Meet Hillary's toughest opponent: Bill Richardson


PDA






Monkeyleg
October 5, 2005, 06:40 PM
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson was on Fox last night, and he sure sounded like someone who's positioning himself for a presidential run.

I've often thought that he would make a strong candidate for the Democrats, but I've never seen him talk at length.

He has a number of strong points: from what I can tell, he has a good record on guns; he's strong on immigration; he's managed the economy in NM well; he has DC experience combined with executive experience; and he comes from a Southern/Southwestern state.

He also expresses himself well in an interview, and has a personality that's very TV-friendly.

If the Dem's were smart, they'd start grooming him now for 2008.

If you enjoyed reading about "Meet Hillary's toughest opponent: Bill Richardson" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
R.H. Lee
October 5, 2005, 06:44 PM
Bill Richardson's a joke. Isn't he the jughead that let the Chinese break into Los Alamos?

Monkeyleg
October 5, 2005, 06:49 PM
Yes, that was under his watch. It was also a long time ago, and not something that the general public was really paying attention to.

Lone_Gunman
October 5, 2005, 07:37 PM
It is foolish to call Richardson a joke. The Republicans are underestimating both him and Hillary as potential adversaries, and that will cost the Republicans the next election.

Richardson, by current standards, would not make a bad president, in my opinion. George Bush is an easy act to follow, after all.

Richardson is definitely going to run, though. I think he will get the nomination, and Hillary will be VP (at least until she has him assassinated).

He is kind of pro-gun (no worse than Bush anyway) and perceives the border with Mexico to be a problem. I have no idea if he can get us out of the quagmire we find ourselves left with in Iraq, but don't think he can screw that up much worse than Bush already has. What he needs to do to cinch the nomination is to make a bold challenge to the country that we will develop fuel sources other than petroleum, like Kennedy declared we would take a man to the moon and back.

To reiterate: If Richardson will run on a platform of closing the border, controlling illegal immigration, getting us out of Iraq, and seriously pursuing alternative fuel with the same gusto as the space program of the 60's, he will be our next president. Obviously, he will also need to keep his mouth closed about guns. He already has an A rating from the NRA.

I predicted 6 months ago he would be the Democratic candidate, and am still saying it.

I expect the Republicans to likely run a McCain/Giuliani ticket. If they do, I gotta vote for Richardson.

KMKeller
October 5, 2005, 07:52 PM
perceives the border with Mexico to be a problem
Horse puckey. He didn't believe the border with Mexico to be an issue until the past few months... when he felt he could gain political capital with the stand. He has been hispandering for his entire political career until just recently. Not a coincidence in my book.

R.H. Lee
October 5, 2005, 07:54 PM
The Republicans are underestimating both him and Hillary as potential adversaries, and that will cost the Republicans the next election.
The Republicans will cost the Republicans the next election, unless the Dems really are foolish enough to nominate Hillary.

WvaBill
October 5, 2005, 07:59 PM
I've often thought that he would make a strong candidate for the Democrats

I agree, but how will he sound wacko liberal enough for the primaries?

Lone_Gunman
October 5, 2005, 08:06 PM
He didn't believe the border with Mexico to be an issue until the past few months...

Maybe so... but Bush still hasn't caught on to this day. I suspect he will put forth a plan to control the border. When he does this, the Republicans will have nothing, absolutely nothing, to offer as an alternative.

AirForceShooter
October 5, 2005, 08:25 PM
During the '08 election you're not going to hear the word "GUN" from anybody

AFS

Waitone
October 5, 2005, 10:39 PM
Bush may have the tacit support of DC republicans but he most decidely has problems with the Great Fed Up. Support for doing something about SS is comparatively high yet he's given up. So now he things he can get an improved immigration bill through? Not a chance. The numbers are too stark. To have a chance of fixing the problem he will have to demonstrate that he is worthy of the public's trust. We have laws now that are not being enforced. So to fix the problem we make more laws to be enforced by the same people who refused to enforce the previous set of laws. Insanity.

