home

Richardson Out As Commerce Secretary Nominee

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:55:28 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

NYTimes:

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico confirmed in a statement released Sunday afternoon that he has withdrawn his name as the commerce secretary nominee, citing a pending “investigation of a company that has done businesswith New Mexico state government.”

What's the investigation about? From a 12/19 NYTimes article:

A federal grand jury in New Mexico is investigating accusations that Gov. Bill Richardson’s administration gave lucrative contracts to a California financier because he contributed heavily to the governor’s political action committees, a person familiar with the grand jury proceedings said Thursday.

Pay for play. In any event, I never cared for Richardson myself so no tears shed from me. It SHOULD explain to some observers why the smart political move for Dems is to separate themselves from corrupt pols as much as possible - see Blago/Burris. But it probably won't.

Speaking for me only

< Houston Gets a DA With a Sense of Fairness | Sooners Talkin' Smack >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Richardson Out As Commerce Secretary Nominee | 115 comments (115 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    This is beginning to look like... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by pmj6 on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:59:02 PM EST
    ...the Bourbon Restoration. This time it's the Democrats who have "learned nothing, and forgot nothing."

    Richardson... (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by pmj6 on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:23:03 PM EST
    ...has reportedly been under grand jury investigation since August of 2008. It boggles the mind that he was offered the Commerce job in the Obama administration regardless of that.

    I guess "vetting" is something one does only to people named Clinton. And Palin.

    Parent

    Apparently, the Obama transition team knew of this (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by DeborahNC on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 06:40:40 PM EST
    issue, otherwise why would the following be reported?

    From Nedra Pickler, AP:

    "A senior Obama advisor said that when Richardson was nominated, he gave assurances that he would come out fine in the investigation and the president-elect had no reason to doubt it."

    I'll try to provide a link. I've never done one on this site before.

    Parent

    No reason to doubt it? (5.00 / 6) (#79)
    by pmj6 on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 08:47:31 PM EST
    Which politician would ever say "yeah, they got the goods on me, I'm going away for a long time--now can I be the Commerce Secretary, please?"

    Whether Richardson told them about it or not, it still looks like negligence on part of the transition team.

    Parent

    I agree. Since Obama was painstaking in his (none / 0) (#104)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 03:59:00 AM EST
    efforts to develop and project an appealing public image, it's really surprising that he would let something like this slide. No special expertise would've been required to know Richarson's situation was a potential disaster, so why were they willing to wait and see if it played out favorably?

    Parent
    Actually, it's really not surprising... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by sj on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:11:42 AM EST
    ... that he would let something like this slide.  Obama ingores alot of "negatives" when he chooses.  In spite of any outcry.  Most recent examples are the speechwriter Favreau and Rick Warren.  

    I think the only reason this appointment is being walked back is because it requires confirmation in addition to O's selection.

    Parent

    I see your point. From that perspective, (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 06:18:49 PM EST
    expediency would seem to guide Obama's decision-making, more than say, principles. That would explain Obama's unwillingness to replace Rick Warren at his inauguaration, despite the pleas of gays and lesbians who supported him during his campaign.

    Also, the selection of Rick Warren will undoubtedly be helpful to Obama in making even greater enrodes into the Evangelical demographic. The Evangelicals have lots of money, and are usually helpful with the tasks of getting out the vote. Warren would also align with a 'squeaky clean' image that Obama likes to portray.

    Favreau is assuredly a valuable asset to Obama, and, after all, it was 'only' women who were primarily offended by him. And, Favreau is antithetical to a squeaky clean image.

    With Richardson, there must be another dimension, because  when Obama nominated him, he knew that he would have to undergo the confirmation process.  

     

    Parent

    peace voter (none / 0) (#71)
    by Fabian on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 07:18:27 PM EST
    calls Richardson a "compulsive fabulist".

    Richardson may have more than the usual politician's tendency to paint himself in the best light possible.

