I know what you mean... (0.00 / 0)

...about the teflon thing.  I also know what you mean about his style of outreach.  I"m still digesting it too.

Your mentioning his "I'm not a tax and spend Democrat" thing marks the third time in this visit to NH that he's said that.  I'll have to keep that in mind.

I wanted to take a moment, however, to talk about something else I remembered from the Richardson Event I attended that I don't quite understand yet.

One of the Questioners asked a question about Peak Oil: What did Richardson think of it?  Are we at Peak Oil Now? ect.

Richardson, very effectivly, said he 'wasn't familiar' with it.  Asked the quesioner some questions about it, and told a campaign staffer to make a note of it for more research.

Shouldn't Bill Richardson, as the former secretary of Energy, be at least familiar with the concept of peak oil? 

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 21:06:28 PM CST

I struck the quote (0.00 / 0)

Because I think he said it earlier with the Democrat language, and later one on one not that way.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 21:41:23 PM CST

[ Parent | ]

He also said it (0.00 / 0)

in the Arnie Interview.

This is a talking point he's using frequently, apparently.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 21:47:13 PM CST

[ Parent | ]

Yeah, agreed (0.00 / 0)

But without being able to place when he said the "Democrat" part, I felt better striking it.

I think reading this blog they'll get the point.

It's just as easy to say "I'm that breed of Democrat that believes you have to show restraint with taxation" -- make it positive, not negative. I think he'll get it.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 21:54:56 PM CST

[ Parent | ]

That's not a good formulation (4.00 / 2)

It's still implying that there are all these other Dems who want to spend like drunken sailors.

How about something like, "One of the things we progressives learned in the 1990s is that we can do a lot of good without breaking the budget and raising taxes. We all know that, but as Governor I've done it."

---

by: elwood @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 05:29:37 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

That's better (0.00 / 0)

Actually that's really good.

Because the problem here is he's running against Walter Mondale. And Walter Mondale doesn't exist anymore.

Yeah -- actually the more I look at that quote, the more it seems to hit it on the head. It's honest, but it still allows you to distance yourself from the stereotype.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 05:45:33 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

I hate it (0.00 / 0)

when I hear anyone- but especially democrats- do the Big Spender Big Taxes Big Government thing- it is probably the most recognized link in  American politics though untrue.

It has a life of its own.

I want to know, who does he think the big tax and spenders are (in the democratic party)?

Drives me nuts...

---

by: Kathleen O'Donnell @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 06:36:56 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

bingo (0.00 / 0)

drives me nuts too

Next time, there may be no next time.

---

by: Jon Bresler @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 16:56:03 PM CST

[ Parent | ]

I wouldn't call him (0.00 / 0)

a progressive.


NH Kucinich Campaign

---

by: susanb @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 17:25:28 PM CST

[ Parent | ]

Peak Oil (4.00 / 1)

I would like to point out that at the time Richardson was Energy Secretary, he was dealing with the problem of oil prices being too low

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 22:29:25 PM CST

[ Parent | ]

*and (0.00 / 0)

increasing demand as well.

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 22:30:58 PM CST

[ Parent | ]

To elaborate (4.00 / 1)

There was an article in The Economist in March 1999 that began:

OIL is cheaper today, in real terms, than it was in 1973. After two OPEC-induced decades of expensive oil, oil producers and the oil industry as a whole have more or less given up hope that prices might rebound soon. The chairman of Royal Dutch/Shell, Mark Moody-Stuart, three months ago unveiled a five-year plan that assumed a price of $14 a barrel. He has since publicly mused about oil at $11. Sir John Browne, chief executive of BP-Amoco, is now working on a similar assumption.

Consumers everywhere will rejoice at the prospect of cheap, plentiful oil for the foreseeable future. Policymakers who remember the pain of responding to oil shocks in 1973 and in 1979-80 will also be pleased. But the oilmen's musings will not be popular with their fellows. For if oil prices remain around $10, every oil firm will have to slash its exploration budget. Few investments outside the Middle East will any longer make sense.

Cheap oil will also mean that most oil-producing countries, many of them run by benighted governments that are already flirting with financial collapse, are likely to see their economies deteriorate further. And it might also encourage more emissions of carbon dioxide at just the moment when the world is trying to do something about global warming.

I don't know whether or not you need an account to read the rest of it, but if you're inclined to do so, it's available here: http://economist.com...

I always think of it when I read articles predicting the future.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 22:57:17 PM CST

[ Parent | ]