Dendahl's Letter to the Governor

September 29, 2006

By U.S. Mail and facsimile to 505-982-3652

The Hon. Bill Richardson
Bill Richardson for Governor 2006
811 St. Michael's Drive Ste. 206
Santa Fe, NM 87505

Dear Bill:

Re: Debate challenge

The last incumbent New Mexico governor to have his re-election challenged was Gary Johnson. The year was 1998, the challenger was Martin Chavez, and they held dozens of debates. At the time, Chavez already had under his belt more years of experience in public office than had Johnson. Nonetheless, Johnson's graciousness with respect to debates with his challenger did not prevent his winning re-election handily.

I find it astonishing that a man of your experience - some 24 years in public office - apparently quakes in fear of debating a man who has never held elective office.

Going into this campaign, I had hoped we would have several debates as I believed that to be in the citizens' best interests. When you were reported recently to have agreed for the first time to debate, the report included your statement that one would be enough. In view of the extensive media earned by your bobbing and weaving over the format and press coverage to be allowed, I now concede one would, indeed, be enough - the television audience should be enormous just on curiosity alone.

When Congregation Albert commenced arranging the one debate, I stated two conditions: that it be televised in full and that you and I appear at our respective podia unaided by written material, etc. Your response was that neither condition was acceptable. I then backed away from the second. I now take that concession off the table. You (actually one of your myriad spokespersons) have been quoted boasting about "a list of accomplishments 10 miles long," accompanied by a statement disparaging me as having none. Surely the man picturing himself on the 10-miles-long side of that disparity needs no notes or briefing papers in front of him to share an hour's discussion of issues important to New Mexicans.

Among reasons advanced by you against a televised debate was your not wanting to give me a hour of free television time. That ridiculous bit of lameness was later modified by adding "to tear down New Mexico," but that made it no better. I am the one in this scene who has continued a tradition of community service in New Mexico begun more than a hundred years
ago by my great grandfather. You arrived here fewer than 30 years ago for no apparent reason other than seeking public office in Washington, DC.

Excerpts from others' commentaries on this matter include:

"The governor's campaign manager, Dave Contarino, says giving Dendahl an hour of free time to tear down the state 'would do a disservice to voters.' The real disservice is not giving your boss - in this case the voters - an hour of your time to talk about a list of accomplishments '10 miles long' as well as where you want to take the state in the next four years. Besides, it would be good practice come 2008." Albuquerque Journal, 9-27-06

"This is an amazing slap in the face. Shrouding the excuse under the insulting and ridiculous reasoning that Dendahl would not be able to have a 'positive sharing of ideas,' is pure code. It exposes a culture that says our ideas are the only ideas and we don't need nor want anyone to question them for any reason. That isn't democracy. It isn't even good politicking. This is Huey Long behavior, pure and simple." Columnist Gene Grant, The Albuquerque Tribune, 9-28-06

"Richardson's camp has tried to put one of the most insulting spins on the episode. They're saying that Dendahl is too negative and that they don't want him to tear down the state. And yesterday, they said it was Dendahl who backed out of the debate by refusing to participate in something that would not be televised live so all state voters could see the two in action. The spin is a lie on Richardson's part. Channel 4 says that it was Richardson who killed the debate by steadfastly refusing to participate in a live, televised debate, or in one that would be broadcast later. And by refusing to debate Dendahl, either live on TV or anywhere else, Richardson has spit in our faces." Blogger Dennis Domrzalski, Spin Free, zalski.blogspot.com, 9-27-06.

The format for formal statements, questions and rebuttals used at Congregation Albert for the September 17 debate between Rep. Heather Wilson and her opponent is fine with me. My other two conditions - full television coverage and clean podia - remain. I look forward to hearing that you will go forward with this debate.

Sincerely,

s/ John

John Dendahl

P.S. I recognize that televised events such as debates might produce material useful to your opponents for advertising during the runup to 2008 elections. However, the interests of New Mexico voters today should not be subordinate to protecting your image and ambition for another public office.

Bye Larry

I'm sorry to see you go (subscription).

Watch Madrid's Reaction to Corruption Charges

Last weekend, I saw the streaming version of the debate that the Madrid camp put up on their website. Now I understand the reason they put up their own version. My uncut version shows each candidate reacting when the other is speaking. Their version - like radio - does not. Watch the video below and you'll see why that is so important.



EDITING NOTE: Although this segment is uncut, Madrid's apology at the end is taken out of context. This is not to say that she did not begin her rebuttal with an apology. It's just she went on to talk about something else. I chose to cut the tape at that point because I believe it's the closest New Mexicans will get to an apology for her eight years of inaction to stop public corruption.

