 Roundhouse According to the National Media this is what the principal national group that is working toward the impeachment of George W. Bush & Dick Cheney had to say about the killing of the New Mexico Impeachment bill.
Democrats Kill Democracy and Protect a Criminal Presidency in New Mexico
Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2007-03-14 02:28. By Dave Lindorff
The unseen dead hand of national Democratic meddling seems to
have killed a promising example of grassroots democratic activism in New
Mexico that could have been a model for reviving the Democratic Party
nationwide and in that key swing state.
While no one has yet come forward and identified the culprits,
it seems evident from the behavior and explanations of some key one-time
backers of a proposed legislative joint resolution calling on the US
House to impeach President Bush, who at first supported the measure but
then joined 17 Republican members of the state senate in killing it,
that pressure was brought to bear on them to trade sides.
Only last week, the resolution, submitted by State Senator
Gerald
Ortiz y Pino, looked like a sure thing. It had breezed through the
relevant committees with solid Democratic support and only needed to be
accepted for debate by a full vote of the senate, which has 20
Republicans and 23 Democrats.
But then something strange happened.
 Altamarino When accepting the resolution for debate was put to a vote,
the
Senate’s 17 Republicans were on hand but most Democrats were
out of the
room. The person chairing the session, Senator Ben Altamirano, a
Democrat who had been a supporter of Ortiz’s resolution in
committee,
allowed the vote to go ahead despite the absence of many Democrats, and
moreover, permitted a voice vote. The Republicans yelled their
“nays”
loudly, and Altamirano ruled that the measure had passed.
Democrats came back the next day and demanded for a voice vote
on
the measure. It went down to defeat, 26-17, with Altamirano and eight
other Democrats voting against it.
Altamirano later insisted that he had not voted against
Ortiz’s
resolution, which he improbably claimed to still support, arguing that
all he had done was vote that the prior day’s controversial
ruling
declaring the measure dead by voice vote had been proper. He failed to
mention that he was referring on his own ruling as president
pro-tempore and chair of the session the day before.
 Cisneros Meanwhile, another turncoat on the issue, State Senator Carlos
Cisneros, a co-sponsor of Ortiz’s resolution who also
surprised Ortiz
and other resolution backers by voting to kill the bill, offered
another explanation altogether. “I didn’t vote to
kill the bill,” he
said in an interview days later. “I voted to send it back to
committee
because the votes weren’t there to pass it. I
didn’t want to see it
die, so I voted against it.”
“That’s pretty weasily,”
commended Desi Brown, an aide to Sen.
Ortiz. “The bill was killed and it cannot be brought back to
the Senate
floor, unless Sen. Cisneros knows something about senate rules that we
don’t know.”
A third Democratic turncoat, Sen. David Ulibarri, failed to
return
calls to explain his reason from voting against the resolution after
earlier backing it in committee.
Ortiz aide Brown said only two of the nine Democrats voting
against
the resolution represent majority Republican districts, a situation
which might explain their taking a negative position on the resolution.
Others of the nine represent fairly conservative Democratic districts,
but of course, the Bush presidency is unpopular among Democratic voters
of all political stripes, and among independents too.
Brown says that prior to the vote killing the resolution, five
of
the nine Democratic senators who voted with Republicans had been seen
conversing privately, suggesting a coordinated strategy to kill the
measure.
Brown and impeachment movement activists in the state insist
that
days before the debacle in the Senate, they had clear support for
passage among senate Democrats.
 Richardson Brown says he does not have evidence of any pressure on senate
Democrats, but speculation is focused on Gov. Bill Richardson, an
announced candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, and on
Sen. Jeff Bingaman.
The Democratic National Committee has targeted New Mexico as a
key
battleground state for 2008, and given the national party
leadership’s
clear desire to avoid an impeachment battle in the House, it seems
increasingly evident from the strange behavior of turncoat senate
Democrats in the state, that pressure was brought to prevent the
passage of a joint resolution that would have put the issue front and
center in the US House of Representatives. This seems particularly
likely given the overt pressure that has been brought to bear on state
senators in the state of Washington by two members of that
state’s
congressional delegation. A similar joint resolution is facing a
do-or-die vote in the Washington state senate today or tomorrow.
One curious aspect in this story is the behavior of senate
Republicans in New Mexico. Last spring, when impeachment talk was first
surfacing, national Republican leaders argued in the media that a
Democratic-led impeachment campaign would be good for Republicans since
it would “rally the base” of the Republican Party.
Many Democratic
Party leaders have bought into that theory, which is why they are
afraid of the growing impeachment movement. But if impeachment is good
for Republicans, why would they have acted in concert in New Mexico to
kill Sen. Ortiz’s resolution? Democrats should think twice
before
joining Republicans in such efforts to kill off citizen impeachment
campaigns at the state level. Clearly Republicans don’t
really want to
see an impeachment hearing in Washington, DC, which suggests that
Democrats should be pushing ahead for those hearings, not helping
Republicans to fend them off.
 Grubesic Democratic state Senator John Grubesic, a backer of the Ortiz
resolution, said after the vote killing the measure, “The
action taken
by the Senate was not the action taken by a body that protects the
freedoms of a sovereign people. The action was a carefully orchestrated
option designed to protect the integrity of an institution and
perpetuate the well-oiled workings of government.”
He added, “Our actions today showed where our
priorities are, we
forgot that the Constitution was not designed to serve government, but
to protect the people. There should have been a debate, argument,
uproar. Instead, we quietly gutted the sovereign power of the people
with polite political procedure. When future generations look back on
our time, the shock will not be because of the violent, impolite nature
of the fight that preceded the destruction of Constitutional
government, but by the meekness with which we watched it
die.” (more of Senator Grubesic's text, here).
Erich Kuerschner, a local impeachment activist in the state,
notes
that at the state party convention held in 2006, 80 percent of the
delegates endorsed a plank calling for impeachment of the president.
“The party constituents made a pretty clear choice back
then,” he says,
“and it’s not being reflected by the actions of the
party leadership.”
Entire Text from afterdowningstreet.org
Note: The original article spelled our local Senator's name incorrectly as: Carlos Cizneros. This has been corrected to Carlos Cisneros in this posting.
Note 2: There seems to be no photographs of David Ulibarri anywhere at all. |