This week, City Finance Director David Millican announced his resignation. Since Millican says an article in the New Mexican on his resignation “didn’t quite get the quote right,” we thought we’d let him offer some parting thoughts in his own words (edited a little, for clarity).

Without further ado, here’s David Millican on Santa Fe, the economy and the city’s plans to restructure itself:

When I got here in 2008, the real important issues then were getting oriented to the city, installing a new financial system and starting to work on finance department strategic planning, teamwork and customer service issues.

That shortly gave way to three big projects: dealing with the downturn and trying to come up with budget solutions that would minimize the impact on services, the community and on employees. The second one was the preservation of the College of Santa Fe, and the third one was getting a set of water rates passed that resulted in the city getting its first-ever AAA bond rating. Those all took a lot of time. I did a bunch of other stuff too, but as we did the peer review this year, which is something I worked on as part of the restructuring committee with [former City Manager] Galen [Buller], [current City Manager] Robert [Romero], [Affordable Housing Director] Kathy McCormick and other people, it became apparent that the real focus of work in finance was going to be down at the detail level—systems design and operation stuff, detailed account reconciliation, building new systems to support the payroll system—and the peer review, which is going to come out next week, would be recommending some changes.

I guess the other thing that happened last year was I went from being a Finance Department director to also being in charge of…IT and risk management. There was a lot going on.

Now that the budget’s started to stabilize, IT, which previously had always reported to someone else, and technology generally ha[ve] become important enough that the peer review team is recommending that it be a department of the city.

We also recommend that the utility department have [its] own financial management unit instead of relying on Finance, and we’re looking at the possibility of combining payroll function and HR benefit functions in order to improve the way the new payroll system works and to improve customer service for employees. Finally, we’re going to centralize and increase the city’s capacity at contract management and administration. It’s been a key issue, there’s a lot of public interest in it, and it needs to have more than the part-time attention of our very small purchasing office.

All of those things are things that I’ve done over my 40-year career, but they don’t make my heart go pitter-pat, and there’s a lot of that work to be done.

On the other hand, the stuff I’m really good at which is sort of—the New Mexican didn’t quite get the quote right: I said I’m good at strategy, comma, planning and complex analysis*—things like the College of Santa Fe or the rate increases that got the bond rating which really had a big effect on the interest paid to the city. Those are things I do well. The city has projects like that that I can do well, but I don’t necessarily have to be here full time to do them.

If it’s [as] a consultant or [by] contract, I can’t really talk about it while I’m still an employee of the city. We’ll find out whether that works for Robert Romero and the mayor or not.

What the peer review found, and what I found, was that the [city's] systems are more technically oriented than oriented to the needs of customers, and you need to build changes into both of those. They need to be better and more efficient from a technical standpoint, but they also have to be easy for customers to use. We’re not necessarily hitting both those of targets at the same time.

These were the hardest two years, and because I was in California before this, my whole life [since] I became a finance director had been devoted to dealing with financial shocks to local government. To a certain extent, I ultimately found that dismantling organizations and the services that the community wants is not a fun part of the job. It’s possible to get really good at it, and we did, but it takes a long time, and in this case, Santa Fe needs somebody who has a longer horizon than I have right now.

Before me, the previous [finance] director had been here 14 years, and the director before that had been here 24 years. The changes that take place now are going to require a long commitment. They’re not the kinds of things that happen overnight.

*The New Mexican quoted Millican as saying his strengths were “planning strategy in complex analysis.”

In two stories today, Tom Sharpe, in his usual style, digs up some good detail. For instance, that wi-fi foe Bill Bruno—last seen ranting and waving a copy of GQ at a City Council meeting—”sometimes wears a silver-coating nylon veil to protect his brain from wireless signals.”

But, as Johnson writes, Sharpe and his editors have completely ignored their responsibility to the truth.

After giving a fringe group an open mike, the New Mexican had a responsibility to focus on what the science really says. Instead we get a profile of a local “healthy home” consultant, Daniel Stith, who concedes that his evidence about the supposed dangers of wifi (and a whole slew of other things) is “more anecdotal … versus some kind of study.” We also hear from Vicki Warren, who teaches courses on “electrosmog” and is allowed to go on for seven paragraphs reeling off misinformation that could have easily been checked.

It is not enough to counter all of this propaganda with some quotes from a Motorola spokesman. This “he says, she says” approach is lazy journalism that creates the false impression that science is simply a matter of opinion, and that there are two equally weighted sides to every story.

I’ll go one step farther and say that with its half-assed reporting, the New Mex risks spreading hysteria. The likely consequences could be that some con men get rich, while some sick people get sicker, believing their symptoms are best explained by “electrosensitivity.” (The latter, at least, has already happened in Santa Fe. I reported on such a case last year.)

Sharpe also reports that “the [anti-wi-fi] movement’s most valuable ally” may be the influential Sallie Bingham, who in a recent letter berated SFR’s Zane Fischer as “unkind,” and faulted the paper for ignoring the “quantity of reputable scientific research regarding the health hazards of cell towers.” (As though cell towers = cell phones = wi-fi transmitters. More on that later.)

To his credit, Johnson already picked apart some of “the movement’s” favorite research in a previous post. And despite grumbles from some in “the movement” about SFR’s lack of homework on the dangers of wi-fi, this newspaper is evidently the only media outlet in Santa Fe, aside from Johnson’s site, that has bothered to do any background research at all. Overwhelmingly, that research shows “the movement” makes unsupported claims.

Here are links to a couple of reports on “electrical hypersensitivity” that may be helpful to anyone who’s been confused by the New Mex’ reporting—including, apparently, the New Mex’ own editors.

The first (PDF) is a study by Stacy Eltiti at the University of Essex (UK) Department of Psychology: “Does Short-Term Exposure to Mobile Phone Base Station Signals Increase Symptoms in Individuals who Report Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields? A Double-Blind Randomised Provocation Study.”

Eltiti tested 56 self-reported sensitive people, and a control group of 120 ordinary (non-sensitive) folks, to see if they could tell whether a radio frequency/electromagnetic field generator was switched on or off. They couldn’t—even when the field was many times stronger than one created by a wi-fi node.

The present data, along with current scientific evidence, leads to the conclusion that short-term rf-emf exposure from mobile phone technology is not related to levels of well-being or physical symptoms in [electrosensitive] individuals. Furthermore, [electrosensitive] individuals are unable to detect the presence of rf-emf under double-blind conditions. It remains the case however, that [electrosensitive] individuals present with a range of distressing and serious symptoms and often have a very poor quality of life.

She goes on,

Given the current findings, together with findings of related research…it is imperative to determine what factors other than low-level rf- emf exposure could be possible causes of the symptoms suffered by [electrosensitive] individuals, so that appropriate treatment strategies can be developed.

In other words, something is wrong with people who think they’re electrosensitive—but it’s almost certainly not a result of their bombardment by wireless signals.

