Bill Richardson: A Serious Candidate

The Democrats and Republicans who are seeking the presidency run the gamut from ridiculous to frightening. But one word that does not apply to most of them is "serious." Oh, yes, of course, they are serious about winning their respective nominations, or at least about positioning themselves for a vice presidential run, a Cabinet post or the next television camera.

But serious about governing? That's a higher standard than most of the contenders are even trying to reach.

The exception, throughout the race, has been New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who actually chooses to engage in the fundamental debate about what America will be when it grows up. This does not mean that Richardson is the best candidate, or even that he would be the best president.

What it means is that the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations is going deep, talking about smart, nuanced, diplomacy-driven approaches to international challenges while most of the other candidates are dealing in slogans.

This is clear in Richardsons's smart plan to quickly extract all U.S. troops from Iraq. It is clear is his get-tough-on-China responses to the crises in Darfur and Burma -- both of which will ease only if China clamps down on its client states. And it will be clear next week when the governor answers a call by former Congressman Jack Kemp, General Barry McCaffrey and a bipartisan group of civic, political, business and academic leaders for a new approach to America's stilted and frequently dysfunctional foreign-policy debate.

Kemp, McCaffrey and their compatriots will gather November 8 in Manchester, N.H., for an event sponsored by the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College and the Center for U.S. Global Engagement. The purpose will be to urge the presidential candidates of both parties to speak more aggressively and consistently about the use of non-military tools -- negotiation, direct aid, loans medical diplomacy and moral authority - to reengage the United States with the world.

All the candidates have been asked to respond to the call. So far, only one has agreed to participate: Bill Richardson.

Comments (57)

1. "The Democrats and Republicans who are seeking the presidency run the gamut from ridiculous to frightening."

   Curious, Mr Nichols....care to name some of the Democrats you think are "ridiculous" or "frightening"?

   Posted by Mask at 11/01/2007 @ 12:19pm

2. Posted by JOMAMMA 11/01/2007 @ 12:23pm

   No, no (again) MAASCH, see HSUB has a NEW prediction....Gore runs secretly for a few months and "sometime" before November 6th 2008 announces that he's running as a "write-in candidate" (and of course sweeps aside Hillary and the Repub).

   His Veep will be Gerald Fitzhugh [en.wikipedia.org]!

   Posted by Mask at 11/01/2007 @ 12:37pm

3. CHAUNCEY GARDINER FOR PRESIDENT!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/01/2007 @ 12:40pm

4. richardson:

   excellent qualifications.

   smart.

   wise.

   good listener.

   diplomat.

   experience.

   oh, well. that stuff's boring.

   hey, did you hear hillary wore a padded bra to the last debate?...........................

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/01/2007 @ 12:43pm

5. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/01/2007 @ 12:40pm

   How about Merkin Muffley?

   Posted by Mask at 11/01/2007 @ 12:49pm

6. While I still like the idea of an Obama-Edwards ticket (in either order as I've stated on here for at least a year now) I must agree that Richardson would be a fine VP and would complement either Obama or Edwards in that respect.

   Posted by leftofcenter at 11/01/2007 @ 1:13pm

7. Posted by JOMAMMA 11/01/2007 @ 12:47pm

   wow.

   you've just confirmed Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/01/2007 @ 12:43pm !

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/01/2007 @ 1:13pm

8. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 11/01/2007 @ 1:13pm

   Edwards-Obama, maybe. Not the other way around.

   Seriously, a man doesn't run for President twice, and accept the VEEP spot TWICE....it'd be humiliating.

   Posted by Mask at 11/01/2007 @ 1:26pm

9. We need a hot woman to be the first woman President..some one feminine....not Hillary and the "everyones image of a 2nd ex wife" screeching bitch voice that moves Frank to orgasmic dimensions...

