Sell John McCain stock, buy Bill Richardson's

not crazy about either Roberts, but here it is:

April 23, 2007
Cokie Roberts & Steven V. Roberts: Sell John McCain stock, buy Bill Richardson's

If candidates were investments, the smart money would be saying: sell McCain, buy Richardson.

{snip}

Bill Richardson will turn 60 next fall and seems full of energy. In recent months he has traveled to Darfur and North Korea on diplomatic missions, which underscores the fact that he has actually held more government posts than any candidate in either party.

Congressman, cabinet secretary, U.N. ambassador and now, two-term governor. And remember, we elect governors, not senators. In the past 30 years four governors have won the presidency; in our entire history, only two senators have accomplished that feat.

Then there was this blog entry by James Boyce on The Huffington Post: "On the left, the netroots-early-warning-detection-system is starting to buzz a little bit and the recipient of the buzz is Bill Richardson." The reasons: He favors a complete pullout from Iraq, has real credentials on energy issues, and his mother is Mexican. Yes, his father was a wealthy American banker, and he attended a fancy New England prep school, but he speaks fluent Spanish and would appeal strongly to America's largest and fastest-growing ethnic minority.

"Richardson," writes Boyce, "will get a look over the next 60 to 90 days and if he transfers his growing online buzz into mainstream media buzz, watch out."

McCain and Richardson have the same bank balances, but their similarities end there. In the political marketplace today, one is a junk bond, the other a growth stock.

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/04/23/opinion/guest/50-roberts.txt

nothing but fields of nettles for McCain.

I wonder if he passes the purity test. Is Iraq a mistake? Or a premeditated crime?

It's only because he wasn't in office that he can get away with saying it. Clinton can't, Edwards can't. Obama could, until he supported the surge.

I'm embarrassed to have such a one-issue litmus test, but there it is.

He can win in the general. He is bright, articulate (albeit not the first articulate Hispanic :-) ), with gobs of experience and few skeletons people will care about. Like it or not (and it's usually "not" on DU), we need moderates and independents to win the WH. He can get them.

Can he get past a primary season dominated by Clinton/Obama money and voted on mostly by partisans who are less likely to be moderates and more likely to view any "establishment" (whatever that means!) Dem as one small step from a Republican? Probably not to be honest, but dammit I hope so. I hope so because he's our best chance in the general election to avoid two more SCJ's who will gut reproductive rights, civil liberties and personal freedom. He's our best chance in the general election to avoid still more spiralling deficits, still more freefalling currency, and still more worldwide loathing. It's possible he can pull a Clinton 92 and come from being a dark horse to the winner, but then Clinton in 92 wasn't up against the war chests of HRC and Obama. It will be very tough.

Unlike the uber-purists, I will donate to, campaign and vote for any nominee we put up, because I'm a pragmatist above all and pragmatism tells me we have to avoid another Republican WH or we'll be a pariah nation by 2012. I just hope I have a chance to do it for Bill Richardson.

Or the most moderate in the race. Kerry beat Dean, Gore beat Bradley, Clinton beat Brown and Tsongas, Dukakis beat Jackson. Okay, before that, maybe not.

Richardson's problem isn't his central position. His only problem, I believe, is lack of exposure and momentum. I'd love to see him become a bigger part of the primary picture. I like him as much as, if not more than some of, the top three we have now.

but less liberal than Kennedy.

I liked both and knew enough to know that.

since dean was against war more strongly than kerry, they assumed dean must be more left

Certainly moderates win some primaries. However I should clarify and say I meant "moderate" as it relates to the whole political spectrum not just Democrats. The same thing that makes Republicans call the likes of Thompson or McCain a "moderate" also works for Democrats too.

At least in my opinion and on general terms, Bill Richardson probably lies to the right of Obama and HRC. I can't think of a more rightward Democratic candidate offhand, but while that may alienate some I think the appeal to the general electorate is vital for us next time around. But then I'm a social liberal fiscal moderate type myself. It would be interesting to hear what some of the more uniformly liberal/progressive types think about him. If that wing of the party can tolerate him at least, and he can win over the middle of the roaders, then it would surely be realpolitik of us to improve his chances of gaining the nomination?

I'm a Richardson supporter.

and I know him and like him... It's because he's Hispanic. I'm honest... I want to give him the benefit of the doubt."

http://freedomfolks.blogspot.com/2007/04/bill-richardson-gonzalez-is-man-cuz-hes.html

Here's the original source from April 18, 2007:

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.

“I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.”

http://www.thehill.com/campaign-2008/gov.-richardson-pretty-close-to-calling-for-gonzales-to-resign-2007-04-17.html

Prior to that, Richardson had made similar statements:

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.

Tavis: So you would not call for his stepping down right now.

Richardson: No, no. And you know what? Part of it maybe is because he's the highest-ranking Hispanic ever.

Tavis: But wrongdoing is wrongdoing, though. If he did wrong.

Richardson: Well, I think it's more a lack of attention, lack of a plan, lack of being thorough.

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200703/20070321_richardson.html

Left- AND Right-leaning blogs have beat him up over that!

Seriously though, it's not the best thing he could have said, and I make no apologies for him. At least he now wants Gonzo gone.

station) and Freedom Folks (a liberal blog).

Lots of blogs commenting on it.

That is why you regularly spam pro-Richardson threads with various attacks. Richardson wanted to hear Gonzales' testimony before calling for his resignation. Imagine what would have happened if Edwards (your candidate) had stopped to consider the intelligence behind the Iraq war before he cosponsored the bill. Edwards was on the intelligence committee and had access to the same intelligence that Bob Graham saw when he voted against it. I'll take a candidate that considers the issues over one that sways in the political wind any day. It's better to get it right the first time instead of apologizing later.

I notice that every time you spam a pro-Richardson thread with this attack you leave off that Richardson also called Gonzales the president's political flack, said that he probably shouldn't have been confirmed as AG, and said that the only way he could survive is for Gonzales to admit he did wrong and politicized the US Attorney General's Office. That's not real supportive.

The real reason why Richardson was slow to call for Gonzales' resignation is not that they're both Hispanic but immigration reform. In several of your attacks against Richardson, you've said he "Has much praise for Bush's immigration plans". Let's look at those plans, the Tancredo agenda, and compare them with the Democratic position.

First lets look at some of the recent conservatives who called for Gonzales' resignation and their views on immigration.

Bruce Fein:



Bob Barr:



Then there are David Keene, Richard Viguerie, Jeff Sessions, and Tom Tancredo. All of them basically in favor of throwing every illegal immigrant out of the US and locking down the country. They all disagree on some of the social conservative agenda and other issues but this is an issue where all these conservatives are united.

In addition, we've seen a step up in the media by talking heads bashing illegal immigration. There was the publicity about the illegal immigrant drunk driver who killed someone in an accident. There's Lou Dobbs who nightly attacks illegal immigration, even using a white supremacy group as a source. Imus is being replaced by a Repug jerk who thinks we should have rounded up all the attendees at the Hispanic rallies last year to get illegal immigrants.

Mel Martinez has come under fire recently for campaign finance violations. He is pro-path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and was put in place by *. The timing of these charges is curious.

Ghouliani has flip flopped on his stance on illegal immigration. He now is against a path to citizenship.


What this adds up to is a power struggle within the Repug party between the business wing and the xenophobic wing. It looks like the xenophobic wing is going to use illegal immigration as their fear-mongering tactic in the 2008 election.

Gonzales is for a path to citizenship for illegal aliens.



Bill Richardson is an expert on immigration issues. You have to be to be Governor of a border state like New Mexico. The Organization of American States appointed him as a special envoy to deal with immigration issues. Bill Richardson has spoken out on immigration on several occasions and has agreed with Shrub Inc in their support of certain immigration issues like the McCain/Kennedy immigration reform bill. Here's Richardson's views on illegal immigration.



Richardson would strengthen border security, work with Mexico to improve their infrastructure, increase legal immigration, start a guest worker program that has the same standards as for US workers, and a path to earned citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the US. Richardson has also strongly disagreed with the Bushies on some immigration issues like the border wall (LINK). Richardson has a liberal, fair, and humane approach to the illegal immigration issue.

As noted in the Tavis Smiley interview, Richardson was working with Gonzales on illegal immigration. Compare Richardson and Gonzales positions and notice the similarities. Richardson is not moderating his attacks on Gonzales because he's Hispanic or his buddy; he's doing it because the AG that replaces Gonzales will represent the hard-core, anti-immigrant, wing of the Republican Party. Regardless of whether Bill Richardson is elected president or not, this is an issue that he feels strongly and personally about. Politically, Richardson can't come out and say that he hopes Gonzales survives because he is afraid that the next Attorney General will work to deport every illegal immigrant in the country. Illegal immigration is a divisive issue, even among some Democrats.

The xenophobic wing of the Republican Party knows that the best chance get their legislation through is before the next election. If we increase our margins in the legislature and take the presidency; their agenda will be dead. They also want someone that can give them ammunition through high profile prosecutions involving illegal immigrants. They want to turn illegal immigration into the next "gay marriage" issue to rally their party. Bush is a weak lame duck and won't be able to appoint another loyal Bushie as Attorney General. I can guarantee that the next appointee will work to promote the Tom Tancredo agenda if Gonzales resigns.

to show that Biden, Hillary, and Richardson hold less progressive values which I don't share.

