Patterico’s Pontifications » Obama’s Bus Flattens Another

1/4/2009

Obama’s Bus Flattens Another

Filed under: Obama — Patterico @ 3:44 pm

This is not the Bill Richardson I knew.

Thanks to Joe.

74 Comments

Hmmm. So now 2 Democratic presidential candidates (Richardson and Edwards), are at game-over. With Dodd to come. And that’s not counting Gravel (long since there).

That leaves Obama, Clinton, Biden and Kucinich.

Hey, maybe they can have Kucinich as Commerce Secretary!

Comment by Kevin Murphy — 1/4/2009 @ 3:55 pm
I guess Bill’s sellout of Hillary did not pay off as much as he thought it would. ROFL

Comment by SPQR — 1/4/2009 @ 3:57 pm
I think this may have more to do with Richardson’s skeletons over his party - boy days. Many rumors have abounded over the years about just what happened with which woman - that may be the actual reason why he’s toast now.

Comment by Dmac — 1/4/2009 @ 3:58 pm
I didn’t hear about any of that, Dmac. Sad to hear, apart from policy differences.

Comment by Eric Blair — 1/4/2009 @ 4:01 pm
And did I read that correctly, at the link?

That the FBI investigation of Richardson would be problematic?

Well…what would an FBI investigation of the President-elect and Vice-President elect reveal?

A better level of questionable associations and actions?

Really?

Comment by Eric Blair — 1/4/2009 @ 4:05 pm
Still more contrast that shows just how clean the George W. Bush administration has actually been.

Comment by SPQR — 1/4/2009 @ 4:07 pm
Richardson has many skeletons, even before he started to use tanning formula and grew his beard. He, like Corzine in NJ, is a well-known speed scofflaw in his state car among other things.

Comment by Mike K — 1/4/2009 @ 4:10 pm
Yep. That “Culture of Corruption” Nancy Pelosi carries on about looks more and more like that awful “p” word: projection.

Comment by Eric Blair — 1/4/2009 @ 4:11 pm
It looks like those horrendous multi-page forms that the Obama administation supposedly subjected its hopeful appointees to were not only necessary, but not quite rigorous enough.

Comment by Insufficiently Sensitive — 1/4/2009 @ 4:19 pm
If Pellicano wasn’t in jail I’d believe Hill & Bill had something to do with torpedoing some revenge into this cruiser. But then, he can still take and make phone calls to pals.

Time to grow a new goatee.

Comment by DCSCA — 1/4/2009 @ 4:19 pm
This all harkens back to the Clinton admin and their inability go get their people through the security clearance process. All those “T”s on the credentials signifying temporary clearances and the subsequent massive reduction in size of the “T” from full-size background to type-set bottom.

Comment by the underwhelmed John Hitchcock — 1/4/2009 @ 4:28 pm
SPQR chortled:

I guess Bill’s sellout of Hillary did not pay off as much as he thought it would. ROFL

Ya think?

Comment by The very amused Dana — 1/4/2009 @ 4:36 pm
Darn! I meant to include [Squish!] at the end of the last one!

Comment by The very amused Dana — 1/4/2009 @ 4:37 pm
He’s just a typical Democrat governor person.

Comment by nk — 1/4/2009 @ 4:44 pm
I’m always surprised by the surprise that politicians show when their previous “deals” land them in trouble.

“To sup with the devil requires a long spoon” is the relevant quote, I think. Samuel Johnson?

Comment by Eric Blair — 1/4/2009 @ 4:51 pm
Remember how Richardson, when he first started making noise about running for Governor of N.M. in 2005, first had to clear up the matter of his claim to have been drafted by the Kansas City (now Oakland) Athletics in 1966, which has been a part of his resume for years. From the Albuquerque Journal on November 24, 2005 (via Breitbart):

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - Gov. Bill Richardson is coming clean on his draft record—the baseball draft, that is, admitting that his claim to have been a pick of the Kansas City A’s in 1966 was untrue.

For nearly four decades, Richardson, often mentioned as a possible Democratic presidential candidate, has maintained he was drafted by the Kansas City Athletics.

The claim was included in a brief biography released when Richardson successfully ran for Congress in 1982. A White House news release in 1997 mentioned it when he was about to be named U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. And several news organizations, including The Associated Press, have reported it as fact over the years.

But an investigation by the Albuquerque Journal found no record of Richardson being drafted by the A’s, who have since moved to Oakland, or any other team.

Informed by the newspaper of its findings, the governor acknowledged the error in a story in Thursday’s editions.

