few days ago, Pearce sent out a bizarre letter to the GOP State Central Committee. In it, he makes claims that no one can even understand, much less believe. Here are some of them:

“During the past two years, RPNM has made history in our great state, reaching remarkable milestones and surpassing many of its goals. I would be honored to serve another two years to further play a vital role in its continuing success.”

What? When and where did any of this happen?

 “The Republican Party has become dynamic, truly diverse and extremely driven. RPNM has received national acclaim during this recent election, and many more New Mexicans have eagerly embraced the Party’s message and mission.”

Comment: Republicans may properly respond that they wish all of this, or any of this, were true. But it is painfully obvious that it’s not.

Pearce went on:

“As your Chairman for the last year, I have witnessed extraordinary achievements by our staff and supporters…In short…RPNM has become stronger and more influential. It is for these reasons that I plan on running for another term as your Chairman.”

The New Mexico Republicans’ Dilemma

The Republican Party is in tatters in New Mexico. However, the likelihood is that a President Biden will create a national mood which will probably be very favorable to the GOP in 2022. So, given a strong candidate (not Pearce) there should be a reasonably good chance that Republicans could capture the governorship, and perhaps (again with strong candidates) a decent chance at other statewide races.

Unfortunately, the favorable environment will almost certainly not help in the legislature. The Pearce team has left the GOP without a seat at the table for the most important factor of all: redistricting.

In 2001 and 2011, the legislative Republicans had Gary Johnson and Susana Martinez to veto the gerrymandered bills put forward by the Democrats—forcing the whole question of redistricting into court.

But for 2021, the GOP has neither house in the legislature, plus Pearce lost the governorship in a landslide, leaving the Republicans with no seat at the table. Brian Egolf has already signaled that he and the Democrats will run roughshod over the Republicans—including (as Egolf stated) taking away the Second Congressional District by means of a partisan gerrymander.

The choice of state chair may or may not have any effect at all. But New Mexico Republicans cannot be blamed if they choose not to go down the Pearce road yet again. 

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

A Guest Editorial by former State Senator Rod Adair (R-Chaves & Lincoln Counties) and former member of the Electoral College (2004)

Perhaps many of you have seen the gentleman, named Shane Vaughn, shown at left. His photo and accompanying video about the current presidential election have been sent to me scores of times, along with questions asking “Is this true?”

The answer, for the most part, is “No, it isn’t.” He gets a few facts correct as many Googlemeister-internet surfers do, but he misses the mark on most things. This is to be expected. *

So I watched this man’s video. He starts out by boldly stating he’s going hold a “class” on “history and law” and that he’s going to “teach.” Then he says that this election (2020) in which a candidate has not “conceded” has “occurred twice before in 1800 and 1824.” And that it’s because the popular vote margin was “less than 1%.”

This is patent nonsense. In 1800, there was no actual popular vote at all. In 1824, most states had popular votes recorded, but several states still had no popular vote at all. And the margin of that which was recorded was fairly wide, not close at all.

But all of this discussion is irrelevant. Those two elections went to the House of Representatives because in each instance the Electoral College did not produce a majority. Those events had nothing at all to do with “concession speeches” or popular vote margins.

He goes on to say there are 475 members of the House of Representatives. (There are actually 435.) And he says that if there were to be “no certification” of the election results (though it’s clear he doesn’t know what that means exactly) then the election goes to the House of Representatives.

What is true is: if there is no presidential candidate with a majority of the Electoral Votes then that election would go to the House, where delegations vote by state, not by individual member.

Mr. Vaughn goes on to make the startling claim that Republicans control 37 of the 50 state delegations. The actual situation is that they currently control 26, with the Democrats holding majorities in 20, and four states are either tied or in doubt. (A Republican candidate has a 48-vote lead in one Iowa congressional district—if she holds that lead in a recount, then the GOP would have a 27 to 20 advantage, with Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania all evenly split, 4-4, 7-7, and 9-9 respectively.)

Misunderstanding Electors and Misunderstanding the Method of Presidential Elections

The problem with much of what is on the internet right now is that it ignores what has already transpired. Yes, it is true that under the US Constitution the individual state legislatures are empowered to determine the manner of each state’s electoral votes. But they have already done that. They are not waiting till the December 14th meeting of the Electoral College to make that determination. They have long-since put the manner of choosing electors into their state statutes.

The chief elections officers of every state (usually, but not always, the secretary of state) have had the names of the electors, their addresses, phone numbers, and all pertinent information, on file for several months. The reality is that on November 3rd, Americans were voting for ELECTORS, not directly for Biden or Trump. (Even the so-called popular vote is the cumulative total of votes cast for electors—not for the candidates themselves. In fact, the electors ARE the candidates.)

For example, in New Mexico, if a voter filled in the oval next to a presidential candidate, he or she was actually, legally and constitutionally, casting his or her vote for five electors, not Biden or Trump. This is the same thing that took place in all 50 states. (See an example of how an actual presidential election result looks like in the attached photo.)

The five winning candidates for elector in New Mexico (or the 38 winning candidates in Texas, or the 29 in Florida) will go to their respective state capitals (not to Washington, DC, as Mr. Vaughn asserts) on December 14 and cast electoral votes. They do so because they have won their elections for the office of elector.

People have a very hard time understanding this process. The states have already elected the electors.

So, as Mark Levin asserts (and he is only one among several doing so): Can the legislatures overrule the elections that have already taken place to elect the electors?

The answer is: They possibly could. But it would not be very easy. They would have to be drawing up plans right now for special sessions of their legislatures. Why? Because they would have to go into session and repeal their current statutes which currently specify the manner in which their electors are to be chosen.

They would also have to, somehow, nullify their own states' 2020 election results and that probably would mean nullifying ALL the election results in their states, including those that just elected or defeated these same legislators themselves.

Final, official canvassing is about to take place all over the country. (New Mexico's is in nine days.)

Can they repeal their own results after they have been declared final and official? It seems doubtful. So if anyone intends to do this, they better get cracking.

Let's say they go through with that, what next? After repealing the current method of choosing electors by popular vote of the people (after they just had an election to choose them, mind you) they would then have to arrogate the choice of the electors solely to themselves—the state legislators.

Any state that did this would be reverting to a method that has not been used since 1860, when South Carolina was the last state which made the choice of the electors to be determined solely by a vote of the legislature. All other states had already adopted the system currently in place (and South Carolina did too after it was readmitted to the Union) which has the people choose electors by popular vote on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

I am not saying that the election is over, or that the outcome has been decided. The Electoral College does not meet for another 29 days. Trump has some serious allegations, and there appears to be evidence of a number of problems involving elections integrity. I have no idea how these claims will be adjudicated, nor does anyone else.

All I am saying is that many of the things posted on the internet are false, or at best highly misleading.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Let us know what you think, or send us any questions you may have, by emailing us at: Editor@NewMexicoPoliticalJournal.com

* Some three centuries ago, Alexander Pope noted that “A little learning is a dangerous thing.” He wisely noted that “shallow draughts intoxicate the brain” and “short views we take, nor see the lengths behind…”

Today’s youngest generations are intoxicated by the belief that formal educational traditions, study, research, and reflection are completely obsolete, and made so by “search engines.” Many times I’ve heard people say, “I don’t need to study anything or read any books, I can just Google whatever I want to find out.”

The problem is that relying solely on search engines too often end up with the searcher getting a modicum of information, but no context, no understanding of the antecedents, or many other variables that are part of the historical framework. Mr. Vaughn is but one of hundreds on the internet who offer their expertise, obviously based on incomplete and hastily completed Google searches. (To be fair, the man in the photo is not a millennial, maybe not even a Gen X, but the same mental disease—not wanting to drink deep from the Pierian spring”—affects millions (Gen Z and Boomers alike) in the 21st Century.)

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

In reviewing the fallout from Decision 2020, and while we wait for a few developments on the national scene, we will dive into the New Mexico results this week. First things first, the federal races in the Land of Enchantment.

Ronchetti Emerges as the Statewide Star

New Mexico Republicans have a rising star in Mark Ronchetti and, in our view, they would be well-advised to get behind him moving forward.

Ronchetti did not win his race, nor did we expect him to, considering the atmosphere and New Mexico's apparent continual drift to the Left. But he exceeded all expectations and even outran President Trump by almost 5 percentage points, beating the president by an astounding net total of 43,500 votes.

This is by itself a remarkable accomplishment for a Republican Senate candidate in 2020, with perhaps only one GOP senatorial candidate in the entire country running farther ahead of the President.  

Ronchetti also ran ahead of all the GOP congressional nominees by a combined net total of nearly 32,000 votes. 

Democrat Spending Wildly to Save the Udall Seat

Ronchetti did all of this while getting outspent by millions of dollars and receiving no outside help. In his post-election video, Ronchetti noted that his campaign had over 15,000 small-dollar donors that helped him combat all of the outside money spent for Lujan. That’s the kind of army of grassroots supporters that New Mexico Republicans have not been able to put together in years.

Yvette Herrell Helped Enormously by Ronchetti

We strongly endorsed Yvette Herrell (as we did in the 2018 General Election as well) and we predicted she would win. She ran an excellent campaign—much-improved over last time—and was greatly aided by Ronchetti who was far and away the strongest-performing candidate in the district.

Of course, Herrell received over $10 million in outside help—something unavailable to Ronchetti, making his showing even more impressive.

In New Mexico's CD2, Mark Ronchetti took a whopping 57% of the two-party vote and ran a net 15,536 votes ahead of Herrell in her district, outperforming her by a net 6.25  percentage points. Ronchetti's margin of victory was 13.68 points, compared to Herrell's 7.43, meaning he ran a net 84% better in precinct after precinct.

This is even more remarkable when you consider that Ronchetti was unknown in much of the district before he entered this race.

Ronchetti outperformed candidates in other districts by even greater margins. This is not to criticize any other candidates, especially not Herrell, who recovered from 2018 to run a very strong race. Rather, it is merely a black and white evaluation of the vote totals.

Going Forward

We have no idea what Ronchetti's future plans are, whether he is a "one-and-done" candidate, who may go back to the private sector, or if he would be willing to put himself and his family through another grueling race. We plan to reach out to him at some point in future, but have not done so to date.

For New Mexico voters, however, Ronchetti is clearly the de facto leading Republican in the state. In our view, the GOP should begin now to get behind him in the race for Governor in 2022, or for Mayor of Albuquerque in 2021, or for US Senator in 2024, or for whatever race he chooses.

Again, however, we don't know that he will choose to run for any other office. We are just recognizing the strength of his campaign, and his appeal.

Remembering another Italian-surnamed Republican from Albuquerque

Ronchetti's run reminded us of another Albuquerque Republican who also happened to have an Italian last name, and who ran a strong statewide race 50 years ago. Pete Domenici ran hard in 1970 for an open gubernatorial seat. But he was running against the popular Speaker of the New Mexico House, Bruce King.

The results were remarkably similar to this year's US Senate contest, with King prevailing, roughly 51-46, almost identical to the Lujan-Ronchetti result. One major difference is that Domenici carried only 7 counties in 1970, while Ronchetti prevailed in 19 of New Mexico's 33 counties.

Domenici came back two years later as the leading contender for the open US Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Clinton P. Anderson. Domenici won that second statewide race, defeating Democrat Jack Daniels, and went on to serve six terms, from 1972 to 2008.

New Mexico in the Years Ahead

No one knows what the future holds for New Mexico elections. Nor can we even begin to predict how (what appears to be) a Biden Administration will fare. Many suspect that Democrats will not allow Biden to serve out his term, and will instead work to invoke the 25th Amendment at some point.

We aren't convinced of that, but we can see that the national scene is highly volatile. It is not unreasonable to assume that the national mood in 2022 will be highly favorable to Republicans, just as 2010 and 2014 were. In fact, we predict it will be a highly favorable cycle for the GOP.

We can say that if that kind of favorable year appears to be shaping up, New Mexico Republicans certainly appear to have a candidate who can win and who can start a great GOP comeback in the state. In that eventuality, it would be unwise for the GOP not to seize the opportunity to rally around Ronchetti.

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

As New Mexicans look ahead to tomorrow, and perhaps for the next few days (at least on the national scene), Republicans especially are encouraged by the promises offered up by their state chairman, Steve Pearce. Pearce has promised that Trump will win the state and that Republicans will win at least one legislative chamber. 

