Category Archives: Economy

What Does Dennis Kucinich Mean By “Strength Through Peace”?

What I want to do is explain what Dennis Kucinich is offering our country right now when he talks about “Strength through Peace”; to get a better understanding of what he means by peace and how it will make our country stronger as a whole. We need to understand that creating peace is not simply some idealistic hope for ending wars, but rather a very pragmatic plan that builds relationships based upon fairness and justice and which, predictably, reduces the likelihood of hostilities that lead to crimes, violence and wars. I want people to start seeing peace as a balance, not only in our foreign relationships, but here at home as well; a balance in the economy, a balance in healthcare, in education and government. And I want others to understand peace as paying us a dividend, that peace is a practical investment in our future. But, I want to begin by looking at where we are. Where is America right now?

Well, obviously we’re in Iraq, involved in a hugely unpopular and expensive occupation of that country. We are in Afghansitan and flirting with Iran and in debt to China among others to fund these campaigns.  Economically we’re in trouble with a weakening dollar, importing much more than we export, leading to a massive trade deficit. At home we are in a healthcare crisis, with a crumbling infrastructure, growing poverty rate, a shrinking middle class and some gaping holes in our constitution. The housing bubble is bursting, jobs are declining and outsourced, and inflation is eating away at the whole thing. On top of it all we are growing more and more isolated from our government, as a 70% call for an end to Iraq and overturning both Senate and House majorities isn’t enough to leave. Where’s America? It’s at the bottom of record low approval ratings for our president and our congress.

  Now, to really trace all of the reasons that we got here would take us outside the scope of this presentation. However, I want to focus on a principle that has served as a kind of underlying philosophy for a lot of the decisions that has lead us here: “peace through strength” (the direct opposite of Kucinich’s “strength through peace”). This doctrine of “peace through strength” has been floating through American policy for the last 30 years or so and has been aggressively pursued by our current President. And I think if we examine this for a moment we can gain some insight into our current situation, as well as how an America under Dennis Kucinich would differ.

  The first thing to notice about “peace through strength” is that peace is posited as a goal, or an end in itself, which will be achieved through strength. So the first thing we would want to know is what is strength? Or, how is it exactly, that we will achieve peace? 

  So, when we look at America under George W. Bush, do we see strength or do we see weakness?  I don’t know if there’s really an answer to this question because America is strong in certain areas, but very weak in others. However, if we examine the current policies, a very definite pattern starts to become clear. Power is redistributed to specific areas and further consolidated at the top, greatly strengthening the relative few, while severely weakening the majority of others. This is true both in our foreign policy and our domestic policy.

  If we start with the federal budget, we see this bloated Pentagon budget has come close to $500 Billion, a 62% increase since 2001 and this doesn’t even include the $142 Billion appropriated for Iraq. Consequently we do have a hugely powerful military, but only while we under fund our schools, watch the bridges in our weakening infrastructure collapse and, possibly worst of all, live with the 47 million people who have no health insurance and more people fall into medically related bankruptcy. But, this budget isn’t just by chance. It is directly related to this doctrine of “peace through strength” and is really only one part of the picture.

  Now, if we are pumping outrageous amounts of money into this military, then it shouldn’t come to anyone’s surprise that we are utilizing this powerful military in aggressive wars. Because we have to understand that Iraq was an aggressive war based upon lies. In the beginning it was sold as a “defensive war” because, according to the intelligence, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and could attack at any time. That was the story at least. But, we later learned that there were, in fact, no weapons at all and that the intelligence had been shaped and carefully selected by this administration. In fact, we have learned that the administration “didn’t accept intelligence to the contrary” and that there existed conflicting intelligence that was omitted from discourse, as Sen. Durbin later told us. The fact that the administration tailored the intelligence to lead us into war and didn’t allow time for the weapons inspectors to do their job shows us another way that power has been redistributed. Unilateral, Pre-emptive war and regime change has been strengthened in policy and multilateral, diplomatic efforts have been weakened. The fact that Mr. Bush only increased his hostile rhetoric towards Iran after the IAEA report indicated significant progress in compliance with inspections, shows how weak diplomatic policies have become, and is an ominous sign of things to come if we don’t challenge this type of thinking.

  Even when war can be avoided however, the solution is one of intimidation, rather than negotiation and the U.S. follows unjust policies, like the privatization of Iraqi oil reserves. In either case, war or intimidation, America’s standing in the world is undermined and hostility becomes great.

  All of this has been justified by the so-called “war on terror”. However, it’s important to keep “peace through strength” in mind, as this has definitely been the philosophy behind this war on terror and, according to the administration, protecting America. “Peace through strength” has been the doctrine for achieving national security and so this same transferal of power has occurred; a transferral of power that has included more and more corporate profits, rights and international leverage, as well as more and more power consolidated in the executive branch through unconstitutional legislation, signing statements and executive orders. Consequently, the weakening has come to the working and middle classes, Congress and Representative Government and individual civil liberites, such as habeas corpus.

  If we look at the economy we will see the same type of thing happening. Trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO have strengthened large corporations, but weakened workers and the environment throughout the world. These corporations outsource their jobs to countries where they can pay for labor, pennies on the dollar, and avoid the costly environmental restrictions they would have to pay in the U.S., for instance. Further, the agreements have been written in such a way that prevents other costly provisions like worker’s rights. And so what is the effect of these agreements? We have huge profits for these corporations, but only at the cost of miserably exploited labor, who make near slave wages, have to work in unsafe and unsanitary conditions and who are not allowed to form unions or strike to negotiate more fair conditions. Also, we have violence done to the environment, which costs all of us in the long run. It’s important to think about our environment as a sense of wealth. Not only is protecting a clean environment necessary for human, as well as all, life, and therefore truly a form of wealth, but because of that fact, the day of reckoning will come. If clean up and repair is possible it will be much more costly then prevention and it will be the taxpayers who are given the bill. On top of all of this we import massively more than we export, facing a huge trade deficit. Even the workers in the industrialized countries lose too. They lose jobs. It has been estimated that over 3 million manufacturing jobs in the U.S. alone has been lost due to outsourcing through NAFTA.

  At home we see the same power grab for the few at the top and the consequent weakening of the majority that makes up the rest of us. The concentration of wealth at the top of the population has lead to a shrinking middle class and growing poverty rate. The average CEO in the U.S. earns $475 for every dollar the average worker does. And, with a cruel sense of logic, our tax rates then have those who struggle most pay a higher tax rate than the people at the top who can best afford it. Inflation has been steadily eating away at American’s purchasing power and unions have been weakened through acts like Taft-Hartely. It’s become necessary to work more just to live at the same standard as before. Adjusted for inflation, the minimum has dropped by 42% since its peak in 1968. In fact, if the minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation, it would be $23/hr.! People are finding it more and more difficult to buy their own homes as property values are through the roof, leading to more debt. We now have 47 million Americans without any health insurance and 50 million who are underinsured. This underinsured group is largely responsible for half of the bankruptcies in the U.S. each year. In a study out of Harvard, a couple years ago, it was found that ¾ of all medically related bankruptcies are experienced by people who have insurance. Think about that. These people had insurance, but after you add the co-pays, deductibles and medication costs to the premiums, people who get seriously ill can’t cope with the payments and have to file for bankruptcy. In fact, the study found medically related bankruptcy to have risen by 2,200% since 1981! And yet, pharmaceutical and insurance companies are experiencing record profits at the same time. Then on top of all of this the most recent report from the U.S. Labor Department found the economy lost over 4,000 jobs.

  So to sum this up then, in “peace through strength” the strength is granted only to industrialized nations, multinational corporations, the Pentagon, the Executive branch, pre-emptive war, unilateral policy, large industries like weapons, securities, oil, pharmaceutical and insurance, and the top income earners in general. And all of this has come by weakening everything else, such as less developed nations, multilateral and diplomatic solutions, the environment, education, small businesses, Representative government, the middle class, the poor, our nation’s health and our national security. These are the relationships created under “peace through strength” and so one then has to ask: Is this what peace is?

  When you look at the consequences of this doctrine of “peace through strength” the nature of “peace” that develops is peculiar. If peace is simply the absence of war, we aren’t doing very well, since we’ve already waged two wars and are laying the ground work for a third against Iran. If peace is understood as a relationship of justice and harmony we fail here as well, since the effects seem to lead to intimidation and domination instead. And we start to see that if we continue on with these ideas we create more hostility, more enemies, more crime, more suffering and more likelihood of violence and war. We start to see that this conception of strength, that causes so much weakness and injustice causes the opposite of peace. So we are forced to conclude that  this whole doctrine of “peace through strength” is impractical and flawed. We find ourselves in need of a new doctrine and way of thinking for the country.

  And this is exactly what Dennis Kucinich is doing. He’s reversing this type of thinking for a new doctrine of “strength through peace”. That is, reversing these detrimental policies in order to create the conditions for peace. Dennis Kucinich is creating policies for relationships of peace, based upon justice and equality, from which we can build from, to strengthen our standing in the world. Peace is not the end, it is the means by which you empower individuals and countries. Peace is not simply the absence of war, but the presence of diplomacy and fair negotiations. Peace is not passive isolationism hoping things will turn out for the best, but actively participating in the world and pursuing relationships. It isn’t an empty ideal to look forward to through endless wars and suffering, but rather a pragmatic tool that is forward looking, creating friends instead of enemies, true universal healthcare, an more equitable economy and a sustainable future. Peace under Dennis Kucinich is balancing the budget and slashing the bloated Pentagon budget for money here at home, ending the war and engaging the world community, creating fair trade based upon human rights, workers rights and environmental principles, universal pre-kindergarten and college, alternative energy techologies, fair tax rates, and newfound constitutional responsibility. It’s creating a safer, more secure and stronger America. Peace under Dennis Kucinich is what’s necessary for this country.

Support Dennis Kucinich!

October 21, 2007 Blog Roundup

Today’s Blog Roundup is on the flip. Let me know what I missed.

To subscribe by email, click
here and do what comes naturally
.

