News Why no talk of Bill Richardson '08?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wasteofo2
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on potential Democratic candidates for the 2008 presidential election, with a focus on Bill Richardson. Key points highlight Richardson's experience as a governor, which offers executive branch insight that other candidates like Evan Bayh lack. His political record is seen as less contentious, avoiding the extensive voting history that could be scrutinized. Richardson is characterized as approachable and relatable, contrasting with more stereotypical politicians. Concerns about his viability include perceptions of weakness on illegal immigration, a topic that has been contentious across the political landscape. Some participants express skepticism about his candidacy due to rumored personal controversies, although specifics are unclear. The conversation also touches on the potential of other Western Democrats, like Janet Napolitano and Ben Nelson, as viable candidates who could appeal to a broader electorate compared to the more liberal wing of the party. Overall, Richardson is viewed as a strong candidate, but questions about his stance on immigration and personal image may hinder his prospects.
wasteofo2
Messages
477
Reaction score
2
People are talking about Hillary '08 (fools), they're talking about Bayh '08 (less foolish, but he is a Senator), maybe Vilsak and I've even heard talk of Specter switching to the Democratic side and running. Yet I haven't heard anyone mention Bill Richardson as a possible '08 Democratic candidate, when he seems like such a great one.

1) Richardson is a governor, so:
A: He has experience in the executive branch that people like Bayh don't have
B: He doesn't have that LOOOOOOONG list of voting for or against everything in creation (for tax cuts, for tax increase, for military spending, against military spending etc.)

2) Richardson isn't a stiff boring steryotypical politician (like Kerry), nor is he dangerously passionate (like Dean). He seems like someone who you could sit down and talk with, and who would have a simple answer to helping you out with your problems.

3) He seems like an intelligent, experienced guy in general, definitely someone I'd feel comfortable with being my leader.

And, he’s part of a new breed of Democrats, whom actually stand for fiscal responsibility, and he’s apparently CUT TAXES for New Mexicans.

Anyway, your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think he's a passable governor.
 
Was a time, when I thought Kerry'd pick him as veep, but I was wrong.

Richardson may not be viable because he might come off as being weak on illegal immigration...just my initial thought. Otherwise, he's probably a safe shot.
 
I posed the same question to my friend tonight, who supports Evan Bayh, and he said that Richardson couldn't run because of some horrible skeleton in his closet that he couldn't recall. Anyone have any idea what this skeleton is?
 
Gokul43201 said:
Was a time, when I thought Kerry'd pick him as veep, but I was wrong.

Richardson may not be viable because he might come off as being weak on illegal immigration...just my initial thought. Otherwise, he's probably a safe shot.
Has anyone been strong on illegal immigration? When Bush went on Bill O'Reilly's show, O'Reilly got pretty close to going off on Bush about how LITTLE he's done to stop illegal immigration.
 
I think the main knock against him locally is that he seems to have a very arrogant style. It's the little things, like cussing out state legislators, hiring a gourmet chef, being chauffered down the highway at 100 mph (this last really needs to be put into context, 80 mph would be a pretty reasonable speed on an interstate that runs across New Mexico).

He and a few other Western Democrats would probably be a better option for 2008 than the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. There's a few Dem's that have made it in predominately Republican states: Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Harry Reid of Nevada, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Ken Salazar of Colorado. Any of these would make a good presidential candidate if they could get nominated by mainstream Democrats. (Actually, Richardson, Napolitano, and Nelson probably better than the other two, although, in Salazar's case, it's because he hasn't even served a day in Senate yet).
 
Gokul43201 said:
Was a time, when I thought Kerry'd pick him as veep, but I was wrong.

Richardson may not be viable because he might come off as being weak on illegal immigration...just my initial thought. Otherwise, he's probably a safe shot.


Bush is weak on illegal immigration. Everyopne is weak on it. I seriously think the only people in the coun try who still oppose an open border are the california republicans. The national party sure doesn't give a rats ass.
 

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
38
Views
5K
Replies
49
Views
8K
Replies
49
Views
8K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
78
Views
11K
Back
Top