“After being notified of the situation and after researching the matter … I came to the conclusion that I was not drafted by the A’s,” he said.

Thanks, Blago. We couldn’t have flushed out Big Rich without ya.

Comment by L.N. Smithee — 1/4/2009 @ 5:26 pm
Dagnabit, didn’t edit the first part of my post after getting accurate info. Curse you, WordPress!

The above should read:

Remember how Richardson, when he first started making noise about running for ~~Governor of N.M.~~ President in 2005,

Comment by L.N. Smithee — 1/4/2009 @ 5:29 pm
“After being notified of the situation and after researching the matter … I came to the conclusion that I was not drafted by the A’s,” he said.

How do you “come to the conclusion” that you weren’t, actually, a major-league baseball player?

Comment by Rob Crawford — 1/4/2009 @ 5:32 pm
Rob, isn’t this similar to the way that Caroline Kennedy was “dismayed” to learn she didn’t vote very often?

Comment by Eric Blair — 1/4/2009 @ 5:35 pm
If you weren’t there when you made the claim, you have to accept the veracity of your claim until someone disproves your claim. Then you have to accept the possibility the claim you made when you weren’t there to make it could’ve been false. But you can’t be sure because you weren’t there at the time and besides you can’t read your mind to find out if you’re fabricating or not. So your claim may or may not be true, you cannot be certain.

That about cover it?

Comment by John Hitchcock — 1/4/2009 @ 5:40 pm
Well, there is this picture of what the article purports to be Mr Obama’s press bus. I noted with some amusement that the press rides the short bus!

Comment by The politically incorrect Dana — 1/4/2009 @ 5:43 pm
“After being notified of the situation and after researching the matter … I came to the conclusion that I was not drafted by the A’s,” he said.

This man who threw his hat in the ring to be come POTUS needed a newspaper to inform him he was never a pro-ball player??? Seriously?

Comment by Dana — 1/4/2009 @ 5:47 pm
wait, didnt the dems rip the repubs for not VETTING people……vet vet vet

Comment by slizzle — 1/4/2009 @ 5:49 pm
I’m always surprised by the surprise that politicians show when their previous “deals” land them in trouble.

I’m always surprised by politician’s hubris in believing their previous “deals” won’t land them in trouble!

Comment by Dana — 1/4/2009 @ 5:50 pm
You know, Dana, if they just said “hey, politics is like that,” it would be one thing. Teapot Dome, anyone?

But they get all high and mighty about “the other folks” doing the same darned thing that they are doing.

That’s different, though, I know. The “ends” are so wonderful that any “means” acceptable.

I would think that the last ten years or so have taught the public to demand honesty and accountability from politicians. But apparently, folks care more Teh Narrative.

Comment by Eric Blair — 1/4/2009 @ 5:57 pm
And slizzle?

Who vetted Barack Obama? And Joe Biden?

But that’s different, apparently.

Comment by Eric Blair — 1/4/2009 @ 5:58 pm
Somehow, somewhere I know Sarah Palin is responsible for this. If not her directly, then her hairdresser or maybe even her 4th grade teacher.

Where is the MSM when you need them?

Comment by Huey — 1/4/2009 @ 6:04 pm
Eric Blair, maybe it’s just me but if I were to run for the most powerful position in the world, I’m pretty much going to have to assume that *every* skeleton hidden away will be exposed. How these idiots think themselves above the fray is always remarkable.

Comment by Dana — 1/4/2009 @ 6:04 pm
Dana, I think they read their own PR releases too much. Good Lord above, look at how BO was treated by the MSM!

Comment by Eric Blair — 1/4/2009 @ 6:07 pm
Eric Blair #26:

Who vetted Barack Obama?

Our watchdogs in the [cough, cough] mainstream media did. No really, they gave him a thorough checking out. They sent dozens of reporters to Arizona and Alaska to find out as much dirt on Barack Obama has they possibly could. You will be comfortable to know that no incriminating evidence with regards to Obama could be found in Phoenix or Wasilia.

And Joe Biden?

Why that would be Ms. Caroline Kennedy [Schlossberg], soon to be appointed Senator from the great state of New York. She assures us that there is nothing objectionable about him and that he is completely fit for the job.

Comment by JVW — 1/4/2009 @ 6:18 pm
going to have to assume that *every* skeleton hidden away will be exposed.

I think after Bill’s experience, they all think that they can get away with it - his many liasons with women were waved away by his helpful press mavens, many calling Paula Jones a “scorned woman,” the AK State Troopers insane, and Kathleen Wiley a nutcase.