Randy is Still at
Campaign Training

Local-ish Stuff

Everything Else Today

Looming Recession Update

Continuing my “sky is falling” rhetoric when it comes to the California economy, we now have over a million unemployed citizens, and even the positive job news is fleeting.

Despite a boost from the Hollywood job machine, the state unemployment rate ticked up in September, when more than 1 million Californians were looking for work, the first time that benchmark had been breached in nearly three years.

Jobs were added to the economy during the month but nearly half were in Los Angeles in the entertainment sector, according to figures released by the government Friday. Producers have been racing to get movies and television shows in the can in anticipation of a writers strike.

And Hollywood probably won’t deliver a happy ending. Strike or no, when the shows and movies are finished, many of those jobs will evaporate.

And it looks more like strike than no, as the WGA overwhelmingly voted to authorize a strike, by a 90%-10% margin.  That could happen as soon as Halloween.  Most studios aren’t signing writers to any future deals right now, in anticipation of a strike.  And the contracts of the Screen Actors Guild and the Director’s Guild are up next summer.

Besides meaning a lot of crappy reality shows coming to a TV screen near you, this means a great deal of production personnel out of work.  And that just adds to the strain on the economy right now.

Esmael Adibi, an economist at Chapman University, said it was important to note that payroll job growth had slowed to 1.1% in September from 1.6% in January and that beyond construction and financial services, the professional business services sector jettisoned jobs in September.

“Every indication is the weakness is becoming more broad-based,” he said. “Retailers are getting nervous about consumer spending, and clearly they are not adding to the employment base. The job machine is getting tired.”

October 18, 2007 Blog Roundup

Today’s Blog Roundup is on the flip. Let me know what I missed.

To subscribe by email, click
here and do what comes naturally
.

Tsk, Tsk

Houses


Healthcare

Immigration

Local


So many other different topics I’m having a hard time categorizing any
more today

October 17, 2007 Blog Roundup

Today’s Blog Roundup is on the flip. Let me know what I missed.

To subscribe by email, click
here and do what comes naturally
.

Look, it all depends on
who Issa means by “us”.  For example, if he means
“Republicans” then Blackwater is probably “our troops”.  If he
means the United States, not so much.

Ayup

Health Care

Immigration

Voting Integrity

Environment

Local

The Rest

Budget This

There’s a certain irrelevancy to all of the back-slapping out of Sacramento for their presiding over a “fiscally sound budget” when you read stories like this:

Sales of houses and condominiums in the most populous Southern California counties fell 29.9 percent from the previous month and 48.5 percent from a year earlier, DataQuick Information Systems said on Tuesday.

The report covers the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura and showed a total of 12,455 new and existing homes and condos sold in September, the lowest since the company began recording the data in 1988.

Without being alarmist… aw, hell, I’m going to be alarmist.  The real estate market was the only thing propping up the state’s economy.  There’s an attempt to try and trade one bubble for another and re-create the dot-com speculation circa 1998, but that’ll only go so far, too, and that crash will be just as vicious as the first one.  And looming strikes in almost every aspect of the entertainment industry in LA will make life difficult as well.  It’s through little fault of state government, but you can see a pretty clear path to recession now.

UPDATE: On a somewhat related note, you can’t raise a family in California anymore.

The CBP analysis estimates that in order to pay basic bills in California:
A single-parent family needs an annual income of $59,732, equivalent to an hourly wage of $28.72.
A two-parent family with one employed parent needs an annual income of $50,383, equivalent to an hourly wage of $24.22.
A family with two working parents needs an annual income of $72,343, equivalent to each parent working full-time for an hourly wage of $17.39.
A single adult needs an annual income of $28,336, equivalent to an hourly wage of $13.62.

Housing woes in the San Fernando Valley

Today's Los Angeles Daily News has a story about the rate of housing foreclosures in the San Fernando Valley. And the figure quoted is really quite horrifying. In August alone the foreclosure rate rose 400%. That's right. 400%. The number is mind blowing.  According to the Daily News, 289 homes were foreclosed on in August. In comparison to 58 that were foreclosed last August. The AP published an article this morning positing that a housing slump might produce a recession.

Daniel Blake, at the Economic Research Center at California State University, Northridge sees this trend happening as a result of the large numbers of adjustable rate mortgages that are adjusting to higher rates.

“It's climbing right now, and I don't see any reason for it to drop off that pace,” he said. “These mortgages are continuing to (reset at higher rates), and they will continue to (do so) for the next 12 to 19 months at a pretty steady pace.”

The article notes that there have been 552 foreclosures in the first two months of the third quarter. And expects that the third quarter will have more foreclosures than the second quarter, which closed with 632 foreclosures. And there's this from the AP article:

The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that construction of new homes fell by 2.6 percent in August to the slowest pace in 12 years as troubles. On Tuesday, the National Association of Home Builders reported that its index of builder confidence fell in September to equal the lowest level on record.

Things really are only going to get worse. Here's hoping that Congress takes a hard look at this before it's too late.

The Case for Bill Richardson: Leadership for America

This diary is part of the candidate series on MyDD for Bill Richardson.  I am Californian supporter of Richardson.  I am not part of his campaign.

Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide victory in November 2006, Governor Bill Richardson is running for President to heal America and restore our place in the world. He possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President.

Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident. He has the ability to quickly evaluate a situation but is not rigid in his thinking and will modify policy when necessary. He takes a practical approach to governing, focusing on solutions to problems rather than ideology.

Richardson has been called a “force of nature.” When he served in Congress, he was regarded as one of the hardest working members, respected for his intelligence and detailed knowledge of the issues. In a profile earlier this year, Democratic state Senator Mary Jane Garcia stated, “It just never stops; it’s busy, busy, busy. He’s got an agenda like you can’t believe.”  New Mexican Republican Representative Dan Foley added, “People shouldn’t count him out. You won’t find a person who works harder.”

Richardson fights for the principals he believes in. I offer two of many examples:

First, while Secretary of Energy, against opposition in Congress and even criticism from within the Clinton Administration, Richardson acknowledged the Energy Department’s long history of denying responsibility for workers’ injuries at the nation’s nuclear weapons plants. He stated, “We need to right this wrong.”

Richardson successfully lobbied Congress to enact legislation providing payments and medical benefits to the workers that developed cancer and other serious diseases.

Second, in April 2007, Richardson spoke at Rally to Save the People of Darfur in San Francisco. He was the only Presidential candidate that attended, even though they were all in California that weekend for the California Democratic Party Convention.  Prior to speaking, a reporter asked Richardson why he was there. Richardson’s response was an inspiration to all fighting for social change: “You have to be part of the causes you believe in.”

Richardson has been to Sudan three times visiting refugee camps and negotiating the release of American aid workers and journalists. He has never given up on Africa.

Richardson has had an outstanding record as Governor of New Mexico.  He increased school funding, expanded health care coverage, extended civil rights protections to include sexual orientation, made New Mexico a model for the rest of nation in promoting clean energy and fighting global warming, while cutting taxes to promote sustainable growth and balancing the state budget. For his commitment to protecting the state’s environment, the Conversation Voters of New Mexico gave Richardson “a solid A.

Richardson understands that the Democratic Party must be the party of economic progress.  He has assisted the private sector in New Mexico in creating new, high paying jobs. He calls on Democrats to “stand for policies that encourage innovation and expand economic opportunity.”

On education policy, Richardson understands that No Child Left Behind sets up our public schools for failure.  Unlike the other major candidates that want to somehow fix and preserve NCLB, Richardson’s approach is simple and clear:  scrap it.  Richardson writes::

NCLB has failed. It has failed our schools, it has failed our teachers and it has failed our children. The Bush administration claims victories, but upon closer scrutiny it becomes clear that the White House is simply dressing up ugly data with fancy political spin. Far from leaving no child behind, President Bush seems to have left reality behind. 

On global warming and energy policy, Richardson has set forth the most detailed and aggressive plan of all candidates – calling for a 90% decrease in greenhouse emissions by 2050.  Dave Hamilton, the Sierra Club’s Director of Energy and Global Warming program, stated Richardson’s “18-page energy policy is much more aggressive than anything we’ve seen so far from the candidates.  It is also significantly better-elaborated in theory with regard to where we end up.” 

Richardson is the product of two nations, Mexico and the United States. His childhood friends included many of the poor in the neighborhood where his family lived in Mexico City.  He saw first hand the devastating impact of poverty on families and children. His bi-national upbringing necessitated understanding and then bridging two cultures. This laid the foundation for Richardson as an adult to become a peacemaker among nations and an expert in the art of diplomacy.

Richardson has articulated a new foreign policy for America which starts by recognizing the new challenges we face in the 21st century:

Jihadists and environmental crises have replaced armies and missiles as the greatest threats, and globalization has eroded the significance of national borders. Many problems that were once national are now global, and dangers that once came only from states now come also from societies-not from hostile governments, but from hostile individuals or from impersonal social trends, such as the consumption of fossil fuels.

Richardson calls on the U.S. to foster “the cooperation needed to solve the issues that face the modern world. The U.S. government needs to see the world as it really is – so that the United States can lead others to make it a better, safer place.”

On Iraq, Richardson has eloquently stated:

The War in Iraq is not the disease. Iraq is a symptom. The disease is arrogance. The next President must be able to repair the damage that’s been done to our country’s reputation over the last six years. It’s why experience in foreign affairs has never been more important.

Richardson has the best plan for ending the war in Iraq. He is only major candidate that has repeatedly and unequivocally called for the complete withdrawal of ALL American forces from Iraq.

The others candidates lack the confidence to stand up to the military and political establishment and follow the will of the American people.  They accept the argument that a complete withdrawal of all American forces would be “irresponsible.”  As Richardson wrote wrote in a recent Op Ed, “On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal — not a drawn-out, Vietnam-like process — would be the most responsible and effective course of action.”

The fundamental difference between Obama, Edwards and HRC verse Richardson on Iraq is that Richardson understands that by the U.S. remaining in Iraq, we unwittingly perpetuate the war.  Our troops have become the targets in a civil war.  The Iraqi government has become dependent on the U.S. for security the Iraqis should provide.  Richardson notes: “The Iraqis won’t take the necessary steps toward political reconciliation until the U.S. makes it clear that it will leave the country for good.”

