ATTACKING LOCAL REPUBLICANS
We are all so busy watching the MSM attack Sarah Palin and the McCain Campaign and wallow in the joy that is Barack Obama's enlightened campaign that we have a tendency to forget or ignore the fact that local politics can be just as nasty as national politics. Local newspapers can be just as biased and warped as national ones. Here in Lincoln County, we're dealing with that on a constant basis. We have a "newspaper" here in town that is a joke, literally. I'm going to share the latest attack against our local Republican Party.
Rod Adair is a local politician, and a member of the NM State Senate. He is a Republican and is a very good representative for his district. I received an email from our local GOP organizer about a dust-up which has occurred between Adair and the editor of our local rag, the Ruidoso News. What you need to know about the Ruidoso News is that it doesn't even make good bird-cage lining. There's not enough of any issue to even line a garbage can. It is land-fill fodder, a pollutant. In no way does it classify as a "newspaper". There is no news in it. The only purpose for it's bi-weekly publication is to serve as a kiss-up to the local mayor and city council. The party line is not to publish anything unpleasant or anything that might upset the tourists. Ergo - there is no news.
Those of us who live in Lincoln County, New Mexico receive no local news. We have no community voice. No one knows what is going on. If there is a crime, it is covered up by the local paper. Murders go unreported. Robberies never happen. No one has ever been raped in the community, and child abuse is something that happens in places other than Ruidoso. Naturally, when the Ruidoso PD was exposed on 20/20 for one of its many cases of abuse, nothing was mentioned of the affair. No one even bothered to defend the teenage girl who was severely beaten by local cops. She had a drug problem and was running away. Her terrified parents called the cops asking for help. In return they threw her on the sidewalk and beat her. The family is now worth several million dollars. According to the local paper this never happened.
Now you can put the criticism of Rod Adair in perspective, and his response. The bottom line, the editor of the Ruidoso News (what a joke) basically doesn't like Republicans and has no plans in the near future to give anyone who is a Republican a break. It's called fair and unbalanced.
Senator Rod Adair ---
I heard your remarks on Tim Keithley's radio show this morning concerning
the Lincoln County Sheriff's race. Frankly, you sounded condescending and
misinformed.
The fact of the matter, as reported in the Ruidoso News, is that ALL
candidates for county office, including those running in primaries, are to
furnish a signature petition. That is the law, misleading as it might be,
and ponderous as it might be for all counties in New Mexico. This is to
avoid, as you mentioned, the possibility of just any hack running for office
in either the primary or general election.
The Supreme Court merely leveled the playing field for a contest in which
one candidate was allowed to skip the law, while the other was held to it.
Is that not the American way? And does that not give us the best opportunity
to talk about the real issues of law and order?
The Ruidoso News is an independent newspaper that has endorsed candidates
from both sides of the political aisle, and candidates representing a
spectrum from left to right. We have not yet decided whom to endorse for the
sheriff's race.
Yet, the Republican Party of Lincoln County has done itself no favors with
this newspaper by publicly calling us a liar in at least two party meetings
once by Rick Virden, himself, and also by Bobbi Shearer, whom I'm sure has
your ear. We have officially complained to Mr. Virden and Ms. Shearer that
this will not be tolerated. And if anyone thought our coverage on this issue
was sensational, the Supreme Court decision should put that to rest.
In fact, a core of county Republicans, who don't necessarily represent
rank-and-file voters, seems to be having a nervous breakdown over the
possibility of an actual choice in this election all on behalf of an
incumbent who, until recently, was a Democrat, facing an Independent who is
a lifelong Republican. Why is the party so scared? In fact, we've got lots
of questions, Senator, about how this entire snafu went down, and you'd do
well to ask some, yourself, before you again address this issue in Lincoln
County.
You said on the same radio program that you know a little about nuclear
energy because you have been briefed on the subject. That's a good idea. You
might start by reading this newspaper in the coming weeks. There's more to
come, and it's not nuclear science.
Sincerely,
Marty Racine
Editor, Ruidoso News
I heard your remarks on Tim Keithley's radio show this morning concerning
the Lincoln County Sheriff's race. Frankly, you sounded condescending and
misinformed.
The fact of the matter, as reported in the Ruidoso News, is that ALL
candidates for county office, including those running in primaries, are to
furnish a signature petition. That is the law, misleading as it might be,
and ponderous as it might be for all counties in New Mexico. This is to
avoid, as you mentioned, the possibility of just any hack running for office
in either the primary or general election.
The Supreme Court merely leveled the playing field for a contest in which
one candidate was allowed to skip the law, while the other was held to it.
Is that not the American way? And does that not give us the best opportunity
to talk about the real issues of law and order?
The Ruidoso News is an independent newspaper that has endorsed candidates
from both sides of the political aisle, and candidates representing a
spectrum from left to right. We have not yet decided whom to endorse for the
sheriff's race.
Yet, the Republican Party of Lincoln County has done itself no favors with
this newspaper by publicly calling us a liar in at least two party meetings
once by Rick Virden, himself, and also by Bobbi Shearer, whom I'm sure has
your ear. We have officially complained to Mr. Virden and Ms. Shearer that
this will not be tolerated. And if anyone thought our coverage on this issue
was sensational, the Supreme Court decision should put that to rest.
In fact, a core of county Republicans, who don't necessarily represent
rank-and-file voters, seems to be having a nervous breakdown over the
possibility of an actual choice in this election all on behalf of an
incumbent who, until recently, was a Democrat, facing an Independent who is
a lifelong Republican. Why is the party so scared? In fact, we've got lots
of questions, Senator, about how this entire snafu went down, and you'd do
well to ask some, yourself, before you again address this issue in Lincoln
County.
You said on the same radio program that you know a little about nuclear
energy because you have been briefed on the subject. That's a good idea. You
might start by reading this newspaper in the coming weeks. There's more to
come, and it's not nuclear science.
Sincerely,
Marty Racine
Editor, Ruidoso News
Rod Adair's Response
Mr. Racine:
Thank you for your feedback regarding my appearance on New Mexico
in the Morning this morning. In the matter of the Lincoln County sheriff’s
race, which I touched on briefly, you stated:
"The fact of the matter, as reported in the Ruidoso News, is that
ALL candidates for county office, including those running in primaries,
are to furnish a signature petition" .
Well, in fact, that doesn’t seem to be a fact at all, unless of course you have
some late-breaking news.
I believe if you check the pleadings before the Supreme Court, you will find
that Mr. Sederwall’s attorney argued that the law means just what you assert
it means in your declaration above. However, the court did not hold that at
all. If it had made such a ruling, Mr. Virden would have been removed from
the ballot, or, at the very least, required to submit signatures. Instead, the
court merely gave Mr. Sederwall a “do-over,” just as I stated this morning. It
required Mr. Virden to do nothing at all.
You assert:
“ALL candidates for county office... are to furnish a signature petition,”
If this is so, can you name any of them who have done this? Where? What
counties did this happen in? For which offices? There are 33 counties, and
nearly 300 candidates for county offices filed to run in the primaries throughout
the state last March. Can you name a single one of them who has been
required to file nominating petitions? (Since you are upbraiding me on this
count, I presume you can immediately name at least one—and perhaps e-mail
me the name.)
Did any of the candidates for county office in Lincoln County file nominating
petitions? (As Jerry Seinfeld would say, I don’t think so.)
Do you have a copy of a written ruling or order from the Supreme Court in this
case? As I understand it, they just more or less went in chambers for awhile
and came back out and said, okay, let’s let Sederwall have a chance to gather
some signatures by a date/time certain. In fact, I understand Justice Serna
told a continuing legal education class a few days ago, that they kind of stretched
the law to accommodate Mr. Sederwall. That’s hardly an affirmation of anything
remotely similar to what you boldly state to be “fact” above. You go on:
“That is the law, misleading as it might be, and ponderous as it
might be for all counties in New Mexico.”
They did not make any finding of the kind you refer to above—despite the
Secretary of State, Mr. Sederwall, and perhaps the Attorney General all
arguing for your interpretation. Think about it. If they had announced your
interpretation of the law to be the law, some 225 general election candidates
would be scrambling to gather signatures right now. They aren’t. “Ponderous”
it indeed would be! (And “misleading” even.) Problem is, nobody is doing a
single thing to respond to this “ponderous” and “misleading” law. Why not?
Because it isn’t the law.
You further state:
“This is to avoid, as you mentioned, the possibility of just any hack
running for office in either the primary or general election.”
Actually I did not mention any such thing. I never referred to any candidate, or
even wannabe candidate, as a “hack.” You also misrepresent my point in order
to make it fit your own—very different—point.
The point I made was that major party primaries are a means of ensuring that
a candidate has a reasonably discernible level of support in the electorate.
