Scaratino is a disgrace. He makes a big deal out of pretending to be an independent between elections and even went so far as to excoriate the GOP for the Iraq War and its various other incompetencies and corruptions and completely disassociate himself from the party, but every time an election rolls around he's right back towing the GOP party line and all their candidates.
The fact that someone who claims to be a civil rights attorney could support Darren White of all people is just mind-blowing to me. White has gone out of his way to suppress free speech and even ruined the careers of some of his own deputies for whistle blowing.
At least back when the Alibi had "Captain Opinion" as their token conservative columnist he didn't pretend to be anything other than a partisan conservative. Scaratino likes to dress himself up in independent moderate clothing but every election season we see him supporting whichever far right social conservative the GOP has barfed up onto the public.
Seriously, Darren White.
And who are these far right GOP candidates Jim supports currently?
And this "working with" and "lending his name" to the GOP against Heinrich?
You have something to back that up besides a column?
You're right, Gene. Multiple written missives--from Jim's columns, his comments on blogs, and from the GOP--don't a proven conspiracy make. So, I've changed the blog to more accurately reflect the effort to discredit Heinrich.
Now, please tell me...do you dispute that Scarantino is going after Heinrich? He's got a serious bone to pick...it's been evident for a long while now.
We're square. I've talked to Jim many, many, many times about this and my sense is, no, he does not have an axe to grind about either Heinrich or the conservation movement here.
Note that it's my 'sense' of the matter, and not to be interpreted as anything else. And yes, I very much realize anyone reading that surmises I'm writing about a colleague I have a lot of respect for, so very much file this under, 'for what it's worth.' If it adds up to not much, I get that.
For me, if the Journal and a lot of other places were not noting Martin's time as a consultant, and Jim was banging a solo drum, I could see where everyone is coming from on this.
I see it as nothing more than he's got his teeth into something that's been hanging out there for a long time from many angles...not just the GOP...and the history with conservations colors the whole thing.
I do wonder what the reaction would be like for him if he had never been involved with them. Would the reaction to his take on Heinrich be the same? Not sure.
There is an irony to all this that makes me smile. And the give away were the quotes from Arturo and Jim Baca. meaning, it's clear that whatever happened inside that conservation group has not sat well with them.
The quotes were way over the top given the situation. Clearly these guys have been licking their chops for a cut at him for some time. This is way past a columnist having a take on someone running for office.
Not that I necessarily think this, but one could easily surmise that David's piece was inspired, leaned on, and basically planted by those looking for his head. Something about it just didn't sit right for me.
Why are we even talking about Jim's credibility with conservationists INSIDE the topic of Martin Heinrich's record keeping?! it's bizarre at a certain level. The angle makes no sense unless someone wated it to be an angle.
Again, I'm not saying that was the case, but think about it. He's a columnist for gosh sake. A columnist! Why the level of angst (and anger) here?!
When you step back from it, Baca and Sandoval's quotes were way out of proportion to a columnist in a weekly paper musing over something that's been put on the table by others.
And that's a veeery long winded way of saying no, I do not believe Jim is "going after" Heinrich, or has a "serious bone to pick."
Gene, the thing that bothers me about Scaratino is that he pretends to be an independent but always works as an attack dog against the Dems during election season. Its true that he repudiated George W. Bush - but only after Bush had reached the (prior to this year's big dip) nadir of his popularity. Scaratino's Alibi columns have been singularly oriented on attacking the Dems - he even wrote one which had as its main thesis that the Iraq War is now somehow Obama's responsibility (because Obama doesn't plan to immediately evacuate US military presence form the country.)
I don't have a problem with Scaratino being a GOP mouthpiece, I just have a problem with him pretending to be an independent while doing it. It may be true that in some ways Scaratino is not at all in step with the GOP, but I don't see him writing columns about those subjects in the Alibi. Now, I realize - Scaratino's job at the Alibi is to be the token conservative. That being the case, its time to stop pretending he's something he's not - an independent.
fair enough. Here's my problem. Nearly every word and phrase here is crap. A complete fiction. Such as:
"Always works as an attack dog vs. the Dem's every election" ALWAYS? Can you prove that? Doubtful...
His columns are, "singularly oriented on attacking the Dems." This, on it's face, should be the deal breaker. please.
His job at the Alibi was "to be the token conservative." Wrong. I know the people at the Alibi. That gave me a good laugh...
And my favorite, "he's pretending to be an independent..." That one tickled me, since I get the same bullshit all the time.
Why? Because if one DARES to point out something positive about a conservative, or even mildly question a Democrat, surely one must be "pretending." Now you know why most writers have abandoned even the effort at fair and even handedness. It does not pay off.
Seeing things from both sides? Fraud!!
I'm gonna say it again, the reason for the over the top takes on Jim (and this issue of Heinrich) is nothing less than people who have been laying in the weeds to spring, and doing it on the absolute thinnest of reasons.
This whole argument is an utterly pointless exercise based on pure irrational emotion, as displayed in your angle.
The level of preciousness on display - how dare one question Martin Heinrich (who I am a fan of) or conservationists - is embarrassing...
Gene, you can hardly call it mild questioning. If it were just the lobbying issue, I'd be feeling you on this one. But I first noticed it back in February when he sketched out a clear agenda against Martin, before this lobbying bit ever broke. At the time, I wondered why Jim was taking it on. What I didn't know at the time--not knowing his history--was that Jim had a previous relationship with Martin. In that Alibi piece, one component he highlighted against Martin was a thin resume. But nowhere in it did he mention that he Chaired the Board of that enviro organization that hired Martin. Jim has since used his previous position to promote himself as an authority figure when it comes to the lobbying issue. If you were an average reader who isn't a follower of the environmental community or Jim Scarantino's various interests, you never would have known when reading the Alibi piece that he was in a position to know quite well the work Martin had done. While he highlighted claims that Martin had minimal job experience, today he claims that Martin did more than enough work to warrant registering as a lobbyist. It's this kind of behavior that makes me think that Jim has a bone to pick with Martin--a big one.
Here is the Alibi article:
http://alibi.com/index.php?story...=22223&
scn=news
Let's compare some quotes.
From Scarantino's February column in the Alibi about Heinrich:
"Heinrich’s résumé doesn’t match up well against White’s....Heinrich’s campaign résumé says he was once a small businessman. He obtained a business license for “Heinrich Consulting” in December 2004. The details of that business remain vague and he’s not known to have had any employees....
"Robert Pidcock, an attorney who entered the race this year, has researched Heinrich’s background. “There is a question whether Martin has ever had a full-time job in New Mexico,” he says,...
"Other entries on Heinrich’s résumé are drawing scrutiny, particularly ties to radical environmentalists and eco-terrorists."
Fast forward to this past month.
From the comments section of an NMI article about Heinrich on Oct. 11:
"He was our lobbyist when I was Chair of the Coalition for NM Wilderness."
And from the comments section of an NMI article about Heinrich on Sept. 7, which was used in an Republican press release:
"Martin Heinrich was in fact a lobbyist, both at the federal and state levels. That was the nature of his business, "Heinrich Consulting." I know personally he lobbied on the Ojito Wilderness Act and was paid by The Wilderness Support Center and the Campaign for America's Wilderness. He also lobbied on Valle Vidal and the proposed Sabinoso Wilderness. He may have had other clients."
That subsequently made it into one of Heath's articles, on Sept. 16.
It sounds to me like Jim knew a lot more about Heinrich's resume than he let on in February. And now that I've clued into his conflict with the NMWA, I have to wonder who it is he's referring to at the end of that Alibi section when he says Heinrich is being scrutinized for his ties to radical enviros and eco-terrorists. I suspect he was referring to himself, and once he wrote it...plenty more.
