Richardson versus Rove

Apart from the fact that Governor Richardson has delivered  for New Mexico,  taken a pioneering stance on the war, and other issues - I thought it fair to ask the question, which candidate best deletes the instilled methodologies and practices of Karl Rove, either in campaign or office.  Viz. What would a celebrity deathmatch,  between Karl Rove and Bill Richardson?

Thanks to Rove's recent resignation, and of course, the GOP finally waking up to the fact that fact that he was given a candidate opposition in 2000 that had refused to associate himself with one of the most successful presidencies in the history of the United States, and had "Joementum" Joe Lieberman as the running mate - he was unable to deliver a knockout blow. I imagine, since he's the title champ -  Rove would get to walk around first, in the ring, holding the 2004 belt up in the air. Crickets. And then, both to their respective corners.

In the red, on the right. Weighing in at.. oh forget it. You don't want to know.. Karl Rove, the "architect" , would stand in the corner. At his side would be his trainer and friend, his grandfather  - wearing the  extensive, comfortable dealings with the Third Reich that are his public family history.

Rove would open up with partisanship, maybe use sexual orientation as a political weapon, and then, if he really was desperate he might even resort to breaking and entering (at least what we know of from his police record). And finally, he'll deliver the "catch phrase". Maybe it will be "freedom fries" Ok so maybe freedom fries wasn't his idea, I know he will deny it.  But we all know he tried to remove the blue christmas ornaments from the white house christmas tree. We have the negatives.

In the blue, coming in hard from the left, and striking at the center of the ring, Bill Richardson - Opening up with a workable 1-2-3 Iraq solution roundhouse kick.  200 billion dollars would slams back into American bank accounts!   He'd then back it up with a shattering early round voices against the war (2003 - three years early),  deliver a strong Homeland Security department(2002) and then maybe he'll reach over and pull the towel off the towelheaded  Osama Bin Laden (attempted to capture him by extradtion, 1998, negotiating with the Taliban). The crowd will go wild.

So the next round, would be campaign tactics. Rove is dangerous here. Did the opposition ever expect  the attack ad to bounce off , and a positive and extremely competitive Richardson campaign message re-define the tone of the entire campaign?

Rove would be flying his man over the Katrina death zone, and then staging photo ops with firemen while they're trying to work there. Then he would follow up with a smothering "sign a loyalty oath, to participate in this debate" whenever his boy gets out there.  Richardson, on the other hand, actually came down to Atlanta and met people. He sets up town halls. He goes to Moveon.org Town hall debates.  Rove would be fast with his hands, trying to select the best questions that would set up his deadly "catch phrase" pollster knockout.

But Bill Richardson would take it like a man and straight from the floor. If you go to any of his campaign events, I bet you'd find this out. Rove would reel back, having spent his last 20 million dollar punch and connecting with nothing. All of his best punches were sized for hitting Hillary down south of the belt. And rrrrrRove is down for the count. The decision is for Richardson.  Birds sing! Puppies Dance! Cheney admits Iraq was a mistake! (click the shirt for a free prize)

I honestly feel its a good metric. IMHO Rove's tactics and especially his ability to tie everything to corporate campaign contributions have changed the american political landscape. And as Nancy Pelosi said, there is a huge swamp to be drained. (still!)(hey she's off to a good start!). Unique among all other candidates, Richardson has changed the tone and content of this race , in my view, with his position to remove all troops from Iraq and then following up with a series of sharp campaign ads to back up the idea that the presidency actually includes , among many other things, diplomacy. Who here, really believes that Bill Richardson would be the kind of President that would not be able to figure out which door to open, during a press conference?  This was , or is a gedankenexperiment meant to test how well your candidate can obliterate the atmosphere of partisanship in DC. Try it with your candidate, it might help? Just speaking as a person from the south, be careful with this if you are an HRC fan,  I think the opposition was planning to hit a girl this year. >.)

And actually, the real reason I would go is so that I could see Bill Richardson wrap Karl Roves head up in the ropes, like a twist tie, and then flip him out over the crowd like a pudgy zeppelin.

Whats interesting, is that the the race in Iowa is tightening.  This might mean that one or all of the other candidates could do the same? Tag Team?   ... Did I miss any good moves here?

Tags: 2008 presidential, Bill Richardson, Democratic Primary, Rove (all tags)

Comments

14 Comments

Re: Richardson versus Rove

Why is it that when Bill Richardson says that we should end the war now, he's "pioneering" but when Dennis Kucinich says we should end the war right now he's a kook?

by Pope Jeremy 2007-08-23 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson versus Rove

I thought it fair to ask the question, which candidate best deletes the instilled methodologies and practices of Karl Rove, either in campaign or office.  Viz. What would a celebrity deathmatch,  between Karl Rove and Bill Richardson?

Your writing style is colorful but difficult to understand.  For example, I'm still not sure what this part was supposed to say.

by Steve M 2007-08-23 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson versus Rove

Typo. Sorry :-/

"What would a celebrity deathmatch look like, if it were between Rove and Richardson"

The idea here in this beast was to try to figure out what to do with Rove , at the hands of a democrat  - given that the last three presidential election cycles seemed to be either about rove, or trying not to be about rove.

I don't know. I guess I'm just glad the guy is gone, honestly. He always was one that rubbed me the wrong way. I confess I've never been that objective about him.

I was trying to guess how one candidate or another, would try to undo what Rove did: partisanship, poor foreign policy, "stick to principle, george" kind of domestic advice...

i guess thats the idea.

by Trey Rentz 2007-08-23 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson versus Rove

I liked Richardson's resume but - dang - he is just incomprehensible in the debates and makes non damn sense - its sad because I really liked him - but I just can't see putting him up there as the nominee.

Sec. of State- you bet.

by jgkojak 2007-08-23 12:49PM | 0 recs
I don't get it.

is this a laughing liberally thing?  

by Lemonsquare 2007-08-23 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson versus Rove

I would like to see scheming men such as Rove to be so adamant about fighting Global Poverty. It would surely be a sight to see

by Erica2007 2007-08-23 01:15PM | 0 recs
Consider Texas for a moment

Texas is to the Republicans what California is to the Democrats.  Texas give the Reps 34 electoral votes, the most of any red state.

As we saw in 2004, nominating a Northern liberal does not generate sufficient support from outside the core Democratic states to take the White House.  Kerry lost Texas by 23 points in 2004.  The last time the Dems took Texas was Carter in 1976.

Richardson has demonstrated he can attract support from Republicans and independents, gaining 40% of the Republican votes cast in his landslide re-election last November.  

Now think about how Richardson's Western and Latino heritage and clear positions on the path out of Iraq, tax cuts, economic growth and 2nd Amendment rights will appeal to Texans.  Democrats have been doing better in Texas.  With Richardson at the top of the ticket, there is a real possibility Texas could go blue. Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico will also become blue states, as will Florida.  

The bottom line: Democrats nationwide win in a landslide if Richardson is the nominee.  No longer will the fate of the White House depend upon the outcome of one state.  

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-08-23 02:15PM | 0 recs
What?

That post was incomprehensible. What does Richardson have to do with Rove?

by delmoi 2007-08-23 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: What?

Ok, criticism noted.

The post was a thought experiment to try to figure out which candidate really undoes the +atmosphere+ that Rove created.

Rove has truly poisoned the well, in DC. He has shown everyone the power of a big money list + if you thought Abramov was anything other than the tip of the iceberg.... he has made an atmosphere so partisan and divisive ... and he is known for smear and fear during the campaign season

So this was Richardson with essentially a positive, diplomatic message, a different approach altogether - draining that swamp.

I should have just ended this post with
... "and then a big truck crashed through the wall, and smashed the author flat - and everyone cheered! "

Next time I go this far off the wall, I am just going to end it like that.  

Again, just to make it clear though. I felt compelled to try to draw out the distinctions
in comparison to a GOP - smear and fear type campaign, and an administration tied to the pursestrings of a corrupt lobby.

Rather than a positive campaign message, and a democratic administration.

by Trey Rentz 2007-08-24 04:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson versus Rove

"Apart from the fact that Governor Richardson has delivered for New Mexico..."  

You lost me right there.  I seem to remember that Bush won New Mexico in 2004, even though Gore carried it in 2000.  

Now Richardson has been a good governor of the state in terms of getting good things done on a state level.  But what about all those New Mexicans who got shipped off to Iraq?  Or those who suffered due to Bush's domestic policies?

Richardson failed his state by not delivering New Mexico for Kerry.

by DaveB 2007-08-23 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson versus Rove

Under that reasoning shouldn't Edwards drop out of the race now?  As the VP candidate on the ticket he couldn't deliver North Carolina for Kerry.

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-08-23 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson versus Rove

Oh, no. One should never gauge a candidate's performance by the voting record of their constituency in a race that does not include the candidate themselves.

I was speaking as a former RESIDENT of New Mexico here.  Richardson vaulted up teacher pay, really ran a tight ship. New Mexico did very , very well under Richardson. He did deliver for +new mexico+.

I didn't say anything about the 2004 campaign.
Sorry.

by Trey Rentz 2007-08-24 04:21AM | 0 recs
Uh...

Am I the only one who's not cool with the "towelhead" line? Would you like it if someone called Gov. Richardson a "wetback"?

by bluenc 2007-08-23 10:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Uh...

Sheesh.

The term was completely reserved for Osama Bin Laden.  No one else. Just like, you know, you reserve the term "crook" for Abramoff.

Ok guys I'll do better next time.
Osama bin laden will still be a towelhead though.

by Trey Rentz 2007-08-24 04:24AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads