Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gov. Richardson, wrong! Dean is a party spokesman, as head of the DNC.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 03:20 PM
Original message
Gov. Richardson, wrong! Dean is a party spokesman, as head of the DNC.
Edited on Fri Jun-10-05 03:57 PM by flpoljunkie
Your saying he is not, does not make it true.

Richardson on CNN's Inside Politics touting his "tax cutting, moderate" ways.

King is asking about this recent visit to New Hampshire and whether he's running for President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. Richardson lost my vote the first time he said Dean is not the
spokesman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Jacobin Donating Member (820 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Richardson's Right
Deans' not THE spokesman for the Democratic Party.

There is no one person who is THE spokesman for the Democratic Party.

We allow a much broader range of opinions than the Repugs. Remember?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. The head of the DNC is surely at the top of the list as party spokesman.
Are they not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. No he is not.
I do support a range of opinions for the democratic party.

But. What I will not support is an outright attack on Dean.

And until we actually have people campaigning for the primaries, at least a year or more if we're lucky, Dean IS THE spokesman for the Democratic party.

If you want to go with Richardson's idea of 50 governors, all senators and representatives as being THE spokesman, you're going to end up with the Tower of Babel and the cacophony associated with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. Richardson should know better....about piling on.....
and to end up being counted as one turning against one's own side.....

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872860.html
Bill Richardson, energy secretary, lost virtually any chance to become Vice President Al Gore's running mate when two computer drives containing nuclear secrets were reported missing from the Los Alamos weapons laboratory in June. The drives were recovered behind a copy machine in a secure area of the lab. The incident is the second security breach in less than a year. Los Alamos nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee was arrested last year on security violations charges after he allegedly copied top-secret files onto an unsecure computer.

http://slate.msn.com/id/84864 /
Energy Secretary Bill Richardson
He schmoozes. He loses.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/06/16/losalamos.disks/
Missing nuclear secrets found behind Los Alamos copy machine

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=nd99gusterson
Los Alamos: A summer under siege

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/light/20000628.htm
Layers to Los Alamos
Firing Richardson won't solve the problem. He would just be replaced by another secretary who would perch 50 layers from the front lines. Moreover, Richardson can hardly be blamed for layers that were created in previous waves of reform.

But Richardson should be held accountable for appointing the same people to hold posts in the new National Nuclear Security Administration and the old undersecretaryship for nuclear security. This "dual-hatting," as Richardson calls it, creates considerable confusion about just who has the authority to act.

http://www.quarterly-report.com/human_interest/wen_ho_lee.html
We ask today, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, have you no sense of decency?

In early March 1999, Bill Richardson was utterly paranoid to save his hide as a potential vice-presidential candidate to Al Gore. He needed a scapegoat to quell the congressional firestorm over security lapses at U.S. nuclear facilities that was roaring in Washington. He found his sacrificial lamb in the diminutive, soft-soften Dr. Wen Ho Lee, a nuclear scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. What Richardson and the Clinton Administration subsequently engineered against Dr. Lee is an outrage.

A Summary of the Case

Dr. Lee was born in Taiwan and was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1974. His status as an Asian-American made him a perfect fall guy for alleged Chinese espionage at U.S. nuclear laboratories. In an orgy of self-protective lies, Richardson, aided by other corrupt executive branch officials, inexcusably branded Dr. Lee as a super spy to suppress the media damage arising from Richardson’s maladministration of the Energy Department. They accused the diminutive, soft-spoken Dr. Lee as "the one" who had passed nuclear secrets to the People’s Republic of China, in spite of the fact that Dr. Lee had passed his December 1998 Energy Department polygraph exam. 1/ The following chronology demonstrates how quickly Richardson acted to save his deluded vice-presidential aspirations in early 1999.

March 5: CBS News breaks the story of a soon-to-be-released
congressional report - The Cox Report -- on security
lapses and alleged Chinese spying at U.S. nuclear
facilities.

The FBI interrogates Dr. Lee.

