Is this a movie?

Barack Obama said this week that this inauguration is not about him.  He's right.  Rather, it's about another huge influx of cash into our political system by donors, foreign and domestic, that have a clear vision for this country.  It's not about him, but he happened to have some of the qualities such as charisma and the gift of eloquence that enticed and seduced the money machines and high-powered  liberals enough to make them want to knight him as The One.  As they say, always follow the money.  Once Barack Obama's handlers decided he should go back on his word (That used to be a sacred contract in this country--guys like Abe Lincoln really bought into it.) on campaign financing, Mr. Obama was able to attract $740.6 million to his campaign.  In keeping his word, John McCain and the incredibly weak, inept campaign system behind him, had only $81.4 million to spend.  Follow the money.  It was never going to be much of a contest. 

Remember what the Democrats did with some of that $740.6 million?  They spent it on flash and pizazz and propaganda.  "Yes We Can" still resonates throughout the country.  In a CBS commercial, CBS is asking if they can put out a prime time line-up that you'll want to watch.  They answer for you with, "Yes We Can".  Pepsi is using the mantra to boost sales and the beat, along with the Pepsi Generation, goes on.  If the ongoing drum beat is getting on your nerves, the mute button works well.  What we can't unfortunately tune out is rhetoric of the RINO's such as Lindsey Graham sitting at the right hand of The One, saying he thinks all the Cabinet picks are going to be just fine and other pathetic ramblings.  Sen. Graham and his cohorts in the Senate are useful idiots in this Hollywood production we are calling an Inauguration and new administration.  They aren't just joining the "Yes We Can" chant, they've taken it to the next level with "Yes We Must"!

Speaking of Hollywood, this entire scenario may one day make a great movie.  Only in our dreams would we see situations like Mrs. Clinton sitting in confirmation hearings and telling the country that her husband is going to continue to accept funding for his projects, no matter the source, no matter the possible conflict of interest.  In that steely Hillary tone,  you'll do what I say.  End of subject.    Only in a movie would they trot out Sandy Berger to talk about how great things are going to be.  He is the only person likely to have ever stolen and destroyed documents from the National Archives and isn't sitting in a prison in Canon City.  He's another cast member that we should love and overlook his pesky little bad habits.  

Only in a movie would the American taxpayer be sold a bill of goods that if we don't pony up and bail out Wall Street, the world will end.  We would then go on to see those same companies use some of our money to help make Inauguration '09 a wonderful, extravagant success, and nary a CEO ever hauled up before a Congressional hearing panel to answer for their misconduct.  Only in a movie would the media buy into the hype to such a degree that cable stations are having celebratory countdowns this weekend much like they have on New Year's Eve.  It could not be believed except in a movie that labor unions that would not budge on any compromise in order to 'save' the auto industry, did in fact, have millions just months earlier to send to Mr. Obama's campaign.  

It would have to be a comedy plot for the First Couple's favorite cheesecake, Eli's in Chicago,  to spend 7 days and use 200 employees to bake and deliver a 1000 pound cake for the Inauguration when the same couple campaigned on redistribution of wealth and everybody having to have 'skin in the game'---what about the poor and starving only a few blocks away in D.C.?  Are they getting their fair share of cheesecake?  Crooks and cronies and people that forget to pay their taxes will occupy the highest seats of power in the land.  Watergate is starting to look like a segment on Sesame Street.  Only in a movie would the majority vote be persuaded by sit com and late night TV humor.  It's a movie plot, all right.  A real blockbuster.

The campaign that had unlimited resources for TV ads and spectacular productions (remember the convention in Denver?) now has obvious continued support.  Labor unions are paying big money to put out TV ads to push the card-check system.  We see actors and actresses that appear to represent the hardest working among us, imploring us with their soulful eyes to please get on board with the new administration and allow card-check to advance upon us in the quiet of night.  We aren't supposed to read or contemplate the countless written reports and even Congressional testimony about employees being harassed and badgered at work by union 'persuaders'.  Just like nationalized healthcare will be the savior for American industry, card-check is the icing on the cake.  Just sit there in front of your TV and be mezmerized and seduced by these commercials.  Hollywood is entrenched once again in the propagandizing of many and driving the political policy of a country that has more interest in Miley, Angelina and Britney than it has in addressing tough challenges and staying on course.