If you read the thread, you'll see that hnmnf mentioned that "Richardson's Gonzales statement annoyed me a bit" and trotsky asked what part of those statements were annoying.

I identified the quote which offended some people (me included) and provided context as well as sources. I assume that you don't dispute the sources or the quote.

Let me reinforce that Richardson is a great guy who would make a fine Secretary of State and, if he gets the nomination for president, I'll work for him and support him for that office, too. In fact, I'll willingly acknowledge that Richardson enjoys bi-partisan support from pro-business centrists of both parties and that makes him an excellent candidate for moderate Democrats (better than Biden, in my view, and at least as good as Hillary). Being moderate is not a crime in my book; it's just not what I'm looking for in a nominee. So until we choose a nominee, I'll support a candidate that better reflects my values which are more progressive than Richardson's.

Which part of that is an attack? I would defend Richardson from a real attack (a non-issue related criticism or demonstrably false accusation). Moreover, if anyone posted one of those "If Richardson gets the nomination, I'm not voting for him" thread, I be quick to take issue with that person (as I have with the anti-Hillary threads where people say they won't support the ticket is she's on it).

You've regularly attacked Richardson in numerous threads. Heck, I'll bet that in half of Bigtree's threads in support of Richardson, you've shown up with some sort of attack. You started an attack thread regarding Richardson receiving support from Texas Republicans and had it pointed out to you that Edwards and most of the other candidates have recieved similar support. However, you're attempting to revive the attack a the post above.

You've regularly posted that Richardson supports eliminating Habeus Corpus from death penalty cases which is a lie. Go read the actual bill that this supposedly comes from.

You've gone on Obama threads and posted that he supports banning all semi-automatic weapons (which includes hunting rifles and shotguns). That was debunked a while back. If you actually read the NPAT which that position was supposedly drawn from it was referring to assault weapons. The ontheissues.org statement was proven wrong.

someone who has worked with the ACLU on death penalty issues, I assure you that I am not incorrect about this.

Richardson's vote would not have eliminated federal habeas corpus appeals in federal death penalty cases, true, but those account for far less than 1% of all executions, and Richardson would eliminate federal habeas corpus appeals in more than 99% of the executions which have occurred in the state court systems. It is also true that Richardson would not eliminate state habeas corpus in state courts (which Congress doesn't have the power to do anyway), but many state constitutions (like Texas) have much less habeas corpus protection than the US Constitution. More than 2/3 of federal habeas corpus reviews find constitutional errors that state constitutions would not protect and more than half of these federal habeas corpus reviews grant death row prisoners relief they could not obtain under their state court habeas corpus petitions. That's a huge difference.

As for Obama -- I AGREE WITH HIS VIEWS ON GUN CONTROL so posting information from a well-established source about Obama's views on gun control is hardly an attack. One of the areas where I prefer Obama over Edwards is gun control (and the death penalty is another area where I prefer Obama over Edwards). There are areas (like poverty elimination) where I prefer Edwards over Obama, but I would be 100% satisfied with either Obama or Edwards. For my money, as long as we nominate anyone but Hillary, Richardson, or Biden, I'll be happy. I'll nevertheless work for a Hillary/Richardson or Biden ticket if that's how the nomination process plays out.

In this thread you wrote: Richardson voted to abolish habeas corpus in death penalty appeals

In this thread you wrote in a laundry list of attacks on Richardson that you've spammed numerous threads with:

"Richardson’s vote to abolish habeas corpus in death penalty appeals"

You also wrote:

"When I express my disagreement with Richardson’s vote to abolish habeas corpus in death penalty appeals

You also wrote in another Richardson attack:

pro-medical savings accounts, pro-death penalty/anti-death-penalty-appeals

BTW, the medical savings account bill that Richardson voted for is nothing like the plan by Shrub Inc. It's a bill that allows people with expected reoccurring medical expenses to save money for it pretax. It enjoyed a lot of Democratic support.

Richardson, like all the top 4 candidates (including Edwards) supports the death penalty. I'm not a supporter of the death penalty but your characterization of Richardson's vote is clearly false. It is only applicable in a limited number of cases and was used to address a stalling tactic used to tie up the courts with numerous appeals.

Here's the text of the bill, Richardson voted for 11 years ago.



It basically has a 1 year statute of limitation on appeals from state courts to federal courts in death penalty cases where the person appealing is challenging the constitutionality of the state death penalty law under the US constitution. It also allows for exceptions if the Supreme Court has made a ruling that would affect this case. Richardson does not support banning all Habeas Corpus in all death penalty cases as you've tried to imply in numerous threads.