Likewise, without the direct and committed action by the President of the United States, Iraq will remain in chaos. Richardson is the only candidate with a track record of foreign policy success.  Richardson will lead a diplomatic offensive to bring peace and stability to the region.

That we must exit Iraq now is a message Richardson constantly delivers to voters.  He doesn’t tailor his message to the audience. Yesterday, Richardson spoke on ending the war at two town halls in Iowa.  The first was at the National Guard Armory in Council Bluffs and second at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post in Sioux City.

In closing, with Richardson we get two for the price of one: an energetic, can-do leader on domestic issues and an experienced diplomat on foreign affairs.

Ellen Tauscher Now “Controversial Congresswoman”

(cross-posted on Open Left)

I kind of like the sound of that one.  We may have bungled a primary challenge to Ellen Tauscher, but we accomplished a lot of our goals.  She is now generally acting and talking a lot better, especially on the war.  The big bonus is that the media is tracking how we interact with her, which increases the pressure on her.  Check out this blog post on the new LAT presidential blog Top of The Ticket.  It titled “Controversial California congresswoman backs Clinton:

But they also share something else in common: each voted in favor of the war in Iraq they now oppose. And, partly because of that vote, each has been the target of attacks from anti-war activists and left-leaning bloggers. Tauscher also has drawn the ire of progressives because she is a member of the “Blue Dogs” in the House — a group of moderate Democrats — and a leader of the New Democrat Coalition.

They are targets because they were wrong in the past and now we are putting pressure on them to get it right moving forward.  Their language has changed dramatically due to the intense scrutiny.

During today’s call, Clinton described the latter group as “a very large group of House members committed to pro-growth economic policies that will really help us return to shared prosperity.” Liberal bloggers describe it less kindly, tending toward characterizations such as “sell-out” and “Republican Lite.”

Yeah, that is about right.  Interestingly, that no longer includes Clinton, who has been moving fairly dramatically to a populist economic platform for her presidential run.  She is no longer the ardent free trader, in the tradition of her husband.  I actually do take issue with that phrasing, since it insinuates that those Democrats who do not agree with the Blue Dogs are anti-growth.  It is not that progressives are against growth, we just don’t want it all to come to corporations and the richest Americans.  Like Clinton says, that is “trickle-down economics without the trickle.”

Early this year, Tauscher was under particularly intense fire from progressive voices, as spelled out in a Washington Post story. Since then, she’s heightened her profile as an opponent of the Iraq war; Tauscher is a chief sponsor, for instance, of a push to rescind the resolution that authorized the U.S. military action. Still …

… Tauscher joining the Clinton camp can be expected to generate negative comment on the left.

My first thought when I read a piece about her endorsement was to mock the fact that Clinton didn’t know how to pronounce Tauscher’s name, not to try and bash Clinton for the association.

I don’t think that anyone is particularly surprised that Clinton is sewing up the endorsements of moderate Democratic women.  I would actually be more shocked if they didn’t go to her.  What I am more interested in is how the media is reporting it. 

Don Frederick seems to understand that Tauscher is controversial, but doesn’t quite identify the biggest reason for the blogger ire that was directed at Tauscher.  She was bashing her fellow Democrats, making it more difficult to get our policy goals accomplished.  That was the biggest spark to the blow-up, though there were other factors like her extremely poor relationship with the grassroots groups in her district.  The Iraq vote is important yes, but it was not what sparked the controversy earlier this year.  After all, that vote happened years ago.  She is still a figure that will raise liberal bloggers’ eyebrows, if only because we are closely tracking what she is saying and how she is voting.

Bill Richardson Roundup: June 23-30, 2007 News Review

Highlighting his considerable foreign expertise, Governor Bill Richardson last week set forth a path to avoiding military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program. Richardson called on Bush administration to stop threatening Iran with “incendiary rhetoric,” and instead recognize our interests in engaging Iran diplomatically. 

Richardson’s week ended with a well-received speech before Latino leaders in Florida.  Decrying the tone of the debate in the Senate on the immigration bill and how Latinos are portrayed in the media, Richardson asked

Do you notice that when they depict immigrants, they have someone crossing a wall, jumping as if they are criminals? How about the farmers who break their backs working or those who are cleaning the toilets and working at the hotel where we stay? How about the American media covering the immigrant who died protecting his country?

Also of note, Pollster.com added Richardson to its Top Democrats charts, joining Clinton, Obama and Edwards.  Charles Franklin of Pollster.com stated, “For other Democratic candidates, we’ve not seen a substantial upturn anywhere. Richardson stands alone in that respect at the moment.”

For a full review of Richardson’s week, continue reading.

Last week began with Richardson campaigning in Iowa.  He stepped up his rhetoric opposing the ongoing U.S. occupation in Iraq. As noted by the Rocky Mountain News:

While all the other Democrats call for an end to the conflict, Richardson goes a step further by saying virtually every American soldier – with the exception of Marine embassy guards – should be pulled out by the end of the year. He is pressuring congressional Democrats to pass a resolution by the end of the summer revoking authority for the war.

Richardson also addressed the question of the process he would employ if as President he believed war necessary:

If I am president, I would only go to war if I get authority from Congress. If you go to war, it’s my view that first you exhaust every diplomatic option, you exhaust mediation, even sanctions, build international support for your goals.  I would not hesitate to go to war if it preserved the security of this country, but I believe this administration has been too trigger-happy. And I would use diplomacy.

Richardson has been consistent on the primacy of diplomacy in conflict resolution.  On Iraq, Richardson advocated that the U.S. explore all diplomatic avenues, including returning to the U.N. and developing support within the Security Council for U.S. objectives.  Under the U.N. Charter, only the Security Council can authorize a member state to wage war. 

Richardson’s view, that the U.S. must place the matter of invading Iraq to a vote of the Security Council prior to commencing hostilities, was rejected by many in Congress, including John Edwards, and ultimately was the path President Bush pursued.

On March 11, 2003, eight days before President Bush announced the U.S. was at war with Iraq, Richardson urged patience and diplomacy, criticizing the Bush Administration’s rush to war, in an interview on CNN.  At this time, polls showed most Americans supported going to war and were critical of the U.N. Richardson defended the work of the U.N. Richardson explained how unilateral U.S. military action in Iraq would undermine the U.N. and hurt the prestige of the U.S. abroad:

CROWLEY: I want to ask you the question, first, if there is no Security Council resolution approving of a war on Iraq, and if the Bush administration should go ahead, who loses in that scenario?

RICHARDSON: Well, I think the United Nations loses because it shows a lack of relevance to this crisis.

And, secondly, I think, Candy, that the United States loses because we’re going into a major conflict without the blessing of the U.N. Security Council, without some of our major allies like France and Russia, and also those 10 other members of the Security Council, the 10 non-permanent members that have a voice right now.

So I think it would come at considerable cost especially if we’re to win the war, which we would, issues relating to a post-Iraq configuration to the prestige of the United States worldwide to bring some kind of order to the Middle East and bring some kind of Persian Gulf-lessening attention. So, I think everybody would be a victim. The United Nations, the United States and, certainly, our NATO allies. I think would be hurt, too, because if they don’t support us the breakdown of the NATO alliance might be next to go.

CROWLEY: Well, I want to cite a couple of figures for you. One of them just came from a CBS/New York Times poll, which showed that right now only about 34 percent of Americans believe the U.N. is doing a good job handling this situation.

Fifty eight percent think it’s doing a poor job. On top of that, we also found that 55 percent would support an invasion, even if the Security Council says don’t do it. What does that say about how Americans view the U.N., and has that changed since you were the ambassador?

RICHARDSON: Well, the United States as a populous, here in new Mexico, there’s not much support for the United Nations. But at the same time, Candy, what everyone should understand is the United Nations does a lot of things that we, the U.S. as the only superpower, don’t want to do.

They get involved in conflicts in Kosovo, in the Congo in Africa, in Guatemala and Latin America. Immigration issues, AIDS, refugees. We don’t want to get directly involved in these, but we use the arm of international support, legitimacy of the United Nations to do it.

Now, in the Persian Gulf, conveniently, the U.N. supported our efforts in 1991 to get a broad coalition. And I think we’ve used the U.N. in the war on terrorism to get international support.

But clearly in this Iraq crisis, the U.N. has to step up and simply enforce its 1881 resolution. And it’s not doing that. So, it’s going to be a big loss for the U.N. in terms of its peacekeeping relevance, unless it really steps up and gets tough on Saddam Hussein. I think that’s the issue.

CROWLEY: So, am I right, am I hearing you correctly that you believe that the U.N. Security Council should pass the resolution that Britain and the U.S. are proposing?

RICHARDSON: Well, I would go a little differently, Candy. I think the U.S. and Britain should compromise. That’s the essence of diplomacy. To get nine votes, if it means postponing for 30 days, or 15 days or 10 days, a new resolution with benchmarks on Iraq’s behavior, let’s do it. I think that France and Russia are basically gone.

They are going to veto. But it would be a partial victory if we get nine votes for a victory of a majority in the Security Council. If we don’t do that, I think it’s going to be tremendous prestige loss overseas. I think, domestically, it’s going to cause more problems for the administration. The Congress will be divided. This is a time when it’s frustrating, but what’s the rush, really. Iraq is not heading down Baghdad into the United States.

Again, it is a threat, but it’s not an immediate threat. It’s not something that is like the war on terrorism, where we’re under alert from a potential terrorist attack in this country. So let’s be judicious. Let’s be calm. Let’s be patient.

While in Iowa, Richardson sat down for an interview with the editorial board of The Des Moines Register. The reporter covering the interview wrote:

Richardson might not be the best-known candidate – for now, anyway – but he might have the best credentials. His resumé includes U.S. congressman, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy and governor. He served in Congress under three presidents: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees. He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

That’s him on paper.  In person, he’s a bit beefy, his eyes scrunch up, and his body shakes when he laughs. He boasts that he holds the world’s handshaking record – more than 13,000 handshakes in eight hours. And his sense of humor comes through loud and clear. . . .