Independent, or otherwise unaffiliated candidates are required to gather signatures
in lieu of the primary election. Since major party candidates have to jump through
this “hoop” called a primary, I noted that it would be deemed to be unequal treatment,
somewhat, for independent candidates simply to be able to sit back, watch the
primary process, and then merely demand to have their names placed on the ballot.
Therefore the legislature adopted signature petitions as the means by which independent
candidates demonstrate that same modicum of public support that major party
candidates show through the primary election process. That is why Mr. Sederwall
had to get signatures. And he did have to.
You continue:
“The Supreme Court merely leveled the playing field for a contest in which
one candidate was allowed to skip the law, while the other was held to it.
Is that not the American way?”
Nothing of that sort actually happened though. If the Supreme Court had found that
one candidate had been allowed to “skip the law,” they would have made him go
back and pick it up, or “unskip” it, somehow. They didn’t. Because they made no
such ruling. If you have a copy of the ruling where they made this “decision” you
refer to, please e-mail it to me, or send me a link.
I think this is just your imagination more or less running wild. Just because they
went out of their way—while citing no law and while citing nothing whatsoever in
any statute, or in any Constitution either—to help Mr. Sederwall get on the ballot,
there is no justification to imply that any other candidate somehow “was allowed
to skip” anything.
As for your question about the “American way,” I can’t answer it because it comes
as a howling non sequitur at the end of false and completely unsubstantiated
premises. Your first premise is that some candidate “skipped the law.” Who?
Which law? Where does the Supreme Court say that? No one did. Your second
premise is that some other candidate was “held to it.” What candidate was held
to any law, with any deadline? Certainly not Mr. Sederwall. As the justice has
candidly admitted, he was not held to [the law] at all. Quite the opposite in fact.
He was instead actually given a free “do-over,” unmerited by any legal ruling or
anything the court asserted justified this most merciful second chance—a second
chance to do what the court is plainly acknowledging he should have done earlier.
(Otherwise they wouldn’t have made him do it this time—think about it.)
Your comment:
“And does that not give us the best opportunity to talk about the real
issues of law and order?”
is tacked on to the end of the paragraph making the unsustainable legal assertions
and seems out of place there, though it is nonetheless revealing. I take it to mean
you wanted the additional candidate to be added to the ballot by whatever means—
quasi-legal, faux-legal, or what have you—believing there are some “issues of law
and order” that need an “opportunity” for debate. Okay. I understand your motive
for wanting the outcome you clearly advocated. I disagree with the motive, just
as I completely disagree with the faux-legal process used to achieve the results that
have brought us to this point. But that is for another forum I suppose.
Next:
“The Ruidoso News is an independent newspaper that has endorsed
candidates from both sides of the political aisle, and candidates
representing a spectrum from left to right. We have not yet decided
whom to endorse for the sheriff's race.”
Hmmm. Maybe, maybe not. The Ruidoso News is a Gannett-owned paper, and therefore
in newspaper parlance at least, is not “independent” in the commonly understood way
that term is used. But, if you mean “independent” editorially, okay, fine. I have no evidence
to contradict that. Since your second and third assertions about aisles and spectrums
are objectively discernible there is no reason to argue. Research can show you to be
either correct or not, and so I’ll take you at your word. Regarding your fourth assertion,
well, maybe not, but you certainly seem to be, at the very least, hinting broadly at having
“decided” your course of action.
You go on:
“Yet, the Republican Party of Lincoln County has done itself no favors with
this newspaper by publicly calling us a liar in at least two party meetings
once by Rick Virden, himself, and also by Bobbi Shearer, whom I'm sure
has your ear. We have officially complained to Mr. Virden and Ms. Shearer
that this will not be tolerated. And if anyone thought our coverage on this
issue was sensational, the Supreme Court decision should put that to rest.”
I feel chagrined as a student of history and political science to have to remind you that the
Republican Party of Lincoln County is under no obligation to do itself “favors with [your]
newspaper.” In fact, I find your expression on this point most unjournalistic, as well
as, frankly, chilling. It sounds as though you are someone who—with precious little prodding—
might well misuse, and abuse, your position as an editor at a local newspaper. And this
is at a newspaper holding a monopoly on print media in the community. This isn’t good, Mr.
Racine. It really isn’t a good-sounding position to assert.
Regarding statements by Mr. Virden and Ms. Shearer, I would have to know what they
were—and you have carefully avoided stating what they were I note—before I could comment.
I have not been present when either of them spoke regarding your newspaper. Again, with
the use of “officially complained” and the threat that “this will not be tolerated,” you sound
remarkably threatening for a newspaper editor. Across the nation the editor/journalist
subgroup tends to be much more inclined toward free expression than your attitude hints
at. Again though, I’m hampered by not knowing what was said.
Your last point however, seems to be yet another non sequitur. You posit the notion that
that your “coverage” has been remarkably accurate. And you offer as evidence the “Supreme
Court decision.” As if something—or anything at all—the Supreme Court decided confirmed
your reporting. The problem with that reasoning is that your own assessment of what the
Supreme Court has done and said is profoundly inaccurate, thus undercutting your entire
premise. Again.
More:
“In fact, a core of county Republicans, who don't necessarily represent
rank-and-file voters, seems to be having a nervous breakdown over the
possibility of an actual choice in this election...”
I find this difficult to believe. I’ve never seen anyone in any such a state, and I am in frequent
contact with at least 75 to 100 Lincoln County Republicans. And, since you offer no evidence,
I choose not to believe your assertion. You went on:
“all on behalf of an incumbent who, until recently, was a Democrat, facing an
Independent who is a lifelong Republican. Why is the party so scared?”
Again, I see no evidence of the party being scared. I do however, note a lot of evidence of your
uncanny ability to channel Mr. Sederwall’s thoughts—and to do so verbatim. Mr. Racine, this
is, dare I say, extremely unprofessional of you. You don’t seem the reflective, detached
journalist at all. On the contrary, you come off, frankly, as a passionate partisan—as if you were
the county chairman of Mr. Sederwall’s ad hoc party. It sounds as though you’re just too deeply
involved. It’s obvious you are not even close to being objective. When it comes to commenting
on this particular issue, it’s probably best you relinquish your editorial duties to another staff member.
“In fact, we've got lots of questions, Senator, about how this entire snafu went
down, and you'd do well to ask some, yourself, before you again address this
issue in Lincoln County.”
Who on earth is “we”? You make it sound as though you have the proverbial rock in your pocket.
What snafu? County Clerk Maddox did her job correctly. All other candidates for office did theirs
as well. Neither they, nor Sheriff Virden, have been required to do anything other than file the
declarations they filed in March. Mr. Sederwall was told he had to have petitions. He did. They
just let him have a second chance. Nothing in Ms. Maddox’s work, or anyone else’s suggests
a “snafu.” The only snafu seems to have been Mr. Sederwall’s false belief and claim—clearly
rejected by the Supreme Court—that he needed no signatures. He did. They made him get them.
They just took pity on him as the one person in the state who apparently didn’t get the word.
You act as if this is Brown v. Board of Education. It isn’t. There’s no landmark case here Mr.
Racine. Just one lonely candidate who didn’t file his petitions and got an incredibly merciful ruling
by a court to be allowed a do-over.
“You said on the same radio program that you know a little about nuclear energy
because you have been briefed on the subject. That's a good idea.”
Again, you’re off a wee bit. I actually stated I am not an expert on energy issues. Mr. Keithly asked
how I learned some specific aspects of the nuclear power issue that I referred to. I stated that we
had received some briefings. I don’t mean to overstate this here, or be unfair to you, I just want to
make it very clear that I did not hold myself out to be, and do not assert that I am, very knowledgeable
concerning nuclear energy.
“You might start by reading this newspaper in the coming weeks. There's more to
come, and it's not nuclear science.”
I will. And I have no doubt of either of the latter two assertions.
Mr. Racine, again I welcome your comments regarding my appearance and my comments
on New Mexico in the Morning. I have tried comprehensively to respond as seriously and
as accurately as I can to the points you have raised, the questions you have posed and the
analysis you have offered. I do so with respect for your position both as a newspaper editor,
as a citizen of Lincoln County, as a voter in the community and as a participant in the political
process.
This brings me to my final point. You stated that I:
“sounded condescending and misinformed.”
As to the latter, well, I have just submitted quite a bit of information that I suppose you can
refute, or show to be erroneous, or accurate, in some kind of objective and verifiable fashion.
Or not.
With regard to the former however, it strikes me as just a kind of throwaway line, something
offered as a gratuitous insult. I have spoken with literally hundreds of Lincoln County residents
over the past six years. I guess I would just challenge the notion that I “condescend” to my
constituents, or otherwise treat them disrespectfully, whether in the course of constituent
service (which I do a lot of) or in interpersonal communication, or over the radio. While you
can prove or disprove something I may have stated, there is no way I can prove or disprove
whether I deserve to be called a semi-playground-like name. In fact, in my view, the use of
such words needlessly poisons otherwise useful discourse.
There is no way to respond to you other than to treat you with respect. I merely ask that
you treat people the same way. I urge you to avoid the gratuitous insult, if you can restrain yourself.
Respectfully and cordially,
Rod Adair
Rod Adair
State Senator
R-Roswell
Chaves & Lincoln Counties
Thank you for your feedback regarding my appearance on New Mexico
in the Morning this morning. In the matter of the Lincoln County sheriff’s
race, which I touched on briefly, you stated:
"The fact of the matter, as reported in the Ruidoso News, is that
ALL candidates for county office, including those running in primaries,
are to furnish a signature petition" .
Well, in fact, that doesn’t seem to be a fact at all, unless of course you have
some late-breaking news.
I believe if you check the pleadings before the Supreme Court, you will find
that Mr. Sederwall’s attorney argued that the law means just what you assert
it means in your declaration above. However, the court did not hold that at
all. If it had made such a ruling, Mr. Virden would have been removed from
the ballot, or, at the very least, required to submit signatures. Instead, the
court merely gave Mr. Sederwall a “do-over,” just as I stated this morning. It
required Mr. Virden to do nothing at all.
You assert:
“ALL candidates for county office... are to furnish a signature petition,”
If this is so, can you name any of them who have done this? Where? What
counties did this happen in? For which offices? There are 33 counties, and
nearly 300 candidates for county offices filed to run in the primaries throughout
the state last March. Can you name a single one of them who has been
required to file nominating petitions? (Since you are upbraiding me on this
count, I presume you can immediately name at least one—and perhaps e-mail
me the name.)
Did any of the candidates for county office in Lincoln County file nominating
petitions? (As Jerry Seinfeld would say, I don’t think so.)
Do you have a copy of a written ruling or order from the Supreme Court in this
case? As I understand it, they just more or less went in chambers for awhile
and came back out and said, okay, let’s let Sederwall have a chance to gather
some signatures by a date/time certain. In fact, I understand Justice Serna
told a continuing legal education class a few days ago, that they kind of stretched
the law to accommodate Mr. Sederwall. That’s hardly an affirmation of anything
remotely similar to what you boldly state to be “fact” above. You go on:
“That is the law, misleading as it might be, and ponderous as it
might be for all counties in New Mexico.”
They did not make any finding of the kind you refer to above—despite the
Secretary of State, Mr. Sederwall, and perhaps the Attorney General all
arguing for your interpretation. Think about it. If they had announced your
interpretation of the law to be the law, some 225 general election candidates
would be scrambling to gather signatures right now. They aren’t. “Ponderous”
it indeed would be! (And “misleading” even.) Problem is, nobody is doing a
single thing to respond to this “ponderous” and “misleading” law. Why not?
Because it isn’t the law.
You further state:
“This is to avoid, as you mentioned, the possibility of just any hack
running for office in either the primary or general election.”
Actually I did not mention any such thing. I never referred to any candidate, or
even wannabe candidate, as a “hack.” You also misrepresent my point in order
to make it fit your own—very different—point.
The point I made was that major party primaries are a means of ensuring that
a candidate has a reasonably discernible level of support in the electorate.
Independent, or otherwise unaffiliated candidates are required to gather signatures
in lieu of the primary election. Since major party candidates have to jump through
this “hoop” called a primary, I noted that it would be deemed to be unequal treatment,
somewhat, for independent candidates simply to be able to sit back, watch the
primary process, and then merely demand to have their names placed on the ballot.
Therefore the legislature adopted signature petitions as the means by which independent
candidates demonstrate that same modicum of public support that major party
candidates show through the primary election process. That is why Mr. Sederwall
had to get signatures. And he did have to.
You continue:
“The Supreme Court merely leveled the playing field for a contest in which
one candidate was allowed to skip the law, while the other was held to it.
Is that not the American way?”
Nothing of that sort actually happened though. If the Supreme Court had found that
one candidate had been allowed to “skip the law,” they would have made him go
back and pick it up, or “unskip” it, somehow. They didn’t. Because they made no
such ruling. If you have a copy of the ruling where they made this “decision” you
refer to, please e-mail it to me, or send me a link.
I think this is just your imagination more or less running wild. Just because they
went out of their way—while citing no law and while citing nothing whatsoever in
any statute, or in any Constitution either—to help Mr. Sederwall get on the ballot,
there is no justification to imply that any other candidate somehow “was allowed
to skip” anything.
As for your question about the “American way,” I can’t answer it because it comes
as a howling non sequitur at the end of false and completely unsubstantiated
premises. Your first premise is that some candidate “skipped the law.” Who?
Which law? Where does the Supreme Court say that? No one did. Your second
premise is that some other candidate was “held to it.” What candidate was held
to any law, with any deadline? Certainly not Mr. Sederwall. As the justice has
candidly admitted, he was not held to [the law] at all. Quite the opposite in fact.
He was instead actually given a free “do-over,” unmerited by any legal ruling or
anything the court asserted justified this most merciful second chance—a second
chance to do what the court is plainly acknowledging he should have done earlier.
(Otherwise they wouldn’t have made him do it this time—think about it.)
Your comment:
“And does that not give us the best opportunity to talk about the real
issues of law and order?”
is tacked on to the end of the paragraph making the unsustainable legal assertions
and seems out of place there, though it is nonetheless revealing. I take it to mean
you wanted the additional candidate to be added to the ballot by whatever means—
quasi-legal, faux-legal, or what have you—believing there are some “issues of law
and order” that need an “opportunity” for debate. Okay. I understand your motive
for wanting the outcome you clearly advocated. I disagree with the motive, just
as I completely disagree with the faux-legal process used to achieve the results that
have brought us to this point. But that is for another forum I suppose.
Next:
“The Ruidoso News is an independent newspaper that has endorsed
candidates from both sides of the political aisle, and candidates
representing a spectrum from left to right. We have not yet decided
whom to endorse for the sheriff's race.”
Hmmm. Maybe, maybe not. The Ruidoso News is a Gannett-owned paper, and therefore
in newspaper parlance at least, is not “independent” in the commonly understood way
that term is used. But, if you mean “independent” editorially, okay, fine. I have no evidence
to contradict that. Since your second and third assertions about aisles and spectrums
are objectively discernible there is no reason to argue. Research can show you to be
either correct or not, and so I’ll take you at your word. Regarding your fourth assertion,
well, maybe not, but you certainly seem to be, at the very least, hinting broadly at having
“decided” your course of action.
You go on:
“Yet, the Republican Party of Lincoln County has done itself no favors with
this newspaper by publicly calling us a liar in at least two party meetings
once by Rick Virden, himself, and also by Bobbi Shearer, whom I'm sure
has your ear. We have officially complained to Mr. Virden and Ms. Shearer
that this will not be tolerated. And if anyone thought our coverage on this
issue was sensational, the Supreme Court decision should put that to rest.”
I feel chagrined as a student of history and political science to have to remind you that the
Republican Party of Lincoln County is under no obligation to do itself “favors with [your]
newspaper.” In fact, I find your expression on this point most unjournalistic, as well
as, frankly, chilling. It sounds as though you are someone who—with precious little prodding—
might well misuse, and abuse, your position as an editor at a local newspaper. And this
is at a newspaper holding a monopoly on print media in the community. This isn’t good, Mr.
Racine. It really isn’t a good-sounding position to assert.
Regarding statements by Mr. Virden and Ms. Shearer, I would have to know what they
were—and you have carefully avoided stating what they were I note—before I could comment.
I have not been present when either of them spoke regarding your newspaper. Again, with
the use of “officially complained” and the threat that “this will not be tolerated,” you sound
remarkably threatening for a newspaper editor. Across the nation the editor/journalist
subgroup tends to be much more inclined toward free expression than your attitude hints
at. Again though, I’m hampered by not knowing what was said.
Your last point however, seems to be yet another non sequitur. You posit the notion that
that your “coverage” has been remarkably accurate. And you offer as evidence the “Supreme
Court decision.” As if something—or anything at all—the Supreme Court decided confirmed
your reporting. The problem with that reasoning is that your own assessment of what the
Supreme Court has done and said is profoundly inaccurate, thus undercutting your entire
premise. Again.
More:
“In fact, a core of county Republicans, who don't necessarily represent
rank-and-file voters, seems to be having a nervous breakdown over the
possibility of an actual choice in this election...”
I find this difficult to believe. I’ve never seen anyone in any such a state, and I am in frequent
contact with at least 75 to 100 Lincoln County Republicans. And, since you offer no evidence,
I choose not to believe your assertion. You went on:
“all on behalf of an incumbent who, until recently, was a Democrat, facing an
Independent who is a lifelong Republican. Why is the party so scared?”
Again, I see no evidence of the party being scared. I do however, note a lot of evidence of your
uncanny ability to channel Mr. Sederwall’s thoughts—and to do so verbatim. Mr. Racine, this
is, dare I say, extremely unprofessional of you. You don’t seem the reflective, detached
journalist at all. On the contrary, you come off, frankly, as a passionate partisan—as if you were
the county chairman of Mr. Sederwall’s ad hoc party. It sounds as though you’re just too deeply
involved. It’s obvious you are not even close to being objective. When it comes to commenting
on this particular issue, it’s probably best you relinquish your editorial duties to another staff member.
“In fact, we've got lots of questions, Senator, about how this entire snafu went
down, and you'd do well to ask some, yourself, before you again address this
issue in Lincoln County.”
Who on earth is “we”? You make it sound as though you have the proverbial rock in your pocket.
What snafu? County Clerk Maddox did her job correctly. All other candidates for office did theirs
as well. Neither they, nor Sheriff Virden, have been required to do anything other than file the
declarations they filed in March. Mr. Sederwall was told he had to have petitions. He did. They
just let him have a second chance. Nothing in Ms. Maddox’s work, or anyone else’s suggests
a “snafu.” The only snafu seems to have been Mr. Sederwall’s false belief and claim—clearly
rejected by the Supreme Court—that he needed no signatures. He did. They made him get them.
They just took pity on him as the one person in the state who apparently didn’t get the word.
You act as if this is Brown v. Board of Education. It isn’t. There’s no landmark case here Mr.
Racine. Just one lonely candidate who didn’t file his petitions and got an incredibly merciful ruling
by a court to be allowed a do-over.
“You said on the same radio program that you know a little about nuclear energy
because you have been briefed on the subject. That's a good idea.”
Again, you’re off a wee bit. I actually stated I am not an expert on energy issues. Mr. Keithly asked
how I learned some specific aspects of the nuclear power issue that I referred to. I stated that we
had received some briefings. I don’t mean to overstate this here, or be unfair to you, I just want to
make it very clear that I did not hold myself out to be, and do not assert that I am, very knowledgeable
concerning nuclear energy.
“You might start by reading this newspaper in the coming weeks. There's more to
come, and it's not nuclear science.”
I will. And I have no doubt of either of the latter two assertions.
Mr. Racine, again I welcome your comments regarding my appearance and my comments
on New Mexico in the Morning. I have tried comprehensively to respond as seriously and
as accurately as I can to the points you have raised, the questions you have posed and the
analysis you have offered. I do so with respect for your position both as a newspaper editor,
as a citizen of Lincoln County, as a voter in the community and as a participant in the political
process.
This brings me to my final point. You stated that I:
“sounded condescending and misinformed.”
As to the latter, well, I have just submitted quite a bit of information that I suppose you can
refute, or show to be erroneous, or accurate, in some kind of objective and verifiable fashion.
Or not.
With regard to the former however, it strikes me as just a kind of throwaway line, something
offered as a gratuitous insult. I have spoken with literally hundreds of Lincoln County residents
over the past six years. I guess I would just challenge the notion that I “condescend” to my
constituents, or otherwise treat them disrespectfully, whether in the course of constituent
service (which I do a lot of) or in interpersonal communication, or over the radio. While you
can prove or disprove something I may have stated, there is no way I can prove or disprove
whether I deserve to be called a semi-playground-like name. In fact, in my view, the use of
such words needlessly poisons otherwise useful discourse.
There is no way to respond to you other than to treat you with respect. I merely ask that
you treat people the same way. I urge you to avoid the gratuitous insult, if you can restrain yourself.
Respectfully and cordially,
Rod Adair
Rod Adair
State Senator
R-Roswell
Chaves & Lincoln Counties
Trackposted to Diary of the Mad Pigeon, , third world county, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, NN&V, Democrat=Socialist, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Dime con quien andas y te digo quien eres.
08 Bloggers Alliance
">
View my page on Political Voices of Women
![Pink Flamingo [Home]](http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii147/blog_photos_album/flamingo_crossing.jpg)