Me thinks Bush as done something highly unsanitary to his messkit.

Standing Wolf
October 5, 2005, 11:30 PM
I predicted 6 months ago he would be the Democratic candidate, and am still saying it.

Last time around, I said America wasn't dumb enough to elect that Kerry creature. I'm glad I was right. In retrospect—less than a year later—I'm not sure there was half as much difference as all of us thought at the time.

I believe if the Republicans keep acting like spineless representatives of the Democratic (sic) party, America probably will elect Mrs. Snopes Clinton just because she's not a Republican. I'm honestly afraid we and the Republicans really could be that dumb.

NMshooter
October 5, 2005, 11:57 PM
If it had not been for the two terms that Johnson served before him New Mexico would not have an economy worth discussing.

Richardson has taken credit for not doing much of anything, which would not necessarily be bad, except he lets the Democrat controlled legislature get away with a lot more than Johnson ever did.

Johnson was as close to a Libertarian governor as this state has ever seen, I had hoped we might see more candidates like him, but no such luck.

Marty Chavez just got re-elected mayor of Albuquerque, and I am not happy about it. Not that he had any serious challengers...

The "leave me the heck alone" option seems to be an unpopular one.

ACP230
October 5, 2005, 11:58 PM
Richardson had a post in the Bill (Prevaricator In Chief) Clinton Administration.
That disqualifies him for any office in my opinion.

No_Brakes23
October 6, 2005, 12:11 AM
During the '08 election you're not going to hear the word "GUN" from anybody That could be a good thing or a bad thing.

Mrs. Snopes Clinton Standing Wolf, you obviously want people to notice this, since you change the color of it, and it isn't her name. I would love to know what you are referencing by calling her that. Maybe you could just link it?


Personally I wouldn't know what to do with a McCain/Ghouliani versus Richardson/Clinton ticket.

AZRickD
October 6, 2005, 01:09 AM
I've had my eye on Richardson ever since he left the Clinton Administration. When he was schlepping for Clinton, he sounded foolish (and half-hearted). The first time I heard him on a Sunday morning interview show after leaving the Administration (and before he won the Gov seat), he was his own man; much different than when he was a Clinton underling. Then and there I thought of him as a potential candidate, and a strong one.

Rick

Standing Wolf
October 6, 2005, 01:18 AM
Standing Wolf, you obviously want people to notice this, since you change the color of it, and it isn't her name. I would love to know what you are referencing by calling her that. Maybe you could just link it?

Snopes Clinton, Mrs. Snopes Clinton, and Liar Gore rate red because they're the lowest of the low. They're evil, deliberately dishonest people who view America as a pile of loot no one's watching very closely.

The Snopes reference is to William Faulkner's Snopes trilogy: The Hamlet, The Town, and The Mansion. They've been published in a single volume. The numerous interwoven tales of the Snopes tribe's skullduggery, whacky stupidity, maliciousness, and simple, arrogant daring are by turns tragic, hilarious, ludicrous, and so finely wrought, you'll despair of ever writing anything yourself. As well as I've ever been able to discern, self-appointed "literary" types never quite got the Snopes trilogy. They seem to think it's overwrought comedy, Southern Gothic silliness, perhaps even self-indulgence on Faulkner's part.

Most of the interwoven tales were originally written as short stories over a period of decades, so there are some rough edges here and there, some uneven seams. Don't be fooled, pleased. Snopes is an unhurried, detailed, sometimes comic, sometimes horrifying, often surprisingly kind study of what my grandmother used to call "white trash."

Snopes Clinton and his charming wife are nothing more—nor anything less—than Flem Snopes' direct descendants. They've enlarged the scope of their predations far, far beyond the boundaries of his wildest imagination, while remaining entirely true to his venal, vicious, voracious spirit.

longeyes
October 6, 2005, 01:32 AM
+1

from another Faulkner aficionado.

Richardson has no cred on illegal immigration. He calls for the Marines, photo op-style, while being fine and dandy with hand-outs and give-aways. He has the advantage of being from a state in which virtually nothing newsworthy has happened in decades (O lucky man).

Jim March
October 6, 2005, 01:54 AM
There are people in Democratic circles kicking around the term "Southern Governor" as a possible for '08. Which covers a lot of ground.

Let's not forget that Howard Dean (head of the DNC) hates Hillary's guts. He fully understands that her urban mega-Liberal appeal won't cut it.

See...John Edwards wouldn't have been a bad choice. Of all the Democratic primary contenders, his RKBA statement was the only one that supported self defense as a legit reason to own guns.

He's typical of Southern Democrats. Bill Richardson is similar in enough ways to warrant consideration.

If it's Hillary, they're toast. It is absolutely imperative that she not get in office, period, end of discussion, I don't care how disgusting the GOPer is (McCain, etc).

gunsmith
October 6, 2005, 04:50 AM
mccain wants to end gun shows and gulianni is a detestable dictatator :cuss:
i will never vote for either

cadfael
October 6, 2005, 06:44 AM
I've predicted for about 6 months a Bill Richardson/Mark Warner ticket for the Dems. Adding a "Southern Governor" to the ticket who has pretty much signed any gun friendly bill that crossed his desk wouldn't hurt.

Adam

1 old 0311
October 6, 2005, 07:43 AM
I have voted GOP for the last 30 years but I would vote for Billary before McCain. Hillary you know where she stands. McCain has more positions than Jenna Jameson :banghead:

Kevin

benEzra
October 6, 2005, 09:14 AM
See...John Edwards wouldn't have been a bad choice. Of all the Democratic primary contenders, his RKBA statement was the only one that supported self defense as a legit reason to own guns.
He does explicitly support the AWB concept, however. I corresponded with him briefly on that issue, and his position was basically that "the AWB was no big deal, because it leaves hunters plenty of other options to use while hunting." :scrutiny:

He may have just been parroting the party line (he seemed a little uncomfortable with it), but he still doesn't appear to have much of a clue that the vast majority of gun owners don't give a flying flip about hunting.

Boss Spearman
October 6, 2005, 09:20 AM
If Richardson were to run against Mccain and Guilliani, the two parties would seem to have suddenly reversed platforms.

However, I will not vote for anyone who has Hillary Clinton as a running mate, not even a Libertarian.

fourays2
October 6, 2005, 10:18 AM
However, I will not vote for anyone who has Hillary Clinton as a running mate, not even a Libertarian.


there would be no way that person could ever get life insurance.

Byron Quick
October 6, 2005, 10:36 AM
There are people in Democratic circles kicking around the term "Southern Governor" as a possible for '08.

That's a real short list to choose from. Unless, of course, they plan to run a Republican governor for the Democratic nomination.

Lone_Gunman
October 6, 2005, 10:49 AM
He does explicitly support the AWB concept, however.

Why did it matter if Edwards supported the AWB? Bush supported it too, so it is not an issue.

Waitone
October 6, 2005, 10:55 AM
That's a real short list to choose from. Unless, of course, they plan to run a Republican governor for the Democratic nomination.One really good test to verify that popular opinion that the two parties are interchangeable is to see if what you suggest actually happens. We've been treated to elected democrats or republicans change party right after there is a change in power and their former party just happens to lose.

If the democrats are in as bad a shape as is popularly believed look forward to someone suddenly having a fit of conscious and turn their back on former party affiliations.

Jim March
October 6, 2005, 11:14 AM
On the AWB: the reality is that we've lost the media/PR war on that issue. We're winning in congress, which is great, but until we win the PR war a lot of politicians ranging from Bush to Richardson to many others won't fight for it PUBLICLY.

Privately, many of them "get it" and the AWB renewal was quietly, privately killed. (With Dubya's blessing, mind you...)

For now, that's all we can hope for.

(Sidenote: allowing the Federal AWB to die was a good political move for the Republicans because now, over a year later, we can see it's made no difference whatsoever in violence levels. That in turn hurts the hardcore gun-grabbers among the Dems, people like Kerry and DiFi and the rest.)

