Allen Weh's Excuse

Only this morning did I take the time to note that Allen Weh was kind enough to send along this pledge:

I have always said that I would not air a single negative attack ad against a fellow Republican.

In a case of pot v. kettle, this pledge to take the high road happened to be an attack on Susana Martinez’s attacks on Weh:

in an act of desperation, Mrs. Martinez pulled the plug on civility and went back on her word to not attack a fellow Republican.

No thanks to Allen Weh’s website I finally was able to learn what exactly got him so incensed:

First, on the question of whether Weh supported amnesty in 2007 when he backed President Bush’s immigration reform proposal: Martinez says in her new ad that Weh supported amnesty. Weh calls that allegation false.

The proposal would have required anyone here illegally who wanted to start down the path of becoming a citizen to first pay a fine and back taxes and meet other requirements.

Many – but not all – on the right called that amnesty, saying anything that allowed undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States and work toward citizenship was amnesty. President Bush defended the proposal as not being amnesty – a claim Karl Rove continues to make to this day. Many on the left agreed, pointing to the fact that there was a price that had to be paid for breaking the law before an undocumented immigration could begin the path toward citizenship.

The point? This isn’t a black-and-white issue. Martinez is taking a position – saying what Weh supported was amnesty – and Weh takes the opposite position that it’s not amnesty.

There’s a huge amount of disagreement in America about whether letting people who are here illegally stay – while facing some penalties less severe than deportation – is amnesty.

So the big deal has to do with support from Weh for a proposal that some believe is amnesty. This ad works for a Republican primary because when President Bush announced his plan it had almost no support among Republicans and Conservatives. Could this ad be considered by the dreaded adjective, draconian (fancy way to say mean)? I suppose so, but the question that should be asked is do New Mexicans want a Governor that flies off the handle every time someone questions their public statements? Weh could have explained his position on the Bush proposal but in his note and in his advertisement currently airing he resorts to calling Martinez “desperate” and “negative” but never takes the time to mention why Martinez’s ad asserts what it does. I have finally seen the Martinez ad in question and it explains exactly why it states what it does.

Finally, Weh absolves himself of his own negativity by stating:

Let the record show that Mrs. Martinez has decided to take a negative turn in this race, and we will defend ourselves in an appropriate fashion.

And has now proceeded to air television and radio ads accusing Susana Martinez of what seem to be actual crimes, misuse of public funds and tax evasion. There is no elaboration, no proof, no citations and it paints Martinez as a corrupt politician who steals from her constituents. To this, I wonder, why is Susana Martinez not in jail? How could she have made it so far? Why has she not been impeached from her position as Dona Ana County DA? Where is the Larry Barker expose?

If this narcissistic and sophomoric behavior from our worst primary candidate, who is inexplicably close in the polls (no doubt thanks to an influx of ads from a million dollars the regular guy Weh loaned himself) doesn’t prove Weh to be desperate I don’t know what could be. The latest Journal poll and endorsement from Sarah Palin for Susana Martinez must’ve really spooked Allen Weh.

And as always, remember, a vote for Allen Weh is the same as a vote for Diane Denish in the general election. There are many people like the zombies in the Denish ads and how many of us will be motivated to vote for an angry downer like Weh?