Fingerpointing and A Second Problem for Richardson

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 08:13:00 AM EST
Tags: Bill Richardson, Federico Pena (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via Politico, Obama aides are now saying Richardson was pressed for information about the federal grand jury investigation into a possible "pay for play" situation and was not forthcoming. Others are putting the blame on Obama's transition team, saying the vetting of Richardson was inadequate.

There's also a second area of inquiry Republicans were likely to focus on during Richardson's confirmation hearings.

In addition, Senate Republicans told Politico ahead of Richardson's confirmation hearing that they were looking into questions about Richardson’s connection to a San Diego-based software company that came under investigation from the Securities and Exchange Commission.

More...

From February 2001 to June 2002, Richardson served on the board of directors of Peregrine Systems Inc. Richardson departed the firm as a federal investigation of the company’s practices was getting under way. Investigators were focusing on the question of whether the firm’s top leadership intentionally inflated revenue numbers in an attempt to mislead company shareholders.

....Peregrine made headlines in December when Stephen Parker Gardner, the organization’s former chief executive, was sentenced to eight years in federal prison for taking part in an effort to defraud investors over a span that stretched from 1999 to 2002.

With Richardson's departure, Politico says Latino groups are pressing for a Hispanic replacement. A likely choice to me seems to be former Clinton Transportation and Energy Secretary Federico Pena -- but he told Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter he wasn't interested in Salazar's senate seat. Would he feel differently about a cabinet position? Seems like Pena would have to give up a pretty lucrative career in the private sector. And, he has said he wants to help Obama from Denver.

It is my desire to remain in Colorado and to continue to advise and assist President-Elect Obama in any way I can from my home in Denver.

< Sen. Ken Salazar Not Ready to Disengage | Obama Fills Four More Top Spots at DOJ >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Fingerpointing and A Second Problem for Richardson | 104 comments (104 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

i've not a clue what (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by cpinva on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 07:41:58 AM EST

gov. richardson's involvement (if any) was in the scheme currently under investigation.

however, given my lack of enthusiasm for him in general, i don't see this as necessarily a bad thing for pres-elect obama. i just have never seen gov. richardson as particularly standing out from the crowd.

: I once admired Richardson (5.00 / 3) (#79)
by kempis on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:39:50 PM EST

I thought his resume was the most impressive of all the Democratic candidates before the debates began.
Then the debates began. I was underwhelmed with his responses, which were often Bushian in their lack of substance and their meandering-ness.
Then it occurred to me that his most impressive resume items resulted from Bill Clinton's appointments: ambassador to the UN, Secretary of Energy.
Then he stabbed Clinton in the back and did so in such a way that Carville felt no qualms about publicly slamming him--even as Carville refused to slam other friends who supported Obama over Clinton.
So it looked to me, by the end of the primaries, that Bill Richardson had a character problem and had built his resume not so much on his assets as on his schmoozing.
So I'm not sorry this has happened and I'm glad Richardson won't hang on for a messy and possibly damaging confirmation hearing.

I really wish the cabinet (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:38:34 AM EST

wasn't being used as political prizes for groups - why does this job all of a sudden have to go to a Latino?

But I guess the tradition of using cabinet jobs that way is as old as the country.

One can understand why minority groups (none / 0) (#24)
by tigercourse on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:51:20 AM EST

would want representation in the government. And given that Obama is beholden in different ways to some minority groups, one could understand why he would accommodate some of them.


I do understand that (5.00 / 3) (#29)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:10:11 AM EST

but can't we just pick the person with the best management skills who knows the most about commerce to head the department? There are plenty of jobs to be filled within all the departments to reward party loyalty.


The problem is that.... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by Maria Garcia on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 03:36:16 PM EST

...most of the slots have been filled and Richardson's departure will leave a whole in the diversity of the cabinet. So as a Latina, I get this and I wish it were otherwise, but I hardly look at this as a slot reserved for a Latino/a. But then, I am not an important person.


I honestly believe that in most cases, you (none / 0) (#32)
by tigercourse on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:19:45 AM EST

can have both. I'm sure there are many, many hispanic pols and officials out there who could take over most of the various cabinet positions and do it as well as anybody else.


