Yes, Bill Richardson is just another Liberal but...

Yes, Bill Richardson is just another liberal. What sets him apart is his success as a governor of New Mexico as well as his vast experience as a former cabinet member and his international diplomatic experience, which the other Democratic candidates sorely lack.

Here in New Mexico he has cut taxes and been very pro-business. This has improved living circumstances immensely. I live in one of the cities that is experiencing tremendous growth and a rise in the standard of living (although, admittedly, vast poverty exists south of us due to the swell of illegal immigration.)

I am not a Democrat, but if my values were in agreement with theirs, I would consider Richardson the most qualified candidate of all in the field. Here’s hoping Hillary’s skeletons come out of the closet to haunt her, and that Obama’s charm is a thin veil revealing his shocking lack of experience and extreme views.

Giuliani is right about this

In an article in the Politico, Giuliani states frankly that "if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001."

He believes if a Democrat wins the highest office, our nation will go on the defensive against those whose sole purpose is to convert us or kill us. In doing that, the war will be extended and there will be more casualties. He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”

On the other hand, if a Republican is elected, they are likely to remain on the offensive against a very vicious and religiously motivated enemy. Fewer casualties should ensue, and, in my opinion, there would be greater stability and peace in the world.

Here are some more quotes from the article:

“This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!” Giuliani said in his speech. “Never, ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for [terrorists] to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!”

Giuliani said terrorists “hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.”

Giuliani continued: “The freedoms we have are in conflict with the perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion.” He said Americans would fight for “freedom for women, the freedom of elections, freedom of religion and the freedom of our economy.”

Addressing the terrorists directly, Giuliani said: “We are not giving that up, and you are not going to take it from us!”

I'll be honest. I'm a social conservative, and Giuliani's views on social positions do make me cringe. But at the same time, is there a candidate on the Republican side who is willing to take such a bold stand against a very real enemy? As far as the Democrats are concerned, while there are some skilled in governing (Bill Richardson, who is very experienced, is one of the few examples), but I am totally embarrassed by the hang dog, turn tail, flip-flopping defeatist attitude that Democratic leaders portray.

For us to refuse to be bold against such an aggressive enemy as the radical Islamo-fascists, is to put ourselves in the same position we were in when Jimmy Carter was President. Weak stance was well recognized by our enemies, and Iran held hostages there up to the very day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated because they knew Carter would do nothing, and that Reagan would kick butt and take names.

It's time to kick butt and take names again, and I think the Democrats would let our butt be the one kicked.

My Quandry

This election season is very frustrating for conservatives. I’m disappointed in the choices we have on both sides. It seems the Republicans who are running are really Democrats at heart. Additionally, very few potential candidates have any real experience in statesmanship.

This puts me in the quandary of having to possibly cross party lines to find someone with some experience whom I could trust to do the best for our country. They all say they will, but the only one with the experience necessary to be president is Bill Richardson of New Mexico. As a resident of the state of New Mexico, I’ve seen the progress he’s made in this state in education and economic growth. He has shown he knows how to run a troubled state, and I think he has the skill to run our country.

As a conservative, I know that voting for Richardson will mean a compromise of my social values, but he would do a good job as president while the Republican party finds some real conservative candidates who can communicate well, have proven experience in governance, and who are skilled negotiators who are able to win the trust of those who are of a liberal persuasion.

Why is Richardson Ignored by the Media?

We need a good answer to that question, because it seems that Richardson is the best qualified of the long list of candidates to become President.

People need to take a closer look at him.

Matthew Yglesias has written an informative article in The American Prospect about Richardson:

Fitting the Bill
Why isn't Bill Richardson's presidential candidacy taken seriously?

When Democrats run as Republicans and Republicans run as Democrats

What would really be political news?

Something most are trying to ignore. Democrats are running on Republican issues to gain votes, and Republicans are running on Democrat issues to gain votes. This causes fusion of the moderates of both political parties, and not a little confusion.

Take the election last November. The Democrats who were successful in taking Republican seats ran on predominately conservative issues - cut taxes, strong on defense, pro-business, and one or two were actually anti-abortion. While Republicans were running on conventional democratic issues - socialized medicine, pro-government entitlements, the raising of the minimum wage and anti-war positions.

