The Case for Bill Richardson
[Editor's note: This guest column was contributed by Ken Camp - an aide to a state senator in Washington state. He blogs at KenCamp.net.]
It’s still early in the race for the Democratic nomination for President, but I’ve got my early money on New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. I know there are people in the liberal blogosphere who read and responded to my post “The Case for Hillary Clinton”, and will now read this and conclude that I’m just a shill for the DLC. By the way, the Hillary post was the case that could be made for her election, not an expression of my desire to see her elected.
If the response on my Hillary post was any indication, there are a lot of people who will say that they’ll sit out the general election rather than vote for Hillary, Bill Richardson, or anyone else they perceive to be a puppet of the DLC gets the nomination. I have news for all of you who would do that: ideological purity will not win you what you want. If you sit out the general election because you think the Democratic nominee isn’t liberal enough, you will be handing the election over to the same types of people who are running our government right now. Who would you rather be President: the person you agree with on most issues but not all, or the person you never agree with? Make your choice, but think carefully about it before you do. In other words, vote for whoever you like in the primaries, but when the general election comes you’d better line up behind the Democratic candidate unless you like the status quo.
So, why Bill Richardson? First of all, he’s a governor of a swing state in the West. According to CNN, in the 2004 Presidential election Bush had 376,930 votes to Kerry’s 370,942 votes. That’s a difference of 5988 votes. The FEC notes that in the 2000 election Al Gore had 286,783 votes to Bush’s 286, 417. These election results clearly show that New Mexico is closely divided and can go either way in a general election. However, in 2002, CNN reports that by a vote of 256,561 votes for Bill Richardson to 177,739 votes for his opponent, John Sanchez, or 56% to 39%, and Richardson was elected governor.
Much like Governor Brian Schweitzer in Montana (though I’d argue Schweitzer had the more difficult task), Bill Richardson has proven his ability to get elected in a swing state. And with swing states making all the difference in recent presidential elections, Richardson appears more electable, in this regard, than some of the other potential Democratic nominees. A December 20, 2005 Survey USA poll shows Governor Richardson enjoying 64% approval versus only 33% disapproval. Those numbers rank right up there with Schweitzer who is among the most popular governors in the nation.
I’m not going to dwell on it, but another advantage Richardson has is that he is a Governor and not a United States Senator. You can argue until you’re blue in the face, but reality is that in the last 30 years the only 2 Democrats who were elected President were governors. I’m not judging right or wrong, only presenting fact. Senators have extensive voting records that can be picked apart by the best opposition research teams that money can buy. Governors have executive experience that Senators don’t, and though they do create policy, they don’t vote yes or no on the legislation of the day. Granted, Richardson served as Congressman of New Mexico’s 3rd District for 15 years, but that was at least a decade ago, and many of his opponents are current U.S. Senators voting on the current issues that face our nation.
Another advantage Richardson has is that he is currently serving as the chairman of the National Governors’ Association, just as Bill Clinton did prior to his run for President. This means that Bill Richardson has a national platform from which to get his name out there.
Bill Richardson has foreign policy experience, having served as Ambassador to the United Nations in 1997. He also served as the Secretary of Energy under President Clinton. Both posts gave him a significant amount of experience on the global stage. Early in his career Bill Richardson was a staffer for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In addition, while a congressman, Richardson served as a special envoy on many sensitive international missions. He successfully won the release of hostages, American servicemen, and prisoners in North Korea, Iraq and Cuba. He also secured the release of an Albuquerque resident who was kept hostage in Sudan. Richardson clearly understands the energy crisis in the United States and how our dependence on foreign oil is a threat to our national security in ways no other candidate does.
With all of his experience in government, at both the state and federal levels, Governor Richardson has the necessary contacts and ability to raise the money necessary to run for President. That fundraising ability will be tested if Senator Clinton gets into the race.
Governor Richardson is also of Hispanic origin. His mother, Maria Louisa Lopez-Collada was Mexican. The Hispanic vote is being increasingly courted by both sides in elections, and having Richardson as the only Latino in the race for the Democratic nomination will bode well for him. This isn’t to say that Richardson can take the Hispanic vote for granted, just that as one of their own, he possesses an advantage in that community that other candidates do not.
I think that of all of the Democratic candidates, Richardson would make the best President. With his well-rounded resume, it’s no coincidence that Al Gore and John Kerry both considered him for Vice-President when they won the Democratic nomination. They considered him because a Vice-President must be ready to step up and be President, should something happen to the President. Al Gore and John Kerry believed Richardson to be among those ready to be President. So do I.
