From left, Las Cruces mayoral candidates Dolores Connor, Michael Ray Huerta and Ken Miyagishima going over the ground rules for Tuesday’s debate with Las Cruces Sun-News editor Jim Lawitz before it started. (Photo by Heath Haussamen)
Michael Ray Huerta and Dolores Connor outperformed incumbent Las Cruces Mayor Ken Miyagishima at Tuesday’s debate, but they didn’t spend enough time rebutting his argument for why he deserves to be re-elected
One of the most interesting moments during Tuesday’s Las Cruces mayoral candidate debate came when Michael Ray Huerta took a pointed shot at the progressive movement that has been such a force in recent elections.
In response to me asking why he stopped calling himself a progressive when he entered this mayoral race (I was on the panel asking the questions), Huerta said this:
“Progressive to me meant that you care more about the middle class than you do about recycling, that you care more about people living in poverty than you do about bike paths. That’s not the case with a lot of people in Las Cruces. What I quickly found out is there’s a paradigm in Las Cruces because of some local politics that says progressives care more about theirself and their own lifestyle then they do about anything else.
“That’s not the type of Democrat that I am. I’m a Democrat who cares about the middle class. I’m a Democrat who cares about people living in poverty. And I’m a Democrat who believes that the No. 1 thing that we need to do in this city, in this state, and in this country, is to put people back to work.”
Huerta’s criticism of the local progressive movement elicited a strong reaction from two panelists running NMPolitics.net’s liveblog of the debate.
“Wow! Michael shows some guts taking on progressives,” Doña Ana County Commissioner Scott Krahling wrote on the liveblog.
“Huerta is losing any vote from politically active groups,” former Commissioner Bill McCamley responded. “This is either very good for him, or every harmful.”
Does Huerta have a base?
The so-called progressive movement has been the driving force in local politics for years. During elections in 2007, 2008 and 2009, progressives took control of city government in Las Cruces by electing Ken Miyagishima to be mayor and taking over the city council. This year’s election is the first test of what voters think about those progressive-backed candidates who are now incumbents.
Huerta is a Democrat (though also a former Republican) who is trying to unseat another Democrat. On Tuesday, Huerta essentially slammed the door in the face of the most active group of Democrats in the last two city elections.
That raises an interesting question: Does Huerta have a base? Through much of Tuesday’s debate, he sounded like the most fiscally conservative candidate even though Miyagishima’s other challenger, District 2 Councilor Dolores Connor, is the Republican in the race.
Connor has won the endorsement of the realtor’s association. It’s safe to say Huerta is not likely to get the backing of many business groups in town.
But he thumbed his nose on Tuesday at progressives, the other major force in city politics. So this is the question I’ve been wondering since Huerta entered the race: Will he draw enough support to be a factor? If so, from where?
We’ve not seen any polls. So the short answer is that there is no clear answer. But Huerta is betting his campaign on anti-incumbent sentiment.
Huerta puts Connor in Miyagishima’s camp
Huerta is an articulate communicator and has the ability to run circles around Connor and Miyagishima in debates and forums. Still, the other two held their own on Tuesday. In fact, Connor did better than that. In an entirely unscientific poll on the NMPolitics.net liveblog, 57 percent said Connor won the debate, while 36 percent picked Huerta and 7 percent picked Miyagishima.
Connor started out a bit shaky but, in the second half of the debate, she got fed up with Huerta’s attacks and really took him on. Her most passionate statement of the night followed Huerta’s criticism of Las Cruces progressives and an ensuing discussion about labels:
“Isn’t it sad that we have to argue whether we’re on the right or on the left or in the middle? Isn’t it sad that that’s what our community has come to? Isn’t it sad that our nation is fighting over who’s red and who’s blue and who’s gonna change color and who’s not? Did we not get to a society that’s better than that? Isn’t that why you work both sides of the aisle? Isn’t that why you work with all kinds of people? Isn’t that why you put a smile on your face every morning and say I’m the right person to represent you because I don’t care what color you are – red, blue, green, yellow, whatever it may be?”
Miyagishima’s strongest response of the night was a defense of Connor after Huerta accused her of taking multiple stances on issues.
“I wish I could call her a flip-flopper, but that would be giving her too much credit, because even a flip-flopper can pick sides,” Huerta said.
Miyagishima responded by pointing out that Huerta once worked for Republican U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce and later worked for Democratic U.S. Rep. Harry Teague.
“That’s a great point,” Connor said.
The agreement highlighted Connor’s biggest problem: She has often sided with Miyagishima on issues. They both supported implementing the red-light camera program, for example.
Connor needs to convince voters that Miyagishima isn’t doing a good job and that she would do better. One issue on which the two have disagreed is the implementation of impact fees – Miyagishima supported them and Connor opposed them – and she highlighted that fact during the debate.
But Huerta worked hard to portray his opponents as generally being in the same camp. Miyagishima helped him by coming to Connor’s defense. And that’s good for Miyagishima.
Miyagishima is in a good position
Though he’s not the strongest debater, Miyagishima is in a good position. His opening statement explains why:
“Although many communities throughout our region are facing some serious challenges, we here in the City of Las Cruces have been extremely fortunate. In fact, the Milken Institute has named the City of Las Cruces one of the best performing small cities in the western region two years in a row. Just in the last year we have issued over 600 business licenses, created over 2,000 jobs… Our crime rate from last year has dropped from the previous year. We currently hold twice the amount that the state requires in cash reserves. We’ve been able to implement curbside recycling as well as balance growth and development.”
If Las Cruces is doing better than most cities, Connor certainly shares some credit. But as the incumbent in the race, Miyagishima is in the enviable position of being the candidate voters aren’t likely to toss from office unless they’re given a compelling reason.
On Tuesday, Huerta and Connor spent lots of time fighting with each other. Both outperformed Miyagishima and gave voters reasons that they might make good mayors, but they didn’t spend enough time giving voters reasons to show Miyagishima the door – in other words, rebutting the argument Miyagishima made in his opening statement for why he deserves to be re-elected.
The race isn’t over, and I’m not making any predictions. But Connor and Huerta both need to make a more convincing case for kicking Miyagishima out of office than they did on Tuesday.
If you missed the debate, you can watch it here.
A prior version of this posting incorrectly stated that Huerta’s mother is a member of the realtor’s association political committee.