Bill Richardson: "I'm not going to say much about the Congress . . .

[bigtree]

. . . except I have a real job"


Trying to Move Up, Richardson Lightly Pokes Opponents

March 14, 2007

ABC News' Matthew Zavala Reports: Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., told the International Association of Fire Fighters, against the advice of his staff, that he is pro-gun. Richardson said, "I believe I'm the only Democratic candidate that is pro-gun, pro-owners' rights, pro-Second Amendment."

Richardson, now the only Democratic governor in the presidential race, touted his resume as a former congressman, former United Nations Ambassador, former Secretary of Energy, in making his pitch for the endorsement of the I.A.F.F.

Richardson also took a dig at his presidential rivals who are currently serving in Congress. When discussing a minimum wage increase proposal in New Mexico and Richardson's hope to sign it into law, he said, "The Congress, I'm not going to say much about the Congress, except I have a real job, I do things" and added, "You know I'm at four percent, I've got to do something," said Richardson.

The often light-hearted Richardson commented on the abilities of the other Democratic candidates running for president. "I think all of them could serve enormously well in the White House, as my vice president. I'm still in the second-tier, I've got to move up."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/03/trying_to_move_.html

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. It's comments like this that make me hate Bill Richardson.

He is way, WAY too self-righteous. Plus, he is either very ignorant of the realities of being an elected Congressman or is knowingly playing on the public's ignorance. Either way, it's loathsome.

[bigtree]

5. It's a JOKE. He was a congressman for 7 terms. He touts it.

Yet, he has correctly pointed out that he's implemented many of the laws and initiatives that other candidates have just talked about.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. That's nice and all, but as a governor, he CAN implement those

without having to get 535 other people with vastly diverging interests in mind on board. It's far easier to hammer anything through the state level than it is at the federal level, and he damn well knows it. It's an entirely different ballgame, and he's riding his high horse with that knowledge as his saddle.

[bigtree]

10. easier to implement them than debate and vote for them?

sponsoring and voting for a change in national air quality standards in the Senate, for example, is easier than finding ways to make it work in the states?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. Since when is sponsoring a bill the same as implementing one?

Last I checked, the bill had to have the support of a minimum of 51 Senators to pass (if not 61), oh, and 218 Congressmen. All while not having the ability to issue unilateral regulations and being the most prominent person in the legislative process for that body.

Yeah, I'll strongly stick by my comment that it's FAR, FAR, FAR easier to get anything done as a governor than as a Senator.

[bigtree]

15. I meant the reverse, wrote it backwards

I think it's harder to implement them than it is to debate, sponsor, or vote in Congress for many of the laws and initiatives.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Well, if that's all you're getting after, the answer is STILL yes.

Because the Governor, like the President, goes a long way towards setting the agenda for a state. He's got a lot more push to actually get something on the docket to debate and vote on than does any single member of the Senate. And worse still, there are far more bills to compete with at the federal level than there are at the state level, meaning a smaller percentage of bills actually reach time for debate, much less a vote at the federal level.

[benEzra]

20. State laws have to pass state legislatures, too... (n/t)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. State legislatures that are significantly smaller.

And being Governor gives you the state's bully pulpit, something no Senator enjoys.

[hippiechick]

2. ... so does that mean when he was a Congresscritter & Ambassador ...

... those weren't real jobs ? 'Cause if not, then he shouldn't be touting his 'experience' and qualifications to be President.

I'm jus' sayin' .... :shrug:

[ccpup]

3. and I still want to know more

about his certifying the 2004 New Mexico votes for Bush when there were huge, unanswered questions about voter fraud and uncounted ballots in favor of Kerry!

[southerncrone]

4. Interesting, I hadn't heard about that

voter fraud issue. Seems every week now I find out about yet another instance of voter fraud of which I was previously unaware.
Amazing how much there was/is!

[ccpup]

9. I heard the smallest blip about it

several months ago and have yet to find more info about it. And, if it is in fact true, I would like to learn more. I'm sure one of our cracker-jack research people on DU could come up with a link or something before too long. I hope so!

[bigtree]

13. concerned? Hmm?

I just know you can find one yourself. Sniff it out, ccpup.

[ccpup]

18. did a cursory Google search

and came up with this link among many: http://www.iwantmyvote.com/recount/new_mexico/

Here's a paragraph from the link:

"Democratic Officials Block the Recount

New Mexico's Democratic Governor Bill Richardson and Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron were against the recount effort from the start, possibly because much of the alleged fraud happened in Hispanic precincts. Although the alleged fraud seems to have helped Republicans, having a recount would cast a shadow on the state's two highest-ranking Hispanic Democrats. Governor Richardson has presidential aspirations, and Ms. Vigil-Giron currently serves as national president of the National Association of Secretaries of State."

It talks in detail about the undervote situation, the phantom vote situation and the efforts of Richardson and his SoS to block recounts and their veritable rush to certify for Bush.

Now, honestly, I don't give two shits about this issue, but, for those who are curious, enjoy.

Movin' on.

[bigtree]

19. it's a thorn in some folk's side

they claim it's an issue of his disrespect for the vote, but won't give him credit for overseeing the remedy. "He was forced into it," goes the complaint.

The remedy reduced the undervote rate in both the Native American and Hispanic areas:


REPORT: Undervote Rate Plummets 85% in New Mexico's Native American Precincts after Statewide Switch from Touch-Screen Voting to Paper Ballots
Comparison of Voting Data from 2004 to 2006 Shows Hispanic Undervote Plunged 69% as the 'Civil Rights' Case for DREs Continues to Fall Apart
ALSO: New Concerns Emerge About Racial Profiling vis a vis Touch-Screen Voting Systems...

"We were looking for any impact the change to paper ballots may have had on New Mexico’s historically high undervote rate. When we found the dramatic drop in Native American precincts, we were shocked," says New Mexico's Theron Horton. The Election Defense Alliance (EDA) activist added, "something was going on with the DREs in those precincts in 2004."

Details now out from New Mexico reveal that undervote rates dropped precipitously in both Native American and Hispanic areas after the state moved from DRE's in 2004 to paper-based optical-scan systems in 2006. In Native American areas, undervote rates plummeted some 85%. In Hispanic communities, the rate dropped by 69% according to the precinct data reviewed by the Election Defense Alliance, VotersUnite.org and VoteTrustUSA.org.

As he signed the bill which banned DREs into law in early 2006, New Mexico's Gov. Bill Richardson wrote a letter to Election Officials in all 50 states, warning that while "some believe that computer touch screen machines are the future of electoral systems...the technology simply fails to pass the test of reliability."

"One person, one vote is in jeopardy if we do not act boldly and immediately," Richardson implored, while decrying the failures of DREs in his state and in support of paper ballots. "When a vote is cast, a vote should be counted," he wrote...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4193

[ccpup]

21. thank you

I indicated in my earlier Posts that I knew little about this episode in Richardson's history and wanted to learn more. Your response to my posting of this link is exactly the kind of information I was looking for. One of the reasons I sincerely enjoy the folks at DU is I always learn something (usually important) new. :-)

[bigtree]

6. the premise being that the chairman of the Democratic convention which nominated Kerry

wanted him to lose his state?

[ccpup]

8. if it could better position him

for a 2008 run, then potentially yes.

[bigtree]

12. that makes no sense at all

everyone's a liar except those of us on the outside, huh?

[ccpup]

17. actually, that's not what I said

but if it floats your boat, knock yourself out.

[seasat]

11. And NM only has 5 electoral votes.

For the conspiracy theory to be valid, Richardson and his Democratic Secretary of State would have had to conspire with either or both of the Republican administrations in Florida and Ohio. Kerry winning or losing NM wouldn't make a difference in the total without the higher electoral votes of both of those states. Finally, wouldn't it benefit Hillary more if there was a some sort of conspiracy involving the DLC since people are apparently using this as an issue to attack Richardson?

Our Party and the Kerry campaign didn't push for a recount, the Libertarian and Green parties did. Kerry had already conceded by the time they filed for a recount on November 30. They did it to publicize their parties (IMHO) since our party was not contesting the NM election. The problem in New Mexico was primarily with Sequoia electronic voting machines in predominantly Hispanic or Indian areas. A recount using an electronic machine is going to give you pretty much the same result each time. That's one of the major problems with them. Richardson pushed through a new law that provides for paper ballots with a verifiable audit trail and requirements for random audits (LINK). It's pretty much a model bill for anyone that wants secure elections.