Baba Louie
October 6, 2005, 12:26 PM
Kerry still has his website (not just his MA Senate site but the other one...) up and open

Edwards is from the South, tho not a Governor (ya gotta carry NY, CA &/or the south/flyovers to win the WH) his website is ??? not active. (I couldn't find anything)

Richardson isn't traveling enough yet to convince me that he's REALLY serious about '08... he does know something about energy issues. One to watch. http://www.democraticgovernors.org/ it's a small group he chairs.

Hillary will, more than likely, carry the female voters and partyline Southern Dems, she has name recognition and Bill to stump for her. Watch her carry NY & CA and the female/south, but not flyover/FLA and firearm owning male vote. She might even be the rare Senator, elected to the WH.

What about YEEHAWW Dean? Mr DNC? Will he or won't he?

I take it as a given that a Dem will win the next Presidential election based on GWB's present situation... unless some miracle (R) Governor from the South comes to the forefront... and it's too early for Jeb to follow GWB, but... I keep thinking about...
Rick Perry
Tom McClintock (Darn that Arnie anyway)

No_Brakes23
October 6, 2005, 12:54 PM
The Snopes reference is to William Faulkner's Snopes trilogy Thanks Standing Wolf.

Personally, I can't stand Faulkner. Being forced to read tripe about firebugs who burn barns and the seemingly gratiutously macarbe A Rose for Emily turned me off on his work. I think he is one of the most over-rated figures of American Lit.

But using a negative reference from a Southern writer to describe a man like Clinton is very appropriate.

Maybe I will give Faulkner another try and take a look at the snopes trilogy.

longeyes
October 6, 2005, 01:09 PM
There is NO CANDIDATE who can effectively govern the United States as we stand today. This is the result of cultural balkanization, growing moral fecklessness, and the spreading disease of vicarious living-cum-escapism. We may be in WW III, as Bush would aver, but most Americans are in denial or can't be bothered. Fifty years of spiritual self-disembowelment, at all levels, has left our body politic weak, confused, dismembered. What we do to regain our integrity and strength I leave to others to say. It may take a tragedy or two to wake us up.

We are all living out a Faulkner novel, whether we know it or not.

Sergeant Bob
October 6, 2005, 01:19 PM
Standing Wolf Snopes Clinton, Mrs. Snopes Clinton, and Liar Gore rate red because they're the lowest of the low. They're evil, deliberately dishonest people who view America as a pile of loot no one's watching very closely.

The Snopes reference is to William Faulkner's Snopes trilogy: The Hamlet, The Town, and The Mansion. They've been published in a single volume. The numerous interwoven tales of the Snopes tribe's skullduggery, whacky stupidity, maliciousness, and simple, arrogant daring are by turns tragic, hilarious, ludicrous, and so finely wrought, you'll despair of ever writing anything yourself. As well as I've ever been able to discern, self-appointed "literary" types never quite got the Snopes trilogy. They seem to think it's overwrought comedy, Southern Gothic silliness, perhaps even self-indulgence on Faulkner's part.

Most of the interwoven tales were originally written as short stories over a period of decades, so there are some rough edges here and there, some uneven seams. Don't be fooled, pleased. Snopes is an unhurried, detailed, sometimes comic, sometimes horrifying, often surprisingly kind study of what my grandmother used to call "white trash."

Snopes Clinton and his charming wife are nothing more—nor anything less—than Flem Snopes' direct descendants. They've enlarged the scope of their predations far, far beyond the boundaries of his wildest imagination, while remaining entirely true to his venal, vicious, voracious spirit.
The Wolf doesn't usually say much but, when he does it's impressive.

longeyes
October 6, 2005, 01:44 PM
The rise of the Clintons is more than a replay of Snopesism, much as I like the parallel. Hillary's a leftwing carpetbagger from outside Chicago, educated at Wellesley and Yale. Clinton, whatever his "red neck" roots, reached beyond Yale to Oxford. Both are the darlings of the Transatlantic cultural elites and the spearcarriers for illuminati in Cambridge, Berkeley, Madison, Austin, Boulder, and Santa Monica. They have crossed wagon-paths with the Bushes, another North-South culturally cross-dressing clan, more than once.

seeker_two
October 7, 2005, 11:45 AM
Hillary's running for President this time...but she'll pick someone quasi-conservative like Richardson or McCain to "balance" her image to the American public....

