Holding on…

No Comments

Some things have popped up on the Internets recently that caught my attention, especially in how they relate to New Mexico. Each post is valid in its own right, and should be read on its merits, but keep reading to see why I’m bringing them up.

First off this is shot from Ezra concerning the Lamont/Lieberman brouhaha in Connecticut:

I’ve really been saddened, in fact, by how often, when I drill down into anti-Lamonter motivations, I find their ideological and electoral motivations mere sandrock obscuring a core rage at this affront to tradition and orderly succession. I didn’t believe this even a few months ago, but I’ve been forced to conclude that what scares folks about Lamont is that he represents an assault on privilege — Joe Lieberman’s, to be sure, but also theirs, no matter what sector of politics they currently represent.

Then we have this at Carpetbagger Report on proposed changes to the 2008 primary calendar:

This has been bubbling just below the surface for a while ā€” or above, if you live in certain states ā€” but the Democratic presidential primary calendar for 2008 is about to get a major shake-up. How New Hampshire responds to said shake-up might lead to very awkward intra-party fights.

Tomorrow, the Democratic Party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee is scheduled to choose among South Carolina, Alabama, Nevada, and Arizona for a January primary or caucus in 2008. As it’s likely to play out, either Nevada or Arizona will go between Iowa and New Hampshire, while Alabama or South Carolina will go immediately after New Hampshire.

Any of the choices would improve the diversity among primary voters, which is a principal Democratic goal.


Needless to say, New Hampshire is really unhappy about the change. Considering how far they’re willing to go to preserve the existing calendar, this can, and almost certainly will, get ugly.

That leads us into this post from Steve Terrell:

But this goes along with what I was saying in my column a couple of weeks ago. Despite all the headlines about Robert Vigil, Eric Serna and now Manny Aragon, it seems that a good majority of legislators don’t think they need a bunch of new laws cramping their style. And with the system set up the way it is favoring incumbents so strongly, why should they want to change it?

This isn’t a partisan deal. Last year in the Senate we saw lawmakers reach across the aisle and join hands in a truly bi-partisan effort to rip out the heart of ethics reform and stomp on it.

Ethics reform, campaign finance reform, any type of reform that reigns in the current system is bound to fail, because the politicians who would have to implement reforms are those who benefit the least. As Steve says, this is a non-partisan issue in New Mexico, because few legislators want to rock the boat.

All this just tied together this afternoon while I was trolling the blogs, and I thought Iā€™d share the posts with you. What are your thoughts? Leave a comment below, I’d love to hear from you.

Related Articles