Sunday, August 30, 2009

We have come to a fork in the road.

As a state, we need to decide;

1. either, continue the culture of corruption,

2. or, end it.

There really is no halfway in between. A "little" corrupt,
is too corrupt.

If we take the fork with Governor Diane Denish, she will
lead us into the culture of corruption with no hope of ending

If she does end the culture of corruption, it will only be after
the good ol' boys will have had time to cover their tracks.

It is a plan doomed to fail. You either take the good ol' boys out
completely, or they will take you out completely.

If you quit a course of antibiotics too early, you end up with a
worse infection. Diane Denish will not stay the course.
She will not rub them out completely.

Diane Denish will come in
spouting good ol' boyisms like;
let's forget about the past, and
let's focus on the future.

No good ol' boys are going to get
their feelings hurt, no heads will roll.

Diane Denish is not going to take out the good ol' boys.
She can not. She doesn't have the stomach, even if she does have the intention.

The other fork in the road leads to transparently accountable government.

Governor Janice Arnold-Jones will lead a completely
different kind of government, a suddenly clean and transparent way of doing business.

It's about to become
impossibly difficult
to hide

It's about to become
impossibly difficult
to hide

This state is truly at a fork in the road. In one direction, an
oligarchy riddled with corruption and incompetence, and
no hope of fixing it from within. You can't beat them on
their own field.

If we take the other fork, let's call it the "high road";
a squeaky clean government.

Janice Arnold-Jones promises you transparently accountable
government. Diane Denish does not.

One of these two ladies is going to appoint more than
four hundred high level bureaucrats to run state government.

One is going to appoint from the same old pool of good ol' boys,
the other is not.

Proven competence, proven character,
proven courage.

Is this a no brainer, or am I missing something?

photos Mark Bralley


Anonymous said...

How much is Arnold-Jones paying you?

Obviously, you have no idea how state government works, as you expect the Lt Gov to be able to fix everything when there is an extremely strong governor. Which is, of course, stupid.

Somehow, Janice Arnold-Jones is a champion of ethics even though the only ethics she has ever expressed an interest in is webcasting.

It was a great political position, but such work will not somehow magically give the state government the ability to be ethical.

Your persistent hatred for Diane Denish and her push for ethics reform as a Lieutenant Governor shows less for anything about Denish and more for your irrational and undeserved hatred for Denish.

Which is sad because she has clearly been a voice in the wilderness for ethics reform in state government for years.

It is sad that you not only ignore political realities, but reality in general.

ched macquigg said...

Q. "How much is Arnold-Jones paying you?"
A. I reject your premise categorically. Obviously, you know neither of us.

Point. It is "stupid" to suppose that a Lt Governor can fix everything, under a strong Governor.
Counter point. Diane Denish has a bully pulpit; "... an opportunity to speak out and be listened to on any matter." If she called out from that bully pulpit, for the people of New Mexico to stand up with her to end the culture of corruption, she could end it.

Point. Janice Arnold-Jones courageous move to begin webcasting of the people's business, will not magically give the state government the ability to be ethical.

Counterpoint. I don't believe anyone has suggested that it will. It was just the first (giant) step in the right direction. Transparently accountable government is far more likely to be "ethical" that one that is not. Diane Denish never carried a camera into anywhere.

Point. I hate Diane Denish.
Counterpoint. I have never met Diane Denish; I don't hate her, or like her; I don't even know her.

Point. Diane Denish is a voice in the wilderness.
Counterpoint. I agree; which is exactly the problem. Her cries in the wilderness have born no fruit, and her choice of venue serves no purpose other than to protect her from the consequences of speaking out. Her voice needs to be on the steps of the Roundhouse or some equally visible place, if she expects to change anything at all.

Point. I ignore political realities and reality in general.
Counterpoint. More than 3,500 posts on political realities suggests a different conclusion.

Thank you for the vindication that your ad hominem attack implies. And thanks for stopping by and commenting on my post.

Anonymous said...

Ched has given credit to Diane Denish before.
If you have read previous posts here, you can see that.
It is ignorant and presumptive, not on Ched's part, to jump the gun w/o investigating something at leaswt a little bit.
It is to Ched's credit that he applauds people like Denish when she does some good things, then be critical when she seems weak or "not out there".
If that blog responder wanted to act in a thoughtful, intelligent way to defend Denish, they should have gone with something like "Democrat is not going to balk democrat", or "a LT. Governor is not going to cross her boss cause she needs support"...that would have been more intelligent... weak, but more intelligent.
Ched is really just the messenger here basically, yet you will try to shoot that messenger cause you didn't like the message received.
PEople need to think before they run and jump people's ass for speaking their mind.... this is still AMERICA, not Nazi Germany.... "Freedom of expression/speech"!