Bush does one thing right: Bill Richardson going to North Korea
No...despite what it seems, we have not become the Bill Richardson blog. But each of us in our own way have started to take notice of the man. Edwards and Richardson seem the best of the candidates...except for the money issue.
Bill Richardson has great diplomatic experience and his skills as a negotiator have gotten him nominated for the Nobel Peace prize some four times. So this is a guy who should be used when there is a delicate diplomatic situation (and when our BEST diplomat, Nobel Prize WINNER Jimmy Carter, is unavailable).
And our usually dense President appears to have noticed that Richardson is a diplomatic resource worth using. Bill Richardson has been tapped by Bush to lead a delegation to North Korea to negotiate the return of the remains of missing US servicemen.
Best of luck Bill!
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
diplomacy | Foreign Policy | Bill Richardson | North Korea
You do NOT pay attention
Submitted by mole333 on 3 April 2007 - 7:09pm.
THis is typical! No one said he was a progressive. I said he can appeal to both moderates and progressives. THere is a big difference. Some of his stands satisfy progressives, particularly his Iraq stand, but he is basically a moderate (like Dean) and appeals, I am learning, to conservatives like Orthodox Jews and libertarians.
Please read carefully before commenting. We get so many rolled eyes in relation to your comments you wouldn't even believe it. I ever said he was progressive. I said he can APPEAL to both ends.
Read your own comments
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 3 April 2007 - 7:24pm.
read your own comments, I never said that YOU said Richardson was a progressive. Never. I asked *myself* the question, "is he really a progressive?" You have this knee jerk reaction to look for a negative jumping off point to tear into someone and it doesn't even have a basis. Repeat, I never said that you, mole333, or anyone else on this site, said Bill Richardson is progressive. Since you are a progressive, and he appeals to you, I might wonder if that is your conclusion (that he is a progressive) so I asked the question, but I stated nothing as a fact. So you need to read posts more carefully before posting too.
Why don't you start looking at the merits of people's posts rather than nitpicking for shortcomings. I brought up some good discussion points about Richardson and all you want to do is nitpick so you can flame. Sheesh!
No...just you
Submitted by mole333 on 3 April 2007 - 8:28pm.
You are the one we tend to automatically find fault with...because you tend to say very inaccurate things. Really, I am not kidding when I say the mention of your name elicits eye rolling among people we both know. Sorry, but it is true.
Really, my friend. Please notice how you tend to get negative reactions wherever you post from a variety of people. That really should say something you. At a bare minimum it means the way you say things tends to be misinterpreted. If so, maybe we can work to correct that. But it requires a recognition on your part that you do tend to say things in ways that irritate. And it is by no means just Bouldin and myself. You did not specify that the question was rhetorical. To me it was not obvious. Perhaps that is just me...but perhaps not.
Now, as to your points, I am not sure you brought up anything new. If so, please elaborate. I know you and I have much common ground in belief if not in approach. So I am open.
Just read that again.
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 3 April 2007 - 10:48pm.
This is why any discussion with HillaryBot Wallner is ultimately unproductive: it is not about issue X. It is ultimately about Wallner, his takes, his "reasoning", his blah blah blah. The man is incapable of having a discussion that does not ultimately center on him. Which is probably why he's so incredibly tedious and has so little to say.
Hi
Submitted by Michael Maier (not verified) on 4 April 2007 - 3:36am.
Hi,
verry thanks for the good article and interesting discussion. I have tagged your site ;-)
Greetings from Germany
Michael Maier
Once again Mole and Bouldin harping the negative
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 4 April 2007 - 3:04pm.
[Ed. Note]: Tell somebody who cares.
[Ed. Note 2]: One more time, and I block your account. It's our choice what's posted here, not yours.
Is Richardson really progressive?
Bill Richardson is pro-death penalty and in 1996 voted against a bill to maintain the right of habeus corpus in death penalty appeals (this is a matter of record, although the blurb I got was from kucinich's web site) and a year earlier ('94) voted against replacing death penalty sentences with life imprisonment. Bush has done everything in his power to suspend or do away with habeus corpus, particularly in terrorism related cases like those at guantanamo. If he still holds to his earlier votes, that alone would be enough get Amnesty International the ACLU to recommed not voting for him. Richardson seems to be a hardliner on crime, he supports things like (in kucinich's blurb), mandatory sentencing for repeat offenders .etc
Richardson is of course one of a longstanding member of and champion of the DLC. He was DLC's keynote speaker at their 2003 convention, the year after John Edwards-- another member-- keynoted. They are both moderates IMO selling themselves as liberals on the campaign trail.
I saw Bill Bradley speak the other day at B&N. Bradley talked passionately about the liberal progressive cause and mentioned one candidate only as the one with the greatest potential-- Barack Obama. Bradley was effusive in his praise of Obama, but says he is stopping short of formally endorsing at this time because he wants to see more details in his policy statements. Obama is clearly the most liberal progressive candidate out there and it is curious to me that he gets so little love here on this site, as opposed to other candidates who are to the right of him.
I do like Richardson's support of legalizing medicinal marijuana though.