The second (PDF) comes from the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, which has been studying this issue for a decade or more. Based on a review of research around the world, the Committee’s 2007 report on “Possible effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) on Human Health” found the following:

The main conclusion is that although symptoms described as EHS [electrical hypersensitivity] are real and may be severe and disabling, a relationship between symptoms and RF [radio frequency] field exposure has not been proven. Most likely, the health problems described as EHS are not related to the physical presence of EMF and more research is needed to learn more about the conditions inducing EHS.

A 2009 update to the report (PDF) said that none of the research conducted in the intervening two years suggested those conclusions be changed.

For even more reading, check out the proceedings of the World Health Organization’s 2004 “International Seminar and Working Group meeting on EMF Hypersensitivity,” available here. One more time, from the WHO:

EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF [electromagnetic field] exposure. Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem.

And, finally, here is a nice primer by the Federal Communications Commission on what electromagnetic fields are and how they work (PDF).

David Millican

Farewell: David Millican, whom SFR interviewed just last month, is reportedly stepping down from his post as Finance Director for the city of Santa Fe. From today’s New Mexican*:

[Millican] said his decision to leave is partly based on results of a peer review by top administrators preparing to restructure the city organization.

Not sure what that means, exactly, but SFR put a call in to Millican this morning.

Free Stuff: Santa Fe County reported last night that it has received “336 recycle bins from the Aluminum Company of America Recycle bin grant through the New Mexico Recycling Coalition.” Complicated syntax aside, YOU, yes you, can get a free bin! More after the jump.

Here’s the skinny: It’s first come, first served for the April 19 pickup date; you must be a resident and recycler in Santa Fe County; and you have to fill out a recycling questionnaire three months after you get the bin. How they’re going to enforce that, I have no idea, though I can imagine something like the Green Police (see below).

*Note: The Journal actually broke the story yesterday; read it here.

Last month, SFR interviewed LANB Chairman and CEO Bill Enloe about the bank’s health and its dealings with regulators.

Actually, turnout was slightly worse than expected—which perhaps should be no surprise, considering the leading daily’s Eeyore treatment of the race.

The consequence of such low participation figures is easy to understand: People don’t feel invested in their government.

As the Journal North’s Jackie Jadrnak wrote over the post-election weekend:

Mayor David Coss’ impressive 57.8 percent share of the vote in a three-way race, with a 27 percent voter turnout, actually represented only a thumbs-up from 16 percent of Santa Fe’s 46,990 registered voters. Rebecca Wurzburger’s resounding 71.9 percent of the votes cast Tuesday only constituted endorsement from 19 percent of the voters in District 2, while Councilor Chris Calvert’s 57.9 percent share of the votes cast represented only 17 percent of the registered voters in District 1.

Even the unopposed Carmichael Dominguez in District 3 and Ron Trujillo in District 4 were able get their ballot squares shaded in by only 16 percent and 21 percent of registered voters in their districts, respectively.

There’s a problem with analyses that blame low turnout on voter apathy or uninspiring candidates: Turnout wasn’t low everywhere.

Indeed, turnout was over 60 percent in some parts of District 1, which includes many of the wealthier neighborhoods in the north hills, and saw a three-way Council race.

Demographics may play a bigger role than the dailies cared to acknowledge in their post-election analyses.

And no—”demographics” isn’t just code for “race,” although that’s certainly a factor. Age and income appear to also play a role in who gets involved in Santa Fe politics.

For instance, the turnout in consolidated precincts 35 and 74—encompassing the College of Santa Fe—was only 17.5 percent. That is, of 1,566 registered voters in those two precincts, only 274 people cast a vote for mayor. Even fewer—209—bothered to vote for District 4 Councilor Ron Trujillo, who ran unopposed.

Precinct maps are available here at the Santa Fe County GIS page. Below are recent stats on voter registration, as well as the March 2 municipal election results.

Please, run some numbers yourself, and see what you come up with.

The fact that Mayor David Coss didn’t lose a single precinct anywhere in the city—despite the low overall turnout—suggests he had a clearly superior get-out-the vote campaign to motivate that minority of voters who could be bothered with local politics. Across Cerrillos Road from the College Plaza shopping center, in precinct 34 around Salazar Elementary, Coss even managed to pull as many votes as incumbent District 3 Councilor Carmichael Dominguez.

Third-place mayoral candidate Miguel Chavez managed to tie Asenath Kepler for second place in only one precinct—that is, precinct 33, a diverse and relatively youthful neighborhood East of Baca Street that, incidentally, had apparently the lowest turnout in the city.

–

District 1 vote totals by consolidated precinct and registered voter totals by district.

District 2 vote totals by precinct.

District 3 vote totals by precinct.

District 4 vote totals by precinct.

Official results, all districts and candidates.

Citywide mayoral vote totals (Coss, Kepler, Chavez).

District 1 Councilor vote totals (Calvert, Simon, Nava).

District 2 Councilor vote totals (Wurzburger, Beninato).

District 3 Councilor vote totals (Dominguez).

District 4 Councilor vote totals (Trujillo).



Santa Fe County voter registration totals by political party and precinct, as of Feb. 16, 2010. Click to enlarge. (And note that voter totals in the city’s consolidated precincts will not necessarily match up with the county precincts.)

Read the full interview after the jump.

(And in case you missed them, check out related interviews with New Mexico Militia leader Bob Wright and Congressional candidate Adam Kokesh.)

–
Johnson: I was expecting your call.

SFR: I’m working on a story—it’s sort of multifaceted—one part of which is what it’s like to be a conservative in liberal Santa Fe, another is, what’s happening on the right wing, particularly with the Tea Party movement. I know you spoke at their rally at the Santa Fe Plaza last year; I was hoping to seek out your thoughts on what that movement stands for and where it’s come in the last year.

Well, talking about the Tea Party, I’d just consider myself one of those people in this country that is absolutely livid over spending. Spending, the deficit, the fact that promises have been made in this country that should never have been made, and I’m talking about the entitlements: Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare. The estimated cost of the unfunded entitlements are $55 trillion. Wow.

So the issue isn’t one for our kids or our grandkids, it’s an issue for us right now. There is no tomorrow regarding this issue. It’s here.

Where was all this anger about spending during the Bush years? He was indisputably a big spender himself.

With me, there was that frustration and anger when he was in office. I had that same frustration and anger. Um, it’s just that now I think we’ve ratcheted that up by at least double—I think it’s more like quadruple.

You mean with the bailouts?

Yeah, with everything. With everything right now, we’re looking to double the national debt in the next 10 years. And instead of moving—so there’s all this frustration over Bush and his spending. What I heard from Obama was that we needed to control the deficit. Well, I couldn’t have agreed more. What I’ve seen is moving even to more spending, and significantly more spending.

So this isn’t a Democrat or a Republican issue. This is an issue for those individuals that are in office that are spending money like there’s no tomorrow. And I would like to count myself in the group that is outraged over what’s happened.

