Sunday, January 21, 2007

UGH!

Richardson announces for Presidency

OK, here we go ....................... "professional Hispanic" Richardson is throwing his hat in the ring ......................... isn't it funny, how it's only in the past few years that we've heard of his "Hispanic heritage"? Seems when he was in Slick Willie's cabinet, that was never mentioned ...................... whassamatter? Wouldn't the white bread group then in charge accept a half-Hispanic in the circles of power?
God forbid, but should he be elected, expect immediately after he's sworn into office to have at least the southern border thrown wide open ........................ he's a Hispandering politician, and nothing, short of a written/typed/SIGNED document by him, to the effect that he will enforce our laws that restrict/end illegal immigration would change my mind ........................
TANCREDO FOR PRESIDENT!

3 comments:

Gay_Cynic said...

Hrm. Richardson *did* in 2005 declare a state of emergency in those counties bordering the Mexican State of Chihuahua, allocating additional enforcement and support funds. I think from the Dem's, he may be about as good as we can expect.

Regarding Tancredo, a GOP sort, the hypocrisy of supporting an amendment to the Federal Constitution to bar gay marriage while a member of a party claiming to support states rights...is troubling to me - even before I approach the notion of the desirability or the lack thereof re LGBT marriage.

I continue to support Ron Paul on the GOP side, and am growing interested in Richardson as the least bad of the Democrats with their hat in the ring.

I'd rather have two "least horrid" to "tepidly good" sorts running against each other for President, than to have either party hang a "truly awful" on its' ticket.

Diamond Mair said...

You have a point, re: least of all evils ................. and, as a straight woman, I hadn't considered the states' rights issues inherent in marriage statutes ............... but you are correct, in that 'marriage definitions' are up to the individual states ............... personally, I'm adopting a 'wait-&-see' on gay marriage {seeing what happens in MA} ................ if the divorce rates/spousal abuse rates/etc. are less than, or at worst, comparable to hetero couples, then let folks marry who they will {ONE AT A TIME, PLEASE, for those claiming 'plural marriages' are next on the agenda}.
As a straight woman, I can only go by my {limited} exposure to LGBT culture - yes, I have lesbian and gay friends - but my earlier exposures seemed to indicate a lot of 'bed-hopping' and one-night stands - I realize in today's health climate, this is no longer as widely practiced, but there you are, and that probably colors my view of LGBT marriage - some folks, whether hetero or homo, change partners like I change underwear - but between the psychos in either case, and the STDs that can kill you, I'm just glad I'm not a young'in ......................
And Richardson's declaration in 2005 was due to the 'squeakiest of wheels' - I believe Sam Donaldson has a few thousand acres on/near the New Mexico/Mexico border ....................... ;-)

Gay_Cynic said...

lol. Rather'n glom up your comment space, I'll knock out my whacky libertarian rendition of "LGBT marriage is a good thing *for everyone*", over on my own blog (grin)

Bruce Bawrer did a better job that I can realistically hope to do some years back, but will do my humble best.