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.

What are Democrats trying to accomplish?

I am an unabashed conservative. Not a Rush Limbaugh ditto-head. Not a right wingnut. Not a Phred Phelps Pflamer. Just a conservative leaning toward moderate that is trying to understand what is happening on the political scene.

I'm one of the people that Democrats would want to woo to their side. I'm not enamored with Bush, although I have supported him and do support (with only a little reservation) the war effort. I'm not happy with the leftward swing of those who call themselves conservative. I have strong feelings about social issues and care about the environment.

But I have to wonder what the Democrats are doing to attract people like me. First consider their leading presidential candidates. Hillary Clinton, based on her past baggage and association with "only the second president to be impeached in all of US history" (I'm quoting my dear husband), with her failed health care plan from the Clinton administration, and with her socialistic leanings does little to inspire trust in voters like me. She might rise to the occasion if she were elected, but she has no clue what to do with the war. Nor do the other Democratic candidates. It's complicated, but there is no "plan," as Kerry would say, on the Democrat side to end the war (nor any clear vision of the consequences of such action) outside of the "death by a thousand cuts" agenda.

Barak Obama is a man with so little experience who got lucky to be catapulted to national attention. He is more liberal than Hillary Clinton, and the church he claims to belong to has a statement of faith that appears to promote a bigoted form of reverse discrimination (everywhere you see the word "black" replace it with "white" and it could be the statement of faith of a racist white supremacist church.) Where DO the Democrats get these "leaders"? Don't they vet them first? Or maybe their leading candidates really do represent the views of the Democratic leadership. I find that possibility concerning!

Speaking of 'Death by a Thousand Cuts,' the flood of subpoenas demanded by the Democrats because of the legitimate firing of a few attorneys is this side of ridiculous. Here are some comments by Mark Davis:

What they seek to destroy is this presidency they loathe with their every breath. Mr. Gonzales has plenty to answer for, but the elevation of these attorney dismissals to a Watergate-caliber controversy is wholly without basis.

Add the irony that the voices stoking the scandal imagery are from the same congressional and journalistic outposts that have sugar-coated the Clinton years for more than a decade, and the spectacle borders on the obscene.

I've not even gotten into the shenanigans of Pelosi, (Barely had Pelosi been sworn in as Speaker of the House when the Dems began their assault on gun rights, free speech, freedom of religion, the right of bloggers to alert readers to contact Congress concerning pending legislation, and a host of other subversive legislation) Murtha and Dean, but to me they are equally disappointing for their pandering to the left wing of their party.

I'm not one of those voters who decides to skip voting in despair and disgust, but it may be that, again, I vote for the lesser of two evils in hopes that some real leadership will rise up in the next six years.

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.