And you’d say that would be the Tea Party?

Yes I would.

I’d say the Tea Party outlook is a little more libertarian than it is East Coast Republican. What has changed that this philosophy is getting a wider hearing—or at least more traction at the national level?

What’s changed is that I think people are genuinely outraged. I’m going to say that 50 percent-plus of this country is genuinely outraged at the moment.

Do you think that Democrats dug their own hole, here? [With] Obama coming in promising change, hiring a bunch of Clinton people?

I don’t see this as ‘Democrats.’ I see Republicans going hand-in-hand with this. Going back a couple of months ago, when the health care debate was raging, Republicans ran ads that said, ‘Democrats are looking to cut your Medicare.’ Well, yes: Medicare has to be cut. Medicare has to be reigned in. And Republicans are using that as a scare tactic.

Well, where’s the blame there? There’s blame on both sides. There’s no shoving blame off to the Democrats with a strategy like that.

As a former elected official, do you see the Republicans trying to co-opt the anger in the Tea Parties? I’ve heard that concern from some people in the movement.

I can’t say that it’s not—but it’s certainly not happening.

It’s not getting co-opted?

Right. The Tea Party is not being co-opted.

I’ve talked to some, I guess ’90s-style militia types who are affiliated with the Tea Party; I’ve talked to more socially conservative Republicans who are attracted to the Tea Party; I’ve talked to Adam Kokesh-type young Republicans who are attracted to it; and I wanted to bounce something off of you, because this occurred to me: During the Obama campaign, there were a lot of people who said he’s popular because he’s a blank slate that people could project a platform onto. Do you think there’s a certain amount of that going on with the Tea Party right now?

Um, no, I think the Tea Party is defined. I think the definition of the Tea Party has to do with uncontrolled spending—inability to come to grips with entitlement spending.
This last week I’ve hung out with—what’s the group? Young Americans for Liberty? But it’s not Young Americans for Liberty—it’s—the Campaign for Liberty.

The Ron Paul group?

Yeah, but it’s the—young adults in that category.

I’ll look it up.

Well, they’re—I’ve hung out with them during this last week a bunch. And they’re so upset. They’re not going to pay this back. They’re not going to pay this back. This isn’t fair. This isn’t fair to those—and this is what they’re saying: They had nothing to do with this. Take your government and shove it.

Is that a dangerous attitude? Do you see this anger boiling over?

Well, I’m speaking now, young adults, like 25 and younger, and I’m not talking about a handful of them here—I’m talking about a really big movement. If you look at CPAC, there was a bigger presence of these young people at CPAC than ever before. I mean noticeably a presence.

And they’re not going to pay this back. They’re not going to pay this back. They’re absolutely angry. And, again, I’m talking about a large group of—I’ll call them kids—that are becoming very, very active. What’s the effect of that? I don’t know. But I have never seen it before.

I was just talking to John Grubesic, who spoke at that rally at the Plaza with you. And he was recounting how the crowd booed him down, and he doesn’t think that maybe they heard 75 percent of what he had to say. And he was a little rattled by that, and he said he got some anonymous, heavy-breathing-type phone calls later. But he said that you seemed a little upset by that, too, by the crowd’s reaction to him—

Well, I thought at the time—first of all, I’d never really witnessed a reaction like that to anyone speaking, politically. I mean, it was vociferous, and it was—it wasn’t pleasant at all. I was surprised by that. But what I was witnessing, Corey, I was witnessing the first, really the first time I’ve witnessed this kind of reaction that has now become very, very commonplace. So what surprised me was just how angry it was. That’s what surprised me. I’d never seen that before. Since then? I’m seeing it everywhere.

As you tour the country?

Yes.

Where you surprised in particular to see it in a place like Santa Fe, where Republicans are outnumbered like four to one?

Yes—and keep in mind, we’re talking like 18 months ago. That was a long time ago. A lot has happened since then. First, an election’s happened since then. The current economic crisis has happened since then.

Well, arguably been building for a few years, right?

Yeah.

So you think this anger is directed at both parties, and rightly so, because both parties share blame?

Right.

Are you at all nervous that—has this anger ever been directed at you, or do you fear that it might be?

[Laughs] No! I happen to be one of those that are angry. No, this hasn’t been directed at me!… I’m arguably the penny-pinchingest governor that ever served. No, I’m angry. I’m angry. Is it directed at me? No, it’s not.

So this isn’t an indiscriminate kind of—

No, it’s not indiscriminate at all. It’s not indiscriminate. That isn’t to say a new movement isn’t going to start up tomorrow that is going to marginalize penny-pinchers. I might be first on that vilification list.

The word socialist is getting thrown around a lot lately, particularly when it comes to some of the President’s policies. At the same time, he came out in the State of the Union and talked about cutting capital gains taxes, among other things. Do you think Obama is socialist?

Well, OK. So he talks about cutting capital gains, but it doesn’t happen. He talks about cutting health care costs, but it doesn’t happen. So the actions are socialist. The words aren’t necessarily socialist, but the actions are.

OK, I’ll take that. It’s a pretty straightforward answer. And this ‘Our America Initiative‘—could you tell me a bit about what you’re doing with this?

I am, uh—it is an advocacy committee. I am the chairman of the committee. It’s a 501(c)4, which allows me to raise money and speak out on the issues of the day. And the issues of the day start out with spending, taxes, the deficit, the need to cut entitlements.

Is this a profile-raiser for a Presidential run? I think a lot of people would assume so.

Well, as part of the 501(c)4, this is not a political platform organization. It’s an issue organization. And I sure don’t want to get sideways with the rules around the 501(c)4.

In other words to get sideways with the IRS.

Well, I think it’s again—it has to do with the laws concerning a 501(c)4. It allows me to advocate. It’s an issue organization.

Well, Our America aside, let me put the question a different way. There’s been a lot of talk about you running for President. Is this—

Right. Of course I hear it. But it’s not anything, in my position, that I can—I can’t say that that’s any sort of—It’s not part of my horizon. My horizon is as a part of an issue organization.

You talked about being one of those people who was upset with Bush’s spending practicies, and we talked about the Tea Party adopting some traditional libertarian views—not emphasizing social issues, instead emphasizing taxes and spending. Is this the new face of Republican Party?

I think it could be. I think the majority of Republicans actually believe in this whole notion of freedom and liberty as opposed to entitlements. But rather than sit on the couch, I’m actually putting that to the test. I’m out here talking about these issues and seeing just how much support there is for what I’ve got to say.

Since we are a local paper, I am looking at what this Tea Party movement looks like in Santa Fe, and what it’s like to be more right-leaning in a city like this. Let me ask you about your time here. Did you find it hard to be a libertarian, conservative-leaning person when you were living in Santa Fe?

Not at all. My experience, Corey? My experience is that people are really like closet libertarians—they don’t even know it.

Really?

When you start talking politics, I’ve found that if a person has to label themselves, more times than not, they find themselves leaning—or even falling over—libertarian, but don’t realize it. Kind of like, undiagnosed.

So I’m looking at the latest voter registration statistics for Santa Fe County. And it’s not uncommon in a lot of these precincts for ‘decline to state’ to be twice as popular as Republican as a registration choice. Now, you think a lot of those people [are] undiagnosed libertarians?

Yeah. Independents? The rise in registration is independents. Yeah. You got it. You got it. This is—it’s not Republicans: There’s no migration to the Republican side. There’s a migration away from the Republicans and away from the Democrats into the independent category. And that independent category is really first and foremost about common sense.

Just—where’s the common sense? What’s happening with this country? The inability of elected officials to actually address the problems that we have. More of the same. All it is is more of the same. I’m saying right now, on a regular basis, that the Congress and the President need to wake up tomorrow and say, ‘We’re going to become leaders, we’re going to address the problems this country faces’—and with the notion of not getting reelected. That’s what we need right now.

As I’ve been reporting this story, I’ve been using a couple of litmus test issues, and I’m not sure these are issues a pollster would use, but they just make sense to me to figure out where somebody’s at, when they talk about the importance of liberty and the Constitution and things.

Uh-huh.

Where do you stand on ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’?

That it shouldn’t exist. Gays in the military that are putting their lives on the line should be acknowledged as who they are. They’re no less patriotic. They’re equal human beings.

Here’s another one. The Tea Party people talk a lot about the Constitution, and this is something I think about every time I get on an airplane: What do you think about the TSA?

Well, first of all—I think that, if you will, safety as an issue is going to be better and better. And it’s going to become—it’s going to take place because of technology.

There are a lot of issues with the TSA. The issues with the TSA are—I watch it. You’re in line. They break down the baby carriage and the kids and the stuff the kids are carrying, and they break down the woman in the wheelchair. And I gotta tell you, from what I understand, there’s some real scientific evidence out there that would suggest that that’s a waste of time. That’s just a waste of time.

Do I feel any safer? I don’t really feel any safer at all. Because I recognize any time they test the system with their own people, they’re able to thwart the system. Every single time. So, I think it’s more for travel psychology than it is actual safety. Do I think it’s going to improve going forward? I do. But it’s going to have to do with technology.

That’s pretty clear as well, but does it raise any Fourth Amendment issues for you, when you see someone apparently randomly getting pulled aside, even a granny in a wheelchair?

Well, the Fourth Amendment, which—what Amendment are you?

Well, the one about searches and seizures.

Well, uh—in other words, you’re saying everyone needs to be treated equally, or otherwise you’re going to violate the Fourth Amendment, searches and seizures without due process?

Yeah.

Yeah, I don’t know about that one. All I’m saying is that there’s a real science to profiling. That there are those that fall itno a category of little or no risk, and you can see it from the incidents…you know, they’re not kids in baby carriages. So, I don’t know. I don’t see that coming to bear.

If in the category of profiling, and I say profiling—If in the category of young virile lookg men, as a 57-year-old, I fall into that every single time I went through.

[Laughs]

— then everybody is getting treated equal, with regard to the profiling.

I don’t know. I’ve never heard it before, and I’ll think about it. But I have nothing to add to that, I don’t think.

So you’re in Portland, Oregon, now [Feb. 23]?

Yes.

Have you done your speaking engagement yet?

Well, it was at a reception last evening, and I have one that will start this afternoon at four o’clock. It’ll be a reception this afternoon for anybody that wants to come, and I think we’re expecting 50 people.

What was the event last night?

It was a Reason Foundation-sponsored dinner.

Is there any question I should’ve asked?

Nope. I have to say, you’re—I wouldn’t have anything to add, based on what we talked about.

Governor, thanks a lot.

Absolutely. Thank you. Bye.

The image is there, but the video's gone.

In last week’s paper, SFR spoke with Jason Brockhoft, a former contestant on the reality TV show “Bullrun” who wrecked his car and, by his account, nearly came to blows with pro wrestler Bill Goldberg at the old state penitentiary in Santa Fe. This week, Brockhoft posted three YouTube videos chronicling his side of the story.

As of today, all three show up in a YouTube search, but most copies of the videos—which Brockhoft says he’s uploaded repeatedly—yield the following response: This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by BULLRUN LLC.

Bullrun’s copyright lawyers monitor any copyright infringement but from your e-mail it simply sounds like Jason is posting footage he does not have any rights to on YouTube.

Essentially, we’re not in the position to be able to decide whether a piece of information is copyrighted. We don’t make those determinations ourselves; we provide a process where [parties] who feel their copyright is infringed can file a complaint.

(To wit: Here’s a YouTube video of his speech last year to a Lea County Tea Party rally. And here’s a reaction from someone who didn’t think his borderline call for uprising was radical enough.)

Wright believes that most of the American public would side with him, if only they could hear his views unfiltered. Given that he considers the Republicans to be a left-wing party, and that the United States started going downhill after 1913, that seems unlikely.

Right now, there is a struggle for the future of the Tea Party movement, with radical, violence-praising purists like Wright—who is called a “nativist” by the Southern Poverty Law Center—in the minority against the taming forces of mainstream corporate Republicanism. Yet, as this interview shows, Wright has one thing in common with the “pretty hair” Republicans he claims to despise: He is no fan of “snarky, frat-boy, smart-ass report[ers].”

“The thing is, guy: You got to get your head out of your ass,” Wright told SFR. “You’ve got to realize that what you have here is something you haven’t had in this country in a long, long time. And it actually is a very real grassroots movement. It is a spontaneous, and its loyalty does not lie to a party or a person.”

Read the interview after the jump.

–

Wright: Yo.

SFR: Hey, glad we finally connected.

Yeah…

Hey, guy, I did look you up there. Boy, they don’t get much more left than you, do they?

Some people would say that. But…I’m not easy to pigeonhole.

I’d be interested if we started this thing off—in your first communication, you said you knew what the militia movement was about. I’d like for you to tell me what it’s about.

Uh, well, you know, I knew a lot of people growing up who basically, every time they had an interaction with the federal government, it was to screw them over…So, what I understood, this was a group of people who basically wanted to be left alone, didn’t care what their neighbors did, as long as they didn’t hurt anybody, and believed in their view of the Constitution, what it said about liberty and personal rights.

See, it’s not their view of the Constitution, let’s get that straight right up front: It’s the Founders’ view of the Constitution, the people that actually wrote the document. Minus the 70 or 80 years of Marxist ‘filtration.

Say again?

I said, what it is, what the militas are about, is the Founders’ view of the Constitution. Minus 70 or 80 years of Marxist ‘filtration.

OK. Well, so—

It’s not about personal things, it’s not about ‘my land’ being taken away, it’s the fact that our Founders guaranteed us a certain form of government, certain rights, and those things are being infringed upon and dramatically changed.

