|
Edited on Fri Oct-05-07 01:55 PM by Tejanocrat
He stood at the center of "Spin Alley" -- a room given over to candidates and their chosen mouthpieces for hours of post-debate "analysis." And Richardson was analyzing away.
"I came out as the most moderate candidate with the clearest position on Iraq," Richardson insisted as he took a slug from a bottle of water. "I'm a different kind of Democrat."
Richardson was working overtime -- hence the sweat -- to sell that message, a pitch he had struggled to make during the 90-minute debate, where he often looked uncomfortable on stage and failed to distinguish himself from the other "second-tier" candidates.
For Richardson, Spin Alley offered a second bite at the apple, a unique opportunity to change conventional wisdom before it hardened. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/conten... "I am not a rock star, but I've got a solid record," he said. "I have got serious experience. I get things done."
Richardson is a former congressman, an ambassador to the United Nations and Secretary of Energy under President Clinton. A staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, he said he believes he is the party's moderate candidate. http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/... Moving from foreign policy Richardson struck a theme of being "practical, pragmatic, and patriotic." He struck that chord frequently and often; He noted numerous times that he was a pro-business moderate Democrat who was running in the center and would not be swayed. He said he will not be liberalized by Iowa or New Hampshire... http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary... Also, Richardson is the most pro-NAFTA of all the candidates: "NAFTA was critically important, and not only for the reasons commonly cited by its supporters. Yes, the treaty would create the world's largest free-trade region, a market of 360 million people in the US, Canada, and Mexico. Estimates of NAFTA's economic impact varied, but the treaty promised to be a win-win-win for all three countries.
That didn't mean the absence of dislocation: while NAFTA figured to create more jobs in the US, some jobs would be lost. A key part of the final bill presented to Congress needed to include worker-adjustment programs and other so-called side agreements addressing such issues as labor standards and the environment.
I felt the treaty was crucial to Mexico. I thought NAFTA would create positive economic change and help to stimulate a broader political debate. I thought it also had the potential to affect the immigration issue: if Mexico's economy boomed, beter-paying jobs would provide Mexicans an incentive to stay home."
Source: Between Worlds, by Bill Richardson, p.112-3 Nov 3, 2005
...
Q: Do you support broadening North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to include other countries?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support the WTO?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support imposing tariffs on products imported from nations that maintain restrictive trade barriers on American products?
A: No.... http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Bill_Richa... He's the most pro-NRA of all the candidates: A large man sitting in a small office, wearing a brown suede vest and heavy, battered boots, Richardson clearly revels in his image as the quintessential Westerner. "You have to talk about guns in the context of lifestyle, recreation, a way of life," the Governor argues, rather than as just a measure to prevent murders and deaths. Democrats need to move into a void in the West. ...; "Richardson’s a very politically astute individual," says Robert Goode, NRA regional representative for West Texas and New Mexico. "He knows you’re beating your head against a wall when you go after the firearms issue. And he backs his words with his votes." Goode continues that, if a candidate like Richardson ran for the presidency, he believes the NRA would step back and not take a partisan stance on the election. Goode’s colleague Charles Weisleder, a 70-year-old NRA lobbyist, agrees. "Richardson," says Weisleder, a bald man smiling broadly over coffee at an Albuquerque Shoney’s, "got a lot of gun votes because of what he said to us. A lot of people are driven by the firearms issue." The NRA likes Richardson and has for a long time. I particularly like his open and public support for shall issue concealed carry: "He’s been a pretty solid guy on the gun issue," Van Horn, a member of the NRA’s board of directors, said.... "He has treated us first class," said Kayne Robinson, NRA’s executive director for general operations. http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/news/bi... He's the most pro-death-penalty of all the candidates: "I am in favor of NM's death penalty law. It sends a strong message of zero tolerance for heinous crimes, and it provides certain justice for the victim's families.
At the same time, we must ensure that capital punishment is applied equally, without regard for race or economic status, and we must work to apply DNA testing to make sure only the guilty are executed.
I support the proposal to make the murder of a child under 11 years old an 'aggravating circumstance' and eligible for the death penalty."
Source: Campaign web site, RichardsonForGovernor.com, "Priorities" Oct 24, 2002
Broaden use of the death penalty for federal crimes.
Impose "truth in sentencing" for violent criminals so they serve full sentences with no chance of parole.
Limit the number of appeals allowed to inmates on death row.
Fund programs to provide prison inmates with vocational and job-related skills.
Expand funding for community policing programs.<br> * Prosecute youths accused of murder as adults.
Source: 1996 Congressional National Political Awareness Test Nov 1, 1996
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeus corpus in Death Penalty Appeals.
Vote on an amendment to delete provisions in the bill that would make it harder for prisoners who have been given the death penalty in state courts to appeal the decision on constitutional grounds in the federal courts ("Habeas Corpus").
Bill HR 2703 ; vote number 1996-64 on Mar 14, 1996
Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder.
Vote on a bill to make it harder for prisoners who have been given the death penalty in state courts to appeal the decision on constitutional grounds in the federal courts.
Bill HR 729 ; vote number 1995-109 on Feb 8, 1995
Voted NO on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment.
Amendment to replace death penalty crimes in the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill with life imprisonment.
Bill HR 4092; vote number 1994-107 on Apr 14, 1994 http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Bill_Richa... In addition to these policy issues, Richardson has also shown himself to be very comfortable with the appointment of partisan Republicans in a hypothetical Richardson administration. For example, when Richardson says he would appoint Bush family consigliere James Baker as a foreign policy envoy in a Richardson administration: Whoever Richardson's foreign policy handler is, he failed miserably:
Richardson entered a room full of reporters. He didn't have much time, so the number of questions was limited. I knew what question will produce the headline we wanted: Who's the envoy Richardson has in mind. They always fall for this question if they come unprepared, and Richardson proved just that. Israel, he said, should be a bi-partisan issue he said charitably. And with this sense of bi-partisanship in mind pulled out of his hat the first name he could think of: Former Secretary of State James Baker.
We're willing to be charitable and file this under "he just didn't know any better". It's the same as what we said about Dean when he dropped that "the US should be even-handed" comment during the election (an incident that Rosner also compares to this gaffe) - no one had ever bothered telling him that "even handed" is nudge-nudge wink-wink anti-Israel among people who talk about the Middle East. So we're not taking this as an admission Richardson actually wants one of the most anti-Israel American diplomats in recent history to run the the peace process.
http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11273... Bill Richardson has a problem that may be harder for him to get out of. During a speech to the National Jewish Democratic Council, Richardson stated that he would consider appointing James Baker as his special envoy to the Middle East. Shmuel Rosner writes about the serious problems that this indicates in the Richardson campaign:
...Baker, as I mentioned in the article published in Haaretz today, was a member of an administration "widely viewed as the most hostile ever to Israel." ... Richardson builds his whole case on the argument that he is the experienced, knowledgeable, sophisticated candidate ... That makes this Baker gaffe a lose-lose situation for him. Either he admits it was a gaffe - which makes all this bragging about experience seem quite silly. Or he can stick to the Baker proposal - which makes the pro-Israel bragging quite questionable.
"This is what happened when a candidate doesn’t have a professional campaign, and professional staff making sure that he is well prepared to such events," a knowledgeable professional told me after hearing about Richardson’s remarks. This, he said, will never happen to Hillary Clinton. And judging by her performance this morning at the NJDC I tend to agree.
This type of gaffe will significantly hurt Richardson on the foreign policy front for many of the reasons indicated above. Bill Richardson and Eli Suissa Whereas Romney can afford to punt, silence from Richardson on the issue will only make potential supporters look past him and to the front runners. http://2008central.net/?p=544 I have even more concern about Richardson's support for Attorney General Al Gonzalez: Tavis: It occurs to me now, listening to you talk about your friend who you know, Mr. Gonzalez, it draws a stark contrast between—I haven't checked where all the other candidates are, but I know Obama is on record very clearly saying Gonzalez should step down. I suspect other Democrats running for president are maybe saying the same thing. That's a contrast between you and others on whether or not this guy should step down.
Richardson: That's right. I do believe that it's up to a president to make those decisions about Cabinet members. Obviously, Alberto's very damaged, and he's gotta be frank and testify and do what has to happen. But I think that's up to the president.<p>
Tavis: So you would not call for his stepping down right now.<p>
Richardson: No, no. And you know what? Part of it maybe is because he's the highest-ranking Hispanic ever. http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archiv... We know Richardson did simply misspeak when he said his support for Gonzalez was racial because Richardson has repeated that statement: Presidential candidate and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) said Monday the reason he has not called for the removal of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is that the two both have Hispanic backgrounds.
Richardson, in an interview with The Hill, said he is "pretty close" to making such a call, but added that he is reluctant to do so before Gonzales’s Senate testimony despite the high-profile involvement of New Mexico in the U.S. attorneys scandal.
"The only reason I’m not there is because he’s Hispanic, and I know him and like him," Richardson said, adding, "It’s because he’s Hispanic. I’m honest." http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/gov.-rich... |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