Kari Chisholm | January 10, 2006 | Comment on This Post (43 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
I agree completely.
When one looks at Richardson, they see the real deal. This guy has played hardball with thugs all over the world and has a pretty excellent track record.
His experience in New Mexico is textbook smart politics.
Count me among those chanting "Richardson '08!"
Posted by: Landon Mascarenaz | Jan 10, 2006 4:54:11 PM
There is definitely a strong case for Bill Richardson. A review of past posts on WD will reveal much sympathy for this case. See, for example, http://www.westerndemocrat.com/2005/11/a_southwestern_.html and
http://www.westerndemocrat.com/2005/11/keep_looking_we.html,
not to mention the post that started it all
http://www.westerndemocrat.com/2004/11/let_us_look_wes.html.
This blog is dedicated to the idea of a fundamental realignment of the political map based on the rise of Western Democrats, especially in the dry-land West. For 2008 Bill Richardson is the Western Democrat best positioned to lead the charge.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Jan 12, 2006 8:14:08 PM
Richardson would be crucified on the cross of the Los Alamos security scandal which occurred on his watch as energy secretary.
In addition, his claim to have been drafted by the A's lends itself to charges of fabulism which were so effective against Al Gore and even John Kerry (though Kerry's gaffes were less self-inflicted and more swift-boated).
In short, nah, won't be Richardson and shouldn't.
Alex
Choose Our President 2008
Posted by: Alex | Jan 12, 2006 9:08:37 PM
Alex:
I think your analysis is a bit oversimplified. First of all, the Los Alamos "scandal" had almost nothing to do with Richardson, and he immediately ordered the very investigation that you link to. On a more political level, to suggest that Democratic primary voters in 2008 are going to be driven by a Clinton-era "scandal" borders on the absurd.
It's certainly true that the Los Alamos stuff is baggage, but every candidate has baggage. It's like suggesting that Hillary Clinton will be weakened as a nominee by Whitewater. Those scandals ran out of "air" a long time ago, there's nothing new to say, and the media is probably not going to re-run all of the old stuff about them.
The A's thing--I've talked about this a few times already. It's a non-issue. Richardson's claim was truthful, and he's hilariously self-effacing when it comes to things like this. All politicians aggrandize to a degree. Richardson can laugh at himself and form bonds with crowds over this kind of thing--that'll be the difference.
There is simply no Democrat who can represent the West the way Richardson can. I would think that all readers of this site would be doing all they could to substantively advance the case for the Governor.
Posted by: Ian Samuel | Jan 13, 2006 9:42:16 PM
Don't be misled by Bill Richardson.
Every time he opens his mouth, New Mexicans cringe - particularly the State Senators - who then have to come up with the money to fund his ridiculous ideas.
Check out some of the news stories concerning his take-over of the NM Teacher's Association's pension plan. It will scare you to death.
I am personally amazed that this man has made it as far as he has. Could that be a testament to the quality of those who advanced his career?
Forget Richardson. He's a hack.
Posted by: Mike Dillon | Jan 14, 2006 10:55:13 AM
See http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/36396.html
The legislature seems to want to spend more than the governor wants, but less than the teachers want, but the figures don't seem all that unreasonable. Unless, of course, you don't like teachers or think they are way overpaid, then you might consider the governor a hack.
I am always amazed at the anti-Richardson folks who say who unpopular Bill is in New Mexico, when the polls show the opposite. You can't please everyone, but most officeholders who like to have Bill's poll numbers.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Jan 14, 2006 2:55:03 PM
It is so accurate that Democratic Senators have their records picked apart, and that Northeast candidates are rejected by the South/midwest/Rocky Mountain States. Richardson has the foreign policy experience, Congressional experience, administrative experience, and is from the West. He will pick up latino votes which Kerry didn't do well enough.
Also, we must consider how many commercials we want to see of poor Hillary "Standing by her man" in front of the White House over Monica -- remember the Swiftboat commercials!
Posted by: Linda Stanley | Jan 15, 2006 4:10:41 AM
The Los Alamos security scandal does indeed implicate ineffective leadership from Richardson. A national security scandal is much more than "baggage" for the governor--it's a nail in the coffin of his presidential aspirations.
As it should be.
I don't want another incompetent like Bush running national security.