Here are two articles from the midterm election season before the election that discuss this:

In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right

Republicans Running As Democrats

Who did this benefit? Well, the Democrats, for sure! And it says a lot about Americans in general. Average Americans are neither far right or far left in their political views. They usually vote for someone who is similar to them and who makes them feel safe. They want someone in elected office who is fair and reasonable and able to meet their personal needs.

Now, who in this presidential race is leaning in which direction? Let's look at the major contenders for the 2008 Presidential race:

On the Republican Side: John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani

On the Democrat Side: Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson

The rest, discounting the possibility of a dark horse candidate, are small potatoes and will probably be eliminated in the primaries - not because they are bad candidates, but simply because they don't have the money or the political organization behind them.

Let's examine the candidate list more closely based on prior political history.

John McCain, who tags himself as a conservative, is, in fact, politically a Democrat. So much so that John Kerry DID ask him to be his vice-presidential running mate during Kerry's failed bid for the presidency. The likely reason McCain turned Kerry down was not that he was not interested, but that he wanted to run for the presidency himself. His pro-tax and spend attitude, and deliberate votes against the Bush tax cuts (while flip-floppingly voting to extend them) speak for themselves.

Mitt Romney was pro-abortion before he was anti-abortion. What is more confusing is his stance for or against gay marriage. This has him at odds with conservative groups all across the country. How else would a Republican be elected as Governor of Massachusetts! Goodness!!!!
Note, the art of flip-flopping has been honed to perfection in that state!

Rudy Guiliani never saw a tax he didn't like, but we should forgive him since he is from New York and can't help it . He is openly pro-choice and very liberal. Despite his left leaning views, he will probably become the Republican nominee and will probably be elected because we like to choose a president to keep us safe, and Guilani has proven himself as a leader in post-9/11 New York. The man is gifted and articulate in speech craft and is a likable human being. (unlike a nameless former presidential candidate that had a "plan" but no answers!)

Now it's time to skewer the Democratic hopefuls.

Hillary Clinton leaned conservatively in several issues but recently has been leaning more to the left to appease the radical elements of her party. She carefully researched and voted for the Iraq war before she decided to change her mind to please the Cindy Sheehan branch of her party. In the early days of her Senate career, she voted very conservatively on immigration.
If she wants the conservative vote, she is going to have to become even more centrist. (Or start praying in a Baptist Church - no, she just has to be seen praying in a Baptist church.)


Barak Obama - Well, what's to say about him? He's good looking and well spoken. If you are a Democrat, you really should vote for this guy. Not only does he totally toe the social-democrat line, but if he gets in office he will change the United States into a leftist socialist utopia that Hugo Chavez would stand up and salute.

John Edwards is the pretty boy in the bunch. Nice teeth, too. Why is he even running? He could not even carry his own state (then again, neither could Gore). And his repetitive "Two Americas" stump campaign is true - His American ,which is super wealthy,......and the rest of us wage slaves. His only advantage is that he holds the keys of the "plan" of the nameless failed presidential candidate!

Then there's Bill Richardson. He is the only Democratic governor that actually cut taxes. He did this for the people of New Mexico before he decided to run for President because he knew it would be best for his state. He was right. Economically, New Mexico is a pro business and pro growth state, and jobs abound here. He's been pro education, the roads are superior, he has used justice and common sense in the Immigration situation, and would have been a tremendous asset if Bush had not been so stubborn concerning a reliable and compassionate guest worker program. Although he will allow abortion to continue as the established law of the land, there is an aggressive pro abstinence program in New Mexico, and funding so women who choose to keep their babies can have reasonable options.

Richardson is very eloquent, and I believe he would decimate Hillary Clinton in open debate based on his personal integrity, experience and character alone. He is the true moderate of all the candidates, and is more conservative than the top Republican contenders for the office of president. He only lacks the money and the political machinery to have a fair contest against Hilary Clinton. This is a David and Goliath story - the Clinton machine being the Goliath. Richardson can win if he can get his message out. Good thing he has name recognition. Many Christian Conservatives, given a choice between left leaning Republicans Guiliani or Romney vs. right leaning Democrat Richardson, would discover, with chagrin, themselves voting Democrat.

We look forward to the upcoming political contest. What we want is a good man or woman to be President, and the American people would like (not that we are going to get) someone that is honest and effective as a leader.


Here is a Blog that will tell you more about this man. Better than I can tell you, any day.

Americans for Richardson

People should take a careful look at Bill Richardson as the next President of the United States because he is the very best Democrat running as a stealth Republican that we have ever seen.