So, explain to me then where the militia movement was in the ’90s and what’s up with the Tea Party movement now—I mean, is there some overlap here?

If there’s an overlap it’s the desire to see Constitutional governance returned. Uh, you know, back to a Founders’ view of the Republic.

Um, let me ask you—how did you feel about—I was just talking to Sheryl Bohlander, who’s organizing some of the Tea Parties up in Santa Fe, and she said, ‘You know, we’re sticking to the fiscal issues, we’re not bringing up Second Amendment stuff’…

Well, this has got be a Santa Fe thing, because every other Tea Party I’m aware of, they want the whole deal. The Constitution is the Constitution is the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is the Bill of Rights is the Bill of Rights. My right to keep and bear arms is equal in status to the right to free speech, equal in status to the right of assembly and everything else.

So if the Santa Fe Tea Party is shying away from that stuff, they’re—

It’s an isolated thing, yeah. Probably because y’all have been Caliaforniacated out so bad you’re not even part of the state anymore.

I think there’s probably a lot of people that might…well, I don’t know if they’d tell me…

You’ve all become like San Francisco, see? Isolated unto yourself. You’ve created your own little culture and somehow you think that is New Mexico. But the New Mexico that I live in is a place where we work for a living, and people actually participate in things, and we don’t just sit around with snarky little frat-boy smart-ass crap, trying to pretend we have intelligence or personality.

[Pause] Is there something specific—

I gotta tell ya dude, looking at your writing, that’s how you write. Now, you got that snarky, frat-boy, very chic cynicism about everything.

OK, well, I’ll take it for what it’s worth. So, what—

Gee, can you minimize me a little more there, fella?

I called because I wanted to hear what you had to say.

I’m pretty clear this is where this is going. I don’t believe, in my heart, I do not believe that you are interested in what I have to say. What you are interested in is how you can twist what I say or filter it through your snarky, frat-boy, smart-ass reporting. Am I wrong.

I take offense to the frat-boy thing. I wouldn’t deny being a smart-ass, Bob. But frat-boy, that’s just going too far. I was going to ask you, on the Constitutional stuff–and this is the same thing I asked Sheryl—if you’re concerned about the Constitution, where were y’all during the Bush years?

Fighting Bush. Fighting Bush, partner. If anybody tells you anything else, they’re full of shit.

The most anti-Constitutional law ever passed was the Patriot Act.

So was it—

Bush Senior! This starts a long time ago and it runs through every administration since Ronald Reagan, for all practical purposes. The Tea Party you see today is a culmination of that frustration, that anger, that watching everything we were told be turned into something else. You can try this crap of trying to say we support George Bush, and you’re going to be just as ass-backward as everybody else. The Tea Party movement started under the Bush administration, because of his insane spending.

So why is it only getting some attention now?

I think, uh—one thing is, why don’t you tell me? Why didn’t you listen to us in the ’90s? Why did you demonize us in the ’90s?

I was in high school, in the ’90s, Bob.

Oh, no shit?

Yeah.

How old are you?

I’m 27.

Oh, crap. That kinda gives credence to that frat boy thing doesn’t it [laughs].

Except I wasn’t in a frat—I didn’t like those guys, Bob.

If you’re honest, and you really want to do something, you have to understand that the Tea Party is a culmination of decades of frustration. You know, the first Bush and his lying about no more new taxes, that sense of betrayal. The idiot Bush who cut the throats of all conservatives by labeling himself a compaaaaassionate conservative, thereby implying that other conservatives weren’t compassionate—and his whole betrayal of every conservative principle I can think of.

What do you think: a lot of people are trying to tie the Tea Parties—which, from what I can tell, is a pretty diverse bunch who don’t agree on a lot…a lot of people are trying to tie the Tea Parties to Sarah Palin, and saying this is going to be Sarah Palin’s—

No, no, no—you leftist people are trying to tie Sarah Palin. Because you need a straw man you can tear down. What you cannot wrap your mind around is we have a grassroots movement here, who our leader is the Constitution. That is the altar at which we worship, although I hate to use that kind of terminology. We are here without Sarah Palin, or any other man—or woman—or a party. And you know? I make this in every speech, I say, ‘No man or party will save this Republic. What will save this Republic is a militant, belligerent, relentless effort to force this government back to its Constitutional limits.

I’m not saying that tie is legitimate or not, I was going to ask you what you thought of Sarah Palin.

I think she’s probably a really nice lady. I think she did a fine job in Alaska. I have ties in Alaska. I know people who know Sarah Palin. They say that she’s very genuine, she’s very real, you may not like what it is that she is but what she portrays is real—it’s not an act for the cameras. Is she the leader of the nation, is she the savior? No, of course not.

Neither is Scott Brown. We’re pulling this idiot thing just like you people did with Obama, where you’ve got a guy who’s never done anything—never accomplished one single damn thing, but now I watch the CPAC here, they’re trying to turn him to our messiah. And that’s insane.

What about Adam Kokesh?

I don’t have any use for Adam Kokesh. Personally. Because as far as I’m concerned Adam Kokesh is in the same boat as John Kerry. When you undercut the troops in the field—and in the interest of full disclosure I have a boy in Afghanistan—uh, when you undercut the troops in the field, you’re scum. Period.

And you think he did that with his protests, or what?

Yes. You want to argue this point? We don’t do it in the street, undermining the troops. You know. I can’t help it if you’re a little fucking weenie and the Army didn’t turn out like you wanted.

Wow—I missed that forum you both were scheduled to speak at, but did this come up there?

Yeah, I’ve told him this to his face.

At the time, I’d heard of him, and I’d met him one time before, but I wasn’t aware of this ‘Veterans Against the War’ shit.

So you didn’t know about it until more recently.

Until this last forum you’re talking about up there.

The thing is, guy: You got to get your head out of your ass. You’ve got to realize that what you have here is something you haven’t had in this country in a long, long time. And it actually is a very real grassroots movement. It is a spontaneous, and its loyalty does not lie to a party or a person. And I know that’s so hard in our world, where our whole country revolves around this professional-wrestling mentality of politics.

The people that I know, the people that I associate with, they’re motivation is the belief—and I think a very correct belief, and I don’t think it takes any intellect to look at what’s happened and understand—that we have strayed very far afield from the Constitutional limitations that were placed upon the federal government. The federal government is in fact a usurper government. That has exceeded the powers which it is legally entitled to. And that the country and human liberty in the country suffers because of that usurpation. Period.

And yes, people have the areas they’re comfortable talking about, because it’s their particular passion, be it Second Amendment, be it the First Amendment, be it Birthers and Truthers and whatever. But the simple fact of the matter is a return to Constitutional government will solve about 99 percent of the problems in this country. ….

You talk about a real grassroots movement, and I see that. But I also see a lot of different interests trying to steer it their direction.

