Why Richardson is as Bad as Hillary

So, he supports gun rights. I suppose that if one is a single-issue voter, then no matter where Bill Richardson stands on anything else it is perfectly acceptable to support him.

I am not and never have been a single-issue voter. I believe to the depth of my being that such a thing is dangerous. There are too many other critical issues that must be considered.

And when it comes to Billy, there is plenty of reason to oppose him every bit as much as Mrs. Clinton or B. Hussein Obama.

Listen to or read Billy Richardson's stance on the ALL of the issues. It is clear that he is a big-government, European-styled Socialist. Add up the costs of all of his proposals, and we are looking at trillions of dollars of extra taxes to pay for them.

I have yet to understand the support that Billy gets from some gun-rights proponents in light of the fact that outside of the issue of guns the candidate supports socialized medicine, increasing the tax burden on younger working Americans in order to bail out and support Social Security and Medicare rather than look at alternative plans, and this is only for starters.

The candidate is also weak on the immigration issue. He opposes the building of the border fence that Congress has already authorized yet failed to build. His proposals for immigration reform mirrored those of John McCain (before he 'saw the light'), Hillary Clinton, and Lindsey Graham.

Perhaps the most damning of all of Richardson's ideas is the notion that he would 'set government mandates' for U.S. corporations after which he would allow the 'free market to respond.'

Doublespeak. The market is not free if the government sets mandates. And the market will respond, alright. When government puts the squeeze on American free enterprise the markets typically respond by taking a plunge.

And this is precisely what America would do if Billy Richardson is elected to the U.S. Presidency.