Ezra Klein: Beyond Agreeable

« The First Presidential Debate | Main | The End of Romney? »

February 21, 2007

Beyond Agreeable

I'm sort of unhappy with how I worded the Bill Richardson post yesterday, so let me try this approach: Richardson has said a lot of things I agree with, but nothing I'm motivated to get behind. He's offered no health care plan that would radically transform the country for the better, nor a humane Iraq plan that distinguishes his vision from the other contestants. For partisans, presidential primaries offer a field of people you basically agree with -- so the question is what they have beyond basic philosophical acceptability. Sometimes, the answer is electability, sometimes, the capacity to inspire, sometimes, a policy platform that rockets past agreeable all the way into achingly desirable. For now (and it's very early), Richardson hasn't distinguished himself on any metrics aside from experience*. And given that I think most any Democrat will be competent enough to pursue broadly popular, basically incremental policies, that's not enough.

*He's a very good diplomat, as it turns out. But that would seem to militate towards making him Secretary of State, not President.

February 21, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

"He's a very good diplomat, as it turns out. But that would seem to militate towards making him Secretary of State, not President."

But since Richardson actually is running to claim either the VP or SoS position*, and not actually running for President, I'd say that should work out well for pretty much everyone.

*Interestingly, I think he ends up getting neither of those positions in a Democratic administration.

Posted by: Petey | Feb 21, 2007 10:49:20 AM

Guess it depends on what you're looking for. I'll easily grant that Richardson doesn't talk as nice a game as many of the Dem. and GOP candidates. But frankly, I'm tired of pretty talk. His platform seems to be tailored for governing rather than campaigning, which may lose him some votes. however, this recent crop of politicians on both sides who offer grandiose visions and can't untie their shoes has made me suspicious of the panacaea approach to politicking. I'd rather someone who can execute a middling plan over someone who will fail spectacularly at an audacious one.

Posted by: Sabutai | Feb 21, 2007 10:50:00 AM

I've mentioned this in comments and a bit on my own blog, which I need to update on this issue, but the best information I can gather is that Richardson is degrading to women - he makes crude jokes and demeaning comments to his staffers and other female NM politicians.

Unfortunately, this type of behavior has been tolerated to a certain extent in NM politics, so Richardson has been given the same pass. But it's highly doubtful that this behavior will be able to survive the scrutiny of a presidential campaign.

And no, I didn't get my opinions from Steve Clemons, even though it was his blogging about it that first drew my attention.

Posted by: Stephen | Feb 21, 2007 11:17:08 AM

"But it's highly doubtful that this behavior will be able to survive the scrutiny of a presidential campaign."

Dude is running for the express purpose of getting himself vetted for the VP spot.

The behavior stuff means he can't get the top slot, but if it comes up enough and gets dealt with during the campaign, he could get himself vetted and inoculated enough to be a viable VP nominee, which he isn't today.

Posted by: Petey | Feb 21, 2007 11:44:59 AM

Thanks, Petey. You said that before, and as a native New Mexican, I'm well aware of that.

Richardson has been vetted for VP before and passed. That's not what I'm talking about. He may be running for VP, but he's declared as a presidential candidate, with all the attention that brings. If he is successful enough with his campaign to actually be a serious VP contender, then this will come up and he will not survive it - at least if he continues the behavior and continues dodging the question in public.

Posted by: Stephen | Feb 21, 2007 12:58:51 PM

"Richardson has been vetted for VP before and passed"

I beg to differ. The 'personal' issues have been out there for a while now, and by themselves would currently prevent him from getting the VP nod. Whether he's been officially vetted or not, that vetting has not been successful.

Again, the only purpose Richardson has for running this time is to get himself vetted successfully by bringing the charges out into the light of day, where they may float away harmlessly.

If Richardson hadn't run, he would've had close to a zero percent shot at getting the #2 slot this time round, due to inability to successfully vet.

Posted by: Petey | Feb 21, 2007 1:07:21 PM

The personal issues didn't get in the way of his cabinet appointment or being ambassador to the UN. I think that perhaps Richardson may know just a little bit more about what consideration he has gotten as a possible VP candidate the last couple of election cycles.

I know that you're convinced of your complete superiority to every fucking person on the planet, but that means squat in the real world.

Again, I know why Richardson is running. I knew why he fucking chose New Mexico for his political career in the first place. I knew why he decided to run for governor, and I know why he's been spending so much of his time running around the world negotiating with foreign governments and even terrorist organizations, freeing various journalists and getting some cease-fire deals.

And if I fucking wanted to, I could know what the man had for breakfast this morning, ok?

Why do you have to be such an asshole, Petey? Why is it so necessary for you to pretend that all your ideas are original and everything you say is the absolute truth? That you can read people's minds and you know the exact strategy that everyone is following all the time? Seriously, what disorder does this come from?

Posted by: Stephen | Feb 21, 2007 1:33:33 PM

"The personal issues didn't get in the way of his cabinet appointment or being ambassador to the UN."

A very different scale of vetting.

"I think that perhaps Richardson may know just a little bit more about what consideration he has gotten as a possible VP candidate the last couple of election cycles."

Yup. And to repeat myself a third time, that's exactly why he's running this time around. Without the full-scale vetting he'll have to go though, he'd never have been viable for the the #2 slot.

------

"Why do you have to be such an asshole, Petey?"

Just mentioning what's actually going on in politics, in what seemed to me to be in a quite civil manner. If we were playing some type of politics RPG, I missed out on the instructions.

And of course, I neglected to remember than any disagreement with you will trigger your raving insanity. My error on that part.

Posted by: Petey | Feb 21, 2007 2:07:23 PM

Just mentioning what's actually going on in politics, in what seemed to me to be in a quite civil manner.

No, just repeating yourself over and over, acting as if it's something new, something that hasn't already been established. Also, you aren't just saying what's going on in politics, you're claiming inside knowledge - specifically, that Bill Richardson has not been vetted for the VP slot, because that vetting can only come from a presidential campaign.

Not to be so blunt that it bruises your tender feelings, but that's immensely ignorant, even stupid. I can tell you with certainty that Richardson has already been vetted as a possible VP, because as hard as it is for you to understand, he was on a very short list of choices for that role not too long ago, even without having run a presidential campaign.

As far as why Richardson is running, I agree with you insofar as that is the most likely outcome for him, besides just plain losing. However, people who actually know something about him - unlike you - are saying that Richardson believes he has a legitimate shot at winning the Democratic nomination and the presidency itself. Of course, what Bill Richardson thinks is really only known to Bill Richardson - again, not you.

And of course, I neglected to remember than any disagreement with you will trigger your raving insanity.

A-ha-ha-ha. How very droll. Just as I neglected to remember that your bullshit reserves are enormous. If we could tap into them as a power source, our energy woes would be over.

The only other people who comment here with the same smug, attitude and superiority complex about their opinions are Fred and Toke. You might want to think about that.

Posted by: Stephen | Feb 21, 2007 2:49:52 PM

"specifically, that Bill Richardson has not been vetted for the VP slot, because that vetting can only come from a presidential campaign."

In Richardson's particular situation, yup, though such a situation is not the norm for other candidates. I think that's all rather common knowledge, rather than any "insider" knowledge here on Earth. Your mileage may vary out on your personal raving insanity planet.

------

"The only other people who comment here with the same smug, attitude and superiority complex about their opinions are Fred and Toke. You might want to think about that."

The only other people who comment here with the a similar lack of substance or even mild interest are ... well... I guess there aren't any others. You might want to think about that.

Posted by: Petey | Feb 21, 2007 3:04:47 PM

Yeah, that's why "my" comments always shut threads down. Everyone knows that you're just here to see your words on the computer screen and then look for affirmation of your wisdom. If you don't get that, you get snippy.

Posted by: Stephen | Feb 21, 2007 3:41:37 PM

"If you don't get that, you get snippy."

No. I got snippy when you called me an "asshole", you slimy eunuch.

Prior to that, I was civilly chiming in on the subtleties of the Richardson bid when you brought your inimitable brand of psychosis to bear on the thread.

Well done, and cheers.

Posted by: Petey | Feb 21, 2007 3:55:36 PM

When did those rail-road tracks get here?

Ezra, I agree. I think he'd make a great Secretary of State and would be a competent governor but I'm not excited about his candidacy.

Posted by: eriks | Feb 21, 2007 4:23:49 PM

You know, Petey, I'm sorry I let you get to me like that; I should have better self control.

Consider this a retraction of my comments.

Posted by: Stephen | Feb 21, 2007 6:29:04 PM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