Oh, I agree. I 100 percent agree. The Republicans are so desperate to get ahead of this thing. They are buffoonish, actually, in their attempts to get ahead of it.

[Laughs]

I know you probably agree, but you think Republicans are buffoonish, period.

Some of the people I’ve talked to here who claimed an interest or a stake in the Tea Party, to hear them talk I just don’t understand why they don’t see that it’s Republicans trying to get them back into the fold. But it seems like you’re trying to take that grassroots energy in your direction, too, right?

Here’s the thing. You know this as well as I do. This is how you corrupt a real grassroots movement. When people start becoming effective, you go to them and you say, ‘You’re a freaking genius. And you are the future of our party. However, we’re not quite ready to be this radical yet, so why don’t you come on in, start attending our fundraisers—let people get to know you. In three months, they’re so enmeshed in that party crap, they become worthless.

Right.

And that’s what the Republicans are trying desperately—because the Republicans are no different than you. They’re not capable of wrapping their minds around a genuine grassroots movement whose motivation lies solely in the founding philosophies of the nation, and the fear that our children are going to be much poorer than we are.

And I think that’s beyond doubt. I think you’re going to experience that, partner, you’re young enough. You’ll never know the prosperity I had. Being a reporter, you wouldn’t anyway [laughs].

[Laughs] You’re probably right about that. Even if we weren’t headed into a great depression, I would probably never have any money because I decided to be a reporter. You have a point there.

I’m sorry if I seem somewhat hostile. I’m really frustrated. I’ve sat here and I’ve watched this crap on CPAC today, and I just want to puke, you know.

Well, who do you think is going to come out ahead of this thing?

I think the Republican Party is going to gain a lot of seats this time. And I think if history bears us out, they’ll fuck it up, just like they did in ‘94. And then god help us, I don’t know where we’re headed. If the population goes through another betrayal—Obama betrayed everybody who voted for him. Your side truly honest-to-god believed you were ripped off in two consecutive elections. You honestly believed it because you don’t understand the Constitution, you don’t understand how the electoral college works, or anything else. But your side honestly, deeply believed that those elections were stolen. And now this President, who they finally had their messiah, has not behaved in the manner they thought he would, so now your side has the same sense of betrayal that we had with Bushes.

That’s why I think it’s an interesting time, don’t you?

I think it’s a terrifying time, actually. If sane men don’t stay in the forefront of this thing, temperate men don’t stay in the forefront of this thing, on both sides, we’re going to wind up in places none of us ever wanted to go.

Yeah, but the milita movement’s been saying that stuff for 10, 15, 20 years now.

And your point is?

Look at historical context. There are people who argue the American Revolution actually started in 1757.

You’re playing the long game, is what I’m hearing.

Life is a long game. This is where we get into trouble, is when we go reaching for these short-term solutions that satisfy an immediate need, as opposed to looking at the long-term repercussions of those short-term actions. It’s like this moron now and all the money he’s spending trying to pay off these special interests groups—it’s going to have repercussions for our grandchildren. That is wrong. Absolutely wrong. He is robbing future generations, and I believe this with all my heart—this is not rhetoric, bud—he is robbing future generations of prosperity.

So what’s the hope—what would you like to see happen?

My hope is that we will, and it is, it’s happening right now: The Constitution is cool, man. People are starting to rediscover what the country was actually meant to be and how far afield it’s gone. And if people are telling you that somehow or another this is about Republicans and Democrats, that’s because they’re still ignorant. This is about our country, it’s about the Constitution, it’s about those things that each and every one of us are entitled to as Americans. You may not like it, and one of the things that’s amazing is how we’ve changed.

See, I actually am a liberal here: Because I believe that people should have all the liberty they can stand, with only enough control to keep us from eatin’ each other. Through that, you turn loose that kind of human energy, there will be prosperity, and there will be all kinds of good things.

Your side wants to control everything. You don’t trust fellow human beings. I do. Are there bad people out there? Yeah, but we outnumber them. It’s only when we are restricted from stopping the bad people, that we—if one decent German had stood up in that damn beer hall in 1929 in Munich and knocked the little Austrian corporal on his ass, there probably wouldn’t have been World War II. But they were too conventional.

I talked to some Tea Party folks who had different politics than yours. They were going on and on about Obama was infringing their civil liberties, and I said ‘What do you think about the TSA?’ I put the same question to you.

I think it’s a joke. I think it’s more short-term solutions—we call it boob bait. That way when you go to the airport you can feel like your government is trying to protect you.

You think it’s consistent with the Fourth Amendment to search everybody?

No, of course not. Of course not. Any more than saving us with the Patriot Act was consistent with anything in our Constitution—that was the most anti-Constitutional piece of legislation that’s ever been written.

You said you’ve got a son in Afghanistan. Do you support the mission there?

Yes I do.

And how would you characterize it? What do you think they’re doing in Afghanistan?

Well, again, you’re going to have to understand that I look at the long term. And I know history. I think that Rummy and his boys truly, naively, stupidly believed that it would be Paris 1944 when we went into Afghanistan and Iraq. OK? I think the idea was to break up the Al Qaeda training centers and to bust up the power of the Taliban. But it is a naive and stupid assumption that once that’s done we can just walk off. We did that in the ’80s when we helped the mujahideen defeat the Russians—and this is what allowed something as perverted as the Taliban to come to power.

The simple fact is, we need Afghanistan to be stable. And if we need to spend 20, 30, 40 years to teach these tribal-type people how to integrate and become a state, then that’s what we need to do. Because we need Afghanistan for the whole world to be stable.

I get somewhat frustrated with guys on your side, who are supposed to love everybody, and write these people off as, ‘well, they’ve been doing this for 1,000 years, we’re never going to change them.’

I never said that. I think if you read my stuff you wouldn’t say ‘you guys.’

Look, I know who Alexander Cockburn is. And that guy’s so left it’s unbelievable. I know you write for his, uh, what is it? CounterPunch or whatever it is?

Yeah…

I looked at what you do write: It’s for every leftist publication on the—I mean—[laughs]—you are left, dude!

How far right would you describe yourself?

It depends. In 1960, I probably would’ve been a Kennedy Democrat. Uh, by ‘69 I think I certainly would’ve been a Nixon Republican. I claim to be a Reagan Republican, now. But see, we don’t have a right-wing party in this country, we have a left-wing party and then we have an ultra-left-wing party.

So, I’m not sure.

You would consider the Republican Party to be a left-wing party?

Yes.

A party that has abandoned its roots. Let me make this caveat: The first election I ever voted in was Jimmy Carter-Gerald Ford. Carter won that handily because Ford pardoned Nixon, of course. Then of course the next one was Reagan. I, like a lot of people, made the mistake of thinking I was a Republican, and only in the last couple of years, I’ve come to realize I never was a Republican—I’m a Reaganite. I believe in the Reagan form of government. Of faith in the people. Of turning loose the people to the maximum possible.

