Recently in Bill Richardson Category

I knew this was coming, but I can't help being pissed off about it:

Bill Richardson's withdrawal from his commerce secretary nomination Sunday didn't just leave a major gap in the new administration, but it also sorely disappointed Latinos who view the New Mexico governor as their most prominent representative.

[W]ith Richardson stepping aside from consideration for commerce secretary amid an ethics investigation relating to a company that has done business with his state, only two Latinos are now set to serve in the new Cabinet: Labor secretary-designate Hilda Solis and Interior secretary-designate Ken Salazar, neither of which, some critics have argued, will hold a prominent Cabinet post.

"Only" two.  And not prominent enough.  Bull****!

The prospect of having only two Latinos on Obama's Cabinet riles some members of the Hispanic community who say their support of Obama was crucial to his success on Election Day.

"It's disappointing at least for now that this administration doesn't have three Latinos as members of its Cabinet," said Arturo Vargas, the executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.

"That would have been one of President-elect Obama's immediate legacies, to have appointed three Latinos to full Cabinet positions," Arturo added.

Emphasis added.  Didn't Mr. Vargas get the memo regarding Richardson's withdrawal?  He was in.  And he felt he had to get the heck out of Dodge because of a federal investigation on a pay-to-play scheme that may lead all the way back to Richardson's governor's office.  In other words, (1) he quit, and (2) he quit because he was, how shall we phrase this . . . oh yeah, "ethically challenged" at this time.

If token appointments is what you are looking for - and it sure looks like that's what Vargas is saying since he suggests that "two's no good, but three's alright" - I want no part of it.

"We do think another Latino should replace Mr. Richardson," Murguía of NCLR said. "It's not out of a sense of entitlement, it's really out of sense of historic precedent. President-elect Obama was ushered into office by a wide diverse coalition of different voters. There is a strong sense of pride among Latino voters that they played a special role."

"Historic precedent"?  WTF is that?  That Obama already nominated a Latino for that post so now Secretary of Commerce is a Latino post?

I tend to agree with this comment - which CNN.com placed at the end of the article as a sort of throwaway quote to purportedly provide some "balance" on this issue:

"I think we are beyond that at this point. We need to have the very best people in these jobs. I hope that they pick someone equally brilliant and highly experienced. We are all in it together," said Fernando Espuelas, host and managing editor of Café Espuelas, a Los Angeles Spanish-language radio talk show.

Emphasis provide.  Amen to that!

Not only did Bill Richardson withdraw his nomination for Secretary of Commerce, it so happens that, IMHO, the most qualified and most knowledgeable Latino in Obama's cabinet is now out.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is withdrawing his nomination to be commerce secretary, citing the distraction of a federal investigation into ties to a company that has done business with his state.

"Given the gravity of the economic situation the nation is facing, I could not in good conscience ask the President-elect and his Administration to delay for one day the important work that needs to be done."

The general outline of the investigation goes as follows:

The investigation concerns CDR Financial Products Inc., a Beverly Hills, Calif., company that in 2004 was awarded two consulting contracts worth about $1.4 million to advise the State of New Mexico on a large bond issue for building infrastructure, one of Mr. Richardson’s initiatives. The company’s president, David Rubin, a major Democratic contributor, gave about $100,000 to two political action committees controlled by Mr. Richardson, as well as $10,000 to his re-election campaign in 2005, according to published reports.

However, this is what I thought did Richardson in:

The F.B.I. began examining the contracts last year; in August, the inquiry was reported in the New Mexico news media. But an Obama transition official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the president-elect’s team, while aware that one of Mr. Richardson’s donors was being investigated, did not know that the inquiry extended to Mr. Richardson until after Mr. Obama announced the New Mexico governor as his commerce secretary choice in early December.

Emphasis added.  You know, it's one thing if Richardson doesn't know he's being investigated, but this is a pay-to-play scheme he's accused of being involved in.  He had to know something was cooking.

Since August, federal investigators have been examining how CDR Financial Products Inc., of Beverly Hills, Calif., got two consulting contracts in 2004 worth about $1.4 million to advise the state on a large bond issue for building infrastructure, one of Mr. Richardson’s initiatives. The investigation was first reported in The Albuquerque Journal.

In 2003 and 2004, CDR’s president, David Rubin, a major Democratic contributor, gave about $100,000 to two political action committees controlled by Mr. Richardson, as well as $10,000 to his re-election campaign in 2005, according to published reports.

An individual with knowledge of the grand jury proceedings, who requested anonymity because the proceedings are secret, said a grand jury was investigating “how CDR gets business in New Mexico and whether the governor’s office was involved in getting them business here.”

Specifically, the person said, the jurors were hearing testimony about whether someone in the governor’s office had pushed the New Mexico Finance Authority to give business to the company.

Emphasis added.  As bad as I feel for Richardson, I also want to grab him by the neck and slap him.  Even if he didn't do anything improper or unethical, you have to know that, at the very least, it appears to be improper.  Specially if there's a grand jury looking at it.

All that aside, I do wish him the best.  He is an inspiration to most politically-active Latinos in the U.S. and I would hate to see him go down in a cloud of corruption.

But hey, it's politics so nothing would surprise me.

The ex-Richardson camp...

Mario, over at Nuestra Voice explains why the recent lack of Latino support for Obama speculation, based on race is not true.

The failure of the Obama campaign to garner Latino support is that his campaign was simply less accessible to Latinos than was the Clinton campaign during a critical early decision making period...

Richardson has even less Latino support than Obama in the poll Hutchinson quoted. In fact Richardson has received less financial support from Latinos than has Clinton. An indication that among even the Latino political elite who have shown tremendous ethnic political loyalty for at least two decades Richardson has been outdone by Clinton.

The post is a good read; if you haven't checked out Mario's radio show, you should.

Cross-posted at Telling Stories

First, I'd like to thank Mr. L.P himself for allowing me to collaborate with him on his website.  I may - or may not - cross-post to my home base at Telling Stories, but if I do, I'll let you know.

I read at another website - that I didn't bookmark and I cannot find for the life of me - an entry on how similar all the Democratic presidential candidates are when it really comes down to issues.  That got me thinking about what that could mean for one of Latino's top concerns, if not the top concern, immigration.  Are they real differences in what the five remaining Democrats?

The answer is, disappointingly, a resounding "not really."

Secure our borders? Four out of five say "Yes."

Clinton: "Hillary strongly believes we need to do more to know who is in our country by securing our borders. . . She supports deploying new technology that can help stop the flow of undocumented immigrants into the country."

Edwards: "The first step in overhauling the immigration system is to secure our borders and stop illegal trafficking. Edwards supports doubling the number of border patrol agents and investing in surveillance technology to police the borders."

Richardson:  "Secure the border by hiring and training enough patrol guards to cover the entire border.  We must more than double the number of guards, and provide them with the best surveillance technology available."

Obama: "Barack Obama wants to preserve the integrity of our borders. He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry. Obama believes we need additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better technology and real-time intelligence."

Kucinich: He's the only candidate who stands out  because he does not believe in securing our borders as an immigration goal. "I oppose giving the Department of Defense control over border security. In our
democracy, it is critical that we preserve the distinction between our armed forces and
domestic law enforcement. Also, I am concerned about the threat of vigilantes
intimidating or attacking individuals at the border. Border security is a job for state and
local authorities, not soldiers or vigilantes."

Crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants?  Again, four out of five say "Yes."

Clinton: "Hillary strongly believes [in] ensuring that employers comply with the law against hiring and exploiting undocumented workers. She supports . . . an employer verification system that is universal, accurate, timely, and does not lead to discrimination and abuse by employers."

Edwards: "We also need to crack down on employers that hire undocumented immigrants. Edwards supports more vigorous workplace enforcement and increased fines for businesses that knowingly break the rules."