Richardson has also moderated his stance on the death penalty over the years. There are only two people on death row in New Mexico and both were convicted before Richardson took office. There was an interview with one of them on MSNBC. The guy is a serial killer who was convicted of killing 4 people. He beat the last victim to death with a sledgehammer. There has not been an execution in New Mexico since Richardson took office.

Battles legislatively against the death penalty
Obama's most significant contribution has been his legislative battles against the death penalty, and against in the criminal justice system. In Illinois, it's been a series of shocking exonerations of innocent people who are on death row. He was involved very intimately in drafting and passing legislation that requires the video taping of police interrogations and confessions in all capital cases. And he also was one of the co-sponsors of this very comprehensive reform or the death penalty system in Illinois, which many people say may trigger the retreat on the death penalty in many other states.
Source: Salim Muwakkil and Amy Goodman, Democracy Now Jul 15, 2004

Battles legislatively against the death penalty
He was involved very intimately in drafting and passing legislation that requires the video taping of police interrogations and confessions in all capital cases. And he also was one of the co-sponsors of this very comprehensive reform or the death penalty system in Illinois, which many people say may trigger the retreat on the death penalty in many other states.
Source: Salim Muwakkil and Amy Goodman, Democracy Now Jul 15, 2004

Supports alternative sentencing and rehabilitation

* Principles that Obama supports to address crime:Implement penalties other than incarceration for certain non-violent offenders.
* Increase state funds for programs which rehabilitate and educate inmates during and after their prison sentences.
* Provide funding for military-style "boot camps" for first-time juvenile felons.

Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Crime.htm

Richardson's vote for Henry Hyde's bill (H.R.2703) was to abolish habeas corpus review under the US Constitution for state court death penalty cases (which is OVER 99% of all executions):

SEC. 902. APPEAL.

Section 2253 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 2253. Appeal

`(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

`(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings.

`(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from--

`(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or

`(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

`(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

`(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).'.

I've told you before that you need to be careful in using the ontheissues.org site. You've used it in your attacks on Richardson and that site occassionally has dated, wrong, or misleading material. Here's Obama's position.

On Obama and death penalty:



Now I stated the HR2703 bill wrong, it limits Habeas appeals based on the constitutionality of the state case. It does not abolish Habeas Corpus as you claim.

Here's an analysis of the Habeas Corpus reform part of the bill from PBS Frontline.



As you can see, you are clearly wrong in your attack on Richardson. Unlike the Patriot Act that Edwards voted for, it does not abolish Habeas Corpus but is an attempt to limit multiple appeals based on it in death penalty cases.

but also refreshingly honest and natural. Does anybody think the support of Obama from many black leaders is not connected to the fact that he is black? Is that OK or not? The answer should be the same. Any minority (or blended white/minority as is relevant to both men), in a society like ours where they get a raw deal from the majority, is bound to have a bit more tolerance for the sins of their own. It may not be rational (and it's certainly not politically expedient to say so out loud in so many words!) but it's understandable, and if we turn a blind eye to it for one, we should for all.

I disagree with him on this statement (but then I'm not Hispanic). I actually disagree with him on several others. But I'm not so pure that I will refuse to support anyone with whom I disagree in some areas. I instead look for where I agree most often. That's why I'm a Richardson donor/supporter (funnily enough last cycle my primary donations went to Edwards who was not in the same position on the spectrum of candidates, but just seemed like he would have had a good shot at winning and had good ideas in a lot of areas). If Bill weren't running they may go to him again, or perhaps HRC. Frankly I haven't decided who to support if Bill drops out. I hope it's a long time or never before I have to!

and becoming more so by the day. i donate to both Richardson & Edwards campaigns. wouldn't donate to any of the rest of 'em.

There aren't any perfect candidates out there (that I'm going to agree with a whole lot of the time except Kucinich), so I look at different things, especially a person's actions so I'm staying in tune with his campaign. Ive' only given monetary support to two candidates so far, DK and Richardson. Any physical effort support will wait until I feel more comfortable

No residual forces in Iraq.
Proven diplomat that believes in diplomatic engagement with everyone.
Proponent of the International Criminal Court, Geneva Convention, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Big proponent of the United Nations and for Security Council expansion to be more inclusive.
Making the Congressional Healthcare plan an option.
Reducing the age for Medicare to age 55.
International solutions to loose nukes and other weapons in the former Soviet States (buy them up if necessary).

There are more but I think his experience really helps in many of these areas.

How revolutionary it would be to elect him President so that he can declare a pull-out from America's longest lasting (and most unsuccessful) war -- the war on drugs.

Compared to Clinton's hypocrisy and Bush's ethanol/cocaine relapses, Richardson would lead us out of the herb-fearing wilderness and toward compassion and common sense.

Viva Richardson!!

Fly by night
(Federal Bureau of Prisons number 16502-075)

Richardson is in my opinion, the man to beat. He's my choice.