Why Not Bill? A Guide for Democrats.

Oh my goodness! Did you know I’m from New Mexico? No, why would you. But I’ve been watching Richardson. One of the reasons I suspect he’s a good man for the job is because one of my good friends - with whom I can discuss ANYTHING except politics; we’re completely opposite - truly loathes Richardson, which is a pretty darned good endorsement for me!

Yup, that’s about right. I say he’s the lead in a new wave of libertarian Democrats (and well-qualified beyond that). Right now, though, nobody knows what to do with him, just that he’s not sexy enough.

David, that reminds me; he speaks French!

Oh sure, like we’re going to give the nomination to some governor of a mid-size state who may very well be the smartest guy running but doesn’t have any name recognition.

Oh.

Well, even if he wins the nomination, he can’t win the presidency.

Oh.

Damn, I need a yard sign.

“Why Not Me?”

David, how come you weren’t a consultant to the Kerry campaign? A vulnerable incumbent there for the taking, and all his advisors screwed the Senator from here to Ohio.

I wish I had something clever to say about Richardson. To me, he looks very capable, a good administrator, a guy with ideas. All very un-sexy qualities. But he’d probably make a very fine President. That he’s not TV handsome, and probably has a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting the nomination, is an indictment of our “American Idol” culture.

I’m reminded of a rumored story I heard about Johnny Carson, he of blessed memory. The story goes that Carson said he couldn’t vote for McGovern because George sounded too much like Liberace. If we all voted based on those kind of perceptions, well, hell, we could end up electing George W. Bush. Twice. And we shouldn’t let that happen.

This is an excellent piece, Adam. Thanks!

Dale, you answered Ann’s question. “Why do I think that’s not going to happen?” Because NOBODY would want to fuck the RNC. I suppose they could go fuck themselves. Yes. That’s what they should do.

I saw a five-minute profile of Bill Richardson on CNN and thought “Yes, why not?” Which I think means I should put more thought into this. But Richardson has been active and visible for many, many years - I know his face from a thousand appearances on TV. But any member of the Democratic lineup is preferable to the flat-Earthers on the Repugnicant team.

Seattle Dan,

I wish to Lobster I had had John Kerry’s ear, not because I’m a political whiz kid, but because it was fucking obvious to everyone but his fucking advisers that the advice he was getting was shit. Interestingly, he wanted to strike back at the Swift Boaters immediately, and with a vengeance, but his advisers -
damned their sorry eyes - talked him out of it. Any good Southerner (and any good soul from any other part of the country - but my experience is Southern) would have said Hell yes, cut their fucking nuts off right now, and use a hot, dull knife, and while you’re at it, link the motherfuckers unequivocally to that sorry-assed pseudo-Texan who was appointed to his job by a partisan Supreme Court. And Kerry had legitimate answers to the questions about his war votes that he failed miserably to articulate with forceful conviction. I kept waiting for the John Kerry of 1973, the one who articulated irrefutable, engaging, essential truth with compelling conviction, goddammit.

I did a lot of screaming over the moronic tactical blunders of the Kerry campaign, which needed a hard-nosed Southerner and Vinnie in its inner circle.

Dale,

Point well taken.

Jim (OJNTNJ),

Angry David’s take definitely was. Meanwhile, interesting commentary by Scott Paul at the Washington Note:

“Richardson’s ideas may lack the grassrootsy populism of Edwards’s, the boldness of Kucinich’s, or the worldly sophistication of Obama’s, but they are very well thought out. His foreign policy is clear-headed and coherent, and his energy policy is uniquely on point.

Richardson recognizes the impacts of oil dependence on foreign policy, the humanitarian and geopolitical consequences of climate change, and he avoids the farcical notion that the U.S. can somehow cut itself off from the global energy marketplace.

There’s a lot more to like about Richardson’s energy plan, too. Specifically:

I think we need the same sort of strong and focused diplomacy with friend and foe to adapt our foreign policy to the global nature of energy.
As he lays it out, the plan involves drastically cutting oil consumption, enhancing Western hemispheric energy cooperation, and setting up a multilateral system to protect the Persian Gulf in the post-oil economy in place of an American troop presence.

Oh, and he delivered his energy speech at an oil and gas conference, a nice plus.

I’m still digesting some of the specifics, but the broad brushstrokes of Bill Richardson’s energy policy are notably different. Sure, distracting political slogans like “energy independence” pop up here and there. Fortunately - and this is rare, the slogans are worked into the policy, not vice versa.

Many candidates have discussed in vague terms integrating energy policy with foreign policy. Here’s hoping they follow Richardson’s lead.”

Hi, guys. It goes with out saying, but Chris Regan is writing some excellent comedy at his “This Day in Mythstory” blog. If you haven’t been by in a while, go have a look. http://mythstory.net/

Did the link not work? One last try.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/22/1362/

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/07/think.html.
Libertarian? He’s part of Clinton, Inc. Hillary’s veep, if he behaves…

This is a long read, but a must for you thinkers. http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-news/?p=510
I pray for our grandchildren, when they are asked of these devils, “are you a Christian?”.

Fowler, I usually talk birds with you (safe topic) but I gotta ask: As a conservative, what do you make of this administration? I know your stance on some issues, and that you don’t like Dems because you think that they’re wrong on those issues.

I don’t know if you’re one of the 30% who still support the Bush et al, or if you’re one of the growing group who are still Republicans but don’t like ‘em. I really, honestly can’t understand why conservatives aren’t screaming even louder than Dems to dump these guys. They’re destroying so many things our nation stands for, and it seems like they’re going to destroy the Republican party in the process. Why don’t more conservatives want to reign them in? (not trying to be snarky, just really want to understand - hope I’m not putting you too much on the spot.)

We’re talking a pretty complex issue here, waterfowler. Don’t actually know where the ACLU stands on this issue. I’m working on where I stand, but I know it’s different from that of a friend of four decades who grew up in El Paso and has been back living there for many years. My starting point is that we are all immigrants, and I am the descendant on both sides of immigrants who did not have permission from the native Americans to come here, take their land, drive them into reservations or kill them wholesale, eradicate the buffalo on whom they depended for survival, etc., etc. My goal is to try to figure out the most humane, reasonably workable way to deal with this issue.

Regarding this mythical threat from Islamists whom you seem to think have the capacity and desire to occupy the United States and establish a caliphate, as do a couple of my relatives, sheeesh. The United States is currently the big gun when it comes to occupying by force and attempting to establish a petro-caliphate on foreign soil. Your children are in about as much danger of being subjugated by Islamists as we were of being subjugated by the Soviets, which is nil/nada/zilch.

Terrorists attacks are real, including those perpetrated by our own CIA and that bozo in Miami whom we are essentially protecting. But they can be stopped by competent intelligence and law enforcement. And trashing the Constitution is not a requirement to stop terrorist attacks. Good relations with the Muslim world, which was overwhelmingly shocked and appalled by 9/11, is, as is ending the occupation of Iraq.

Fowler, thanks for answering.

When you’re up to it, it would be interesting to get your take on Gonzales. That whole situation (going back to the “quaint” Geneva conventions and continuing through the current troubles) seems to embody everything most at odds with what we stand for as a nation.

Actually, despite the fact that I oppose Thomas on pretty much everything, I don’t think he’s criminal so he’s not a target for me.

I didn’t like Ashcroft either, so I’m pretty sure that the Latino aspect has nothing to do with my dislike of Gonzo. (And when Ashcroft represents the voice of reason, you know we’re sunk.)

You’re picking on my local “San Francisco Liberal” dems there so I might be biased, but I don’t think they’re actually criminal. You probably have the same visceral reaction to them that I have to Inhofe, Boehner, et al. I don’t think any of them are in the same class as Gonzales.

I’m not keen on incompetence, but I wouldn’t feel this way if that was all he was guilty of. I only get riled up like this when I see someone actively working to undermine the constitution.

As for Hil - The wingnuts think we lefties love her, but that is a misconception. Opposing her keeps y’all busy, so that’s okay.

waterfowler, the supposed exemption in the minimum wage bill for Starkist Tuna is a complete and utter fabrication by the right-wing noise machine. Read the text of the bill. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h2_eh.xml The words “Samoa” and “Starkist” do not appear *once*. Nobody inserted *anything* to give Samoa an exemption.

Instead, the bill *does* include an explicit non-exemption for the Northern Mariana islands. Why would they be singled out? Google “Tom DeLay” and “Mariana Islands” and figure it out for yourself.

The “but your side is corrupt, too” argument is weak enough as it is, but try to at least find examples that hold water.

Try again Nick.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070110-112625-6437r.htm

Wait, I’m still stuck on WF’s choosing a president based on what someone says about his religious faith—not even on what he does! As we saw with Carter, religious ideals do not a good president make, and Bush already had an abysmal record as a failure in everything he touched. But by golly he said he was a Christian!

And they think the liberals are naive.

Holy crap…. given a choice between reading a Washington Times article on the bill, and the ACTUAL BILL…. for some reason, I mistakenly chose the one that wouldn’t give me the appropriate libelous take. I know I’m a newcomer to this blog, but gosh, I’m clearly way out of my league here.