Richardson's response about Gonzales makes him unviable to me

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

I had serious interest in Richardson as my 2nd preferred candidate ( after Gore). He was tied with Edwards to me.

I thought he had the best resume.

His position about Attorney General Gonzales leaves me cold.

"He's a good man"
Uh, no, actually he isn't. He's all for torture and he doesn't understand the difference in representing the people of the United States and being the personal representative of the President.

"He's Hispanic and he's risen to a high level". (my condensing)
So what? that's your standard?

I'm through with Richardson as of now. It's all about his response to Gonzales. I am not impressed.

[AX10]

1. Ethno-bias is in play here.

Richardson will defend him because he is the first latino to be Attorney General.

Sadly, this happens all to often, on both sides of the aisle.

[Colobo]

4. Ethno-bias indeed

Gonzo is NOT a good man, and everyone knows it.

[MikeNearMcChord]

11. I agree, nevermind there will be other

Latinos made AG as well as Supreme Court justices, and other positions in the government. In other words, none of these future picks will be compared to Gonzales. Bill Richardson, you just dropped in my eyes, shame.:cry:

[LiberalFighter]

39. Someone should ask Richardson...

Would you rather have a Latino torture you then have a Caucasian or other race treat you fairly?

[Parisle]

2. Damn....

--- I was warming to Richardson,.... but Gonzales a "good man?" That tears it.

[pocoloco]

3. Wrench in the gears alright!

Surprised and disappointed me!

[speedoo]

5. Do you have a link?

The "good man" comment bothers me too. But I want to see the context before I make a judgement.

[w4rma]

30. Link. "I'm rooting for him, I like the guy, I know him. I hope he survives"

Gov. Bill Richardson on Tavis Smiley March 21, 2007

Tavis: Alberto Gonzalez happens to be a member of your community. Is this guy gonna survive? He's the first Hispanic to have that job.

Richardson: Yeah, I know. I'm rooting for him, I like the guy, I know him. I hope he survives, but he's got to clean up his act and at least know what's happening in his department. He, at that press conference, said "Well, I didn't know anything about this." When you're heading a Cabinet agency—I did at the Department of Energy—and it's very hard to do that, 'cause you got thousands of people working for you.

But you gotta know what is happening with U.S. attorneys, because these are the top Justice Department attorneys in every state. So, he's gotta get more engaged, he's gotta clean up his act, he's gotta be forthcoming. I think the Congress needs to really investigate, but if I were the White House, I'd say "I'm gonna let Karl Rove testify, I'm gonna put everything on the table, I'm gonna let Harriet Miers, the former legal counsel.

I'm gonna have Alberto Gonzalez. They shouldn't be testifying in private. They should do it openly before the American people. That's a separation of powers. We should do that.

Tavis: It occurs to me now, listening to you talk about your friend who you know, Mr. Gonzalez, it draws a stark contrast between—I haven't checked where all the other candidates are, but I know Obama is on record very clearly saying Gonzalez should step down. I suspect other Democrats running for president are maybe saying the same thing. That's a contrast between you and others on whether or not this guy should step down.

Richardson: That's right. I do believe that it's up to a president to make those decisions about Cabinet members. Obviously, Alberto's very damaged, and he's gotta be frank and testify and do what has to happen. But I think that's up to the president.

Tavis: So you would not call for his stepping down right now.

Richardson: No, no. And you know what? Part of it maybe is because he's the highest-ranking Hispanic ever.

Tavis: But wrongdoing is wrongdoing, though. If he did wrong.

Richardson: Well, I think it's more a lack of attention, lack of a plan, lack of being thorough. He's too much the president's lawyer. He's too much of a political person. And I recognize that.
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200703/20070321_richardson.html

[speedoo]

37. Thanks. I am very disturbed by this.

Before hearng about this, I was finding a lot to like about Richardson. But this changes that, certainly.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. I'm Jewish - And Lieberman is Still A Creep

Gonzales is a scummy thug - I'm very disappointed if Richardson actually said that.

Do you have a link?

