Sunday, January 4, 2009

Richardson withdraws


New Mexico governor Bill Richardson has removed his name from consideration to be Secretary of Commerce amidst allegations that a campaign donor was awarded a $1.5 million contract by the state. WHAT!!! That somehow seems quaint given Halliburton, et al. The Republicans don’t want to investigate whether millions in contributions, almost entirely to Republicans, resulted in billions in contracts, but Bill steps down over a million and a half.

I’m a big Bill Richardson fan, and I expect him to be cleared of any taint, but even if he’s pulling a Blogojevich the scale of the differences are stunning. Arguably, Bush is spending $3,000,000,000,000 on a mistaken war of choice and Bill is accused of misusing $1,500,000. Bill’s number, BTW, in trillions is $0.000,000,002. That’s a two millionth of the amount Bush & crew blew through in Iraq, and investigating Iraq would be petty and partisan.

Sheesh.

2 comments:

Avrion Fos said...

Couldn't agree more on the point that Republican financial and ethical lapses are orders of magnitude larger than those of the Democrats. But with William Jefferson and his freezer stash, Blagojevich's insanity and now Richardson's alleged wrong-doings, it won't take long for the perception of party-wide corruption to take root. The Dems had control of congress for 40 years prior to Gingrich's 1994 Republican Revolution, which lasted 12 years. Now, back in power, we should be careful to avoid being painted with the same brush that we shellacked Frist, Delay, Stevens, et al... We'll need all the time we can get to reverse the damage to the nation and world wrought by the Bush Administration.

Steve said...

I am reminded of the Joe the plumber incident, and socialist tag given Obama for saying we need to spread the wealth around. When he wants to tax absurd profits and aid the truly disenfranchised, he is a socialist. When a president wants to tax the next 5 generations to engender hatred throughout the world, he is our commander in chief in the war on terror.

here's my question: Do you really think he wanted to "win" the war on terror? or create the best opportunities for his friends to reap war profits. Tactically, it has made no sense if the goal was to "win" ...our tactics have only created more net terrorists.