At the NM Democratic Party pre-primary convention, The Father and I were delegates--well, I was on the State Central Committee and The Father was a regular delegate. The Father was a hit everywhere he went, and I think he signed up for the Democrats' Veterans Committee. He got to see his 1970s hero, now in his 90s, former Senator from OK (and the youngest and now only person alive who was on the famous Kerner Commission), Fred Harris. For The Father, he had not attended any Democratic Party convention, I don't think, since he attended, as a national delegate, the Democratic Party Convention of 1964 in Atlantic City, NJ, where he saw RFK speak and move the crowd, and the nation.
The results were decent for progressive values: Teresa Leger Fernandez, who appears to be pivoting to being a more progressive Congressional candidate, won among seven candidates to represent our area, known as the Third Congressional District, with nearly 42% of the 424 delegates voting in that particular race (there were nearly 1,100 delegates attending overall, as only those in the Third Congressional District were voting in this race).
Laura Montoya, a smart, witty, wonderful person I know, and a great County Treasurer, who is not afraid to battle the much more conservative County Commissioners, came in second with 20.4% of the vote, just over the 20% minimum for an automatic ballot position in June. However, Laura has chosen to run as an anti-deficit, worry about costs for social programs, Blue Dog Democrat. She came in second, I think, because Laura is from Rio Rancho, and Rio Rancho is the largest (by far) city in CD3--and so many, including me, adore her. Surprisingly, outed-by-Dick-Cheney-and-so-former CIA agent, Valerie Plame, finished with only less than 6% delegate support, showing her Anglo Santa Fe persona played poorly. The biggest surprise to me was how poorly the more conservative Democrats (more than Laura), Marco Serna and Joe Sanchez, performed. They had, respectively, only 13.5% and 12.2% support, mostly from the local areas where they lived, which, unlike Laura's far more populous area of Rio Rancho, showed it was more about territory than ideology or policy. I grew to like both Marco and Joe, having spoken with Marco after he got excoriated at the progressive (Adalente) caucus, and before that spoke with the anti-abortion Joe. I had, in the last months, spoken deeply with six of the seven candidates. I never really spoke with Plame, who, unlike the others, never called me. She also struck me as too DC oriented, despite the fact she is a cousin of a dear family friend in CA. I also did not want to discuss my harsh reservations about the CIA with the former CIA spy. I will say I liked the six candidates on a personal level. All are earnest at one level or another.
I was only one of ten people at the convention who voted for the only true progressive in the race, Kyle Tisdel. Kyle never had a constituency, and I knew it from the start. He is a white guy who is under 40, and lives in Taos, and we live in a time of tribalism in both parties, mostly white tribalism in the Republican Party, and a divided tribalism along gender, ethnic, and class lines in the Democratic Party. Kyle is the only candidate among the six candidates I spoke with who knew the military took up 60% of the federal discretionary budget. Kyle is the only one who knew of the degree of fossil fuel subsidies, tax breaks, and tax credits that are nearly as much and sometimes more (depending upon the year) than the military budget. He is the only one who stood for single payer, canceling student debt, and free public college tuition for all four years. He is, most tellingly, the only candidate who took the time to read Bernie's Green New Deal proposal, and was able to articulate its points (Plame's answer on the subject in the multiple times I heard her at forums may have been the most ignorant and atrocious. She really had no idea what was in any of the proposals that candidates have christened Green New Deals.) In his campaign speech to the convention, Kyle gave details about the Green New Deal and set forth his support for single pay. The fellow sitting next to me, who lived in CD1, said he was most impressed with Kyle after hearing all of the other candidates. There were also murmurs of pleasant surprise as Kyle spoke, showing how little the convention attendees knew about him.
The most interesting aspect for me is Marco Serna, who, when speaking about New Mexico, not federal issues, is actually much more liberal-progressive than he appears to know. I talked to him about this, and he was genuinely surprised to agree with me. He liked my "argument among the rational" argument, and asked to stay in touch with me, since he has my email and phone number already as a central committee member. Joe Sanchez is also someone I know I will speak with again, as Joe is an engineer who studies climate change and knows the mechanics regarding renewable energy. He really does want to work with progressives on this vital, existential issue.
Teresa is now an odds-on favorite in official circles (we have such limited polling here, it is so hard to tell). What makes her a likely favorite overall is there appears to be a coalescing around her among various establishment and liberal groups. She has the endorsement of Emily's List, Jim Hightower, Mark Rudd (Mark knew her parents, who were lefties; I told him about Mayor Pete's father and how one can't assume the children agree with the parents), Sierra Club, and even AOC's new independent PAC group. But since getting the AOC endorsement, Teresa is now saying she would vote for canceling student debt (she did not show interest in the topic the first time I spoke with her, and had given me the Mayor Pete answer about not wanting to reward rich people.). She is also leaning toward single payer Medicare for All, but still mired in talking public option. Frankly, she still speaks to the "now" instead of articulating a vision we should have and what to push for, and I have no idea where she will stand on foreign policy issues and the military budget. The Father is leaning toward supporting our Rio Rancho local candidate, Laura Montoya, and I understand that from a personal standpoint. I am up in the air right now, but am likely to go with the progressive favorite, despite really liking and knowing Laura so well. Yesterday, against all odds, I stayed with, and voted for, Kyle Tisdel because, well, as Jefferson Smith said in the famous film about him going to Washington, the lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for.
The NM Dem Party platform was approved, and it is largely progressive. What I found interesting is the summary for health care makes it sound like the party is only committed to universal access and impliedly the public option. However, if one actually reads the platform section in detail, the Party is now on record (96% of delegates voted to approve it) saying the NM Democratic Party supports a federal single payer system. Funny, I don't think most Dems attending know this, as I have no sense most read the entire platform, as I did. I could find some nits to pick with myself, as nobody ever agrees with a political party's entire platform. :). Also, the party delegates approved, with 86% of the vote, a rule change to allow for absentee committee and caucus votes, particularly because people have to travel 5-6 hours, depending upon where the meetings are held. My only caveat, which made me one of the 14% voting against it, was to ask for removal of the caucuses regarding absentee voting, as caucuses should have more committed people who should attend. There may be a revote if enough object to the Rules Committee not offering amendments from the floor. My take at this point is let's see how the new rule actually works, and not be as concerned about caucuses for now.
The final event at the convention to note is the two new DNC representatives for New Mexico are two long time Democratic Party political figures, former Mayor Marty Chavez and a woman from the southern part of the state, Trish Ruiz. Both spoke nothing about process, and rules, which is what being a DNC member is overwhelmingly about. Both only spoke about how much they hate Trump and recited a list of issues in bumper sticker style. The two progressives running against them, Jay Levine and Pia Gallegos, spoke about transparency, keeping members of the party updated as to what is happening in real time with DNC rule making, supported ending superdelegates, and saying how the DNC must stop the zigs and zags of not changing presidential primary debate rules to help minority candidates, but doing so to help a billionaire, and then changing the rules again to deprive a debate stage for a minority candidate who won a delegate. The good news is, despite the near unanimous level of official endorsements for Ruiz and Chavez, Levine and Gallegos lost only by less than 20 votes among the entire state central committee membership. Progressives are in a position to continue to grow in influence on the committee, and next time, put in people who truly want transparency and consistent application and promulgation of DNC rules. It should be noted both Levine and Gallegos are highly respected activists known for fairness and intelligence, who have been on DNC committees--with Pia having written parts of the DNC's "Autopsy" report after the 2016 presidential election. These are not Johnny-Come-Latelys and, instead, are long time Democratic Party members and activists. Pia is a lawyer fighting for land and indigenous people's rights and Jay is a long time web developer and consultant. I am pleased and honored to call Pia and Jay my new friends.
Other than that, it was the usual rah-rah of conventions, with lots of speeches. I was proud to get a chance to speak with various official incumbents (particularly Ben Ray Lujan, our congressman who is an odds on favorite to win the US Senate seat being vacated by the legendary Tom Udall. I am impressed Ben knows me by name, and now knows The Father by name after a couple of meetings), I spoke with a couple of the women challenging the conservative Democrats in the State House (which locals call The Roundhouse). These women challengers were deeply impressive, as first time candidates.
I should say I only had one somewhat heated discussion with some conservative Democrats on Friday night, where I spoke with them about how we use language in ways that never get us past particular cable news levels, and how corporate media framing remains too influential among Democrats. I gave them my analysis as to why I worry about Biden in the general against Trump in the Mid West and Ohio/Pennsylvania, and why I thought Bernie would have more traction there. They were definitely stuck in MSNBFox land, and seemed very angry with me. They thought it was crazy that I would be willing to give more of my personal money in taxes to those who don't "deserve" it. These were Latinos, insisting they worked hard for their money (they were well off from their clothing and said they were business people). I said, I worry about the not-so-well off Latinos, African-Americans, and Native Americans, foremost, and increasingly, white folks, so many of whom here who are suffering and struggling. I said I am glad to have my taxes raised to help all vulnerable and struggling people, and am less worried about whether any "deserve" help. I said I fully support free-at-point-of-service medical care, which they said was impossible--except, I said, nearly every other civilized nation for nearly 60-140 years. The next morning, they saw me, called me over to their table, and spoke very pleasantly and respectfully, and we had a great talk together. Ah, unity! I count that as a win, though I am sure they voted for Chavez and Ruiz (they didn't live in CD3, and so did not vote there). I briefly saw Mark Rudd, who said, Don't worry, Mitch, Teresa will hear us. Okay, I said. But, of course, I still voted for Kyle yesterday, to stand with the lost cause. That's always why I never succeed in life, ya know? :)
That's my non-Joe Monahan report. LOL.