The Line - Debate Analysis

This is the entire show from last week:



Don't miss this week's episode tonight at 7:00 p.m. on KNME Channel 5.

Duck Tales in The Land of Enchantment

My wife called me on my cell phone sometime before six tonight and asked if I had dressed in a duck suit today. I kid you not. She said, "Honey, were you dressed in a duck suit today?"

I confess. I had no idea how to respond.

A thousand questions ran through my mind? Was this a test? Is the term "duck suit" code for something? Had I promised to dress up as a duck for one of the kids' parties? I didn't think so, but I can be so forgetful sometimes.

After a pause I responded, "Um, no?" Just in case it was yet another thing I forgot to do.

"Oh good," she said.

"Phew," I thought. Then she explained... Oh never mind, you can just watch the video:

Governor Richardson's Blog

Looks like Governor Richardson has a blog now. After registering, I went ahead and posted the comment below:

Blogs and Contradictions

Governor Richardson welcome to the blogosphere. I think this is a great idea. This will make it much easier for you to stay in touch with New Mexicans while you're travelling the country pursuing your presidential goals.

Since we're using this forum to discuss issues that are important to New Mexico, I thought I might ask why it is that you have rejected any debates with your opponent John Dendahl?

Someone who doesn't know you, might misconstrue this as an attempt to undermine the democratic process and keep New Mexicans in the dark. I'm sure this can't be further from the truth.

Your campaign spokesperson indicated that you thought it would be bad for New Mexico if you were to debate Mr. Dendahl. I'm really hoping that you might expound on that further.

It seems almost counterintuitive to launch a blog to encourage public discourse at the very same time that you are stifling public debate.

I don't know if your campaign staff has told you, but since you've proven unwilling to debate John Dendahl, I've gone ahead and invited you to participate in a debate on the issues with me on KNME's The Line.

Now I realize your travel schedule is pretty fierce - what with all of those out of state fundraisers and all. But my schedule is pretty flexible and I'm sure I can get the folks at The Line to accomodate us.

I haven't heard back yet from your campaign, but I'm sure there is going to be a response tomorrow. Or maybe, you'd like to post a response here instead.

Look forward to hearing from you the next time you're in town.

Regards,

Mario

P.S. It seems you might have forgotten to include my blog on your links under the heading of "Blogs of Enchantment." I hope that doesn't mean you don't find me enchanting.

I made sure to follow the rules, so I can't imagine the Governor would delete my comment. But the bigger questions is whether or not he will respond to it.

Still No Response

I still haven't heard from Bill Richardson's campaign regarding my debate challenge. Yes, I sent them a note. I emailed my post over to campaign headquarters, and didn't even get the courtesy of a reply. In all fairness, the Richardson staff is really not all that interested in what is going on in New Mexico:

Former New Mexico Economic Development Department spokeswoman Katie Roberts left her job last week and moved to South Carolina, where she started work Monday with the South Carolina Democrats.

When the Governor bailed on any debates for New Mexico, he sent a clear message that this state just really isn't a top priority anymore in his political career. South Carolina, that's where the action is.

[South Carolina party spokeman] Norton told the Journal he understood that Roberts was in the state at the request of Richardson. Richardson's campaign manager, Amanda Cooper, didn't give a yes or no answer but gave the same answer she'll give until at least after Nov. 7:

"The governor has not made any decision as to whether he is going to do that or not,"Cooper told the Journal about a possible presidential run. "The governor is running for re-election."

Really, Ms. Cooper? Last I checked the Governor is only in the state on an infrequent basis. He seems to spend a whole lot of his time campaigning on the East Coast, so unless he figured out a way to get those people to vote in New Mexico, I would say that he is doing everything but running for re-election.

Attorney General Ignores Law Again

We all know that Attorney General Patricia Madrid has found it difficult in the past to hold her corrupt colleagues accountable to the law. We also know that her use of taxpayer money for campaign literature straddle the line of legality. Now Patricia Madrid, in cahoots with Mayor Martin Chavez, are blatantly violating federal laws regarding campaign contributions:

Hi - Mayor Martin Chavez is hosting a fundraiser for Patricia Madrid for Congress - this Wednesday, September 27 at the Kiva Auditorium (ABQ Convention Center) featuring comedian Paul Rodriguez. There is a private party with Paul before the event and also an after-show party. Prices are $ 35 - $65 for the show only and $1,000 and $300 for the show and private parties. Discounts are available (and we can offer free lower priced tickets with the purchase of the more expensive packages) If you have any interest for yourself or would like to buy tickets for associates or employees contact me by E- mail or call me at the number below.