    Parent

    Several people on this site (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:05:36 AM EST
    have mentioned problems with Richardson, skeletons in his closet.  If it was such common knowledge, why didn't Obama's team know about it?  

    I'm still waiting to see some evidence of the CHANGE, so far the Obama team looks like politics as usual.  

    Parent

    yeah... Richardson and Warren too (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by sarany on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 07:03:55 AM EST
    Obama should have known that tapping the non-inclusive poster boy Warren as an inclusive voice for the Inaug. Invocation was a step too far.  And I'd think that scrutinizing a politician's campaign fundraising and political access money trail is the ABCs of vetting. Like looking for links between lucrative state contracts and prior donors...

    Parent
    Hmmm . . . . (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:07:22 PM EST
    On June 18, 2004, three months after receiving the consulting work, Mr. Rubin's firm gave $75,000 to a political action committee Mr. Richardson had formed to pay for himself and his staff to attend the Democratic National Convention in Boston that year, which he headed. The committee is called "Si Se Puede! (Yes We Can) Boston 2004." Other companies that benefited from the bond sales gave $55,000, according to The Associated Press.

    Seems like an awful lot of money just to go to a convention!

    No fan of Richardson, and also wasn't sure I liked him in that position . . .

    Well, he's got a new position now (none / 0) (#24)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:57:05 PM EST
    as yet another busunderer -- although with him, it may require getting a much bigger bus.

    I do feel sorry for the many fine Hispanic pols, as others who have done nothing to deserve it always suffer when the first in the pack to make it to a position like gov turns out to be seen as a setback.  In my area, we already saw some fine pols from the Hispanic community wearing out from the work and deciding not to run again, and that will be a great loss.  We will have to work to help others step up -- and enough others so that they won't have the extra burdens.

    Parent

    Well, he gets under MY bus (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by oldpro on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:04:52 PM EST
    at risk for his health...hope his life insurance is fully paid.

    Parent
    Didn't Obama also appoint a Hispanic woman? (none / 0) (#35)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:56:06 PM EST
    With a good rep?

    I realize it's not enough as it's not as high profile, but at the community level, it may encourage continuation of getting in there and working on up  :)

    My dream is to see the white male reduced to their actual percentage in both government and business. We all need to keep plugging away to see the numbers "average" out. Right now, the majority male hasn't been doing too hot a job . . .

    Parent

    Why would Obama care about Hispanics? (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:08:14 AM EST
    He appointed Richardson because Richardson ditched the Clintons to support Obama.  It had nothing to do with his 1/2 Hispanic.  Obama's never shown any support for Hispanics.  Why would he start now?  He's beholden to the Black community, not Hispanics.  

    Just my observations...................

    Parent

    Why? (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:25:21 PM EST
    Do you think a majority will be satisfied to be governed by a minority just because they are a minority?

    Parent
    Whaa? You do realize that (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:27:34 PM EST
    white males are about a third of the population?

    Parent
    That means the remain 66% (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 09:15:43 PM EST
    are split into the various other groups... or do you opine that they are a Super Minority?

    I seem to remember some nasty wars between Koreans, Chinese and Japanese.

    And the Suni and Shia aren't known to be great buds.

    My point is that the melting pot has worked much better than dividing the pie... or as the dollar bill says... out of many, one..

    Parent

    Acculturation, not assimilation (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 09:22:57 PM EST
    is by far the more successful model in this country.  I.e., assimilation -- the "melting pot" -- means subsuming one's heritage into that of the "dominant group."

    As you say, the others would not be "dominant" -- but you also use terms like majority and minority in your first comment that are contradicted by the (somewhat better) terms in your second comment.

    So my reply was to your first comment, pointing out that white males are dominant but not owing to numerical majority.  The only numerical majority in this country, by such standard demographic grouping, actually is . . . women. :-)

    Parent

    welll.... I like females (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:04:09 PM EST
    so that works for me.

    My expression may have been poor but my point remains.

    The "melting pot" gave us a very successful society that could grow to accept all groups.

    Diversity does not.

