Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
ASSIGNMENT DESK: BILL RICHARDSON FOR VP?
Ryan asks, "Could you do an evaluation of Richardson for VP? He seems like an obviously good choice, but there hasn't really been any discussion of him as a nominee. He has a great deal of diplomatic experience, energy experience, he's a governor of a Western state, he may be able to help with the Latino vote, etc. So why no discussion of him?"
The normal dismissal of Richardson's VP chances tends to focus on the personal rumors that swirl about him. But aside from his troubling habit of inappropriately touching underlings, I'm going to leave that aside. Rather, Richardson shouldn't be vice president because he lacks the policy heft to be president.
I became suspicious of Richardson when he made it a point in his speeches to praise balanced budget amendments -- an awful idea last seen advocated by Newt Gingrich and Orrin Hatch. So I scheduled an interview with him to talk through some of this. It wasn't reassuring.
I no longer think Richardson is an economic conservative. I was misled by his support for a balanced budget amendment, his attempts to contrast himself with anti-growth politicians, and his constant comments that "The Democratic Party, our first solution is to tax, but I'm not of that school." [...]The rest of that piece -- and a transcript from the interview -- can be found here. In general, Richardson just wasn't particularly knowledgeable or thoughtful about domestic policy. He seemed almost curiously disengaged. His health care plan was weak, and our conversation on the subject disappointing. His economic take is unacceptable conservative or, if you prefer, opportunistic. At times, it contradicts itself. But none of that really engages with Richardson's apparent strength: Foreign policy.Rather, Richardson is an economic opportunist. He's adopted the conservative's rhetorical critique of liberal economic thought in order to distinguish himself from the other candidates, most of whom are responding to this moment of mortgage crises and insecurity with a forthrightly progressive vision. Richardson's vision, which ticks off the same checkboxes as all the other candidates (crumbling infrastructure, rising college debt, 45 million uninsured, Social Security under attack, etc.), comes couched in a superficial critique of anti-growth Democrats he won't name and a strain of economic thought he won't specify.
Worse, the policies that Richardson is backing, and the political promises he's implying, actually are anti-growth. Richardson might want to carve out enough exemptions in his balanced budget amendment to render it essentially meaningless, but his emphasis on an end to red nevertheless narrows his ability to run deficits.
Richardson's resume is fantastic, yes, but it is the resume of a negotiator, not an architect. Richardson points to the many dictators he's met, the many deals he's crafted, and that record is considerable. But the impressive interpersonal skills Richardson credits for his negotiating success (in his memoir, he attributes his facility with thugs to an understanding that "a personal connection can transcend even the deepest ideological differences.") don't necessarily speak to his vision.
And that's where things get trickier. Richardson was not an audible opponent of the Iraq War, and in fact signed a March 2003 letter from Freedom House suggesting that the war in Iraq should be seen as the first step towards broader reforms in the Middle East. "Together with successful democratic reform in Iraq," it said, "the Gulf has the potential of making a clean break with a past rooted in repression and entering into the growing global community of democratic states." That's not a disqualification -- Richardson apologized for his support and advocated total withdrawal in the primary -- but it does call his judgment into question.
So where is Richardson now? He says, slightly incoherently, "I was a conservative Democrat who became a progressive Democrat who's now a moderate." Huh? Ryan Lizza, who wrote a definitive profile exploring how Richardson's resume overshadowed his candidacy (which has now vanished down the TNR memory hole), concluded, "Richardson, despite his years on the world stage, has never developed any fixed foreign policy ideology." Lizza went on to tally up some of Richardson's bad calls: In 1985 he supported aid to the Contras, then flipped after Iran-Contra broke. In 1991, he voted against going to war in Iraq, then later flipped and said he'd made a mistake. He ran the whip operation for NAFTA -- actually setting up a joint operation with Gingrich's staff -- but says he now regrets aspects of that vote. "I guess you'd call me more of a fair-trader now."
And this sort of incoherence goes across the board. Asked who his favorite Supreme Court Justice was, he chose Byron "Whizzer" White, a Kennedy appointee who opposed Roe. He later apologized, and admitted he hadn't thought it through. Asked about whether he'd vote for the Iraq Funding Supplemental in March of 2007, he said he didn't know, then contradicted his own position and said he'd cut troop funding.
And that's the problem with Richardson: It's hard to trust him as president. He's incoherent on domestic policy, fuzzy on foreign policy, and clearly doesn't know anything about the Courts. During the primary, I was told by someone who worked with him that the campaign had outsourced most of its policy to a group called Policy Works -- which means he wasn't even interested enough in policy to have an in-house shop.
That's not to say Richardson has no virtues, or nothing to recommend him. He's a good campaigner. During the primary, he staked out sharply progressive positions on global warming and Iraq. His negotiating skills are arguably unparalleled. But part of thinking through vice presidential choices is figuring out who would be a good president. And it's hard to conclude that Richardson has the heft to fill that role, or even get through the campaign without embarrassing Obama.