Go to Heath's site and do a search on Scarantino. You'll see plenty to illustrate the bad blood between Jim and the NMWA.
Look, I haven't a clue what its about. But Jim is the one who says that the political discourse in the blogosphere is weak. Here is what he wrote in the inaugural post for the New Mexico Liberty site, quoted for us by Heath on July 31:
"Many blogs are just personal rant sites, or places where hacks push their agendas and candidates. Some bloggers forgot how to think and process information long ago. We can do better."
Ok, then. Let's do better. Jim included.
His columns interest me, on many levels, but I think this scrutiny about what is, or is not, an agenda is more than valid.
Scrutiny is fine. I recall the articles. Still have not read/heard anything yet that points to an agenda, per se.
If I'm missing something, I'll take it. But I'll keep watching. I still don't see how a columnist writing about a perfectly legitimate question regarding a candidate...no matter how often... adds up to this (semi) hysteria.
Martin is a Congressional candidate for gosh sake. The rules are different.
If there's something to this, it looses me when peeps write with absolute surety about motivations, agendas etc. It's my personal block and I admit to it.
BTW, did ya'll see today's Times piece on the rather amazing ratings for Rachel Maddow right out of the box? Superstar.
Yes, I saw that...pretty cool. I don't watch much, but recall from that dinner that she was quite sharp. Thanks for that.
As to rules. There are rules we all follow. I don't think the rules that one sets for oneself should change, regardless of what level of politics we're talking about. Also, I don't think anything in my comments here even approaches "hysteria"! ha! Nor do I think any of it negates the overall body of Jim's work...which is often sharp not to mention witty, even when wrong. 
lol!
fyi...back on palin's fakesiness (fake + folksiness)
Gene, check out the new Darren White ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i...h?
v=inXWYbMuOhs
The R's are now calling Jim Scarantino Heinrich's "boss"!
Gene, am I reading this correctly? It appears that Scarantino is now calling Obama supporters "un-American."
http://www.newmexicoliberty.com/...%3ATopic%
3A4781
That wasn't my read on it, un-American, no.
BTW, 'hysteria' was the totality of all this regarding him; you, Barb's and others comments on NMI (I especially loved the person afraid to sign their real name), all of it adding up to a big fat huff and puff over nothing.
Ask yourself this; has there been some public hue and cry about this relationship between Jim and Martin, or Jim and the conservation community? Or Jim and anyone else?
I mean seriously. Does anyone really give a crap about this?
Here's the quote:
"There's something very un-American about this cult. Something very troubling. Something very frightening."
The "cult" is the large American group that likes to wear t-shirts with political slogans and do the fist bump. The one that actually feels inspired by their presidential choice this year--which is a rare occurrence.
As to my previous piece, I was quite neutral in what I wrote. Regardless of any of the back story, there are plenty of people who are interested to hear Sandoval and Baca's thoughts on that issue, myself included. You might want to check yourself on the hysteria, my friend. 
Er, OK.
Lump me in as currently checking with myself why o' why I have no interest in Jim Baca's thoughts. Clearly I have my priorities out of whack.
I'll circle back when I get my head out of my hysterical place and join the parade of 50 people who give a shit about this.
BTW, you sure told him. I'm sure he's currently is Deep Regret.
Gene, why do you think that if you have no interest in what Arturo Sandoval or Jim Baca think, that no one else does either?
And frankly, given the incredible amount of commentary you've made here at m-pyre over the years--much of it highly critical of the things I write--It's somewhat astounding to me that you don't understand why I would want to engage with Jim over his work.
Just for the record, the reactions of many people to Scarantino's grinding his axe against Heinrich come from personal knowledge of how and why he left the Wilderness group, and what he's done and said since then to try and cover his tracks.
It's not a pretty story and I won't repeat it here, but know that there are apparently many things you don't know about the situation, Gene.
