I should also say my leanings (0.00 / 0)

Are still towards Edwards, but still only leanings.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 21:59:11 PM CST

Intangible stuff vs. Positions on the Issues (0.00 / 0)

I have still been playing around in my mind about the idea of what makes a voter vote for a candidate along an analysis of intangible personality traits versus positions on the issues. Mike, reading your diary, makes me think about it again.

Governor Richardson is a proud Southwestern Democrat, as he should be. That means that he has taken positions that might be contrary to the typical belief of a Northeastern Liberal. Among other things, he was the chief legislative whip for the passage of NAFTA, and he is anti gun-control. Maybe that makes him electable to the rest of the nation, but we should recognize those facts and beliefs.

I have not listened to the audio, but your diary does not even mention his stance on Iraq.  I believe that his position on Iraq and his past comments about Iraq parallel track Senator Clinton's position.

Bill Clinton had this intangible gift of making someone like him the minute they met him. Maybe Bill Richardson has this same gift. Personally, in my brief one to one meeting with him last year, he totally turned me off with his attitude. However, I am willing to concede that his personality may have appeal to others.

What strikes me is the willingness of people to set aside differences in policy positions and vote for someone that appeals to them personally.  Many people did that with Bill Clinton; the same with George Bush.  It is that intangible quality of personality that apparently makes a difference.

---

by: gradysdad @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 05:34:30 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

I think you're very right (0.00 / 0)

But the Bush appeal gives us pause.

The one reassuring thing to me is NH saw through Bush in 2000. We saw underneath that veneer was a petulant petty man.

The campaign has a good way to go...if there's issues with Richardson, they'll come to light. For now, I find him surprisingly likeable. There's something in the style of talking that is Republicanesque, but that could be a strength. We'll see.

Did you see him at the Molly Kelly event?

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 05:51:48 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

Iraq (4.00 / 1)

Richardson did not, of course, have to vote for the AUMF for Iraq, so it's not a close comparison. He had some reservations about going into Iraq (I've seen some quotes around the time of invasion saying he thought the diplomacy was a failure and would be a big problem), but I don't think you could call him a Dean-style, vocal critic at the time. However, I don't think you could say his position parallels Clinton in any major way since then. He has been significantly more critical of the war and the basic ideology behind it than has Senator Clinton. Of course, everyone on the Democratic side wants the war to be over, but Richardson has been more forceful and specific in calling for troops to be out now than has Clinton. He is also, to my knowledge, the only major candidate to make the explicit point that the invasion of Iraq is merely a symptom of some deeper, more fundamental problems with the establishment thinking on foreign policy. "Iraq is a symptom," he said at the DNC. "The disease is arrogance."

Senator Clinton reflects too much the establishment in DC which sort of says that the main problem with Iraq was in the implementation by Bush ("the mistakes were President Bush's" is her explicit message). This is a major, major difference between Senator Clinton and Richardson (and Obama and Edwards, for that matter, although Edwards's comments on Iran make me wonder about him a bit). And is, I think, the most important consideration when thinking of the candidates' positions on it.

---

by: BriVT @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 06:12:31 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

Great line: (4.00 / 1)

"Iraq is a symptom," he said at the DNC. "The disease is arrogance."

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 06:42:32 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

Yet (0.00 / 0)

Yet, Governor Richardson has indicated support for Senator Clinton's position on Iraq, at least in September 2005 before he announced his campaign. The link for the interview is here.

AMY GOODMAN: Cindy Sheehan has been going around the country speaking out. She lost her son, Casey, in the war. You are the first governor to have your state, New Mexico, provide life insurance for national guardsmen on active duty. But I didn't want to ask about that.
I wanted to ask: as she travels leading up to the big anti-war protest that'll take place in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, on the 24th, she came through New York. And there she was fiercely critical of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her authorization of war, standing with the President to authorize the invasion. What are your thoughts about that. She is saying Democrats enabled this as well as Republicans. It was not just President Bush.
GOVERNOR RICHARDSON: Well, look, I believe that Senator Clinton has a sound policy on Iraq. I believe that her-- she is calling for an exit strategy, for a sensible policy. You know, I want to tell you that in those days when there was information about weapons of mass destruction, when there was information about Saddam Hussein and his very torturous activities with his own people, I could have seen a senator taking the vote that he or she did.

