BILL RICHARDSON FOR PRESIDENT!

[Pierre.Suave]

I wanted to remind you people that Hillary, Obama, and John are not the only 3 running for president, we have a better choice in Gov. Bill Richardson, plus as an added bonus, we dont have to give up a senate seat if he wins.

Have you thought about that? If Hillary or Obama win, we lose a DEMOCRATIC SENATE SEAT AND POSSIBLY THE MAJORITY!!!

<removed for accuracy>

Bill Richardson has more experience than all of them COMBINED!

please read this and don't let the reich wing media choose who we get to vote for.

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/about/about_bill_richardson

[Horse with no Name]

1. No thanks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9704&mesg_id=9704

[5X]

5. I'm still not buying that,

If you read everything carefully, Richardson comes out ok.

[Pierre.Suave]

8. Find me ONE

link in which your outrageous claim is supported.

Your link and following links only prove there were vote anomalies in NM, as there were almost everywhere, that is not a surprise to anyone, and it is certainly not Governor Bill Richardson's fault.

SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM!

[Horse with no Name]

33. Find your own. I am 100% convinced.

He is "your man". I'm not going to change your mind so I won't waste my time bringing something that you are going to screech against anyway.
There have been some pretty substantial conversations regarding this subject on DU. You are welcome to do a search on them. The evidence is overwhelming. For those that choose to wade through it and make an informed decision.
For those that aren't...well, you vote for him.
He is the ONLY "Democrat" that I will not vote for. Under any circumstance.
I hold him just as responsible for this mess that our country is in as Blackwell in Ohio. They are cut from the same cloth.
That's all I am going to say on it. I am not going to have a protracted argument about it.

[Pierre.Suave]

34. you obviously also

are not going to back up your claim.

Thats the text book definition of a smear...

[Horse with no Name]

36. Oh please

There is information in the thread I posted.
If it isn't good enough for you...then meh...I don't have time for you.

[Pierre.Suave]

38. The only information

in your thread are that there were vote anomalies in NM, as there were in many states. You claimed that Gov. Richardson was responsible. I need proof of that.

[5X]

48. I already read through that thread and all of the links..

the story doesn't pan out the way the op is suggesting.
The secretary of state seemed to be more responsible
but Richardson didn't come out as the culprit the way I
read it.

[alittlelark]

54. I posted in that thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9704&mesg_id=9770


Aside from what I saw.... we all got to see The SoS and Richardson stonewalling a recount.

PS - I grew up in NM.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

57. ROFLMAO!!!!! Wow, That Thread Premise Is Funny! That Was Meant For Humor's Sake Right?

That was a very well done comedic piece. Gave me a laugh right when I needed it. Great job with the satire!

[UrbScotty]

2. Hillary and Obama would be replaced by Dems

Each state has Democrtic governors.

That said, I do like Richardson.

[Pierre.Suave]

7. IF

that is how Illinois and NY pick a replacement.

[Bucky]

13. The alternatives are (1) appointment by governor and (2) replace by new election

I think both seats are completely safe. Besides, losing the senate but gaining the White House is an incredibly good bargain.

[Pierre.Suave]

14. If

edit, hillary is not up for re-election.

[SaveElmer]

17. She is not up for reelection...

So if she lost (which she won't)...she would still have her senate seat

[Pierre.Suave]

26. One thing is certain

SHE WILL LOSE IF SHE RUNS FOR PRESIDENT.

[Bucky]

35. I'd call her a risky candidate rather than a for-certain loser.

In the current environment, I think most Democrats would be favored to win. And you can't say she's not a disciplined candidate. But keep in mind that the Dems had something of a perfect storm hit the Republicans this last time and still our Senate majority is just one pissed off Lieberman away from being lost to the control of Mitch McConnell, the Dark Helmet of the GOP.

I don't see her as a very strong candidate, but she's far from our worst.

[Pierre.Suave]

39. My suggestion

get off DU and go talk to people you meet on the street for a week about their ideas for president in the next election. then come back here and tell me you think Hillary is a good idea.

most people I talk to think McCain/Lieberman is a good idea for pres/vp

why? cause they are percieved as "moderates" form both respective parties. It makes me sick.