Comment by Dmac — 1/4/2009 @ 6:24 pm
Kevin Murphy in comment 1, your comment is all to plausible to be funny. Like him or not (I am kind of neutral), Richardson probably would have been an OK Secretary of Commerce because he believes in, you know, commerce. I fear now that having a perceived moderate forced to bow out will empower the angry left to demand that Obama appoint someone from their ranks who will seek to undermine the free market system. Imagine Hilda Solis as Labor Secretary combined with a commerce secretary along the lines of a Robert Reich or a Dick Gephardt or someone of a similar bent. Kiss free trade goodbye forever.

Comment by JVW — 1/4/2009 @ 6:25 pm
Whoops, I meant “AS State Troopers.”

Comment by Dmac — 1/4/2009 @ 6:25 pm
Whoops, I meant “AS AR State Troopers.”

Comment by Dmac's proofreader but not named Dana — 1/4/2009 @ 6:36 pm
Rob Crawford wrote:

How do you “come to the conclusion” that you weren’t, actually, a major-league baseball player?

What Richardson had implied in his bio for decades was that he was a good enough pitcher in his time at Tufts University (home, fittingly, of the Jumbos) that he was drafted by a major league team. He said that arm injuries made a baseball career impossible rather than allowing the suggestion that he wasn’t actually good enough for the bigs.

However, Richardson did actually pitch for the Cotuit (MA) Kettleers in 1967 in the Cape Cod League, an amateur league through which many major leaguers have come to the attention of Major League scouts. Notable ex-Kettleers (I don’t know what a “kettleer” is, and neither does dictionary.com) include Chase Utley of the World Champion Phillies, Jeff Kent, John Franco, and my fave, Will Clark, who in 1987 brought back winning to the S.F. Giants for the first time since the days of Mays, McCovey, and Marichal.

Comment by L.N. Smithee — 1/4/2009 @ 6:59 pm
“After being notified of the situation and after researching the matter … I came to the conclusion that I was not drafted by the A’s,” he said.

Doh!

That’s like Caroline Kennedy saying she was dismayed when she learned about her voting history. Do these people need a handler to tell them what they did yesterday?! Incredible.

Comment by Patricia — 1/4/2009 @ 6:59 pm
Smithee….even this old washed-up ballplayer knows the difference between playing in a summer college league, or a semipro league, and being drafted, even if he didn’t play in the minors….

It’s about the same difference as this Marine would consider landing in a hot LZ, or rolling to a stop at the end of a tarmac and being greeted by the locals….

While under fire, of course….

Comment by reff — 1/4/2009 @ 7:05 pm
Not to make too much of an effort to defend Richardson, but unlike football and basketball the baseball draft has something like 60 rounds and the vast majority of players never get beyond the rookie ball or Class A level. I think Richardson’s claim is that he thought he had been taken in one of the last rounds, but since he didn’t think his arm would hold up he never bothered contacting the A’s to try and work out a contract and a minor-league assignment.

My guess would be that Richardson probably knew that he hadn’t been drafted and just tried to Joe Biden his way through it, but there is some small chance that the really might have thought he had been taken at the end of the draft.

Comment by JVW — 1/4/2009 @ 7:11 pm
Dear Patricia:

“…Do these people need a handler to tell them what they did yesterday?! …”

Yes, the apparently do.

Comment by Eric Blair — 1/4/2009 @ 7:18 pm
Dear Patricia:

Sigh. I meant to write:

“…Do these people need a handler to tell them what they did yesterday?! …”

Yes, they apparently do.

Comment by Eric Blair — 1/4/2009 @ 7:19 pm
However, Richardson did actually pitch for the Cotuit (MA) Kettleers in 1967 in the Cape Cod League, an amateur league through which many major leaguers have come to the attention of Major League scouts.

That’s a hella difference from being drafted by a major league team.

Comment by Rob Crawford — 1/4/2009 @ 7:21 pm
My father always told me that it was not only more moral to tell the truth, but easier.

When you lie, you need to remember which lies you told to whom, and keep them all straight.

When you tell the truth, you only have one set of incidents to remember.

Remember Joe Biden’s exaggerations/lies about his college background? Completely unnecessarily, easily checked, and embarrassing (except they didn’t have much traction in the MSM, sadly).

But I believe—and I’m probably in the minority on this topic—that “little lies” can be an indicator of the person’s ethos. If a person will lie about something “unimportant,” what else will they lie about?

Comment by Eric Blair — 1/4/2009 @ 7:37 pm
Short-bus Democrats ride again.