Do you see anybody who’s running for office right now, or who’s likely going to run for office, who’s—

No. No. There are good people out there: Duncan Hunter out of California. Uh, Alan Keyes, of course—I know you guys hate him [laughs]. I’ve spent three days with Alan Keyes, and he’s probably the smartest man in American politics. Certainly one of the best-educated men in American politics. And he’s a guy who shares that reverence for the founding and the principles that were laid out in those founding documents.

What are we going to do? Mitt Romney? Which is another Northeastern liberal? You know, whose positions seem to vary with whichever race he seems to be running in at the time? Is that the hope? Or how about a failure like Newt Gingrich? Who threw the Republican revolution right down the toilet in ‘94? Sarah Palin? You guys have not done half the damage to Sarah Palin that the Republican Party’s done to her. Whatever she is is no longer important, because in politics perception is everything, and you guys should be proud: You’ve destroyed that woman.

I don’t know if I’d agree with that—

You talk about how stupid she is.

I would say the more attention she gets, the better for her.

I don’t think so. I think what you’ve done to her is despicable.

What do you think the odds the Tea Party gets co-opted by the Republicans for the mid-terms?

Fifty-fifty right now.

Because even people in the Tea Party, they too are imbued in this professional wrestling mentality of politics in America, where we have good guys and bad guys, and there’s a really bad guy in the black mask over here. We swap back and forth every four, five years. The purpose of government in America is to do what—can you answer that question?

I thought it was pretty laid out in the Constitution, wasn’t it?

And what does the Constitution say? The purpose of government in this country is to ensure the liberties of the people. Anything else is illegitimate. This is made quite clear in our Declaration of Independence. Anything that does not either secure or increase the liberties of the people is illegitimate.

When you start getting on defining liberty, that’s where you start getting into arguments, right? But you would say, if the Founders didn’t say it, it doesn’t apply.

I’m saying this: That the Founders covered everything. The founders listed 17 specific powers the government was allowed to have and it could have no more. It says that in the Tenth Amendment. Are you familiar with the Tenth Amendment?

Refresh me.

You might find it interesting to read. It says, those powers not specifically designated to the United States—meaning the federal government—are reserved to the states and the people respectively. The Ninth Amendment says just because a right is not specifically delegated to the people doesn’t mean they don’t have it. We’ve allowed this government to become the monster that is now destroying us.

What I hear in the Tea Party is a lot of anger at Wall Street, which is a different monster, right? Or is it the same monster?

It’s all the same monster. You know, Wall Street and government have been hand-in-hand for how long? Who controls what Wall Street does? Come on. Look at your Democrats you hold up—see how much Wall Street donates to them, partner.

This is why I’m saying you shouldn’t just say ‘you,’ when you talk about ‘my side’ or whatever—

I’ve been bitching about it my whole life. You guys, in my opinion, have tried to move us toward socialism, and having capitalism pay for it. You know: You don’t like people. You don’t like the American form of government. You don’t like things that allow people to operate without control. Because in my opinion, you’re all afraid of something. I don’t know exactly what it is. But you’re all afraid of something.

You gave the odds at 50-50 that the Republicans co-opt this. What happens if the Tea Party stays out of the Republican Party?

Then we will have some tumultuous years. And they will continue to hammer. Because I believe with all my heart the bulk of Americans want what we want. If you can ever cut through all the political shit from both sides. When you sit people down and get ‘em to actually read that Constitution, they’re stunned. Absolutely stunned.

That was when my big awakening come, was in high school, in ‘75, when we were doing the run-up to the Bicentennial. That whole year before the Bicentennial, the schools concentrated on the Founding and whatnot, and that’s when I began to realize, ‘Wait a minute, how the hell does Richard Nixon do wage and price controls? He has no power to do that. He has no power to create the EPA. What is this?’

So when people become more and more aware of how bad they’re screwed, we are going to win. This country—we’re either going back to a Constitutional republic, or I’m afraid it’s going to get so ugly that none of us are going to like where it’s headed.

I’m going to tell you something, in a fair hearing, where you guys aren’t calling us racists, and terrorists and all the other neato little catchphrases you have for us, we win. And you know it. We’re able to get out there, and present the information, without all the name-calling you people are so famous for, uh, we win. And that’s why you demonize us. And that’s why you’re going to demonize me. That’s another thing—I wasn’t going to give you the damn interview and here I’ve run for what, 30 minutes? Oh, hell—I’ve got to go to work.

Hey, you might think I’m being a smartass, but you believe the American people want what you want—But doesn’t the bulk of the American people really just want to watch TV? I mean—

No! No! No! That is the most insulting thing I have ever heard. ‘Oh, Joe Sixpack, he’s too stupid to make decisions, so we’ll have these educated people do it fir him.’ You people are the racists. You people are the ones who hate humanity. Because that really and truly is your very vision of humanity. All we want to do is play with our pecker and shove food in our faces, as long as we can do that, hell, let smart people make the decisions for us.’

All this time that you’ve been doing your patriot thing, isn’t that what the bulk of the country was doing? They were watching. They were watching the Patriot Act. They watched the bailouts.

No. Let me tell you what happened. In my opinion. Our press has utterly failed us. Because all the press now has their own agenda. There’s no such thing as a free press in America. There is no free press in America. You all have your agenda. You’re not there to report facts, you’re there to push an agenda. And you are. Now, you may be honest enough to admit it. You know.

People never actually have a chance to know what’s going on. People foolishly, when they’re angry—how do I want to put this? Instead of saying, ‘I’m scared of this action.’ It’s because one of the problems we have now is we live in a five-second soundbite world. And if you can’t get it out in a five-second soundbite, you lose. Because that’s all that you people allow. That’s all the media allows. We’ve become too dependent on the media for our thinking. There’s a lot of issues we can’t do in five seconds. One of the problems we have is you guys, you want to set the limits of the debate, you want to set the terms we’re allowed to use in the debate, and if we don’t stay within your rules, you call us dirty names. You call us racists. You call us terrorists. You call us all kinds of things.

And the simple truth is, you illustrate it quite well for me. Because that is the leftist view of America. That we’re all just fat, lazy bastards who want to play with our peckers and drink our Joe Sixpack beer, and we just need real intellectuals like y’all to take care of us. Same way you feel about the people who you call minorities. Let me tell you something, dude: Do you really think Hispanics sit around their dinner table and have different conversations than we do. Huh?

I’m not sure what you mean.

You think they ain’t worried about gettin’ goin’ on to college, or whether or not we’re going to have to replace the air conditioner this year? You really think there’s such a think as ‘Hispanic issues’? There are because your side created those issues.

I think we’ve gone a little far afield, here—

No. No. Maybe for your purposes we have.

I’m telling you, that’s what’s motivated this. People want to cut through the crap, they want to cut through the partisan, and we want to go back to what this country was supposed to be—we want to go back what it was when we were succeeding. When prosperity was growing. When liberty was everywhere. And where an arrogant class of servants understood their place in the scheme of American life.