[Bucky]

46. Um, did you read my comments?

I'm not sure where you got the idea I was sweet in Clinton, but it sure wasn't from reading what I wrote.

[Pierre.Suave]

49. Yes, I did

go talk to voters and you will learn she has little to no chance to win.

[SaveElmer]

43. One thing is certain...

You are wrong!!!

[Pierre.Suave]

50. Unfortunately

Democrats that support Hillary are a small number of the total voters needed to win an election.

[SaveElmer]

61. If DU were deciding that would be true...

However, in virtually all recently released polls, she has consistently been ahead of not only her Democratic competition, but of the top Republican competitors as well...

This does not mean she will win in the end, but it also puts the lie to the notion that she cannot win.

[Double T]

3. I counting on 2008 to be a rethugliCON 'House Cleaning'............

with the Democrats obtaining super majorities in BOTH the House and Senate. Americans are pissed off!! Richardson would be a good VP pick.

[Pierre.Suave]

11. You are counting on that?

By planning on voting for someone that supported the war initially?

Edit: also, if the Dems keep up their inaction schtick, the country will be pissed at them as well.

[Double T]

15. Voted on the 'war' based on 'intelligence' to be correct..........

NOT a total fabrication and blatant lie.

[Pierre.Suave]

16. We do have candidates

that were smart enough NOT to get railroaded by the administration and BushCo at the time, wouldn't you rather have one of them instead?

[Double T]

21. 'WE' have a choice; nominate a Democratic candidate that will win.......

the race, or nominate a candidate with a staunch progressive left ideology and lose. 'WE' must NOT allow another RW president to hold office.

[Pierre.Suave]

27. Interesting

"or nominate a candidate with a staunch progressive left ideology and lose."

That sounds like Hillary...

[Double T]

30. Politics is no place to be idealistic; there will ONLY be disappointment.......

and despair.

[More Than A Feeling]

47. So, tell me...

Do you honestly believe that progressive ideas are losers by default? If so, why?

[Pierre.Suave]

51. NO, I dont

but I do think that to win we need a candidate that has appeal outside of the democratic base.

[Double T]

64. Progressive ideas are certainly NOT losers; I subscribe to many of those ideas myself.........

BUT when approximately 50% of the voters have ideas that are contrary to 'OURS', and many others have ideas that could be labeled 'centrist' or conservative Democrats, staunch progressive left ideology will NOT win elections.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. did not consider the senate seat, but frankly his resume, experience and talent

far outshines the field. Can you imagine how he wuld have dealt with that Catholic Maniac attacking his bloggers and staffers? Forget waffling like an aspen tree in a windstorm.

GREAT THREAD!

[Fran Kubelik]

6. I like him a lot, but do you think he has a chance?

[Pierre.Suave]

9. if we stop

talking about hillary, obama, and edwards, YES!

[skipos]

31. Clinton and Carter were low in the polls initially too

Governors usually are.

Richardson leads HRC and Obama in New Mexico polls by a greater margin than Edwards does in NC. Dodd, Biden and Vilsack trail in their homestates.

Non VP frontrunners almost NEVER get the Dem nomination. Lieberman and then Dean were the early frontrunners for 2004. Dukakis, Clinton and Carter were not frontrunners.

He has a shot.

[Bucky]

10. AND he comes with a prepackaged Republican smear or two all ready to go.

Of course they all do. But one of Richardson's smears is really nasty.

[Pierre.Suave]

12. LOL

OK, we need a new DU rule, no outrageous claims without support.

[Bucky]

19. The nice smear is mismanagement, including security lapses in Dept of Energy

The not-so-nice smear involves... well, I don't wanna give it credence, but it's gonna come out anyway. The source is Steve Clemons, the guy who rallied the blogosphere to get enough senators to challenge John Bolton. Clemons is no light weight and he's not a smear-artist. He's a serious policy guy and his blog is one of the very very few recommended by TPM's Josh Marshall. If Clemons says it's something to look at, it is.

That said, I'm very uncomfortable with this topic. But I think we're still in the vetting stage of this race. Richardson is an incredibly exciting candidate--I'd take him over either rock star. But I'm wary of closets with skeletons.

[Pierre.Suave]

24. There has to be two sides to this story

How did he get elected at all if this were true?

[Bucky]

32. I think it came out after he was reelected.

The Lt Governor, who was also his running mate, later "qualified" her response to say she was not implying anything more than that she was uncomfortable with how huggy he is. It's just one of those stories where it's only smoke so far. But there's at least hints of fire. Once I ran the story down thru other reports online, I began to think other women might come forward.

I still remember the Bill Clinton pile on. Eventually women were claiming things who hadn't ever even gotten near him. This has that sort of flavor to it. It could mean nothing. But again, I have to consider the source. Steve Clemons is not a rumor monger. If he ran that story, it means it's something worth paying attention to.

[Pierre.Suave]

37. That may be the case

but, having been around politics on the inside of parties and the people that populate them, I don't trust too many people I don't know very well in the world of politics.

The people involved in the apparatus are usually very petty and junior high cliquish. I need more than rumors before I care.

[More Than A Feeling]

18. Tell me more.

Where does he stand on the following:

1) Public Financing for federal campaigns, and fixing the prez public financing system.

2) the Labor movement

3) the Environment

4) Civil Liberties

5) Iraq

My "Big 5" issues.

[Pierre.Suave]

20. I should say

that I am in no way affiliated with Richardson for President, so I cant obviously go ask him anything, I can only give links to his website.

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues

[More Than A Feeling]

23. Nothing about public financing, civil liberties, or labor.

Disappointing.

[Pierre.Suave]

29. Send him an e-mail

and ask, its not that hard.

If you get an answer, please post it here.

[skipos]

22. He has done more for secure voting than many other governors

People feel he didn't do enough in 2004, but he has passed significant voting legislation since then.

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5697

Santa Fe, NM - Governor Bill Richardson yesterday signed a bill making New Mexico the fourteenth state to require voter-verified paper ballots (VVPBs) for its voting systems. As amended and passed, New Mexico Senate Bill 678 also requires audits to compare a portion of paper ballots with electronic vote tallies.

This is a victory for VerifiedVoting.org, its partners, and voters across the country who have successfully persuaded 14 state governments to require voter-verified paper ballots, with the Idaho bill awaiting the signature of the state's governor. VVPB legislation has been introduced but not yet passed in at least 22 more states, for a total of 36 states with passed or proposed VVPB requirements. Still other states among the "not yet introduced" category have traditionally used VVPB systems, and plan to continue to do so, finding ways to meet requirements of the Help America Vote Act without having to purchase unreliable paperless e-voting machines.

[Blue_In_AK]

25. I am impressed by Richardson...

and I think he would most likely do better in Alaska than any of the other Democratic candidates that have declared so far. Being a Westerner definitely helps up here.

[Pierre.Suave]

28. I think he will do well in other areas as well.

What some of us are forgetting on DU is this, all of us will obviously vote for the DEM candidate, but that isnt enough to WIN. The DEM candidate has to have enough BROAD appeal to win votes from OTHER people, independents, swing voters, and maybe even moderate republicans to win.

So stop trying to find the person that appeal most to a hard core Dem and consider which one appeals to others. Then, we can win.

edit: I want to add as well that AK is a beautiful state, I hope to spend more time there someday.

[Blue_In_AK]

41. Thank you, JasonC

I love Alaska. :) I agree with you on the broad appeal. Despite Alaska's Republican congressional representation and governor, we do have a pretty strong Democratic component up here, and I think the right candidate could win our few little electoral votes. My guess is that in this state someone like Richardson could defeat someone like Giuliani or Romney quite handily. McCain might be more troublesome, but he wouldn't be guaranteed a clear win, particularly if he continues being so insanely hawkish. We're getting tired of hearing of the deaths of soldiers with Alaska connections, almost 30 from Ft. Richardson alone since they were deployed in November.

[lwesty]

40. We won't lose a seat if Gore or Clark runs either and

I'd bet they beat Bill in the experience department too!

[Pierre.Suave]

52. One question

Are either of them running?

[paulk]

42. I like Richardson a lot - he's one of three that I'm considering

But, I'd much rather you advocated for him on his own merits, rather than by denigrating the other candidates...

Also, it might help to make an argument that's sensible, which the "we'll lose the Senate" one isn't.

[Pierre.Suave]

53. We could lose it tomorrow

if Holy Joe flipped. Imagine if that happened at the same time we lost a senate seat to a president elect.

[paulk]

63. that wasn't the point you made in your OP

We are not going to lose a Senate seat to a President elect. That is an absurd argument to make, as has been explained to you by other posters on this thread.

Also, the Republican's have almost twice as many Senate seats to defend in the next two election cycles as the Democrats do. All signs point toward a pickup of seats for the Democrats, not a reduction, especially considering the current political situation, what with the Iraq debacle hanging over the Republican's heads.

[WinkyDink]

44. I must say I was impressed by him last night with Tweety. Big-time credentials.

But he has no chance (Read: No charisma.)

[skipos]

45. I like Richardson

but this is not the way to win over converts. First of all, DUers generally don't care about "electability" or technical stuff like losing senate seats. If you criticize other candidates, all you are going to do is bring out a bunch of people who will trash your candidate. Also, Bill Richardson will never lead the polls on DU. Alas, DU doesn't represent your average democrats, so I wouldn't be surprised to see him win the nomination.

[Pierre.Suave]

55. Where did I

criticize other candidates? I gave reasons we should not support their candidacies, but I did not criticize them.

edit: Personally, I have nothing against Hillary, Obama, or Edwards, but I don't think they are electable because they do not appeal to a broad enough base of people to get enough votes to win.

[skipos]

58. I wasn't saying you did

I was just saying that certain things, for better or worse, tend to turn off many DUers. Talking about "electability" is one of them.

[Pierre.Suave]

59. It is unfortunate

that it happens, cause I think it is something we need to discuss. Electability outside the hard core dem ranks is what wins elections.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. Bill Richardson on Iraq. From a Democracy Now interview

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/22/1847207

AMY GOODMAN: But many say that, although president Bush led this invasion, that president Clinton laid the groundwork with the sanctions and with the previous bombing of Iraq. You were president Clinton's U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

GOVERNOR RICHARDSON: Well, I stand behind that. I think the the strikes that we made, the efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein. There were weapons of mass destruction. The sanctions were the correct policy. Was the correct policy to invade? That's probably another question.

But to think that Saddam Hussein was a benevolent dictator and the best thing to do would be to ignore him, I think that would have been very, very bad foreign policy; because what we have in the area is potential threats to Israel. We’ve got Saddam Hussein, who acknowledged that one of his objectives was to threaten not just U.S. interests but the surrounding countries, that he went to war with Iran. He, you know, he egregiously violated human rights of thousands of people.

AMY GOODMAN: But the U.N. sanctions, for example, the sanctions led to the deaths of more than a half a million children, not to mention more than a million Iraqis.

GOVERNOR RICHARDSON: Well, I stand behind the sanctions. I believe that they successfully contained Saddam Hussein. I believe that the sanctions were an instrument of our policy.

AMY GOODMAN: To ask a question that was asked of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright, do you think the price was worth it, 500,000 children dead?

GOVERNOR RICHARDSON: Well, I believe our policy was correct, yes.



Which is why he won't get my vote.

[Pierre.Suave]

60. May I ask

what do you think we could have done differently?

[ProfessorGAC]

62. Why Would Lose A Seat If Obama Wins?

Illinois is run completely blue. Gov, house, senate are all dems.
The Professor

[orleans]

65. my opinion: fuck him! shame on him for not allowing the recount

and wiping the dres

it would have sent a precedent that would have affected the ohio recount in a positive way--showing the machines were screwed.

my opinion: he should just float away out of the scene. BYE BYE BYE