It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill Richardson for President 2008

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
A of right now, this guy has my vote as I think he easily has the best qualifications for the democratic party, and there's no way I'm gonna vote for Hillary or some republican.

GO RICHARDSON!www.americaforrichardson.org...

What do you all think?

Do you think he would make a good President?




posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Richardson would make a horrible president. When the US looked to Yucca Mountain to serve as a national, central, repository of our nuclear waste, which HAS TO BE stored somewhere, he did everything he could to put the kibosh on that. It wasn't in his state's interests, even though it was greatly in the national interest. This is also a guy who utterly failed to do anything about the rampant illegal immigration comming across the border and through his state. This isn't merely an issue of being pro-immigrants. Because he failed to do anything for his entire tenure in office, the human smuggling and drug smuggling gangs, these growing mafioso-like cartels, have become stronger and stronger.

This guy would make a terrible choice for US president.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Well it's not like Bush did anything about it either, so what do we got to lose?



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
So because bush sucks, we should elect another chowderhead???


Richardson is crap. He blocked the national nuclear waste repository, we need that. Yucca isn't perfect, and heck, there might be another site that ends up being better. But he was blocking it because it was going to be in his state, and they'd throw him out of office if he didn't block it. We need someone in office who isn't going to pander to the narrow interests of a small number of people, at the sacrifice and detriment of the whole country.

We're probably not going to end up with anyone like that, but at least with Richardson we know that he's a scumbag.


What the dems need in 2008 is some one that can get republicans to vote for him. No one is going to win if only their own party votes for him.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I think you are on to something here humble.......
Here's my prediction from awhile back..........politics.abovetopsecret.com...

o8 is going to be real nasty as the personal attack dogs are already sharpening thier teeth.

Here is the new Democrat campaighn slogan

Happy with the last 8 years? Vote GOP!



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Richardson is crap. He blocked the national nuclear waste repository, we need that. Yucca isn't perfect, and heck, there might be another site that ends up being better. But he was blocking it because it was going to be in his state, and they'd throw him out of office if he didn't block it. We need someone in office who isn't going to pander to the narrow interests of a small number of people, at the sacrifice and detriment of the whole country.
[edit on 12-12-2006 by Nygdan]


As usual, you don't know what your talking about.

Yucca is in Nevada; Gov. Bill is from New Mexico.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by whaaa]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Thanks for the link whaa, looks like we got some pretty terrible candidates, I still think Richarson is the way to go.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by Nygdan

Richardson is crap. He blocked the national nuclear waste repository, we need that. Yucca isn't perfect, and heck, there might be another site that ends up being better. But he was blocking it because it was going to be in his state, and they'd throw him out of office if he didn't block it. We need someone in office who isn't going to pander to the narrow interests of a small number of people, at the sacrifice and detriment of the whole country.
[edit on 12-12-2006 by Nygdan]


As usual, you don't know what your talking about.

Yucca is in Nevada; Gov. Bill is from New Mexico.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by whaaa]


Yup, Yucca is in Nevada, are we talking about the same guy Nygdan?



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
As usual, you don't know what your talking about.

Yucca is in Nevada; Gov. Bill is from New Mexico.


Yes, and Bill was the Secretary of Energy which is the government agency which had oversight at Yucca.

www.state.nv.us...

Maybe someone should ask Bill where the hard drives were?

archives.cnn.com...

Please vote for him, he'll harm New Mexico far less as President of the U.S. than as Govenor.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Crap, you're right, I was confused. Richardson, as governor of new mexico, was opposed to waste being stored there as it was being prepped for Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, and was involved in the Yucca Project as Energy Secretary. My mistake.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
richardson is probably the worst candidate that the democrats could field...
he's done NOTHING
well, he has done some stuff to inhibit america's best interests, but that's just it



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
First of all, Richardson hasn't actually decided on a run yet, officially at least. Now, we all know that he is going to run, because it just accidentally falls out of his mouth every time he tries to talk, but every time that happens his staff quickly says, "well, he's going to make his final decision in Jan 2007".

Fox is pushing it now though because conservatives will react badly to him. They want him to get a bad reaction before he's even officially running because they hope to hinder his funding, make him the obvious "bad idea" nomination, and kill his campaign before it's even born.


Fox is wasting their time. Richardson doesn't need any help to not get nominated. Unless he can win Texas just by being half Mexican, he's going to be in big trouble, because poor blacks get played against Mexicans the same way that poor whites get played against blacks. The time could easily be right for a black candidate- prejudice against them has been a political no-no for a generation. Prejudice against Mexicans is in its political prime. That in itself should make the Dems smart enough not to nominate Richardson. If the Republicans are left to their own devices they'll probably lose on immigration at this point, but nominating a Mexican would take their fat out of the fire for them.


For my own part, as opposed to what I think will happen on the partisan front, I don't like what I've seen of Richardson so far because he's too much about his resume and his electability and not enough about issues and an agenda.

They ask him what makes him think he's qualified to be president, and he doesn't talk about the issues he's championed or about the needs of this country that he feels he can address.

He said, oh well I was secretary of energy and I worked with Clinton and I was governor, I'm from the South West and I'm Hispanic. He thinks that he's electable and that that makes him right for the job.

The website linked at the beginning of this thread makes the same mistake, talking about the political situation: how there is no incumbent and there's this rare back-to-back two-termer situation that has cleared the way for new faces.

The vibe coming from Richardson is "I want to be President and I think I can be". If your primary motivation for running for office is wanting to be in office, there's something wrong with you; that makes you some kind of megalomaniac. My ideal politician sees being in office as a necessary evil of getting things done, or at least as a minor fringe benefit to getting to help your country.

Richardson will not be the kind of leader we need right now. We need somebody to spearhead some major course corrections after this current administration is gone. Richardson will just revel in the office and let the congress drive the agenda, which is only a good thing in times of stability. The House of Representatives is too compartmentalized and rule-bound to set the agenda efficiently. When things need to change, the President needs to set forth a broad agenda for the committees in the House to turn into legislation, and then the President needs to shepherd that agenda through the senate and conference committees and into law.

Does Richardson have what it takes to do that, or will he just be a front man for unelectable democrats in congress who will have to make the agenda take shape behind the scenes? The way I see it, if we're going to elect Richardson, we should cut the crap and just elect Pelosi to the White House.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
richardson is probably the worst candidate that the democrats could field...
he's done NOTHING





And that my friend just might be his saving grace!

Doing and knowing NOTHING has never stopped anyone from being elected president. Where do you live?

[edit on 12-12-2006 by whaaa]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
And that my friend just might be his saving grace!

Doing and knowing NOTHING has never stopped anyone from being elected president. Where do you live?

[edit on 12-12-2006 by whaaa]


a good candidate isn't a successful candidate
i want a good person, someone who isn't just a stupid shill for the party



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
?
a good candidate isn't a successful candidate
i want a good person, someone who isn't just a stupid shill for the party



That's what I want too; but being a pragmatist, compromises are bound to be made; poitics being what they are. Hoping for a good person in politics is sort of naive don't you think. Name the last "good" politician.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by whaaa]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I'm sure there are plenty of "good people" in politics who believe in what they do and very rarely hurt puppies or teenage boys, but I'm not sure that's what was intended by the use of "good person" in this discussion.

I think "good leader" might have been the better phrasing. I can live with the fact most people who've gotten very far in politics have probably voted against their conscience as a matter of pragmatism in order to get a second or third best solution rather than none (and at the same time gain support for their next campaign). I can even live with a guy who has told a few lies, been really really wrong about something, experimented with drugs, or ducked a war. There are A LOT of good people running around in the general public who've done some things that we would be shocked to learn about.

What I think is important is that a candidate have the interests of the nation at heart, understand that these interests have to be pursued within the bounds of the constitution even when that seems to be a hinderance, and be intelligent enough to do it effectively.

I only care about moral conduct to the extent that a persons record does not call the benevolence of their political motives or their overall judgement into question.

That's why I'm not down on Truman even though Boss Pendergast made him, why I don't view Clinton's presidency through the lens of draft dodging or Lewinsky but based on which policies were good and bad for us, and why I the Kennedy dynasty did not, at its pinnacle, seem as offensive to Americans as the Bush dynasty.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I would love to see Richardson run. And if he was the candidate, I'd vote for him without reservation.

