Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
Although we’ve got plenty on our political plate in Lowell, with the 5th CD and the city council race, when something really telling happens in the very early ‘08 Presidential race, it should be noted. And these quotes from Richardson are highly disappointing, given his very credible foreign policy resume, and the admiration from the blogosphere, many of whom believe he’s a credible candidate:
Two recent stories illustrate the bumbling reality of Richardson’s campaign, and how it contrasts with his glowing résumé. The first concerns the Guv’s dumbass decision during last week’s debate to name Byron “Whizzer” White — one of the two dissenters in Roe v. Wade, and a dissenter from the majority in Miranda — as his model Supreme Court justice. Yet that’s not the worst part. When pressed to square his professed admiration for White with his alleged support for reproductive freedom and civil rights, Richardson made two more boners. Which one bothers you more?
A) He cited the fact that White “was an All-American football player besides being a legal scholar” as a justification for describing the often retrograde White as his model High Court member;
B) He apparently doesn’t really know or care about Roe, given that he excused his White pick by saying, “White was in the 60s. Wasn’t Roe v. Wade in the 80s?”
I can’t find another source other than the samefacts.com one for the second quote, though Mark Kleiman appears to have been liveblogging the CA Dem convention, but if true, it’s got to be numbered among the most stupid statements from a presidential candidate on our side. Richardson seriously doesn’t know when Roe was decided? And lists one of the dissenters as his model Justice but doesn’t know White’s judicial history because he thinks Roe is less than three decades old? Do I want a woman’s right to choose in the hands of someone who doesn’t even know its most basic history?
[powered by WordPress.]
43 queries. 0.542 seconds
April 30th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
To begin, I don’t know what the best answer to the health care problem is, although it seems that a single payer system may be the most efficient. But, I wouldn’t jump into Medicare as a solution to all the ills, as we all understand that it currently operates on the principle that more-pay-in-than-receive-benefits, so its funding is not unlike a ponzi scheme, which eventually (when all become beneficiaries) apart.
Consider your statement:
“Not a good use of taxpayer money, in my opinion, just a revenue-stream giveaway to big business that addresses none of the real issues, like cost of care (and big pharma),…”
The “big pharma” won the battle with Medicare with language that prevents Medicare from negotiating drug prices with them. That is one example where the competing private plans beat the politically-operated system, and I am sure there would be others if that were the only choice.
It may be better to attack the cost-drivers of the Health Care system than the system itself, and I would bet they would include incentives for added tests and care, whether it be the liability insurance, unnecessary health risk aversion, profits for new equipment sales, etc.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Why did my comments come up under the other subject (Richardson Disappoints)? Sorry if it was my mistake.