Comments on: On Richardson’s rise and stall

By: arthuralpert

arthuralpert — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:57:09 +0000

Barbwire, I quite agree. We need to regulate contributions to candidates and public officials. At very least, that would establish a bottom line. And though such laws wouldn't prevent corruption (the use of government to benefit private interests rather than the public interest ), they might lessen it. Also, they would represent the community's statement of values. (The lack of such laws makes a statement, too.)

New–mexican, for more on the unappetizing elements of the Democratic party, please read Trip Jennings' article dated 1/12.09 on “friends of bill…” Also (below the story), note his argument that corruption is neither Democratic nor Republican.
Arthur Alpert

By: arthuralpert

arthuralpert — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:57:09 +0000

By: arthuralpert

arthuralpert — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:57:09 +0000

By: arthuralpert

arthuralpert — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:57:09 +0000

By: barbwire

barbwire — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:53:16 +0000

I strongly agree about the man of his times remark regarding Richardson. The vast majority of powerful politicos, corporate and finance leaders have followed the rules in place in this era — which basically means no rules in many cases. Can anyone name a powerful politico on the national stage (and many state and city stages) who couldn't be criticied for the very same kinds of behavior exhibited by Richardson — or much worse?

Why are so many so shocked that those seeking to build or maintain power would go to the limits of the law? The problem is in the law — or lack of it — that regulates political and business actions. The actions are symptoms of the problem, not the cause of the problems.

Ironically, many of Richardson's most vocal critics are the same people who have fought regulation in business and campaign finance and ethics reform in politics. Just a shade hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

By: arthuralpert

arthuralpert — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:18:16 +0000

Dear new_mexican:
First, it was not Cheney you paraphrased but Donald Rumsfeld. Secondly, Rumsfeld's statement was a misleading defense against the charge (valid, I believe) that he sent US soldiers to war ill-equipped. A Secretary of Defense has significant ability to shape his army. That's even truer when the war is optional, meaning he has a big voice in deciding when to launch it.
But you want to apply the Rumsfeld doctrine to Governor Richardson and the “politicans” he worked with. True, Richardson couldn't un-elect elected representatives. But he appointed Eric Serna to one of his PAC boards. Serna's adventures in state government are public record and I would say “un-appetizing” is an understated description thereof. Also the Governor was buddy-buddy with Guy Riordan until that became politically untenable. Other readers may have their own favorites.
Re the cost of getting things done – I hope you're not saying that results, even good results, justify closing one's eyes to what's right and wrong.
Re using public office as a means to an end – you misconstrue what I wrote. I said he shaped his so-called public service to serve his ambition. (Ergo, an agenda that you, as an “active Democrat,” must recognize was more pro-business than pro-regular folks.) And that he put his interest before the public interest.
Arthur Alpert

By: new_mexican

new_mexican — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:57:54 +0000

A couple of questions/comments from an active Democrat.
played nicely with un-appetizing elements of the state Democratic Party