Contact
The GOP gets smart; New Mexico better get ready
Sarah Lenti
The GOP is definitely getting its act together. And, guess what? New Mexico is going to be right in the thick of it. This is not me being delusional or overly optimistic. This fact that the Republican operatives are working smartly, strategically, and adeptly – in an under-the-radar manner – is pointed out in a Sunday New York Times piece. You can and should read Nicholas Confessore’s piece right here.
Essentially, gone are the days of the RNC. Today is the dawn of the super PAC and outside Republican caucus groups. It’s serious. It’s smart.
New Mexico is one of a few states cited twice, not once, in this article. No one is denying that The Land of Enchantment is a target. If you thought you were a battleground in 2008, just wait for 2012. Fun for you. (As such, you might want to consider getting all of your prime-time television watching out of the way now…)
In case you don’t have time to read the article, here are the two New Mexico citations:
“Groups that have made defeating Mr. Obama their top priority expect to invest heavily in some of the new swing states where Mr. Obama made inroads in 2008, like Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.”
“…Although the outside groups maintain their own strategies — American Crossroads, for example, stays out of Republican primaries, while Americans for Prosperity takes sides — they collaborate and divide up duties where possible. This month as American Crossroads pounded Mr. Obama with advertising over his jobs plan, Americans for Prosperity organized more than a dozen rallies against the proposal in states like Colorado, Missouri, New Mexico and Washington.”
Sarah Lenti is the blogger behind NMPolitics.net’s The Savvy. E-mail her at sarah@nmpolitics.net.
27 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Qui Tam:
I think you need to look up the definition of a lie and get back to yourself on that, because calling someone a liar over something that your own words give them evidence for on the same page is kind of like watching a small child claim that they aren’t “it” in tag because they just decided the random object they’re touching is “base”. In other words, you have only proven to yourself – and no one else – that which you had already chosen to believe, at which point you simply found it easier to stop thinking. Please do us all a favor and never run for public office; our party has embarrassed itself enough in recent years.
IcarusPhoenix – you can babble on and on but it won’t change the fact that I have proven you to be a liar in this thread. Tis getting tiresome reading your diatribes for more lies and having to correct you or point out your failed inept attempts of semantics and intellectual dishonests so for the good of the thread lets cease. How about it? And of course I will grant you, your required last say in all matters.
On you go…
Qui Tam:
First of all, I think you need to look back; your first few weeks here, you used to follow me from thread-to-thread launching personal attacks against me for anything I wrote, so perhaps a mirror is something you should consider investing in before accusing me of an obsession. Secondly, in you would set aside your overly-self-defensive personal nature for one moment and actually read anything anyone else writes that doesn’t address you in some way, you would notice that I engage almost everyone here in debate of one form or another, so it is only a remarkably self-centered person who would consider me obsessed with them personally; thus far the only thing that actually seems to be occurring in thread after thread is your invocation of the Attorney General whether he is relevant to the discussion or not, and usually to the detriment of your own desires. Thirdly, aside from fortifying Gary King’s defenses for him by making it simple for him to paint his opposition as irrational malcontents, what exactly have you actually managed to accomplish? Certainty is not proof, insistence is not fact, and opinion is not evidence.
IcarusPhoenix – I think a lot has been accomplished but those are facts you obviously know nothing about. Will you be quitting your obsession with me anytime soon or are you going to continue thread after thread after thread?
Qui Tam:
You really have chosen to keep yourself from having any understanding of anyone’s objections, haven’t you? While the rest of us are trying to get rid of Gary King because he’s an albatross hanging around the necks of the state and the Party, we are actually hindered in our efforts by people like you, who can’t differentiate between actual corruption and ineptitude, personal and professional, fact and belief, or ethically questionable and actually illegal. Quite frankly, you are acting like a conservative Republican, analyzing with how everything affects you personally and not the citizens collectively, no matter how you self-justify. Added to the fact that you take mere disagreement as a personal affront and that you are not unique in your possession of these traits, and Gary King’s most visible and vocal detractors are people who he can paint as irrational, petty, and possessing ulterior motives. In essence, we’re taking a man with a deep-rooted Father-complex and giving him a personal justification to play the martyr as well. Now, when anyone with a legitimate and rationally-voiced objection – many of whom are loyal Democrats and long-standing friends of his family – comes along, the Attorney General’s first instinct is to stick us in the same mental box he’s placed the rest of you so that he doesnt’ feel obligated to listen, and nothing gets accomplished.
