The Piercing Truth

This is right from the dictionary and seems to describe Albuquerque, Berry and Schultz. Fascism (f ash ,izem) noun An authoritarian right wing system of government and/or social organization. (in general use) extreme right wing, authoritarian, chauvinistic and/or intolerant views or practices. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one group over another, national, ethnic, especially social strata or monetarily; a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach. Compliments of one of our Eyes

Sep 13, 2007

Parties to the City Election

This October's Municipal Election has got it all. We've got educators and a toy salesman, a retired housing advocate and a builder's advocate, an accused embezzler and an admitted larcenist, Democrats (D), Republicans (R), and Martycrats (M). If that weren't enough... District 9 is in a state of open rebellion and is on track to give their councilor the boot even though his replacement will be a card carrying Martycrat. It's enough to make you long for a good old fashioned partisan race.
(Sidebar)
Our Eyes tell us that Admiral Lowe and crew are pretty confident that the ethics hearing for Councilor Harris will reveal misdeeds that could amount to thousands of dollars in fines. To make matters worse for the embattled councilor, he'll be featured on the second page of the district 9 ballot, making the recall almost impossible to miss for the voters in his soon to be former district.
(End Sidebar)
If all of that isn't enough to make you a little bit crazy, 5 of the participants (Sticky Fingers Garduño, Honey Bee de'Pascal, Ad Guru Griffin, Toy Man Wilson, and Commissar O'Malley) are all fueling their campaigns with your tax dollars. If they are so willing to use money that has been forcibly taken from the taxpayer to run their campaigns, what do you think they'll do when they have the power to do it for themselves? Talk about larceny!

Fortunately we can't vote in every district (well without voter ID... maybe we'll give it a shot), but if we could it'd be very hard for one of the above candidates to talk us into spending our vote when they've already stolen our money. On that note, let's talk about who's not already taking your money.

Katherine Martinez(M) - District 2 (Challenger)
Frankly, we don't believe that Ms. Martinez has a chance to beat Commissar O'Malley whose long, deep family ties in the North Valley and her incumbent status make her almost invulnerable. The irony here is that we have a former (current really) housing advocate being challenged by a representative of people who know how to build homes.

Even though Ms. Martinez has been directly endorsed by the Almighty One and would surely be expected to vote the Marty line, we don't believe she'd take the position that the City of Albuquerque should become landlords to people who can't afford homes. There are many ways to help people buy homes, but they all need to include earning and ownership.

Brad Winter (R) - District 4 (Incumbent)
Councilor Winter is completing his second term as councilor. He has been effective for his district and more importantly hasn't spent his time as councilor or as a candidate sticking his hand in our wallets. Another point in his favor is that he's the only councilor that's done anything to try and fix some of the problems caused by the Red Light Scam-era system.

His opponent on the other hand, is accused of embezzling over $60,000, and is already being run by the Napoleon of the 11th floor. Despite the Honey Bee's attempts at claiming victim status, the only victims in this race are the taxpayers.

Blair Kaufman (D) - District 6 (Open Seat)
You know, we'd really like to be able to say something nice about this particular candidate. He hasn't taken any of our money for his campaign which could mean he respects the taxpayers and their hard earned money. But after reading the Journal's Online Chat (Subscription) we suspect that the only reason he isn't rolling in "clean" money is that he didn't qualify.

It's really disheartening for those of us who believe the government should spend less time in our lives and in our wallet to see each candidate trying to out spend the other. Not one of them talked about freedom, not one talked about personal responsibility (except Sticky Fingers Garduño after he'd been nailed for fibbing on his Journal questionnaire).
(Sidebar)
It's amazing how frequently candidates and politicians have a Michael Vick Moment after being nailed. They suddenly find Jesus, Allah, or head out to rehabracadabara. What responsibility does a candidate for elected office have to be truthful, even when faced with a "gotcha" question from the Journal?
(End Sidebar)
We really feel for the residents of District 6. There's not a bit of difference between the candidates. The Republican isn't, the two Democrats are all the same except for the larceny thing, and the Martycrat spouts the exact same big government crap that the other three are busy spewing. Personally, we believe Sticky Fingers will end up representing District 6, but it probably won't make any difference except to Marty.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Does anyone have any morals or ethics anymore? Is this the best that albuquerque can offer? Are the days of Hess Yntema, honor and intrgrity gone forever. With the exception of Brad Winter in District 4,our city is on the verge of being run by a bunch of incompetent, losers, who can't make a living on the outside.
Case in point; look at the this administration and the directors who have been appointed.
Again, the challengers to these City Council races are over their heads and are totally not qualified as janitors, let alone to sit on the City Council.
Wake up Albuquerque. Your silence and apathy is killing this city.

Anonymous said...

Comment above. You are 100% correct. Hit the nail on the head.
The ONLY three that have any common sense and integrity are Cadigan,Winter & O'Malley. The rest are leeches on the taxpayers and accomplish absolutely nothing and serve no purpose except to serve Marty Chavez, not their constituents.

Anonymous said...

Recall Harris. A Martycrat is a heck of a lot better than a crooked lawyer that parades around District 9 on a bike that was paid for by his campaign contributions. Give it up Harris, and next time, buy your own bike (and wear a helmet). After all that is what the rest of us have to do.

p.s. loved how Harris ran the stop sign while riding his bike on Channel 13. what a great photo-op of a Councilor that is above the law.

Anonymous said...

I noticed that he ran that stop light, too. Clearly, he feels he's above the law.

I like Blair Kaufman. He's thoughtful, knowledgeable, and truly cares about the democratic process. Plus, he knows how to deal with BS when he sees it. I also like Ray Garduno. If you actually read the charge, it happened almost twenty years ago. Gimme a break! And it read like it was a mistake but, really, who knows. These guys are doing more than most of the wankers in this city: they are trying to set forth for change and in the process, have made themselves (willing) targets.
I like 'em. If they are willing to take it on I'm willing to listen to what they have to say.
Vote with your feet... not your blog.

val said...

Last night Paulete de Pascal was unable to answer questions pertaining to her stance on the real issues that face Albq. She repeatedly said she supported things without saying how she would pay for them. Raise taxes? She also refused to answer the question on City counsilors pay increases by saying" the voters should make up their own minds". On her own blog she said she is in favor of a pay increase. Which one is it? She is unable to give real answers because she has no clue!

mike said...

Paulete has no clue because she hasn't had a real job in 20 years! Marty and friends are just using this woman to take a jab at Winter. They don't really expect a 2 time bankrupt Know Nothing with a very shady track record to make sensible decisions for the city of Albuquerque. She doesn't even know it, but this is all about Marty vs. Brad.

Matt Brix said...

I have enjoyed the constructive dialogue fostered by Mr./Ms. Eye on the matter of voluntary public financing of campaigns. Unfortunately, this commentary is based on a premise (“money forcibly taken from the taxpayer”) that is quite misleading.

I have posted here in the past, but it is worth reiterating an important point that debunks the mythical premise.

In 2005, almost 70% of those voting in the citywide Albuquerque election voted in favor of clean elections public financing.

The people ultimately determined whether or not Albuquerque would adopt clean elections. The people made their will known loud and clear.

I look forward to ongoing debates regarding this important matter. In the future, however, I hope the debates can begin with an accurate premise.

Anonymous said...

Hmmmmm........If I had to guess, that was 70% of the 22% of the eligible voting populus who bothered to vote in the (way) off-year election that the proposition was put before the public. But no matter, it may have passed, but that doesn't mean that those of us that voted against it, or are philisophically opposed to such things are now forever silenced on the issue. Maybe with a little luck, the voting public could do a recall on the proposition!!! Heck, it's working for whomever has targeted Don Harris. And I'll bet he won his district with more raw votes than the Clean Campaign Prop did.

Matt Brix said...

The vote took place during a mayoral election campaign. As far as a City election goes, this is about as "on year" as it gets.

The point is not whether or not opponents can voice their opposition to the system. I disagree with their position, but I completely support their right to argue their point. The real point is the false premise of the argument-"money forcibly taken from taxpayers."

A process exists to pass laws in Albuquerque. That process was followed and the law passed overwhelmingly. This is not a debatable point.

The majority of the public understands the net positives voluntary public financing systems present. We can (and I suspect will) debate the merits. But, the public is fed up with the myriad problems brought about by the increasingly influential role of money in the political process.

People will not stand for the status quo. Voluntary public financing provides the best option to that untenable status quo.