Who would that class be?

That would be our political class.

I’m asking you genuinely: When was there such a time? When was this time when liberty was everywhere?

Up until about I think 1913, is when the serious deterioration started. Through the Roosevelt years it got worse. Uh.

But you still had Jim Crow in a lot of the country in that time.

You know, and that’s true. This is another false argument you guys like to throw out there, OK? ‘Because there was Jim Crow, the liberty argument was negated.’ And that’s just crap. At the same time there was Jim Crow, there was hundreds and thousands and millions of people working to end Jim Crow. You know, so, your argument is bullshit.

Just like you have these fools who say the founding itself was irrelevant, it’s wrong and illegitimate, because there was still slavery in this country. Seventy years within the time of the founding we fought a war to end slavery. You know in the course of human history, to take something that’s been established for thousands of years, and place a major component of the economy, and change it based purely on morals is amazing! And is an absolute testament to the goodness of America. But that’s not how you people see it.

Well, without getting into a big—

‘We condemn our Founders because they didn’t free the slaves.’ But you haven’t come up with an idea of what those slaves would’ve done once they were freed, would you? With no education, nowhere to go, no property, no money—and a hostile population to surround them.

Yeah, I think we’re still dealing with it, frankly.

How?! How, partner? How are we still dealing with it? See, this is the asininity of it all. We have a black President. Where are we still dealing with this? Are there asswipes out there whose lives are so worthless that they have to latch onto something they have no control over to give meaning to their life, like their skin color? Well yeah, there are, and they come in all colors. Is it a part of America, our institutionalized life? No it is not. What do you want to do? You’re going to have people who have beliefs that are wrong? What do you want to do about that?

That’s—

That too is freedom, fella! That too is liberty.

That’s in the First Amendment, I agree with you, Bob. You can say anything no matter how wrong or idiotic it may be.

A hundred years ago, if you said something wrong and out of line, somebody busted your nose for you. So you learned how to interact in polite society. Now, we got all this pussy shit where, you know, ‘violence is just wrong,’ and decent people have surrendered the streets, we’ve surrendered our communities, our government to the scum of the earth, so that we can remain polite.

I listened to this crap when I was growing up, man. When I was a kid is when all this stuff we’re seeing begin to come to fruition, this leftist shit. And they had these mindless little twats come out of these teaching colleges, and they’d come out at you with this doe-eyed look, and they’d say [mocking tone], ‘you can’t just a person until you walk a mile in his moccasins, man.’ Well you know what I can judge a liar and I can judge a thief and I can judge a child molester, and I don’t have to walk a mile in his moccasins. And I can judge a man who will not feed himself and work and take care of his family and I don’t have to walk a mile in his moccasins.

Let me go back to the Tea Party, Bob.

OK, let’s go back to the Tea Party. I’m sorry.

You said the Santa Fe Tea Party might be an anomaly if they don’t care about these Constitutional issues as much.

Yeah, and I think there are some people on the national level who definitely want to keep this on a conservative, fiscal policy, but that’s not the Tea Party.

Well, one of the organizers of the Santa Fe Tea Party is also an active Republican Party organizer. Do you think that just presents an inherent conflict?

Yes I do. And this is the thing. All the Tea Parties are dealing with this right now.

Everybody thinks the Republicans in their party, their countywide, they’re goooood—and they may well be. But nonetheless they are part of the machine that brought us to where we’re at.

Barack Obama was not elected because people thought he was such a great guy. He was elected because George Bush was such a major fuckup and John McCain was worse!

Right. I think there’s people on the left who would agree with you about that. So, to conclude, if the key organizers of the Santa Fe Tea Party are Republicans, there’s no legitimate Tea Party in Santa Fe?

No, I’m not going to say that.

There may be—I just haven’t found it yet.

But I think there’s certainly a conflict of interest. There was a dirty, dirty doing—You’ve heard of the Tea Party Express.

Yeah.

That was run by, who?

Dick Armey or somebody like that.

Tom DeLay. Yeah. Was it Armey too? OK. Here’s the deal man, these guys are shilling for the Republican Party. It’s like this song I get in the email: ‘We’re gonna take it back in 2010 / We’re gonna vote ‘em out.’ OK. Let’s take that to the next logical step: Who are we going to vote for? Why, the Republicans!

You know, I’m surprised: With as clearly as you see that happening, you didn’t cast your lot in mainstream politics, because you understand how they operate. I’m sure they’d make room for you.

There’s no place for an honest man in mainstream politics. What we have to have are these little mama’s boys with their pretty hair, who spent their whole life hiding their indiscretions so they would remain viable for politics. And you’ve got guys like me who lived life, buddy: Large. And enjoyed our youth [laughs].

I could tell.

And, uh, until we get over that aspect of things: Until we’re willing to elect a guy who’s bald-headed and got scars on his face, because, you know, he’s actually gone out and fought the battles—instead of these little pretty boys like Mitt Romney and, well, name one—pick one, you know.

Pro-choice advocates protesting in January.

This January, SFR reported on a rally for abortion rights. Pro-choice groups worried that with a federal health care bill could come a rollback in women’s right and access to abortion and reproductive health care—a possibility that seems to become more likely by the hour.

Yesterday, Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., of the now-infamous Stupak Amendment to forbid federal funding for all insurance plans that allow abortion, said he and 11 other Dems won’t vote for health care unless the Senate bill is equally restrictive.“We’re not going to vote for this bill with that kind of language,” Stupak said today on Good Morning America. (He’s referring to what he calls the Senate bill’s direct subsidies of abortion.)

Abortion rights activists’ complaints about the Stupak Amendment center around its ability to reduce access to abortion and other reproductive health care. If insurance companies that offer abortion services are blocked from receiving federal funding, pro-choicers worry they’ll either stop offering abortion or establish a separate plan for it—something Janet Gotkin of the National Organization for Women’s Santa Fe chapter says would be an “administrative nightmare.” (And besides, who plans to have an abortion?)

The White House has promised not to change the status of abortion rights—precisely what appears to be Stupak’s complaint. (New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall stated his support for Obama’s health care plan yesterday.) Gotkin says even the Senate bill is restrictive and calls health care reform in its current state “a train wreck for women.”

“The most horrifying thing about this is that the question of pushing women’s access to reproductive health services and abortion has literally been pushed back 30 years,” Gotkin says.

There’s a bright side for New Mexico, Gotkin notes, which is among 17 states that offer Medicaid funding for abortion. Gotkin says there may even be sufficient statewide support to somehow nullify restrictive abortion language.

Even so, “Women will be losing [insurance] coverage—that’s the issue we should be talking about,” Gotkin says. “This is a disaster for women, and it just fell off the radar.”

Gotkin says NOW will be working with other local organizations to bring abortion rights back on the radar. In the meantime, here’s a handy link for contacting your US Senators/Reps.