Flutterby™! : Let's talk about the other candidates: Bill Richardson 2007-11-10 20:06:54.855642+00

Let's talk about the other candidates: Bill Richardson

2007-11-10 20:06:54.855642+00 by Larry Burton 13 comments

There was a request to start an anchor topic to host discussions about presidential candidates other than Ron Paul. I think most people want to discuss platform issues. Ya know. I don't really care, at this point, about any platform. I'd just like to find the candidates that have the skills to run this country. As of right now the only two I have any faith in that could do that is Bill Richardson and Mike Huckabee.

I think Bill Richardson has demonstrated his abilities to run government through his terms as governor of New Mexico. I think he has demonstrated his ability to understand foreign policy and diplomacy through his tenure as an ambassador to the UN. What can the other candidates offer to counter this experience?

Now discuss away.

Way back in February I came across an algorithm that determines Presidental Elections. Oddly enough, according to that algorithm, both Bill Richardson and Mike Huckabee are the frontrunners, with Huckabee in the lead (the actual score depends upon the Vice Presidental nominee, but there are none as of yet).

I'll try to do a little more thinking and research on this as the weekend wears on.

Everything I've heard Bill Richardson suggest just sounds reasonable to me. Even the things I disagree with him on his stand is reasonable. Couple that with the fact that he has proven himself as someone who can run a government and get take the diplomacy route with foreign policy and he's just someone I could vote for.

I'm not sure that I will vote for him at this time but among the democrats he's the only one that I find that has the proven experience to run a government. He's also the only democrat that I find reasonable.

Sweet line about the Mexican border fencing: "Look at this wall [on the Mexican border], dividing two countries up. Like Ronald Reagan said when he went to Berlin, he said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall." That's not America."

It seems he feels, as I feel, that the best solution to the illegals problem is to try to create stable governments and foster an economic situation in Latin America that creates jobs and economic support for their citizens so they don't feel pressure to come to America illegally.

He's seems to view China correctly, as a formidable competitor and someone who doesn't behave morally with respect to wages and such.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-11 12:39:38.521353+00 by: jeff [edit history]

One of the responses we typically see when it comes to solving the illegal immigration problem is the total reshaping of Latin American economic culture (i.e. removing corruption, etc.). The same economic climate can be found in much of Africa, where I recently visited and a local businessman in Tanzania told me "how hard it is to compete," when all of my competitors "cheat."

Reshaping basic cultural behaviour is an idealistic goal, to be sure, and I'd like someone to inform the world how Latin American economic culture (particularly that of our immediate neighbor Mexico) "can be forced to change," and how that can realistically be accomplished in the 21st century (let alone in the next 4-8 years). Perhaps Hugo Chavez has an answer but, that view, contrarian to U.S. capitalism, imperialism and hegemony, wouldn't fly in the face of our own economic system. As an aside, ask Dubya how easy it is to "reshape Iraqi culture."

Let's return to my "ant analogy" post from a few months ago. Take away the food source (i.e. jobs), and you don't find ants in your kitchen. I believe there is no other method that will work, unless someone can elucidate it clearly here. And I'm very open-minded to hear a detailed plan or detailed alternative. Perhaps one of the candidates has something substantive in mind, but I haven't seen it yet.

I'll need to research Bill Richardson and his platform on this topic and some others.

The "ant analogy" is highly degrading, of course, relegating humans to the status of hungry insects, but let's get beyond that.

Folks will do what they have to do to feed themselves and their kids, that's true, but they also will do anything for the hope of doing better than they can where they are. Rural folks migrate to cities in MANY cultures because there is the hope and the opportunity for a better life, a more successful life, a more fulfilling life. Latinos will continue to come into our country illegally (and legally) because it will remain (hopefully) where the money is, where the opportunity for success is, where the chance is to give their kids more than they had. Folks usually arrive NOT because there are jobs waiting for them, but because they HOPE there are jobs waiting for them and they HOPE fortune will smile on them and they HOPE they can provide better for their family here. We are the land of HOPE.

We have no desire to renounce our status as the land of opportunity and the land where a man can work hard and succeed and it is THAT, not jobs, which bring people here. They are not ants, driven by instinct and smell, toward food, jeff, they are HUMANS. They come not merely following a trail like some lower life form, but a dream probably much like your own. They come here because they can do better. The question is: why can they do better here?

The answer is corrupt government and business practices, but surely you'd not deny our governments role in establishing and continuing those practices? We have been quite complicit in the coups, revolutions, and economic rape of Latin America. We reap now what we have sown in Latin America for almost 100 years with our grooming of strongmen to suit our needs and our blind-eye to the social and economic abuses of those dictators.

And now? We want to blame the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, as it were, for wanting out of the politically corrupt, economically imbalanced hell holes we helped create? These are folks whose Dad had to choose whether to die fighting for the Marxist dictator supported by the U.S.S.R. or the dictator supported by the U.S. Marine Corp or CIA.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-11-11 13:52:16.934281+00 by: jeff [edit history]

Topspin, I fully understoond and realized that the "ant foodstuff analogy" would draw legitimate ire (and I apologize for that), but I did so purpously to invoke some real passion and deeper thought into this important discussion.

Topspin, I find it interesting that you seem to really like Bill Richardson's views and his platform and that you view him as someone fully capable of leading government yet you are ready to relegate him to the position of Vice President. I've never realized how much of a nihilist you could be.

Point to someone you believe in that you can support for president. I'd be interested in that.

As I've said elsewhere, Larry, I'm a realist. While I like the message from Gov. Richardson, he's not got the name recognition nor the machinery in place to win the nomination, nor the election. Perhaps, after a stint at V.P., he'd have a chance to lead the dance.

Overall, I'll have to support a Dem, either Clinton or Obama, because I believe Justice Stevens will retire or pass away in the next 4 years and Justice Ginsburg also might choose to leave the bench. I truly don't think the it's in the interest of the country for the SCOTUS to have more appointees of the ilk of Justices Scalia or Thomas, which I'd be worried a Republican would be hounded into appointing by the religious right. While I doubt we'd get someone as bad as those two, we'd likely get someone from the GOP no better than Justice Alito. That would leave a court a bit too conservative for my tastes. I believe Clinton or Obama would be pressured by the left enough to appoint someone who'd balance the court among the liberals and conservatives.

I have no love for the slickness and extreme packaging of Ms. Clinton and I simply worry Mr. Obama isn't well seasoned enough for the job, but I think they basically would yank the country back away from the Cheney/Wolfowitz thinking we've seen for the past 8 years. Whatever distance we get the reins of power from those two weasels is not just good for America, but it makes for a safer world. I don't think Clinton or Obama could possibly do as much harm to the country as allowing the Republicans another 4 or 8 years.

I think it's good for the political pendulum to drift back and forth, don't you?

Am I thrilled to realize what I'll be doing when I punch my chad? Nope. As my beautiful ping-pong playing lover Wang Jue used to say, "You're not young now. As your hands get slower, your head must get smarter." I don't look to overpower the situation with amazing topspin any longer, but rather to finesse it with crafty side and back spin. Why? Because I know now I can't overpower the situation and my best bet to keep some control of the point is to do what I CAN do well rather than attempt loops and slams that won't be overwhelming, nor effective.

Doing the "Rah rah rah" for ANY candidate isn't my thing. I'd hope Gov. Richardson is savvy enough to know it isn't his time yet and he'll run a nice, low key, get my name out there, make national contacts, wait my turn sorta primary candidacy and perhaps get a consideration, or even get the nod, for V.P. because that's his BEST outcome from this particular political cycle.

I'm a bit too young to fully remember, but wasn't Jimmy Carter as obscure as Richardson? Wasn't Clinton as obscure?

Topspin, I understand where you are coming from but I disagree that either Senators Clinton or Obama are an automatic win against the Republicans. In fact I doubt either can win against Guiliani or Romney. As the primaries approach people are going to start realizing that and Richardson will have a greater chance of moving into front.

I agree with your assessment about Paul not having a chance to win the nomination this time but I disagree about Richardson's chances. Yeah he isn't a shoe in but at this point I don't see Senator Clinton being one either.

Jimmy Carter faced folks like "Scoop" Jackson and Mo Udall in the primaries and I think Bill Clinton had no one, perhaps Gene McCarthy, with national name recognition.

Mr. Richardson faces Ms. Clinton who has deep party roots, history, and backing as well as worldwide name recognition. It's almost like she's an incumbent. Mr. Obama's success, frankly, surprises me, but I think there's still some party leaders among Democrats who feel the Clinton/Lewinsky thing hampers Ms. Clinton's chances (and it probably does.)

I'm confident only Mr. Obama has a realistic shot at challenging her and that Mr. Richardson will continue to play team ball with the party. He's been around, ya know, in the cabinet, at the UN, etc. He probably has Bill's cell phone on speed dial and has for years. I don't look for Mr. Richardson to start playing hard ball with Ms. Clinton because his best career move, in my view, is the V.P. spot at this point.

Some folks seem to feel Ms. Clinton leads Mr. Romney pretty well and has a somewhat slimmer edge on Mr. Giuliani.

I think those numbers will sharpen, of course, with the selection of running mates, the convention "spectacles," and as the heavy guns come out in the campaigns.