Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Bill Richardson: Governor

We're going to go back through this after we have an official transcript in hand, but Bill Richardson is nearing double digits (at least) in mentioning he is the governor of New Mexico in response to almost any question.

Richardson is trying to make sure viewers know that he is an executive while the others on the stage are legislators. But, man is he using a heavy hand.

-- Chris Cillizza

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 3, 2007; 8:54 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Dodd: What Debate?
Next: Priorities in the First 100 Days

Comments

Richardson cares only for self promotion and can never be loyal to his duty of office which is to protect the rights of the people. He and all other politicians are ensconced in a world where legally functioning outside the true obligation of their office pre-empts all duty of office. The big lie. What we need at the helm is a true statesman, true to his heart and his duty to protect the rights of people, not just yet another again tiresome political hack destructive of the values his duty should uphold.

The illegal levels of suffering. and terrorism being inflicted on rural families by irresponsable management of dangerous large predators, is being supported and praised by Bill Richardson.

But that's OK with Bill because he lives in a melieu where the politically weak are not citizens, to have their rights protected, but mere political fodder.

These wolves have been dumped right on top of the people here in a landscape already pre-utilized and inhabited be ungulate dependant and agricultural cultures for 1000-years. Our children are at great risk as proven by true historical wolf science. The incidents of endangerment to the only sustainable regional culture and economy in NM are at risk for his foolishness.

Biologists outside the program comment that this can never work here because their is no core area in this program for wolves to recover in. Showing urban people maps that do not show our towns, communities, schools, and the fact that every square inch here is part of a bought, deeded, taxed and SENSITIVE grazing and calving area and telling them that this is wilderness is a violation of the public trust. Down with the liers and cheats. Ron Paul's the only one who can save the republic and the noble things it stands for.

Posted by: Am there | June 17, 2007 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Answer to who else from the Senate besides Kennedy went directly to the Presidency.......Warren G. Harding!!
Not a ringing endorsement for a sitting Senator to move to the White House!!
As to Hillary Clinton, riding shotgun in a marriage makes one no more capable of being President than did being the wife of Jack Welch make her capable of running GE. Ask yourself, would Hillary be taken at all seriously seriously if she was not Bill's spouse? I think the unvarnished truth is that she would not, and thus she should not be taken seriously today. Unlike Margeret Thatcher who got to her place on her own efforts, Hillary could be called merely a ride along and nothing more!!
I want a President who comes to the office by their own true merit and not by the benefit of marriage or family. Additionally, seguels seem to never be as successful as the original when it comes to the Presidency of the US. Witness John Quincy Adams and the current Bush ,who is now the White House incumbent. I think the populace of this country better wise up to family dynastys and why they are not at all a good idea for a democracy.

Posted by: Tom | June 5, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

I really like Bill Richardson as a candidate. He has fantastic credentials: Governor, Ambassador to UN, Energy Secretary. My only concern is his seeming lack of vision .... And why I am leaning towards Obama.

Posted by: Gonzalo Vergara | June 4, 2007 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Special note to Ken: Sounds like you are describing our president

Posted by: asclepious | June 4, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Lets see there have been only 2 senators elected President in the last 120 years or so. Can anyone name them? JFK and who? On the contrary, Govenors who have become President in recent recent times - FDR, Carter, Reagon, Clinton, GWB. And VPs to become President, umm GB, Johnson, Ford, Truman, Nixon etc.

Senators rarely become President. Why? Look at what they do. Sit arround and legislate, argue, bicker, and generally get nothing done by design. They are there to slow the rest of government down so if they do thier job hopefully nothing terribly bad can happen too quickly.

Govenors on the other hand are leaders, they have to deal with budgets, health care, education, natural disasters, floods, fires, tornados, drought. They have to get stuff done, take charge of situations and take all the blame for thier actions aimed squarely at them not blame others as a senator would do. Bill Richardson also has all the foreign policy experience on top of that, freeing hostages and dealing with warlords and dictators one on one.

The only exception to this rule I think could be Hillary who was first lady and has some exectutive experience by proxy, not to mention a former two term president at her side plus those advisors.

Posted by: Tim | June 4, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Bill Richardson is not for farming, ranching, rural residents or even children. I know I live in New Mexico were the habituated wolves he supports are in our yards, denning near our homes, stalking children. He reaffimred his support for these wolves after two public incidents where one child was encircled by wolves and another nearly attacked.

http://www.wolvesgonewild.com/?p=26 - Bill Richardson Does Not Care About Children's Saftey

He even allowed wolves that had stalked kids at an elementary school in Blue, Arizona to be relocated and released in New Mexico where they attacked many dogs, harassed residents and nearly attacked a child. These wolves have not been removed and no corrective action has been taken.

If he runs the country like the state of New Mexico the US will be worse than 48th in all rankings as New Mexico often is at the bottom of the barrel.

