New Mexico Politics with Joe Monahan

Trujillo claims the blog used "sexist and ageist tropes" in reporting the incident and employed "a disrespectful tone."

Allegations of harassment were filed against Stewart by legislative staffer Michelle Jaschke who said Stewart screamed at her and called her "stupid." Jaschke also said Stewart sent her an abusive email using all capital letters in response to Smith's query for more information about capital outlay project funding for projects in the senator's SE ABQ district.

The ethics subcommittee held a hearing and on a party line vote decided to take no action against the Senate leader. (More here, here and here.)

I write to express my profound disappointment in your recent article regarding Senate President Pro Tem Mimi Stewart. I am an avid reader and have been for quite some time now. While scrutiny of our public officials is both appropriate and necessary, your piece relies on sexist and ageist tropes and fails to acknowledge its own disrespectful tone.

Your opening assertion, “At 78, Sen. Stewart’s time may be dwindling” constitutes blatant ageism. By suggesting her age renders her less capable or that she is nearing “the end of her usefulness,” you perpetuate a harmful stereotype that equates advanced age with diminished competence. Age alone neither predicts effectiveness nor justifies sidelining voices that continue to serve the public.

"At 78, Sen. Stewart's time may be dwindling but Senate Democrats appear unlikely to give her the boot from leadership over the incident."

That's ageism? Hardly. Age is a critical factor in performance. It is why the Catholic Church prohibits cardinals from voting on a new pope once they reach the age of 80. It is why we have mandatory retirement for certain jobs. More directly, very few state legislators serve past the age of 82, which Stewart would reach in 2028 when she is up for re-election and which means her time in power may indeed "be dwindling." Chances are she is a lame-duck senator and her outburst may have damaged her standing. That's not ageism. That's reality.

Throughout the article, you repeatedly frame Stewart’s behavior in terms more commonly associated with dismissive descriptions of women. Phrases like “temper tantrum” and “progressive impulses” carry a patronizing, gendered connotation, implying emotional instability rather than a momentary lapse in professional decorum. Had a male leader been involved, the outburst would likely have been labeled a “blowup” or “angry response” language that, while critical, does not infantilize.

Our response: "Temper tantrums and progressive impulses" are dismissive depictions of women. Really? Temper tantrums is a term commonly associated with misbehavior by children which in our view Sen. Stewart mimicked when she wrote an abusive email in all capital letters and followed it up with verbal abuse of the staffer, calling her "stupid." It was not a simple lapse in "professional decorum." Is that what you call it when the person who controls your paycheck and livelihood confronts you and tells you to your face that you're stupid? That's abuse in anyone's book. On second thought, our "tone" may have actually been too dismissive of the senator's behavior. Temper tantrum now seems too mild.

We are not "implying" emotional instability on the part of Sen. Stewart. In fact, we are ratifying that this was indeed a a case of her losing control of her emotions--and that has nothing do with her gender.

The bottom line? Stewart engaged in childish, immature and abusive behavior for which she eventually apologized. She's not alone in engaging in such conduct. Both male and females do it.

We don't understand how discussing a possible letter of reprimand has anything to do with Stewart's purported accomplishments. One has nothing to do with the other.

Our belief that Stewart would be subjected to nothing more than a letter of reprimand by the ethics panel was a comment on the Santa Fe political culture which leans in on protecting their own. (More here.)

And we were more than right with our prediction. She did not even get a letter of reprimand. No disciplinary action was taken by her legislative peers. None.

As for quoting an unnamed senator, the political community can thank us for that. Please read what we reported and then tell us again with a straight face that this is "flippant gossip":

Reacting to the Friday hearing of a legislative ethics subcommittee over the complaint filed by the abused staffer, one senator told us: There’s really s no alternative right now. Those who have run for Pro Tem before the caucus previously are not positioned. The real power in this place is now with Senators (George) Munoz and (Joe) Cervantes. They represent an odd mix of pragmatic and liberal politics that has sidestepped Mimi's progressive impulses which are now considerably more tame.

Rather than gossip, that is pragmatic political analysis based on the current conditions inside the Senate Democratic Caucus. Because the analysis quotes an anonymous senator, you will likely not find it in other media here that will not use an anonymous source. The Wall St. Journal does, ditto for the New York Times and Politico. And so do we when the information functions to inform our readers of vital public policy and/or the personalities and political mechanics shaping outcomes that will directly impact the lives of New Mexicans.

As for "gossip" we have nothing against it unless it is intentionally pejorative. All scrutiny of elected officials and public servants is welcome and an essential part of keeping our democracy alive. That's been a part of the American political dialogue for centuries.

But we get it. When our reporting--exclusive and incisive as it often is because of the credibility of our sources--gets under the skin of those who disagree, they try to diminish the truth of that reporting and analysis as "gossip." That's in spite of decades of work here being vindicated by subsequent events. We let that work--chronicled here in over 20 years of archives--speak for itself.

I urge you, in future coverage, to distinguish between legitimate critique of policy and leadership and gratuitous commentary on age, gender, or temperament. Our democracy demands rigorous journalism free from biases that diminish public discourse.

Well, thanks for the advice but it is you, David, who need to distinguish between reality and the untethered world you have anchored your over the top, woke ideology to.

Senator Stewart Stewart was not exercising "policy and leadership" when she lost control of her emotions and abused a staffer that resulted in the ethics complaint. It was her personal, wrongful actions being questioned and reported on. Nothing else.

Even so, because her untoward comments to the legislative staffer were prompted by her irritation over the distribution of capital outlay funds for her senate district, we used that as a jumping off point to discuss the need for higher standards and more efficiency in that system and relayed suggestions for its improvement.

Does that pass your test of "legitimate critique of policy" and "rigorous journalism?"

Thanks for your criticisms, David. We appreciate the time you took to make them.

E-mail your news and comments. (newsguy@yahoo.com)

Interested in reaching New Mexico's most informed audience? Advertise here.

Tuesday, August 12, 2025

Blog Taken To Task Over Coverage of Sen. Stewart's Ethics Mishap; "Ageism And Sexism" Claimed By Her Champion: We Push Back

Links

Archives