Mark Fleisher (505) xxx-xxxx

Giving money in a federal election in the name of another is against the law, and seasoned politicians like Martin Chavez and Patricia Madrid know this. Apparently, they just don't care.

I Challenge Bill Richardson to a Debate

The Madrid campaign refused to participate in televised debates prior to early voting because of campaign strategy. They just don't think it is in their candidate's best interest to be seen by a wide audience in what all agree is one of the most competitive races in the country.

Governor Bill Richardson decided not to debate because... well... because he just didn't feel like it. According to every poll, Bill Richardson is leading John Dendahl by a large margin. Bill Richardson has millions upon millions in his campaign coffers and Dendahl doesn't even have tens of thousands.

Richardson not debating Dendahl is an affront to the political process, and it is an insult to all New Mexicans. I only hope that all living former Governors of the State of New Mexico stand up for the Democratic process and stand up for New Mexicans, by publicly letting Bill Richardson know that it is not okay to unilaterally decide to shut out New Mexicans.

I can't imagine any New Mexican not being offended by the statement made by Richardson campaign manager, Amanda Cooper:

“The governor debating at the U.N. or with a world leader for the release of a hostage is different from somebody who had made it clear that his intent is negative attacks that bring down the state,” said Richardson campaign manager Amanda Cooper.

Maybe someone should remind Ms. Cooper exactly what is going on lately at the U.N. Does she really think that John Dendahl could do worse than Hugo Chavez's recent speech at the U.N. And which "world leader" is Bill Richardson known to have debated in order to secure the release of a hostage. The last I checked Richardson had "negotiated" with a few of the world's most despised dictators - none of whom any sane person would mistake as a world leader.

Oh and one more thing, since when is an attack on Bill Richardson considered an attack on the State of New Mexico. Last I checked, they WERE NOT one in the same. I mean is it just me, or does that statement seem like something that you would expect to come out of the mouth of a spokesperson for Fidel Castro, "A negative attack on Castro is a negative attack on Cuba."

All this begs the question, who will Bill Richardson debate about the issues facing New Mexico? I know, how about me?

What do you say Richardson?

Just you and me.

Mano-a-mano.

I couldn't possibly take away points from you in the election because I'm not on the ballot. Plus, I've got a proven track record of debating in a televised forum without resorting to personal attacks that bring down the state of New Mexico.

So, how about it?

You could come on The Line and debate me. You can bring all the notes you need. I won't even have a paper and a pen. We can let Gene Grant moderate, and I'll even let you pick the topics - education, economic development, tax policy, national security, immigration. You get to pick your poison.

So, how about it Governor? Will you debate one of your constituents, or are we just not worth your time?


Update: One veteran reporter is so offended by Richardson's refusal to debate that he launched a blog. I really hope more of the media are inspired to speak out. I'm also waiting to see which of our elected politicians have the backbone to call Richardson to task.

Richardson Not Much of a Cowboy

The West has the reputation of producing some tough cowboy governors. Two of them have gone on to become President of the United States.

Neither the man to the left, nor the man to the right is known for backing down from a confrontation. Whether you agree with their actions or not, you cannot dispute the fact that they have faced their challenges head on.

Now Governor Bill Richardson, it seems, also fancies himself a bit of a cowboy. A rough and tumble character ready to take on all challenges.



The problem is, when the director yells, "Cut," Governor Richardson loses all his courage and credibility. When the script ends, so does the grit. How many self-respecting NM cowboys do you know who run away from a fight?

None? Yeah, me neither.

But that's exactly what Bill Richardson just did. John Dendahl challenged him to debate and "Sheriff Richardson" turned tail and ran. How can the Governor asks us to have faith in his abilities, when he evidently has so little faith in himself?

Then again, maybe he really does have something to be afraid of. Maybe he's worried that Mr. Dendahl might point out the real drug situation in New Mexico. Maybe he is worried that people will learn that those new jobs are desperately needed to turn around the three-year downturn in the high tech sector.Or maybe he's just skipping town to get out ahead of the posse.

Whatever his excuse, Bill Richardson is not much of a cowboy.

Union's Interest Top Priority

I just read something in the Albuquerque Journal that I find very troubling (subscription):

The American Federation of Teachers and the AFL-CIO of New Mexico endorsed Baca, partly because he has been "a consistent friend to labor," said the groups' president, Christine Trujillo.

This endorsement comes despite the fact that under the management of Pat Lyons the Land Office has delivered record revenues. Obviously, the American Federation of Teachers is putting the union's self-interest above all else including the needs of children and communities.

Gary King: Madrid's Approach Just Fine

Walk down the street and ask anyone passing by if they think that Attorney General Patricia Madrid handled the Treasurer's corruption case well, and you're bound to hear a resounding, "No Way!"

