Bill Richardson: January 2008 Archives
Mario, over at Nuestra Voice explains why the recent lack of Latino support for Obama speculation, based on race is not true.
The post is a good read; if you haven't checked out Mario's radio show, you should.
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.
Cross-posted at Telling Stories
To the surprise of, well, nobody, Bill Richardson is dropping out of the presidential race. A person with a remarkable and impressive resumé - U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Governor of New Mexico, Congressman, Secretary of Energy, and who knows what else - it appears to me he could not catch on with voters because of his lack of focus and discipline on the debates.
I was very disappointed with his performance early on, particularly on the LOGO debate, where he essentially said sexual orientation was a choice. It was such an awful blunder that Melissa Etheridge threw him a life jacket and said "let me ask you this again." And when he answered he gave this dumbfounding answer about how he didn't know, he wasn't sure, because he wasn't a scientist, you know.
He could make a great V.P. choice - they only get one debate, after all - but he would have to become better at delivering his message.
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
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
About this Entry
