Sunday, April 18, 2010

Denish conspicuously silent on Richardson's lack of honesty.

Governor Bill Richardson
told us he did his part to make
our state government lean and
mean, by laying off 59 of the
more than four hundred people
he has appointed to "exempt"
jobs in state government.

A number of people asked; who? exactly.

He refused to identify them.

So, requests for public records were made.

Richardson says there aren't any. He would have us believe that his friends and cronies were laid off without creating any public records at all.

The Attorney General's Office says that a bunch of hooey.

And here we go, litigation (funded by taxpayers) that will likely last until long after he out of office. It is to his advantage that you to believe it is a fight over public records. It is not.

He wants you to come into his brier patch, where he and his lawyers can keep you tied up for ever. Or at least until he is long gone and enjoying the accouterments of power and privilege somewhere else.

The fight is over whether politicians and public servants can be compelled to tell us the truth about the public interests including their public service.

In response to any legitimate question, do they have to respond candidly, forthrightly and honestly, or do they not?

The power and the resources belong fundamentally to the people. The truth about how both are being spent belongs fundamentally to the people.

Our eyes were drawn from the ball. In our haste to join them on their playing field, in their courtrooms, we lost sight of the fundamental fact;

Richardson was asked a legitimate question about the public interests and he refused to answer candidly, forthrightly and honestly.

He was asked to tell us the truth and he "said" no.

Gubernatorial Candidate Diane Denish has an albatross around her neck.

She can only respond to or stonewall, the widespread belief that she and Richardson('s corruption) are one and the same; that electing her is the same as re-electing him for eight more years of the same bunch of corrupt and incompetent good ol' boys that they appointed during the last eight years.

Does anyone really believe she is going to clean house?
Does anyone really believe heads will roll?

There is every reason to stand up for what she claims to believe in, and no good and ethical reason to not.

What better way to pick a side than to; stand up on a stump
somewhere and, pick a side in the fight over transparency?

She didn't have any problem picking a side when the PRC mess was too far gone to hide.

Is she for transparent accountability to the people, or is she not?

Any response except yes means no. Stonewalling is a nothing more than a cowardly way to lie.

Is she for Big Bill, or is she for us?

She picks a side, when she doesn't pick a side.

photos Mark Bralley

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Of course she's silent on him.
Did Little Orphan Annie ever rat out Daddy Warbucks? ...No!
same thing