   Posted by JOMAMMA 11/01/2007 @ 12:47pm

   Just as I was tut-tutting over the Clinton campaign's stance that the last debate was about men ganging up on the lone woman candidate, your bit of garbage comes along to remind me that they may have a point after all.

   Posted by oneworld at 11/01/2007 @ 1:36pm

10. not to digress from the intellectually stimulating comments so far, but Richardson is hardly serious. He runs an absolute shamble of a state and doesn't seem to know much about domestic policy at all. He supports a balanced budget amendment, which no one who knows anything about economics would do. When speaking of improving access to health care and quality of jobs he talks about targeted tax cuts not unions, a single payer system or even a requirement that people have health care coverage. He doesn't mention wiretaps or the Patriot Act on his webpage's 'Civil Liberties' section. He is a one trick pony, and while that trick (Iraq) is a good one, it doesn't make up for the fact that he apparently is recycling failed 'market-based' solutions from the Clinton era because he doesn't have any ideas of his own.

    Posted by dentedpat at 11/01/2007 @ 2:01pm

11. Richardson? Seriously? I've watched most of the debates, and he consistently seems unfocused, uncertain, and a little daft--in short, unserious.

    What about, say, Dodd? He's not afraid to talk shop, he speaks (or seems to speak) from conviction, and he's got an impressively long record of passing useful (and often bipartisan) legislation that has affected the lives of far more people than anything Richardson has done.

    But really, anyone--anyone--who's shared the stage with Richardson in the debates seems more serious and substantive.

    Posted by Robbo at 11/01/2007 @ 2:25pm

12. Posted by DENTEDPAT 11/01/2007 @ 2:01pm Posted by ROBBO 11/01/2007 @ 2:25pm

    More "one-timers"? From the Obama, Edwards, even Dodd camp, maybe?

    Posted by Mask at 11/01/2007 @ 2:39pm

13. You mean Mr.dreaming of the VP slot? That little act was transparent enough and sort of brought him down a notch. Rather than 50 foot Queenie held to account, he would rather teflon-coat her for his own agenda.

    Posted by Lil at 11/01/2007 @ 2:43pm

14. That little act was transparent enough and sort of brought him down a notch.----Posted by LIL 11/01/2007 @ 2:43pm

    It did? Odd that John Nichols, astute political commentator, didn't figure that out....but you did, LIL?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 11/01/2007 @ 3:01pm

15. Well, I like Kucinich and Richardson, in any order.

    Posted by ca tsel at 11/01/2007 @ 3:18pm

16. Yes, Mr. Nichols, please be more specific about your "ridiculous to frightening" description. I've respected your opinions for the most part but it sounds like you've jumped into the circus ring with the rest of the american media.

    Of course average Americans wouldn't pay attention if there was any real validation given to these candidates. 'We' thrive on the sensational boiled down to the bare bones....least you loose the short attention-spanned generations.

    On the other hand with the absolute SCARY SURREALISM we've been living with the last 7 years, ridiculous and frightening seem very grounded to me! Pick one!

    Posted by sickntired at 11/01/2007 @ 3:25pm

17. Jon, Bill Richardson killed a grass roots legislative effort in New Mexico to repeal the death penalty that had passed the the state house of representatives. This was all because he didn't want to have to vote on it. Was that the type of "grown up" politics of serious discussion to which you are referring?

    Posted by martincaver at 11/01/2007 @ 4:18pm

18. We already have enough ass kissers thank you. Richardson is running for the VP not the President. His resume has been acquired by doing some serious sucking up over the years, and I agree with the other less flattering comments here that he doesn't seem to have any new ideas, and has a lack of focus. He let Chris Matthews talk about UFO's when he should have been pushing his agenda and selling himself. Instead we get crap about NM tourism. I don't expect to see him around two months from now. Prediction -- he will drop out of the race and endorse HRC with her promise to short list the guy for VP running mate.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/01/2007 @ 4:19pm