    Parent

    Historically "melting pot" is not the (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:15:07 PM EST
    correct term for the American experience. Most historians will tell you that it's more akin to a "mosaic" or some other metaphor for "made up of many parts, but distinct".

    Parent
    As an immigrant, (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:47:57 PM EST
    (and a grateful citizen now,) and having lived in parts of the world where many, many nationalities live together in close proximity (post WW2 Europe, for instance) I assure you there's no such thing as a "melting pot." Even in areas where  the overwhelming majority is of one ethnic group, that group divides itself into numerous sects that are as belligerent to each other as....well, black and white.

    Whenever someone in our circle of friends and/or family refers to a "melting pot," we quickly correct said person with a polite, "jar of marbles."


    Parent

    Interesting; thank you (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:31:49 AM EST
    -- and btw, the term "acculturation" also is used in discussions about different models because it draws from a similar root for "accommodate," meaning tolerance of difference rather than belligerence about diversity.

    And in terms of culinary models, I've read that better than "melting pot" is "tossed salad," with all making a marvelous blend of flavors but each part retaining its individual contribution.  But those terms just make me hungry, so I'll remember "jar of marbles.":-)

    Parent

    Flavor palette (4.00 / 1) (#91)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:45:10 AM EST
    I was watching a show recently where a chef was talking about a perfect dish and how it pulled from the different flavors on the palette. Spicy, sweet, acidic, and a couple others. The layering of flavors and balance  :)

    You can go with your marbles, I'll stick to the culinary {grin} Or, you could apply the palette theory from an art angle and the blending of colors on a canvas. Also achieving balance through layering and composition :)

    Parent

    You use your metaphor (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:35:27 AM EST
    and I'll use mine.. My point remains... As a whole our society...or at least mine since I don't know your background... became a mixture of many that lived, worked and loved together.

    It wasn't until we were all told to celebrate the differences that the soup became a pie that had to be sliced according to population percentages.

    Parent

    So, this accursed (none / 0) (#115)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:55:32 PM EST
    (liberal) "celebrating differences" is a LATE developement, occuring after desegregation, the womens movement etc?

    Oh for those golden, utopian days of living, loving and working together!

    Parent

    Multiculturalism vs the melting pot (none / 0) (#116)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 02:19:53 PM EST
    another day, another phoney r.w - conservative wedge issue.

    Parent
    In which other countries has that been successful? (none / 0) (#94)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:10:56 AM EST


    Parent
    Canada is one I recall (none / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:17:41 AM EST
    from the reading, or at least parts of it -- personally, I'm not sure Quebec is an example!  And I seem to recall that Hong Kong or Singapore or something also was used as an example of some success in accommodating acculturation.

    I've got to try to find that reading; it did a much better job of explaining the different means of dealing with immigrants and migrants than I'm dredging up from my tired memory.  It was a good framework I used in a class to then study U.S. history.  For example, compare our repeated attempts to force assimilation on Native Americans, as well as many 19th-century and early 20th-century immigrant and migrant groups, vs. some later groups being allowed to acculturate rather than being forced to assimilate.

    Parent

    Uh, the Native Americans (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:38:19 AM EST
    were not pushed towards assimilation, they were put on reservations.

    Parent
    You're missing many changes (none / 0) (#110)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:43:25 PM EST
    in U.S. policy toward the First People.  See the removal of children from reservations to boarding schools, see the reason for the uprising at Wounded Knee with forced farming, see the urban relocation policy, etc.

    Parent
    The best way would have (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:40:05 PM EST
    been to sell them land and left them alone.

    Parent
    Yes there were Indian Schools (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:38:55 PM EST
    Some cities in the west have an Indian School Road.

    Parent
    Yes and that isn't how you do it (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 03:19:56 PM EST
    so it failed.

    Terrible idea to begin with.

    Parent

    "We all" (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:15:46 AM EST
    is the operative part of what I wrote. Known as the collective of all who aren't white males working to bring our numbers/representation in positions of power/govern more in line with the population. Really pretty basic.  ;)

    Parent
    Glad to know (none / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:42:26 PM EST
    you agree with being a majority minority.