Unless the person passing by is Gary King, the Democratic Candidate for Attorney General. I kid you not. Just watch the video:



Is Gary King for real? Can he actually be so out of touch with the situation that he thinks the way Patricia Madrid handled this debacle is okay? Or worse, is he already showing his lack of independence by demonstrating that helping the Party (and Patsy) save face is more important than speaking the truth?

Watch that video again, and you'll have to agree that what Jim Bibb is saying is exactly what you and I and everyone we know is feeling. Patricia Madrid's handling of this case from beginning to end (subscription) has been nothing less than "inexcusable."

But Democrat Martinez had reason for doubt about Madrid's commitment to root out corruption and about Vigil as early as August 1999. At that time he laid out the preliminary findings of an independent review of the State Auditor's Office under Vigil.

Dennis Kennedy, an Albuquerque accountant, and Harroll Adams, a former Democratic state auditor, conducted the audit that noted at least 28 potential violations of state law.

Adams said Madrid was unreceptive to a report that indicated improprieties and possible corruption and rude to auditor Martinez. "I've never seen an elected official act the way she did," he said.

When you get ready to cast your vote for Attorney General, I hope you'll remember that Gary King thought the Madrid approach was just fine.

Friday Nights on Friday Morning

In their infinite wisdom (no, that's no sarcasm, it's brown nosing), the folks over at The Line have begun to stream the episodes on Google Video. That means if your Friday plans don't normally include sitting around and watching PBS at 7:00 p.m., you can still watch the dialogue that occurs. Something I would strongly encourage.

Today I'm posting the previous week's episode on this blog, and beginning next week, I'll post the previous week's episode every Friday morning. As always I encourage your comments and suggestions.



I'm on a trial run for the next few weeks, so if you enjoy having me as a regular panelist on the show, be sure to let the producer know. Heck, if you hate having me on the show, be sure to let the producer know.

Why Do I Blog?

This is one of the questions I always get. The other one is, "Are you making money blogging?" The answer to the latter is a resounding, "No." Yes, I have Google Adsense running, but I have yet to get a check, and when I do get a check, I will donate it to a local charity.

So, let's address the former. I blog because I believe one person can make a difference. I believed that when I was a teacher. I believed that during the five plus years I was in the not-for-profit world. I believe it when I choose to volunteer to help organizations who help those less fortunate than myself, or to serve as a positive role model for children by volunteering in their classrooms. And I believe it when I get up early in the morning to blog.

Now I know it's true.

I was troubled that Attorney General Patricia Madrid, and those advising her, felt that it was okay to avoid public discourse in the form of televised debates before the commencement of early voting. So, I set out to do something about it. I videotaped and streamed the debate.

Well, now the Madrid camp has been forced to recognize that you can run, but you can't hide. They've acknowledge that I was right. People deserve to see the debate. Albeit, they've done it with their actions, not their words.

Today, Patricia Madrid and her handlers - I imagine after much internal debate - finally decided to post Sunday's debate on their campaign website. I haven't had a chance to watch all of it as I've got this job thing that keeps getting in the way. Hopefully, they were not foolish enough to put an edited version up.

Now, maybe KRQE and KOAT can call back over to the campaign and get them to agree to televised debates before early voting starts. After all, according to the Madrid camp, she just knocks the socks of Heather.

Don't forget you can watch me on KOB-TV's Eye on New Mexico on Sunday morning, and tonight at 7:00 p.m. on KNME's The Line.

Out of Touch With the Landscape

The Albuquerque Journal has an article today (subscription) about a new Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) ad that shows the DCCC is out of touch with the New Mexico landscape in more ways than one. First you've got this faux pa:

Their high-dollar ad in New Mexico's 1st Congressional District features dozens of saguaro cactuses, which don't grow in New Mexico and have long been a thorn in the side of New Mexico purists who know better.

And if that weren't bad enough, the ad is about:

The DCCC ad, which was not paid for or prepared by the Madrid camp, says Wilson last year voted for a Bush-backed energy bill that contains billions in tax breaks for energy companies.

Now, I've written before about how ridiculous it is for the Democrats to criticize Wilson's support of this bill, but let me add another interesting nugget of information. The bill in question was supported by every member of the New Mexico Congressional delegation.

That's worth repeating, every member of the NM delegation voted for it - including the ultra-liberal Mr. Udall. So, I don't understand how the Madrid campaign, or the DCCC can continue to try and make this an issue.

Now to change gears...

