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.

I want to add to the analysis of the proposed California Republican power grab initiative.  Should it pass, we could lose about 19 of California’s 55 electoral college votes to the Rep candidate.

If the initiative qualifies for the June 2008 California primary election, we will of course fight it tooth and nail.  But all is not lost if it passes.  We can still win in 2008 in a landslide.  We don’t have to have Rep Presidents forever.  However, we must nominate a candidate that can win in solid Red states – and the best candidate for that task is Bill Richardson.

Generating support from outside the Democratic base is critical to taking the White House.  The Presidential election of 2004 demonstrated the fallacy of the argument that all Democrats need to do is line up behind a candidate, generate a massive turnout and victory will be ours.

John Kerry received more votes than any other Democratic candidate for President in history, yet he still lost.  On the other hand, as we saw in the 2006 Congressional elections, when Democrats attract votes from Republicans and Independents, Democrats win. 

If the Rep power grab initiative passes in California next year, it becomes imperative that we not nominate another Northern liberal like Clinton or Obama.  Forget the meaningless presidential match up polls more than a year before the election.  They are just based on national name recognition at this point.  Northern liberal Democrats don’t carry solidly Red states.  The White House will be lost if the Rep aren’t challenged in the South, Southwest, Rocky Mountain and Western states, and that is guaranteed if the Rep power grab initiative passes in California. 

The candidate I’m supporting is Bill Richardson.  More than John Edwards, because of Richardson’s Latino heritage and Western values as well as economic policies and stance on 2nd Amendment issues, Richardson is the ideal candidates for Dem to take Red states regardless of what happens in California.

New Mexico politics mirrors the partisan split in America today.  In the last two Presidential elections, the outcome of the vote in New Mexico was decided by less than 1% of the ballots cast.

Richardson has been the most successful governor at the ballot box in New Mexico history. In a state evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, Richardson won his first term in office by a 56 to 39 percent margin.

Four years later, when the campaign issue was his leadership and performance, Richardson was re-elected by an incredible 68 to 32 percent vote – more than twice his margin of victory in 2002.  Forty percent of the Republicans that went to the polls in New Mexico last November voted for Richardson. 

With Richardson at the head of the Democratic ticket, no longer would the fate of the Democratic candidate rise or fall on the outcome of one state.  We would start with the same states carried by Senator Kerry in 2004. 

Latinos who voted for Bush in 2004 would largely return to the Democratic Party.  Independents would also favor Richardson.  We already are seeing this.  In the latest ARG poll for Iowa , Richardson, among Independents that lean Democratic, is leading the Democratic field:

Biden  3%
Clinton  18%
Dodd  3%
Edwards  8%
Kucinich  5%
Obama  21%
Richardson  25%
Undecided  17%

Add in his Western values, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Arizona would become blue states.  That brings 29 electoral votes to the Dems, more than compensating for the lost electoral votes in California if the Rep power grab initiative passes but not enough to win the White House (assuming we carry all states Kerry won in 2004). 

Florida with 27 electoral votes could make the difference.  With Richardson as the nominee it could easily turn blue.  Adam Smith, one of the top political commentator in Florida, described earlier this year Richardson’s appeal in the state. 

I defy anyone to name a Democrat better equipped to take Florida than New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

Think of it: a tax-cutting, NRA-supported progressive Democrat who can make a strong case in the conservative Panhandle; and the first Latino presidential nominee sure to energize the crucial Hispanic vote in South Florida and Central Florida.

For Central Florida’s crucial swing voters disillusioned by what they’ve seen with Iraq and Katrina, the two-term red- state governor, former U.N. ambassador, and U.S. energy secretary can sell competence. Nobody on either side is as experienced and tested on the key issues of the day – foreign policy, energy independence and economic growth.

What Smith wrote would apply in other Southern states, in particular Texas.  With 34 electoral votes, Texas is to Reps what California is to Dems. Kerry lost Texas by 23 points in 2004. The last time the Dems took Texas was Carter in 1976.

Today though, Democrats have been winning in local races in Texas.  Again with Richardson’s Western values and Latino heritage, he will have great appeal in Texas and could take the state.

How electable a Presidential candidate is should be taken into consideration, and all factors need to be considered including the possibility the California Rep power grab initiative could pass.  Moreover, electability should not be viewed solely from the viewpoint of the Presidential race. 

To achieve true health care reform, an aggressive plan attacking global warming and other policy initiatives that require Congressional approval, we must support a Democratic candidate that can assist down ticket Democrats win.

Richardson is the one Democratic candidate for President that has repeatedly shown an ability to attract support from Independents and Republicans. That will propel him to victory in November 2008, as well as lead to landslide victories for Dem candidates for the House and Senate nationwide.

Are you poor?  Black?  Hispanic?  Congratulations!  The city of San Diego wants to look at everything you own without a warrant!  All of this is in the context of ensuring that there are no “cheaters” and that money distributed to the poor by the state is being done legitimately.  This is actually a Constitutional question that was upheld in 1971.  Oddly enough, and sit down for this one because it’s shocking, it’s only ever applied to the poor and not the literally millions of other entities, whether corporate or agricultural, who receive the same type of largesse.

If waiving one’s Fourth Amendment rights based on the receipt of government funds were applied outside of the impoverished, most people would instantly see the problem. Given the number of people who benefit from some kinds of government subsidy, the government could simply abrogate the Bill or Rights through its spending power. This can’t be right. And whether or not it’s unconstitutional, certainly these kinds of searches without cause are bad policy, for the same reasons. As soon as executives at Archer Daniels Midland agree to waive their Fourth Amendment rights, we can start talking about welfare recipients.

I know that the Fourth Amendment is no longer operative, so this may be something of a moot point.  But it’s so clear that those quick to jump on the indigent for “ripping off the taxpayer” has no similar fervor for those in corporate America.  I was astonished when I heard Bill Richardson use the phrase “corporate welfare” at the Yearly Kos Presidential Forum.  Maybe some of our more progressive cities might want to start barging in to some corporate offices just to make sure their books are the same as they claim.  Who knows, maybe we can end welfare as we know it again.

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.”