The Gaffe of the Debate: Bill Richardson on Justice White

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:27:59 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I did not watch the Democratic Presidential Debate because, frankly, I have no real interest right now in an election that is a year and a half away. My main interest now is in how the Congress can end the Iraq Debacle. That is what I listen for from the candidates.

But if Richardson said that he would choose Byron White as his model Supreme Court Justice, cross him off the list today:

[Richardson's] choice of "Whizzer White" as his ideal Supreme Court Justice in tonight's debate is...odd. Myself, I would prefer a justice who was on the right side of (just for starters) Roe, Miranda, and Bowers.

It is worse than odd. It is disqualifying.

Update [2007-4-27 10:36:7 by Big Tent Democrat]: Ed Kilgore's debate roundup was the most interesting I found.

< The War Was Lost Long Ago: Iran Won | Any White Feathers For Romney and Bush? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Gaffe of the Debate: Bill Richardson on Justice White | 41 comments (41 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

what's false about it? (1.00 / 1) (#38)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 08:03:57 AM EST

The substance of what you said is exactly what I addressed. I condemned the "substance" (that Richardson should be "disqulified as a candidate becauae he said White would be a model for the type of Justice he would nominate) as being sickeningly narrow-minded and displaying repulusive intolerance. I'd suggest labeling the attack on the substance of what you said as "trollish" is just further indication you are unable to defend your assertions with anything but name calling devoid of substance.

My gawd (none / 0) (#39)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:27:58 AM EST

I get it now. The word disqualifying is what rankles you.

Disqualifies him means in the sense of voting for Democratic Presidential candidates in the nomination race, that he is no longer eligible for support.

You wrote:

Not liking him (or more accurately not thinnking he is a good choice for President) is fine.

Is there a stand on any issue where mere "not liking" becomes "disqualified" for you? What if he supported segregation? Torture? You name it.

This isssue of choice is a litmus test for me.

That does not make my views disgusting you fool.

Disagree with it, indeed you are anti-Roe so it is hardly surprising that you do. But get a grip, of the English language.


: first, (none / 0) (#41)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:37:10 AM EST

Richardson's comment does not, if even remotely fairly considered, fail your litmus test. One can, and many do, repect White AND be pro-choice --even ardently pro-choice.
Second, making the single issue of support for Roe, a litmus test for President is narrow-minded and intolerant and I find it disgusting and bad for the Party and bad for the country.
That you would, by your own words, reject any candidate who is not sufficiently pro-choice regardless of his position ON EVERY OTHER ISSUE, classifies you as a mindless zealot unworthy of my respect.

White wrote the Bowers v. Hardwick (none / 0) (#1)
by Geekesque on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:35:05 AM EST

opinion.

Richardson was hardcore DLC last night. The only question is whether he took himself out of the VP sweepstakes--I think he's trailing Biden in that respect now.

Was he? (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:40:21 AM EST

Even on Iraq? Hard to see that.


I don't think the DLC'ers have an official (none / 0) (#3)
by Geekesque on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:44:27 AM EST

talking point on Iraq anymore. Tom Vilsack morphed into Cindy Sheehan during his abortive run.

You would have HATED Richardson's discussion of how "Democrats can't just raise taxes to solve every problem" or something along those lines.

Richardson also had no good response for his earlier gaffe where he said he favored giving AGAG a break--initially--because he was a fellow Hispanic.


Heh (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:47:36 AM EST

Well, I said from the word go that Richardson was not very good, on the issues or as a politician. The more I see him, the less I like him.

What's Stoller gonna do now?

BTW, I hope you noticed me rip Edwards.

And for good reason. That is a pretty weak political ploy. How do you think Obama deals with it?

I think the best be now is a short term funding bill.


I actually agree on the funding thing. (none / 0) (#9)
by Geekesque on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 10:06:04 AM EST

I think that something like Reid-Feingold may very well be the ultimate end game, but the short term funding bills are a great way to build up political pressure and will to make sure that Reid-Feingold gets pushed through.

I would much rather have clean but short funding bills than anything reflecting a compromise with Bush.

Edwards is running for President. Nothing he says or does influences what will happen in Iraq, so he may as well posture.


: I don't like counterproductive postures (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 10:09:06 AM EST

Dodd is posturing too, but his posture helps.
That's why he has my support right now.

Dem VP choice will depend on who is nominee. (none / 0) (#4)
by cal11 voter on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:47:15 AM EST

Richardson can deliver New Mexico and help in western states IMHO. He has many strengths but he too is prone to misspeaking and, as in this case, failing to explain (his choice).


I think he has no idea what White wrote (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:48:18 AM EST

I'd like to hear what Richardson was thinking... (none / 0) (#7)
by cal11 voter on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:52:02 AM EST

in selecting Justice White.


: Good luck with that (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:55:20 AM EST

i'll agree just tossing a name out (none / 0) (#11)
by Deconstructionist on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 10:33:26 AM EST

does little good and in some cases provokes knee-jerk reactions from the silly sector, but how about just assuming that he meant he prefers intelligent and honorable people who are "moderate" non-ideologues and decide cases on the a sincere application of what what one believes to be the law to the facts at hand?

if that is disqualifying to some people, richardson will have to live with that, but i tend to think many more people consider it "disqualifying" to be so narrow-minded, intolerant and ideologically driven as to condemn people for holding different views.


I condmened himas a potential DEMOCRATIC (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 10:41:07 AM EST

candidate.

IF some people are so intolerant of some Democrats expressing their views on issues and candidates, then they need to find a new blog to comment at.

Since you are anti-Roe, why not just say you LOVE that Richardson prefers an anti-Roe Justice.

OR if you don;t care about it, say that.

Your comment is ridiculous of course.

Can you think of a better reason to disqualify a Presidential candidate than the type of Justice he would choose?

Silly person.


I don't even know who White is (none / 0) (#15)
by Peaches on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:15:45 AM EST

Does that make me a silly Person? What exactly is a silly person? Aren't we all silly?

Wait a minute. This comment is ridiculous. Sorry.


Um (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:17:11 AM EST

Why did you feel the need to inform me that you do not know who Byron White is?

Perhaps the better course for you weould be to find out who he is and then enter the discussion.


But, then (none / 0) (#17)
by Peaches on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:18:35 AM EST

I wouldn't be silly. Would I?


Not necessarily (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:20:43 AM EST

You are certainly capable of being silly about people you have heard of.


: hmm, (none / 0) (