New Mexico Political Journal Volume I, No. 8
----------------
Monday, June 28, 2004 Roswell
Circulation: 4,911
----------------
In this issue:
Richardson will Never get the Call
Feedback, Update on the GOP Convention
Hip pocket Regents: Like Puppets on a String
---------------
Richardson will Never be Asked
Since our May 24 article about Richardson's absurd "rejections"
of phantom offers to be "the running mate," no stories
on the subject have emanated from the governor's office. The time
from early May to today marks the longest sustained period since
September in which Richardson has not claimed to have been asked
to be the vice-presidential running mate. Is there a coincidence?
Could be. Our story, showing that no one--exactly ZERO people--actually
running for president has EVER asked Governor Bill Richardson to
consider being the vice presidential nominee of the Democrat Party,
was picked up by several entities, including www.NewsMax.com, and
transmitted nationwide. Thousands of people learned that the non-story
"story" about Richardson being asked to be on the Democrat
ticket was phony---a completely fabricated tale written in and directed
from Richardson's own office. The "offers" were not coming
from John Kerry, or Howard Dean et. al., before Kerry. The "offers"
were coming from Richardson's own press secretary. (It reminded
us of a late 70's movie line in a thriller about a babysitter getting
ominous calls. A cop tracing a call shouted to the girl: "Get
out, the call is coming from inside the house.")
Our story was received with the appropriate combination of good
humor and serious reflection it was designed to inspire. The readership,
including a mildly surprising half dozen or so from the New Mexico
media, called and e-mailed to express their appreciation for how
the continuing story had indeed long since reached the heights of
absurdity. It was conceded that, on reflection, the story was indeed
embarrassing to everyone, including the media reviewers, most of
whom worked for organizations complicit in the charade.
---------------
GOP Convention Update, Feedback
The response to last week's article on the State Republican Convention
earlier this month has been almost uniformly positive. Folks appreciate
knowing what the Republican Party has done and also enjoyed the
update on the makeup of the GOP delegation to New York City. (Our
issue was apparently widely recirculated, resulting in a jump of
almost 300 subscribers.)
There were very few detractors, mostly electronic feedback--all
of it from Democrats no less, upset that we were boldly exposing
and opposing racism and bigotry. There were two, exactly two, negative
reactions from liberal Republicans--again either pretending not
to understand the concept of racism or simply threatening to feed
their own criticisms to particular pro-Democrat media outlets. One
was an unsuccessful GOP statewide primary candidate in 2002, the
other a young self-described activist.
We have news for both of them: all media outlets in New Mexico already
get NMPJ.
We should note here that we did not comment one word on any election
for any office at the state convention, we only reported the winners
and the vote totals. We did report the demographic makeup of the
candidates, but never took sides reporting the outcome of the convention's
various elections.
For the most part, the feedback has been good, with some, arguably
insightful commentary:
"It is ironic that the RPNM elected a pro-choice national committeeman
and one who is also inclined to support gay marriage...even while
putting so much emphasis on 'the platform' of the party...did they
get the contradiction?"
"I could not believe the pro-life people who were everywhere
talking up a pro-choice candidate for national committeeman...against
a pro-life guy..."
"Right-to-Life New Mexico has no credibility left."
"Your analysis is right on the money, as usual."
"Your reporting is akin to the 'reporting' the Pravda[sic]
did..."
"One of the Hispanics elected is also Jewish..." (note:
NMPJ did not attempt to ascertain the religious affiliations of
the delegation)
"...we didn't manipulate the selection process to achieve some
sort of quota...every delegate/alternate earned his/her position
by being elected. Must drive the Democrats crazy that Republicans
get these results honestly."
Our bottom line: Regardless of the outcome of the convention, the
Republican Party of New Mexico, including especially the 500 to
2,000 people who work so actively from state conventions to county
conventions and organizations around the state, must pull together.
Those who continue the "gotcha" craze, need to either
be reined in, or exercise some self discipline.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I got your resignation right here,"
Says Governor Bill Richardson as he reaches in his hip pocket and
pulls out the signed, undated, Letter of Resignation written by
a stunned University of New Mexico regent in January 2003. The regent
watches breathlessly as Richardson calmly unfolds the letter, takes
out his pen, and writes "July 12, 2004" at the top of
the page.
"There you go," says Bill, "thanks for your service,
but I see where you have written me as follows:
"With this letter, I hereby submit my unqualified resignation,
effective immediately." (***see below)
"Guess what? 'immediately' just became today," said Richardson,
"Call me sometime, let's do lunch."
"But, but," says the regent, "All I have said is
maybe we should have a bid process for the awarding of these contracts.