I hope you'll tune into KNME's The Line tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. We'll be showing excerpts from my bootleg videotape of the Wilson/Madrid debate and analyzing it. If you miss the 7:00 p.m. showing, you can catch it at 6:30 a.m. on Sunday morning. You'll also be able to catch me on Sunday morning at 10:30 a.m. on KOBTV's Eye on New Mexico discussing the streaming version of the debate. Make sure to email this post out to your family and friends to encourage them to tune in.

Maybe Its Not Such a Pretty Picture

Within minutes - literally minutes - of the completion of the debate at Congregation Albert between Congresswoman Heather Wilson and Attorney General Patricia, Madrid supporters were handing out press releases declaring Patsy the winner.

Ok, I guess that's just politics.

However, what I don't understand is that if they are so confident that she was the clear victor, why haven't they provided their supporters with a link to the video of the debate? They have no problem telling them about the radio broadcast, but they don't seem to want anyone to see the actual video footage. Madrid friendly sites print excerpts of her closing statements, but don't provide a link to the video footage.

I mean, this was a clear Madrid victory, right?

But Madrid's camp claimed victory, and spokeswoman Heather Brewer welcomed Burgos' posting because she said it makes Wilson look bad and highlights her unpopular positions on the war in Iraq and energy prices. ``Why would he want to put that up there?'' Brewer said.

So, what's the harm in watching a bootleg video? You'd think Patsy fans all over the state would be having streaming parties, so they could watch Patricia Madrid in all her glory cutting Heather Wilson down to size.

Maybe I'm the problem. Maybe they just didn't want to link to me - no sense in helping promote the right wing propaganda machine, right? Of course, that leaves you wondering why they didn't just link straight to the Google Video site? Maybe they just couldn't figure out the link. So, let me give it to them:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=313765726119270073&pr=goog-sl&hl=en

Now, if they still don't link to it, I guess we can only conclude that the "Madrid Victory" isn't quite the pretty picture they're all trying to paint it to be.

He Wasn't Even There

It was the hottest political debate of the season. People lining up outside and flowing into the street early in the morning for a chance at a seat. Friends calling friends and asking, "Do you have an extra reservation?" State Legislators forced to stand in line with everyone else if they wanted to get in - no special treatment for anyone. That's right, I'm talking about the debate between Congresswoman Heather Wilson and Attorney General Madrid.

By all accounts, it was a must see event, and everyone has a different view on what went down. However, when we all look back, the biggest loser of the whole day will be Joe Monahan's credibility. No longer can he claim to be a straight talking, unbiased New Mexico political analyst. Consider this:

1) The day after the event, Monahan "reports" on the event as though he had been there. He gave no indication that the information was coming to him from his often referenced "alligators."

2) He gives kudos to Patricia Madrid for a supposed "zinger" which he conveniently takes from her effort to dodge her past drug use and repositions to lighten the fact that she refuses to distance herself from the anti-Semitic Rev. Al Sharpton.

3) He silently and without acknowledging it yesterday, edits his blog to hide the misinformation he had previously disseminated.

4) Today he posts:

Veteran ABQ writer Gene Grant blogs in with a correction on our coverage of the Madrid-Wilson Sunday face-off. He notes that Madrid's statement: (paraphrased) "Is that supposed to be the line that kills my campaign?" did not come, as we blogged and our early morning readers saw, in response to Wilson's question about the Rev. Al Sharpton, but to a question about drug use. TV coverage we heard seemed to indicate otherwise...

That's right, the man with the "inside line" to everything political in New Mexico came up with his indepth political analysis by watching the evening news. He didn't even have enough decency in the process to check out the whole debate which is streaming on this site before making his "political analysis."

If he had, Monahan would have realized how ridiculous it was to put the pictures he chose to represent Heather and Patsy on his site. Watch the first few minutes of the candidates on stage, and you'll see:

1. Patsy licking her fingers
2. Doing weird things with her tongue (cotton mouth?)
   
3. Looking down to see if her stool is showing
4. Primping her hair
   

All the while, you'll see Heather Wilson standing poised and relaxed next to her. I point this out, not to make fun of Mrs. Madrid's numerous tics, but to illustrate that Monahan had to go to extreme measures to choose pictures from the event that were complimentary of Patsy and not of Heather.

But hey, I guess whatever makes the boss happy.

Complete Wilson Madrid Debate - Uncut

Update: A lot of new readers are landing here today after doing a Google search. My guess is most of you are looking for last night's debate. If so, I suggest you look at any of the following links:

Please Pay at The Door
Simple Question... For Most Folks

or if you prefer the classics:

Watch Madrid's Reaction to Corruption Charges
The Al Sharpton Question
Attorney General's Drug Use


I admit it, and I was kind of annoyed that our Attorney General, Patricia Madrid, refused to participate in televised debates with Congresswoman Heather Wilson before the commencement of early voting. Madrid's camp decided that it was in her best interest not to be seen. I think it's in the voters' best interest to see the candidates they are considering in a format that is not 100% completely scripted by high paid political consultants.