19. Posted by SICKNTIRED 11/01/2007 @ 3:25pm

    Wouldn't hold your breath (I'm not) that John Nichols will EVER mention his choices from the Democrats of "ridiculous" to "frightening"....any name he mentioned would either have a shot at the nomination (and put him "on record" as calling them silly or scary)...

    or piss off the progressive base. I think we probably assume that "ridiculous" doesn't apply to Hillary (I'd guess she's the "frightening" one). And I doubt Mr Nichols would call Obama or Edwards "ridiculous"...Biden?, maybe, he does tend to shoot his mouth off. Dodd of course has received much (deserved) praise here at "The Nation", so doubt it's him. Mike Gravel?, again maybe, but....

    I think we all might have a suspicion, based on, say, "lights in the sky" as to who he's referring to.

    Posted by Mask at 11/01/2007 @ 4:26pm

20. The exception... "New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who actually chooses to engage in the fundamental debate about what America will be when it grows up." Okay, if not that, what DOES make someone the best candidate in this race?

    Choosing to place what may be the closest to the best candidate in the race to a VP slot is short sighted and, well, some may say it is un-American. Un-American in its ambivalence toward our process, toward our democracy, and toward to the very mess we are in and what it will take to heal this nation.

    We need someone with Richardson's qualifications. And since he is the only one in the race with these qualifications, not only is he a serious candidate, but he IS the best candidate.

    Posted by Ryter at 11/01/2007 @ 4:33pm

21. i like bill, but he still sees goobery...a more focus goob, but a goob nonetheless...and a perfect sycophantic lapdog of 50 foot queenie...

    so its looking like either fifty foot queenie and her pet goob, or some combo of edwards/obama...obama/edwards...

    though the funnest combo would be biden/dodd...

    god bless denny...a man out standing in left field...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/01/2007 @ 4:42pm

22. Posted by DENTEDPAT 11/01/2007 @ 2:01pm

    Absolute shambles of a state???

    Care to enlighten me on what in particular about the state I live in that is an "absolute shambles" other then finances after the last Repug Guv was driven from office?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/01/2007 @ 5:52pm

23. And how does a balanced budget amendment equal bad economic policy?

    I still say Richardson is THE most qualified candidate, I think he would run very good against the repubs, he would garner a large chunk of the growing latino vote and wouldn't come into office with a ready-made rightwing attack machine primed for him.

    He does need to work on his water policy, we ain't giving him our great lakes!

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/01/2007 @ 6:30pm

24. DOC, reminiscent of MI, where repubs have controlled the admin and congress for decades. We finally get a good governor (a dem) and the repubs blame her for our fiscal ills.

    No personal responsibility for republicans, that is for the little people, like the Law.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/01/2007 @ 6:32pm

25. It is wonderful to see some new names around here. Would love to read your thoughts more often.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/01/2007 @ 6:38pm

26. Our elections [seconnecticut.com] are all wrong. We vote for candidates and then find out our direction depending on their whim or their prejudices. Turns out that the people who made campaign contributions often get to determine where we are going. Democracy it is not. Why is it that we can't set the task, and then delegate the elected one to actually be an executive and accomplish it.

    Most people favor healthcare as a right, not a commodity; they would prefer that we observe international law such as the Geneva Conventions; they would want clean elections. Compare at http://www.seconnecticut.com/presidential_candidates.htm

    Posted by Robert Voge at 11/01/2007 @ 7:05pm

27. "DOC, reminiscent of MI, where repubs have controlled the admin and congress for decades. We finally get a good governor (a dem) and the repubs blame her for our fiscal ills."

    "No personal responsibility for republicans, that is for the little people, like the Law."

    Posted by CRABWALK 11/01/2007 @ 6:32pm

    Crabby, I grew up in Michigan. The last good governor we had was Bill Milliken. The state started going down after Blanchard got into office in 1983 and it continually spiraled downward with the nonsense of Engler and the ineptitude of Granholm. And it's no better for the poor folks in Detroit with Klowny Kilpartrick as mayor.