[elmerdem]

34. I'm caucasian and...

Dubya is still corrupt!

[elmerdem]

35. I'm caucasian and...

Dubya is still corrupt!

[Merlot]

7. When did he say this?

If it was before the current scandle, I can understand it. If it was said in response to the current scandle, it's unacceptable.

And I'm with you as far as having interest in Richardson - for me he's after Edwards.

Link?

[patrice]

10. I'll second that question. n/t

[sueh]

16. He said it on ABC's "This Week" Sunday morning.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

21. He also strongly supported Gonzo on Tavis Smiley show several weeks ago. Also said the president

has the right to have whomever he wants as his AG. I was also seriously entertaining Richardson's candidacy until I saw that interview, no way now.

[quiet.american]

8. "He's a good man" who casually put through the executions of over 150 people in Texas.

-- Many of whom had trumped-up, seriously flawed arrests and trials, as well as completely incompetent and indifferent legal counsel. That's not the mark of "a good man."

I couldn't agree with you more on this.

[Warpy]

9. I'd like to see Richardson as Secretary of State

but I've never supported him for the top job.

[Czolgosz]

22. I agree. Richardson would make an excellent Secretary of State.

[AspenRose]

32. Ditto from another New Mexican

S of S: Yes

President: No way

[bklyncowgirl]

12. Richardson did not say he supports Gonzales.

His position on the issue is that he believes that Gonzales would be able to keep his job under the following circumstances.

Gonzales would have to admit that the U.S. attorneys were fired for political reasons and vow to keep the Justice Department free of political influence from the White House in the future. He would also have to apologize personally for this action. Finally, he would want to see Gonzales acknowledge that as Attorney general his job is to serve as the chief law enforcement officer for the country and not the president's lawyer.

My guess is that Richardson knows that Gonzales will admit to no such things. While his position on this issue leaves a great deal to be desired--I personally favor hanging drawing and quartering--It was not uncritical support for Gonzales.

[Alcibiades]

13. Look at what he actually said.

HARRIS: Let me dive in here and first ask you, what are your concerns about the Alberto Gonzales U.S. attorneys firings story? And specifically, I guess we can talk about the firing of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias in your state of New Mexico. RICHARDSON: Well, I believe the firing of David Iglesias was inappropriate. He was doing a good job. He was doing his job as he's supposed to do it without politics, prosecuting, we had a state treasurer scandal.

My concern is broader. The attorney general of the United States is the chief law enforcement officer for the United States, not the political adviser to the president. And it seems that Mr. Gonzales, who obviously has very close ties to President Bush, has taken more of a political role in his contact with the White House.

The second broader issue is there really should not be politicization of the U.S. attorneys in this country. They most likely should now be confirmed by the Senate. Right now they're not confirmed. They're just appointed by the White House after consulting with senators. So, I believe that there's too much politicization right now in the context between the White House and the Justice Department.

HARRIS: So, you would like to see U.S. attorneys confirmed by the Senate?

RICHARDSON: Yes, I believe they should be. They currently are not. You just basically ask your senator, your party, and the White House has some names. It's too political. They should be confirmed. The Senate could at least vet some of these candidates that perhaps should not be placed if they are too political.

HARRIS: Would you reserve the right to fire any prosecutor who didn't reflect the concerns of your administration with filings?

RICHARDSON: Well, you want to have that flexibility, but what I believe is needed is more a tone, an attitude, that the Justice Department is supposed to prosecute based on evidence, not based on politics. And what we've had here is clearly too much contact between White House political staff, White House counsel, the attorney general, his executive assistant, on whether they should be fired, the U.S. attorneys, en masse. That shouldn't be happening. There should be a separation, basically, because these U.S. attorneys are supposed to prosecute crimes in the states. And it shouldn't be guided by politics.

Whether Democrats -- for instance, here in New Mexico, it was obvious that some congressional leaders from New Mexico wanted the prosecutions to of Democrats before the election. That shouldn't happen. That's totally inappropriate.

HARRIS: And you're clearly talking about more transparency in whatever process we're talking about here, aren't you?