Now, what's all this about how he has looked out for New Mexico instead of National interests??? How dare he stand up for his state!
He's the Governor for Christ's sake! Of course he's going to look out for that state's interests! As president, I have every confidence that he'd look out for the interests of the nation.

I live in New Mexico and I think he's been a superb Governor and would be a great president. He has always taken his job very seriously and he's not a smarmy, corrupt politician, 'acting' like he cares.

My only concern is his 'electability'. He's so 'nice' and genuine that I'm not sure people would see him as strong (which he is). You know how nice guys finish last? I'm afraid people would rather vote for a showman or someone who's "charming".



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Out of curiousity BH, how do the links above, especially the video clip, seem to you, given any additional context you may have from being in his state and presumably having seen him on television a little more than most of us?

I don't claim to know very much about his performance as governor. The one thing that just strikes me as so incredibly strange is how dispassionate he seems. He falls flat in a way that seems very strange to me. If I had to compare what I see in him to traits I see in another person, I'd almost say he reminds me of Ari Fleischer in the way that he sort of talks around what you expect him to be talking about, without quite seeming defensive. Ari Fleischer always gave me this "I'm just doing me job, please leave me alone" kind of vibe, and I'm basically getting that from Richardson because he seems to be so much about running for the office and not so much about advocating a policy.

What was his platform in the run for governor, how did he pursue it once in office, is he maybe just a little camera-shy or disorganized when speaking off the cuff? In short, is there perhaps a reason for the boring vibe I'm getting that doesn't reflect so badly on him?



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Out of curiousity BH, how do the links above, especially the video clip, seem to you, given any additional context you may have from being in his state and presumably having seen him on television a little more than most of us?


I can't find the video! In the first link in this thread, there's a video, but it won't play for me. But I can give you my take on Richardson without watching it.

I agree with you that he seems dispassionate. SEEMS. My take is that he's a bit insecure. Therefore, he's trying a bit too hard to be appealing to the masses. I have seen him be passionate. And I've seen him relaxed, comfortable and authentic and when he's like that, he's very electable. My concern is that he isn't comfortable enough in his own skin to cast off the concerns for approval from the larger audience of the entire country.

He has about a 70% approval rating and the best thing he did as far as I'm concerned is got paper ballots (voting receipts) for the state.

He supports border control, but is compassionate toward immigrants:


The only realistic solution is to create a path to legalization for immigrants who are paying taxes, learning English, and contributing to our society.
...
Also, a plan to curb the demand for illegal labor by cracking down on employers who knowingly violate the law is imperative.
Source




What was his platform in the run for governor, how did he pursue it once in office, is he maybe just a little camera-shy or disorganized when speaking off the cuff?


I wasn't involved when he ran for governor. Only in the last 2-3 years have I become more interested in him. I would say that you've hit the nail on the head here. He's a bit camera-shy and disorganized when speaking to a large audience. He's very comfortable in his own surroundings and to the smaller audience, whose approval he already has.

I'm a bit concerned about his need for approval, but he is a genuine, honest, caring guy from everything I've seen. He's also quite intelligent and an exceptional diplomat.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Thanks for the extra context Benevolent Heretic. I'll be watching with great interest to see if Richardson sort of settles into the role of a presidential candidate and starts resonating on issues.

A candidate, comfortable in his own skin or not (I can forgive shyness) needs to attempt to set the agenda. The issues that a candidate takes the initiative to raise, as opposed to those he responds to, are the ones where I feel confident that a candidate will dig in and fight for me.

Richardson's discomfort in this spotlight has resulted in the first few looks at him I've had sounding more like he was trying to convince himself that he should be doing this than trying to convince me that he's the one I can count on. If it takes to long for him to start attacking on the issues, the issues will start attacking him, and then he'll fall into Al Gore's grave, answering too many questions and not asking enough, not seeming like he cares enough, perhaps not even seeming trustworthy.

I want all the options I can get right now, so god bless the man if he can pull it together and show me a soul worth following, but if I were one of his advisors I'd have to tell him that he's sliding onto some thin ice, and the media is underneath just waiting for him to fall through.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join