What are you going to do on Tuesday?  I know that I am not going to glue myself to the 24 hour coverage of the Inauguration.  I won't be able to stand the sight of Oprah and Hollywood trying to pretend for a day that they are true blue Americans in the spirit of Abe Lincoln and the Founding Fathers.  Every single Hollywood liberal that's vocal has trashed their country up one side and down the other, both here and abroad.  Kinda like only going to church on Christmas and Easter.  We aren't supposed to judge but you have to wonder where the commitment and sincerity really are.  The Democrats will party heartily, laughing at the Right all the way till morning.  I will fly my American flag on Tuesday, not because I celebrate the excess and hype, but in memory of what once was, and what may be again if our fellow citizens ever tire of the double standards and start thinking again with some real discernment. 

I wish the Obama's safety and happiness and I certainly hope their children are protected from the glitter of the media and have reasonably normal childhoods in the White House.  The country is eager to focus now on style and fashion, anything cool and hip and very much outside the norm of what we typically see in the White House.  We've got ourselves a really cool president to lead us at a time when we may want to put aside terrorism and financial threats to our country.  If as the song says, "It's hip to be square," then I've found my niche for the next four years. 

I won't watch all the glamour and fuss that is being made now and will endure through at least Wednesday.  I'll be one of the square ones, quietly writing to the GOP Congressmen in Washington that really are doing great work.  They deserve our encouragement.  I'll write searing letters to the RINO's in the Senate that need to find other work. 

While on the subject of movies, since there's so much talk about President Lincoln these days, I recommend you watch the old movie, "Shenandoah" starring Jimmy Stewart, who played a farmer named Anderson.  We surely could use some Mr. Anderson's right about now, but in real life, not in a movie.

Colorado Dems flunk basic econ

As Obama pledges to use taxpayer money to hand out cash and prizes in the name of jump-starting the economy, Colorado Democrats seem to be taking notes. But perhaps they should start taking a basic college economics course. Their chosen model just won't work. A quick read through the daily papers and opening day remarks by the state's leading Democrat lawmakers revealed their plans to increase government regulation and taxation, two actions all but guaranteed to worsen the state’s economic prospects.

Here’s just a quick sample of their plans. Democrats want to mandate new business regulations. Rep. Mark Ferrandino, a Denver Democrat, is introducing legislation to force banks to give loan defaulters a “temporary timeout” to renegotiate their loans. Rep. Andy Kerr of Lakewood hopes to force businesses to grant a week of unpaid leave so parents can go to school events.

The trouble with these nice sounding ideas is that they will increase government intrusion into private businesses and increase costs that are in turn be passed on to consumers.

Democrats also want to increase the size of government. Only the state’s projected $604 million budget shortfall restrains their ambitions. According to the Rocky Mountain News, a $13 billion price tag for start-up costs is the only thing stopping some Democrats from moving forward with a socialized medicine scheme.

Even so, Rep. Mary Hodge of Adams County thinks a smaller version is doable. Never mind that government takeover of healthcare is a prescription for long lines, escalating costs, deficit spending, and loss of personal freedom.

To improve education, Rep. Karen Middleton of Aurora suggests that we should increase government bureaucracy by creating an "Office of Dropout Prevention and Student Reengagement." State Rep. Debbie Benefield of Arvada wants the government to guarantee every student has access to a high-quality teacher. I’m guessing parental choice isn’t what she has in mind rather the creation of yet another government teacher training program or teacher salary initiative. On the welfare front, legislation is poised to create an “Economic Opportunity Task Force” (at least it’s not a blue ribbon panel) to develop a “strategic, integrated and comprehensive plan to help lift families out of poverty.”

Bear in mind that every dollar spent on state bureaucracy is one not spent by entrepreneurs to create jobs, charitable organizations to provide real help, or individuals to invest in their own future.

Democrats think they can create jobs, stimulate growth, and generate prosperity through the creation of more government programs, hand-outs, and regulations. Unfortunately, they missed the lessons of the 20th Century, subtle as they were, like the Great Depression, 70's stagflation, and the collapse of centrally planned economies.

“There are severe limits to the good that the government can do for the economy, but there are almost no limits to the harm it can do,” observed Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman. The direction sought by the majority party this legislative session points to darker days ahead.

Krista Kafer is a Denver-based education consultant, frequent cohost on Backbone Radio, and regular columnist for Face the State.com, from which this is reprinted by permission.

Stimulate with tax cuts, not giveaways

The United States of America is deep in recession. Our new President, Barack Obama, intends to spend $800 billion or more on a “fiscal stimulus package” intended to jumpstart the economy. As part of this package, Obama talks of injecting $300 billion in government funds into the economy, direct to consumers in the form of tax rebates, in a belief that by sending taxpayers a check, it will increase consumer spending and stimulate aggregate demand, thus spurring a recovery. Yet a review of the effectiveness of such policies reveals the folly of tax rebates as fiscal stimulus. According to economist Martin Feldstein, CEO of the National Bureau of Economic Research, when tax rebates went out as economic stimulus last spring, only around 16% of the checks were actually spent, with nearly five times that amount going into savings. Most of the rebates were used to pay off loans, not to buy new products and services, and the stimulus package utterly failed to preclude the recession.

Furthermore, by the time the checks would be in the mail, the economy will likely be improving, as happened in the 1970s. If implemented now, the benefits of a stimulus package based in tax rebates—a small burst in increased consumer demand—are minimal at best and will not outweigh the substantial costs.

While the value of the dollar has lately gained in strength, it still has the potential to continue its recent decline. As its value goes down, creditor concerns over their holdings of U.S. bonds will rise, resulting in the likely increase in interest as creditors rethink their holdings. By spending $300 billion on a stimulus package that will likely have minimal effect, the U.S. government is essentially assuming even more debt, which has already increased 86% nominally in the last eight years, at greater national risk.

We must therefore institute wide-ranging, permanent, pro-growth tax cuts, starting with making the Bush tax cuts permanent and expanding them. Beginning in 2010, the Bush rate reductions on income, capital gains and the estate tax will start to dissipate. With the dire need for capital injections into the market, allowing the 15% capital gains rate to return to the 20% rate would discourage investment in the economy. Instead, the capital gains tax should be cut in half to 7.5% so as to incentivize greater investment.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has proposed that the 25% income tax rate be reduced to 15%, thereby “establish[ing] a flat-rate tax of 15% for close to 90% of workers.” Such targeted tax cuts would give the economy the boost it needs to create jobs and increase consumer demand and investment. We must then cut back the corporate tax rate from 35%, the second-highest in the world, to 25%, the average in Europe. This would expand incentives for businesses to create jobs in America and lessen the enticement to outsource.

If the Bush tax cuts expire, taxpayers will reduce spending before the expirations take effect, stunting the benefits of the rebates further. Alternatively, the knowledge that tax rates will be cut and individuals will be permitted to keep more of their income will give a sense of comfort to the beneficiaries. By cutting marginal tax rates now, the short-term effect will be a rise in consumer confidence, resulting in a boost in consumer spending.

The long-term relief that came in the form of broad-based tax cuts in 2003 resulted in the largest single-quarter GDP growth in 20 years, 7.2%, and the creation of 8 million new jobs through 2007. The aforementioned cuts would especially aid America economically in the long term, opening the door to greater and more sustained long-run economic growth as we come out of the recession.

History shows that the net benefit of tax rebate stimulus packages is minimal, and he who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it. A fiscal stimulus of tax rate cuts, not tax rebates, would stimulate an economic recovery by putting more money in people’s pockets long-term and increasing demand in the short-term.

Jimmy Sengenberger is a political science student at Regis University in Denver, a 2008 honors graduate of nearby Grandview High School, a national organizer for the Liberty Day movement, online radio host, and a columnist for the Villager suburban weekly. He is also College Liaison for BackboneAmerica.net, working through the Backbone Americans group on Facebook.</em

Dems feeling cognitive dissonance

Transitions are a great entertainment form, the more so if we get a new party as well as a new President. DC real estate folks always vote against the “in” party because a full blown turnover is always good for business. Casually strolling around Georgetown or similar neighborhoods one notes the frequency of double parked moving vans further clogging the Imperial City’s already impossible traffic congestion. Republicans are holding small parties saying good-bye to old friends; Democrats are holding big parties saying hello to new friends. Democratic parties are bigger because the crowd is swelled by lobbyists and general hangers-on who know that a lot of jobs and money will soon be changing hands and just maybe there might be something for them.

Republican Angst and Democratic Triumphalism have been amply reported elsewhere. A modest consolation for Republicans who so enjoyed watching Democrats carve each other up in the very extended nomination battle is to now see the Donkey Party squabbling over the spoils of victory. A highlight of this entertainment has been the much publicized combat over Senate appointments in Illinois and New York. By comparison the Democratic infighting over the Salazar Succession in Colorado was fairly modest.

If you like underdogs you have to love the way Illinois’ scandal plagued Governor out maneuvered Harry Reid and the entire Democratic caucus through his artful appointment of Roland Burris.

In the “Big Apple” who could imagine that the New York Times would actually assign a reporter to count the number of times (138) Caroline Kennedy said “you know” during a forty minute interview with their editors. Where’s the respect, the love, of days gone by?

Perhaps best of all is the growing indignation spreading through the left-wing blogosphere in response to some strangely centrist impulses coming from the new administration.

Markos Moulitsas, Commandante of the very influential “Daily Kos” huffily announced that he was “absolutely through with Harry Reid” when the latter failed to oust Joe Lieberman from his key Senate committee chairmanship.

The gay lobby-already reeling from three ballot defeats on same-sex marriage ( Fla, Ariz, & Calif.)- went ballistic over Obama’s choice of Pastor Rick Warren to give the Inaugural Invocation.

On a wider front Obama’s generally centrist picks for his Economic and National Security teams has set media tongues wagging and the left-wing wailing.

Barack Obama- closet moderate! Who knew?

Very interesting is the curious “Dual Presidency” we’re experiencing in the eleven weeks between Election and Inauguration. President-Elect Obama properly reminds us that the country only has one President at a time, but someone forgot to tell Joe Biden who’s already off on a world-wide junket meeting foreign leaders ( Joe may become the best Presidential side-show since Billy Carter).

This split-screen effect is most evident in the very different way Obama has responded to economic vs. foreign policy issues.

On the economy- clearly the country’s top issue and the one that elected him- Obama has weighed in frequently, forcefully, and in general usefully. Obviously it is the economy and other domestic issues ( e.g. health care, energy, environment) that he feels the greatest affinity for, as is also the case with Congressional Democrats.

On foreign policy however Obama has been strikingly more reticent, entirely happy to allow President Bush to deal with those “hot potatoes” that have made the front page in recent weeks- rising tensions between India and Pakistan post Mumbai, lengthening casualty lists in Afghanistan, growing evidence of Iran’s imminent nuclear capacity, Russia’s interdiction of gas supplies to Western Europe, and the violent renewal of hostilities between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

On these issues Obama and his party seem very wary, almost viewing them as an annoying distraction from the domestic issues that they are truly eager to pursue. This discomfort with America’s foreign challenges reveals a deep fault line that has haunted the Democratic party for over forty years. From Vietnam forward the related issues of foreign policy and national security have divided Democrats and cost them several elections.

A great irony emerges: Democrats-desperately wanting to spend money on huge initiatives- are constrained by an economy that is going broke. In contrast those issues which have been the Democrat’s Achilles Heel for two generations are pressing in upon them with an urgency that cannot be met by “referral to committee”.

Barack Obama will not be the first President who won office to pursue one agenda, only to find that History was imposing another.

William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times. Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post, and Rocky Mountain News.

Bill Richardson, politician on the make

Editor: New Mexico scion John Dendahl was the 2006 GOP nominee against Gov. Bill Richardson, recently dropped from Obama's cabinet under a cloud of scandal. We asked Dendahl, now a Coloradan, for his candid impressions of a 30-year acquaintance with Richardson. Here they are. LEAVING EMPEROR BILL'S REALM Years of Buyers’ Remorse over Richardson Lie Ahead in the Land of Enchantment

Moving away from New Mexico in early 2007 was neither easy nor fun. The state calls itself “Land of Enchantment,” an apt description in many ways. The lovely city of Santa Fe had been my family home for about 130 years. I am among the third of four Dendahl generations born in Santa Fe and had spent most of my 68 years there.

However, perhaps hearkening to the echo of Ayn Rand’s fictional hero John Galt in Atlas Shrugged, my wife and I decided to leave. New Mexico has long carried a rap for political malodor on account of corruption growing out of patronage. Under the “leadership” of Gov. Bill Richardson, political corruption had grown from several traditional pockets to envelop the entire state.

Richardson’s combination of pay-to-play and ruthless retaliation have dragged to the level of prostitute or whipped dog too many citizens who should be principled civic leaders. Something bordering on a cross between a brothel and a pound no longer felt like home!

I’ll explain how one can make such an accusation, but first an important disclaimer.

In mid-2006, the Republican candidate for governor withdrew and the party’s governing committee designated me as his successor on the ballot for the general election in November. I was decisively defeated by the incumbent Richardson. Some would like to attribute my move a few months later to that loss. I had had no expectation of defeating a man who had been in public office for most of a quarter of a century and would spend at least 40 times what I did in a 20-week campaign.

I loved my state, found Richardson disgusting, and went into this campaign determined to expose for voters the dismal conditions into which they were being plunged. Let the electoral chips fall where they may.

Richardson and I “met” via a phone call from him in 1979. I was a NM business executive whose name was periodically in the papers as a nuclear energy advocate. He was a recent carpet-bagger who picked the state as a good prospect to elect him to the U.S. House and was looking for campaign support. When that 10-minute call ended, I thought to myself the man is a pandering liar. I met him personally at a friend’s home a few weeks later, where he and his wife were passing out palm cards. The first “promise” on the palm card was directly opposite to the main point he emphasized in our earlier conversation, thus affirming my first impression. I have never encountered another individual whose bad character was so instantly obvious to me yet so apparently opaque to many others.

Richardson lost that 1980 congressional race to the Republican incumbent, but New Mexico gained a new U.S. House seat one election later. Richardson won the new seat in 1982 and remained in it until early 1997 when Bill Clinton appointed him to be the U.S. representative to the United Nations. During 16 years’ service in Congress, Richardson continued to vindicate regularly my first impression – a pandering liar.

It wasn’t until his taking office in 2003 as New Mexico’s governor, however, that he revealed himself to be a dictator as well. Illustrative of his hubris was his immediate move to replace his predecessor’s appointees on boards (e.g., university regents) to which they had been constitutionally appointed to constitutionally set terms. He simply demanded their resignations, then replaced them with appointees who, again on demand, signed undated letters of resignation which could be dated and “accepted” if, as and when the dictator chose for any reason whatsoever.

An early embarrassment was administered by a university student-regent, Felicia Ybarra. She refused to vote as instructed for chairman of her university’s board of regents, then, alone in a face-to-face meeting with Richardson and some of his staff, refused to resign and accept an alternative appointment. Richardson quietly tucked his tail between his legs and let the matter pass. It must be added that Ybarra was alone in the meeting because her mother, who had accompanied her on the 300-mile trip to Santa Fe from Las Cruces, was barred from the meeting and made to remain in a reception area.

It should have come as no surprise that a man whose privileged youth was spent in his mother’s native Mexico City would govern like Mexico’s infamous PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) which, with a minor interruption here or there, has exercised one-party control of that country for nearly a century. That Barack Obama selected Richardson for a Cabinet position is clear evidence that 1) pay-to-play is fine so long as you don’t get busted, or 2) his vetting operation, having missed something so obvious in Richardson’s M.O., is utterly incompetent.

Pay to-play

No major New Mexico news organization has had a sustained effort to focus light on, and critique, Richardson’s pay-to-play, his profligate spending, or his ruthlessness. However, isolated reports have appeared, such as an early one on the large campaign contributions made by individuals who later found their way into appointive positions in state government or choice boards. No new ground being plowed there, to be sure, but a hint of things to come.

Organized Labor represents practically no one in the private sector in New Mexico, and lost its legal right to represent public employees when the relevant statute “sunsetted” during the term of Richardson’s predecessor, Gary Johnson. The Legislature didn’t have the votes to override Johnson’s veto of its bill to extend. With direct contributions and indirect expenditures, Labor lavishly supported Richardson’s 2002 campaign for governor. One of its most aggressive bosses, Brian Condit, was soon the Richardson transition organization’s apparent gatekeeper for appointive positions.

Labor got its big reward by immediate restoration of its collective bargaining statute without a sunset, then card-check recognition (that is, no secret ballot elections) of two unions for bargaining units spread around the state, then combination of the bargaining units into such large and ungainly wholes that employees have no chance whatsoever of mounting successful decertification campaigns. It won again when the Richardson lackeys on the University of New Mexico board of regents put a provision in a $185 million hospital construction contract – a “project labor agreement” – to eliminate any possible cost savings through awards to non-union contractors.

Among Richardson albatrosses around New Mexico’s neck is a so-called commuter train, heavy rail no less, running about 100 miles in a corridor having fewer than a million people. A billion dollar boondoggle. Richardson obliged the Burlington Northern Santa Fe by buying and taking over about 300 miles of BNSF track that was probably more liability than asset (the 100-mile “commuter” corridor plus another 200 miles into southern Colorado). BNSF got $75 million taxpayer dollars from Richardson; tens of thousands came to Richardson’s campaign account from BNSF and affiliates.

A September 24, 2006 Albuquerque Journal article (I just found it again in three minutes on the paper’s Website) told the eye-popping story of approval by the Richardson administration of access to a major East-West limited access artery in Albuquerque for a real estate development by the family of Pete Daskalos. Access by other developers had been denied, as had access for a fire station. Soon, something like $130,000 made its way into Richardson’s campaign coffers from various Daskalos family interests. This fandango alone should have tipped Obama’s vetters, if they cared, that their man Richardson was too hot to handle.

PRI-style ruthlessness

The candidate I replaced on the ballot had been severely hampered in fund-raising on account of potential donors’ fear of retribution, reportedly including actual warnings to some. I was confident from my more than eight years’ chairing the state Republican Party and raising a great deal of money that I could get past that. Well, maybe not as it turned out.

Among my finance director’s first calls for support was to a close friend, a Republican real estate developer long prominent in the Albuquerque business community. She asked if he and his wife would host a fund-raising event. He called back promptly the following day to report that, much as he and his wife wished I could become governor, they couldn’t face the risk of Richardson’s retaliation when their name(s) showed up on public records as my supporters.

I couldn’t believe my ears when she reported this to me. So in a few days I called this friend. He not only confirmed, but reported a conversation that morning at a breakfast meeting of the Economic Forum (an association of Albuquerque business leaders) during which others had expressed the same intention: let someone else support Dendahl and bear the consequences meted out by our ruthless governor.

Ditto Hobbs in Lea County, an oil and gas producing area in the Permian Basin. Nearly all local officeholders are Republicans, and George W. Bush won decisively there in 2000 and 2004. However, I was told going in by a locally-prominent close friend that I would be able to raise zilch: reportedly, Richardson’s local enforcer and the chairman of his State Transportation Commission had the word out that economically important local activities – a horse-racing track/casino operation, a private prison, highway building and a budding uranium enrichment plant – could all be hurt by any showing of financial support for Richardson’s opponent. That well was dry.

So I went next door to Carlsbad, in Eddy County. When Richardson was in Congress, he was the single most effective opponent of a federal facility proposed in that county, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), designed to dispose of transuranic (TRU) waste produced by research and production in the Nation’s nuclear weapons program. The project was wildly popular in Eddy County, but miserably opposed by the usual anti-nuclear environmentalists in Richardson’s district hundreds of miles away around Santa Fe and Taos. Ironically, the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory near Santa Fe was one facility in need of WIPP to get rid of locally-stored TRU waste. But Richardson pandered to the enviros and lied to the rest of us: “I’m for WIPP as long as it’s 100-percent safe,” he said, knowing nothing, not even that lie, is 100-percent safe.

I had worked for years with the Carlsbad mayor and a couple of his predecessors, as well as the county’s delegation in the state Legislature, to counter the work of Richardson and his enviro allies. When I asked the mayor for help with my campaign, he acknowledged that Carlsbad owed me big time for all the WIPP help, “but I can’t put my city at risk,” Nothing coming from there.

In a community 25 miles north of Santa Fe is a prominent businessman known for damn-the-torpedoes, full-speed-ahead courage. During a visit shortly after my nomination, he pledged $10,000 to my campaign. After several weeks’ wait, a $10,000 check came in from a source entirely unknown to my campaign staff and me. I smelled a rat and called the pledgor to see if this were payment of the pledge and he said it was. I told him I wasn’t going to commit a felony (accepting a contribution from a donor with knowledge that the money came from another) and the check would be returned. Another day, another friend cowed by the specter of Richardson’s wrath.

And so it went all over the state. To be sure, there were principled, courageous people who provided generous support; however, the Richardson organization assured through brute intimidation that that would be a comparative trickle.

My wife and I now live happily near Denver. Since we moved here nearly two years ago, hardly a month has passed without news of some new or developing scandal among those ruling New Mexico, adding to the pile of vindication for our decision to move away.

It might be pointed out that, like New Mexico’s, Colorado’s recent electoral results haven’t favored my side, either. However, whether its governments trend left or right, I believe Colorado has the necessary critical mass of press and community leadership to squelch promptly the sort of corruption Richardson has made endemic throughout New Mexico. Sadly for New Mexico, formation of a similarly corrective critical mass seems light years away.