The respected Albuquerque Journal poll, conducted by pollster Brian Sanderoff had some good news for the GOP. Sanderoff forecasts a victory for Republican challenger Yvette Herrell in Congressional District 2. Sanderoff sees her defeating incumbent Xochitl Torres Small. This is a seat Republicans never should have lost, as Congressional District 2 is solidly Republican (it’s actually as Republican as the state of Texas, to give readers an idea). And the national Republicans have poured tens of millions of dollars into the race—a tactic that appears to be working. 

With the amount of money national Republicans are spending in the district and with Trump expected to carry the district, Republicans should definitely pick up legislative seats in southern New Mexico, such as the John Arthur Smith senate seat, the Howie Morales seat, and even Candy Sweetser’s house seat in Deming, as examples. This will simply be the result of Republican legislative candidates benefiting from the national environment. 

Similarly, Republicans should retain all the seats in the region where the Democrats are giving it an all-out effort (and an illegal effort, frankly) to knock off sitting Republicans. In this category, House District 38 comes to mind, in which Republican Rebecca Dow is facing the nastiest campaign from Democrat Karen Whitlock—though, oddly enough, Whitlock is not running or paying for her campaign. Even though her negative mail says it's paid for by her, in reality, it is being furnished entirely by House Speaker Brian Egolf.

Egolf is classifying all of his expenditures—hundreds of thousands of dollars for some thirty Democrat candidates—as "in-kind" contributions. But in reality, he is raising all the money and purchasing all the ads, mail, and nastiness directly. He's doing that because the Democrats created a special provision allowing him to raise unlimited amounts of money, while individual legislators are capped.

The challenge for Republicans will be in the Albuquerque area where Democrats are expecting a Biden wave to wash away many legislative Republicans. Pearce has allowed Republicans to be heavily outspent by the Democrats, but he apparently believes his grassroots and the billboard campaigns of "Respect New Mexico" will win the day. 

PEARCE'S PROMISES: ENCOURAGEMENT FOR THE GOP RANK AND FILE

Again, Pearce has promised two big things: 1) Trump will carry New Mexico; 2) Republicans will win one of the two legislative chambers. We certainly hope he is correct, but we are concerned.

Given his announcements about what the Republican Party of New Mexico has supposedly done, the GOP should prevail. Here are the tasks that Pearce says he has completed: 

• More than 3,000,000 contacts—which represents well over three contacts for every voter who will vote in the general election
• More than 100,000 doors knocked just during the week of October 22-28
• 1,300 volunteers have knocked on more than 900,000 doors and placed more than 2,100,000 phone calls in New Mexico.

According to Pearce, all of this represents "the biggest GOP infrastructure, the most manpower, and the most volunteers in New Mexico election history."

These are incredibly impressive numbers. Given that there are only 780,212 households in the entire state, Pearce's team has personally contacted every single voter's home, they've also spoken with everyone—as New Mexico's population is estimated at exactly 2,100,000. These figures, if accurate and true, are nothing short of astonishing. And they should also do the trick.

Pearce insists they are true and accurate, adding:

"These impressive numbers demonstrate not only the commitment and excitement of the Trump Campaign to turn New Mexico red, but the drive and fortitude of our staff and volunteers...We feel the tide turning here, and more and more New Mexicans will be casting their vote for President Trump and Republicans down ballot to turn the state red. New Mexicans know the President stands for law and order, has created a strong economy and will protect our freedoms and family values.”

Given what a disaster a Biden victory would mean for America, and how poorly New Mexico will be represented if Torres Small returns to the House, and Ben Ray Lujan reaches the Senate, we certainly hope that Pearce is telling the truth. And we hope he has overcome his divisiveness by having had his volunteers work for Mark Ronchetti just as hard as the state party worked for Herrell all during this past year.

The results will tell.

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

Why Amy Coney Barrett is NOT the Kind of Justice the Democrats Want

There is so much incorrect terminology thrown around and so much careless discussion taking place in the media and among politicians that, in our view, probably fewer than 5% of voters even understand what the role of judges actually is.

Phrases are thrown around like: "they want a judge who is 'pro-life,' or 'pro-oil & gas,' or 'pro-environment,' or 'anti-[this or that[, or who 'supports' some policy or another. This is the language of the Left—indicating that judges have a distinct legislative role. It is not the language of the right, even though many right-of-center people employ, incorrectly, those same phrases. 

In the view of conservatives, while judges may have personal political views, they cannot be "pro" or "anti" anything at all in their role as a judge.

Unlike legislators, judges and justices are not presented with campaign-related issues: Shall we abolish the death penalty? Shall we restrict the manner in which abortion services can be offered? Should voters be required to show an ID?

Those are all questions that come before legislative bodies. Judges only entertain specific cases with specific facts and the specific points of law being argued about the facts of a given dispute or circumstance that gave rise to the case—the situation that caused the case to be filed.

Applying the Law that is on the Books v. Making up a New Law to "Make Things Better" 

Amy Coney Barrett is not the kind of justice the Democrat Party wants precisely because she "applies" the law, reading statutes, or passages in Constitutions as they are written, in plain English. The Left wants jurists who look at laws only as suggestions, or perhaps just as incidental starting points for public policy debate or discussion.

The two approaches clash all the time.

Recent Elections Law Cases Provide Excellent Exhibits. For Example:

A statute may read (as in New Mexico) that: 

Absentee ballots "shall be accepted until 7:00 PM on election day. Any...envelope received after that time shall not be qualified or opened..."

An entity, such as the Democratic Party (or Libertarian or Republican Party) in New Mexico (or in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania) may bring suit, demanding that the deadline adopted by the legislature be extended for any number of days—say, for example, six more days. The plaintiff or petitioner may claim that the statute is somehow “unfair” or “unreasonable,” or may come up with any number of reasons to set the statute aside.

A typical judge or justice, coming from the last couple of generations of law school, and certainly ALL judges and lawyers of the current American Left, including many, perhaps most, Democrat appointees (though to be fair, not all) will look at the case and the law and say:              

"Hmmm. I don’t much care for this statute. I’m not sure the legislature thought this through as well as I can by myself. I think I’ll rule that there shall be six more days added on to the deadline.”

A different Democrat court, looking at the same case, may say: “No. We think the deadline should be extended only three more days."

And yet another activist judge or three-member panel might rule that:

"No, we know best of all—the deadline should be extended for 30 days. Elections officials should count all votes received not later than 30 days after the deadline identified in statute.”