So, I took it upon myself to videotape yesterday morning's debate at Congregation Albert. I've already posted two of the exchanges, and now I'm proud to stream the entire debate uncut. This is what the internet is all about.

I hope everyone who watches will leave a comment, so a truly constructive dialogue may take place before we cast our vote.

The Al Sharpton Question

A couple of days ago, I pointed out that one self-proclaimed "independent" blogger is firmly rooted in the camp of Patricia Madrid. Mr. Monahan's post-debate analysis proves this beyond a reasonable doubt, check it out here:

In a moment that told us more about where this campaign stands than any other, Heather trotted out the race card, saying the controversial Reverend Al Sharpton is coming to ABQ for an event with the black community.

"Sharpton is a racist, anti-Semitic, rabble rouser. So what I want to know is why doesn't it bother you to stand next to him when he endorses your candidacy for the Congress?" Wilson demanded of Madrid.

Madrid got off a good one liner on that one. "Is this the question that is supposed to kill the campaign?" The audience, mainly Jewish members of Congregation Albert, laughed heartily. And she followed up: "I will stand by any black member of this state...I intend to go to Washington to try and do right by them which is better than you've done, Ms. Wilson."

Now I understand another reason that the Madrid camp did not want to have the debate televised. They were counting on the ability of their spin doctors, like Joe Monahan, to alter what was said and when it was said to put Patricia Madrid in a better light.

Luckily for all, I've got the video.


Now, you tell me if you agree with Mr. Monahan's assessment. You probably noticed right away that the one liner that so impressed Mr. Monahan, "Is this the question that is supposed to kill the campaign?" does not actually occur in this exchange. But hey, Joe's never let the truth get in his way before. The one liner occured with regard to Patricia Madrid's past drug use. I guess there are just multiple issues that could kill the campaign, but I digress.

As near as I can tell, Patricia Madrid is lying about her awareness that Al Sharpton is the scheduled keynote speaker, just like she lied about ignoring the letters and news reports pleading for her to investigate the rampant corruption that has plagued our state.

Moreover, in the video exchange above, you will see that it is Patricia Madrid, not Heather Wilson, who attempts to turn this into a race issue. Heather asked, how can you be willing to align yourself with a man who has such a long history of trying to increase racial divide? And Patsy, responds by trying to paint Heather as ignoring the African-American community. Talk about playing a race card.

One final personal note. I'm a Jew born in New York. I attended New York University from 1987 until 1991. I remember very vividly the active role the Rev. Al Sharpton took in trying to cause racial strife during that time, first with Tawana Brawley and then with the Crown Heights Riots. I find it personally offensive that Patricia Madrid should refuse in her answer to reject the Rev. Al Sharpton. Instead, given a one minute rebuttal time, all she can say is "Again, he has not endorsed my candidacy."

Attorney General's Drug Use

This morning Attorney General Patricia Madrid and Congresswoman Heather Wilson debated in front of a packed room at Congregation Albert. As you will recall from past news reports, the Madrid camp has done everything in their power to avoid participating in televised debates.

Why? Well, one reason is that they probably thought it would look pretty bad for New Mexico's top law enforcement officer to be seen on television making light of her past drug use. Click on the link below to see what I'm talking about:




Stay tuned for more video footage from the debate that Patricia Madrid didn't want the general voting public to see.

See the Debate

In case you haven't heard, I'll be a regular panelist on KNME's The Line for at least the next four weeks. After the cameras went off, panelist Whitney Cheshire, AKA the Wednesday Morning Quarterback, turned to me and said, "Geez, you almost make me look like a Democrat." If you want to see the debate that caused this statement, you'll have to tune in.

And yes, we did talk about Mayor Martin Chavez' desire to put $125 million of taxpayer money on the line to fix his Arena Envy problem. It seems the Mayor really wants to get a big one, no matter whose property rights he has to trample.

Make sure to catch the heated debate on The Line tonight at 7:00 p.m. or on Sunday morning at 6:30 a.m.

Speaking of heated debates on Sunday morning, you still have a chance to watch - live and in person - the heated debate that Patricia Madrid was terrified of having televised for all to see.

THERE IS LIMITED SPACE AVAILABLE at Congregation Albert, located on Louisiana south of Montgomery. You'll have to show up as early as you deem appropriate, as the Temple is no longer taking reservations. The drill is arrive EARLY, get in line, wait in line and if you gain admittance be ready to pay your $5 at the door.

This is first come, first serve, and Madrid's people, used to sleeping outside for concert tickets, will likely show up early. Please come early to ensure yourself a seat.