    Posted by ACook at 11/01/2007 @ 10:20pm

28. Much ado about nothing: what an uproar caused by Hillary's response to Tim Russert's small question about some driving liscence. But sorry, Edwards and Obama, you won nothing. GOP won big because at least for the moment they could deflect the people's concerns about a corruptive incompetent WH and the war in Iraq. Pity you and me raed this.

    ----------

    Illegal Immigrant License Debate Heats Up Hillary Clinton's Comments Spur Debate Over New York State And National Policy Nov. 1, 2007

    The question of whether or not illegal immigrants should have access to driver's licenses has stayed under the radar for most of the 2008 presidential campaign.

    But that changed Tuesday night, when Sen. Hillary Clinton made vague comments at a Democratic presidential debate about whether or not she supports New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer's driver's license proposal. Clinton's rivals quickly criticized her for what they characterized as a refusal to take a position on the issue.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 11/01/2007 @ 11:14pm

29. A couple things make Governor Richardson serious that the Democrats ignore to their own peril. First, the Democrats must remember in November 2008 a popular national election will not be held, but instead a state by state election for electoral votes. One thing Governor Richardson can do that the other candidates cannot is make Florida competitive and win New Mexico. What does that do? It gives the Democrats 32 electoral votes they did not have in either 2000 or 2004 (27 electoral votes for Florida and 5 for New Mexico). Kerry did not win either of these states and if he had those 32 electoral votes he would be President now. Governor Richardson is Hispanic which automatically makes him competitive in Florida. Even in the Florida panhandle -the conservative part of the state he would do better than the other Democrats. The Conservative South is suspicious of two things - Northerners and Washington insiders. This describes the rest of the Democratic candidates. Southerners still remember Senator Clinton's "I don't stay home and bake cookies comment" and despite her recent votes, they view her as anti-military. The South likes the military.

    The basic problem for the Democratic Party is that repeatedly the party has nominated Northerners that cannot change the electoral map. Every year the map on election night has Democratic blue only in the Northeast and in California. The list of the failed candidates who are unable to win in the West or South is long and painful to recall - Kerry, Dukakis, and Mondale. Even Al Gore was a Southerner only in name. The South saw him as a Washington insider and he could not win his home state of Tennessee. Sadly, I think John Edwards too could not win his home state when matched against a Republican candidate – mainly because he has focused on the poverty issue too long. The South is not very keen on that issue and would view those who are as too liberal. However, it is not just the South, but the Rocky Mountain West that is also red every four years. Richardson is a Western Governor who would make those states competitive. If nothing else the Republicans would have to spend money and resources in states they now think are sure bets.

    The second thing that makes Governor Richardson a good choice is that he is a Governor. Americans do not like electing Senators as President. The last time a Senator was elected was 47 years ago. 5 out of the 4 Presidents were Governors. Currently voters may not like Bush, but they don't like Congress either. If the voters want change in 2008 they will not necessarily view moving one of these Democratic Senators from Capitol Hill a few blocks to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as change. In fact they are more likely to view electing a Republican Governor or mayor from outside of Washington as change. Remember, President Bush is not running in 2008.

    If Richardson is not your choice so be it. However, there are two questions you better ask your candidate. How do they plan to win red states in the South and West and how do they plan to distinguish themselves from the Washington establishment?

    Posted by wtc at 11/02/2007 @ 02:16am

30. Richardson is just an overstuffed burrito.

    Posted by torquemada at 11/02/2007 @ 08:03am

31. Posted by TORQUEMADA 11/02/2007 @ 08:03am

    I wonder if SRJENKINS will have anything to say about that comment???

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 09:08am

32. I just heard Steven Colbert isn't running after all Arrgh! Guess I'll vote for Jon Stewart. Next best choice. Maybe he can hire Gore as his personal joke. Oops I mean personal joke writer

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/02/2007 @ 09:15am

33. Posted by ACOOK 11/01/2007 @ 10:20pm

    what is Granholms "ineptitude"? She was handed a state that was "drowned in a bathtub", taxes slashed beyond any reasonable measure, NAFTA causing job losses in the tens of thousands, revenue dropping like a stone due to tax cuts and manufacturing incomes dropping, roads that were some of the worst in the country

    She has gone overseas and brought back high tech jobs, she has actually paved the roads and is fixing our bridges. She has held tough on cutting state spending while preserving those services that make a government run.

    Her first four years she was at the mercy of a republican congress, now she has the house on her side, but the senate fights her at every step.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/02/2007 @ 09:19am

34. CHIP, there is a better choice if you want an actor, Phred!

    Buwahaha.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/02/2007 @ 09:20am

35. If you want a joke, check out the guy sitting in the WH now! We couldn't make up the stuff he has given us:

    A gay male prostitute to ask softball questions

    Telling us border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better

    We is educating our children

    Saddam did 9/11

    We found the wmd's

    "My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions."

    You know, when you give a man more money in his pocket -- in this case, a woman more money in her pocket to expand a business, it -- they build new buildings. And when somebody builds a new building somebody has got to come and build the building. And when the building expanded it prevented additional opportunities for people to work." --George W. Bush, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007

    "I heard somebody say, 'Where's (Nelson) Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead. Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas." --George W. Bush, on the former South African president, who is still very much alive, Washington, D.C., Sept. 20, 2007

    So, tell us Chip, who is the joke? I think it is the guy YOU voted for, twice. The problem is that the joke is on the Iraqi and American people, and it really isn't that funny.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/02/2007 @ 09:29am

36. Posted by MASK 11/01/2007 @ 12:37p

    Frita, you're such a funny gal:

    http://mass4gore.wordpress.com/

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 09:32am

37. "The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., July 12, 2007

    Nothing like two college degrees to get a person to speak in English and have the reasoning ability of PONTIFICUS

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/02/2007 @ 09:36am

38. Diplomacy, Diplomacy, Diplomacy----everyone is for Diplomacy. What I want to know is what will you do if Diplomacy doesn't work? If all diplomatic efforts have been exhausted, and Iran is on the verge of deploying a nuclear weapon---what will you do, if anything? I Get the overwhelming feeling that most if not all the democrat candidates for President fall into the "Peace in our time" category.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 11/02/2007 @ 09:42am

39. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/02/2007 @ 09:32am

    Hey, HSUB, checked the NBC website....Jay Leno's guests tonight are Steve Carrell, Manny Ramirez from the Red Sox, and The Backstreet Boys....did Gore join the Backstreet Boys?

    BLOG | Posted 10/31/2007 @ 10:49pm Is Hillary the Next Grover Cleveland? by Jon Wiener

    "Actually Al Gore will be on the tonight show on either the 2nd or 8th and..."----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/01/2007 @ 1:10pm

    Oh, I see...again you were "off a few days"...guess it's next Thursday, huh?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 10:01am

40. Posted by LEN MOSSE 11/02/2007 @ 09:42am

    LEN, seems the neo-con/Administration policy is "No wire diplomacies EVER!" (Joan Crawford impersonation).

    What DO you think we should do...in specifics please...about Iran?

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 10:03am

41. Posted by CRABWALK 11/02/2007 @ 09:36am

    Maybe they turned the guys who hit the Towers into car-bombing zombies?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 10:04am

42. I am all for the "carrots and sticks" type diplomacy that Hillary talked about in the last debate---but I do not want it to be all carrot and no stick. I am quite concerned that the diplomacy that most democrats talk about is all carrot---peace at all cost--"peace in our time" diplomacy ---historically this type of diplomacy just strengthens our enemies and allows them the time to move forward with their plans. I hope that we never need to use force against Iran---but what I want to know from the democrats that are running for President and from those who are on this board, when diplomacy fails and Iran has acquired or is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon, then what?

