Marty in the Middle
[RE: "Marty's New Math," The Real Side, June 23-29] I am writing in regard to recent columns trashing Mayor Chavez and otherwise casting about as to who should say and do what in the upcoming elections.
Since solid information has been lacking in this editorially saturated environment of late, let me just put forward a few facts to help the opinionators such as the tag team of Jim Scarantino and Jerry Ortiz y Pino better understand the landscape in which they are running around. ...
First there is Soltari consultant Eli Il Yong Lee. To be a Soltarian at the municipal level, it seems one must not only pay him money, but one must toady in toto for all his other clients as well. I would actually like to be proven wrong, but nobody I know has so far managed to find a substantive instance where any of his local clientele—wearing any of their sometimes multiple hats—has ever deviated from the Soltari line. Indeed, the three city councilors who've been in the Soltari orbit the last couple years are joined by the likes of the Alibi's own columnist—and state senator—Ortiz y Pino, in their uniform and lockstep approach to politics, policy and in particular their venom toward Marty Chavez.
Most recently, Soltarian Debbie O'Malley saw fit to accuse the mayor of “doctoring” official Council documents—a charge that led to all manner of factually deficient hyperventilating and an attack from the Republicans utilizing their now legendary e-mail list.
The facts, of course, are that an attachment was necessary when the Council incorrectly sent up a document that said an ’enterprise agency' budget had ’failed' because the Council had failed to pass it. Never mind that the statute clearly says that what the mayor sends the Council becomes law in 60 days unless they affirmatively pass something different. The bill passed as a matter of law, plain as the black and white the city charter is written on (Albuquerque City Charter 2-11-19 B).
And then there is Republican National axe-man Jay McCleskey, who just two years ago was part of the hit squad that went after Brad Winter. Before that, he was John Sanchez' campaign manager who decided to pull the trigger on former Lt. Governor Walter Bradley.
"Going negative" is what McCleskey does. And his D.C. masters this year perceive that Marty Chavez is a deep threat in this decidedly purple state.
But they couldn't roll out the nuclear option against the mayor without a vehicle through whom to shoot. Hence the wild-eyed attempts at candidate recruiting that finally settled on Brad Winter—the very same Winter that McCleskey had tried to nuke just two years ago.
The GOP bosses will make some passing efforts to pump Brad up as a viable alternative. But their real agenda is simply to take some shots at Marty Chavez. They may also be hoping to do some party building during this odd-numbered year as a prelude to going after the governor and Sen. Bingaman next spring.
The Scarantino/Ortiz y Pino calculation is simply that the mayor can be brought down if only there's enough blasting away at him from all sides. So they'll do it, all for the purpose of serving their own polarizing patrons and at the expense of Albuquerque's citizens and its future.
Between the long knives of various special interests is Marty in the Middle, doing the one thing no other candidate or campaign seems to care about—moving our city forward.
I was alarmed at the total lack of local coverage of the Karl Rove story, so I called a few of the local stations to ask why they were not covering a story that should evolve into the Watergate of our time. At channel 7 it was, "We're going to let the national news cover that." (Does this story not affect us New Mexicans? Maybe Bush really isn't our president—that's what I keep reading on bumper stickers and T-shirts around my neighborhood.) At channel 4, and I swear to god this is true, when I called the news desk and asked them why they weren't covering the Karl Rove scandal, they replied "Who's Karl Rove?" I didn't call channel 13; I was too depressed.
A Better Article
I was reading the article by Christie Chisholm [“Still Tired of Waiting,” Newscity, June 30-July 6] on the city's animal shelters and I did work there for six months about a year ago, so I might be biased, but I think this could have been a much better article. I like the Alibi, but I expect more from them than sensationalism. You guys are our last hope for real reporting and socially responsible articles. In the article the author first complains that people are hostile and detached at the shelter; that was never my experience there. During the heat of the birthing season when the shelter was overrun with stray and unwanted, uncared for, abandoned cats and many had to be put to sleep each day just to make sure there was room for the 20-50 more that would be brought in the next day, and the next and the next ... there wasn't a day that went by that I did not see a fellow coworker leave the shelter in tears, distraught over it. They were desperate for an answer, for more help, more room, more facilities and more responsible pet owners! Everyone there cares so much about the animals. The work there is so hard and poorly paid that certainly none of them are working there for the glamor. Everyone I knew there loved animals. That's why they were there. And by the way, not one person I've heard complain about animal control has ever lifted one finger to go down there and help out. It's much easier to complain than to work, as the article pointed out, in "92 degrees" every day. And that was one of the other things that concerned me, the author points out this dramatic point about how she found a puppy who had no water and was "so thirsty it was trying to drink its own urine." If she walked over the whole place and she only found one animal who had no water, that shows the staff is watering the animals and staying on top of it. Also, for anyone who has a puppy ... the minute you put water down they spill it in their excited pee.
Letters should be sent with the writer's name, address and daytime phone number via e-mail to email@example.com. They can also be faxed to (505) 256-9651. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium; we regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter.