| Bill Richardson appeared in Keene this past Friday for a retail politics event he advertised as a "job interview". During it, he was asked about his stance on the pending free trade agreements with Panama and Peru.
Here's the question from the event, and Richardson's answer:
There's a couple things that disturb me about this answer.
1) He's the "resume" candidate. His congressional experience focussed heavily on Latin American relations.
If this is truly a "job interview" as he has asked us to view it, I would expect just a little of his knowledge of that region to show through in the answer. Give us a sense of why Panama and Peru are different than, say, Mexico. Have the respect to educate your audience. Instead, the answer is walked directly to the talking points about all trade policy. I can get that at the website -- we need more here.
Just as in a real job interview, the lack of specifics here makes me uneasy that the resume may reflect postions held, instead of experience gained.
2) Speaking of Mexico: conspicously absent from his answer was this -- Richardson is widely credited with getting NAFTA passed in the Congress. Bonior, the majority whip at the time, was against NAFTA, so the task of chief arm-twister on NAFTA fell to Richardson, the deputy whip. Richardson famously called Perot a racist for calling attention to wage disparities, environmental issues, and working conditions etc. south of the border. Consider the lead paragraph from an article that ran in the Dallas Morning News on June 11, 1993:
Two Hispanic congressmen and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce took on Ross Perot on Wednesday, calling his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement "anti-Mexico' and filled with racial overtones.
`Unable to wage his campaign on the facts and the economics of the trade pact, Ross Perot is relying on hateful stereotypes, Mexico-bashing and racially offensive rhetoric to kill NAFTA,' Rep. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., told reporters...
Or consider how Richardson celebrated after he and President Clinton were able to marshall the NAFTA votes in a surprise victory -- I give you the lead paragraph of an article from the Journal of Commerce, November 22, 1993:
Rep. Bill Richardson wasted no time unveiling the latest addition to his wardrobe: a white T-shirt that once bore the battle cry for backers of the North American Free Trade Agreement - "NAFTA NOW!" But with the help of a red marker, the New Mexico Democrat had changed the message."NAFTA WOW!" it now read.
And "wow" it was.
(Incidentally you can see these lead paragraphs for free by searching http://www.newslibra... -- it's impossible to link directly...)
Should he have to make that disclaimer at the beginning of every speech, that without his efforts NAFTA would not have been passed? And that his job with NAFTA was to go against those that said its protections were inadequate?
No. But it's disingenous to talk this way, as if he's the long-standing critic of these crazy Democrats that keep caving on free trade deals.
I could go on. I won't. But the essential questions in a "job interview" are "Does this candidate match what we saw on the resume?" and "Is he being straight with us?"
The answer in Keene this Friday night to both questions was no. Here's hoping for a more straightforward and informative interview in the future. |