Yet he has a serious side.  It’s the side that made him a go-to envoy while still in Congress. He helped negotiate the release of the body of a U.S. Army helicopter pilot killed in North Korea in 1994. The next year, he negotiated the release of two Americans detained in Iraq. Then he secured release of three Red Cross workers being held in Sudan.

During the interview, Richardson highlighted three issues of such importance that he would make special efforts to reach bipartisan consensus: getting out of the Iraq war; setting up solid funding for Social Security and Medicare for future generations; and achieving energy independence.  The reporter added:

If that sounds like a lot, his vision for the country is equally expansive. Building an America without divisions by race or ethnicity. Launching an Apollo-like program to secure energy independence. Curing cancer. Giving the middle class a break. “My vision is to think big for this country,” he said.

On June 27th, Richardson gave a major address at the Center for National Policy in Washington, D.C.  Richardson laid out his vision for engaging Iran and convincing Iran to halt its development of nuclear weapons.  Richardson also spoke on building support to fight international terrorism and nuclear proliferation, while bringing peace and stability to the Middle East.

I am convinced that a concerted diplomatic effort, backed up by tough sanctions, undertaken with our international partners and grounded in bipartisan cooperation at home, stands an excellent chance of persuading Iran to forego nuclear weapons and to adopt more responsible policies.  We need to end the taboo on open-ended talks, so that we can begin serious, continuing, and senior-level negotiations on the full range of nuclear, Middle East security, and economic issues. . . .

We need to be absolutely clear that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, and we need to be absolutely credible when we say what we will do about it if the Iranians continue to disregard the will of the international community. . . .

Richardson added the Bush Administration was foolish to fund Iraqi exile groups in the delusional expectation that they would somehow topple the regime, and called on Bush not to repeat the mistake with Iran:

The Bush administration foolishly tried this approach with Iraq, and we know what it got us. There is no reason to expect better results with Iran. . . No constructive dialogue with Iran is possible until we break the vicious cycle of suspicion and hostile, incendiary rhetoric. If we want Iran to improve its behavior, we would do well to stop threatening to attack them.

Bill Richardson advocated that the U.S. reach out to moderate elements in Iranian society to defuse the standoff between the two countries.  Richardson reiterated his position that the U.S. must remove all troops from Iraq as soon as possible:

The presence of American troops in Iraq fuels the insurgency and strengthens Al Qaeda.  I strongly believe that the complete withdrawal of all US military from Iraq will have a salutary effect on all of our goals in the region, including our efforts to build a better relationship with Iran, and to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Back in New Mexico, the leading state organization on environmental issues, the non-partisan Conservation Voters New Mexico gave Richardson an “A” in its annual scorecard of elected officials:

The CVNM Scorecard recognizes Governor Bill Richardson with a solid “A” for his commitment to protecting the environment. The Governor weighed in behind a strong renewable energy agenda in 2007 and exercised his veto power on several anti-conservation measures, including a line-item veto of $945,000 for “Gila basin water development”, and a pocket-veto of SB 220 that would have provided a de facto $6.9 million subsidy to the coal industry.

Sandy Buffet, the Executive Director of the CVNM applauded Richardson’s efforts to make “New Mexico the ‘Clean Energy State.‘” She also complimented Richardson for his work on a non-environmental issue, but one affecting the integrity of the state government and New Mexico elections:  uphelding strong campaign finance reporting rules from efforts by the state legislature to reverse progessive statutes.

In response Richardson stated:

We have worked closely with all those who seek to conserve our water, air and public lands and establish New Mexico as the clean energy state — and this grade shows we’ve worked well together.  Having enacted 23 pro-conservation bills this year, this legislative session was an unprecedented success with significant increases to our renewable energy portfolio standard, passage of the surface owner’s protection act and the Renewable Energy Transmission Authority.

On the political front, independent polls issued last week re-confirmed Richardson’s growing support in Iowa and New Hampshire.  The campaign’s internal poll released to the media showed Richardson at 13% in Iowa, and at 18% (above Obama) among likely caucus voters.  And, in in action I believe is related to Richardson’s rise in the polls, the week also saw Obama launch TV ads in Iowa and Edwards commence a TV campaign in New Hampshire. 

In response to Richardson’s momentum in Iowa and New Hampshire, Pollster.com added Richardson to its Top Democrats charts, joining Clinton, Obama and Edwards.  Charles Franklin of Pollster.com explained, “While Richardson is still in fourth place in both states (5th in NH if you include Gore), his is the only trajectory that is clearly moving up.” 

The positive trend in Iowa polls was noticed by reporters in the state:

Lending credence to a poll showing his support has jumped to double digits among likely Iowa caucus-goers, Bill Richardson attracted more than 200 people to a “job interview” in Iowa City. The Democratic governor of New Mexico made an impression Tuesday with the folks who will be doing the “hiring” when Iowans caucus in January.

