Bill Richardson Plays Up His Mexican Roots: "I'm Hispanic. Did you know that?"

[DeepModem Mom]

WP: The Pro-Familia Candidate
Bill Richardson Plays Up His Mexican Roots
By Joel Achenbach
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 21, 2007; Page C01

A couple of months ago a reporter in Washington asked Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson why he thought he could do well next year in the California primary. Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, paused for a moment, stared at his questioner, and then ran through a comprehensive, policy-oriented list: Western governor, strong on environment, solid on immigration, pro-growth to please the Silicon Valley folks, and so on.

He paused. Leaned forward.

"Plus I'm Hispanic," he said. "Did you know that?"

He was teasing, but it's a real strategic issue for a candidate with a vanilla name. He's convinced that even a lot of Hispanics don't know his background -- that he's the son of an American father and a Mexican mother and spent his childhood in Mexico City until coming to America to start the eighth grade.

It's no accident that he chose Los Angeles as the place where he'll announce officially today that he's seeking the presidency.

"I'm not running as a Hispanic candidate, but I'm trying to convince Hispanics that I am Hispanic, and they don't know," he told The Post during a swing through Washington last week. "I go to Los Angeles, they don't know I'm Hispanic. When they know, it's positive. So it's a question of building that."...

***

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have stirred discussion about gender and race in presidential politics, but Richardson's ethnicity hasn't gotten much attention. Partly this is because Richardson's echo-chamber message has been experience, experience, experience. His pitch is that he's a doer, an executive, not just one of those senatorial windbags. He knows that Americans tend to go for governors in presidential elections....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/20/AR2007052001407.html

[polichick]

1. Hispanics will count in FL, CA, and TEXAS...

All early primary states. It'll be interesting to see how Richardson does. Good thing his mother gave birth in LA (before taking him back to Mexico as a baby) ~ otherwise he couldn't run for Prez.

[IA_Seth]

2. I hope his numbers continue to climb.

He has been doing well in the last few weeks, let's hope he keeps it going.

[Kelly Rupert]

20. As do I.

I am 100% in the Richardson camp.

[snowbear]

3. Tweety just said to Richardson ... "You would make a great President.... a GREAT one!"

Of course.. then he added, "there's a couple other people who would be great presidents, but you.. you are definitely one of them"

(Tweety has already claimed to be a "Rudy man" on Jay Leno)

... but he's right, Richardson is one of the candidates (one of the Democratic candidates) that would make a great president. None of the r-THUGS (current or thinking of running) would beat a Richardson/Clark ticket.

[bamacrat]

4. While it might help him in CA, TX, it will hurt everywhere else.

[slackmaster]

5. Why do you think so, bamacrat?

Not trying to put you on the spot here, just interested in your frank opinion.

[bamacrat]

27. Well, while there may be a lot of hispanics everywhere...

many are illegal, and therefore not registered to vote, and the publics feeling towards immigration right now is so strong that I dont think America is ready for a Mexican president. Probably never will be. Imagine if a black man ran back in the 60's. Only now are we warming up to the idea of a minority or female candidate. Maybe in 40 years we might have a president of Mexican deccent, but we have to control our immigration problem and change the views of Mexicans in the eyes of Americans before we will ever elect one.

[Tejanocrat]

6. Hispanic ethnicity hurts more than helps in Tx. In 2002 many expected Tony Sanchez (a conservative

Democrat with a pro-business agenda like Richardson) to energize and unite the Hispanic voters in Texas. Sanchez spent an unholy fortune on his race (the most ever spent by a Democrat for a statewide office) but he still managed only 39% while other (white - and black) statewide candidates did significantly better.

You only have to look at our Texas population (with many Tejanos) and our statewide elected officials in Texas (few Tejanos) to conclude that Hispanic ethnicity is - unfortunately - a gun which kicks harder than it shoots in Texas. Hispanic ethnicity HELPS in regional South Texas races but it HURTS in statewide races.

[jcrew2001]

31. Richardson doesn't have a strong voting bloc

and the Media is ignoring him because the southwest doesn't have the electoral votes to make a difference, or give him strength in polling.
Hillary has the Clinton name, the coverage of the East Coast media, strong Northeast Blue state support.

Obama has the Chicago media coverage, he has the strong Midwest electoral advantage.

Edwards has the DC coverage and the Southern state appeal and media coverage.

Being Hispanic will not help in any Red or Swing states. Immigration is a hot topic and besides having a last name of either Hussein or Osama or rodham-clinton; a Hispanic name would be unwanted by moderate voters.

[Forkboy]

7. I'm in Mass and the city I'm in has to be at least a third Hispanic,probably more.

I'm not saying they'll automatically vote in a block (I hate that people assume all races just vote based on that),I'm just saying that even up here it may strike a chord,at least enough to give him a second look by some of them.

[Alexander]

8. He's about as centrist as Hillary - I wonder if they will split the DLC vote.

Yes, he's Latino ("Hispanic" is a racist Nixon term, Bill) but most of his policies are neo-liberal.

Plus, he screwed up royally with the electronic voting machines in New Mexico in 2004 - and Bush won that state by the slimmest of margins, amid allegations of votes switching from Kerry to Bush.

He has an impressive resume but a not-so-impressive record on issues I care about.

[Tejanocrat]

9. Richardson's to the right of HRC on fair trade, gun control, death penalty, and by his own admission

Here is where Richardson has chosen to characterize himself as the most moderate candidate:

He stood at the center of "Spin Alley" -- a room given over to candidates and their chosen mouthpieces for hours of post-debate "analysis." And Richardson was analyzing away.

"I came out as the most moderate candidate with the clearest position on Iraq," Richardson insisted as he took a slug from a bottle of water. "I'm a different kind of Democrat."

Richardson was working overtime -- hence the sweat -- to sell that message, a pitch he had struggled to make during the 90-minute debate, where he often looked uncomfortable on stage and failed to distinguish himself from the other "second-tier" candidates.

For Richardson, Spin Alley offered a second bite at the apple, a unique opportunity to change conventional wisdom before it hardened.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042800748.html

"I am not a rock star, but I've got a solid record," he said. "I have got serious experience. I get things done."

Richardson is a former congressman, an ambassador to the United Nations and Secretary of Energy under President Clinton. A staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, he said he believes he is the party's moderate candidate.

http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/Stories.aspx?section=localnews&tableId=141418&pubDate=4/28/2007

Moving from foreign policy Richardson struck a theme of being "practical, pragmatic, and patriotic." He struck that chord frequently and often; He noted numerous times that he was a pro-business moderate Democrat who was running in the center and would not be swayed. He said he will not be liberalized by Iowa or New Hampshire...

http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3262

Here is Richardson's views on NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO:

"NAFTA was critically important, and not only for the reasons commonly cited by its supporters. Yes, the treaty would create the world's largest free-trade region, a market of 360 million people in the US, Canada, and Mexico. Estimates of NAFTA's economic impact varied, but the treaty promised to be a win-win-win for all three countries.

That didn't mean the absence of dislocation: while NAFTA figured to create more jobs in the US, some jobs would be lost. A key part of the final bill presented to Congress needed to include worker-adjustment programs and other so-called side agreements addressing such issues as labor standards and the environment.

I felt the treaty was crucial to Mexico. I thought NAFTA would create positive economic change and help to stimulate a broader political debate. I thought it also had the potential to affect the immigration issue: if Mexico's economy boomed, beter-paying jobs would provide Mexicans an incentive to stay home."

Source: Between Worlds, by Bill Richardson, p.112-3 Nov 3, 2005

...


Q: Do you support broadening North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to include other countries?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support the WTO?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support imposing tariffs on products imported from nations that maintain restrictive trade barriers on American products?
A: No....

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Bill_Richardson_Free_Trade.htm

Here's an idea of Richardson's views on gun control:

It seems to me that the most gun-friendly candidate from either party at this point is a Democrat, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico. He has consistently received endorsements from the NRA and he is the only candidate for president in 2008 who has publicly stated that he holds a concealed carry permit. Richardson is one Democrat who seems to "get it" on gun rights:

A large man sitting in a small office, wearing a brown suede vest and heavy, battered boots, Richardson clearly revels in his image as the quintessential Westerner. "You have to talk about guns in the context of lifestyle, recreation, a way of life," the Governor argues, rather than as just a measure to prevent murders and deaths. Democrats need to move into a void in the West. ...; "Richardson’s a very politically astute individual," says Robert Goode, NRA regional representative for West Texas and New Mexico. "He knows you’re beating your head against a wall when you go after the firearms issue. And he backs his words with his votes." Goode continues that, if a candidate like Richardson ran for the presidency, he believes the NRA would step back and not take a partisan stance on the election. Goode’s colleague Charles Weisleder, a 70-year-old NRA lobbyist, agrees. "Richardson," says Weisleder, a bald man smiling broadly over coffee at an Albuquerque Shoney’s, "got a lot of gun votes because of what he said to us. A lot of people are driven by the firearms issue."

The NRA likes Richardson and has for a long time. I particularly like his open and public support for shall issue concealed carry:

"He’s been a pretty solid guy on the gun issue," Van Horn, a member of the NRA’s board of directors, said.... "He has treated us first class," said Kayne Robinson, NRA’s executive director for general operations.

http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/news/bill-richardson-on-gun-control

Here's Richardson's record on the death penalty:

"I am in favor of NM's death penalty law. It sends a strong message of zero tolerance for heinous crimes, and it provides certain justice for the victim's families.

At the same time, we must ensure that capital punishment is applied equally, without regard for race or economic status, and we must work to apply DNA testing to make sure only the guilty are executed.

I support the proposal to make the murder of a child under 11 years old an 'aggravating circumstance' and eligible for the death penalty."

Source: Campaign web site, RichardsonForGovernor.com, "Priorities" Oct 24, 2002

* Broaden use of the death penalty for federal crimes.

* Impose "truth in sentencing" for violent criminals so they serve full sentences with no chance of parole.

* Limit the number of appeals allowed to inmates on death row.

* Fund programs to provide prison inmates with vocational and job-related skills.

* Expand funding for community policing programs.<br> * Prosecute youths accused of murder as adults

Source: 1996 Congressional National Political Awareness Test Nov 1, 1996

Voted NO on maintaining right of habeus corpus in Death Penalty Appeals.

Vote on an amendment to delete provisions in the bill that would make it harder for prisoners who have been given the death penalty in state courts to appeal the decision on constitutional grounds in the federal courts ("Habeas Corpus").

Bill HR 2703 ; vote number 1996-64 on Mar 14, 1996

Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder.

Vote on a bill to make it harder for prisoners who have been given the death penalty in state courts to appeal the decision on constitutional grounds in the federal courts.

Bill HR 729 ; vote number 1995-109 on Feb 8, 1995

Voted NO on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment.

Amendment to replace death penalty crimes in the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill with life imprisonment.

Bill HR 4092; vote number 1994-107 on Apr 14, 1994

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Bill_Richardson_Crime.htm

[slackmaster]

10. Much of that will play well with California Hispanics

While they are overwhelmingly Democrats, they tend to vote conservatively on most social issues.

[Tejanocrat]

12. Much of it will play well in the South, too. I worry that Obama's views on the 2nd Amendment and

capital punishment will hurt him in the South and West.

[Kelly Rupert]

40. I think Obama would be much more useful as a VP.

His charisma would pull people in, and his idealism and inexperienced/uncorrupted record would nicely balance the more centrist, experienced Clinton or (preferrably) Richardson.

[jcrew2001]

42. I think Obama will run for Governor if he loses the primary

If he is governor, he will win in 2012 or 2016

[Alexander]

11. I already knew all this - and decided long ago I won't vote for Richardson.

Sheesh, he's more conservative than Gary Johnson.

No thanks.

[slackmaster]

13. The only question we need to be asking is whether or not he can beat the GOP nominee

I'll vote for whoever we as a party nominate, but I'd really like to see us win the election.

[Alexander]

16. Oh, I'll vote for the Dem nominee - I just hope it's not him.

Richardson, Biden, and Hillary are definitely at the bottom of my list. They will, however, still get my vote if one of them wins the nomination.

[MH1]

15. True, but he's competent, and better than a republican..

or a not-very-competent Democrat of more liberal positions. IMO. (I'll let readers decide who if any of our candidates they think belong in that category)

[Tejanocrat]

17. I agree that Richardson is a million times better and more progressive than even the best of the

Repu field of candidates.

[mwb970]

24. BR also has a strong resume.

He has more experience across the board than the "big three" combined - on either side! I know logic and reason are no longer popular in America, but if they stage a comeback, BR has a chance.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Last I heard via "whispers" was that the plan all along was a

Hillary/Richardson ticket. I may be wrong, but since I didn't suggest it to begin with, I won't take the credit!

How do I feel about that particular Ticket?
Don't rightly know yet.....

Guess that I'll just wait and see what all of the candidates have to say bout everything. I'm still trying to decide whether I will cast out all that the candidates have ever done in their career and only deal with what candidates are saying right now......kind of like a whole lot of folks seem to be doing these days! Seems like the "in" thing, IMO.

[Alexander]

18. A Clinton/Richardson ticket wouldn't surprise me.

You'd have a Governor from the southwestern United States with a long resume, mostly similar positions, a gun control stance that appeals to others, and the first Latino on a national ticket.

Plus, Clinton/Richardson would be able to run as "Hill and Bill", doubtlessly bringing back memories of President Clinton.

[Adelante]

41. It's backwards, though

He's the one with the foreign policy weight, which a president needs, and she's the legislator, a good thing in a VP - at least that's how I think it should be.

[snowbear]

23. I don't think so..

First of all (sorry Elmer ), I seriously doubt that when all is said and done, Senator Clinton will win our primary. I can see how people who believe the MSM polling are assuming it's all over.. (Hell, just listen to Tweety - he insists she's already won)

.. and I can see how easily people tend to forget the fallen frontrunners of past elections. (I found a May 2003 Zogby poll today that had Gephardt in the lead in Iowa at this same time in the 03 primary).

------- but Democrats.. after experiencing 8 horrific years of the absolute WORST p.o.s. in history --- absolutely HAVE to put up a candidate that we know can win outside of a handful of progressive, open-minded states.

Unfortunately, you and I know that there just aren't enough of those states for a polarizing figure to win it all.

As the election gets closer and closer, Democrats will become even more aware of the what's at stake and which candidate it's going to take to win back the Whitehouse.

I like Senator Clinton a LOT and know that she'd be 100X the president that Bush could even dream of being. But we just can't hand the election to the Republicans by nominating a candidate who can win only 1/5 of the U.S. states.

The Republicans are giddy as hell about HRC winning the Democratic nomination. And they're putting up some fat money to try and make it happen.

But I predict that by early autumn, the polls of today won't be recognizable.

I wish DU'ers wouldn't put so much stake into them a year out, but when their candidate is in the lead, they can't resist..

What Republicans DON'T want to see is a Richardson/Clark, Edwards/Warner, Obama/etc. ticket.. And that's likely exactly what they'll end up contending with.

I trust our party enough not to hand them the candidate the Thugs want on a platter.

[Kelly Rupert]

19. "Latino" is no less racist than "Hispanic."

There are small blocs of people that object to both terms, and both are generally considered acceptable by the mainstream.

[Alexander]

21. How so?

"Hispanic" made it on to US Government documents during the Nixon administration. Given Nixon's history of hating blacks, Jews, liberals, hippies and just about anyone else he didn't agree with, I am quite reluctant to use a word popularized by his administration.

[Kelly Rupert]

22. The word has existed since the 15th century.

Try again.

(I suppose you think the word "Environmental" is part of a capitalist plot, since Nixon ordered the creation of the EPA.)

[IA_Seth]

39. Did you just say the E word?!

I swear, some people go looking for controversy, don't they?

For the record, Hispanic or Latino, depending upon heritage, are both widely used/accepted locally. I think you explained it well in another post on this thread (I think it was you anyway).

[Clark2008]

25. What makes "Hispanic" racist?

Just wondering.

It certainly doesn't sound all that bad, so I really don't know.

[KansDem]

32. When I was growing up in Southern California during the 1960s the term was "Mexican-American"

Then came "Chicano," then "Hispanic, then "Latino" if I recall correctly.

What is the accepted term now?

[Kelly Rupert]

38. All are acceptable, and have

slightly different meanings.

From my personal experience, it runs something like this: A Mexican-American is straightforward. Chicano generally means the same, but can have a more-loaded meaning; it can imply more of a nationalist (occasionally seperatist) feeling, or might imply a slur, or might not imply anything. Hispanic more or less refers to anyone from the New World culturally descended from Spain; this includes Mexico to Argentina. Latino generally refers to anyone from the New World culturally descended from any Latin nation; this includes French- and Portugese-speaking people as well. None are racist as long as they are used appropriately and respectfully.

I might be a bit off-base, but that's the situation as I understand it.

[jcrew2001]

29. Hispanic is a commonly used word

I don't think its labeled 'racist'. I accidentally used the M-word to describe Obama's half ancestry and was told that was racist.

[BikeWriter]

26. My great, great, great, great Grandmother was Cherokee.

What do I get? :shrug:

[jcrew2001]

28. Is he half-caucasian? like Obama - that would be a truly unique ticket

Also, its common for latinos to use both parents last names, he could change his last name to Include his mom's maiden name.

[jcrew2001]

33. According to Wikipedia, he is 3/4 hispanic

and he went to prep school in Mass - sounds like a typical northeast rich elitist blue-blood, haha.

[ripple]

30. With the uproar over immigration, I wonder if his heritage will hurt him

The practically rabid hatred of illegal immigrants seems to be metamorphosing into a hatred of hispanics in general. Of course, I imagine bigotry against hispanics is guiding the immigration uproar to a degree, as well.

Richardson has dealt a great deal with immigration concerns in NM, so logically, that should actually help him. Bigotry and intolerance aren't exactly rational concepts, though.

[Bullet1987]

34. NO CORPORATIST TICKET PLEASE!!!

Hillary/Richardson ticket. I may be wrong, but since I didn't suggest it to begin with, I won't take the credit!

This would be just another corporatist Dem ticket...

[jcrew2001]

35. Hillary would pick Clark as VP IMO

nt

[jcrew2001]

36. I'm voting for Bill Lopez - never heard of this richardson guy

and he should have mario lopez as VP.

[Colobo]

37. I'm Hispanic too, Bill

and I'm very proud of you, and wish you the best. Hopefully you will consider being Obama's running mate, or even if you win the nomination and pick Obama as your running mate that would be awesome.