Alex
Choose Our President 2008
Posted by: Alex | Jan 20, 2006 5:32:59 PM
Excusing executive branch incompetence is supposed to be a GOP talking point. Nominate Richardson, and we lose a lot of our case for real progressive leadership. And Republicans will notice, and they will use it against us. I gar-own-tee.
Alex
Choose Our President 2008
Posted by: Alex | Jan 20, 2006 6:13:44 PM
Alex is right that the GOP will attack Richardson if he is the nominee. However, the GOP will attack any candidate and smear them if they can. The question is, does Richardson have a glass jaw, like Senator Kerry, or can he defend himself? I think he can defend himself. He just keeps winning elections. Just because something happens on your watch, doesn’t mean you are incompetent. The country was united behind Bush after 9-11 even though it happened on his watch. They only lost faith in him when the Iraq war turned out to be based on a lie. The people don’t blame Bush for Katrina, only for the slow response, which continues to limp along to this day.
Richardson is one of the few candidates on the Democratic side with both executive experience and foreign policy experience. He is definitely presidential timber.
Democrats need to win back the Catholic vote (Kerry lost it). Democrats need to win more Hispanics (the fastest growing ethnic group). Democrats need to win the red states of the West (because they include four or new five swing states). Richardson helps on all three counts.
In a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 51% of voters said they would definitely not vote for Mrs. Clinton if she chooses to run for president in 2008. See http://www.nysun.com/article/26432. We need a candidate who keep the party from cooking its own goose by nominating a candidate with such high negatives. We need a candidate who can stop the instant replay of 2000 and 2004. Richardson, with a potential boost from an early primary or caucus in the West, has a chance to be an early alternative to Mrs. Clinton.
Alex understands the importance of the West but seems to favor Leon Panetta and Max Baucus from this region. Nice guys, but they show no inclination to run and have a pretty small following. And the top of Alex’s dream ticket seems to be John Edwards. Again, a nice guy, but talk about an instant replay! Plus Edwards is wide open to the flip-flop charge on the Iraq war. The GOP doesn’t even need a new playbook if Edwards is the candidate. I like John Edwards, but he failed to pull in a single state for Kerry.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Jan 28, 2006 8:17:46 AM
Has anyone ever think about how black Democrats would cringe at seeing Bill Richardson as the first minority to be elected president rather than a black candidate of their own? Of course I'm not saying Richardson would lose the black vote should he win the Democratic nomination. Rather I'm implying whether the black electorate would be willing to back this Hispanic candidate since they are so willing to see a black candidate as the first minority to reach the White House.
And should Condi Rice ends up on the GOP vice presidential slot, I could envision Richardson winning the African-American vote in a 60-40 margin, or lower. Which means even if we bag the Hispanic vote & without the skyrocketing African-American vote totals Dems usually won, it would be a close race.
There's one solution however for a scenario of Richardson as the nominee & Rice as the GOP's veep nominee. And that's to pick Barack Obama as his running mate. A Hispanic on the top of the ticket & an African-American at the bottom. That way, Richardson can focus his energies on winning the Hispanic vote decisively, Middle America & the swing voters while Obama would fit the role of attack-dog & an 'assurer' to African-American voters that Richardson would not forget any American, regardless of race & religion, when he reaches the White House.
Posted by: Keith | Feb 13, 2006 6:37:13 PM
Followers of The West Wing will understand the issue Keith raises. See V=http://westwing.bewarne.com/seventh/708undecideds.html
Senator Obama was the rising star at the 2004 convention. He is a bit short on experience, but otherwise a very attractive candidate. I don't think the GOP will really put Rice on their ticket, but you never know. In any event Richardson-Obama would be a very interesting and very appealing ticket.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Feb 14, 2006 7:49:13 AM
I’ve been thinking more about Richardson-Obama as a ticket. Googling the pairing shows that I’m not alone and reminds me that I speculated on this very subject on this blog. http://www.westerndemocrat.com/2005/08/what_the_dnc_ne.html
What I didn’t realize until now is that right-wing bloggers been thinking about this ticket.
http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15632
The ring-wing take is that the Democrats have the white liberals sown up and need to stop GOP inroads into the black and Hispanic vote. Maybe so, maybe not, but this ignores the strength of the ticket. Both Richardson and Obama are relative moderates with a strong appeal to moderates. Add the moderates to the liberals and add the appeal to minorities, and Sean Hannity’s party will find itself in the minority.