    Posted by Len Mosse at 11/02/2007 @ 10:15am

43. Specifics---Continued ecomonic sanctions ---continue to impress upon our allies to participate in these ecomonic sanctions. Continue to work through the UN to warn Iran against developing nuclear weapons---Resolutions, Resolutions, Resolutions. Keep a fair number of troops in Iraq as a trigger for any Iranian agression---Warn Iran that any attack on it's neighbors using WMD would be answered with overwhelming retaliation. Warn Iran that the use of WMD by terrorisit groups who have acquired the WMD from Iran would be met with overwhelming retaliation. Help Iran gain the nuclear power that they say they desire, with the understanding that International inspection would have to take place on a regular basis and any suspension of international inspections would be met with military action (destruction of power plants)

    Posted by Len Mosse at 11/02/2007 @ 10:24am

44. First...Posted by LEN MOSSE 11/02/2007 @ 10:15am

    I don't think you have to worry about Hillary, who voted for Kyl-Lieberman, being "all carrot and no stick", LEN!...heheh

    Second...Posted by LEN MOSSE 11/02/2007 @ 10:24am

    All of that sounds pretty much like the Democratic position. And some of it the OPPOSITE of the Bush Administration. Remember, the Admin's position is that Iran should stop uranium enrichment BEFORE any negotiations, despite the fact that Iran can LEGALLY enrich under the NPT.

    And it's the Right, not Left who balks at the IAEA from doing inspections. And the IAEA was CORRECT about Iraq, the neo-cons weren't.

    Also, doubt that Iran doubts that if a nuke hits Tel Aviv, that WE are going to be their LEAST worry. More of Iran will be vaporized by the Israelis than even the most bloodthirsty neo-con (well, maybe not LVLIB) could ever dream of. Same for proof that a terrorist group got a nuke....Pyongyang would be a quiet neighborhood for a long while too!

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 10:43am

45. You proceed from a false assumption CRABWALK: That because I have traditional values, I must love and have voted for George Bush:

    I did not vote for him in 2004. I voted for Kerry.

    I wish him gone from office. He has made a shambles of this countries' reputation with his legitimizing of torture. He does not lead, not anymore, anyway: He simply digs in his heels and threatens to take his ball and go home if everyone doesn't see things his way. He threatens our freedoms, and in my wildest imagination (I'm a would be fiction writer) I would be fighting in the streets next to you and JR after he barricades himself in the White House. It is BECAUSE I hold traditional values that I await his demise in '08.

    But make no mistake. The remaining candidates offer little more in the way of decisiveness, character or just plain balls. If any of them look good, its only by contrast.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/02/2007 @ 11:12am

46. Posted by MASK 11/02/2007 @ 10:01am

    Er, Frita-- you continue to have straw stuck between your teeth... you might want to clean that up a little. You're embarrassing yourself. Again.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 12:43pm

47. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/02/2007 @ 12:43pm

    QUICK, HSUB....John Nichols is talking impeachment!

    Leap over there and tell us the "new revised" date for when the bills of impeachment come out of the House, just like Nancy "really wants but can't say so as to not appear ambitious"!

    BTW, can't wait for NEXT Thursday and Gore's announcement on Leno!

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 12:59pm

48. Not carrots and sticks-- closer to sticks and stones...

    Would not the new con argument about nuclear proliferation be viewed as valid and even logical if they were to start at the top of the list?

    Oh it's us...

    What about the next lesser power on the list? Or the next 3-4, since they've got'em already; wouldn't they be the current 'big' threat?

    So where is Iran on the list?

    Oh, they're not...

    So if new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, are really worried about nuclear proliferation, and which they're not-- ala their justification for outing Plame, then what is the true nature for their insistence that that is the case?