Richardson: "We must crack down on employers who knowingly hire undocumented immigrants and enforce the laws already on the books.  After establishing a national ID system, employers will have no excuses."

Obama: "To remove incentives to enter the country illegally, we need to crack down on employers that hire undocumented immigrants. Barack Obama has championed a proposal with Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA), Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Max Baucus (D-MT) to create a new employment eligibility verification system so employers can verify that their employees are legally eligible to work in the U.S."

Kucinich: Again, a different take.  "Sanctions on employers of undocumented workers have failed. Our immigration laws have allowed employers to exploit immigrant workers and thus have denied labor rights to all who work. As the saying goes, an injury to one is an injury to all. I welcome the AFL-CIO's call to end employer penalties and I have joined with advocates for immigrants and people of color in urging that they be eliminated."

See a theme developing here?

Next up, how about a path to citizenship?  Here we have unanimity.

Clinton: "Hillary has consistently called for comprehensive immigration reform that respects our immigrant heritage and honors the rule of law. She believes comprehensive reform must have as [one] essential ingredient . . . a path to earned legal status for those who are here, working hard, paying taxes, respecting the law, and willing to meet a high bar."

Edwards: "Edwards believes people who are already here should have the opportunity to earn American citizenship by avoiding a criminal record, paying a fine in recognition that they came here illegally, and learning English – the surest path to success in this country."

Richardson: "Most of the illegal workers in the country are hard-working, law abiding people simply pursuing the American Dream. Those who pass a background check, learn English, pay back taxes and fines for being here illegally get the opportunity for legal status. Those that don't must leave."

Obama: "Barack Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, not violate the law, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens."

Kucinich: "I am a strong supporter of the USA Family Act (HR 440). It offers immigrants a clear road map to legal status in the United States. Among other changes, it grants legal permanent residence to immigrants who have been living in the U.S. for five or more years. It offers conditional legal status and work authorization to all law-abiding immigrants living in the United States for less than five years. And it revokes current laws that bar certain people who live abroad from re-entering the U.S. for a period of three to 10 years."

I could go on, but you get my point.  With the exception of Dennis Kucinich, whose position in this issue is about as close to the other candidates as it ever gets, they are all saying  the same thing.  My mom, who was a music teacher for a while, would call it "a theme with variations" not much more substantive than "you say tomato, I say tomatoe."

Which brings me to the key issue here: what to make of this?  Well, either the candidates are, remarkably and surprisingly, all thinking about the same issue in pretty much the same way - kind of like the HD of politics - or, as I fear, we're not being told the differences that really matter.  Like, what are the priorities?  Enforcement first, then citizenship?  Employers first, then illegals?  The manufacturing sector first, then agriculture?  Enforcement in union shops first, then non-union shops?

The sad thing about this debate is that the candidates - except for Kucinich - are telling us what we want to hear.  They are silent about the difficult choices that inevitably follow such shallow talk.  That's no recipe for making informed decisions

Elana Levin, from The Drum Major Institute, has written a article to Progressive bloggers and their lack of opinion and coverage on the immigration issue.

He has aired over 4,000 commercials.  And that makes sense.  Why?  Because Hillary and Edwards have a higher profile than Richardson.  They are more commonly known, get covered more in media, and every time that head-job Giulliani speaks he gives Hillary more promotion.

So, naturally Richardson has to promote himself more.  He ain't no fool.

Hattip.

Dr. Jeckel-Bill says:  Cut the National Nuclear Security Administration budget nationally by 53%
Dr. Hyde-Bill says:  Don't cut New Mexico's National Nuclear Security Administration budget by 3.2%

Dr. Jeckel-Bill says:  Cutting NNSA "will enhance our credibility as we lead global negotiations to reduce the number of nuclear weapons."
Dr. Hyde-Bill says:  Cutting NNSA "would signify cuts to these most important national security resources."

Them are some pretty confounding hats Bill Richardson has to switch back and forth.  I'm impressed.  Maybe he's a good politician after all.  All joking aside, in each situation he is doing the right thing.