Good Brownie points out this truly odd statement by Bill Richardson reported by the Des Moines Register:
God’s will is for Iowa to have the first-in-the-nation caucus, Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson told a crowd here Monday.
“Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord, should be the first caucus and primary,” Richardson, New Mexico’s governor, said at the Northwest Iowa Labor Council Picnic. “And I want you to know who was the first candidate to sign a pledge not to campaign anywhere if they got ahead of Iowa. It was Bill Richardson.”
Is this in the Apocrypha? Maybe one of the lesser known books of the Bible? Or, does the Lord speak directly to Governor Richardson?
I didn’t see it – maybe Bill was just engaged in some good natured hyperbole that does not come across clearly in print reporting. But, on its face, this certainly looks like a gaffe of epic proportions.
Trying to pander to the locals and get the obligatory Christian god reference in at the same time can make for some awkward utterances.
Did you see his response to the criticisms that were immediately lobbed at him?
At least he is honest about his wankery. Richardson is a smart guy, and deserves a role in the eventual administration of whoever, but he has spent the last month or so proving his inadequacy as a national candidate.
HE didn’t say anything about what God commanded or what God wanted. He said “for reasons related to the Lord”. It sounds like everyone else is putting words in his mouth, the same way they’re accusing him of putting words into God’s mouth.
It seems pretty simple that what he was saying is that there are more “God-fearing” people in Iowa, so it would be better in his opinion to keep the primary there so they have more of a say in who is elected.
I think you could replace “the Lord” with “Unions” or “African-Americans” or “surfing” if the location of the primary was higher in people that were either part of that group or supported that group or idea.
Regardless, I disagree with the guy. We need a national, single-day primary. Until we do, places like Indiana will have no real say in who is president. I also don’t support pushing Indiana’s up just so some other people can get screwed out of their choice.
I just don’t see any interpretation of any reason having to do with “The Lord” that doesn’t sound, at least, very silly. First, any rationale that assumes active involvement by God or Jesus resulting in a distinct preference for an Iowa primary, is just bizarre.
Any reason having to do with the people of Iowa’s relationship to God or Jesus seems a) irrelevant and b) at least slightly offensive to the other 49 states.
I agree, and I don’t think that is what he was saying.
Not to the people who feel that they want someone of their own faith as president.
More like 17 other states, but I get your point. However, I think the people he was speaking to would rather Iowa be there instead of the states on the bottom end of that list.
Like I said, I was defending him from the idea that he was speaking for God, or that he felt God was going to be activly involved. It still may have been a silly statement, but is isn’t as outlandish as some are making it out to be. He felt there were a higher % of Christians in Iowa, and he was letting them know that (kissing ass).
Isn’t that what every one of these guys (or gals) do when they go somewhere where there is a large group of people that have something in common?
Or is he also saying constitutional reasons *are* reasons related to the lord?
I know I’m in the minority, but I would rather a candidate spend 99.9% of his/her time discussing policy or demonstrating competence somehow. Any time left over can be used to impress me with his/her spirituality.
We’ve already elected the alcoholic we’d like to have a beer with (notwithstanding the fact that in doing so, the guy would probably relapse into alcoholism or choke to death on snack food). We also elected the guy whose god talks to him directly and tells him to invade– but somehow in his omniscience forgets to tell the guy there aren’t really WMD being produced, and there wasn’t a link to 9/11. After all the god/voodoo talk of the last eight years, and simultaneously the continuous avarice, incompetence, and mass death, how can anyone put such high importance on the religious resume of our presidential candidates?
Haven’t we done this routine to death? At long last can’t we get over our infantile need for the president’s religious views to be known in fine detail and just elect a good leader? Maybe even one who would rather look at the world with his/her eyes open than fall into little trances, straining to hear revelatory voices?
How do we reconcile the uber-religiousness of the Bush administration with its collosal failures? Was god just having a bad eight years? Or was Bush not truly talking to god? If Bush wasn’t, why would we believe the next guy who spouted the same crap?
Replace “religiousness” with any other thing that is easy to fake and easy to break. Or good looks, great sax player, etc…
The people elect based on feelings, not fact. It has been this way since Rome. I agree, we SHOULD vote based on the issues, and I try to do so. However, we can also expect that those that make issues the priority over charm/faith/etc will continue to lose.
I’m sure you and I have a long list of primary candidates that we wish won because they had the best ideas, but didn’t get the support. I can think of no primary winner (since I have been aware of primary winners, anyway) that I thought should have made it that far. By that time, I’m voting against the other guy.
Yessir, that’s wingnuttery.
Jason, you’re spot-on. Every election I have a huge list of candidates who had, in my opinion, the best ideas, but lost due to lack of funding, looks, charm, etc. It’s why we have the wreckage we have in government.
At least now, as of midnight, we finally have a candidate with “folksy charm”. Let the gushing begin.
Ohhh!!! I LOVED him in “The Hunt for Red October”!
*pulls lever*
I like Richardson. Anyone see his television commercial for Governor? It was a hoot. His sense of humor seems to have deserted him. Too bad. BTW. he has an op/ed piece on Iraq in the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702063.html?wpisrc=newsletter