All of them will conclude in their own minds: “There. That’s what I call fair and just. I am a judge and I know best what should be done. The legislators simply don’t have as good a handle on fairness and justice as a trained lawyer and judge does.”

However, a justice or judge like Amy Coney Barrett will read the statute and conclude:

1) the law is clearly stated and understandable

2) there is nothing “unconstitutional” about the legislature making rules and establishing deadlines for the conduct and administration of elections

3) in a republic, it is the legislature that represents the people’s will (right or wrong, regardless of how we “feel” about the law) through the process of free and open elections

4) a court is not a legislature, did not participate in the debate, and has no role in writing bills, voting on their passage, or signing them into law

Court cases are not supposed to be about some judge's "druthers" or how they "wish" the law was written, or what "outcome" the judge prefers.

Personally, a judge might prefer some other deadline, or see ways in which she would write the law differently and “better,” but she recognizes that that is not her role as a judge.

This kind of thinking is anathema to Leftists. They want judges who will use their positions to hand down rulings that conform to the Left’s desired outcomes in a huge array of cases that can be brought. The Left finds entities that will file suits for the purpose of getting a judge to simply "enact" a law that is nowhere on the books, or that could not be passed in a legislative body. 

For example: “We want six more days added to the deadline. And a judge responds ‘Okay, you got it, six more days it is.’”

That is essentially what Supreme Court Justices Kagan and Sotomayor do on a regular basis. (Justice Stephen Breyer responds less “automatically” in this manner.) And Ruth Bader Ginsburg did the same as Sotomayor and Kagan.

for the American Left, Amy Coney Barrett is a terrible reminder to the people that the role of the judiciary and the role of the legislative branch are separate and distinct. She essentially is an exhibit that says: "Judges should stay in their own lane."

That's what the US Constitution says, and that's what all state constitutions say. If you want to change the structure of American government you should amend the Constitution. If you want to change state or federal laws, then go to your legislature or to congress.

Judges should not just make stuff up on the bench. That approach represents an enormous threat to the American Experiment.

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

We watched Sunday's debate between incumbent Congresswoman Xochitl Torres Small, a Democrat from Las Cruces, and her Republican challenger Yvette Herrell of Alamogordo. We ended up pleasantly surprised.

Herrell's refusal to debate in 2018 was, to a number of pundits' thinking at least, a contributory cause of her defeat in the Republican-leaning district. It was perceived that she "must have recognized" that she couldn't really stand toe to toe with Small.

After the one-hour debate, sponsored by KOAT-TV, Channel 7 in Albuquerque, we were left wondering what she—or more likely her campaign team—was worried about two years ago.

Herrell easily won the debate.

Xochitl Torres Small

Small apparently came into the debate believing that a machine-gun-like delivery along with a "word salad" approach to all the questions is "the ticket" in any debate. At least that's what she did. Small delivered many of her answers at speeds hitting an astounding 220 words per minute, some 45 to 50% faster than a normal person talks in normal conversation.

And a review of "what" she said is shocking: Word Salad City. Small essentially repeated almost every single question and then went into laborious detail in describing to the audience the meaning of the question and why it was important—something the questioners already knew, as did, presumably, the listening audience. 

The audience definitely knew it when the questioner was Kent Walz. The Albuquerque Journal's senior editor asked questions that were longer than the time allotted to answer them. And they usually included four or five different sub-topics. The candidates needed a scribe to make sure they got to all of them.

But Small's objective was recognizable: eat up time with repetition and non-answers, and make it appear you're being responsive.

In any case, Torres Small just substituted a rapid-fire series of disconnected phrases—very fluently and mellifluously, make no mistake, she's not a verbal bumbler—in place of giving real answers that addressed the actual topics being discussed.

Another flaw in the process, of course, could not be avoided: the pandemic-induced "Zoomery." Forums like these permit all kinds of behind the scenes direction and answer-feeding that the public would be able to see if the debate were live and being held in some sort of normal setting.

As a result, Small got a second shot at the question Herrell posed: "Are you going to vote for the Biden-Harris ticket?"

In her original response or rather non-response to Herrell's question, Small just went directly to her automatic-rifle-speed chatter, and ended up never responding at all to the question. Then, some 10-15 minutes later, Small worked in a response that indicated she will be voting for Biden

This late recovery, so to speak, was almost certainly as a result of a handler either approaching Small, or holding up a cue card—something that simply could not have occurred if the debate had been held under normal conditions. No one would do that in full view of the audience. 

Yvette Herrell
For her part, Yvette Herrell was well prepared and delivered her responses clearly and articulately. What came across was a candidate who established a contrast with the left-leaning incumbent in the right-leaning Second Congressional District.

If there is a criticism of Herrell, it is that she simply did not drive home that contrast anywhere near as strongly as she might have.

Small and her team are obviously banking on winning the election in the same way they won in 2018: based purely on imagery. 

If it's a contest about that—which candidate is going to appear more often with a shotgun, with camouflage outfits, with "conservative-looking" backgrounds and themes, well, Small and her team have all that stuff down pat. They believe that is enough—since they have tremendous amounts of out-of-state money from Pelosi as well as lefty special interest groups. 

Small and special interest groups are spending enough to keep the TV stations afloat for another year.

All the more reason that Herrell should have driven home the stark contrasts and the reality that lie behind the images. If there is one regret for her team, it's probably that she didn't really hammer that home enough. 

Still, Herrell clearly won. Southern New Mexico—whether it's the southeastern counties, or the western counties of Sierra, Luna, Hidalgo, and Catron—is simply not southern California, where Small would be much more at home. So Herrell did enough for the reasonable observer to get the message: Herrell represents your values. Small does not.

Trump Doing Well in CD2

We conclude that polls must be showing the Herrell team that Trump is set to carry the district in November. Thus the question posed by Herrell: "Who you gonna vote for, Xoch?"

If Trump isn't winning CD2, then the question, and making an issue of that question, makes a lot less sense. We think the question does make sense.

Endorsement

The choice in this congressional race is hardly a difficult one. It's hands-down for Herrell, as it was in 2018.

Whether it is the Second Amendment, national defense issues, positions on taxation, re-opening the economy, various aspects of the entire personal liberty issue, or the rampant out-of-control rioting, looting, and mayhem perpetrated by Democrat front groups Antifa and Black Lives Matter, Herrell is on the correct side each time, and Small is hardly more than a Nancy Pelosi look-alike. 

Again, this is the reason that Small is "all-image-all-the-time." Substance is simply not her scene.

We hope Herrell can overcome the shenanigans led by her mentor Steve Pearce and the divisiveness he has brought to her primary battles are not too much to overcome. 

We strongly and heartily urge readers to support Yvette Herrell for CD 2.

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

Democrats ousted five of their incumbent state senators in their June primary. We predicted three of those. "Assuming the challengers' campaigns are competently managed," we expected that Senators John Arthur Smith, Clemente Sanchez, and Gabriel J. Ramos would be defeated.  They were. We were sort of neutral on Mary Kay Papen and Richard Martinez's chances, but kind of expected them to survive. They didn't.

Senate District 28, Background

Several of the Democrat challenger campaigns were indeed run by highly competent, proven winners. The SD 28 race, encompassing all of Grant and Catron Counties, as well as almost all of Socorro County, saw incumbent Gabe Ramos easily dispatched by Democrat Siah Correa Hemphill. And Hemphill's guiding light was one of the Democrats' most experienced and most successful advisers to the Hard Left of the party, none other than the notorious Neri Holguin.

We note this with the greatest of respect—if you are a Democrat, and you have voted more than once or twice in a manner that, say, Rachel Maddow, would not approve of, well...you'd better hold your breath to see if you get a challenger. If you do, and it's a hard-Lefty...and if he or she hires Holguin, well...get ready to clean out your office. 

Here's the thing: the parties are more polarized than ever—and primaries bring out the most polarized voters. The majority of Democrat primary voters generally hang on every word uttered by Maddow or anyone at MSNBC or CNN.

And Ramos, who had never faced the voters, had been appointed to replace former Senator Howie Morales who had just been sworn in as lieutenant governor. All three county commissions sent up Ramos' name, much to the vocal displeasure of Governor Grisham and her fellow "progressives." In short, Ramos found himself out of step with the Democrat base.

All the enthusiasm in the Democrat Party, including in New Mexico, is on the far Left. Just look at the result in SD 28: 4,809 to 2,970, a 62-38 crushing defeat for Ramos. Hemphill raised almost $127,000, spent about 95 grand of that, while Ramos spent almost the same amount, about $96K, after raising about $112,000. 

Funding was not the issue. It was messaging. And once it was established that Hemphill was part of the Bernie Sanders-AOC-Green New Deal-anti-Second Amendment-Abortion on Demand coalition, Ramos and his advisers could simply not match the Holguin-Hemphill team. You're either in lockstep with the modern Democrat Party, or you're not. And if you're not, well, sayonara!

While most observers are zeroing in on the JOhn Arthur Smith district (SD 35), there are a total of five seats that should be followed closely. In addition to SD 28, and SD 35, there is the Clemente Sanchez seat (SD 30), the William Tallman seat (SD 18), and the John Sapien seat (SD 9). All of those should be won by the Republican candidates PROVIDED there are competent campaigns and sufficient funding. 

Senate District 28 Poll and General Election Outlook

In Senate District 28, the Republicans have nominated James "Jimbo" Williams to face the Democrat nominee Siah Correa Hemphill. Here is a poll we have come across from less than two weeks ago. It was conducted by Remington Research Group out of Kansas City. It is a nationally reputable polling firm, which, incidentally, was the earliest to predict that Trump would win Ohio in 2016.

The poll surveyed 422 likely general election voters in Senate District 28.

Q1: What is your opinion of Michelle Lujan Grisham?

Favorable: 50%  Unfavorable: 38%  No opinion: 12%

Q2: What is your opinion of James Williams?

Favorable: 23%  Unfavorable: 15%  No opinion: 62%

Q3: What is your opinion of Siah Correa Hemphill?

Favorable: 31%  Unfavorable: 26%  No opinion: 43%

Q4: For whom would you vote for President if the election were held today?

Donald Trump: 42%  Joe Biden: 52%  Undecided: 6%

Q5: In Senate District 28, the candidates are Republican James Williams and Democrat Siah Correa Hemphill. If the election were held today, for whom would you vote?

James Williams: 42%  Siah Correa Hemphill: 42%   Undecided: 16%

The survey was conducted from August 26 through August 28, 2020. 422 likely General Election voters participated in the survey. Survey weighted to match the expected turnout universe for the 2020 General Election. The Margin of Error is +/-4.9% with the normal 95% level of confidence.

This was the initial baseline poll. It was not a "push poll," or one in which descriptions of the candidates were used to influence the voters' responses. Those facts being the case, the results show that Hemphill is surprisingly weak, running a net 10 points behind Biden. 

Hemphill does have the advantage of being from Silver City, so she's a resident of Grant County, which has 61% of the voting power in the district. Williams has a disadvantage, at least on paper, of being from a much smaller community. He is from Quemado (population 228) which is in Catron County, which has only 10% of the voters in the district.

Still, Hemphill is on the extreme Left of both the Democrat Party. She identifies with entities like Antifa and Black Lives Matter that are the engines of the nationwide riot and looting culture. She has changed her tune in the wake of the primary—with the addition of both independent and Republican voters now in the general election mix.

With Ramos out of the way, Hemphill has removed all of the hard Left rhetoric from her personal appearances, campaign literature, and social media postings. She is going to try to win the general election as a "moderate," something she is decidedly not.

How much the traditional New Mexico Democrats will be put off by her actual political leanings is unknown. But there could be considerable resentment of the kind of campaign she ran in the primary. And the traditional moderate base of the New Mexico Democrat Party, which has been largely Hispanic, may harbor some resentment toward yet another outsider largely supported by outsiders in Silver City (people who have moved in from California and elsewhere over the past 15 years or so) trying to take over the party.

In any case, the results of the poll should be very encouraging for the GOP.

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

A guest op-ed by Former New Mexico Lieutenant Governor John Sanchez

On a picturesque summer day in July, I stood alongside President Trump as he signed the White House Hispanic Prosperity Initiative. The Executive Order is particularly important to me. I have had the good fortune of living the American Dream and now, thanks to President Trump’s leadership, future generations will have an opportunity to accomplish whatever they set their minds to.

Prosperity has been the bedrock of the Trump Administration and the results were clear at the start of the year and as we approach the next phase of the Great American Comeback. In June alone, New Mexico added 26,300 new jobs. Before the Coronavirus Pandemic, New Mexico saw an addition of 40,000 new jobs, 9,600 construction jobs, and 3,000 manufacturing jobs as a result of the Trump administration.

Now, compare this with the track record of the Obama-Biden Administration and the campaign promises of a Biden-Harris ticket. Under the economic direction of the Obama-Biden Administration, New Mexico lost 8,500 construction jobs and 5,700 manufacturing jobs. The average unemployment rate in the state during the Obama-Biden Administration was 7.1 percent.

So, despite our legislative efforts and accomplishments, we found ourselves beholden and subject to the big government model preferred by Democrats in Washington.

New Mexico is now a top 10 energy producer in America thanks to President Trump’s deregulatory agenda. Fossil fuels support over 90,000 jobs in our state, contributing about $13 billion to our economy over the past four years. Our oil and natural gas boom have revived our state’s budget, too. Schools benefited from the record $2.2 billion in oil and natural gas tax revenues.

(It must also be noted that this is, in large part, thanks to the administration of former Governor Susana Martinez, in which Sanchez served as lieutenant governor.)

Joe Biden—Despite his Record—is Still Peddling Bad Public Policy

Even with an abhorrent track record in Washington, Joe Biden is trying to pitch New Mexicans again this November. What’s worse is that he’s adopted policies that are popular among social circles in San Francisco and New York City but have no place in the actual livelihoods of New Mexicans. Biden and Harris want to repeal President Trump’s tax cuts; making New Mexicans return the $1,391 they were able to pocket thanks to tax reform.

And Joe Biden has locked arms with an unfeasible energy agenda. Banning fracking would cost New Mexico 142,000 jobs and $86 billion in economic activity by 2025. Outside the energy industry, New Mexico households would also feel the sting of a Biden-Harris energy plan. Cost of living would increase by $5,790 per person while household incomes would drop due to a burdensome government. The ramifications of a liberal agenda would have very real, and very detrimental, consequences throughout the state.

Upward mobility is a cornerstone of America’s promise. As a young boy who grew up in abject poverty, I understand the challenges facing all families, especially Hispanic families in this country. Our household of eight children was held together by my mother — a single mother. Her leadership, devotion, and sacrifice toward our personal improvement made me the man I am. It’s also what makes me so passionate about working with President Trump to improve the lives and wellbeing of New Mexicans.

John Sanchez served as the 29th Lieutenant Governor of New Mexico from 2011-2019. He serves as a commissioner on President Trump’s Hispanic Prosperity Initiative.

Democrats are at it again—and especially the increasingly aggressively phony Democrat women "spokespersons"— who drone on about how much they now "hate" all Republicans, all conservatives, everyone who doesn't accept Black Lives Matter, Antifa, or Joe Biden. They are all at it again today—lying their butts off. 

This time it's about the 19th Amendment, the constitutional change ratified 100 years ago today that guaranteed women the right to vote everywhere in America. (At least 19 states already had some form of women's suffrage, and about a dozen states provided full suffrage for women.)

Why are they Lying to You? Because Democrats OPPOSED it!

That's right, if it were up to the Democratic Party, women would not have won the right to vote everywhere. It would have been left to the states. Before the states could begin ratifying the proposed amendment, it had to pass both the US House and the US Senate by two-thirds majorities in each.

The House vote in May of 2019, was 304 to 89. But by party it was like this: Republicans voted  200 to 19 to pass the amendment, or 91% in favor. Democrats voted 102 to 70, meaning that if it had been solely up to the Democrats the amendment would have received only 59% support, well below the nearly 67% required for passage.

In the US Senate, the Democrats did even worse. They voted "in favor" of the resolution by only a 19 to 18 vote. The Republican support was overwhelming 37 to 7. When both parties' votes were combined, the result was a 56-25 victory for women's suffrage, over two percentage points more than required to send the proposal to the states.

But it was no thanks to the Democrat Party. 

Just FYI. Don't let them fool you. 

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

Photos and story by Gerald A. Loeb, Freelance Journalist. (Facebook: Jerry Loeb)

In Albuquerque this past Sunday, forty hired thugs from the Black Lives Matter Movement verbally bullied and attacked legitimate peaceful counter-protestors who were merely waving American flags at a contentious demonstration at the Downtown Civic Plaza.

BLM slogans were scrawled  on the Plaza with different colored chalk, producing such gems as,

“Mask it or Casket,” “If you don’t wear a mask, you are the virus,” and “If all  lives matter, put on your mask.”

“We are here to show that we are not afraid of the fascist cops,” screamed one BLM speaker, who was virtually incoherent behind her mask.

At the same time, less than two dozen peaceful protestors for the Unmaskers waved a few American flags and talked quietly among themselves. They were on the northeast side of the Plaza, and well distant from the BLM crowd.

I interviewed some of them. One of the Unmaskers, Matt K., stated:

“I think that people with medical conditions such as asthma or PTSD should not wear masks. It simply deprives people of oxygen.”

Another Unmasker, Vanessa Q, said:

“I’m here at the risk of losing my job. The hospitality industry may never recover from this crisis.” 

 U.S. Army veteran Teil Plont was succinct on his attendance as an Unmasker:

“Look at the Bible in Luke 10, 1-11. I choose the Lord over men.”

The Unmaskers were briefed by a police sergeant who told them a City Ordinance ordered by Mayor Tim Keller prohibited guns in a designated “demonstration area,” and violators would be cited.

Approximately twenty minutes after the Unmaskers arrived, the BLM protestors wheeled their group west to deliberately and verbally attack the Unmaskers. Albuquerque Police Officers enforced the law and stood between two groups.

“Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter,” chanted some of the more frenzied BLM operatives.

“All Lives Matter. All Lives Matter,” responded the Unmaskers.

“Maybe you are in the wrong place,” shouted one BLM protestor at one Unmasker, adding “Maybe I should kick your ass.”

“Maybe you’ll wind up on Youtube. Or in jail,” came the response.

The cops, apparently choosing sides, then firmly asked the Unmaskers leave and move two blocks north, which they did. That did not stop the bellowing BLM from taking a position at the end of the Plaza and screaming epithets like spoiled children.

One female BLM swung her fist at an older man waving an American flag. The police quickly moved in and tear-gassed her into a stupor, but she was not arrested or cited.

(According to a later Tweet sent by the Albuquerque Police Department, “Three armed individuals—one from the protesting group and two from the opposing group – were briefly detained after they refused to disarm. Guns are banned at Civic Plaza.”)

