I published the following comment because I decided to answer it:
"You seem to be, at best, either a very, very conservative Democrat or a democrat in name only. How a person such as yourself ever got elected as Democratic Party Chair in Dona Ana County is beyond me. The posts on your blog echo Republican thoughts in the rest of the state.
I have left several posts on this blog disagreeing and have yet to se one posted."
Here is my answer:
Your comment amounts to name calling rather than disagreeing with something I said. Your assertion that I harbor "Republican thoughts" suggests both that I have them (whatever that means) and that there is something wrong with that. And your comment that I am either a conservative Democrat or a "democrat (sic) in name only" similarly suggests not only that I am a conservative Democrat (whatever that means) but also that there is something bad about that. An inference in your comment is that if you disagree with someone you are justified in suggesting disloyalty to the party. Since no one wants to be called a traitor, a subtle fear factor in invoked.
Nowhere do you refer to something specific I have written and then argue with it. Your comment is pure innuendo. The reader should fill in the blanks with your negative thoughts and direct them against me. But yes, I can figure out what you mean: you don't like it that I have complimented Sen. John Smith for showing leadership. Since Smith is known to be a conservative Democrat you accuse me of being the same and then ridicule me for that. But since when have conservative Democrats been incapable of leadership? Do you disagree with me? Tell us why. You don't like it that I criticized the Lt. Governor and Senate Majority Leader for not showing leadership. It would appear you think they are liberal Democrats (a conclusion I wouldn't necessarily share, and one that is irrelevant to the point I was making) and therefore should not be criticized. These two potential candidates are in key leadership positions. they should be willing to let us know now what they think. Do they agree with the governor's priorities? What are their priorities? What should we be doing about the crisis? Do you disagree with this? Then say so, no need to call me names.
One of the problems in the Republicans have today is precisely that they created litmus tests about what being a good Republican meant. Conservative religious groups began demanding that Republicans should all think alike on issues like abortion and stem-cell research and evolution and deregulation. Many Republicans stopped drinking the kool-aid when they woke up and found the Republican doctrine of balanced budgets and small government had ended up under W. Bush in a drunken-sailor binge of spending, debt, unnecesary war, and a huge increase in the size and scope of government, including an unprecedented assault on civil liberties, and all of this ended up in a scandalous collapse of our economic system caused in great part by the doctrine of deregulation which in pracice meant, "let the banks cheat about the soundness of housing mortgages and let the Madoffs rip off." Fewer people identify as a Republicans today than they have since the Watergate scandals destroyed Nixon a third of a century ago. Forcing people to demonstrate loyalty to party doctrine is the ultimate disrespect to democracy, where different people should be able to present their views without fear. The goal is better government, not more Democrats or more Republicans in office.
For several years the state has been plagued by corruption scandals. Two state treasurers are in jail and former President of the Senate Manny Aragon will be sentenced next week for acts of corruption. Many other credible allegations of wrongdoing are being investigated as we speak. All of the culprits or alleged culprits are Democrats: am I a wicked conservative Democrat traitor for mentioning these facts? The true disloyalty to the party, and it applies to both liberal and conservative members, comes from people like Manny Aragon, who used his powerful position to line his pockets with taxpayer money, and there is nothing conservative or liberal about saying so.
My last point: you complain that I did not publish some of your other comments. That is correct. They were name-calling personal attacks on me or others. If you are so lazy that instead of telling me why you disagree you slap a negative label on me, this is not acceptable. And when you use the "anonymous" label to call me names you would not dare to use in a face to face meeting, this is nothing less than cowardice. Try me: tell me why I'm wrong and I will publish your comment. And if you sign your name I will even permit a certain amount of name calling. I'm a grown man.