    ;-)

    Pie slicing by percentages will destroy the country.

    Parent

    You raised terms of "majority" (none / 0) (#120)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 03:25:58 AM EST
    and "minority" first -- terms which are defined by percentages.  You sliced the pie.  

    Maybe think first next time about definitions before using such terms . . . and not knowing the actual numbers.

    Parent

    How badly does this reflect on Obama? (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:09:44 PM EST
    Also, too bad there wasn't as much hue and cry about vetting Obama's non SOS appointments, eh?
    Totally agree (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:09:52 PM EST
    Richardson lost my support during the primary and I'm not a bit sorry to see him step aside.  I hope Obama will find a good replacement.

    I have to say, the Dems are doing a (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:18:03 PM EST
    masterfull job of coming across as being just as damn dirty as the Republicans. In the past two years, off the top of my head, we've had a Florida Congressman, a New Orleans Congressman, the Mayor of Detroit, Governor of Ill., Gov of NY, Gov of NM, Rep from NY (though that was mostly laziness and stupidity) etc. Likely a dozen others I've forgotten.

    don't forget J. Edwards (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:31:09 PM EST
    a different kind of dirty, but dirty nonetheless.

    Parent
    You brought back a really bad memory. (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by DeborahNC on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 06:54:21 PM EST
    I was really disappointed in his judgment (lack thereof). It was undoubtedly a betrayal for Elizabeth, but it was also a betrayal of the public trust.

    I thought that I saw him in a restaurant the night before last, but it wasn't him. My son was so relieved, because he thought that I might go up to him and ask for my donation money back.

    Parent

    Yes, you deserve your money back! (none / 0) (#67)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 07:03:39 PM EST


    Parent
    A pox on John but I wonder how Elizabeth is doing (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by byteb on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 08:12:41 PM EST
    Has anyone heard anything?  I think she's amazing.

    Parent
    Haven't heard anything (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 09:02:26 PM EST
    about how she's doing. My heart broke for her and her kids, can't imagine dealing with that while having cancer, etc.

    Parent
    I haven't heard, but I'll look into it. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 03:44:35 AM EST
    Elizabeth is a wonderful person, and needed a supportive, not a philandering, husband during her health crisis. I hope that she's doing well.

    Moreover, she was out campaigning for him even after she was aware of his betrayal.

    Parent

    Yes, it's getting old, and embarrassing (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:13:35 AM EST
    And it's making Obama look like just another tainted politician.  Same ol' thing, and I am getting sick of it.  it's making us all look bad.

    Parent
    Spitzer (none / 0) (#15)
    by Nasarius on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:35:28 PM EST
    Gov of NY

    Really doesn't belong in this list. Hiring prostitutes, while illegal, just isn't comparable to political corruption.

    With sex scandals, we can point and laugh and have our Schadenfreude moment if we want, but unless it's somehow genuinely harmful (see Mark Foley), it has no bearing on their public service.

    Parent

    I also consider his using State police (none / 0) (#17)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:37:41 PM EST
    to spy on a political rival as pretty bad.

    Parent
    fair enough (none / 0) (#20)
    by Nasarius on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:44:26 PM EST
    I'd almost forgotten about the other Troopergate.

    Parent
    Your Math Is Seriously Defective (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:45:22 PM EST
    The Democratic scandals are a mote of dust compared to the GOP rap sheet.

    Have a look to refresh your memory. There is no contest.

    Parent

    Dodged bullets (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by magster on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:25:26 PM EST
    Third and fourth place in the primaries carry baggage that would have doomed the ticket had they prevailed.

    In Richardson's case, (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Spamlet on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:08:04 PM EST
    no bullet was dodged. Richardson was always a blank. Now excuse me while I indulge in a bit of schadenfreude.

    Parent
    Is there no Bobby Rush/Al Sharpton (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:10:17 PM EST
    to express outrage on behalf of Latino community?