One person I interviewed, an Unmasker who was one of the ones cited, said he was legally carrying his pistol in a holster while at the edge of the Plaza when he was apprehended by APD and led away from the scene. The officers told him he would be cited for a misdemeanor and gave him a paper-sized citation.

The scene was best summed up by Kim F., who said of the Black Lives Matter miscreants:

“I kinda felt like they really didn’t care. We have to be (normal) people and just live okay, but they (the Left) are coming after everything.”

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

The Pizza Inn in Carlsbad has refused to commit financial suicide by shutting down. So in retaliation, Grisham has her Secretary of the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions issue an edict:

”New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions Extends Unemployment to all Pizza Inn Employees in Hobbs and Carlsbad Who Leave Employment Due to Safety Concerns.”

A Biden Administration? The St. Louis City Prosecutor is a harbinger of things to come.

If you wonder how life will change in a Biden Administration, the actions of the prosecutor in the City of St. Louis, Missouri serve as a great example: Rioters, or a mob—provided it is rioting or looting on behalf of a leftist cause, Democrats, BLM, Antifa—will have protection. Meanwhile, homeowners who seek to protect their own lives or property will be prosecuted.

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

On Tuesday, September 25, 2018, a group of wannabe #MeToo-ers, who wrote styling their prose as being "by New Mexico Democrats," published a scathing attack on Supreme Court nominee and on then-US Senate nominee, Republican Mick Rich.

They titled their condescending missive as "Mick Rich's Comments on Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford Show a Callous Disregard for Sexual Assault Survivors Everywhere."

Of course now we know that there is not a single shred of evidence to support a single allegation by Blasey Ford. She did put on a show, initially winning over lots of people with her testimony in which she adopted the voice and sound of a 6-year-old girl, not to mention all kinds of cheap and poorly performed histrionics that led one to believe she was waiting to be told when to do what by some off-stage parent or guardian.

But it has all fallen apart as not a single person—including close friends and even her own father—has been willing to back up anything she has said. In short, it was a repeat performance of the Anita Hill travesty in that it was orchestrated by Democrats and special interest groups willing to go to any lengths at all to stop a textualist (actually just someone who just reads the law rather than makes up stuff) from becoming a supreme court justice. 

Here is What the 65 Democrats Said Two Years Ago

"The reality is that our culture of rejecting sexual assault claims will continue as long as people who are in positions of power use their perches to first blame survivors, cast aspersions on their credibility and character, and minimize the trauma they have experienced.

"That’s why we take Rich’s comments as more than just hurtful and wrong. He used his platform to undermine survivors everywhere, and to remind those who have committed these acts that there are any number of excuses they can use to explain why their actions don’t count, and their crimes don’t matter.

"We ask that Mick Rich not just issue an apology, but to articulate that he understands the severity of his words, and that in the future he will support survivors rather than contributing to their silence. We believe that anything short of this disqualifies Mick Rich from representing the people of New Mexico."

We certainly hope Mr. Rich did not apologize. To our knowledge, he said nothing wrong. And nothing has ever come to light that even begins to corroborate any of Blasey Ford's statements, let alone support her evil and conscienceless accusations of an innocent man, motivated purely by the most cynical and amoral political prejudice.

So Here's Our Question

So now that public legal records reveal that Virginia Giuffre has testified that both the late Jeffrey Epstein and his socialite accomplice, the now-jailed Ghislaine Maxwell, directed her to have sex with former New Mexico Governor, and celebrity Democrat, Bill Richardson, here is our question:

Will the same 65 New Mexico Democrats sign a similar letter condemning Richardson? 

After all, the existing evidence regarding Richardson is obviously infinitely more compelling than the zero-evidence egg laid by wannabe 6-year-old Blasey Ford—who promptly went back to talking in a normal tone of voice when her "show" was over.

Here are the 65 New Mexico Democrat Wizards, Rocket Scientists, Masterminds, and Mental Giants 

This is how they signed their "sincere" letter concerning Kavanaugh and Mick Rich:

Signed by

U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich
Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham, Democratic candidate for Governor
Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver
Speaker Brian Egolf
Senate Majority Whip Mimi Stewart
Senator Howie Morales
Rep. Debbie Armstrong
Rep. Gail Chasey
Rep. Liz Thomson
Rep. Nathan Small
Rep. Patricia Roybal Caballero
Rep. Javier Martinez
Rep. Angelica Rubio
Rep. Matthew McQueen
Bernalillo County Assessor Tanya Giddings
Bernalillo County Commissioner Maggie Hart Stebbins
Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller
Former New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid
Deb Haaland, Candidate N.M. Congressional District 1
Xochitl Torres Small, Candidate N.M. Congressional District 2
Brian Colon, Candidate for State Auditor
Joy Garratt, Candidate N.M. House 29
Abbas Ahkil, Candidate N.M. House 20
Andrea Romero, Candidate N.M. House 46
Rep. Stephanie Garcia Richard, Democratic candidate for Land Commissioner
Former U.S. Senator Fred Harris
Marg Elliston, Chair of the Democratic Party of New Mexico
Joe Kabourek, Executive Director of the Democratic Party of New Mexico
Dr. Ellen Bernstein, President, Albuquerque Teachers Federation
Kathy Chavez, AFT National Vice President; AFT NM Executive Vice President; President, Albuquerque Educational Assistants & Transportation Workers Association
Stephanie Ly, President, AFT New Mexico
Neri Holguin
Caroline Buerkle
Natasha Ning
Drew Setter
James Jimenez
Alicia Manzano
Felicia Salazar
Justine Freeman
Sharon Miner
Jessie Lane Hunt
Heather Brewer
Melanie Aranda
Rachael Lorenzo
Joan Lamunyon Sanford
Theresa Trujeque
Deanna Archuleta
Jennifer Ford
Oriana Sandoval
Amber Walin
Sarita Nair
Reena Szczepanski
Garrett VeneKlasen
Marsha Garcia
Anathea Chino
Marianna Anaya
Pamelya Herndon
Indigenous Women Rising
Southwest Women’s Law Center
AFSCME Council 18
Equality New Mexico
Brava Media New Mexico
New Mexico Asian Family Center
University of New Mexico College Democrats
New Mexico Federation of Labor

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

Over the 4th of July weekend, five New Mexico State Police officers were patrolling Brantley Lake State Park. The state park is located 12 miles north of Carlsbad.

