Thursday, January 17, 2008

Sad to See Richardson Drop Out

It seems that I am destined to never support a winning candidate.

I was just looking over this Utah for Richardson blog. We didn't post very much, did we. It kind of fizzled
out after April.

It was good to share support for a common candidate. The thing that drew me to Richardson was his honesty and his opposition to the Iraq war. I'm not convinced that either Hillary or Obama will end this war. But I hope that Obama wins. Edwards seems charismatic, but I admit that I haven't learned enough about him... I read Obama's book and I like it.

But I am now throwing my support behind Ron Paul. The Iraq war (actually, foreign policy in general) has always been my biggest issue in this election. In case you are wondering how I can be a Richardson supporter one day and a Paul supporter the next, I would like to spell it out.

I have never been partisan, because I think that the issues that separate parties are trivial compared to the very real issues of life and death that politicians all too often ignore. While I may not fully agree with the social programs of the democrats (healthcare, welfare, gun control, etc.) because of economic principles I believe in, no nation has ever failed because of trying to take care of it's own people. Great nations fall by over extending themselves, making more enemies than friends, and most of all, because of corruption, pride, and arrogance.

I do not agree with all of Ron Paul's libertarian views (but as I study more and more of them I find myself agreeing more and more). But he is the antithesis of corruption. I don't want as extensive a social safety net as some Democrats propose, and I don't want a total lack of one like most Libertarians propose. But I find that I can agree with Ron Paul because he is a Federalist. He advocates a small federal government with little control over internal issues in the States. If my home state wanted to be socialist and the neighboring state wanted to be totally libertarian a Ron Paul Presidency would have no problem
with that as long as the socialist State adhered to the US Constitution and did not use federal funds in it's state programs.

Along with that, the only issue that Ron Paul would have complete control over as President would be the deployment of troops. Every other program would have to be pushed through Congress. Ron Paul (now that Richardson in out) is the only candidate on either side that is committed to bringing our troops home and ending this insane war.

If Ron Paul drops out, Mitt Romney wins the R nomination, and Barack Obama wins the D nomination, I will probably vote for Barack Obama. But honestly, I don't think that any Republican except for Paul stands a chance against the Democrats this election (unless Hillary wins, in which case they might just because she is so polarizing).

Anyway, I will spare you a longer post. If you want to know more about Ron Paul see his site at

Best Regards,
Russel Fugal

Monday, April 30, 2007

Bring 'em Home

OK, so I'm really not getting how to do a lot of fancy things on this blog, like for instance a simple link. But at least the content is there.

Campaign Manager Dave Contarino sent the following message to supporters across the country today.

Dear Friend,

Bill Richardson is the only major candidate who would withdraw ALL American troops troop from Iraq before the end of 2007. At the debate in South Carolina, he repeated his commitment to leaving behind no residual force.

Every other major candidate supports leaving at least some troops behind. While others refine and rephrase their positions, Bill Richardson is the only major candidate who is committed to getting all our troops out and ending this war.

It's time to bring the troops home. All of them. Click here to support Bill Richardson's plan to end the war in Iraq.

Pundits analyzing the debate seemed more interested in haircuts and horse races than the crucial distinction on which candidate will really end this war.

With your help, our campaign can overcome all that and bring experienced, competent leadership back to the White House. But to do that we must build a chorus of right-minded voice committed to doing what's necessary to protect American lives and end the violence in Iraq.

If you believe America should withdraw all our troops from Iraq as soon as possible, then I urge you to take immediate action in support of Governor Richardson and his plan to bring the troops home.

It's time to bring the troops home. All of them. Click here to support Bill Richardson's plan to end the war in Iraq.

Governor Richardson is the most qualified and experienced candidate in this race. He's been to Iraq, he knows and understands the region. He knows that our presence there is no longer helping, and indeed is playing into the hands of our enemies, including Al Qaeda.

He knows that we have to bring our troops home because there is no military solution to Iraq's political crisis. The Iraqis must take responsibility for their security, their government, and their future. As the Governor has said, "They need to stop killing each other and start compromising."

We need to get out of their way. Our troops have done their job under terrible circumstances, but now they are stuck in the middle of a civil war. Jihadist propaganda exploits the American presence to foment more hate and violence. Sixty percent of Iraqis say it is justifiable to kill Americans. Eighty percent want us to leave.

Only Governor Richardson has shown the wisdom to call for the withdrawal of every American troop before the end of 2007. Every single one.


Dave Contarino
Campaign Manager
Richardson for President

P.S. Please share this message with your friends and family. Once they see the crucial differences in this field of candidates, I am certain they will side with us.

It's time to bring the troops home. All of them. Click here to support Bill Richardson's plan to end the war in Iraq.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Presidential History Lesson: 2008 Indicators

So folks this is going to be a short Presidential history lesson. How many current standing Senators were elected by the general public to serve in the White House? Now compare that number with how many current-standing Governors were elected to the White House.

Now separate the 2008 Presidential candidates by those that are current Senators and those that are current Governors. I'll make the first homework assignment easy. In history 19 out of 43 Presidents were elected as standing Governors. Conclusion: Very few standing Senators have ever been elected to the White House.

The 2008 Presidential campaign is about who has the most experience and which candidate is the most elect able to defeat the Republicans. The problems of our nation cannot be resolved by the inevitable unethical leverage that follows in receiving a historical amount of campaign contributions.

This campaign is about which candidate has the most foreign policy experience that qualifies him/her to be the Diplomat to the world. We live in a global world and we need a global Commander and Chief for President. Consider the length of experience that each of the 2008 Presidential candidates have had while serving a local constituency that will become an essential basis to evoke change and progress in the pursuit to better America.

I urge each of you to educate yourself, understand the seriousness of the issues at stake in this election. Eight years is long enough to have an arrogant Republican in the White House. Which 2008 Presidential candidate has the inherent ability to make a smooth transition into this position having had the most amount of "presidential" like experience? Which candidate won’t be slowed by scandals or skeletons of the past that will be drudged up by Republican Rovian "Swift Nut Researchers?"

I love Hillary. I am moved by Obama. However I choose to support and vote Richardson for President of the United States.

Democratically dyed in the wool,

Aaron Thompson
Campaign Manager
Utah for Richardson

Join Our Campaign:

Friday, April 13, 2007

The Strength of Grassroots

Thank you for inviting me to participate in this blog, Duane.
My name is Russel Fugal. Duane and I met at the Virtual Town Hall Meeting, and we both had come as Richardson advocates. What struck me is the influence we had on everyone else, and how typical that must have been at all of these parties. After the meeting everyone was invited to vote for their favorite candidate. Here's the official results with an interesting note:

Now, here are the full results from the Virtual Town Hall vote (remember, this does not imply a MoveOn endorsement):
Sen. Barack
Sen. John
Rep. Dennis
Gov. Bill
Sen. Hillary
Sen. Joe
Sen. Chris
P.S. MoveOn members who watched the Town Hall at one of the parties voted differently from those who did not. Here are how the folks who attended the event ranked their choices:
Sen. John Edwards25%
Gov. Bill Richardson21%
Sen. Barack Obama19%
Rep. Dennis Kucinich15%
Sen. Joe Biden10%
Sen. Hillary Clinton7%
Sen. Chris Dodd4%

As you can see, Richardson advocates at these parties really did loads of good. Richardson gained 9 points while everyone else dropped, stayed the same, or didn't have much to begin with. Let's keep up the grassroots efforts!

From MoveOn Town Hall

I had the chance to go to listen to the Democratic Hopefuls at a MoveOn members home in Sandy. We had a good time discuss the hope of change in 2008. Everyone seemed to be quickly impressed witn Gov. Richardson, who's resume and experience keeps him heads above the others. This was posted on the blog at

The News By Seth TannerThu April 12, 2007 at 8:30 AM MDT

Yesterday there was a lot of coverage of Governor Richardson's appearance at the MoveOn Town Hall. First, Chris Bowers at

So far, in the entire forum, no line struck me more than Bill Richardson's "I would have no residual force whatsoever" in his opening statement (which he repeated in his response to question #1). With perfect clarity, that is exactly the line I have been looking for from Democratic candidates for President. It is a profound, substantive difference than what we have heard from, for example, Hillary Clinton, when she states that if she is President there will be a "remaining military as well as political mission" in Iraq. This is, in the final analysis, a difference between ending the war in Iraq, and simply decreasing the size of the war Iraq.

What really makes me happy about this statement is that it came from Bill Richardson. This is a man who, earlier today, brokered a deal with North Korea to allow weapons inspectors back into the country, and who, three months ago, brokered cease-fire deal in Darfur. To use the favorite term of neoliberal hawks, no one alive today is more "serious' about foreign policy than Bill Richardson. And yet, here he is, running for President of the Unites States, and stating that the United States should have no residual force in Iraq whatsoever. Doesn't he know that "serious" people aren't supposed to say things like this?

And Kos covers Richardson's stand

Of all the top candidates, Richardson is the only candidate who currently advocates a complete withdrawal from Iraq. That he's also the sharpest mind on foreign policy issues isn't a coincidence.

And Donna Brazille writes in the Washington Times

Richardson is far from a shoe-in, but there's a decent chance he could end up surprising a few donors who are so heavily invested in the so-called front runners. Just as you wouldn't walk out after the first inning of a baseball game figuring you knew the final score, it would be wise to keep an eye on Richardson. He is behind, but it's only the beginning.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Washington for Richardson: Governor Richardson's North Korean Breakthrough

Washington for Richardson: Governor Richardson's North Korean Breakthrough


Welcome Fellow Utahns:

For the first time in my life I've really jumped onto a band wagon and please excuse me for hoping you join me. I am a big Governor Bill Richardson fan and think he should be our next president.

This country needs a compassionate leader who has the experience, innovation, and drive to rebuild what has been torn down during the past eight years. Gov. Richardson served 7 terms in the US Congress, was America's ambassador to the UN, served as Clinton's Secretary of Energy, won his second term as Governor by a record breaking margin, and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize four times. There's a lot of interesting candidates eyeing the prize in 08, but none with the international experience and respect that Gov. Richardson has. Gov. Richardson has unparalleled diplomatic experience and is committed to using diplomacy to reestablish America's position in the world, as opposed to the threats and recklessness that both the world and US citizens have recently become used to.

One of the things that most impresses me is Richardson's down-to-earth, right-on-the-money views on Immigration. As a Border Governor and Latino he understands this issue better than any candidate before him. Visit his site and get the low-down on where he stands on all the issues.

Importantly, I think Richardson appeals to both parties exceptionally well. He is an admitted moderate and fiscal conservative who has performed key diplomatic missions for both Clinton and Bush (including his recent successful trips to North Korea, to discuss shutting down nuclear reactors, and Darfur, to broker a cease-fire and to negotiate the release of an American citizen). We live in a state where, believe it or not, in Clinton's re-election (1996), Clinton came in third! So when I look at the candidates I look for someone I know will work both sides of the aisle successfully. Bill Richardson will do this. For my Republican friends, here's a link a Dartmouth Review (which is apparently a conservative paper) article about Richardson. Maybe it'll inspire you to jump parties and join me on the Richardson wagon.

Anyway, best of everything to all of you.