COMMENTS (17)
Perfect!
A guy who's a groper.
...that'll seal the deal with Hillary's legions.
Posted by: S Brennan | June 13, 2008 4:21 PM
"RICHARDSON FOR VP?"
No.
Posted by: John McCain: More of the Same | June 13, 2008 4:23 PM
TNR dropping that Lizza into their terrible archives is really annoying: I used to quote it all the time when people would say something nice about Richardson. It was totally definitive: he knows nothing about domestic policy, has no actual opinions about foreign policy, and has the whole inappropriate thing with women.
Posted by: Sam | June 13, 2008 4:24 PM
Um, none for me, thanks. Richardson, throughout his career as governor of New Mexico, has been quite the fan of the unfunded mandates and "crown jewel" boondoggles like trying to bring a rail corridor from Santa Fe to Albuquerque that will bring in fewer fees than it costs to maintain.
No thanks. I'll take someone who's unproven as an executive over someone who demonstrably sucks.
Posted by: James F. Elliott | June 13, 2008 4:36 PM
That photograph seems to say "Make Bill Richardson VP or he will destroy this child! Raaaargh!"
Posted by: TheDeadlyShoe | June 13, 2008 5:19 PM
And actually interestingly enough the long list of potential VPs that leaked to MSNBC at the beginning of the week featured every name in the book - even John Kerry - except Richardson's and Chuck Todd made a point of saying "The names that are not in the list were intentionally left off - not a mistake - hint, hint".
His personal problems + the fury of the Clintons make him a no-go for sure.
Posted by: benjamin | June 13, 2008 5:35 PM
You're basically dancing around the fact that Richardson is just a dope. I guess our standards are low enough where some might think it an open question whether or not he is a dope, but from an objective standpoint he clearly is. I wouldn't vote for him for mayor of Red Bud, Illinois. I see no evidence that he's some master negotiator. He's done a lot of negotiating but that's not the same thing.
Posted by: jeebus | June 13, 2008 5:53 PM
This Policy Works? I hope their policy is better than their website. Good god that's ugly.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | June 13, 2008 6:29 PM
Ill say it: he has no virtues, and nothing to recommend him.
As my governor, I've watched him reward loyalty over competence, buy support with favors, and generally pander to whatever special interest group he thinks he can buy with a government program or an appointment. Also, his attitude towards the NM Democratic Party is that the party is worth building and supporting only in so far as it can deliver votes for him personally.
Posted by: Michael H Schneider | June 13, 2008 11:56 PM
Deadly Shoe -- I love that line. I made it the caption.
Posted by: Ezra | June 14, 2008 9:48 AM
Richardson's biggest sin? Three words: Wen Ho Lee.
Richardson presided over the racist witch hunt of Wen while Sec. of Energy. Shameful. He has never answered for it.
Posted by: Siva Vaidhyanathan | June 14, 2008 11:06 AM
I have to (unfortunately) disagree completely with Ezra on this: BR would make a great choice!
Here are some of the reasons why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiszkrzoOs0
youtube.com/watch?v=i0YRHXoygRM
youtube.com/watch?v=CifLm6z32eA
youtube.com/watch?v=mN2o208PFhg
Posted by: TLB | June 14, 2008 3:47 PM
Putting Richardson on the ticket is a sure way to not help Obama.
Posted by: christian | June 14, 2008 4:26 PM
It better be Hillary for VP -I think 18 million votes has more than earned her that slot.
Not to mention the fact that Richardson is a complete idiot.
Posted by: csh | June 14, 2008 4:53 PM
Obama may have a harder time finding someone for this "coveted" spot than he once thought. Just please don't let it be Hillary. I'd hate to see her fortunes tied in any way to this dishonest, scheming individual.
Posted by: Mary Lou | June 14, 2008 7:39 PM
I think Richardson is more qualified to be President or Vice President than Obama. Has Obama ever discussed policy with any reporter in depth? Has Obama ever served in anybody's Cabinet? Has Obama ever successfully negotiated with any foreign leaders? Has Obama ever been a Governor? Has Obama been a Congressman? NO.
But he can deliver a good speech.
Our country values image over substance and experience, and Obama is all about image, but light on substance and experience.
Richardson would not have lasted this long in Washington and held so many different positions unless he knew something about policy. I think with his great resume, the media have to come up with a narrative that would take Richardson out of the running. Just say the truth: You don't want two minorities in the ticket, and especially not one who knows more about everything than Obama.
Posted by: John | June 14, 2008 9:08 PM
I suspect the consultant his campaign hired was a company called Public Works, not Policy Works or PolicyWorks (seem to be different entities). I know Public Works has worked for the Richardson administration in NM, so I would guess he utilized them in his campaign.
Posted by: RF | June 18, 2008 11:36 PM