Richardson Explains Iowa/God Remarks: "I'm Trying To Score Points"

Comments (28)

EH wrote on September 4, 2007 3:47 PM:

Personally, I like the idea of a President who is willing to be imperfect and wrong.

mopper wrote on September 4, 2007 3:54 PM:

Yeah, that's one way to spin Richardson's defense.

Another would be,

"Personally, I like the idea of a President who's willing to invoke God's Will or the Constitution disingenuously to score political points."

If you want a President who's willing to be imperfect and wrong, there are options out there for you. For example (and by no means do I think your options are necessarily limited to him), Obama said just yesterday:

I am reminded every single day that I am not a perfect man. I will not be a perfect President. But I can promise you this - I will always tell you what I think and where I stand. I will be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you when we disagree. And most importantly, I will open the doors of government and ask you to be involved in your own democracy again.

I don't think that (which seems to be in the spirit of what you're saying, EH) is at all like, "I'm trying to score points."

PF wrote on September 4, 2007 3:56 PM:

Sometimes jokes make you look idiotic, especially if they follow other unintelligible remarks.

Sagrilarus wrote on September 4, 2007 4:03 PM:

Hey -- pretty much he said exactly what he was thinking at the time. You're suddenly getting upset that a candidate is being honest?

All the speeches and all the "off the cuff" remarks are part of this BS drama in the primaries that candidates use to position themselves for getting votes. It's completely transparent and those of us listening are part of the show as well -- we play our part.

Richardson flubbed his line. Instead of trying to work it into the play, he just stepped up to the front of the stage and winked. I got the joke -- did you?

Passing Shot wrote on September 4, 2007 4:05 PM:

what's the count now on Richardson's gaffe-meter? He may be brilliant, but I can't fathom how such an effective diplomat could be so clueless and tone-deaf. Or maybe he's all talk, and he's really not that effective a diplomat?

Blue in IA wrote on September 4, 2007 4:05 PM:

Apparently, Richardson has already selected a running mate: Richardson and Richardson-doing-damage-control. Unfortunately, Richardson-doing-damage-control appears to be even more boneheaded than Richardson Mark I speaking off the cuff ("I didn't want to criticize him because he's Hispanic" "I liked him because he was a legal scholar [sic] and an athlete ... and he was appointed by Kennedy" "I just like the word 'choice'").

Is "Dumb and Dumber" under copyright, or can the Richardsons use it as a campaign slogan?

Seriously, I think being able to admit you made a mistake (HRC, are you listening?) is admirable. But, being unable to learn from a pattern of mistakes that you ought to, say, engage a speechwriter or research issues before a debate is the definition of not ready for prime time.

vandrop wrote on September 4, 2007 4:35 PM:

Okay, who's sick of these guys blabbering off at the mouth (McCain, Richardson, Romney, etc.), saying something extremely rude, stupid or both, and then claiming it was a joke. This is getting very old. It's time these "jokers" realize we are all listening to what they say, judging them, hoping to see a glimmer of who they are. They should start acting like statesmen if they hope to become statesmen.

Anonymous wrote on September 4, 2007 4:37 PM:

It was a West Carolina moment...
Of course, I won't be voting for Miss West Carolina for president, either....

moondancer wrote on September 4, 2007 4:43 PM:

You know, before this process started, I thought Richardson looked good on paper. What the hell was I thinking?

Dawn wrote on September 4, 2007 4:44 PM:

Trying to score points with the Lord or the Voters?

Dawn wrote on September 4, 2007 4:45 PM:

I know what you mean moondancer. Every time I see him speak I am less and less impressed. He still looks good on paper however.

Not the senator wrote on September 4, 2007 4:55 PM:

Geez, no wonder all our candidates are like robots, staying on talking points. If you make an off the cuff remark joking about anything, you get ripped by the correctness police.

You get what you ask for. You want people who don't say anything because it might be misinterpreted, that's what you're going to get. All talking points, all the time.

Passing Shot wrote on September 4, 2007 5:05 PM:

"not the senator": Edwards, Clinton, and Obama have all said things off-the-cuff that they've regretted. Goodness knows, voters can count on Biden to say something stupid during the course of a campaign (remember "articulate"?). The difference is, I tend not to cringe when these candidates open their mouths. With Richardson it's like playing Russian roulette.

Jane wrote on September 4, 2007 5:24 PM:

I'm not sure which excuse for a gaffe I object to most: 'I was just trying to make a joke' or 'I was just trying to be honest.'

Franklin E Schroeter wrote on September 4, 2007 5:29 PM:

If points were awarded for resume's, Gov Richardson would be elected by acclamation.
Regrettably, he comes with a few warts, one being a sense of humor that is obviously out of place in Iowa. Remember that this man has successfully done America's business personally, face to face with dictators from North Korea and Burma to Iraq and Sudan along with Cuba. Do the naysayers have some of his diplomatic failures they would like to describe for us??