The other strength of the ticket is it changes the political debate. Sure the GOP will charge the Democrats with pandering to minorities, but Richardson and Obama have a strong appeal way beyond a narrow ethnic appeal, and the issue of how minorities are treated automatically becomes part of the background music of the campaign. The GOP attack machine would have a hard time coping with this, at least publicly. And, above all, it changes the subject from fear, fear, fear, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism. It focuses the debate on domestic issues, such as healthcare and education. On those issues we can win big.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Feb 15, 2006 8:42:44 AM
I think Richardson would be a strong candidate. The Los Alamos problems only show that he's willing to take personal responsibility for problems that happen on his watch. The country needs that.
He's also got a good record of supporting gun rights, which is essential if you want to carry most of the western states. If he needs a base in Oregon, I'll campaign for him.
Posted by: Zak J. | Aug 11, 2006 4:31:47 PM
I feel that Governor Richardson is definetly a strong candidate for President in 2008. Being from New Mexico I can say that he has done outstanding thigs for our state. His focus on concerns such as health care, national security, and most importantly education, will give him a strong support base not only in the west, but also in the south where analysts would call the bible belt. He is without a doubt a moderate in my mind, where many liberal democrats would say that he is too moderate, but it's sure as hell better than somone from the GOP for another 4 years. In regards to the Richardson-Obama ticket, I'm a little concerned that many GOP critics will argue that it's a "minority show". Theoretically speaking, it may be a little too soon to speculate that ticket, Richardson should hold his ground and still carry the African-American vote as well.
Posted by: Rob | Nov 25, 2006 10:55:53 AM
I agree that Governors are better equipped for campaigns and the job of president itself.
This is exactly why I produced the 30-minute documentary, "Inside Bill Richardson" - to show people how Richardson governs New Mexico.
I would like to see all the Governors considering a White House bid to be profiled in this way. Because you are right, it's harder for the public to learn the record of a governor than a senator.
Posted by: Neil Simon | Nov 30, 2006 10:33:48 AM
I agree that Governors are better equipped for campaigns and the job of president itself.
This is exactly why I produced the 30-minute documentary, "Inside Bill Richardson" - to show people how Richardson governs New Mexico.
I would like to see all the Governors considering a White House bid to be profiled in this way. Because you are right, it's harder for the public to learn the record of a governor than a senator.
Posted by: Neil Simon | Nov 30, 2006 10:33:50 AM
I like the Richardson Obama ticket. Here's a variation on that.
What about an experienced diplomat and military star that was so badly abused by his party chiefs that he could switch.
How does "Richardson & Powell 2008" sound to you?
CJW
Posted by: CJ | Dec 16, 2006 4:50:04 PM
I'm also a strong supporter of Bill Richardson. As I've said over and over again, he is probably the most qualified person to run for President in decades. He can appeal to moderates and progressives to ensure we come into the general election as a unified Party. I hope he announces soon and puts together a strong campaign team.
-DK
Posted by: Dan Kalb | Dec 27, 2006 3:56:39 PM
Richardson-Obama, or Obama-Richardson, either way would be great. Obama has mass appeal right now, and Richardson has amazing experience. If Republicans tried to attack this ticket as Democrats pandering for the minority vote, I believe the Republicans would come off looking like biggots...race aside, Obama and Richardson are qualified, period.
These two would be great for the country, and I hope they get a chance to sit down with each other and discuss the possibility.
Posted by: AG | Dec 28, 2006 6:31:56 AM
Bill Richardson, a "pro-choice" (read: infanticide advocate) Catholic? If there was ever an oxymoron, this has got to be it. Bill Richardson's Church teaches that "abortion is gravely contrary to moral law" (CCC #2271), yet Bill Richardson teaches that abortion is OK. So, does Bill Richardson place himself above the Pope, the Magisterium and the 2000 year old Catholic teaching that abortion is murder? Based on his erroneous opinion, he apparently does. What's worse is that he has been obstinate in his error in the face of numerous visits by his Archbishop.
Either Bill Richardson is Catholic and disobedient, or he is not Catholic yet he says he his. Either way, willful disobedience to one's own self-professed creed or lying are not the qualities to seek out for the highest office in the land.
Steer clear of this guy and pray for him.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | Jan 3, 2007 9:28:44 PM
Ugh. 36 years after JFK was elected, must we continue to debase Catholic candidates who can think for themselves? I never realized that obedience is a quality that Americans value in their President.
Posted by: Dave | Jan 10, 2007 10:52:39 AM
Dave,
Obedience is a quality that you may not value in a leader, but I most certainly do. I value obedience to legitimate law.
Bill Richardson says he's Catholic. Catholics believe in a God that is immutable. Catholics believe God gave a moral law to be followed. Further, Catholics believe that God gave us the Catholic Church to teach what the moral laws are and to judge what does and does not follow the immutable moral law.
Given all of this, Catholic Bill Richardson is expected, like every other Catholic, be obedient to the teachings of his Church.
Thinking for yourself means being able to clearly reason between what is right and what is wrong. The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is always wrong. Bill Richardson says it is not always wrong. The Catholic Church and Bill Richardson can't both be correct simultaneously, can they?
Jeff
stopbill.com
Posted by: Jeff | Jan 10, 2007 9:07:06 PM
I like the thrust of this blog - the "Western Democrat." At the risk of sounding provincial (I don't really care if I do) I even like the "Western" part because the last century was the "Atlantic Century" and this is the "Pacific Century." The economic shift due to our place on the world's largest tradelane, the trans-Pacific, needs to be capitalized on more. I think Nancy Pelosi's ascendancy is part of the western power shift. And so, I agree with those in this blog who root for Bill Richardson, even though his prep/collegiate schooling was back east. He's still a westerner. And, of the field lining up for 08 thus far, he's the most experienced. And please, I can't count Joe Biden in this (I'm really surprised he's running again).
I've predicted that this next prez election will see a president elected who is more along the lines of a darkhorse out of nowwhere, a la Jimmy Carter. I don't think any of the current big names being bandied (Clinton, Obama, McCain, Guiliani) are going to take the final prize.
Richardson may not quite qualify as a true darkhorse, but I think it will take some months for his star to rise.
I do wonder, as has been pointed out in this forum, how he'll stand up to scrutiny/debates, etc. I've found him to be a fine speaker and interview subject, but the Red Machine is what it is....
Posted by: Ross | Jan 20, 2007 10:38:56 AM
A big issue for me is how tightly the candidate links to AIPAC. I know about Hillary - there is no daylight there. And the list of her initial supporters in Hollywood does nothing to change my mind.
I do not know about Richardson, whom I have been tentatively putting forward for a year among my friends. Anybody know?
Posted by: Martin | Jan 21, 2007 12:25:20 AM
Jeff you do know that The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to rejected calls to impose a policy of denying communion to either Catholic politicians who support abortion rights or to Catholics who vote for such politicians?
If disagreeing with the church made you "not catholic", most of the church wouldn't be "real catholics".
Anyways Richardson in 2008 :)
www.RichardsonforAmerica.com
Posted by: LukeM | Jan 21, 2007 6:06:35 PM
Ok... Good forum
I am a republican, so let me plug Richardson from my perspective.
Appart from partisan politics which are ripping our country appart right now, Richardson is a man I trust as a republican. Here is why.
1. Regardless of whether you are a liberal or conservative, he is extremely smart in his governance over the state of New Mexico. Yes, he did cut taxes, but did so and spurned new growth in the state economy that was begining to grow stagnant. Matter of fact, he cut taxes quite a bit, but still is running a surplus in the state of New Mexico to the tune of several billion dollars...... Could this have been generated by new economic growth in the state, you bet, and the people of New Mexico are better for it. Either way you cut it, be it with a D or an R behind his name, that was a SMART MOVE.
2. Richardson has a CONSISTENT record, and is known for being candid.... unlike so many canidates on EITHER side of the aisle, be it Clinton or McCain..... Those two are all over the map and are really wearing sore on everyone in their respective parties, and the rest of the voting public...... Hillary and John McCain waffle about in what ever political direction the wind blows. Bill happens to be diliberate and thoughtful in his decisions.. and long sighted too.. He does not make decisions or set goals based upon what the politically cool thing is to do right now. He has a vision, he articulates that vision (like Reagan and Kennedy and FDR did in years past) and finally sees those decisions through.... However, he is good at taking advice, and he listens to all sides of an issue before moving forward....... I like that, period.
Richardson would actually (I am giving you democrats a huge secret to win here) carry a large ammount of the republican vote because of some of the patently conservative patterns he has displayed in his gonvernance of New Mexico.... I liken him in some ways to Zell Miller... So, he is indeed not only electable to those in the middle of the road, or just slightly left of the middle (sorry to exclude the far left fringe), but also to a LOT of people way on the right..... You can not argue with the man's record.
3. To my knowledge, Richardson is a man of Character.. all politics asside, I have yet to hear of one personal scandal of great embarasment, or of some hidden dishonest scheme that he has been involved in... He is basically what you see is what you get... Pretty refreshing for any canidate if you ask me, from any party.
4. Border security... I know, New Mexico has the shortest stretch of border of the Mexican border states... That being said, during his term, incidents alond HIS stretch of the border have gone down markedly.... as has traffic of illegal persons and substances.... Problems in that arena now sit primarily across the state lines in Arizona and Texas.. Granted there are still onesy and twosy type issues, but it has improved. He has used his executive power in the state to secure it through NUMEROUS measures.. and it seems to have an effect.....Something else you might want to consider if you want to have some votes from the right.
If Richardson wins the nomination, I will vote democrat, for Richardson because I truly believe he is the best choice.... Nominate anyone else for your party, and I will be forced to stay within my party. There, I just handed the Democrats the keys to the white house.. will you take them.. or are you smart enough to.
Aaron.
Posted by: Aaron Perdue | Jan 22, 2007 6:07:44 AM
Who said anything about Catholics and Mr Richardson.. Last I checked he was in agreement with most of the tennants of the church.. to include their stance on abortion... He is prolife... I doubt as a democrat he will bring that to the forefront until after he is nominated, perhaps he may even wait till after the general election and innaguration if he wins.
He is a Truman Democrat, and, don't tie him to Charter either, that was a dismal failure for your party, remember. I would liken him to Truman or Kennedy... Lets more accurately portray him to the past good democrat presidents he more closely resembles and leave the special interest banter at the door.....
The problem with trying to cater to every special interest possible is that it makes you promise things you can never possibly deliver as most of those promises are at odds with each other. And, that my friend is how you loose elections. You can not please them all.
Aaron.
Posted by: Aaron Perdue | Jan 23, 2007 2:37:02 AM
During these times of great concern about woldwide stability and the increasing threat of 'radicalism', not to mention the issues we face in the homeland, it gives me hope to see Governor Richardson's bid for President.
There is alot of experience and SUCESSFUL negotiations that Governor Richardson has to offer. His resume, accomplishments and character is exactly what this country needs at this point in history. He is a true diplomat, but stands firm when necessary.
In this day when radicalism threatens the security of the world, a true moderate and negotiator(ala Richardson) is exaclty what this world needs. By far the most qualified person for Presidnet.
Posted by: John | Jan 23, 2007 7:23:02 PM
Luke,
The USCCB has not YET ADVISED punished dissenting Catholics like Bill Richardson, but some bishops, like Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz in Nebraska, are formally excommunicating them. Archbishop Michael Sheehan said he is waiting for unambiguous direction from Rome in the matter, then he will act. Incidentally, Bishops in the Church don't answer to the USCCB, they answer to the Pope.
I never said that disagreeing with the Church makes one "not Catholic".
I said that disobeying the Church's teaching on abortion is not an
option for Catholics. Like the saying goes, you can't be Catholic and
pro-abortion. Bill Richardson says he's Catholic, so his actions
display willful disobedience.
Also, if there are "real Catholics" as you say, then what is a
"fake Catholic"? By your standards, is Bill Richardson a "fake" or
"real" Catholic? What criteria do you use?
Sorry, but one is either Catholic or one is not. All or nothing.
Bill Richardson is Catholic, so let him live up to his professed creed
by word and deed.
Luke, I'd suggest more study about Catholicism before you comment
further on it. Bill Richardson is Catholic, he is willfully
disobedient, and he is morally confused.
Bill Richardson is pro-abortion. He publicly flaunts his anti-Catholic
position in this matter. As a U.S. Congressman, he voted twice against
the ban on partial birth abortion. Wake up!
Jeff
stopbill.com
Posted by: Jeff | Jan 23, 2007 9:54:58 PM
Bill voted twice against it, but we do not know why. He has publicly said that he was opposed to it.
I would also submit to you that there are persons on both sides of the aisle who are conservatives who vote against partial birth abortions, or other measures because they do not go far enough. Perhaps in his mind it is all or nothing. Anybody ever ask him. I have yet to hear that he was for it. It is a bigger issue than just Catholics too buddy, what about those of us protestants that stand arm in arm with the Catholics on this. We profess the same faith we do, but I warn you against something, stealing all the glory, and recognition.