March 6: The New York Times reports that an unnamed
Chinese-American scientist at Los Alamos is a suspect
in the FBI investigation.

March 7: The FBI gives Dr. Lee a polygraph examination.

March 8: Richardson directs the University of California to fire
Dr. Lee.
Aftermath - Richardson's Role in an Executive Branch Conspiracy

Richardson claimed that Dr. Lee was fired for failing to safeguard properly classified material among other charges. After Dr. Lee’s dismissal, Richardson said that the government "will not tolerate the theft of our secrets."

To dupe the American people into believing that the "FBI had got their man," the Clinton Administration upped the ante against Dr. Lee. On Saturday, December 4, 1999, in the White House Situation Room, Attorney General Reno, FBI Director Freeh, Richardson, and other top Clinton advisors decided to pursue criminal charges against Lee for mishandling nuclear secrets under the 1954 Atomic Energy Act. 2/

Six days later, a federal grand jury in Albuquerque returned 59 indictments against the sixty-year-old Dr. Lee, and the FBI arrested him on December 10. Then, Richardson, in concert with the Administration’s Gestapo justice department, levied the full weight of pre-trial sanctions on Dr. Lee.

It was Richardson who ordered that Dr. Lee be kept in solitary confinement. For 279 days, Dr. Lee was denied bail and was held in extraordinary harsh conditions -– leg shackles when outside his cell and solitary when he was there. He was continually monitored 24 hours a day. It took Richardson five months before he allowed Dr. Lee to have reading materials, longer exercise periods, and more frequency visits with his family.

On September 13, 2000, a plea agreement with the government was reached. Dr. Lee pled guilty to one count of downloading nuclear data to an unsecure computer. The remaining 58 charges were dismissed. 3/ Chief U.S. District Court Judge James A. Parker sentenced Dr. Lee to time already served and released him from prison. The government’s abrupt about face caused Judge Parker to react with amazement, incredulity, anger, regret, and sadness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. Dr. Lee will be making ads
and it will be a nightmare for Richardson! Those anti-Richardson ads will be blazin'! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmaier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'm not a fan of all the piling on Dean comments
Edited on Fri Jun-10-05 03:35 PM by jmaier
of late but imagine for a moment that MacAuliffe was back in the position. Would everyone be rising indiginantly to his defense as party spokesman?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. When they lie and say he is not a spokesman for the party. Absolutely.
Edited on Fri Jun-10-05 03:42 PM by flpoljunkie
The notion is absolutely absurd!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Biden, Edwards, and co would not have attacked him in the first place.
Edited on Fri Jun-10-05 03:45 PM by Mass
The problem is the difference between saying that they would not have said it this way and saying that Dean is not a spokeman for the Democratic Party .

I have no problem in the first one. I have a big issue with the second one, particularly when it does not come with a statement of support in the same sentence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. If McUseless would have had the balls to speak up in the first place...
...like in 2002 and 2004, we might have a more favorable situation in congress right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmaier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I suspect it would have had little to do with the outcome
We need strong state organizations, grassroots GOTV, competitive candidates and $$$. I think Gov Dean is making some smart moves in a couple of these areas.

On the balls issue -- we need to be tough and draw clear distinctions and we need to be combatative. I agree fully. I think Harry Reid is doing an excellent job of this while I think that Gov Dean is doing less well. It doesn't take tough talk, it takes smart, tough talk. Ill considered, broad brush swipes at "republicans" a la Dean isn't positioned to draw in folks in the center who have growing concerns with Bush and the Rethuglican congress.

Bush, Rove, Cheney, et al have a masterful history at revving up there base without saying things which come across as too divisive (I'm not referring to how they govern but how they talk!) They use code phrases to keep the base happy that still seem to play in the media. You'd never hear any of these guys say something like "Democrats don't look like us -- they are the party of minority atheists." They are corrupt, venal bastards but smart politicians.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. I mean....
Is Bill Richardson the only Hispanic that can run for President?

If he is....Jeeze, that's not good. :shrug:

Why is he doing this to Howard Dean and our party? Why?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC