Just got back from a house party for Gov Bill Richardson

Got to meet the guy, talk, ask him questions, listen. I'm pretty impressed. I haven't picked any candidate yet, but I'd be comfortable with him as President (actually right now, I'd be comfortable with Lassie as President), but he'd be good. He's been around the block, not just as a Governor, but as a former Energy Secretary (I guess under Bill?), in congress, on intelligence committees and generally involved in diplomacy. He was self-deprecating, has a great sense of humor, grew up in Mexico City (born to a U.S. father and mexican mother, but born in the U.S.), listens, everything he said sounded reasonable, pragmatic, he understands that for many of these problems there are no pat solutions, but you do what you can as smartly as you can. He was very friendly, but I get the impression he can be ultimately as Head of State-ish as needed, too. And he didn't seem to have a whole lot of respect for Bush.

Going to see Edwards on Sunday, we'll see how that goes.

meeting the Candidates and making an informed decision. :loveya:

I don't like all his stances but I would feel like the ship of state was in good hands if he were elected.

for instance, illegal immigration, but in general he seemed to be looking at all sides of an issue, a quality I admire. Is he the best? I don't know, but I'd sleep better at night knowing he was running things rather than any of the Republithugans. No one is going to please everyone, but I ask that they be willing to think intellectually about the issues. If he was elected, I'd be okay with it.

Gov Bill Richardson is a good man, and a great governor. He'd make a good president, too (as would all of our candidates).

If Gore doesn't run, Richardson is my next choice at this point, I think.

And he likely will become a force in Nevada soon too, since he is the only one really campaigning there. He occasionally gets some press coverage in horse race stories but the media rarely reports on his policies. I am interested in what he stands for. I know he is a DlCer and likely too conservative for my tastes but I want to know what he stands for so I can be comfortable, at least, with the idea of a President Richardson. Clinton was a DLCer and the Clinton years were not too shabby...

He will top out near there. He has bombed out in every Democratic debate to date. Even though the media has bent over backward to apologize for his ineptness.

by labeling himself a "pro-growth" democrat, and talking about not wanting to tax people?

He is acutely aware of the damage the high debt & deficit is doing to the country, and that there are no easy solutions. I don't recall him saying anything along the lines of not taxing people. He seemed very pragmatic. I consider myself pragmatic - the government doesn't run on air, so money has to come from somewhere. There has to be some taxes, somewhere. No one specifically asked him about tax cuts, and maybe they should have, or maybe *I* should have, but I had other questions I was more interested in. That said, if you have a particular question for him, post it, in case, I get to do this again (and likely I will, given the amount of campaigning he's doing here).

Did anybody ask him about the machines and what he thought of some of the failures and inconsistencies in some precincts, specifically some Native American precincts, iirc. That's my big hang-up with Richardson.

But I'll be damned if I can remember what the question was.. or how he answered it...

Wasn't it rather vague - we had some problems in New Mexico and we need to fix that, bla bla. I remember he said something, which I appreciated. But it would be nice for somebody to buttonhole him at one of these and just hammer away and see why he didn't fight harder on some of those machines.

It was rather vague. Then again.. those debates really don't allow enough time for detailed responses right now....

Guess we'll need to wait for the field to thin out some before they start getting more time with the questions..

is that he is a Wallstreet Democrat and I know he won't stop illegal immigration like I want, BUT I think I would be comfortable with him as the candidate because he seems to have a lot of good ideas on a variety of subjects and I've got to give credit to candidates with specific ideas that are good ideas instead of empty rhetoric.

I had the most issues with his illegal immigration. That said, he was pragmatic; he said if you build a 10 foot fence, you'll end up with a lot of 11 foot ladders.

He wanted existing illegals to pay back taxes and wait a certain period of time and get in line behind legal applicants, but not be deported, in order to join. My only objection was the back taxes - where are they people going to get that kind of money? But aside from that, he knew that you can't just deport 12 million illegals - we physically couldn't do it if we wanted to, or we'd be turning every police station into the INS.

But aside from the immigration problem - and you have to remember that he grew up in Mexico City - I couldn't say that I took issue with his other ideas - I might not have agreed, but they were thought out, a quality that has been sorely lacking in the current administration.

the solution seems to be a combination of border security and penalizing employers. I certainly wouldn't be voting Richardson because of his stance on illegal immigration.

I think he was the first candidate I heard suggest raising CAFE, which made me listen to what he was saying instead of dismissing him out of hand. Now of course, they are all suggesting the same thing. I wish I could think of more examples of good ideas he's had but I can't off hand.