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) (#19)
by Peaches on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:22:29 AM EST

Are you being silly?


Not in this case (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:26:25 AM EST

I am quite familiar with your work here.


We are all familiar with each other (none / 0) (#21)
by Peaches on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:29:32 AM EST

but I thought we were discussing who was silly?


Indeed we are (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:30:50 AM EST

Your point?


My point (none / 0) (#23)
by Peaches on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:33:58 AM EST

is that this discussion is ridiculous. Don't you think?

Who was the silly person who started it anyway?


Decon and you (none / 0) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:15:33 PM EST

I was talking about Richardson;s endorsement of Justices like Byron White.

Obviousl;y not knowiung who he is, you needed another angle to inject yourself in the conversaton.

Silly of you.


Oh, (none / 0) (#29)
by Peaches on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:17:00 PM EST

But, I already said I was silly.


: Proved it too (none / 0) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:42:39 PM EST

Well done.

white (none / 0) (#24)
by Deconstructionist on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:49:23 AM EST

is dead. He won't be Richardson's choice in the unlikely event he gets elected. my point is that you would "disqualify" someone from consideration as a candidate simply for expressing admiration for White for the reason white wrote some opinions with which you disagree. YOU are an intolerant, narrow-mided person incapable of anyhting but foolish bluster. I very much do condemn what you write and have no idea why you are given a platform to display qualities i consider worthy of condemnation regardless of a person's politics.


He's Dead? (none / 0) (#25)
by Peaches on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:10:51 PM EST

I don't think Big Tent knew that.

Hmm...

This is all so confusing...and silly. Ridiculous, too.


Quit while you are behind (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:14:33 PM EST

You mean (none / 0) (#30)
by Peaches on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:18:39 PM EST

while you are ahead? someone is keeping score?

Silly of me. I didn't know.


You never heard of that expression either? (none / 0) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:41:57 PM EST

Sheesh.


: is that synonymous (none / 0) (#34)
by Peaches on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 01:24:26 PM EST

with silly?
I'm silly. You're silly.
So, why are we having this discussion. Who cares?
Make thoughtful comments. stop calling people silly and saying their comments are ridiculous. That makes you appear to be the most silly one of all. Except to all your members of the echo-chamber who are sill themselves.
You may not believe this, but I'd like people to take you seriously. Instead you come across as a lumbering baffoon.

So is Rehnquist (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:14:12 PM EST

But if a candidate tells you that is the type of Justice he likes, then it would worry you if you are a Democrat.


White was nominated (none / 0) (#32)
by Deconstructionist on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:42:08 PM EST

by a DEMOCRAT (Kennedy); Blackmun (the author of the majority opinion in Roe) was nominated by a REPUBLICAN (Nixon).

That knowledge alone should make it self-evident that some Democrats approved of White and some Republicans (albeit in a different era and the Republicans are now totally dominated by people as narrow-minded and intolerant as you are) approved of Blackmun.

I condemn anyone who is so intolerant that the mere expression of admiration for a person by a candidate is considered "disqualifying" of that candidate because the person admired was on the "wrong" side of one issue.

you are very bit as bad as the worst of the Republicans when it comes to this type of thinking-- despitr the fact I probably more generally agrre with you on the broad array of issues than with any republican. I can't stand such narrow-minded intolerance.


: You are open to all ideas (none / 0) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:29:33 AM EST

Tortures, cutback of civil liberties. Attacks on gays.
Very broadminded you are in that.
You really do not have much upstairs obviously.

Byron White ... (none / 0) (#13)
by Maryb2004 on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 10:52:45 AM EST

good god.

I didn't watch 'em either (none / 0) (#14)
by dutchfox on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:07:57 AM EST

The election is months away. To me, the debates and media focus on 2008 are a diversion away from the occupation of Iraq and increasing calls for impeachment. Vermont spoke; although we lost in the Vermont House vote, the movement has not given up and grows!

the litmus (none / 0) (#35)
by diogenes on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 02:21:24 PM EST

I think that BTD didn't like Richardson anyway and thus found a litmus test reason to reject him. I doubt that Edwards would have been absolutely disqualified for making the same statement.

: Not liking him (none / 0) (#36)
by Deconstructionist on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 02:31:45 PM EST

(or more accurately not thinnking he is a good choice for President) is fine. I don't care for him for a number of reasons, but to say the fact that he answered a question with a response indicating he thinks White was a good justice disqualifies him and would like to see more like him is absurd.
Even if Richardson had indicated, which he didn't, that white's position on Roe was one of the things he admired it would be narrow-minded to disqualify him because of that. When you don't even know why he named white it is the kind of extreme knee-jerk, mindless intolerance that hurts the Party and should be shunned by all thinking Democrats.

: That is false (none / 0) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 05:27:14 PM EST

Stop saying falsehoods and address the substance.
Take a 1 for that trollish comment.