    Parent
    The Latino community is not under attack, (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by mexboy on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:19:31 PM EST
    Richardson is under investigation, period.

    The majority of us  understand that crime and corruption comes in all shades .

    Let the investigators decide whether he acted improperly or not. How does that taint us as a community?

    Your statement  however, angered me. I find it condescending.

    Is there no Bobby Rush/Al Sharpton to express outrage on behalf of Latino community?


    Parent
    I apologize. An ill-considered (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:32:09 PM EST
    comment by me.  

    Parent
    Just like Governor Blago? (none / 0) (#96)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:14:44 AM EST
    No indictment, no conviction, just a continuing investigation?

    Parent
    It is what it is (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:30:20 PM EST
    and I don't have a good feeling about this at all.  I used to like Bill Richardson but his behavior during the primaries when he threw his weight to Obama was creepy!  I don't say that as a Hillary supporter, though I am.  He came off creepy.  

    I think if we look hard enough we will find this sort of "pay for play" at every level of government.  The question is is the appearance of propriety enough to sink a nomination?  Does it mean that the person is irreparably sullied?  

    Big companies make big donations.  It is hard to say that this company would not have received the contract BUT FOR the donation since the donation followed.  Companies can and do support like minded politicians-those who share their vision and interests.  Does this mean that no company who has ever donated big can receive any work from the government?  

    Not easy to answer.    

    Errata (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:35:15 PM EST
    Appearance of "propriety" should be "impropriety."  LOL  I read on ABC blog that the investigation of Richardson is quite old; it dates back a couple of years.  That was posted by a NM resident who seemed to know what she was talking about.  

    Parent
    If it's quite old (none / 0) (#19)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:41:08 PM EST
    is there perhaps something more to it now? Richardson doesn't seem like the type to just excuse himself for the benefit of others . . .

    Parent
    JPMorgan Chase (none / 0) (#72)
    by jedimom on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 07:19:12 PM EST
    it is all centred on credit default swaps and big banks and state contracts, pure death PR wise right now, he played with bankers with the peoples money and investments and lost a lot of money it seems in the implosion of wall st, he will cut a deal for sure...

    Parent
    pay to play, CDSwaps and JPMorgan ... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jedimom on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 07:17:49 PM EST
    I think that is why Blago is so pixxed and refusing to go away, they all seem to do it, esp chicago, he believes he hasnt done anything wrong..it will be ugly..

    richardson is going to cut a deal and go away, he has that 'bankers son, socialist son ivy league' background, he will retire and sit on a board, Blago will fight like a street thug to prove he is only as corrupt as everyone else for the principle of the thing LOL....

    Parent

    It would be interesting to know (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:35:13 PM EST
    which other political contributions were made by these contributors.  Many hedge their bets.

    Parent
    Yes, I agree (none / 0) (#16)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:37:00 PM EST
    I know of one large company I am following whose officers have made donations to Obama and McCain.  They cover all bases.    

    Parent
    Is it just me (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by SOS on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:02:40 PM EST
    or is this getting to the point of ridiculous?

    I have a pretty good friend (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by zyx on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:18:00 PM EST
    who is a longtime politically active Democrat in New Mexico, and she does not like Richardson. I have asked her why, and get longish explanations about transportation issues that make my eyes cross a little bit. Nothing huge that stands out, and it's kind of technical-ish.

    Also, she lives and worked (she's retired) at Los Alamos, and the Wen Ho Lee thing made him no fans there.

    I'll be hearing more from her soon, and I'll let you know if I get anything that is helpful to understanding this--forwards or backwards.

    peace voter @ dkos (none / 0) (#50)
    by Fabian on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:47:16 PM EST
    seems to know a lot.
    Here's one link from the current reclist diary.

    Parent
    Good insight from peace voter, but (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:01:02 PM EST
    I had to stop reading the comments due to the CDS.

    This is all because the Clintons sicced the FBI on Richardson, y'know.  Jeesh, they've still got it bad over there at The Big Orange, huh?  Blecchh.

    Parent

    Did they really say that? (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:25:14 PM EST
    That Clinton sicced the FBI on him? Because when I was over there earlier today I was thinking how funny it would be if someone posted that. I guess I just didn't stick around long enough.

    Parent
    Yep, sorry I didn't save it for ya. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:28:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Two SIdes Of One Coin (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:05:13 PM EST
     Jeesh, they've still got it bad over there at The Big Orange, huh?  Blecchh.


    Parent
    Not even quite two sides, squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 08:42:46 PM EST
    In fact, if you glance through that thread, you'll see it was exactly one person trying to push the "Clintons sicced the FBI on Richardson" smear, and they were downrated, mocked, and called out as a Faux News-type liar for trying to spread rumors harmful to the Clintons and divisive to Democrats. A number of people pointed out that there were bad feelings apparently still left over on the site from the primaries and how it was time to let them go.

    Parent
    I'm sure Wen ho Lee will find that theory (none / 0) (#61)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:42:15 PM EST
    credible.

    Parent
    I mean, after Richardson went out of his (none / 0) (#62)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:42:57 PM EST
    way to clear WHL's name.. ahem.

    Parent
    Obama Team now feels it was (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by NJDem on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:25:33 PM EST
    mislead

    yeah, I guess they were--and he seemed so trustworthy...

    Richardson - untrustworthy? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Fabian on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 06:22:42 PM EST
    No!
    [snark]

    Parent
    Mislead? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 06:39:28 PM EST
    Richardson, go straight under the bus.  If Obama wants no drama, then he and his courterie should not be saying they were "mislead."  They should be saying as little as possible.  

    I smell a rat here and its name is not Clinton.

    Parent

    Of course they say they were mislead (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:20:41 AM EST
    What else could they say?  "We were stupid and didn't do our homework on Richardson"?  

    Parent
    Hey, he cleaned up his Facebook page.:-) (none / 0) (#60)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:30:05 PM EST


    Parent
    I love the smell of karma in the morning.... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jedimom on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 07:12:31 PM EST
    so cause I have to, I ask, if Richardson -who is under investigation but unindicted and unimpeached- had the opportunity to appoint a DEM Senator right now, should the GOP in Senate be able to block it and anything else he does PRIOR to indictment or impeachment?
    Not unless Richardson is (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:23:57 AM EST
    arrested, as Blago was.  Not quite the same thing...yet...

    Parent
    A day late for my birthday (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 08:30:11 PM EST
    But I'll take it, since that Franken win is not happening in  time.

    I liked Richardson up until the debates started and it was clear that he was out of his league. I am perfectly happy to have him out of the new cabinet, and quite frankly can't imagine how he held the other cabinet-level jobs he has had.

    Franken has won (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 08:32:10 PM EST
    Take it to the bank.

    Parent
    He should resign as governor too, frankly (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:07:40 PM EST
    There are already transition plans underway, and Diane Denish is apparently well-respected.

    Probably time to remove ... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:54:12 PM EST
    that "no drama Obama" label, which was never that appropriate for such a theatrical candidate.

    Parent
    Obama is pulling several Dem govs (none / 0) (#7)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:22:07 PM EST
    into the administration, and for the most part, Dem lt. gov.'s will step up -- but they better step up to doing a great job at being govs, too . . . as we don't want to see the GOP grab these govships back.

    So this is another one, and NM is one of those very purple states that could go either way.

    Parent

    why? (none / 0) (#36)
    by txpublicdefender on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:57:11 PM EST
    There's no evidence he has done anything wrong at this point.  The only reason he's withdrawing from cabinet nomination is because it will be a distraction to Obama.  If every candidate who took a campaign contribution from someone who eventually or previously got state business needed to resign, then every one of them would need to resign.

    Parent
    If it's bad enough for him to (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:01:11 PM EST
    withdraw his name from contention, it will eventually be bad enough for him to have to resign IMO.

    Parent
    I am not sure (none / 0) (#8)
    by Steve M on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:24:02 PM EST
    whether this is a situation that should have been detected during the vetting process, in which case someone was seriously asleep at the switch, or if it isn't, in which case it seems to have been handled in as smooth and drama-free a manner as possible.

    detected? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by txpublicdefender on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:00:13 PM EST
    The transition team knew about this investigation.  It has been public knowledge since August.  Their mistake, if there was one, was in a political calculation that it wouldn't stop him from being confirmed and/or a belief that the investigation would be completed by now.  I understand that the grand jury hearing the case has been disempanelled because its term expired, but they are convening a new one to continue the investigation.  My guess is that they figured the whole thing would be done with when the grand jury term expired, but since it's dragging on longer, they realized that a confirmation process with an ongoing investigation is just too much of a headache.

    But, to suggest that vetting failed to detect it is pretty inaccurate, as they clearly knew about it.

    Parent

    Or (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:38:18 PM EST
    The transition team assumed that he would have to step down, win win. Obama panders to Richardson's fans and winds up looking good for accepting his resignation..

    Parent
    That would have been clever (none / 0) (#29)
    by Spamlet on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:12:11 PM EST
    but it also seems too Byzantine to be true.

    Parent
    Agree (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:13:13 PM EST
    But amusing to imagine....

    Parent
    I don't get it.... (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 07:31:48 PM EST
    First of all, speaking for me only, I felt that that compelling Hillary Clinton to complete Obama's proctologically invasive "questionnaire" was a little over the top. I'm sure there was no shortage of snickering at Obama's headquarters, led perhaps by Jon Favreau, when the questionnaire was publicly hanged around Hillary's neck, but no one else's. It almost seemed as if it was designed for her alone, and not for the purpose of "vetting" either. It smacked of a paranoid pay-back, and placed Hillary into the degrading spot of "you want this job? Turn around, face the wall, and assume the position."

    Certainly, every candidate for high office should go through some vetting, but isn't there some point whereby a lifelong public servant, vetted like no other in history, gets a little show of respect, and is permitted a modicum of dignity?

    So Richardson's investigation has been going on "for some time now." Already, some posters here have sprung out with lame attempt to "let's be fair now, let's not jump to conclusions." If the problem was "simple, easily explained, or a misunderstanding because many contributors also get financial rewards from the recipient," why has the investigation been going on so long? Why wasn't it cleared up in one day? Why DID Obama select him when there's no end in sight to this thing?

    I think Squeaky may be closer to the truth than she thought.    


    Parent

    Proctologically invasive! (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 09:22:23 PM EST
    Beautiful metaphor!

    Reminds me of a greeting card I once saw.

    Leering man and distraught woman are seated at a bar. She is telling him about the loss of her job, her mother, her house, etc., etc.  He says to her "The solution to your problem is between my legs."

    You open the card and it says, "I should have been a proctologist..I meet so many a**holes."

    Parent

    Then again, anything proctological (none / 0) (#98)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:19:16 AM EST
    would seem to be rather inherently invasive.:-)

    Parent
    Hillary? (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 09:14:22 PM EST
    wtf?  Proctological exam??  

    Parent
    Perhaps it seemed surmountable (none / 0) (#41)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:10:27 PM EST
    to get Richardson past this problem -- until the attention to corruption among other Dems (and in the president-elect's hometown)?  

    Parent
    Wonder when this grand jury (none / 0) (#10)
    by oldpro on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:26:37 PM EST
    was convened and how long this investigation has been going on.

    Never cared for Richardson, myself.  His betrayal of the Clintons was the final straw.  Trust is important...can't imagine why the Obama team overlooked that in Richardson's case.

    Not "final straw" (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Fabian on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:26:19 PM EST
    More like put his character (or lack of it) in blazing neon.  I started out not liking him because of the Great Lakes water poaching idea and he kept giving me reasons not to like or trust him.

    Parent
    Yeh, we're still telling jokes on him here (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:37:05 PM EST
    along the Great Lakes.  That the man clearly was entirely unaware of the Great Lakes Compact in progress -- almost a done deal -- at that very time, much in the news here in the bordering states that comprise almost a third of the country's population, plus Canada is part of it . . . that sure was evidence that he knew nothing about the rest of the country outside his arid area.  And arid mind.

    Parent
    I bet Richardson is unaware of alot (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:06:41 PM EST
    of things in alot of different fields. He is, after all, the same blunderer who stood up at a Democratic debate and declared himself the most conservative guy there. Real smart politics. And a couple of months later he wandered over to the LOGO debate to declare homosexuality a choice. He seems like an affable bufoon.

    Parent
    Just over at dkos (none / 0) (#49)
    by Fabian on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:41:25 PM EST
    getting educated by peace voter and land of enchantment about Richardson's style of politics.  Interesting.

    Parent
    That grated me the wrong way too. After (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by thereyougo on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:17:01 PM EST
    Bill gave him the big O in his administration thats carved the path that he finds himself in today as governor.

    Richardson's body language to me at least, gave the impression that he's bored with being governor.

    Although, he is good for New Mexico and the state needs someone like him. He's done some good for that state and he's well liked. I'm not so sure the feeling is mutual. He wants the White HOuse

    If the kos kids want to paint this as a Hillary sponsored sore loser move. Please. She's classier than that!  

    Richardson gave the impression to me at least that he's not above doing something like this as that was the culture in DC and its simply rubbed off on him.  Bad apples that the Republicans are, they do spoil the rest. Too bad. USAG Gonzo now him, argh!  

    Parent

    CDS, maybe? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Spamlet on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:09:18 PM EST
    Never cared for Richardson, myself. His betrayal of the Clintons was the final straw. Trust is important . . . can't imagine why the Obama team overlooked that in Richardson's case.


    Parent
    This is a federal grand jury. (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:47:37 PM EST
    Fouratt, the current U.S. Attorney for this district, was selected by a panel of federal judges.  Iglesias was terminated from the position.  

    link

    So, who do we think (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:33:49 PM EST
    will be Choice B for Commerce?

    This reminds me, re his manner (none / 0) (#42)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:12:22 PM EST
    wasn't there a problem with his treatment of women working for him, too?  (Of course, that didn't stop his potential nomination.)

    He reportedly has a zipper problem (none / 0) (#75)
    by byteb on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 08:16:07 PM EST


    Parent
    He may not be out: Obama wants him (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:14:51 PM EST
    in service in his administration, he just said in a statement I saw on tv.  So Richardson may not be in this position -- as the issue does impinge upon potential performance in Commerce -- or in the Cabinet . . . but he'll be baaaaaack.

    He's out (none / 0) (#101)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:26:35 AM EST
    Why would Obama take him back now?  He won't.

    Parent
    Oh, no -- you mean we have to play (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:30:54 AM EST
    WORM again?  It was "just words"?!

    This is bringing back bad memories of 2008, which I so wanted to put behind me like Satan. . . .

    Parent

    Wrong (none / 0) (#48)
    by mexboy on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:37:46 PM EST
    Speaking as a Mexican/American, I can assure you that I am not embarrassed by the behavior of other MA's.

    I wonder where you get the information that allows you to generalize about my community.

    because if there's one thing the mexican/american community really hates it is to be embarrassed by one of their own.

    We have no fight here. If the man is falsely accused or persecuted, then we'll talk. Right now, let the legal process continue.

    Stop instigating!

    how right you are.... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:23:05 PM EST
    ...Richardson embarrasses only himself, if the allegations are true.

    Parent
    pay to play (none / 0) (#69)
    by jedimom on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 07:15:05 PM EST
    its pretty clear pay to play issues, in this case all the more lovely b.c it involves credit default swaps and bonds in this market..

    see here for wapo on the grand jury and justice dept.fbi case

    IMO it is more clearly benefiting Richardsons campaign than anything I hear out of Blago..
    Richardson Out As Commerce Secretary Nominee | 115 comments (115 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment