New Mexico governor says Democrats must connect with core values

[Freddie Stubbs]

TOM VERDIN

Associated Press


SAN FRANCISCO - New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, often mentioned as a possible Democratic presidential candidate, said Monday his party must reconnect with voters' core values if it hopes to regain congressional seats and perhaps even the presidency.

Partisan fights in the nation's capital must be replaced with policy proposals that strike at the heart of voters' most pressing concerns, such as health care costs and education, he said during a speech at the annual meeting of The Associated Press.

"We just can't be negative. We can't just attack the president at every turn," he said. "We have got to stand for something."

Washington politicians, he said, should look to the states, where both Republican and Democratic governors increasingly are seeking solutions to problems without waiting for the federal government to act.

more: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/11427022.htm

[Itsthetruth]

1. How About You Standing For Something Senator Richardson?

How bout the Democratic Party standing and fighting for a single payer health system Mr. Richardson? How about you supporting a single payer health system Mr. Richardson?

[MaineDem]

4. Ummm, he's a Governor (nt)

[Itsthetruth]

25. He Could Propose Universal Health Care In His State

And as Governor he could propose and support state legislation to create a Universal Health Care System in his state similiar to legislation being advanced in Vermont.

Why hasn't he done that?

http://www.vtrxforchange.org/

[MaineDem]

28. Governor Richardson's Policy Initiatives

"Governor Richardson is committed to giving all New Mexicans access to quality, affordable health care. Over the years our health care system has become a fragmented system difficult to navigate and almost impossible to understand. Not enough New Mexicans have access to quality health care and prescription drugs. And for many who do, health care costs are busting family budgets. The Governor has begun the process of reforming and modernizing the state's healthcare system while increasing efficiency, and eliminating waste and fraud."


http://www.governor.state.nm.us/priorities-health.php?mm=4

I'm not sure how similar it is to Vermont's - or Maine's - health care plans.

[bpeale]

35. Bill Richardson is terrific!

Speaking as one who is a resident of New Mexico, Bill Richardson has done everything we could have hoped for from a Governor. He is very popular here. Currently (according to what I have read), we are the only state right now with a surplus. Before Richardson, we have Gary Johnson, who literally bankrupted the state. Before the governor can institute health care reform he must clean up the mess the former republican governor left him or he won't have the money to do it. The process is slow, but New Mexicans are patient. We don't expect everything all at once and we don't want to eat up all our surpluses right now. We don't know what's coming down the road economically, and we don't want to run deficits like everyone else. When we offer health care to people, we want to know there is money to pay for it. Remember this, New Mexico is a big state with a small population (compared to other comparable states), so there is not a lot of money to go around. You may not be impressed with Bill Richardson, but here he is widely liked and respected.

[Geekscum]

41. I too like Gov. Richardson

He seems like the candidate that can get support from the center we need to win

[Rainscents]

42. Where was he when democrats needed him for vote recounts in NM????

[bpeale]

46. where was he???

he was letting those whose job it was do the recounting. we don't pay him to sit & recount ballots.

[Horse with no Name]

50. Agreed. It isn't his job to count votes.

But it isn't his job to have machines wiped of data while recounts were pending either, but he did it. In fact, he ramrodded the effort through. Those machines weren't needed, and it wouldn't have hurt for them to stay just like they were until all questions were answered and votes were accounted for.
If our party has any pride or honor left, this man will be treated as a pariah of the party. He isn't worthy. End of story.
He needs to just join up with the pugs cause he isn't any better than they are and now he has blood on his hands right along with them.

[Al-CIAda]

55. Richardson SQUASHED recount efforts! The outrageous recount fees

coupled with internal sabotage leads one to look very unfavorably on his actions and inaction.

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. Didn't a Democratic President already try that?

It was a popular idea until people saw the details. After that, even the Democratic controlled Congress refused to back it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. I'm starting to get sick of Richardson already.

He keeps bashing the party to make himself look better. I don't appreciate that at all.

[Geekscum]

5. Love it or hate it he may be right (Please read)

Please bare with me I know many of us are tired of being urged to move to the center, but which are you more tired of the center or seeing republicans elected?

Let be honest it is very hard to win on a national level unless we are at least competitive in the south. If we do not won at least a few states here the republicans only need less then 110 electorial college votes to win. If we are not competitive in the south we need every battle ground state. Lose one (See Ohio) then we get a republican president. Since 1964 there have only been 3 democratic presidents that served for a combined 16 years, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. All three were southerners, all three went to church and talked to church goers, and all three were at least somewhat moderates. It may be time to moderate our views, on some things to be more attractive to the people in middle American. Say go Pro gun and back off from Gay marriage.

