Thursday, December 31, 2009

Denish "launches a new day in open government"


There will be those who, upon reading this post, will write that I am bashing Lt Governor Diane Denish because I "hate" her, and because I am partisan.

I do not hate Diane Denish. I have written more than once, if she offered the greatest promise of ending the incompetence and corruption in state government, I would vote for her.

I do not believe she offers the greatest promise.

Rather, I tend to believe
Senator Tim Eichenberg,
a Democrat, who said,
is either complacent
or complicit in "pay to play"
corruption in Santa Fe.

I am not partisan. I rarely
mention party in my posts.

If anything I am anti-partisan.
Partisan politics is an
anathema. I loathe it.

Read this then as an objective statement of facts. If you disagree, and can articulate your disagreement with civility, I will gladly publish your disagreement.

Lt Governor Diane Denish recently took the podium, link, to announce that House Bill 546 will be implemented January 1st. The legislation provides for internet access to state contracts over $20K.

I am troubled by her press conference for three reasons;

1. The bill was actually sponsored by
State Representative Al Park
I don't know if he was in the room, but
he certainly was not at the podium.

If any one person deserves credit for
the legislation, it would be him.

Yet Denish stepped up to bask in the limelight.

2. Denish claimed, "we fought hard"
to pass the legislation. Yet, there is
no evidence of any fight at all.

The Bill was voted on in three
committees before going to the
House; it passed 7-0, 9-0, and 8-0.

It passed in the House 65-0, and
it passed in the Senate, 39-0.

When and where was the "hard fight" she claims to have fought?

3. Finally, and most disturbingly, she claims "a dawn of a new day in open government". While the legislation is worthy and long overdue, it is hardly the dawn of a new day.

If ever there was a dawn on a new day in open government in New Mexico, it occurred on the morning Rep Janice Arnold-Jones walked into a committee meeting and began webcasting of the people's business in the people's house.

If anyone deserves credit for the dawn
of a new day, it is Janice Arnold-Jones,
and not Diane Denish.

photos Mark Bralley


Anonymous said...

And yet Denish won't "take a stand" on things such as the $13 million dollar Richardson-Toiletscrubber scheme.
Will she condemn that action?
What would she do different to make sure this doesn't happen?
Does she feel Richardson ripped off the NM citizens in events such as this?
At this point, I would be more willing to vote Arnolds-Jones in, because denish seems like Richardson's "mini-me" in almost everything she says!
No offense, but I'd rather have an honest Republican in the governor's seat than another Democrat crook!

Anonymous said...

It is hilarious that you think you have any credibility on this or any subject relating to the governor's race; you are the most fierce partisan or Arnold-Jones out there and take half-truths and outright lies over and over to bash Denish.

Take a step back and ask yourself: Why didn't Janice Arnold-Jones offer up this bill? What are Arnold-Jones' plans for government transparency (outside of webcasting some meetings but not agitating for webcasting of the full house or, well, anything that she can't be the star of)? Actually, name one thing that Arnold-Jones has actually proposed in ethics AT ALL besides her webcasting?

It is extremely hypocritical to pretend that Arnold-Jones has been a champion of government transparency and then bash Denish -- when only one has done anything related to ethics beyond self-serving webcasts.

If you wonder why people don't take you seriously when you go to meetings, it's because of posts like this.

Anonymous said...

To the general public, no one shines like a beacon for the governship.
However, Denish has had the chance to shine for many years, and her "light" has been rather dull.
Outside of Ched's posts, I don't hear anything from the candidates of substance. Maybe they are all duds?

ched macquigg said...

To 7:59 anonymous,
1. Your argument that I am fiercely partisan is simply not supported by any evidence. If you think there is that evidence, point to it.

My support of Janice Arnold-Jones has nothing to do with partisanship. I regard her as the candidate most likely by far, to actually end the culture of corruption and incompetence in Santa Fe. She would have my support even if she was a Democrat.

Similarly, and as I have stated many times, including in the post on which you have commented, I would vote for Denish if I thought she was the one most likely to end the rot in the Roundhouse.

I won't support her because, as I wrote, I believe that she is either complicit in, or complacent about, the culture of corruption in Santa Fe.

I would challenge you to point to a place where she has ever even admitted that the culture of corruption and incompetence even exists.

How can you expect her to end it, while she is denying that it exists?

2. With respect to half truths and lies, again I challenge you to back up what you say; point to a half truth or lie I have written.

3. Your questions about Janice Arnold-Jones motivations are rightly directed to her, not me. Unlike your Denish, JAJ meets with her constituents EVERY Saturday morning for three hours, and will answer any question you would care to ask.

As to your supposition that her web camera was trained on herself out of ego, it is ludicrous.

Before she brought her camera in, there were no cameras at all. Her right to film herself is unquestionable; her right to film others, while unquestionable, was debatable.

The idea that webcasting is "self serving" is almost too stupid to respond to.

4. I would ask you to point to the supposed ethics reform, for which Denish can reasonably claim credit. That she can even claim legitimate credit for the database is debatable.

Beside this one step forward, two steps back database, I can think of none.

And finally, I suppose that the meetings to which you refer, where I am not taken seriously, are school board meetings.

I would point out that they take my questions seriously enough that they have arrested me on more than a half dozen occasions (never filing a charge against me, because I never broke the law, nor violated the code of ethics that applies to APS students) rather than have the questions asked.

Your entire comment was pathetic. I thought long and hard before posting it.

You obviously are not a thinking voter, so there is little point in paying any attention to you at all.

Anonymous said...

Dear Ched,
Thanks for being enough of a gentleman to acknowledge the moron from 7:59.
Still, a reader is a reader. He sounds like he tracks everything you do. Sounds like a fan to me.
Good fans or bad fans, a fan is still a fan. He so hungry for your attention, at least in your kind response, you gave him that.
so "7:59", Thanks for being a fellow fan of D6... even though you seem to be an absolute moron.