Comment by Perfect Sense — 1/4/2009 @ 7:47 pm
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTFlMjIzMmIyNzY2MmM3ZmU2YWUxYzk4MmIwZGI3ZDk=

Heh.

Comment by Dana — 1/4/2009 @ 9:01 pm
#35 L.N. Smithee:

I don’t know what a “kettleer” is

Me neither, but perhaps a contraction of “kettledrummer?”

Or mayhap a tinker of kettles?

Either way, an odd name for a sports team.

Comment by EW1(SG) — 1/4/2009 @ 10:11 pm
*snickers* I still say the winner is the Knickerbockers for “oddest name”.

Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/4/2009 @ 10:41 pm
Comment by Dana — 1/4/2009 @ 9:01 pm

Mark owes me a new keyboard, and a new monitor (not taking chances with my shiny new 20″ Dell).

Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/4/2009 @ 10:42 pm
Kettle corn is a different way of making popcorn.

It’s also a way to make potato chips - Cape Cod Potato Chips - slow cooked in a KETTLE. I don’t have any idea if that is the basis for the name, but I haven’t seen any better guesses yet.

Comment by daleyrocks — 1/4/2009 @ 11:29 pm
I’m betting that the kettle the team name refers to is one used to boil sap into maple syrup.

Comment by gahrie — 1/5/2009 @ 7:26 am
It’s not like every time something happens to someone involved with Obama means they’re getting thrown under a bus. How does the expression even apply in this case if Richardson never even made it onto the team?

Comment by Sarlberid — 1/5/2009 @ 7:29 am
How does the expression apply? Very simply, in actuality. The Obama camp has already begun its process of discrediting the one they previously picked. They are running away from him faster than he can run away from them. That’s all.

Comment by John Hitchcock — 1/5/2009 @ 7:33 am
Sarlberid wrote:

It’s not like every time something happens to someone involved with Obama means they’re getting thrown under a bus. How does the expression even apply in this case if Richardson never even made it onto the team?

OK, so Governor Richardson was running, tie flying, shirt coming untucked, sweat beading his forehead, trying to catch the Obama bus, when he slipped, tripped and fell under the police car which was following the bus. The result is still Squish!

Comment by The sarcastic Dana — 1/5/2009 @ 7:37 am
How does the expression apply? Very simply, in actuality. The Obama camp has already begun its process of discrediting the one they previously picked. They are running away from him faster than he can run away from them. That’s all.

Um, not really.

Throwing someone under the bus means you’re dodging responsibility for something by blaming your failures or impropriety on an underling. How is that the case here? Obama isn’t the one under investigation, Richardson is. The metaphor doesn’t work at all.

Comment by Sarlberid — 1/5/2009 @ 7:56 am
Isn’t it the truth, JVW, they found the ‘non existent affair’ with Iseman; that’s going to cost them a pretty penny, they took forever to establish that Sarah’s kid was her own, they never quite figured out the Bridge to Nowhere, and Sarah’s role in shutting it down. the perky Katie apparently did no actual research, well she did meet up with Nunn & co, before ambushing the governor and carving up the interview like a turkey. the local paper, the AD News, basically threw out it’s archive on her, endorsed someone they hardly knew over her, and continues to try to run her over.

As for Richardson, his very conventional left wing positions on Central America, much like the Vice President elect, his many special envoy trips to N. Korea, Iraq, Sudan, Cuba, (right before the BTR shootdown) his nonexistent record
at Energy and the UN. should have disqualified him but didn’t

Comment by narciso — 1/5/2009 @ 8:00 am
What an odd nit to pick, Sarlberid.

The expression is a joke; to expect precision in a joke is to miss the point of a joke.

Comment by Rob Crawford — 1/5/2009 @ 8:18 am
The metaphor doesn’t work at all.

It’s called a vetting process - you could look it up.

Comment by Dmac — 1/5/2009 @ 8:18 am
“It’s called a vetting process - you could look it up.”

Sarlberid - Obama’s vetting team fucked up. They either believed Richardson who was less than forthcoming or failed to do any independent research. Same result. Accepted and announced for the new Obama cabinet pending Senate confirmation, now under the bus.

Comment by daleyrocks — 1/5/2009 @ 8:25 am
What an odd nit to pick, Sarlberid.

The expression is a joke; to expect precision in a joke is to miss the point of a joke.

First, referring to ‘Obama’s bus’ implies that he’s somehow complicit in this when it’s obvious that he isn’t. Pointing out intentional distortions is not being too picky.

Second, humor is predicated on precision. Good humor, anyway.

Comment by Sarlberid — 1/5/2009 @ 9:36 am
First, referring to ‘Obama’s bus’ implies that he’s somehow complicit in this when it’s obvious that he isn’t.

He’s not?

He didn’t offer Richardson the position of Commerce Secretary?

Comment by Rob Crawford — 1/5/2009 @ 9:44 am
Throwing someone under the bus means you’re dodging responsibility for something by blaming your failures or impropriety on an underling.

No, it means that you’re abandoning someone who might cause you trouble. Thump, thump.

Comment by Pablo — 1/5/2009 @ 11:16 am
Perhaps by sacrificing Bill Richardson, the nominee who actually has some experience in doing things, they get a free pass on Hillary Clinton, who has no experience in getting anything done, and who has her own set of entangled finances, and Eric Holder, who has a history that the Democrats would be screaming bloody murder about were he a Republican.

Brilliant play!

Comment by The conspiracy theorist Dana — 1/5/2009 @ 11:34 am
Sarlberid - Obama’s vetting team fucked up. They either believed Richardson who was less than forthcoming or failed to do any independent research. Same result. Accepted and announced for the new Obama cabinet pending Senate confirmation, now under the bus.

He just got vetted. He’s not going to be Commerce Secretary is he?

Comment by Sarlberid — 1/5/2009 @ 12:46 pm
You’re not supposed to have a grand jury doing the vetting of your political appointments, Sarlberid.

Comment by Pablo — 1/5/2009 @ 1:07 pm
He just got vetted. He’s not going to be Commerce Secretary is he?

The thing is, the vetting is supposed to be done BEFORE you offer the job…

Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/5/2009 @ 1:13 pm
You’re not supposed to have a grand jury doing the vetting of your political appointments, Sarlberid.

Yeah, that’s not what’s happening.

Comment by Sarlberid — 1/5/2009 @ 1:17 pm
The thing is, the vetting is supposed to be done BEFORE you offer the job…

Who says? You can’t continue to vet someone you’ve offered a job to if you have a few more weeks before they actually take it? That sounds like something a smart person would do, to me.

Comment by Sarlberid — 1/5/2009 @ 1:22 pm
Who says? You can’t continue to vet someone you’ve offered a job to if you have a few more weeks before they actually take it? That sounds like something a smart person would do, to me.

Do you not understand the idea behind vetting?

You vet someone to make sure there are no embarrassing little surprises waiting around that will make you look like an idiot of the “You offered it to THAT guy, who is under indictment/a convicted pedophile/known to wear dead squirrels on his head for dinner” variety.

Vetting exists so that when you name someone, you can be relatively sure that no one can dig up any major dirty to use as leverage against him, or deny the nomination.

What happened here was the opposite of vetting, as any number of people on Obama’s staff could have uncovered the fact that Richardson was under indictment for, basically, handing a juicy contract to someone who gave him a lot of money.

Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/5/2009 @ 1:34 pm
Pointing out intentional distortions is not being too picky.

Very well; then you’re an anal - obsessive git.

Second, humor is predicated on precision.

Judging by your Teutonic insistence on a strict definition for a common political expression that’s used to describe a variety of actions, you don’t seen to have any relevant knowledge on that subject, either.

Comment by Dmac — 1/5/2009 @ 2:38 pm
What happened here was the opposite of vetting, as any number of people on Obama’s staff could have uncovered the fact that Richardson was under indictment for, basically, handing a juicy contract to someone who gave him a lot of money.

Ya see, the problem is, for most of Obama’s people, that’s business as usual.

Comment by Rob Crawford — 1/5/2009 @ 3:26 pm
Of course, one problem is that Governor Richardson was one of the best of Mr Obama’s selections.

Comment by The depressed Dana — 1/6/2009 @ 3:07 pm
Then again, considering his recent experience in trading things, perhaps Rod Blagojevich would make a good Secretary of Commerce.

Comment by The South Park Dana — 1/6/2009 @ 3:08 pm
If Obama keeps selecting headgear for donkeys, perhaps the masses will realize their mistake and partially correct it in 2010. I can dream, can’t I?

Comment by Rip van John Hitchcock — 1/6/2009 @ 3:20 pm
Of course, one problem is that Governor Richardson was one of the best of Mr Obama’s selections.

So true. The DNC is only on a temporary money-funded high. Cracks in the boat.

Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 1/6/2009 @ 3:56 pm
One wonders what Obama would have done if his nominee was from a state with more electoral votes.

Comment by Icy Texan — 1/6/2009 @ 11:42 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

1/4/2009

Obama’s Bus Flattens Another

74 Comments

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out

January 2009
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Dec				Feb »
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31