I digress. Either way, we have a conservative court supposedly because it was the court that ushered in this abortion mess, and we were hoping on the court to usher us out. Bill has said something to the effect that he is more of a states rights guy on a lot of issues....... Which was closer to what most conservatives hold in that the court should turn it back over to the states, and their citizenry for consideration on the matter. With that said, if that were to happen, with the bulk of the population opposed to abortion, that would solve itself.
Right now though, we do need resolution on a whole slew of issues that threaten our existance as a nation, so, lets leave the in fighting for when we are at peace again. We are war, and contrary to what the extreme left would say, we have to develop strategies to be victorious, and come out of this conflict stronger, honorable, and in a way that we can rid ourselves, or considerably lessen, the threats we still face today.
I applaud our current president's initiative to take the fight to the enemy, but, the facts are we are starting to bog down and new brain matter is needed to progress the situation to an acceptable outcome. One thing I do like about Bill as opposed to our president is that he is tough, YES, but, he also considers advice more readily... and not just from his side of the aisle......
Aaron.
Posted by: Aaron | Jan 26, 2007 2:46:03 AM
Aaron,
I am not stealing any glory or recognition (by the world) on the abortion issue. What people of the world think about the Catholic Church is self-evident and has been self-evident for 2000 years.
I am grateful to God for every soul that can see past the duplicity displayed by Bill Richardson and his pro-abortion stance; and it has nothing to do with recognition by the world.
However, Aaron, you are objectively myopic in your view of Bill Richardson. He has shown his willful, anti-Catholic disregard for human life time and time again. It's documented right here.
Aaron, please stop making excuses for this morally confused soul and stop propounding error. Bill Richardson is pro-abortion. Period.
And don't deflect to another issue. Either murder of the innocent is OK as Bill Richardson says, or it is not. If you think murder of the innocent is OK and is reconcilable with Christianity, then go ahead and vote for Bill Richardson. If not, then oppose him. I think that murder of the innocent is inherently anti-Christian. Therefore, I will do what I can to oppose Bill Richardson.
Posted by: Jeff | Feb 17, 2007 11:24:49 PM
If he accepts endorsements of LULAC or LaRaza, he'll lose my support. Bridges are what this country needs, not more division.
Posted by: Kansan | Feb 20, 2007 2:39:45 PM
The CIA pushed Cocaine in the US
http://www.thelawparty.com/MediaPlayer/911/TruthandLies0f911Part156k.wmv
The information you just have acquired is shocking and contrary to
what we are told by our government. Everything in this e-mail and
web-page can be easily verified so don’t just take our word for it. Take the
time to verify it for yourself. Our Country’s future is at stake.
http://liar-51.tripod.com/index.htm
Posted by: Joseph Martin | Feb 25, 2007 12:40:30 PM
Bill Richardson's involvement in crime and corruption
http://perverts_15.tripod.com/index.in_Government.html
Posted by: Joseph Martin | Mar 3, 2007 9:21:04 AM
Thanks, Jeff, for your info on Gov. Richardson's "support for abortion". One can not be for murder and not for murder.Its not just a Catholic tenet, but a support for human life, from the "womb to the tomb." Over 44,000,000 human beings have been killed in the USofA since 1973!, in the name of choice. Is our Country to reap (or is reaping) what it sows? We must pray not only for our Country but also for all peoples on the Creator's earth. Jim
Posted by: jim | May 7, 2007 6:56:03 PM
I agree that Bill Richardson is the best man for the job.
Posted by: Andrew | May 15, 2007 5:22:56 PM
I agree that Bill Richardson is the best man for the job.
Posted by: Andrew | May 15, 2007 5:22:58 PM
Democrat William Blaine "Bill" Richardson III is currently Governor of New Mexico. He has also served as the U.S. Representative, Ambassador to the United Nations, and as the U.S. Secretary of Energy. He raised many more issues like Bill Richardson: I will not militarize the borders,Bill Richardson: We have to fight global climate changeetc.
Posted by: Emmy | Jan 2, 2008 1:44:37 AM
Let us remember that in this country, we have a separation of church and state. Jesus didn't say a thing about abortion, but he did say "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's." A Catholic President can subscribe to the teachings of Jesus in his heart and private life, and dedicate himself to the country's welfare. Women comprise more than half of the country's populace and their rights must be respected. Nature itself states that the adult breeding female takes precedence over the foetus she carries.
Furthermore, if abortion is outlawed, as several candidates on the GOP would very much like to do, the streets of every major metropolitan area in the country will be filled with protesters, male and female. This would bring those cities to a standstill, which is a national security risk and would adversely impact at least the local economies. You can't give the citizenry a right, and then smirk and yank it back out of their hands; you'd have widespread unrest.
