Is Richardson 'Too Real?'

Interesting Bio by the AP on Bill Richardson. They examine his background to address the question as to whether Richardson is too real and frank. Poll after polls show that the one character trait that US citizens want in a president is honesty. Now, I'm not so naive as to state that Richardson is the reincarnation of the mythical view of George Washington but he does speak his mind. He has record of following through on his promises and he has the skill to push even unpopular issues through a legislature.

And Richardson is really a DLC Democrat so I really won't be voting for him in the primary.

I don't have any problem with past association with the DLC. They were the most powerful block in our party during the early 90s and many Democrats became members. The members of that group are not monolithic in their views. Kerry is a DLC member as are many others with liberal voting records. Right now, all the candidates except Hillary have distanced themselves from the DLC since she is an officer in it and her association with it benefits her the most.

When asked about being a New Democrat, Richardson said that he considered himself a New Progressive. Like Edwards, he is now distancing himself from the group. Plus Richardson's stance on immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq really pissed off some of the Washington establishment.

I went to Richardson's site when I was researching the Dem candidates and as I was looking over some of his foreign policy and fiscal proposals it struck that I'd heard that stuff somewhere before. So I checked and sure enough he's a DLCer. I think those DLC ties may be stronger than you suggest.

It's one of the points I agree with him on. Contrary to the title of the article, he's been kind of low key on his tax policy proposals. He supports repealing or letting expire the Shrub Inc tax cuts including the dividend cuts and the dynasty tax. He wants to establish a commission modeled on the military base closure commission to determine which corporate subsidies need to be eliminated. Then he wants an up or down vote on the whole package. He wants to repeal the tax break for off shoring. He would keep tax breaks for the middle class. He would also add breaks for companies that create new jobs above the prevailing wage and breaks for green technology. He does support the balanced budget amendment and the line item veto. I agree with the balanced budget amendment but disagree with the line item veto.

However, his foreign policy seems pretty liberal to me. I don't keep up with the DLC proposals but he supports immediate withdrawal from Iraq with no residual troops. He wants to double foreign economic aid and supports microcredit in developing countries. He's for negotiating with every country regardless of how the Shrub Inc administration views them. He attacked * for his saber rattling on Iran and criticized Hillary for her Iran vote. Here's his latest speech on global sustainability. His proposals seem pretty liberal to me.

I like Kucinich and agree most with his single payer health plan. I just wish that he was a better campaigner. He hasn't built up very good organizations in the primary state or done much fund raising. Still, I'm glad he's in the race since he does move the discussion more to the left. I usually vote for him as my third choice in most of the polls.

without more info about his vulnerabilities. I get nauseated when I think of the giant RW slime machine starting up on candidates who haven't been through LOTS of vetting. At least with Hillary, there's not too much more anyone can say that hasn't been thrown at her.

We just need to be careful...

He's been put through the mill by Repugs and there is no doubt that they'll bring out some of their past points against him. His negatives are his handling of the Win Ho Lee incident while energy secretary and he offered Monica Lewinsky a job after she was recommended to him by Bill Clinton. Richardson pointed out that he inherited the situation at the DOE and admitted that he didn't handle the Win Ho Lee investigation well. They might attack him on his tenure as governor since a couple of his fund raisers were accused of corruption. The same stuff they'll attack Clinton with over some of her donors. It didn't stick when they tried to do it in in New Mexico as he was reelected with 68% of the vote.

They tried to tar him with womanizing through a hit piece in the Politico early this year. It was pretty lame and didn't stick so I don't think they'll attempt it again. They claimed that he was too touchy with his female Lt Governor but as she pointed out, he does that with everybody whether male or female. She's one of his biggest supporters and co-chair of The Women for Richardson group with Martha Burke. Richardson married his high school sweetheart and there has never been a hint of infidelity by him.

He's got a better record on taxes and fiscal responsibility than the Repug front runners and has really good appeal among independents. The Rasmussen polls show him as having the lowest unfavorable rating (aside from Gravel who is only lower because of his name recognition). He has the lowest "vote against" numbers of any candidate either from the Repug or Democrat parties in both the Rasmussen poll and the recent Zogby poll. Because of some of his moderate record on fiscal matters and independent appeal, IMHO, the Repugs are afraid of facing him in the general election. Why else did they throw that hit piece against him in the Politico earlier this year?

I would share here, but it did have to do with the Politico story. Since all is gossip it isn't worth it to speculate and I won't. I was hoping it would be cleared up.

Let us hope this will be the end of it.

They covered and debunked the smear by the Politico of both Bill Richardson and Barack Obama in this article.

Nice and quirky people come from my home state.

He seemed to get too nervous or humble at the debates. I can see why people aren't drawn to him as much as i would like.

But there is still time. If Hillary and Obama tear each other apart, and Richardson pulls himself together, he could be the next comeback kid in NH and Iowa.

I originally thought he was best based on his policy proposals and his skills but dropped my support for him after those early flubs. However, he's shown great improvement recently. He did pretty good in the early morning debate. He got decent ratings in the AARP debate. David Yepsen gave him high marks for his speech at the Harkin Steak Fry. A former critic from the Iowa Independent had this to say about his major speech last week.

The debates that I have seen depict him as very overbearing and boisterous.
However, I don't care for him anyway, so maybe those traits just stand out more so because of my dislike for him.

The water rights to the Great Lakes are bound by an INTERNATIONAL treaty. Not that America honors treaties anymore... Lost my vote.

He was first falsely accused when he talked of water policy in Nevada of wanting to run a pipe to Michigan and drain the lakes for Nevada. His original statement they supposedly got this from was:



However, if you read the full article, his statement is obviously directed at the dispute over water rights to the Colorado river between Nevada and the Northern states along the river. He's been a leader on water conservation for decades. With climate change we'll soon have more droughts like the one going on right now in the South East. We need a national water policy.

A pipe from the Great Lakes is a ridiculous idea as it would cost more to pipe the water than folks could afford. He in no way endorsed that. What happened was that environmentalists in the area are pushing a compact on the lakes and mischaracterized Richardson's statement to promote the signing of that pact between the surrounding states and Canada. Granholm, the Michigan governor, also jumped on Richardson. Richardson was the first to take his name off the Michigan ballot in response to their jumping the early primary states. Granholm also endorsed Hillary soon after falsely attacking Richardson. No politics there, huh?


Bill Richardson's press release on water policy.



In none of those articles can I find where he says or obviously implies that the Great Lakes belong to Michigan. He doesn't even mention the Great Lakes or Michigan.

If that's him being "real" then I guess he's too real.