You know, make UNM's public works and contracting processes above
board and open to everyone."
"Yeah, well, if I want your opinion on that, or any other subject,
I'll let you know," said Bill, "You know very well where
these contracts are supposed to go, you knew the ground rules when
you signed on here."
"That's right," chirps a small voice standing beside the
two gentlemen. The men turn to see former Democrat State Chairman
and current UNM Regent Jamie Koch. "If he wants our opinion,
he'll let us know," says Koch, beaming with pride. "You
just didn't quite get the ground rules," Koch adds, glaring
at his former (thirty seconds ago) colleague. "You ended up
not being a team player."
"That's why I love you Jamie," said the governor, "you
know what public service really means, in fact, you epitomize it."
"Thanks governor," said Koch, as he and the governor went
to lunch. And with that the meeting was over. The former regent
walked away dejected.
---------------
***[Note for the full text of the letters of resignation signed
by 40 regents to date, including at least one by a regent from your
region of the state, click here nmdr@dfn.com
and type "regent-gate scandal" in the subject line. We'll
send an exact copy to you immediately. If you request, we will send
you the names of all those who have signed such unconstitutional
letters.]
----------------
That's one scenario. No doubt coming to a theater of the absurd
near you.
On May 12, Attorney General Patricia Madrid, responding to a request
submitted by State Senator Rod Adair, R-Roswell, issued an opinion
calling the governor's resignation letters for regents unconstitutional.
The governor has stated he doesn't care, that it's just her opinion.
Democrats in the Senate Rules Committee have said they don't care.
Last week, the Rules committee deadlocked 3-3 on a UNM regent nominee
who had signed a letter of resignation. Senators Stuart Ingle and
Ray Kysar both expressed views that the governor's policy is plainly
unconstitutional. The Democrats only vowed to get more committee
members present for the next meeting on August 9.
Newspapers have called for a lawsuit. Senator Phil Griego has dared
"Republicans" (as if only Republicans worry about the
Constitution---he may be right in the end) to file one. That would
be wrong for several reasons:
1) The text of the Constitution, Article XII, Section 13, is plain
enough for an 8 year-old to read: "no removal shall be made
without notice of hearing...The Supreme Court of the State of New
Mexico is hereby given exclusive original jurisdiction..."
2) Who has standing to take the matter to court? Perhaps only an
appointed regent, not the Senate or individual senators as some
have suggested.
3) Why should anyone, appointee, private citizen, or the taxpayers
themselves, have to foot an enormous bill for legal fees to take
such a plainly written matter to court? (This is something a lot
of people don't get--including almost all lawyers, Republican and
Democrat alike--it is so ingrained in our minds that EVERYTHING
needs to go to court. But this is a relatively recent phenomenon
in the American experience. It is pushed home in law school to promote
the idea of the need for greater amounts of legal services and legal
income.) In fact, in a republic such as ours, relatively few matters
were ever actually designed for the courts, and almost none having
to do with the branches of government. A matter such as we are discussing
now used to be routinely referred to as a "political question."
4) The Supreme Court of New Mexico has shown itself to be a completely
non-serious entity, in the realm of jurisprudence that is. Unfortunately
for litigants and the taxpayers, its rulings and its power are deadly
serious. But for legal scholars and people who care about what the
law actually says, it is notoriously anti-intellectual, and almost
daily ignores what the law actually says. Instead, it routinely
imposes its own desired "outcome," in a given case, then
reasons backwards to try to justify its decision. It is also notoriously
partisan. In this instance it would almost certainly rule, probably
5-0, that the governor has the power to collect signed, undated
letters of resignation. Such a ruling would simply further hack
away at the actual Constitution, and further undermine people's
faith in the rule of law. Then comes the bill, most likely to the
taxpayers, probably in the range of $500,000 to $1,000,000. What
for?
5) The actual response to a situation like this is for the first
branch of government, the legislature, to stand up for the rule
of law. As direct representatives of the people, the Senate should
not approve regents whose own acts, forced on them by the executive,
are plainly unconstitutional. To shrink from that duty is a clear
violation of the oath of office. The regents are to be responsible
to the people, not to the governor as an individual.
The situation before us allows regents to, in effect, perform under
the a "personal services" contract, working for and reporting
directly to the governor. Once appointed by the governor, and confirmed
by the Senate, they are supposed to work for the people themselves,
the universities, the students, the students' parents, grandparents
and guardians, and the taxpayers.
That fiduciary role has been removed by the governor. It should
be restored.
-----------------
Comments on this issue? Please send them to nmdr@dfn.com
|