Were they looking for suspects in recent crimes committed in Carlsbad or Eddy County?

All boating traffic was being stopped and inspected by state park personnel, but state police were taking extra measures.

All vehicles with Texas license plates (or any other of state license plate) were told they could not put their boat in the lake and were told to leave.

If by chance the driver had a New Mexico driver's license to show that he or she was a resident, that person may have been allowed to go into the lake.

One oilfield worker who has been living in Carlsbad since last year argued with the police, saying he had come to this lake nearly every week since March. After a long, somewhat heated argument, he was turned away, told he had to leave the park.

Several people went to nearby Champion Bay, which is part of the extended lake area, but not a part of the state park. However, New Mexico State Police officers or State Park Service personnel got on jet skis, and motored over to that part of the lake and made those folks leave too.

The governor's order requires 14-days of "quarantine" if you cross state lines. We are not sure if Governor Grisham, in her home in Santa Fe, is even remotely aware of how many people live on the Texas-New Mexico border and work in the oil fields on the New Mexico side. 

Is this good policy? We don't know, but we are just making you aware of what is going on.

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

What really happened at the statue of Juan de Oñate in the early evening of Monday, June 15?

The answer is that an innocent, lone man named Steven Baca was repeatedly assaulted, threatened, surrounded, and attacked by an out-of-control, violent mob of Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and rabid anti-Hispanic Heritage vandals. 

The mainstream media, including the New York Times (which showed an edited, false video) and even local Albuquerque media refuse to show what really happened. We will show you. Right here: https://youtu.be/Ufg46i4wTDc

The crowd consisted of between 75 and 100 rioters. Surrounding an attacking ONE man.

Finally, after they had shoved him to the ground and beaten him, one of them (possibly more) pulled a knife and lunged forward at Baca.

The crowd can clearly be heard shouting:

"He's a cop. (He isn't.) Get his license plate. Get the fuck out. Kill him. We'll fucking kill you."

Baca fired in self-defense, as is backed up by the police report written by the Albuquerque Police Department.

One of the bragging leaders of this wildness, and someone who claims credit for inciting young, immature youths, is none other than Moisés Gonzales, whom the University of New Mexico has apparently hired to be its representative "scholar."

Gonzales, who now styles himself "Moisés Brady," is a well-known cyberbully, who regularly doxes anyone who disagrees with him. One observer noted:

"The state police should investigate UNM associate professor Moises Gonzales and what he did to incite today’s violence over the Oñate statue. He has been stirring up young, impressionable kids & should be held responsible for the part he played in today’s altercation."

Mainstream Media, the Democrat Party, and Many Virtue-Signalling Airheads

Will Tell you the Shooting was NOT Justified. 

Yes, we have reached a level of lunacy in our nation right now. Over the past month, otherwise normal and previously intelligent people on social media are increasingly bragging about donating to Black Lives Matter and other domestic terrorist groups. 

The Democratic Party of New Mexico and all of their New Mexico elected officials are caught up in the "rage" and the lawlessness, justifying vandalism and riot at every turn.

Mayor Keller was reported to be "furious" with the contents of the APD report on the shooting and wanted the investigation turned over to the New Mexico State Police, supposedly because he believes they are "under the thumb" of Governor Lujan-Grisham, who is a strong advocate for both BLM, and Antifa.

It is unclear how the NMSP can "undo" the existing police report, however.

New Mexico Democrats are "Vendidos"

Grisham is what the Hispanic community calls a "vendido" (or in her case, "vendida") meaning she has sold out her heritage for the "30 pieces of silver" temptations and political rewards provided by the "progressives" and outsiders, mainly from the east and west coasts, who now dominate the Democratic Party of New Mexico.

They nominated her for governor. They persuaded a large majority of New Mexicans to elect her. Meanwhile the state is filled with "mansos."

Dozens of Hispanic elected officials are vendidos. And the overwhelming majority of those in the state legislature are complete sell-outs.

Outsider Democrats have taken over entire cities and locales—most famously the City of Santa Fe, which is now dominated by an adult migrant Anglo population, mainly from the east and west coasts. They have transformed almost every aspect of the life and culture of the city.

They elected an outsider mayor, Alan Webber, who has no regard for the state's history and is especially disdainful of the city and state's Hispanic heritage. Two years ago, he pressured a meek and cowed group of "Hispanic leaders" into abandoning century-old traditions surrounding the annual Fiestas de Santa Fe.

We don't really know which is more shameful, Webber's grotesque ignorance and condescending demands to discourage any celebration of Hispanic heritage or the so-called Hispanic community leaders' meek and child-like acquiescence to his pressure.

Neither they nor Webber will ever earn any kind of recognition similar to a "profile in courage."

Webber is now totally emboldened. He is essentially just like rioters and looters around the nation who are merely "watched" by the police. They can do as they please. And Webber can do as he pleases. 

Last week, he had the statue of Don Diego de Vargas hauled out of the Plaza. We expect all statuary to any Hispanic settler or leader to be gone soon. Perhaps he will bulldoze the Plaza. After all, the Spanish built it. Maybe he will stop the selling of "Indian jewelry." After all, the Indians learned the art of silversmithing from the Spanish.

Keller, who is only nominally New Mexican is also a leading vendido. He is following the same approach as Webber: If the populace is meek, ignorant, compliant, and shows no resistance to their new personally-imposed "culture," then both he and Webber and Grisham will transform the state into a BLM, Antifa paradise.

If New Mexicans remain complacent, the will wake up someday soon and our state will be completely California-ized. We can expect human feces on our streets and sidewalks.

And our community values will make us look like Massachusetts-West. If that is what the majority wants, well, then we deserve it.

But be forewarned. Realize that the recent assaults on religious liberty and the highly selective prosecutions of stores, gun shops, and only certain specifically picked-out, targeted restaurants and businesses will become the norm.

And New Mexicans will have allowed it to happen to themselves.

People are Showing Support for Steven Baca

We don't know Steven Baca. But we do believe in the right of self-defense. With Mayor Keller and Governor Grisham hyped up on BLM amphetamines, it is likely they will try to pressure authorities to harass him with some sort of trumped-up charges.

We have learned that a site has been set up to donate to his cause. It can be found here: https://fundly.com/stand-with-steven-baca

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

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.