RICHARDSON: Yes, I am. And I believe if you confirm these U.S. attorneys, and I believe what the transparency should next be is -- I don't think there's any reason why the White House should deny these political aides, these White House aides, testifying before the Congress, being transparent. Now, if it is national security, if it's intelligence secrets, executive privilege, I understand that. But this is politics, so they should just go and say we're going to come clean, this is what it is, admit that it was serious, politicization, and then take action and say this is not going to happen again.

HARRIS: I've got a couple other topics I want to get to. But one quick, final question on this subject. Should the attorney general resign?

RICHARDSON: Not quite yet. I'd like to hear his explanation. He should go to Congress and basically explain why it is he didn't know basically what was going on in his department. I know Mr. Gonzalez. He's a good man. But obviously he's got to get more engaged in the running of his department. So, I would wait to see what his explanation is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Molehill, meet Mr. Mountain. "He's a good man." is an empty platitude, offered up only because Richardson must have sat next to Gonzales at dinner a few times. Furthermore, he clearly does not say "no." when asked if Gonzales should resign. He says: "Not quite yet." And why? Because Richardson wants him to testify before congress about "why it is he didn't know basically what was going on in his department." Richardson is right. You get the administration official to testify before he resigns, not afterward. That way he's committing perjury as a loyal member of the Bush administration and not a private citizen.

So, should Gonzales be fired? No, not yet, he should be forced to testify to Congress about how these supposedly apolitical firings happened on his watch without his knowing. Once we have his answer, then he should be forced out.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. Yeah, he's using DCSpeak here and being...

very careful about how he chooses his words.

He's not defending Gonzo at all, but being very careful to send messages to various, presumably Hispanic and Republican, groups that he's not about to jump on a bandwagon and endanger their support.

I don't see how these measured, and very political, statements can be taken too seriously or used as dealbreakers or litmus tests-- it's just DC bullshit as usual.

[Alcibiades]

15. He's right about the tactics

Which is to say that's what's important here isn't whether an individual crony is forced out and replaced with another--what's important is that the light of day is shined on the whole ugly mess. As a former diplomat, he's being diplomatic--though I think we would all prefer someone whose first instinct would be to be more aggressively partisan. Nonethless, he's certainly not saying Gonzo should go--he's saying he should testify, and then go. I don't see how the stuff about how Gonzo doesn't know what's going on at the DoJ can be read as support for him at all.

[mmonk]

17. It's a problem with me as well

as this is an area where we are losing our democracy. I understand some of it is "nuance" but I'm not a fan of "nuance" or mixed signals on a clear wrong. That being said, I haven't written him off and I've donated to his campaign along with two other candidates I want to see continue in the race. I want to be as precise as possible with my pick so I haven't gone totally full bore with anyone yet, just defending the candidates I support when I can.

[Gloria]

18. Richardson is a no go for me. Seeing him in action in this state

says it all for me. He's a "DLC type" as far as I'm concerned.

Plus, he has a little problem with the ladies that you can expect to see bubbling up....

[Kolesar]

23. I saw some negatives on Richardson at DU a long while ago

And I cannot remember what the matter was. I would like to be able to assess him as a candidate in an objective manner.

[AspenRose]

33. Correct, Gloria

All anyone needs to do is ask the Lt. Governor, Diane Denish....

[saltpoint]

19. As voters we can't custom-order candidates to accommodate every one

of our personal demands.

We have to sort among the threads of ideas and find candidates that best represent the ones we find most urgent, most essential, most in tune with our own sense of citizenship and governance.

I don't like Alberto Gonzales one iota, but there is much to like in Governor Richardson. Russ Feingold was one of my favorite senators prior to his vote in support of John Ashcroft, but also after his vote in support of John Ashcroft. Tossing out Senator Feingold over one vote I didn't like is petty and infantile. Same with Richardson: he's got way too many gifts and diplomacy skills, not to mention Energy smarts and personal likability, to toss away.

If our candidates are not perfect in our eyes, neither are we perfect voters. We humans have to sort things out on our own. When luck is running with us, we have candidates near to our perception of how our country can improve.

Certainly there is a lot to like in Bill Richardson.

[renie408]

31. Good point. Instead of deal breakers, we need to look for deal makers. n/t

[saltpoint]

38. Hi, renie408. Good to run into you on DU this afternoon. I'm trying

to absorb the news out of Blacksburg, Virginia from this morning, and it's not going smoothly. I didn't know anyone on campus today, but have community friends there. It's such hard, grisly news.

Yes. On Richardson, I'm impressed with the huge range of abilities the man has. He's bilingual -- where Dubya can't even speak his native tongue, Richardson can beautifully speak 2 languages. He can negotiate with the best of them and has many impressive resolutions under his belt already.

And in an age when we need Energy conservation, he could be very vital in helping us wean outselves from fossil fuels and into cleaner, alternative fuels.

I would be threatened by him if he were a Republican. I'm glad he's on our side, and while I didn't care for the Gonzales answer he gave, on the whole he is a very formidable and likable candidate.

[Tejanocrat]

20. Richardson's foreign policy experience is top notch, but this example of poor judgment troubles me

especially when this judgment is considered in combination with Richardson's (1) over-fondness for trying children who commit crimes as adults and for expanding the death penalty and for eliminating the right of habeas corpus in state capital punishment appeals, plus his (2) over-fondness for NAFTA and so-called "free" trade, and his (3) over-fondness for tax cuts for corporations and law-suit immunity for corporations.

Richardson is, IMHO, the number one standout candidate on foreign policy issues, but the values reflected by his domestic priorities (other than his politically courageous pro-pot stand) are among the least progressive of any candidate.

I like Richardson, but I wish he were more liberal on domestic issues.

[PresidentObama]

24. Troubling indeed. Not sure if it counts Richardson out, but I don't get it.

The AG is definitely NOT a good man at all!!

I don't like when people make judgments and endorsements of people based on the color of their skin. As a white individual I certainly don't endorse and like all white candidates. God knows Bush is an example that strategy of thinking is flawed!!

[the other one]

25. Diplomatic language from a Diplomat

Praising a man's goodness is a great prelude into asking him to do the right thing.

Much ado about nothing.

Richardson remains the man.

[Forkboy]

26. No candidate has a single deal killer for me.

All of them have said or done something I don't like.

[PresidentObama]

27. This is a good rule to have. Well, just as long as the offense isn't something HUGE.

Otherwise, you're right!!

[tandot]

28. Please post a link. I would like to see the context and if this is what he really said

[patrice]

29. Were you planning on coming up with when and in what context

these things were said by Richardson?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

40. here is context, link and quote.

Sorry for the delay, haven't been online for awhile due to cat eating my modem cord.

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200703/20070321_richardson.html

Tavis: Alberto Gonzalez happens to be a member of your community. Is this guy gonna survive? He's the first Hispanic to have that job.

Richardson: Yeah, I know. I'm rooting for him, I like the guy, I know him. I hope he survives, but he's got to clean up his act and at least know what's happening in his department. He, at that press conference, said "Well, I didn't know anything about this." When you're heading a Cabinet agency—I did at the Department of Energy—and it's very hard to do that, 'cause you got thousands of people working for you.

skip

Tavis: So you would not call for his stepping down right now.

Richardson: No, no. And you know what? Part of it maybe is because he's the highest-ranking Hispanic ever.

Tavis: But wrongdoing is wrongdoing, though. If he did wrong.

Richardson: Well, I think it's more a lack of attention, lack of a plan, lack of being thorough. He's too much the president's lawyer. He's too much of a political person. And I recognize that.

[patrice]

41. Thanks much. n/t

[DFW]

36. What will really count

...is what Richardson will say AFTER Gonzo's testimony.

Unfortunately, I don't expect to learn much from his
testimony. My bet is that he'll put on a positively
ectoplasmic performance.

[roody]

42. Ask Bill about the voting machines that were erased

in New Mexico making a recount impossible.