...and she won't even thank Bush for keeping her seat warm for the next three years. :barf:

saltydog
October 7, 2005, 12:08 PM
I hate to say it but Richardson and Hillary might be a tough team to beat. If Richardson (running for President) is A rated by NRA and Hillary (running for VP) has already been in the White House for 8 years, there may be enough votes from both sides to "Sum it up" for the Democrats. Allot of Hunters voted for Clinton and the A rating for Richardson will get even more support from other types of gun owners. I am a "Solid Conservative" but if Mccain and Guilliani are the best the Republican Party can offer then they deserve to loose the next election! :barf: :barf: :barf:

Waitone
October 7, 2005, 12:18 PM
Actually, McCain's most likely Veep will be Lindsey Graham, SC senator. Broke with the Bush dynasty and ran McCain's SC primary efforts. Since then he has dutifully walked one step right and rear of McCain. Graham's performace during the impeachment fiasco was brilliant which is why he was elected senator. Since then he is Maverick-in-Training.

Sam
October 7, 2005, 02:59 PM
Mr.Bill has no interest in the illegal immigration business othere than to encourage it. He only became involvred when a certain stockyard owner complained about damage to his property. Not poor stockyard owner either.

Mr Bill grew up in Mexico and his momma is from Mexico. Do not be fooled. His is for whatever will get him elected. If he thinks another AWB will do it you got one. He has bee pretty pro gun so far but has a gun owning state righ now. Once he gets back to DC????????


Sam

Lone_Gunman
October 7, 2005, 05:13 PM
As far as I can tell there is no difference between Richardson and Bush on the gun issue.

As far as border security is concerned, at least Richardson seems willing to acknowledge there is a problem with to many illegals pouring into the US.

The Republicans have already lost 2008, and are just too dense to realize it.

Sistema1927
October 7, 2005, 06:25 PM
Bill Richardson is one reason for my tagline.

Where is the next Ronald Reagan? We need him/her desperately.

Oldtimer
October 9, 2005, 10:29 AM
Bill Richardson has TOO many skeletons in the closet, and Hill-Billary's people are surely busy pulling them out. Richardson IS, in fact, Hispanic, even though his name doesn't sound like it. So far, his "posturing" for a run at the Presidency has only included his recent complete turn-around regarding the southern border and illegal immigration, AND to have stopped wearing his silly looking "bolo/string" ties!

The hopeful Democrats for the Presidency in 2008 will be several re-runs (Gore, Kerry, Sharpton), some "new" old faces (H. Clinton, and possibly even Chuckie Schumer), and the Hispanamerican Richardson.

On the other side of the pasture, the Republicans haven't been doing that much posturing....YET. So far, their hopefuls might be Giuliani, Romney and Rice (Rice might be chosen as a VP runner). You won't see Cheney, Powell or Rumsfeld running.... unless it's to get AWAY from politics! One particular political speculator claims that the "bright kid", Rick Lazio, just might "test the water", but I think that his mama would spank him.
One of my picks (no, not someone that I would WANT as POTUS) is the "other" Bush, from Florida. The entire Democrat Party would spank him, though.

Personally, I think that we'll see THE most rotten political show EVER in 2008! It will be a "survivor" TV series without the blood and seeing them eat maggots. Instead, tons of dirty laundry will be pulled out, skeletons will be resurrected, and "In-the-know" authors will make millions with their "tell all" books!

We certainly live in an interesting time! Film at eleven!

GT
October 9, 2005, 11:23 AM
So, Bill Richardson, the guy who obeyed Bill Klintoon's order to let the Chicoms have all our shizz and was given New Mexico as his reward?

Yeah, great Presidential material :rolleyes:

G

longeyes
October 9, 2005, 01:08 PM
Richardson can run as VP--under Vicente Fox.

Lone_Gunman
October 9, 2005, 01:37 PM
Richardson has his problems no doubt, but right now I am hard pressed to think of a Republican who would do a better job (one that actually has a chance at the nomination).

longeyes
October 9, 2005, 01:43 PM
Draft Sean Hannity.

Or find a way to make The Terminator eligible for a run at the White House.

Lone_Gunman
October 9, 2005, 01:59 PM
Or find a way to make The Terminator eligible for a run at the White House.

I hope you are joking!

longeyes
October 9, 2005, 03:26 PM
Terminator to GOP:

"If you want to live, take my hand." :D

Waitone
October 9, 2005, 03:33 PM
Draft Sean Hannity.AnnouncerContestants, Welcome to "Republican Sweepstakes" Lightning Round. You have thirty seconds to list the most adjectives describing a public personality. On your mark, get ready, GO!

Contestant #1shill, croney, airhead, bootlicker, toady, bosom buddy, sycophant, pretty face, front man, brown nose, . . . . . .

AnnouncerContestant #1 You still have 25 seconds

Contestant #1Don't rush me.

tick, tock, tick, tock. . . .

longeyes
October 9, 2005, 04:06 PM
I'm afraid you've described most of the GOP... :)

Your suggestion?

SIOP
October 9, 2005, 04:13 PM
However, I will not vote for anyone who has Hillary Clinton as a running mate, not even a Libertarian

Hillary is not going to be anybody's running mate. She wants all the marbles.

Waitone
October 9, 2005, 04:16 PM
I suggest shoving the Miers nomination right up Bush's . . . . . Then when he comes back with Gonzales as the nominee repeat it.

Bush and republicans in general need a trip to the woodshed and the court nominees is the perfect opportunity. As for presidential timber? Go with a novice (Rice) or go to the farm team and call up players with potential but no record. Like it or not, the absence of a record is a plus.

Sam
October 9, 2005, 05:27 PM
Face it people,
All the available choices are lacking.

Some lacking in moral character, some in ability.

The Dems are the New Socialism in very thin disguise.

The Republicrats are lacking in commitment to their own stated principles

The Libertarians lack depth and experience

The Greens are whacked.

The rest lack support from anyone outside their immediate family.

Time for a change of world shaking proportion but the peepul lack the courage.

We are well and truely sodomized.

Sam

longeyes
October 9, 2005, 05:54 PM
As for presidential timber? Go with a novice (Rice) or go to the farm team and call up players with potential but no record. Like it or not, the absence of a record is a plus.

I hear ya: Withdrew Miers for SCOTUS and run her for President? :)

bjbarron
October 9, 2005, 09:43 PM
This (http://www.zod2008.com/) is Hillary's toughest opponent.

Hillary will, more than likely, carry the female voters and partyline Southern Dems, she has name recognition and Bill to stump for her. Watch her carry NY & CA and the female/south, but not flyover/FLA and firearm owning male vote. She might even be the rare Senator, elected to the WH.

Don't be so sure. There is a reason she ran in New York...she couldn't win anywhere else. She would have the same problem nationally...you only hear about her because of the NY Media. She has a lot of baggage to carry around and has done nothing worthwhile nationally. Pray that she runs.

Our problem is who is going to get the Republican nomination...all I see clearly now are RINOs.

Pilgrim
October 9, 2005, 09:50 PM
Does hillary have Richardson's FBI file?

macavada
October 9, 2005, 10:31 PM
I had "Bill Richardson for President" in my sig line a little after Bush got re-elected. People thought I was joking. Many probably still think it is a joke.

He's making his proverbial shift to the middle with his immigration policy lately. Positioning himself for a run. However, I don't think his run will be in earnest, because I think he's probably going to be Hillary's running mate. I don't like Hillary, and I don't want her in office. I hope she loses in the primaries. With Richardson, she'll get the Mexican/Hispanic American vote, and that will be enough to put her over the top in a lot of places.

The only blame for Hillary getting in will be attributed to REPUBLICANS. The Bush apologists that see no wrong with the current administration and hate her with a passion are serving to bring it upon themselves. Cultivating the backlash, so to speak.

longeyes
October 9, 2005, 10:38 PM
Wouldn't it be dandy if people voted for policies and ideas, not gender and race/ethnicity?

We have two Americas now and never the twain shall meet.

Lone_Gunman
October 10, 2005, 08:35 AM
The Bush apologists that see no wrong with the current administration and hate her with a passion are serving to bring it upon themselves.


I agree with this statement. The Republicans are doing everything they can to lose in 2008, its like they can't help themselves.

longeyes
October 10, 2005, 05:41 PM
Okay, let's get serious: the only Republican presidential candidate who can stop Hillary and is also someone most of us can live with is...

Condi Rice.

I wish she had some experience in elective office but it is what it is. The prospect of the Clintons back in power should scare the bejesus out of us. Go Condi!!!

Lone_Gunman
October 10, 2005, 06:03 PM
I am not convinced Rice would be able to defeat Hillary. Maybe, but maybe not. If she is going to be a viable candidate, I think Bush will have to ask Cheney to step aside and let Rice be VP for a couple of years first.

If I see Cheney resign in 2006, to be replaced by Rice, I will conclude she will probably be the Republican nominee, and might (or might not) be able to beat Hillary.

Rice will carry a TON of Bush baggage that most people would like to forget.

longeyes
October 10, 2005, 06:06 PM
Condi may have a neo-Con link or two but Hillary is Marley's ghost by comparison. Clank, clank, clank, clank!!! Hill has a chain a block long.

The demographics, if not the Zeitgeist, point to '08 as Condi's moment.

Lone_Gunman
October 10, 2005, 06:18 PM
We'll see Longeyes, I am not convinced. It is tough to make predictions, especially about the future.

Monkeyleg
October 10, 2005, 06:26 PM
Lone_Gunman: "We'll see Longeyes, I am not convinced. It is tough to make predictions, especially about the future."

As opposed to, say, predictions about the past? ;)

So far I haven't heard any objections about Richardson strong enough to make me believe that he wouldn't be a good choice for the Dem's. Not that I want him to win, but he seems like a very good choice.

It frightens the daylights out of me that there isn't a strong Republican candidate being groomed. McCain has already said he'll probably run. I have a "Rice '08" sticker on my car, and I'm mentioning her name to the usual suspects in the Republican party locally, but it's probably spitting in the wind.

One name that keeps popping up is Romney. Now there's a great idea. I think I'd vote for Richardson first.

Waitone
October 10, 2005, 06:31 PM
Santorum is making a play.

NMshooter
October 11, 2005, 01:04 AM
Longeyes, I wish we had just two Americas...

Imagine Yugoslavia writ large... :eek:

In each state... :what:

We are divided in more ways than anyone can keep track of.

This is why we face our current conundrum.

I see no way out, you can not make over 250 million people agree to respect each other's rights when they can not even agree on what those rights are.

So we will fight over those definitions, and the end result will be pretty bad, unless we get lucky.

Combat-wombat
October 11, 2005, 01:20 AM
If the election comes down to Richardson vs. McCain or Gulliani... I will most DEFINITELY vote for Richardson.

Satch
October 11, 2005, 09:54 AM
Three things the Dems.are going to have to do to win in 08.
1. A candidate not from the blue states.
2. Dump the radical left groups that call the party home,(A.N.S.W.E.R.,Moveon.org.,their actions caused the loss in 04 more than they like to admit.
3. Tell the Hollyweid left to "shut up".

longeyes
October 11, 2005, 11:23 AM
"Longeyes, I wish we had just two Americas...

Imagine Yugoslavia writ large...

In each state...

We are divided in more ways than anyone can keep track of."

The issue, of course, is whether the major schisms can be healed. Like you I no longer feel they can be. Gridlock may helps us or a push for stronger states' rights and de facto regional autonomy. A darker, apocalyptic scenario would involve civil war--a war of secesssion and/or expulsion. But maybe the USA will fragment, as the USSR did. Russia, pared down, is still here after all. And the U.S. might pick up--while we're speculating--a big chunk of Canada and maybe even some of Mexico. It's hard to know just what might happen here. I can't imagine the America I believe in surviving too long with the Clintons back in power for eight years, to be honest. Can Hillary really be our Commander-in-Chief? Welcome to Rome and a run of bad Caesars.

I think Condi Rice, with or without prior elective experience, is the GOP's best hope, and ours, to keep America America.

macavada
October 11, 2005, 09:59 PM
Condi doesn't have a chance. She wouldn't be able to shake the stench.

macavada
October 14, 2005, 10:20 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051014/ts_nm/korea_north_usa_dc_1

New Mexico Gov Bill Richardson to visit North Korea Thu Oct 13,11:32 PM ET

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson will soon visit North Korea as preparations intensify for what could be a crucial round of six-country talks on reining in Pyongyang's nuclear program, current and former U.S. officials said on Thursday.

Richardson, a Democrat who served as energy secretary and U.N. ambassador under President Bill Clinton and is mentioned as a possible contender for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, is expected to make the trip "very soon," a former official told Reuters.

The trip has been under discussion for some time and has privately drawn mixed reactions from U.S. officials and experts. Only recently has Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill, the chief U.S. negotiator with the North, agreed that Richardson could make the journey, several U.S. sources said.

Richardson, who had been invited by the North Koreans and has maintained contacts with them for some years, "asked Chris Hill to go. He wanted to go. Chris Hill finally obliged him," the former official said.

Richardson discussed the trip in an interview with the New York Times, which reported that he would make the journey next week. "I am not an official envoy, but I am supportive of the administration's new policy to engage the North Koreans through dialogue and diplomacy," Richardson told the newspaper.

A State Department official, who spoke on background, said Richardson would not carry a special message to the North Koreans from the Bush administration nor would his talks be considered part of the official U.S. negotiations with Pyongyang.

But Richardson, as a former cabinet official, is being accorded the privilege of using a U.S. government plane so the trips could be seen as implicitly approved by the Washington.

Officials said he would be expected to reinforce the firm U.S. position that Pyongyang must dismantle both its uranium-based and plutonium-based nuclear programs.

After more than a year of stalemate, the most recent round of six-country talks in Beijing ended last month with an agreement in principle that the North would give up its nuclear programs in return for political and economic incentives.

The talks are to resume in November but the sides are far apart on when Pyongyang must dismantle its nuclear weapons programs, how the agreement might be verified and whether there are any circumstances under which the North would be allowed to have a nuclear program for peaceful energy purposes, officials and experts said.

Hill has dropped hints that he was considering visiting Pyongyang ahead of the next negotiating round. But officials and experts were divided on whether that might happen.

One U.S. source said he understood the North had put conditions on Hill's visit, namely that the United States agree to the peaceful nuclear energy program.

Some experts, who spoke on condition of anonymity, were cool to Richardson's trip, saying he was indulging his presidential ambitions and could bring little substantive to the debate because he was not an official negotiator.

It is Hill, with the authority of President George W. Bush behind him, who needs to visit Pyongyang in order to advance a negotiated deal, they said.

But others argued the administration, which is much distrusted by Pyongyang, has little to lose in allowing Richardson to mediate. They said Richardson is "someone they trust" and may be able to better communicate U.S. concerns.

The top members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican John Warner of Virginia and Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, were planning to visit the North soon but that trip has been delayed, several U.S. officials said.

If you enjoyed reading about "Meet Hillary's toughest opponent: Bill Richardson" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!