: I have no doubt that is true (none / 0) (#45)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:48:06 AM EST

but it rubs me the wrong way when they are so obvious about seeking out a certain 'type' for a job.
That is just a small quibble I have with the process though. I have no problem with the goal of a diverse cabinet. Go forth and nominate, Obama!

Is it racist to think only a member (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:26:15 AM EST

or your particular minority group (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) can represent you?


Gee, You Are Right (none / 0) (#42)
by squeaky on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:32:58 AM EST

White men are over represented for racist reasons.


So we're in agreement. (none / 0) (#46)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:49:44 AM EST

It's racist/sexist/ageist/bigoted/etc.


Almost (none / 0) (#50)
by squeaky on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:53:06 AM EST

It is also racist etc. to think that someone outside of your group would better represent you based on skin tone and gender, ergo a disproportionate balance of white men running things.


What if you merely think (none / 0) (#63)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:22:00 PM EST

some particular person who happens to be outside your skin tone/gender/whatever group would be your best representative given the choice of options you have for representation?


Slippery (none / 0) (#66)
by squeaky on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:26:45 PM EST

Then it boils down to how honest you are.


It's tough being himan. (none / 0) (#69)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:45:17 PM EST

Or "human," whichever works for you. (none / 0) (#70)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:46:15 PM EST

: For Some More Than Others (none / 0) (#72)
by squeaky on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:49:30 PM EST

: if you could somehow (none / 0) (#97)
by cpinva on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 04:39:26 PM EST

just eliminate that whole "human" thing from the equation, life would be a heck of a lot easier.
they scream, they squall, they're messy, they leave their damn toys laying all over the place.........
all things considered, i'd rather have cats.

Why? (none / 0) (#26)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:52:18 AM EST

...why does this job all of a sudden have to go to a Latino?

Do you think it just might have anything to do with a party that stands four square for preferential treatment for favored racial constituencies? Election is over, its time to deliver.


: ummmmmmmmmmmmmm, (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by cpinva on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 04:41:04 PM EST

Do you think it just might have anything to do with a party that stands four square for preferential treatment for favored racial constituencies?
no.
but hey abdul, thanks for playing!

Pay to play is everywhere (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by Exeter on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:52:12 AM EST

In every state, at every level. Its usually not as overt and ham-handed as Blago, but it is everywhere.

Hey, that may be ham-handed (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by Cream City on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:55:16 AM EST

elsewhere, but by the standards of the Chicago Way, Blago was being subtle. Nobody ended up with "concrete boots," after all. That we know of. . . .


Ha! Yup - in Chicago style (5.00 / 4) (#31)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:15:06 AM EST

Blago was being pretty subtle. It's not like anyone bought him real estate or anything.


: Bless his heart! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by easilydistracted on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:29:57 AM EST

Right... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Exeter on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:25:07 PM EST

Which is why it was unwise for Rahm to overreach and be an A-hole on the phone to Blago.


: I gather that was subtlety (5.00 / 2) (#68)
by Cream City on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:40:33 PM EST

by Rahm's standards, too. :-)

On further reflection, Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by oculus on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:10:21 AM EST

probably mis-remembered he was under investigation by U.S. Attorney's office. This is the fellow who says he got a MLB offer.

It's all about the buck (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by mmc9431 on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:45:57 AM EST

There is just too much money needed to run for office. When you have campaigns for gov or mayor in the 50 Mil mark, it's no wonder that there's so much behind the scene playing. It's also no wonder that politician's spend more time trying to figure out how to raise money rather than focusing on the responsibilities of office. The more the campaigns costs increase, the more politicians we're going to have corrupted.

And with campaign finance reform dead (5.00 / 2) (#55)
by Cream City on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:02:25 PM EST

now, with a prez campaign that cost twice as much as any before -- we are just at the beginning of what will be corruption worse than ever before.

You're correct at lower levels, too; in my state, the campaigns for the high court have been so corrupted by big bucks from business that we have sitting justices who have been censured for it -- and are heading into what will be a hellacious campaign against the good, clean chief justice.

I'm so disgusted by what I've seen of late at all levels in politics.


: Twice as much... (none / 0) (#74)
by DET103 on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:57:22 PM EST

...is a gross under-estimate.

Taking That Logic (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by squeaky on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:56:36 AM EST

To its natural end, it follows that it would also would be naive to think that you could be truly represented by anyone other than yourself, regardless of how much your representatives are like you.

That's true. But then, I don't really trust (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by tigercourse on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:07:17 PM EST

myself either. So I guess I'm up a creek.


: lol (none / 0) (#59)
by squeaky on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:07:57 PM EST

True - we already have evidence of that. (5.00 / 5) (#60)
by Dr Molly on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:10:07 PM EST

As one example, it's the female senators who have taken up the egregious Bush policies on birth control, pharmacists, etc. It's just a matter of having representation by diverse types of people who have diverse interests so that everyone gets their interests heard and met.

John Kerry for Commerce Secretary (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by caseyOR on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 03:30:55 PM EST

A columnists for the Kansas City Star is now promoting poor old, under-appreciated and overlooked John Kerry to replace Richardson as Commerce Secretary-designate. Because, you know, doesn't Obama owe him something? Anything?

lol!~ that's just too funny (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by nycstray on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 03:43:41 PM EST

Kerry would need post-racial lessons (none / 0) (#85)
by Cream City on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 03:47:21 PM EST

lest he keep pointing out that Obama is, y'know, black.

Biden appears to have successfully complete his training and no longer points out that Obama is, y'know, articulate.


: Are you sure about Biden? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by nycstray on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 03:55:30 PM EST

How's he dealing with the fact that his wife is, y'know, smart?

No more Senators, please (none / 0) (#89)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 04:15:26 PM EST

Are there really no non-politicans ready for this job?


Couldn't Caroline fill Kerry's seat? (5.00 / 3) (#91)
by nycstray on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 04:20:25 PM EST

Actual political experience (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by caseyOR on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 04:25:04 PM EST

may not be required of Caroline, but even she must comply with that pesky residency thing. So, unless she is secretly a resident of Massachusetts (and wouldn't that be interesting?), she, alas, cannot replace Kerry in the Senate.


But doesn't she vacation there? (5.00 / 1) (#94)
by nycstray on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 04:27:24 PM EST

I'm just being a brat and trying to off her on another state and Mass seems like a good one, or Illinois {grin}


Illinois might be doable. (none / 0) (#98)
by caseyOR on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 04:39:50 PM EST

The Kennedy family does have extensive business interests in Chicago; they own the Merchandise Mart. Perhaps Caroline could finesse the residency requirement based on the family's long ownership of the Mart (old Joe Kennedy bought it in the 1940s).

And we already know Obama wants her in the Senate. So, he wouldn't need to make anymore public statements on the matter. and the Daley family could continue its long tradition of helping Kennedys secure political office.


They sold their mart holdings! (none / 0) (#101)
by mmc9431 on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:18:34 PM EST

: Then no Illinois senate seat (none / 0) (#102)
by caseyOR on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:30:19 PM EST

Caroline. Are you sure they sold out? I thought the family still had holdings in Chicago.

Didn't Romney (none / 0) (#95)
by CST on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 04:29:28 PM EST

Manage to get around that somehow?

I dunno why everyone wants to export their Kennedys to MA. We got plenty of our own if it comes down to it. Besides, if we're gonna have a new Kennedy in MA, they can take the old one's seat. We don't need two.

Besides, I don't get the feeling Kerry knows much about commerce. Isn't he more of a foreign relations guy? He certainly doesn't know much about constituant services, which I think tend to be more economic in nature than a lot of things senators do.


: Well, Teddy hasn't responded to my (5.00 / 2) (#96)
by nycstray on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 04:37:22 PM EST

suggestion that he gift her his seat . . .
I did see Kerry nail an FDA dude in a senate hearing late one night. It was about toxic plastic and industry testing. He was pretty good. It was actually kinda comical as the FDA dude was rendered speechless, lol!~ I didn't realize Kerry had it in him, or any concern for product safety. I think of him as FR also.

He certainly doesn't know much about constituant services
Well, there ya go, neither does Caroline!

Did Obama know Richardson was being investigated (none / 0) (#2)
by Saul on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 07:56:06 AM EST

before he picked him. If he did then why on earth did he pick him. If true very bad judgment on Obama. The Richardson departure, pay for play investigation makes Reid now look weak against Burris. The LA times has this now on the seating of Burris.

You're not making any sense when (none / 0) (#8)
by scribe on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 08:32:02 AM EST

you say:

The Richardson departure, pay for play investigation makes Reid now look weak against Burris.

In fact, Obama easing (or kicking) Richardson out for having even a tangential relationship (which is all that we have seen, so far) to someone who might have been involved in pay-to-play sends an even stronger message against Blago and Burris.

To wit: if I got rid of one of my selections for a cabinet post because he had a tangential relationship to someone allegedly dirty, there is no way a guy who would be the Senator Sock-puppet of Blago, who tried to auction that senate seat (i.e., a much closer connection between the office-holder and the alleged crook) should ever be seated in the Senate.

Remember, Obama has backed Reid in blocking Blago/Burris.

Frankly, I think you're just tossing manure at a wall trying to make something stick. The only problem with that, is that the tosser is the only person guaranteed to come out of such an exercise stinking and stained.


More scholarly people disagree with you (none / 0) (#11)
by Saul on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 08:42:51 AM EST

Check the link


Hey Saul (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by DFLer on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:18:45 PM EST

Just because scribe uses the word "manure" doesn't mean he/she is not scholarly! :0)


Doesn't mean he's right (none / 0) (#22)
by scribe on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:39:41 AM EST

The essence of being a law professor is not solving problems or resolving arguments, but keeping them going so you have something to talk about and thereby justify continuing to receive your (meager) salary. So, his taking the position he does is both unsurprising and unilluminating.


Right. Doesn't mean your right either (none / 0) (#27)
by Saul on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:52:54 AM EST

You could be wrong just as he could be wrong. No need for you to insult. Take a deep breath.


Not an insult. (none / 0) (#30)
by scribe on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:10:38 AM EST

If I wanted to insult anyone, there'd be no mistaking it.

Fact is, I'm right, he's wrong, and everyone knows it.


: i think obama is smart enough (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by sancho on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:31:11 AM EST

to assume that scribe's view would take the day and to know in advance that rochardson's 'support' and 'appointment' would cost him nothing. obama never counted on richardson and i imagine is happy to have used him for what he was worth and now to seem to take the high ground and let him go. i dont altogether like it but i think it is shrewd politics on obama's part.

Great (none / 0) (#3)
by Salo on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 08:03:10 AM EST

What was the eleventh GOP commandment.

Off Topic heard Franken is the official Senator (none / 0) (#4)
by Saul on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 08:04:15 AM EST

Many steps to go before he's Senator (none / 0) (#9)
by Cream City on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 08:36:34 AM EST

but the canvassing board is expected to call him the winner . . . so far. No word yet that I can find on whether the high court will rule on the pending suit, or suits, and that stops it for now.

He'll probably be Senator in ten days or so. . . .


BTW (none / 0) (#10)
by easilydistracted on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 08:40:07 AM EST

I read this morning where the senate repubs will oppose seating him as long as Coleman has some type of challenge pending.


That's actually the state law (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Cream City on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:23:30 AM EST

not the Senate rules. No one can be certified by Minnesota as long as there are lawsuits pending, and the state high court has not responded to Coleman's lawsuit last week about the counties' different ways of dealing with the court's messy previous ruling . . . plus after the canvassing board acts, probably today, it has to wait a week for any other lawsuits or something.

Minnesotans apparently do not like to rush these matters, making it easier for the Senate Repubs to delay it, too -- but the Senate Dems are eager, so some have said they don't have to wait for the state; there are no rules that really require it, it seems. Does seem wise to do so, though, or imagine the shenanigans a Repub state could pull with such a precedent.


I can wait. (none / 0) (#16)
by Fabian on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:26:07 AM EST

Some things are worth waiting for.


Agreed -- by the 21st will do (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Cream City on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:32:26 AM EST

as that's when the Dems will really get going on getting some changes through Congress . . . we can hope. Franken has a lot of homework to do, anyway, without any legislative experience. And it looks there will be quite a few latecomers from other states, anyway, to get a separate training session.


21st? (none / 0) (#87)
by wystler on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 03:59:47 PM EST

Darn. Passing both houses is just a quick formality?

Let's see the changes "get going" long before Obama's first day in the big chair.


: You're not listening to Obama (none / 0) (#105)
by Cream City on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 02:01:08 AM EST

who wants to wait so his administration gets credit for it -- but also is saying this week that it's too much to get going even on the 21st.
Minnesota can take its time. Congress has important things to do. Like decorating new offices.

Thanks for the enlightenment, folks. Good info. (none / 0) (#23)
by easilydistracted on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:41:37 AM EST

Yep, I agree. few more weeks won't matter at this juncture. It was just interesting reading the remarks of Senator. "common sense" Coryn.


The SC that "gave" the 2000 election (none / 0) (#35)
by hairspray on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:53:12 AM EST

to Bush did so on the basis of the "unequal Protection clause" as I read in The Nine
by J. Toobin. So does that set a precedent for Coleman's complaint about the different ways the different counties count the questionable ballots? And in the 2000 case I recall the SC said that their ruling was not to be used to set precedent. That sounds like it might come back to haunt them.


He is not official until (none / 0) (#12)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:20:59 AM EST

the MN governor (Pawlenty - R) signs off on the election results. He probably won't do that until the lawsuits are decided. I would agree with not seating anyone until then. Taking another couple of weeks to make it official does not seem like a big deal to me, and I want Franken in there as much as anyone does.


How many votes does it take to (none / 0) (#34)
by hairspray on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:47:39 AM EST

refuse to seat?


pressed, got nothing? (none / 0) (#5)
by souvarine on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 08:05:30 AM EST

What kind of vetting is that? "O: We've heard you may be under criminal investigation, what's up? R: Nothing. O: OK, how about Commerce Secretary?"

This internal backstabbing, like the steady stream of Clinton "vetting" stories that leaked out of Obama transition, hurt Obama. The fact is that any cabinet candidate powerful enough to be worth choosing will have some baggage, it is up to the president to decide if the choice is worth the risk. Vetting doesn't change any of that, it just prepares the organization to deal with the inevitable issues.

Pretending that Obama has some super vetting process that has found squeaky clean candidates, and then blaming the candidate when things get too hot, is begging for Republican attacks. Obama's "I'm pure, blame a staffer" habit is one of his few political faults so far.

False starts in filling cabinet positions (none / 0) (#6)
by Baal on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 08:15:24 AM EST

have happened in every administration going back to Reagan, if memory serves me. I think souvarine has it just right. Also, it is possible that Richardson himself did not know until very recently how much this investigation was going to demand from him. Now they know. As a result, two grownups -- Obama and Richardson -- came to a quick decision on how to deal with it in a way that causes minimum disruption. To be honest, Richardson has never been my favorite Democrat, but he had a lot of experience managing large federal agencies.

: Well (none / 0) (#18)
by Steve M on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:28:34 AM EST

Whether it was really accomplished with minimum disruption depends on how many of these finger-pointing stories we're going to see. Yesterday I would have agreed with you.
I'm honestly not sure why people bother talking to the press about this stuff, it's not like the public is itching to draw a conclusion about whether Obama is a good enough vetter. Just let the story fade away.

: J Toobin's book "The Nine" (none / 0) (#38)
by hairspray on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:01:13 AM EST

chronicles attempts by Bill Clinton to replace two Supreme Courtn Justices early in his tenure, and what happened behind the scenes. The press had a field day making it out as "lack of decisiveness" on the part of the new president. In fact, it was a combination of many factors, meaning recalcitrant nominees, staff mistakes, pressure from others in the party, etc. I would guess a similar situation is going on here. In the case of Bill Clinton, it was a lot of coyness on the part of Mario Cuomo that caused the delay in one of the appointments.

It may be... (none / 0) (#7)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 08:31:13 AM EST

It may be that offering the seat was a way to pay a political debt. That appointment can now be used again for the same or new purpose. Having Richardson tagged out in the vetting process gets double mileage out of one seat.

You mean (none / 0) (#15)
by Fabian on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:24:47 AM EST

the Obama administration might have been stringing Richardson along and then going "Aw, shucks. Can't offer you a job with that investigation hanging over you. So sorry. Pleasure to have known you.". ?

Although I do get a kick out of this:

They aren't getting rid of him that easy.


You do know... (none / 0) (#17)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:26:57 AM EST

...that was Pena who said that, not Richardson--right?


: Sorry, my mistake. (none / 0) (#20)
by Fabian on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:36:02 AM EST

Would be funny if it was Richardson. The man has always seemed to be an opportunist and hanger on. What he can't accomplish on his own, he'll try to do on someone else's dime.
If NM wants him, NM can keep him. Of course, people are actively hankering after Richardson's replacement, so it's hard to see how popular the man is. "Take our governor - please!".
OTOH, I would very unhappy if Obama tried to take our governor, even though he isn't going to be very popular during his first term. Not his fault really - the economy is tanking and revenues are down and the budget...oy. I should find a Republican and ask if we should cut taxes to increase revenues.

Pena's name popped... (none / 0) (#14)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:23:53 AM EST

...into my head as a replacement as well. He was previously considered for any number of positions in the cabinet already. Have to wonder if he's thinking that he doesn't want to be second choice for a position.

And really--Denver v. DC is a no-brainer.

Per Wiki, Pena was on the advisory (none / 0) (#36)
by oculus on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:58:53 AM EST

board to Obama's transition planning team.

Also, new subject, Peregrine was founded by John Moores, who owns the Padres. Moore was never indicted. But those below him in the company were. And, a city council woman resigned because it was revealed she got good info from Moores about buy/sell of Peregrine shares.

Serious Blogger (none / 0) (#37)
by damitajo1 on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:00:20 AM EST

Why wouldnt the Repubs make an issue out of it? The Dems have made an issue out of Blago and even the innocent Burris. I can imagine the confirmation hearings:

GOP Senator: Gov. Richardson, do you believe you will taint to the federal government?

Richardson: No. I am innocent. I have not been indicted or convicted. These are simply allegations against me. I never violated the law.

GOP Senator: So, do you believe that President Obama and the Senate Democrats were wrong to say that Blagojevich is corrupt and that Burris, who faces no allegations wrongdoing, is too tainted to serve in the Senate?

Richardson: Yes. Blagojevich is corrupt and should resign. The allegations against him show a deviated mind.

GOP Senator: You're digging a deeper hole....

You get the picture. It would have been ugly....

After the last 8 years... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by pmj6 on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:47:01 PM EST

...the Republicans have no credibility to make an issue out of anything.

Unless the Dems let them...


But the joy of being (none / 0) (#75)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:23:32 PM EST

a Republican is that you don't let that stop you.

I couldn't do it, but they thrive on it.


: And they do it well! (none / 0) (#80)
by mmc9431 on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 02:21:45 PM EST

Even uglier (none / 0) (#52)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:54:17 AM EST

given that Richardson would be doing the answering. Worst. Answerer. Ever.

Someone else may have been able to pull it off.


I'm reminded of Cheney and Halliburton (none / 0) (#43)
by ThatOneVoter on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:38:01 AM EST

Funny thing, he almost drove the company into the ground with his horrendous executive decisions, especially the Dresser purchase.
Only as VPUSA did he do any good for Halliburton.

OT, but Lanny Davis just gave Obama some (none / 0) (#47)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:50:32 AM EST

horrible advice on my XM Potus station. Wants to revive the "Gang of 14", and says Obama should only put forth bills that can get 70 votes in the Senate.

I almost threw the receiver out of the car window - and I love my XM!

70 votes? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by pmj6 on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:49:44 PM EST

Why not just openly advocate to give Mitch McConnell the exclusive authority to craft any and all legislation?

If memory serves, Lanny Davis is a Democrat, right? Where does he get ideas like that from?


: He said he got the idea from (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 04:18:21 PM EST

listening to Obama.
He says they should not legislate like they are in the majority. Really, I'm not making this up.
That cackle I hear in my head is Mitch McConnell.

: Here's a link to the (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 04:24:02 PM EST

post of his that he was talking about on the air. Read it and weep.

Tim Kaine to head DNC (none / 0) (#48)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:52:15 AM EST

according to XM Potus

: Ugh. Another faith-based foe (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Cream City on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:06:00 PM EST

of important planks in the Democratic Party platform now will lead the DNC.
The party is looking seriously schizoid lately.

I'm a little unclear about what (none / 0) (#51)
by ThatOneVoter on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:53:46 AM EST

constitutes illegal pay for play.
Politics is all about making trades. Suppose a Senator tells a donor that he will back a bill the donor supports, knowing that this will elicit a contribution. Has a crime occurred? Next case, suppose the Senator has already decided on the law, but doesn't tell the donor about his support until after he gets the donation. Surely that is legal.
To me, accepting campaign contributions (and votes, for that matter) in exchange for promises is what politics is about. It's only when a politician accepts personal gifts that I feel a clear line has been crossed.

Replacement: Gary Locke? (none / 0) (#54)
by oldpro on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:59:07 AM EST

Could do worse.

Chinese-American ex-governor, smart, squeeky/boy-scout clean, policy wonk with China/Pacific rim experience and connections re trade.

Two reasons why not...was a favorite of the Clintons and a Hillary supporter until late in the game and wife Mona may not want to move the kids to DC. That is reportedly why he didn't run for a third term as governor...which he would have easily won...

Which state? (none / 0) (#57)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:07:15 PM EST

Washington (none / 0) (#62)
by DFLer on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:21:30 PM EST

more info


Can he see China from his home? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:24:21 PM EST

We're all seeing China (5.00 / 2) (#78)
by Cream City on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:33:15 PM EST

in our homes; check product labels on your shelves -- unless we're concerned about quality control. . . .

Of course, ruffian may even have china Made in China.:-)


: I think I do!!! (5.00 / 1) (#81)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 02:36:23 PM EST

You are so sarcastic! (none / 0) (#67)
by DFLer on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:32:54 PM EST

Maybe he has some china. (none / 0) (#76)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:25:17 PM EST

: that was so horible I wish I could (none / 0) (#77)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:26:06 PM EST

retract.
Problem with being back at work is that I'm more bored than I was at home for 10 days.

There is nothing squeaky clean about Locke (none / 0) (#88)
by shoephone on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 04:01:34 PM EST

He is as beholden to corporate interests as any scheming politician. He oversaw the $3.2 billion subsidy to Boeing -- and they moved their headquarters to Chicago anyway! Then, behind closed doors, he wrote up a secret deal with Boeing worth another $40 million that pissed off Democratic and Republican legislators alike. As former state rep. Helen Sommers said, legislators don't like finding out about such deals through their morning newspaper.

He was a terrible governor. I'm still not sure how we survived eight years of him. After he left the governor's mansion he went to work as a corporate lobbyist. Surprise, surprise.

I will vomit if he is appointed to any position in the Obama administration.


Well, quit beating around the bush (none / 0) (#100)
by oldpro on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 07:06:35 PM EST

and spit it out!

If moderate middle-of-the-road Democrats like Locke make you vomit (what a charming visual THAT is) I gather you're not happy about Obama's cabinet so far.

Too mainstream, right?


I have little issue with Obama's cabinet so far (none / 0) (#103)
by shoephone on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:25:08 PM EST

Gary Locke was a crappy governor. He viewed corporate interests, rather than citizens, as his constituency. He was incompetent in so many ways. Gregoire accomplished more for this state in her first two terms than Locke did in his entire eight terms.

This has nothing to do with where someone is on the liberal to moderate scale. Last time I looked, Gregoire was pretty much a moderate Democrat.


: OK....then we'll just have to (none / 0) (#104)
by oldpro on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:06:58 PM EST

agree to disagree...not about Gregoire...only about Locke.
He had faults (making a final decision, for instance) but I do not believe he was or is captive to corporate America nor do I believe that he didn't care about average people. He remembered where he came from and his budget proposals showed that.
Gary's tenure was troubled mainly because he had to deal with Republican majorities or ties in the legislature. Rossi? Clyde Ballard? A recession?
Good grief. He was in the same tough spot on the state level that Bill Clinton survived on the national level...the Gingrich revolution and vicious partisan Republicans.