Posted by: sisterflash | June 4, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | June 4, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

If the rest of the country only knew what kind of a "governor" Richardson really is he wouldn't even be in the debate. He is a bully and a liar and has no respect from either side of the political aisle. He advocates one position and then when a bill is passed to support that position, he signs an executive order cancelling it -a real two-face hipocrit.

Posted by: Ken | June 4, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

If the rest of the country only knew what kind of a "governor" Richardson really is he wouldn't even be in the debate. He is a bully and a liar and has no respect from either side of the political aisle. He advocates one position and then when a bill is passed to support that position, he signs an executive order cancelling it -a real two-face hipocrit.

Posted by: Ken | June 4, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Richardson is the "resumé candidate" so expect him to say "I was in Congress for 14 years", "I was Secretary of Energy", "I was a U.N. Ambassador" on top of "I'm a governor." Just like Obama is the charisma candidate, Edwards is the moral authority candidate, and so on and so forth

Posted by: Brendan | June 4, 2007 4:25 AM | Report abuse

What do you expect when (according to the Washington Post poll the other day) 80% of voters aren't yet closely tuned into the election, and you're running against candidates that have tremendous national name recognition (Clinton, Obam and Edwards). You and I know he's the Governor of New Mexico, but I bet half the audience on CNN tonight had no clue as to who he was and what he's done going into the debate.

Posted by: Stephen Cassidy | June 4, 2007 1:59 AM | Report abuse

"This is why governor's are elected."

What thing belonging to a governor could ever serve as a candidate for anything?

Posted by: apostrophe "s" is ONLY possessive | June 4, 2007 1:21 AM | Report abuse

"This is why governor's are elected."

Governor's what? What thing belonging to a governor could possibly run for any office?

Posted by: Bokonon | June 4, 2007 1:08 AM | Report abuse

"that's why governor's are elected"

Governor's what? What thing that belongs to a governor could possibly be a candidate for anything?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 4, 2007 1:06 AM | Report abuse

"but look what happened the last time we elected a governer as President."

Let's see, Reagan, Clinton and Bush were all governor's. George H. W. Bush was Reagan's VP. The past 3 out of 4 President's have been governor's. I think, rightly so. It saddens me that the top contenders for President are US Senators. My goodness, look at the shape congress is in right now. Why on Earth would we elect one of them to be our new President? I can understand it if they have a governing past of some type...which none of these senator's do. Clinton was 1st lady, Obama was a real-estate agent, Edwards a trial lawyer, Thompson was an actor, Biden has been in the senate forever, Brownback...what else has he ever done?, not sure about Tancredo, but maybe KKK member and Kuicinich...who once lived in a car (doesn't that just make you wanna vote for him) and Gravel...perhaps in a mental health center? McCain and Hunter at least have a military and war background, which provides them critical foreign policy experience the rest of the field lacks. At least and Romney, Guiliani, Huckabee and Richardson at least has something to back up their history of governing and a record of their accomplishments. Romney and Guiliani has a record on a larger scale than does Huckabee and Richardson, but at least all 4 of them have a governing record. This gives them a huge advantage when running for US President, rather than just voting yeah or nay on a bunch of issues, and some of it being for political gain. These governor's can show what they did that worked and would like to implement for the nation to help it work better.

This is why governor's are elected. Can anyone honestly say you are happy with Congress? I think not.

Posted by: reason | June 3, 2007 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Richardson is a good guy...


- but look what happened the last time we elected a governer as President.

Posted by: ooeat0meoo | June 3, 2007 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Governor of New Mexico, Governor of New Mexico, Governor of New Mexico, Governor of New Mexico, Governor of New Mexico, Governor of New Mexico, Governor of New Mexico, Governor of New Mexico, Governor of New Mexico, Governor of New Mexico.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 3, 2007 9:21 PM | Report abuse

As I said on a different board, Richardson is running for VP or Secretary of State. You'll notice he's the only governor or former governor running for President on the Democratic side, and it's not because there weren't any quality candidates (Mark Warner). It's because the electorate is becoming more aware that being governor of a state isn't a good barometer of effectiveness in the Oval. He doesn't have the nuclear launch codes in the NM state house.

Richardson's experience in Washington is impressive, but being governor of New Mexico isn't experience prepares you to be President.

Posted by: JamesCH | June 3, 2007 9:19 PM | Report abuse

I like Richardson but that is pretty annoying. "I am a governor," seems to be his answer to Obama prefacing every answer with, "I am proud to have been against the war from the begining"

Posted by: Andre | June 3, 2007 9:19 PM | Report abuse

As I noted before, the "answer the question" rule hurt Richardson, and in general I think he came across as the least comfortable.

Posted by: DTM | June 3, 2007 9:01 PM | Report abuse

richardson did push his governor experience but so what? he has that and diplomacy as well as energy going for him.

Posted by: vet | June 3, 2007 9:01 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company