“He’s the ‘been there, done that’ guy in the field” of Democratic candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination, Sally Peck of West Branch said of listening to Richardson. “He’s not just mouthing platitudes. He has the experience others don’t.”

For months, Richardson has been calling for comprehensive immigration reform in harmony with the ideals upon which our nation was founded.  In a speech last December at Georgetown University, Richardson spoke on the issue:

I come here today as a border state Governor, and a  Hispanic-American who knows that our nation can no longer afford to  ignore the issue of illegal immigration. I come here as a Democrat who  believes my party has an obligation as the new majority party to pass  comprehensive legislation to reform our immigration laws. And I come  here as someone who believes it’s time for our leaders to tell the  simple truth about this — and every other — issue.

Today, there are over 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Most are law abiding, except for the fact that they have entered this country illegally. And almost all have come here to work — to build a  better life for themselves and their families, just as previous generations of immigrants have done.

Eleven million people living in the shadows is a huge problem, and we need to address it intelligently and thoughtfully — and urgently. If Congress fails to do so, it will only get worse, and the demagoguery about it which we have heard so much of recently will only get louder.

Sadly, Richardson’s prediction that the demagoguery on immigration would only get worse proved true last week. Following the failure of the Senate to advance a bill, Richardson stated:

I am deeply disappointed. You can’t solve a problem by ignoring it. We have got to find a way to bridge the divide and bring people together to address the critical problems facing our nation — immigration, energy, healthcare, education. This is the price America pays for divisive leadership. Congress should continue to work on passing immigration reform.

Richardson explained further his opposition to the Senate immigration bill, while calling for immigration reform, in an address to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials on June 30, 2007 in Orlando, Florida.  As reported in the Boston Globe:

“The Congress failed to pass an immigration act, and they must return” to it, said Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a lawmaker of Hispanic background who received one of the most enthusiastic receptions among the seven Democratic candidates for president from the members of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials.

“But it was a bad bill. What I objected to was that they stopped working” on it, Richardson said. He decried that he called an overly onerous provision that would have required undocumented immigrants to return to their home countries to be considered for a green card giving them permanent legal status.

As reported in the Chicago Tribune, at the same conference Obama decried an “ugly undertone that crept into the debate” this year. Yet, Obama defended his vote last year to build the 700-mile fence along U.S. boarder with Mexico because that provision was just one part in a “much more humane” reform bill.  This was not the case.  The “Secure Fence Act of 2006” that Obama, Clinton, Dodd and Biden voted for contained only provisions authorizing the wall and securing the border. Richardson has consistently opposed the border wall as ineffective, a terrible symbol for America and in conflict with our goal of seeking Mexico’s cooperaton on immigration issues.

The Chicago Tribune’s coverage of the Florida conference continued:

But Richardson landed the hardest punch with the crowd when he suggested that the failure to pass fair immigration laws is due partly to a societal failure to recognize that “immigration has historically been a very positive element.”

“I have a message to the American media,” Richardson said. “Do you notice when they depict immigrants, they have somebody crossing a wall … as if they’re criminals? How about the American media looking at the farmworker who breaks his back? How about the American media covering the Latino immigrant that has died for this country?”

Richardson added:  “I’m not running as a Latino candidate. I’m running as an American governor who is enormously proud to be Latino.”

There has been significant blog commentary on the Democratic Presidential debate last Thursday at Howard University.  I won’t add anything further with one exception.  Much of the commentary focused on style and ignored the substance of the candidates’ statements. In particular, on the question of economic growth and tax unfairness, Richardson set forth an unique vision. 

Richardson’s voice is important as he is the only Democratic candidate in the race with executive branch experience and success in working with local communities, private corporations and public entities in creating thousands of new, quality jobs. 

Richardson advocated repealing the Bush tax cuts at the very top of the income bracket, which other candidates did as well.  But Richardson would go much further by replacing the Bush tax cuts with tax cuts for the middle class and to promote job growth, including in the inner cities and rural areas.  Richardson stated

We need to rebuild this economy by being pro-growth Democrats. We should be the party of innovation, of entrepreneurship, of building capital, getting capital for African American small businesses. We need to find a way in this country that we say that globalization must work for the middle class.

Finally, the Bay Area Reporter, the leading LGBT paper for the San Francisco Bay Area, profiled Richardson last week:

B.A.R. publisher Thomas E. Horn, who was born and raised in New Mexico and whose family has been involved in the state’s politics – an uncle served as a state legislator and then the state’s Democratic Party chair in the 1950s and 1960s – first met Richardson when he served as a congressman.

“I really think he is the most qualified Democrat in the race for president,” Horn wrote in an e-mail. “His track record is exceptional. He’s done a fine job as governor … and was re-elected with around 70 percent of the vote.”

Horn, who said he expects to make an endorsement in the primary but has yet to back a candidate, said winning the southwest will be key to the Democrats taking back the White House. Not only does he see Richardson having an advantage in the West, but Horn also praised his gay rights track record.

“If a Democrat carries New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada, we don’t need Ohio or Florida to win. Richardson is very popular throughout the southwest and stands the best chance of being able to do that,” wrote Horn. “His record of LGBT issues has always been stellar.”