I think Jesus would have a dim view of a politician that caused that kind of abusive mischief.
In summation: Jesus said nothing about abortion; but honesty and being responsible to the people under your power is also a very Christian ethic. A leader has to take care of the people that are here, now.
Posted by: Diane Rittenhouse | Jan 2, 2008 3:02:21 AM
Calling Bill Richardson disingenuous is an understatement. I guess that was big of him to not compare Bill Clinton to McCarthy ... just days after throwing HIllary under the bus. I think Richardson is nothing more than a self-serving opportunist. He says that the democratic candidate should be based upon the popular vote, instead of delegates ... then, he gives Obama his delegate vote, even though Hillary won the popular vote in his own state of New Mexico. And, now that Pastor Wright has been replaced with Pastor Moss ... who is just as bad, if not worse ... perhaps Richardson ... and the rest of America should revisit Obama's 20 year attendance in the anti-American, anti-white, racist Trinity church ... instead of blaming it all on the recently retired Pastor Wright ... implying that this has distanced Obama from the controversy ... even though Obama has maintained his membership in Trinity ... but, I guess he'll just claim that he wasn't there on the days that Moss spewed racial hate.
Posted by: Howard | Mar 23, 2008 7:46:13 PM
Here in the rural part of "The land of entrapment" We call him "Cowboy Bill,The ranchers friend" He cant sit a stick horse and handles a firearm like a peice of lumber.Can anyone say "corrupt"? in the least 5 years five sitting judges have been removed and indited on corruption charges. Two, count em two consecutive state treasures indited and convicted. and the list goes on from county to county corruption at every level. If its rotten at the bottom its allowed at the top. As to education, ol Bill called himself the education candidate. How? with a drop out rate of 50% state wide, with teacher pay 47th in the nation, literacy at graduation also at 47th and that corruption thing again... Teachers who have come to New Mexico from other states almost universaly refer to ed. in N.M. as being "Third world". Bill Richardson is also disingenous about the border. He calls a "state of emergency" while running for Gov. and then goes all Kumbyya when the presidntial race starts? He has claimed that N.M. leads the nation in green tech. No. but he is long winded. He claimed he was bringing the P.R.C.A. to N.M. NO.
But. he is really great at rasing taxes.passing all manner of usless and costly regulation and helping all of his cronies get "Gumment jobs" The great bulbus bearded buffoon is what we in the rural west refer to as "counterfiet".
Posted by: Frank Morris | Apr 2, 2008 9:38:29 AM
The entire Kennedy clan exemplifies why we should *not* elect people who publicly renounce their allegedly "privately" held beliefs. First, religion is *not* a private matter. That is itself a heresy, according to Catholic Teaching. You can find it condemned in Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors and various other papal statements, including Pope Benedict's speeches in the US in April.
A Catholic makes a public oath, before God, to reject Satan and all His works, the World and all its empty show. The Catholic goes to Mass and hears Jesus' words, "What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul?"
Yet American "Catholics" since before Kennedy and on both "sides of the aisle" have publicly renounced their faith in the name of assimilation in order to gain economic and political power.
So, the USCCB voted to leave application of canon law up to the bishops individually? So what? First, the USCCB has no real power. It is a Protestant, Americanist attitude to think otherwise. Parish councils have no real power: they just exist to help the pastors know what's going on and make their decisions. National episcopal councils are the same. It goes Pope-(sometimes) Archbishop-Bishop, not Pope-National Council-Bishop. And the USCCB prefers to think it's National Council-Bishop-Pope.
The USCCB also voted to *reject* the translation of the Mass, approved by the Vatican, which Cardinal Arinze sent them a letter saying, basically, "This is binding; get over yourselves."
The fact that the USCCB is everything short of schism is no justification for repeated heresy and public scandal on the part of American Catholics.
I don't see how anyone can live such a blatant life of hypocrisy as to be a "pro-choice" Catholic, or a "pro-contraception" Catholic.
I also cannot see how any person who could so blatantly lie and deceive can be trusted with civil authority.
I'll take a devout Mormon (as opposed to a compromiser like Mitt Romney) or a devout Muslim or a devout Baptist or a devout Hindu or even a "devout" atheist over a hypocritical Catholic any day.
Posted by: JC | Aug 8, 2008 9:00:25 AM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