Take 1% off the Top

On September 19th, there is a General Obligation Bond vote for Albuquerque Public Schools. I encourage everyone to go out and vote. You can check out the APS position on this by going here. I specifically encourage you to click on the project list and download the PDF.

If you do, I think you'll be as surprised as I was to see this item:

State Mandated Chart of Account System..............$3,800,000

Think about that. Regardless of how you feel about APS' track record to date, this is pretty amusing. The state had about a billion dollar surplus last year, and they passed an unfunded mandate that will slice off more than 1% of the bond money right off the top.

These are the same people who complain that No Child Left Behind is an unfunded mandate. The same people who can afford to build trains and spaceports. The same people who line item veto desperately needed repairs for an APS High School.

To put this $3.8 million amount in perspective, consider that it would have covered more than a third of the cost to build a new elementary school on the Westside.

Don't forget to vote.

Who Pays the Bill?

The beauty of the blogosphere is that you can read a myriad of opinions on any number of topics. The problem is that not everyone is upfront about where their allegiances lie. For example, take New Mexico's self-proclaimed "home of Campaign 06', featuring exclusive coverage and New Mexico's most experienced political analysts." This is a site whose owner claims to be nothing more than an unbiased analyst. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Don't believe me. Well, let's take look together at the most recent "unbiased analysis:"

Asked why she went ahead and voted to authorize the war when she was skeptical of the intelligence, [Heather Wilson] said because "CIA Director Tenet did assure us he had a "high degree of confidence" that Iraq was developing biological weapons."

That sounds like a co-ordinated Republican response, as Vice-President Cheney also recently pointed the finger at the now long-gone CIA director.

Hold the presses. Does that last sentence sound like an unbiased political analysis to you? It sure as heck DOESN'T sound like one to me. No, it sounds more like the type of response I'd expect from someone firmly planted in Madrid's camp. See an unbiased analysis would not have tried to tie Wilson's response to the administration - a campaign tactic of the Madrid campaign. If Mr. Monahan didn't have an ulterior motive, he might have placed Congresswoman Wilson's response in the context of the general feeling - even among the most liberal Democrats - at the time regarding Iraq WMD capabilities.

To make matters worse, Mr. Monahan tries to position the Congresswoman's straight answer to a straight question as political maneuvering in response to the polls. All of this leaves one to wonder, what is Joe Monahan's hidden agenda? What motivates him?

Well, the answer is simple. Money.

Mr. Monahan has long been employed by Stan Fulton. Stan Fulton is Patricia Madrid's largest individual donor - not surprising as Madrid has already proven to be a sound investment for him. It is a widely accepted fact that Mr. Fulton is known to expect performance for his significant investments. So, I guess it's no surprise that the "home of Campaign 06" is only to happy to oblige again and again.

About this Sudan Thing

I've been thinking a lot about the Governor's trip to Sudan to rescue the reporter. On face value, it's great. If someone I cared about was being held captive in a foreign country, I'd love for my Governor to borrow a private jet (hmm, what was wrong with the $5 million one he had the state buy) and whisk down to the third world country and bring home my loved one.

However, something about how all of this went down just doesn't feel right. Just look at the timeline from the Governor's press release:

It was Salopek's wife Linda and Chicago Tribune Editor-in-Chief Ann Marie Lipinski who first appealed to Governor Richardson for help. Following that request, the Governor met last week with Sudan's Ambassador to the United States, Khadir Haroun Ahmed, in Washington, DC, to discuss Salopek's detainment. This week the Sudanese government formally invited Governor Richardson to travel to Sudan and meet with President Al-Bashir. Linda will accompany the Governor on the trip to Khartoum.

According to this, the real negotiation took place the week before September 6th in Washington D.C. I can't find the press releases that announced the Governor was going to Washington D.C. to meet with the Ambassador and secure the release of Mr. Salopek. Which leads me to believe, that the Governor's press machine did not start going into overdrive until he already knew this was a done deal.

Yesterday, we remembered 9/11, and we celebrated the sacrifice of those heroes who gave their lives without any thought to celebrity or how to best maximize press coverage. The actions of true American heroes on 9/11 serves as a reminder that everyday brave men and women do their job in this country and abroad in the interest of protecting our lives without seeking any fanfare.

Consider this stark contrast with the recent actions of Governor Richardson. The Governor managed to turn what should have been a noble effort into a media circus in order to once again forward his own agenda. So much for selfless acts.

Whose Vote Counts?

Former Deputy Executive Director of the Democratic Party, Gideon Elliot, has a few words regarding this past weekend's "election" of Hector Balderas to the unopen seat currently held by Jeff Armijo.

Judicial Special Report

Heath Haussaman has a special report on New Mexico judges this week that promises to be a must read for political junkies.

Earned A Chuckle

Julia Goldberg gets credit for the best line of the week on Bill Richardson's handling of the Jeff Armijo fiasco:

Also, how come Richardson can negotiate international hostage releases but he couldn't keep Jeff Armijo out of the state auditor's race?

Priceless.

It's Your Only Chance

Attorney General Patricia Madrid remains terrified to show up on the same stage with Congresswoman Heather Wilson in a televised debate. Since Patricia Madrid refused to participate on a KRQE/Albuquerque Tribune televised debate scheduled for September 10th, your only chance to see the pair debate the issues will be at Congregation Albert on Sunday, September 17th at 10:00 a.m.

Congregation Albert is at 3800 Louisiana Blvd. NE. Tickets for the breakfast are $8.00 for congregation members and $11 for non-members. I suggest you call 505-883-1818, ext 3023 to make a reservation.

Can't Wait to Hear the Radio Spot

Let's look at the Jeff Armijo fiasco. I still believe this guy should resign. However, the precendent setting maneuvering occurring in the Democratic Party to force his hand is deeply troubling.

I don't know what's worse. The actions coming out of Governor Richardson's office, or Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron's willingness to accept a candidate's resignation despite the fact that she never received a letter of resignation from the candidate in question. Talk about third world politics.

I can hear the radio spot now. A haunting voice narrating a creepy story:

A secret meeting... the order is delivered... and the political candidate is forced to resign. Is it the Third World? The Middle East? Eastern Europe? No - it's the New Mexico Democratic Party led by Governor Bill Richardson.

First, Richardson sets up a meeting with Democratic nominee for State Auditor, Jeff Armijo, and his father.

Richardson tells Armijo to pull out of the race.

Within hours Armijo is supposed to be gone and State Representative Hector Balderas is only days away from being the Democratic candidate for State Auditor.

Forget about elections, forget about the voter, that’s the way Bill Richardson wants it and that’s the way it is...

The difference is that unlike last time, this time it's all true.

UPDATE - Madrid Ignores Law

Looks like I may have spoken too soon. Patricia Madrid's behavior may actually be against the law. I just checked an email from a guy who is on a mission to have APS officials commit to the same accountability standards being touted for its students.

In his email he points out there is a law against acting unethically. Let's look at how Patricia Madrid measures up to three of the four sections of this law:

A. A legislator, public officer or employee shall treat his government position as a public trust. He shall use the powers and resources of public office only to advance the public interest and not to obtain personal benefits or pursue private interests incompatible with the public interest.

Madrid's recent mailing campaigns using public resources while running for office may be argued to have a public benefit; however, the timing of these mailings is such that they definitely also have a personal benefit. Since the mailings are legal "only to advance the public interest," this is a clear violation of the law.

B. A legislator, public officer or employee shall conduct himself in a manner that justifies the confidence placed in him by the people, at all times maintaining the integrity and discharging ethically the high responsibilities of public service.

Patricia Madrid's attempt to mislead the public by printing the disclaimer "Taxpayer money was not used for the printing or distribution of this flier " is a clear violation of this section of the law. As Santa Fe New Mexican reporter Steve Terrell points out:

Like the others, the anti-scam flier was paid for with money from a settlement in a class action lawsuit against Microsoft.

Once again, the AG's office argues that the settlement money isn't "taxpayer" money because it didn't come directly from taxes - though others argued it's public money that was won by tax-paid lawyers for the benefit of the citizens of the state.

With that statement, Attorney General's office is purposely misleading the public by leading them to assume that the mailing was paid by private dollars. When in fact, the money used was from government resources - taxpayer money from the general fund. At the very least Patricia Madrid should have printed a disclaimer that read: "Money from a class action lawsuit settlement against Microsoft held in trust for the citizens of New Mexico was used for the printing and distribution of this flyer." Which leads us to the next section of the law...

C. Full disclosure of real or potential conflicts of interest shall be a guiding principle for determining appropriate conduct. At all times reasonable efforts shall be made to avoid undue influence and abuse of office in public service.

My suggestion for an appropriate minimum disclaimer in the paragraph preceding this section of law would need to be ammended if Patricia Madrid were to also follow the intent of "Section C" to include: "By sending out this mailing I, Patricia Madrid, acknowledge a conflict of interest in that this use of public monies to mail out this flyer so close to election day may benefit me personally in my campaign for Congress."

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but it sure seems that there has been several clear violations of the law. The question is that since the perpetrator in this case is the "chief law enforcement officer in the state" who can we turn to in order to enforce this flagrant violation of the law?