    Insanity may be the first to pop up, but I think it is just their reptilian nature to regress, per longing to be close to their fossil brethren! That it would destroy our nation doesn't really play into it from their point of view as new cons wish to be one with the largest of their extinct reptilian mass, taking the rest of us with them, is just icing on their cake.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 1:23pm

49. Mask The problem with the democratic view on this issue is the leading candidates won't answer the question; what if diplomacy does not work. Kucinch says no military force no matter what---Richardson says only after Iran uses a weapon----What does Clinton, Edwards, and Obama say----they won't answer. Leading Republican candidates want to use diplomacy to settle the issue but state up front that they would use military force to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

    HSUBFOOLS The battle over unilateral disarmament was fought back in the 80's ---it was a stupid idea then,and it is a stupid idea now---the "can't we just all get along" philosophy when dealing with nations like Iran,and North Korea has never proven a sound idea--

    Posted by Len Mosse at 11/02/2007 @ 2:30pm

50. Posted by LEN MOSSE 11/02/2007 @ 2:30pm

    And LEN, you can note where Kucinich and Richardson are. The reason the Eventual Nominee (HRC, Obama, Edwards) won't say is....they don't want to piss off the base anymore than they have.

    Any of those people will be "carrot AND stick" guys/gal....but not "just sticks" as the Repub candidates have promised.

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 2:57pm

51. ...unilateral disarmament was fought back in the 80's...

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 11/02/2007 @ 2:30pm

    Who said 'uni'-anything? Not me.

    Why not get the top 3-4 nuclear powers on our side and just say to anyone that can develop nuclear weapons to go right ahead and waste their money, but it'll take them 50+ years to get anywhere close to a fraction of our firepower and even then if they use a nuclear bomb-- we all will bomb you to dust. So why worry about the piss ant? Which is kinda the way it is now already right-- M.A.D. Why we don't really worry about Russia, China,...

    But to sweeten the pot-- lets tell Iran, what you say we start from stratch-- scrap the fission reactor and we'll build you a fusion!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 7:09pm

52. Er, ok, China will.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 7:11pm

53. Hillary is just like Bill---will say anything for a vote---a complete political whore---will say one thing to one group of people and then walk down the street to another group, look them n the eye, and say just the opposite. Another finger in the wind politician.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 11/02/2007 @ 10:47pm

54. Then you shouldn't vote for her len

    Posted by Will C. at 11/02/2007 @ 11:14pm

55. But to sweeten the pot-- lets tell Iran, what you say we start from stratch-- scrap the fission reactor and we'll build you a fusion!

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/02/2007

    Brilliant, HSUB!

    That ought to buy us 30 years, at least! (heh,heh)

    Posted by davebarlett at 11/02/2007 @ 11:37pm

56. John, I heartily agree with you! Richardson is participating in the debates as if the candidates were really there to debate complex issues in the traditional sense of "debate." I suggest The Nation host a series of debates in the middle section of the country, Middle West, West, Southwest; and Alaska, Puerto Rico and Hawaii via satellite inviting editors of "small town" and community newspapers and journals to pose their questions. For example, in Iowa, editors from The Storm Lake Times, The Cedar Rapids Gazette, journals such as The Progressive Populist and Reason (etc.)would be invited. The debate should be simultaneously aired from one of the PBS associated television stations and over radio on an NPR associated radio frequency. The debate should be allowed to continue as long as pertinent questions remain. The debaters must be given enough time (1) to listen to the question (2) to consider their answer (3) to demonstrate a respect towards the complex issues addressed. Perhaps Richardson's rich experience in prominent roles of both federal and state government would be more evident.

    Posted by asproula at 11/03/2007 @ 05:59am

57. Posted by DAVEBARLETT 11/02/2007 @ 11:37pm

    Well at least 10...

    Oh, isn't that how long it'll take them to build a fission reactor too!?!?!

    So what was the point again?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 3:20pm