And in 2008 it is crunch time for us. Keep in mind that Bush will most likely get at least 1 if not some say 4 supreme court nominies by the end of his term. What happens if we lose in 2008 can the liberal voices on the court hold out until 2013? Probably not, if we lose we could have a supreme court were 7 to possibly all 9 were picked by republicans. And that does not even mention the lower courts. Keep in mind since 1964 we have only picked judges for 16 of those 44 years (seeing to 2008). How much of the progressive agenda has relied on the court? You do the math.

[leesa]

6. Wrong. It is wrong to adopt their misguided theories and ideas

to win. If you do that you have won NOTHING.

There is nothing wrong with Dems core values, except when they pretend to be right wingers...THAT'S when they tie themselves in knots, because the right wing is wrong and dishonest about so many things.

[Geekscum]

9. I disagree

If the goal is to move this country to the left and become more progressive then we have to start somewhere. And love it or hate it we can not do that until we reconnect with the voters. Howard Dean has been saying as much. If we do not move to the center on at least some social issues we will continue to lose. If you are not in power you can change nothing. I have lost track of the number of times I have heard friends and coworkers say they know that the Republicans do not represent the economic interests. But they can not bring themselve to vote for a democrat on social issues. This is what I hear and see.

[Kralizec]

23. WRONG

We've ALREADY gone way far enough in order to try to reach a "middle ground" with these punk Nazis. NO MORE. The LEFT direction is the only direction I am willing to move.

Dean doesn't say to "move" on social issues. Indeed he says REMAIN PLANTED. His message is, when discussing with, life-hating Nazis, to let them remember that we don't SUPPORT abortion, but the right for a woman to make that terrible decision her own. He's not saying to give up, he's changing our tone so we can finally argue on moral ground with these fools. So please, PLEASE, no more moving RIGHT anymore... even if it's just micro-inch, okay?

[Geekscum]

30. Read my section on the supreme court

I did not say move prolife. The sad thing is that Roe Vs. Wade is hanging on by a 1 vote majority in the supreme court (Most legal scholar I have read thing that 4 justices would like to overturn it and 5 leave it). The Chief Justice is ill and most likely will step down soon. Bush will replace him, but he is a member of the four prolifers. If Bush before 2008 or a republican president if they win in 2008 get to replace 1 or more of the 5 justices who support Roe Vs. Wade. Abortion rights on a federal level are gone. It will then become the decision of the states (here in TX the old pre Roe Vs Wade law outlawing abortion is still on the books. If this decision is overturned abortion automatically become illegal again in TX). If you want Roe Vs. Wade overturned then lose in 2008. We can not afford to lose and in order to win we will have to meet the south in the center.

[Enraged_Ape]

7. Ah, yes, moving to the right has worked so spectacularly for us

I think Harry S Truman said it best: "If the people have the choice between a Republican and a Republican, they will choose the Republican every time."

Truer words were never spoken.

[Geekscum]

10. Harry S Truman was IMHO wrong.

It may have held true then but not now. I sense that people was fiscal responsiblity and moderate socially leaders her in the south. That is what they will vote for. As long as the democratic party is seen a too liberal they will find it hard to get traction here.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. It worked for JFK

He campaigned on more military spending (to counter the 'missile gap') and a tax cut.

[Clark Bayh 2008]

27. What did JFK, Carter, & Clinton have in common? LIKABILITY

They were generally perceived as likable, amiable people.
The Democrat losers were not.

If you check the October 2004 polls numbers the biggest disparity between Bush & Kerry was how much the public felt that each candidate was a likable, regular sort of guy they would want to have dinner with.

It's time to concede that part of the problem with the Dem message is that the messengers are too often perceived as aloof, brainy, or condescending. Hillary will likely have the same problem.

Clark or Edwards were the most likable folks last time around but Edwards couldn't carry his own state, so Bayh is the better choice.

[Enraged_Ape]

33. By this reasoning, Adam Sandler is the ultimate Dem candidate

Likability is only as good as the press you can get/buy. The media is wholly owned by the right wing. So I guess what you're saying is that we are completely hosed, since we can never generate a candidate that people "can have a beer with". We'll never win.

[silvermachine]

44. Actually...

...he is rumoured to be a Rethuglican.

[Enraged_Ape]

47. But Adam Sandler is such a likable guy

So wacky. So fun. So full of jokes and life and crazy good times. He would be the ultimate candidate for high office.

[doc05]

51. 45 years ago.

[Freddie Stubbs]

54. It has been done successfully recently

Joe Lieberman did it in the 80's, defeating an incumbent Republican Senator. And just four years ago Mark Warner was elected Governor of Virginia running as a conservative Democrat.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Not true at all.

We don't have to win a single southern state to get elected.

We make strides by changing the way we send our messages in the Midwest and the Southwest. There are a lot of disillusioned true conservatives in those areas that we can win by framing the debate on any number of issues as defending personal and states' rights. We can take Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado quite easily if we make a push, and that would be more than enough to put us in the White House and in the majority again.

On edit: Oh yeah, and preach endlessly about a balanced budget. That'll get a TON of them on board.

[Geekscum]

12. Framing the debate is not enough

People I talk to KNOW that the republicans do not represent them on economic issues. But the disconnect on social issues is so wide to them they will not vote for a democrat. If we want to win we need to met them in the middle on some issues. Once in we can work on them, but right now we need to win to keep the supreme court from going to far to the right.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. It's wide in the South.

It's not that wide everywhere else. The south's disconnect is that quite a few of them are still living in the Confederacy and will never get along with the North. I can't count how many Confederate flags I passed by driving through Virginia on Sunday, a state that's allegedly almost liberal. There's a disconnect that's far greater than just backing off gay marriage. Today it will be gay marriage they're angry about, tomorrow it will be something else, anything else, to just be different.

[Toots]

34. What social issues are you talking about?

Gay marriage and abortion are the wedge issues. What other social issues do you want Democrats to change their stance on? You want us to give up on National Health Care? How about education? should we not push for education funding? Should we just cast aside the teachers because as a whole they won't teach creationism? Social Issues are our strong point. We have never been good on economic issues "tax & spend" remind you of anything. You want us to mellow on our entire core beliefs. We have made great strides in fiscal matters but not at the expense of giving up all our human rights and civil rights issues. We no longer have child labor in this country. Women can now get good paying jobs as well as men. Workers have the right to organize. Federal government built the hiways and sewage plants and fresh water systems and they are clean and somewhat healthy. We have environmental laws now. Which one of these social issues do you regret?

[Geekscum]

36. How can we change anythig if we do not win?

We are losing. I hate to say it but it is true. And we are in a position that we have to start winning soon or it will take decades to just get back to where we are now. Please read what I put on the original post on the supreme court. If a republican win in 2008 the supreme court will go HARD right and stay there for decades. How much of a progressive agenda will we get if the courts are hard to the right. In the past 45 years we have only had the whitehouse for 16 years. Can we afford to lose in 2008 ? NO! We have to move to the center on some social issues or we will lose so much more.

[w4rma]

19. Center? The BS that the DLC has been pushing is NOT popular.

This pro-big buisness BS is very very UNpopular and therefore is NOT in the center.

[Geekscum]

20. I did not say pro business

Let me clarify, I think a social moderate (pro gun and against gay marriae would be a good start), pro labor, and fically conservative (no deficits, Cut the pork) would win.

[w4rma]

31. You've described my policy positions.

But unfortunately it is my understanding that Gov. Richardson supports what the DLC says is the "center".

[silvermachine]

45. Sounds like...

...a nice little republican platform to me.

[xxqqqzme]

37. it was the christo-fascist

zombie, death brigade that rose 2 power in 1980 when st. ronnie ran against Carter. The rabid, radical, religious RW flocked 2 st. ronnie. The most christian president, Carter, was vilified by the rabid, religious, rong wing rethugs.

Gay marriage is being pushed by the rabid, religious rong wing - NOT the democrats. We do NOT need 2 moderate anything. The center has been moved so far 2 the right by the neo-cons that being a centrist is still tooooo far 2 the right.

[Geekscum]

38. If the center is moving to the right then we are toast.

No matter how you slice it we can not get positive change in this country until we are in power. We have to make a connection with the middle to do this. We need them and we need to at least pay some attention to their views. No one will vote for someone if they think they disagree with them on thingfs they hold dear. Being right on economy, health care, and jobs is not enough for these people.

[Trillo]

3. How about honesty?

Or is that no longer a value?

[OzarkDem]

11. We need to tell our leaders

to get off their lazy butts, get organized and develop a consistent, comprehensive plan.

I have a job and family to raise, I don't have time to do their job for them. If they can't do more than shoot off their mouth, then get out of the way.

[AlCzervik]

14. how about putting these things in memos and then sending them

out instead of doing it in public.

[HereSince1628]

16. Richardson here, Josh Marshall on his blog, and other

Democrats are all saying similar things.

The Democratic party needs to be organized around a set of guiding principles, rather than a collection of issues.

We'd do better as a political force guided by shared principles, selecting candidates who could be trusted to make decisions based on shared values.

My awareness of the problem is illustrated by my ability to articulate a small handful of principles that would guide "progressive" decision making, and my inability to do the same thing with "democratic" decision making.

[confludemocrat]

24. Notice he had nothing to say about principles

waiting with baited breath to hear what shouild have come next after his veiled attack on Dean: his principles or take on them; heard nothing.

More empty rhetoric from someone with no discernable principles witness the Wen Ho Lee affair.

Just another also-ran with no guts.

[w4rma]

17. So where is Gov. Richardson's "positive" message in all this?

I just see him bashing Democrats here. I am extremely unimpressed with him at this point.

[Yavin4]

18. The Problem With The Democratic Leaders Is That They're Too Reactive

They keep trying to win the last election instead of the next one. They look at polls from 2004 and try to devise a plan from that for 2006 and beyond. The problem is that by 2006, the Republicans will have a brand new message, and the Democrats won't have the ability to respond.

After the Democrats lost the mid-term elections in 2002, everyone, and their brother-in-law, said that the Dems had to get tough on defense, terrorism, and national security. We had to nominate someone with solid credentials in that area. That's why Dem primary voters switched from Dean to Kerry. But, guess what, the election turned on Gay marriage.

Now, the Democrats are on this values bandwagon, but by the time of the elections in 2006, it'll be a new issue like war in Iran that'll have us scrambling. You can't win by always playing defense.

[Clark Bayh 2008]

29. Neither Dean nor Kerry fits the profile of a winning Dem candidate

Unfortunately, any Northeasterner who can be called liberal will never win. It's that simple. The only way Hillary wins is if she puts Clark on the ticket. The country still feels it's at war.

JFK barely won in 1960 & nothing has changed in electoral politics that will change this in 2008.

[Geekscum]

32. Hillary is not the answer.

She IMHO has too many negatives and is too polorizing. To quote a coworker, "I hate the republicans but if Hillary runs I would vote for one even if he got caught in bed with a dead woman and a live boy."

[hector459]

21. Look what "voters' core values" have gotten us and the rest of the world

I say reject those core values and begin by being decent human beings with respect, fairness, justice, and a sense of history for all. Stop pre-emptive and all other wars. Instead of worshiping the top 2% in this country because they have garnered 99% of the wealth in this nation, begin to shun them and disrespect their twin gods of money and power. Vote people in office who have conscience and no ties to corporate America. Protest the media conglomerates and their owners who control the propaganda and lies being fed to the masses. Reach out to help the poor and elderly and disenfranchised. F**k the "core values" of the masses. They have brought us nothing but hate, fear, and loathing and wars and killing across the globe.

[doc05]

52. "F**ck the core values of the masses"?

This is your idea for winning 50.1% of the vote?

[confludemocrat]

22. Bullshit: we must attack and defend accomps and talk about future

"We can't just attack the president at every turn," he said. "We have got to stand for something."

Like we can't walk and chew gum at the same time. This is yet another attempt to preempt or outflank Howard Dean's leadership. It won't work. These are extraordinary times. Dean knows it. Richardson thinks this is still 1998 or 2000.

Get a Brain Moran!

[Norquist Nemesis]

26. I sure do wish he'd be a little more specific

I'm connected to my core values. There also seems to be a large number of Democrats in elected office (supposedly) representing me who seem to consistently get drowned out by CONservatives...maybe that's why they throw up their hands and act mute when it comes to speaking about core values and such. :shrug:

[lateo]

39. How about attacking AND standing for something?

This sort of mealy-mouthed BS from the Democrats is what got them in the mess they are in today.

[On the Road]

40. I Don't Understand the Problem People are Having with These Statements

Jon Stewart said practically the same thing last night. I don't even see it as an attack on Howard Dean. Dean is also trying to make the party stand for something.

[Freddie Stubbs]

53. Perhaps some DUers just do not like the word 'values'

:shrug:

But everybody has values, even liberals. It shouldn't be a dirty word. It certainly isn't for most Americans.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

48. he kisses hannity's ass and lets him read his list of out-of-context

charges of things democrats supposedly did.

bill did nothing to defend his party or point out that there4 are just as many fringe nuts in the GOP. bill even told sean that he liked him

translation-he isn't getting my vote!

[mbee]

49. Good idea, but what network will he get to cover it and stop

showing National Enquirer Live everyday? The media only wants to cover stories of either obscure people we've never heard of or Michael Jackson! They don't want to cover anything with any meaning because they won't make as much money.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

56. I am sick of the words "core" and "values"

anyone else?