Letters to the Editor
-
Richardson can win at the national level
Great ads! I was wondering if Richardson would finally take off. I think he's the best candidate the Dems have running. He's plain-spoken, very bright, very experienced and very competent. And, I think he can actually win. I can usually predict the next president by who my (independent, conservative-leaning) mom will vote for. She won't vote for Clinton (too abrasive) or Obama (too inexperienced). She voted for Bush (actually voted against Kerry), but now deeply regrets it. But she'd vote for Richardson.
-
Not Ready for Prime Time
I like Bill Richardson and I hope that he's part of the next Democratic administration. But can you imagine that mincemeat that the Republican smear machine and the great right wing corporate media echo chamber will make out of him with his off the cuff gaffes, his pitching ideas off the top of his head in debates, and the such? We need a candidate who has been through this meat grinder before, no someone who has only run a successful campaign in a small State. The bottom line is that he's not ready for prime time. The Republican smear machine and the media allies will tear him into a million pieces.
-
I think he has ADD.
I recognize the symptoms. While I am all for hiring the disabled. I wouldn't vote for ME for president. Making note of a new idea in the middle of a debate is exactly the spontaneous, undiscipled sort or thing I would do. Forgetting whether I had four ideas or five? Yep.
Richardson is great short term. He is creative and charming. Exactly like me. If I wouldn't vote for someone with my particular problems for president, why would I vote for Richardson? However, I think he would make a great vice president. He could be a sort of ambassadorial V.P., helping to win back the rest of the world to our side, seducing them with good will and good humor. Yes. Exactly as I would do. Only he is more qualified.
Darn, I like him.
-
racist
Richardson also has admitted not opposing Attorney General, Gonzalez, on the issue of the firing of federal attorneys because they are both Hispanic. Do we need such a racist?
-
I'd vote for him
As many here know, I'm a conservative republican. I'd vote for Richardson. It amuses me that anyone would worry about the great right wing smear machine. The left wing smear machine doesn't work on republican candidates. If lefties base their "electability" decision on what fundies and neocons say, then they might as well stay home on election day.
For example, remember Dean? The right wingnuts went gonzo on the scream. They passed it around and made fun of it. For some odd reason, the left wing base thought the right wingnuts mattered and scuttled their best candidate.
Two things bother me about him though. One is supporting fellow hispanic alberto even though alberto is basically treasonous. The other is that he vetoed a state statue designed to put limits on the essentially corrupt red light camera schemes.
Aside: The red light camera schemes occur when a city contracts with a private company to use automated systems to catch speeders and red light runners. The fines are much higher than police issued tickets because otherwise they aren't economically viable (whereas personal roadside service is?). These are civil offenses, so the city's burden of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" instead of the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt". There is no audit trail. A person is fined if their car (now defined a public nuisance) appears to have done the deed. It wasn't you? Then you've the burden of ratting out someone else and making it stick. Not your car? Look we have a picture! (license tags can be faked, pictures/videos can be photoshopped., the contractor has a financial motivation, ...)
-
Entitled to be irked
Oh, but Michael Scherer is an idiot, as I agreed with Gov. Richardson at the time of the original article.
And, Mr. Shapiro, while you may not be the idiot your journalistic colleague is, you, too, should be ashamed to write an article with a major subtext about "the tenor of the coverage of the presidential race" while failing to even utter the name Dennis Kucinich.
Your oblique dismissal of Mr. Kucinich's candidacy by referring to Gov. Richardson as the only "mainstream Democrat" besides Chris Dodd in favor of a complete withdrawal from Iraq is tantamount to journalistic malfeasance!
Mr. Kucinich is THE ONLY Democrat who had the courage to speak loudly, and eloquently against the war long before it was ever waged. He was the only Democrat in the race with the courage to vote against authorizing the president to use force in Iraq.
Only when progressive journalists and outlets like you and Salon begin to have the courage to take Mr. Kucinich and his ideas seriously will this country have hope for the kind of "tenor" to the coverage of the presidential race that might begin to roll back the darkness the Bush years have left it in.
-
Why aren't the radicals here questioning his loyalty?
I mean any other wink wink ethnic candidate would be excoriated for not publically swearing their allegiance to this country and not some other cough cough country perhaps in a dry sandy dusty region of the world.
You mean to tell me no one's hear of El Lobby?
-
Dig a litle deeper
I wish that before pundits get too ga-ga over Richardson's resume they would do a little bit of digging and ask people in New Mexico about his issues with women. We don't need another Bill Clinton.
-
But what about his medical marijuana policy?
In Los Angeles this week, medical marijuana dispensary landlords were threatened with 20 years in prison each.
Because of course, you know, they're on the same moral level as people who run crackhouses, right?
Right?
I would really like to know how our presidential candidates feel about that.
Is this going to be kept some big secret until after the election?
Are medical marijuana patients going to be allowed to use democracy too?
I'm not voting for anyone who plans to force me back on pharmaceuticals because they think Big Pharm has all the answers, or claims they're waiting for more science while they let the DEA get away with keeping the science from being done.
Why does this issue have so heavily censored in Salon? They don't censor it out of the LA Times.
The LA Times even took an actual stand against the DEA.
Can you even IMAGINE such a thing happening in Salon?????
Like I said during the Paris Hilton debacle -- thank God for the LA Times.