20 Reasons Why We Like Bill Richardson

1. Bill Richardson is not a Senator. Everyone already knows where this blog stands on the idea of nominating Senators.
2. He's not from the northeast. Face it, it is very difficult for Northeasterners, especially Democrats, to be successful nationally. On top of that, he is from the nation's fastest growing region. Looking at the electoral college, Richardson could open up a lot of contests that would usually be solidly Republican, especially if the GOP ends up nominating Giuliani or Romney.
3. He doesn't have a war vote to explain.
4. He's Hispanic. In 2004, Kerry barely escaped by with the Latino vote. Bill Richardson's support in this key, growing demographic would significantly alter his national averages.
5. He's personable and pragmatic. He's the sort of guy you might have a beer with. Superficial, yes, but important.
6. He has experience in Foreign policy.
7. He actually would get us out of Iraq. Unlike Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, he supports full withdrawal within 6 months.
8. He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 4 times.
9. He was our UN Ambassador. Of course, that doesn't mean Bolten would be a good President, but it emphasizes Richardson's worldliness.
10. He negotiated for the release of many American hostages from Iraq, North Korea, and other hostile nations.
11. He knows that fighting terrorism includes fighting nuclear proliferation.
12. He has worked in Congress. .
13. He has experience in the cabinet as Secretary of Energy. Richardson thus has experience in every capacity in the federal government. Except Judicial I guess. Oh well, no one is perfect.
14. He has experience as an executive the Governor's mansion. Really, he is an ideal candidate. He hs both an outsider image and vast experience in foreign and domestic policy. Such a combination should not be overlooked.
15. As Secretary of Energy and Governor of New Mexico, he has made the shift towards requiring more energy to be derived from domestic and green sources.
16. As Governorof a border state, he has had to deal with the complexities of immigration first hand.He can also speak from the unique point of view of a man who spent a substantial portion of his childhood in Mexico.
    
17. He got his state to defeat a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
18. He would close Gitmo.
19. He legalized medical marijuana for those who are terminally ill.
20. He can actually ride a horse. Again, image is key. And Bill Richardson, unlike most of the Democrats that have been nominated in the last 30 years, actually has one that could appeal to most Americans.

We know that this is not the obvious choice, but it is the right one.
-Nkrosse and The Quiet American

The Might of the Popular Front (Guest Editorial)

I have previously noted the lack of guiding ideological principles in the political parties of two-party democracies (i.e. the United States).

However, advanced multiparty systems currently suffer the opposite problem, which is an over-fractured party dynamic. The recent “blue wave” of Europe is not due to sudden public passion for the right wing, but rather the simple fact that the left wing is not unified enough to put up effective resistance. Seizing upon this opportunity, rightist merger parties such as France’s UMP or Canada’s Conservatives. Because of this, we now see either neo-conservative or neo-liberal governments in much of Europe and Canada.

This pattern hearkens back to the days of the 1930s, when most European democracies succumbed to the rightist unity that swept in totalitarian blocs. So perhaps a solution from the 30s may be necessary to abate the current emergence of the right.

France and Spain responded to the totalitarians by setting up Popular Fronts incorporating temporary coalitions of Republicans, Communists, Socialists, and various other left-wing components. These would have probably prevented a right-wing electoral ascendancy from within if the fronts had not been overthrown by foreign intervention.

Leon Blum, France’s PF Prime Minister, noted the important distinction that Popular Fronts were not intended as a permanent governing coalition so much as a temporary resistance movement. And that is what is called upon now. Germany has taken a step in the right direction with the formation of Die Linke (or The Left) to combat the rightward-movement of the SPD.

What strikes me most is the rift between the green and social-democratic parties, which share essentially the same platforms. If these were to merge, economic and ecological issues would be much more easily dealt with.

Perhaps a good starting point for the reintroduction of the Popular Front would be in the depressingly over-fractured systems of African democracies, whose parties are currently centred around small tribes or personalities, and allow for one-party dominance in most cases, if not disastrous coups.
-The Resident Historian

Paris Hilton Syndrome

Yes, I am writing an article about Paris Hilton. I am not proud of this fact. If someone else were writing an article about Hilton, I would attack their intellectual vacuousness and lambast their insistance on beating a dead, rather overexposed horse. But it occurs to me that our national fixiation with this woman and her latest exploits must have some underlying cause. We derive something from our obsession with this poor woman. So I decided to spend some time researching our national punching-bag. In this exercise, some questions crossed my mind. First off, how did Hilton manage to become so mentally... lacking? What excuse does Paris Hilton have for being a high school dropout? How did she become a person so lacking in mental fortitude that a grown woman screams and cries for her mom at the prospect of going back to jail for a short time? (The reason of her departure, by the way, was itchy blankets) How does a species which has produced countless models of brilliance, selflessness, and virtue also produce Hilton? I don't want to attack Hilton, I feel sorry for her if anything. The nature of my question is inquisitive, not accusatory. Hilton represents a broader phenomenon. The superrich, it seems, produce horrendous offspring. This is not a new phenomenon either. The first person that usually comes to mind when I think of Hilton is, in fact, Marie Antoinette. When a child is raised in a condition of absolute opulence, that child has had a form of extreme sensory deprivation. The poor creature has had no incentive to accomplish anything in his or her life. The mind becomes putty. The children of the lower ranks, think Buffet and Gates, seem to be bettewr even at dealing with money. Of course, this is not always the case. Families like the Kennedys and the Roosevelts come to mind. So then, where is the line between JFK and Paris Hilton? I don't really know. To be perfectly honest, the super-wealthy baffle me. From their ranks come a great deal of disasters. Occassionally, though, these families produce figures actually worthy of using the resources they were born with. Only imagine though, what a man like John Kerry could have accomplished if only, alas, his family had been upper-middle-class!

Update

I just found a video contrasting Bush's debating skills in 1994 with those of the present. The video's conclusion that Bush suffers from some sort of degenerative illness is laughable, but the video still provides an interesting study in contrast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVuacSi0kWA