IcarusPhoenix, you know what? I think you are doing a really great job painting a picture of me that is not so very true. Unfortunately for your crusade which I believe is fueled by an obsession for all things Qui Tam, you ultimately will not be successful boxing me in because you do not have all of the facts. I firmly suggest you sit back read, listen and learn (especially before voicing your comments about me) – just as it is obvious other intellectually honest commenters are doing as news, facts, and events unfold. If you are to do otherwise, it will be you that ultimately will be required to apologize and be held accountable for your actions and words. And in regard to you personally, I certainly want no part of increasing the number of unemployed in our great Nation. This is as kind as I am going to be on this subject matter, and as a kind person it pains me to be so blunt on an abundantly/internationally read and respected medium that will be able to be accessed forevermore.
I am meant to add IcarusPhoenix that having read so many a thread on http://www.nmpolitics.com , it appears that you quite frequently have problems with a variety of and many individuals who comment and that, perhaps, you may want to investigate why.
razlaw:
My problem isn’t with objections to Gary King; I have plenty of them myself, and indeed I rather like to think my objections to the Attorney General are all the more relevant for being a) limited to that which is actually a violation of law or ethical conduct, and b) confined to actual facts. Therein lies my point; Qui Tam has already admitted that his objection to the Attorney General is personal and as such tends not to provide any factual basis for his complaints, assuming that his personal feelings should be enough evidence for the rest of us, and this obsession is so all-encompassing that said commenter tries to focus all the energies of everyone else on the Attorney General to the exclusion of most other matters.
IP – I, for one, welcome the tick tock of QT’s clock – and what you deem a crusade, I would deem a necessity. It’s time to get rid of King once and for all in NM. Perhaps QT should speak louder and more openly – if only the “good ole boys (and girls)” in NM political circles would hold their own accountable and not black ball those who try to do so.
Thanks to Heath for telling the truth and giving QT a voice (and you too, IP, for that matter).
Qui Tam:
Truth is subjective, as you have proven, since you see only that which justifies your self-righteousness. It is my job to deal in fact. Admittedly, it is also my job to deal in hyperbole, and the two are often difficult to reconcile; while “every” thread certainly delves into the hyperbolic, I can only recall two minor discussions where you did not invoke the Attorney General’s name, so the point is hardly moot; you are, after all, the one who single-handedly kept one story’s discussion thread alive for months with a sophomoric ticking clock and links to repeated stories with no new information. That certainly qualifies as a crusade in the book of any sensible observer.
Quite frankly, your actions are unbecoming to a self-professed Democrat; your myopic viewpoint is no more nuanced than any other single-issue voter, and you should be treated with approximately the same level of credulity. We already have one Republican Party trying to distract us with their obsessions instead of actual policy; we certainly don’t need that sort of dogmatic self-righteousness on our side of the aisle as well. The reason I am far harsher with you than I am with most Republicans is because you are right about one thing; our house needs serious cleaning, and it is my hope that when we finally sweep Gary King out the door, you’ll leave as well; after all, it’s not like you’ll have anything left to distract people with.
No IcarusPhoenix – your semantics do not work or have merit yet again as you did not address the your falsehood that I have proved. I do not ” really do invoke him for every single unrelated story.” That is untrue and the proof is on many a thread. Your obsession with me and falsehoods in regard to my comments is readily available for all to see. You might not like the truth but it stands.
Qui Tam:
The above column has absolutely nothing to do with Gary King, and yet your first instinct was to immediately invoke the New Mexico Attorney General as someone who would cost the President the election, so no, it would not be a “factually weak” statement on your part to call me a liar for that statement; it would, in fact, be an outright falsehood, since the evidence in my support is in the very first post on this thread, in your own words, visible for everyone here to see that my statement has merit. You remind me of many elected officials (usually Republicans) who vehemently insist that they never even said something that they were recorded saying on video.
MJM:
I think you are perhaps missing the main lesson of the last election; if the Democratic Party had put many of our candidates through primaries, we would likely have lost far worse that we did, because those primary candidates would presumably have been from the far left of the party, who frankly make lousy candidates in most districts. It was, in fact, the Republican candidates in many areas who demonstrate this; the lay of the land several months prior to the 2010 election made it clear that the Democratic Party should have lost the House by far more than we did, and absolutely should have lost the Senate, and had the Republican Party not run mostly extremists with no understanding of the American people, we would have. The national Party base may have wanted more liberal representation, but given the choice between moderate Democrats and ultra-right wing pseudo-Republicans, Americans in many districts chose the former. Had the Democratic choices been further to the left, however, that would have been the case. A primary challenge can hurt an incumbent, and if that challenge is successful, you have two non-incumbents running against each other, which, I think you’ll agree, would have put the Democratic candidates in a lot of districts at a serious disadvantage in 2010.
No matter how much the media’s soundbite-friendly armchair strategists like to claim that “that past rules no longer apply”, the only thing that has really changed is our methodology, not the end results; incumbents still have an over eighty percent chance of getting reelected, and except in extreme circumstances, that number hasn’t changed in over half a century… nor will it until we stop redistricting with the primary goal of protecting incumbents.
IcarusPhoenix – would it be “factually weak” to call you a liar since the following statement that you made:
“you really do invoke him for every single unrelated story.” is completely untrue?
You are losing IcarusPhoenix and I hope you are not on a payroll, especially funded by my contributions to the Democratic Party, for such a poor performance.
Point well taken IP but did the Dem’s not learn anything in the last election? If they had primaried many of their lame candidates instead of “going with the flow” those pesky Tea Party folks might not have taken over the House..and darn near the Senate.
Sometimes you just have to take out the trash..(and that applies to all parties). The past is ashes in politics these days IP. The past rules no longer apply. If one is to think otherwise perhaps they not such an astute strategist as they pontificate.
Qui Tam:
I’m hardly obsessed with you; I take on everyone I perceive as making bizarre, factually-weak, completely irrelevant, or borderline paranoid statements, particularly those who make the same one repeatedly, as if being incorrect with a great deal of frequency will cause them to magically land on accuracy; it’s simply that since you’ve joined us here, you do this with a far greater frequency than anyone else. It is, however, heartening to see such a beacon of consistency; your complete inability to so much as understand anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your crusade borders on inspirational in its predictability.
MJM:
Running against an incumbent president of the same party is not without precedent, but as the few such legitimate challenges have shown us, splitting the party from within like that is also a guaranteed way for the opposition party to win the general election. Democrats are well-practiced in the art of infighting, but two centuries of doing so has taught us when not to alienate each other to the point where half the party will just stay home on election day, or, worse yet, vote for the Republican out of bitterness, even if they don’t actually agree with him.
QT I agree…But watching the Democrat Candidate is….well QT I am an old gomer and at the end of the broadcasting day they had a blank pattern they would put up on the TV screen and a wining noise. If all you have is the same old re-run…it’s not very informative….and no entertainment value…
mjm – I love the competition on the Republican side, it is like watching a comedy.
IP &QT I beleive you both may have the mistaken belief that the competition in the Republican Party for a presidential candidate is somehow disheartening to Americans…While it does show the under belly of a group of less that perfect individuals …at least there is some competition and ideas…Unfortunately, no one has the guts to run against Obama on the Dem side..and he needs that just to keep his ego in check… I know it is the perception of the professionals like strategist IP that you should not do such a thing…perhaps QT as well…but many of us like the competition…Too bad there isn’t more of it..
Sarah – a useful piece … but your experience with the Attorney General is different than the perception of most of the State ….regardless of facts, and perhaps because of them – he comes off as extremely partisan, surprisingly opaque, and aloof from the responsibiities of the job. Even though he isn’t running, he will be poster child of failed administrations.
IcarusPhoenix – why are you obsessed with me?
Sarah Lenti = I don’t have to dig deeper, I know where the skeletons are buried.
Icarus — you make some great points.
And, to all of you — I love the sparring.
As for Attorney General King — he has taken every call and responded to every email I sent when at the U.S. Chamber. Gary King in NOT New Mexico’s problem. Every state has problems — look deeper.
What I can say is that you have an awesome Governor.
And I’m a strategist in the same party currently working for the campaign of that very President (for the second time, I might add), Qui Tam, so I can guarantee I have a rather better grasp of the electoral math and lay of the current political landscape than you do, to say nothing of history; this is a split-ticket state, and your personal obsession with the Attorney General is hardly going to be the cause of the President losing the election – particularly when said Attorney General isn’t even on the ballot that year. An amateur with on a crusade against a particular nationally-unimportant man pulling completely random GOP “dream candidates” out of thin air isn’t going to change the course of an election. Qofdisks is correct; I was being remarkably generous is stating that you were “beginning” to sound ludicrous, but it was an (admittedly half-hearted) attempt at magnanimity.
Dr. J’s assessment does a far better job than yours of getting to the core of the issue, though I would add this; the real risk for the President isn’t some magical change-of-heart on the part of Massachusetts (where Romney’s post-gubernatorial unfavorables are about fifteen to twenty points higher than his favorables), the loss of Florida because of the rather unlikely inclusion of Congressman Rubio on the GOP ticket (since his statewide reputation there is about equal to, say, Gary King’s is here), and it certainly isn’t New Mexico Attorney General Gary King. The real risk for the President is a lack of turnout among 2008′s first-time voters and among the far left of his own party.
For that matter, your doomsday scenario actually makes our five electoral votes – which, due to our split ticket nature, are disproportionately fought for – completely meaningless, because if the President were to lose Florida, Virginia, and Ohio as you prophesize, it wouldn’t matter if he won New Mexico, because without at least one (and preferably two) of those states, a Democrat actually mathematically can’t win the Presidency. If the President is reelected, it will be by a margin of fifty or more electoral votes, and if he loses, it’ll be by an even larger margin; ultimately, this race isn’t going to be as close as people think it will be.
Poor IcarusPhoenix – he writes as if he has been awoken to an alarm.
When Rubio, the VP candidate hands over Florida, Romney delivers Massachusetts, the Southerners in WV and Virginia believe another song and dance while Colorado and Ohio swing in the wind – New Mexico’s five electorial votes suddenly become crucial. Now, didn’t a Republican with a Hispanic Surname just become the Governor in New Mexico?
Yes, IcarusPhoenix – I am scared too, you see I am a proud Democrat and fervent supporter of duly elected President Obama.
Beginning?
Qui Tam:
No, you don’t need to say more; indeed, it would have been better for your credibility if you had said quite a bit less. This is what we mean when we say that your obsession with Gary King is getting completely out of hand; you really do invoke him for every single unrelated story. Seriously, you are honestly saying that the Attorney General of a state with five electoral votes is going to cost the incumbent party the Presidency. Do you really not see how incredibly ludicrous you are beginning to sound?
I think NM voters can be just as disfunctional as the legislature…Now there are good legislators on both sides..but they can’t get on the same page…and that represents the electorate as well. If we only remember it is what you do not what you say that counts then in my opinion President Obama has some issues to deal with…Like not closing Gitmo, like explaining the real economics of Obamacare, like promoting regulations that are onerous…Like executive orders allowing for refinancing houses that don’t have equity in them so that we privatize profits while we nationalize risk…Like nationalizing student loans…
You know I heard how stupid the republicans looked in our last Governor campaign in NM…Why there were so many candidates…and it was so confusing. Dianne Denish was just too good. We know how that turned out. So, I don’t coun’t the Republicans out Dr J. But you just have to remember the president is a master debator and we need a helping hand in that area.
The only thing missing for the Repubs is a good candidate for Prez. Without it, and the clowns they have now are a joke, Obama will turn them to toast. I don’t like the way Obama has ruled, but I don’t regret my vote for him against McCain, he would have been much, much worse. And the same will be true come Nov. 2012, unless the Repubs find a decent candidate to run against him. I’m still waiting.
I fear that the Democrats of New Mexico are going to be responsible for handing the White House over to the Republicans in 2012.
It is easy for the Republicans to get smart in New Mexico….all they have to do is list all of the entries on http://www.nmcourts.com for each specific Democratic candidate in paid political advertisements such as television commercials. Voters will see who abuses, who has been abused and the true character of each Democratic candidate.
I fear they will use New Mexico Attorney General Gary King in their political ads scheduled for national viewing.
Need I say more?