The Bill Richardson Experience
Expat has declared his support and official advocacy for the presidential campaign of New Mexico governor Bill Richardson. Expat, I hope you will receive this post in a goodnatured way, for it's an opportunity for you to make your case. (By the way, I have no problem with you posting and being an advocate, as long as you issue the disclaimer, which you did.) So why hasn't the Bill Richardson campaign gotten more traction? We have here a former ambassador, a former cabinet secretary, a governor of a Western state, and one who can appeal to the growing Latino population in the United States. Granted, he's gotten a little Joe-mentum in some polls, but he's certainly not treated as a top-tier candidate yet.
I think one answer to this question may be found in Richardson's recent debate and interview appearances. In a nutshell, uh, things haven't gone so well in the eyes of pundits who play an instrumental role in shaping perceptions about candidates.
First of all, let's see what was said about Richardson's recent appearance on 'Meet the Press.' Here's how Time columnist Margaret Carlson depicted his performance:
"Richardson's performance on Meet the Press was an hour of unrelieved ducking and running, revealing the immature temperament of a sticky-handed 6-year old who won't admit the cookie jar is empty even when confronted with the evidence."
Ouch. Then there's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist Salena Zito:
"His 'Meet the Press' mistakes came in every size -- big ones and small ones, even medium-sized ones: from immigration flip-flops to character flaws that reflect a propensity for exaggeration. Heck, he even flubbed his favorite baseball team. It is not candor when you make that many mistakes. It is something else, something that perhaps goes back to who Richardson really is."
Oy. But perhaps it was a one-off. So let's see the verdict on his debate performance last night from New Hampshire. Here's Jason Zengerlie from TNR's "The Plank"
"Blitzer asks the key question of Richardson: if we withdraw troops by the end of the year, as he's called for, will that lead to genocide? And if it does, does the U.S. have a moral responsibility to stop it? Richardson, not surprisingly, doesn't answer the question. Doesn't seem like he's gotten any better answers since last week's disastrous performance on 'Meet the Press.'"
Zengerlie later compared Richardson to John Candy's character in 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles' before wondering whether we should put Richardson in the same category as Gravel and Kucinich. Then this from "Plank" colleague Norm Scheiber:
"I think I heard Bill Richardson say 'I was there' in response to that Sudan question at least six times (only one of which was contained in the body of his answer). It's actually a pretty nice distillation of his foreign policy views, which seem to be light on substance and heavy on just showing up."
It's even worse over at National Review's "The Corner," but I sampled the New Republic blog first, figuring they would be more inclined to give Richardson the benefit of the doubt. Obviously not. Anyway, here's Jonah Goldberg:
"Bill Richardson is just really, really bad. He talks like an uninvited guest at a cocktail party who keeps intruding on long-running conversations he just walked in on and sharing opinions no one wants to hear and that don't quite have anything to do with what everyone's been discussing."
Soooo, these appearances don't seem to be going that well. But what tops it off for me was the Carteresque Olympic boycott idea, which apparently would pressure China to deal with Sudan. My nutshell reaction: GROAN.
Expat, it's time to do damage control. What are these pundits missing? One more question: Richardson's concern over genocide in Sudan is admirable, but what would he do if his Iraq troop withdrawal deadline is implemented and a genocide ensues?
Technorati Tags: 
Just a quick note before I head home and do more with this...
This is Richardson's clear and obvious plan for Darfur...
I'm with Expat
At a time when our nation cannot afford inexperienced leadership, I'm supporting Bill Richardson for President.
No candidate has the wealth of foreign policy experience that Bill Richardson possesses. As former U.N. Ambassador and as a Congressman, Bill Richardson has successfully negotiated with Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, Cuba and other rogue nations. Unlike the other candidates, Bill Richardson would have all American troops out of Iraq by the end of this year.
As former Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson has a visionary "Apollo plan" to make our nation energy independent, and the experience to carry it out. He’s already made New Mexico the Clean Energy state.
As Governor, Bill Richardson has also balanced budgets, increased economic development and created job opportunities, while lowering the tax burden on businesses. He has improved New Mexico’s schools, raised teacher pay and increased the minimum wage. In addition, he gave working families a tax cut, returning $52 million to low and middle income families.
While other candidates may plan to do these things, Bill Richardson has already been leading and improving the lives of working families.
A candidate or the messiah?
Wow. Slow down the train there, my friend. We're talking about a candidate here. Maybe a good one, but still...he's just a man, not the messiah.
You said the following: As former U.N. Ambassador and as a Congressman, Bill Richardson has successfully negotiated with Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, Cuba and other rogue nations. ............He’s already made New Mexico the Clean Energy state.
Can you give some examples of what you mean? I am aware of the cease-fire in Sudan, but what were his "successes" in North Korea, Iraq, or Cuba? I'm not claiming that there weren't any...perhaps I'm just not aware of them...but success means a heck of a lot more than just sitting down at a table. What long-term difference did Richardson make?
As for New Mexico being the "Clean Energy State"...please. There is no such state. A catchy slogan does not make something true, nor do a few government-sponsored initiatives that result in little real change. Again, I will readily admit that I may not have some knowledge here, thus the reason I'm asking for some additional examples and insights.
This is the problem I have with many of the hard-core supporters this early in the campaign. I feel like I just read a commercial full of platitudes and generalities instead of a reasoned explanation with specific examples about why Richardson deserves the consideration of the American public.
Ken wasn't claiming he was the Saviour of the World
Alaskan Brian-
I don't know what it is with this thread, but I lost another long reply. I'm going to do this in 2 shorter comments so my browser doesn't freeze again.
I don't think Ken was claiming that Richardson is Jesus, but I understand his passion for this candidate. Richardson has 3 or 4 times as much experience as anyone else in the field. A proven track record of pragmatic problem solving is a refreshing change from the current administration.
I know people tire of hearing Richardson's resume, but your question "Can you give some examples of what you mean? I am aware of the cease-fire in Sudan, but what were his "successes" in North Korea, Iraq, or Cuba? I'm not claiming that there weren't any...perhaps I'm just not aware of them...but success means a heck of a lot more than just sitting down at a table. What long-term difference did Richardson make?" is all the more reason to continue to stress it.
In Iraq, Richardson was sent in to free two American oil-men who were held captive by Saddam Hussein at Abu-Ghraib prison. He faced Saddam and was successful in getting the two men freed. To those men's family and friends, Richardson's efforts make a daily difference. In Cuba, Richardson was sent to free 3 Cuban-Americans who were held by Castro for anti-communist remarks. Again, Richardson faced another dictator and won. All 3 of them came home with Richardson. To the beleaguered minority of pro-democracy agitators in Cuba, I imagine their freedom was a good boost in the arm.
Finally, with North Korea, Richardson was able to talk them into opening up their nuclear facilities to outside inspectors and to stopping/slowing their development of a nuclear bomb. When Richardson's tenure in the Clinton administration was up, North Korea had zero nukes. Now they have a handful, but I don't think you can pin the blame on Richardson for that.
Richardson has been successful in the little things and, I believe, deserves to be given a chance to be successful in the big things.
Governor Richardson's record in the Clean Energy State
Part Two:
Alaskan Brian, you asked, "As for New Mexico being the "Clean Energy State"...please. There is no such state. A catchy slogan does not make something true, nor do a few government-sponsored initiatives that result in little real change. Again, I will readily admit that I may not have some knowledge here, thus the reason I'm asking for some additional examples and insights."
Let me fill you in on what New Mexico has done to earn the title "Clean Energy State". First, it is important to point out that New Mexico has a large and thriving oil and natural gas sector. With prices as high as they are, that sector is doing very well. However, Governor Richardson has looked into the future and decided that carbon-based energy is on the way out. Clean, renewable energy is the future.
As Governor New Mexico:
Now you may follow up that things are exactly the "government sponsored initiatives" you were talking about. However, I would argue they are different. The utility mandate is binding. The cap and trade system for greenhouse gases is a proven system that works in other gases and for carbon in other nations. The tax breaks and limited new spending are for infrastructure items that will 'prime the pump' and help establish a completely new sector of the economy. Richardson is a huge believer in the market and knows that a move from carbon can't be forced upon folks by government initiative, but instead market forces are the strongest way to change behavior.
How's that for Clean Energy State?
Richardson did better with a little more time to explain himself
I don't know if you missed this afterwards, but Richardson explained the Darfur/Iraq genocide hypothetical much clearer to Anderson Cooper when he had a few moments to explain himself.
He can get a little bit wonky because his massive experience with international and domestic policy has shown him that most problems don't have easy answers or can't be explained in one minute.
Of course, when your opponents get 48% more time to answer questions, Richardson is going to be frustrated and try too hard to explain himself. One can hardly blame him.
Fair Point and Follow-Up
Expat,
Thank you for the helpful link. Two brief points. First, I think it is absolutely a fair point on behalf of Richardson to point out the inadequacies of the debate format. Questions aren't distributed equally or effectively...though I'm not sure I want Jim Gravel or Dennis Kucinich to get equal time, to be honest. Second, I'm still perplexed by Richardson's answer on genocide in Iraq after a hypothetical pullout. In the Anderson Cooper interview, he says that Iraq is a failed policy. I agree. He says that we need to pull troops out as leverage for diplomacy (spoken about in very generic terms, btw). Wait, exactly how is that going work? Will this be the UN or US? Diplomacy is working wonders in Sudan, isn't it? I think militant groups are biding their time until the US pulls out. I am all for using effective international diplomacy, even through the much-maligned UN. But let's face it: there are many instances where the lack of threat of force renders diplomacy meaningless. Sudan's government hasn't acted b/c they see the UN as inept. We've passed resolutions, we've spoken with moral outrage on Darfur, we've had celebrity benefits (and good for them), but meanwhile rape and murder continue on a horrific scale. They don't fear the UN. I trust that Shiite and Sunni militant groups aren't quivering in their boots at the thought of diplomacy.
But maybe he has more on this. That's why I'm asking you to make the case. :)
It's the DEMOCRATIC primary
Encyclopedia,
We can debate policy suggestions here, but I'd like to remind you that Richardson is trying to win the Democratic nomination. Not only does he personally believe in international cooperation, but 95% of Democrats believe in international cooperation and institutions like the UN.
About the genocide question, I'll try to answer as best I can for the Governor, but my response shouldn't be construed as his...
The Governor doesn't believe this hypothetical situation will happen.
Iraq and Sudan are fundamentally different. In Sudan, the Darfurians have no one on their side. They are truly defenseless. It is sheepherders vs. Apache helicopters out there. In Iraq, all sides are armed to the teeth. In Sudan, the Darfurians have no regional allies. In Iraq, each sectarian group has neighboring allies who will come to their defense. In Sudan, the Bashir government has complete control and gains nothing by stopping the genocide. In Iraq, the elected politicians become enemy number 1 as soon as American troops aren't guarding them 24/7. Those officials have EVERYTHING to gain by avoiding all out civil war and genocide. In Sudan, the international community has very little at stake. In Iraq, the entire world has something at stake and will work to use carrots and sticks to keep genocide from happening.
Fundamentally, you and many others are asking what does Day 1 after a withdrawal look like and I think that is a valid question. Only Governor Richardson is willing to talk about that. It is only a thumbnail, but no one else is even talking about Day 1 after the pull out. From his website:
As far as diplomacy failing in Sudan, I'd argue that European and American disengagement have led to that. It is a lack of leadership, especially by Europeans, that has failed the Darfurians, not the suggested diplomatic measures.
The most important issue with diplomacy is that Richardson wins. He gets what he wants when he settles down with some of these biggest *ssholes in the world. He has been able to talk to the North Koreans when Bush failed. He has brokered a 90-day ceasefire in Darfur this year. Richardson's history as an effective diplomat should probably grant him a little leeway when he talks about "effective diplomacy."
Pundits, voters and more YouTube
I know the crux of this argument is that the pundits aren't on Richardson's side, but I think it is important to note the voters will ultimately decide. That is important because for 2 of the 3 "regular" New Hampshire voters, Bill Richardson distinguished himself. You can hear John Roberts' surprise, but the two voters seem pretty moved.
Pundits, Journalists and a vested interest
UGH!!! My browser froze (I think because I took such a long time writing my last reply) and I lost a helluva good reply. I'll try to recreate it again, but I've lost the spark.
Encyclopedia-
I've missed you and can only hope that this post might signal a return to Dignan-like prolificness. ;-)
Although, I've tried to YouTube you to death that Richardson is a good candidate, I don't think that is your argument. I think you are saying that journalists are either slamming him or writing him off and therefore he isn't getting the traction his resume says he deserves. If that is the case, let me give you a personal story that might illuminate some things.
I have a friend from church that covers Capitol Hill for the Federal Times and has a long-term friendship with Hillary Clinton's assistant deputy press secretary. As you can imagine, if Hillary wins, my friend will have a high placed source. That is a good move for her career, as she is tired of covering Congress. My friend also has a "working associate" with Obama's camp, but no relationships with any other candidates. My friend is pulling for HIllary to win, but would be ok with an Obama win. To me that looks a lot like a conflict of interest on her part. However, she is just a cub reporter and has no say in the national dialogue.
Yet, I would assert that long-time professional journalists in DC have a similar conflict of interest. Hillary has reached out to the broadcast and print media since she arrived in 2000. Obama has made similar overtures. Therefore, these journalists have well-placed sources inside these campaign, while upstart beyond the Beltway campaigns like Richardson's haven't made those connections.
Look at the arbitrary "top 3" for the Democratic nomination. Why the top 3? I'd argue that each of those individuals has solid relationship with the traditional media. Sure, they have high poll numbers, but why does 15% (Edwards in NH) make the top tier, when 10% (Richardson in NH) doesn't?
And the problem isn't unique to Democrats. Mitt Romney is kicking ass in Iowa and NH, but lagging in national polls. Who has gotten all the focus so far? Giuliani and McCain, two individuals with long-term ties to the pundits that "grade" each debate performance and television appearance.
For Richardson, he is also saddled with this "he'll make a great V-P" idea and some have him serving on a Hillary-Richardson ticket. Since pundits already have him slotted as the next VP, why bother consider his proposals or his qualifications for the top job? As an aside, a Hillary-Richardson ticket would never work. America might be ready for a minority President, but a minority ticket won't flly, especially with Hillary at the top.
Ultimately it comes down to voters and if Richardson moves in the polls, he'll have to be taken seriously. I certainly believe that will happen over the slow days of summer.
Post new comment