---

by: gradysdad @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 07:31:38 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

September 2005? (0.00 / 0)

That's quite a bit "before he announced his campaign." That was 18 months ago ... not exactly relevant to their positions today.

More importantly, that is clearly a loyal guy giving cover to another prominent Democrat. "I could have seen a senator taking the vote that he or she did" is hardly a ringing endorsement. The only explicit endorsement he gives is that she is calling for an exit strategy.

But, of more relevance, Richardson has been calling for withdrawal for a while now, wants all troops out this calendar year, and is calling for a repeal of the original authorization. Clinton is essentially looking to cap the current troop number and says she'll remove troops as President. Their policies are not the same at all.

Worse still, when asked about the war in South Carolina yesterday, she said:

To underscore a point, some people may be running who tell you we don't face a real threat from terrorism," she said. "I'm not one of them. We have serious enemies who want to do us serious harm

That's the worst thing I've seen any Democrat say since Lieberman got the boot from the party, I think. I was actually one of the rare people who didn't have strong feelings about Clinton, but statements like that are making me pretty negative toward her (note: relative to other Democrats ... I'd still enthusiastically vote for her over McCain/Giuliani/etc)

---

by: BriVT @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 09:09:27 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

Same Article (0.00 / 0)

In that same interview he said very clearly that he was against withdrawal of troops and setting a deadline.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about Iraq, your feeling about the war right now and what should happen. Should the U.S. withdraw immediately?
GOVERNOR RICHARDSON: No. I believe setting a deadline and withdrawing immediately is not sensible policy. I think we need to have an exit strategy. We don't have that. I think we need to find a way to send a message to the international community that this is not just America, that we need international support. I believe that we've mishandled our relationship with our allies, with the United Nations.
I believe that it's important that we have an Iraq policy that we're either going to finish the job or we're going to exit. And, right now, we're muddling through. What I believe we need to do is have a sensible military, economic, political, foreign policy assessment of what our goals and objectives are. Our objective, I believe, should be to start pursuing as rapidly as we can an exit strategy. Do we have a deadline? Do we pull out immediately? No.

Does that mean he has changed his mind on the issue?

---

by: gradysdad @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 10:54:46 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

Again, September 2005 (4.00 / 1)

He was against withdrawing troops immediately in September 2005. That doesn't mean he has to be against withdrawing troops for the rest of his life. The situation is different. Expecting someone to have the same position on withdrawing troops is not very logical.

"It's important that we have an Iraq policy that we're either going to finish the job or we're going to exit." That's what he said. It's entirely consistent to have the thought in 2005 that there was still some chance of "finishing the job" with the US military having a role while having the thought in 2007 that troops now can not help us move forward in Iraq in any way and should be withdrawn as soon as practical.

Most importantly, though, looking at what he believed in 2005 compared to what Clinton believed in 2005 isn't really the point. You said his policy in Iraq is basically the same as Clinton now (has closely paralleled, I think you said), and that's just not true and hasn't been for some time.

---

by: BriVT @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 11:47:22 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

But is he in favor of removing (0.00 / 0)

the hundred thousand manning the bases and the twenty thousand that will be needed later?  Is he in favor of redeploying the U.S. missile defense from Western Europe to the Middle East? 
If he's not aware of "peak oil" is it because he knows the future is nuclear and that for nuclear to be "economically competitive" the price of other fuels has to increase?

---

by: hannah @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 07:51:36 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

Alternative Energy (0.00 / 0)

for nuclear to be "economically competitive" the price of other fuels has to increase

This could about the development of any alternative energy program.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 10:02:54 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

Yes, dunno, dunno (0.00 / 0)

He's in favor of removing all US troops from Iraq. I have no idea about his stance on missile defense batteries (do you mean Patriots?), but considering that moving them is mostly a provocation toward Iran, I'd guess that he's not in favor of it.

I know he's not a big fan of nuclear power, fwiw, but I'm not sure I understand your last question.

---

by: BriVT @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 10:29:01 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

He's said that nuclear energy has to be part of the mix (0.00 / 0)

But seems to shy away from focussing development efforts in that area.

He gave a figure of how much electricity in the U.S. was from nuclear. It was suprisingly high to me, I'd thought it was insignificant.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 20:31:46 PM CST

[ Parent | ]

Iraq (4.00 / 1)

I think one reasn this diary doesn't talk about Richardson's stand on Iraq could be that there have been two other diaries in the last few days that have.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 13:49:44 PM CST

[ Parent | ]