Scarantino has also mocked other conservation groups and pretty much defended the wanton killing of lobos down south. His "eco-terrorist" accusations about Heinrich are similar to the attempted smears of Obama re Bill Ayers. Tom Udall has also worked in association with Dave Foreman -- is he an eco-terrorist by association too?
I also think it's hilarious that you imply that if the Journal covers a political story, it must be important and true.
Lastly, I don't know why you're so dismayed about people paying attention to what Scarantino says and trying to counteract it with the facts. Thank goodness we no longer have to rely on just the biased Journal and a few TV news outfits to delve into stories. We have an online newspaper and blogs from a variety of viewpoints.
I guess you could say few are interested in anything written about politics -- including columns in the newspaper -- but that doesn't make any story more or less valid.
I don't really understand this defense of Scaratino. Over on NewMexicoLiberty he's in full throated attack dog mode accusing Obama of being both a marxist and a socialist (apparently completely unconcerned with learning what either of those things actually are), accusing Obama supporters of being "unAmerican", claiming "...Dave Foreman and other founders of eco-terrorism hand-picked..." Martin Heinrich, and claiming that Obama is a "fascist" who is making an executive power grab. This is freerepublic/sean hannity territory.
Scaratino is free to think and say whatever the hell he wants to, but that doesn't make the things he says and less stupid and/or crazy. Obama is not a socialist nor a fascist and is, on the grand scale, has only a slightly less laissez-faire economic outlook than McCain or Bush do.
It never ceases to amaze me that people can accuse someone of being both socialist and fascist in the same breath.
I'm sure you have a very cordial relationship with Jim and all Gene but I'm judging him based on the words he's spewed across the internet and in print, and they don't paint a pretty picture.
On a side note I listened to Villanucci's show on the way home from work today and Republicans (who called into today's show anyway) are really not handling being behind in the polls well. I can't figure out if these people actually stupid enough to believe that Obama is a black muslim terrorist marxist socialist fascist wahhabist or if they're just hoping to convince someone else of it. The sheer vitriol is pretty shocking to me. I suppose something similar would occur fortunes were reversed but it would probably be restricted to the internet since the GOP has a stranglehold on talk radio.
Barb: I received a letter of commendation upon resigning as Executive Director of the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance. Ask your sources for documentation of their slanders against me. They've gone so far as to set up a website called Scarantinowatch, saying I am a Republican trust fund kid. I grew up in a row home, started working at age 14 nights, and I sold plasma occasionally so I could eath during law school. We got the first wilderness bill in 20 years done under my watch, for very little money. I accepted only the lowest salary paid by NMWA, and refused the money they had paid other EDs. The pros who pull down the big dollars in salaries and consulting fees from the Big Green groups didn't really appreciate being shown up like that. And the eco-terrorists behind NMWA are, well, eco-terrorists. That speaks for itself.
In the spirit of relieving those m-pyre readers not here, etc., I give. No worries, no lingering anything from here.
I would never question anyone's motives or interests, be it blogger, paper columnist or anyone else.
But this is clearly an emotional issue I can't seem to hear due to some sort of insider-y facts/knowledge no one seems to be able to write about in public, so I'm at a disadvantage on this.
Until those things come to light it's all supposition on my part.
Chalk it up to the tenor of the times, as they say...
Most people get letters to cover situations when things go bad and someone has to leave.
I don't really care about your background Jim. I used to think you were sensible and ethical despite things I heard from people I trusted. But now your attitude and writing seems to have gone over to the dark side and I find it reprehensible the things you are saying about Heinrich, Obama and their supporters.
Regardless of how the Alliance thing went down, your post comparing the Obama rally to Nazis and fascism was the last straw for me. I still find it hard to believe that someone whose intelligence I once respected is now spewing the same awful, obscene talking points of the worst of the GOP, apparently for the same reason they are doing it.
That's really all I have to say on the matter. I want to return to more positive pursuits, like helping get Democrats elected and thinking about how good it will be to finally be free from Bush, if not the messes he is leaving.
Commenting by HaloScan