Dawn wrote on September 4, 2007 5:30 PM:

Personally, when I say I am less and less impressed with Richardson, I don't so much mean the off the cuff remarks. I agree to cut a lot of slack on failed jokes and the like. I just mean that over all he does not seem as sharp as either Clinton, Edwards, or Obama. Before the process started, based on his resume, I really expected him to be just as smart and articulate as they are. I am diasppointed that he is not.

Cinderella Ferret wrote on September 4, 2007 6:43 PM:

Maybe these guys should leave the humor to the professinals, like, I don't know--Imus?

mark wrote on September 4, 2007 7:52 PM:

I dont think it is really in our interests to have a President who reveals everything he is thinking at the moment.

Rob wrote on September 4, 2007 8:07 PM:

Seeing that video his comment seems nowhere near as bad as you made it seem. You have wasted minutes of my life with this stupid item and silly video.

rabbit wrote on September 4, 2007 9:02 PM:

I don't understand why this is a gaffe. Is this a gaffe the same way Al Gore committed gaffes? What on earth is wrong with it? Sheesh, I have heard many an ordained minister make a similar tongue-in-cheek remark. On the face of it, it's neither excessively religious nor irreligious. I'm not even a Richardson fan; I just think this is ridiculous.

chimp wrote on September 4, 2007 9:12 PM:

So what's with the hit job on Richardson? Could it be the obvious Hillary bias which JMM has conceded early on? This reeks of all the fluff of a Maureen Dowd story.

Ugh.

drv wrote on September 5, 2007 12:46 AM:

I missed the part where he said it was a joke. Of course, he didn't say it. Someone on his staff said that, maybe after the first explanation didn't take? All Richardson said was it was "off the cuff", whatever that's supposed to imply. Does that negate or soften the previous statement?

Look, all these candidates do this, and it's an age-old ploy to try to get out of a mistake. If it was just a joke, why don't they say that at the time the make the statement? It's only after getting caught in a mistake that the joke defense comes out.

Malangali wrote on September 5, 2007 2:06 AM:

Thank you, rabbit. I also have a number of minister friends who would make a similar flippant remark. Why are the burgers burnt? Because the Lord willed it. Did you just fart? Ahh, a signal from God that you should go take a dump. Why should Iowa be first? Because it was written in the Bible, of course. That kind of thing. Not comedy night at the Apollo stuff, but cute.

Cute, until it gets picked up and distorted by various media and spin machines. Remember John Kerry's joke that fell flat about George Bush avoiding military service, that Rove pushed as proof that Kerry disrespected the troops? We're all so much better off that Kerry didn't get elected - imagine the horror of a president with good policy instincts who can't deliver a punchline!

EH wrote on September 5, 2007 2:52 AM:

Well, hey. All I'm saying is I'd rather my President butcher a joke than...well, you get the point.

Duckman GR wrote on September 5, 2007 8:45 AM:

What Malangali and Not the senator said. We need to stop with the Alpha Girls behavior, let these people talk, and stop getting your panties, that's right, PANTIES, all in a wringer because a candidate said something imperfect or unfunny or unappealing or what you found offensive.

Jeebus effing christ, parse this! They all say crap like this, if they don't there's something seriously wrong with that person. I do not want a robot as president, an uptight, scripted, automaton (Hillary) who never speaks in a more direct manner to people, who calculates all.

In fact, that's the problem with our politics today, the candidates get placed on some sort of platform where all of their utterences are given such weight, that they lose their connection to reality. I want a guy who, yes, I said GUY, because that's my generic for person, christ give ita rest already, might speak more directly and colorfully, maybe stumble and mumble once in a while, not like a retard like Bush, and yes, I said RETARD coz that's the euphemism for god damned effing idiot in my book if that's okay with you, so get off the guys back already.

For those who don't remember, here's a reminder, read it and weep at what might have been if not for this bs:

http://rittenhouse.blogspot.com/2002/11/al-gore-and-alpha-girls-enduring-power.html

chimp wrote on September 5, 2007 3:10 PM:

So is Josh Marshall going to just ordain for us the Hillary Clinton presidency? I'm so glad that I don't have to think for myself, just be led around by reports of bad jokes and expensive haircuts.

I would ask why this is considered newsworthy but I already know the answer.

Disgusting. This story is blatant water carrying for the Clinton campaign.

chimp wrote on September 5, 2007 3:36 PM:

I would like anybody here to try keeping up the schedule of public appearances that any candidate has to keep, and not make an occasional goof. What is expected of presidential candidates is the very antithesis of the qualities that make a good leader. They are expected to become all things to everybody, be "on" 24/7, and barely get any rest. Does that about cover it?

It still has me steamed that Josh Marshall has taken a great news blog and prostituted it to carry water for Hillary Clinton. Shame on you.

drv wrote on September 5, 2007 3:56 PM:

Hey, chimp. Just who is forcing all these candidates to keep the public appearance schedule you refer to? Last I heard, they *want* to do this. No one is forcing them. If they can't stop themselves from saying stupid things that they later recant, then just slow down. Saying stupid things is nature's way of saying take a break. You can quote me on that.

And, not to steal Fox's logic, if they can't handle a 24/7 campaign, how in the hell will they handle a 24/7 presidency?

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)