President Bush's request for an additional $50 billion to keep our troops in harms way has brought a renewed sense of urgency about ending our ongoing, tragically mismanaged military involvement in Iraq. Governor Richardson released the following statement in response to the President's request:
The only appropriation Congress should pass for this war is funding for a safe and quick withdrawal. This Congress was elected to end the war in Iraq. They need to stand up to President Bush and do the job. This is an issue where leadership means no compromises. It took us too many years and far too many lives to end the war in Vietnam, and we cannot repeat that mistake.
Congress should use every power at its disposal to end this war, including de-authorization and refusing to fund the war beyond what is necessary for the safe redeployment of our troops.
George Bush should show less concern about his legacy and pay more attention to the lives of our men and women in harm's way. The best way to support our troops is to get them all out of Iraq as soon as it can safely be accomplished.
This administration miscalculated the intelligence before the war, mismanaged the war itself, bungled the surge, and now has the audacity to ask Congress for more funding to continue this tragic misadventure. The answer should be a resounding no.
Governor Richardson's position on ending the war has been clear throughout his entire campaign. Way back in December of 2006, he was insisting that we must redeploy our troops out of Iraq and begin the necessary diplomatic work. Again, at the DNC Winter Meeting back in February, Governor Richardson emphasized the need for an immediate end to our military involvement in Iraq:
The Congress passed a resolution authorizing war. They need to pass another one that overturns that authorization and brings our troops home by the end of this calendar year.
That was February 3, 2007. In March, on the fourth anniversary of our military involvement in Iraq, he reiterated his call:
Whatever you may think of the way we went to war in Iraq, the fact is we've done all we can there militarily and it's time to bring our troops home with honor. I believe we can do it within a year, and we should start immediately...
In the face of the President's refusal to withdraw our troops, I call on the Congress-Democrats and Republicans - to stand for what is right, overturn the authorization for the war, and bring our troops home as soon as possible.
Just over a month later, at the first Democratic Presidential Debate in April, Governor Richardson articulated once again his support for immediate and complete troop redeployment out of Iraq:
This is what I would do if I were President today. I would withdraw all of our troops, including residual troops, by the end of this calendar year.
On May 1, 2007, in response to the President's veto of democrat sponsored legislation that would have set a timeline for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Governor Richardson repeated his call for Congress to de-authorize the war immediately and bring our troops home:
The President is defying the will of the American people so it is time for Congress to take action that cannot be vetoed...
To continue with more of the same is not a strategy, it is a tragedy. The only solution is strong diplomacy and real political progress led by the Iraqis. Our troops have performed bravely, with honor and sacrifice, but it is time to get them out of the crossfire of a civil war.
We need to redeploy all of our forces out of Iraq leaving no residual forces.
In the official release accompanying this statement was Governor Richardson's 7 Point New Realism Plan for Iraq. One week later, Governor Richardson began reaching out to Americans, explaining the de-authorization option, restating his call for complete withdrawal by the end of 2007, and urging them to sign a petition calling on Congress to de-authorize the war and bring our troops home by the end of the year. Just two weeks later, Governor Richardson issued another statement reiterating the urgency of de-authorizing the war in Iraq and immediately beginning the withdrawal of all our troops from Iraq:
President Bush has abused the 2002 war authorization by turning a war to remove WMD into an open-ended occupation. Congress should pass a resolution that explicitly de-authorizes the war in which we are now engaged, establishes a six-month deadline for the removal of ALL our troops, and instructs the President to remove them.
Later in May, (can you guess what's coming??) the governor released another statement calling on Congress to de-authorize the war and require the President to redeploy all our troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007. At the Take Back America Conference, Governor Richardson detailed his position on ending the Iraq War with depth and clarity - again. In his speech, he introduced NoTroopsLeftBehind.com.
And between all those speeches and statements, and all summer long, he has repeated his position in living rooms, back yards, town halls, auditoriums, and everywhere else the campaign trail has taken him all across the country.
Today, Chris Bowers discussed at Open Left the demand Governor Richardson made today for clarity from the other Democratic candidates on ending the Iraq War:
Bill Richardson just put out an interesting action alert:
All the major Democratic candidates say they are eager to end this war, and they all say they don't believe there is a military solution in Iraq. Why, then, do they maintain that we must leave an indefinite number of troops behind for an indeterminate amount of time to work hopelessly towards a military solution everyone says doesn't exist?
It is time to get a straight answer from all the other candidates: how many troops would you leave behind? For how long?
We can help make sure we get the clear answers we deserve. Sign our petition asking Univision, the sponsors of the next Democratic candidates' debate on September 9th, to get an answer from each candidate: how many troops would you leave behind? For how long?
I applaud Richardson's efforts on this front... However, if my experience on this front is any indication, even if this question is asked at the Univision debate, in all likelihood no one except Richardson and Biden will answer the question (Kucinich and Gravel might, since it is hard to predict what they do). The question will be labeled hypothetical, and the response will be that they will listen to the commanders on the ground. And then, the debate will move on to the next question.
The more I think about this dodge from Clinton, Obama, and Edwards on how many troops they intend to leave in Iraq, the angrier I become... The refusal to provide an estimate for how many troops Clinton, Edwards and Obama has nothing to do with a refusal to engage in hypotheticals. Presidential campaigns are clearly willing to dish out hypothetical numbers all the time on issues like health care and energy costs, or issues like reducing poverty and pollution, as long as their internal hypothetical numbers make them look good. As such, the only conclusions I can draw from repeated unwillingness of these campaigns to estimate how many troops they would leave in Iraq is that they either have no idea how many troops they would leave in Iraq, or the actual estimated figure would make these campaigns look very, very bad to the base. Either conclusion is disturbing should serve as the operating assumptions for every Democratic voter until these leading campaigns provide an actual estimate.
Right now, Bill Richardson is the only Democrat providing clarity on Iraq. I am not endorsing him, but I certainly hope he keeps rising in Iowa and New Hampshire using he transparent, progressive, "no residual force" position on Iraq.
Demand straight answers from every candidate by signing the petition now. And for more on Governor Richardson's policy platform on Iraq, click here.
Governor Richardson has also shown great leadership with his call for an energy and climate revolution. For , Phillip Martin discussed and compared each Democratic candidate's policy platforms on the environment and energy:
Somewhere between President Bush's inauguration and the release of Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, energy and environmental policy emerged as a leading policy issue the country. In doing so, the discussion about environmental causes has changed. Clean air, clean water, protecting public lands, preserving our national parks -- these aren't items you hear discussed any more in the national conversation. The environmental discussion is always running parallel to the energy discussion. The national conversation speaks in terms of energy independence and stopping global warming... Below the fold is a breakdown where the candidates stand on these issues...
CAFE standards - The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards measure the miles per gallon your car can travel. The less gasoline you burn, the better...
Richardson: 35 MPG by 2016, 50 MPG by 2020 (the boldest proposal of any candidate).
Greenhouse gas reduction/CO2 reduction - A leading cause of global warming is the amount of greenhouse gases we release into the air, therefore polluting our skies...
Richardson: Reduce emissions by 80% by 2040 (ten years earlier than any other candidate), and by 90% by 2050. Richardson also favors the cap-and-trade system.
Renewable energy - The use of wind and solar energy to generate electricity...
Richardson: Again, Richardson's plan goes above and beyond that of any other candidate: of all the electricity produced, his goal is to have 30% be from renewable energy by 2020 and 50% by 2040 (50%!).
Energy efficiency - What policies do the candidates advocate to conserve the energy being produced? ...
Richardson: Richardson wants to create a program to "enable electric and natural gas utilities to incentivize efficiency in rate structures" in order to reduce energy costs. Furthermore, he would provide tax credits to those companies that could store their wind/solar energy. He is a strong advocate of every kind of building and consumer energy efficiency technology, and lists dozens of simple changes that can be made to save electricity.
Oil subsidies - Rather self-explanatory: how would a Democratic president stand against the oil companies that have profited from President Bush and his administration? ...
Richardson: Richardson plans to cut oil demand by 50% by 2020 -- something that would be unrealistic if it weren't for his 7,700 word energy plan detailed on his website...
Other - Any other major policy ideas the candidates have put forward, along with what some others are saying about the candidates platform...
Richardson: I read through almost all of Richardson's 7,700 word energy and environmental plan. It's quite incredible -- at every step, he outlines the goal, his strategy, and then a series of policies to make the strategy successful and reach his goal. Richardson, followed closely by Edwards, has the most detailed energy policy of any candidate.
For more on Governor Richardson's Action Plan for an energy and climate revolution, click here.
Earlier this week, Governor Richardson spent two days in Iowa, stopping in at least seven different towns and cities. At Iowa Independent, Lynda Waddington wrote that at the "Presidential Job Interview" Governor Richardson held in Cedar Rapids Tuesday night, the governor answered several questions about health care, the AIDS crisis, and other domestic issues:
By the time presidential candidate Bill Richardson arrived for one of his patent job interviews at Coe College in Cedar Rapids, the roughly 100 chairs had been filled and overflow spectators stood beside walls and in the back of the room.
Here are a couple of the question-answer exchanges, as reported by Lynda Waddington:
"As a nation we've been unable to bring down the number of new HIV infections," a woman said. "In fact, President Bush's administration has failed to achieve a national goal of cutting that number in half and there is no new research. Will you, as president, make sure the U.S. Centers for Disease Control budget has the necessary resources?"
[Governor Richardson's answer] "I won't agree to every figure, but I do agree with the premise of what you're saying. We've got to have a more effective strategy of out-reach and education when it comes to AIDS." Richardson also pledged to make his vice president the head of the AIDS commission... "What we need is tougher strategies than what you mentioned -- besides outreach, education and funding," he said. "We have to be more innovative. We have to promote the use of condoms. We've got to have needle exchanges. We've got to be aggressive in our strategies and devote more to AIDS research."
Another woman, recently returned from Tanzania, wanted to know how a Richardson administration would combat the generation of breadwinners in that nation and across Africa who have died of AIDS...
While pointing to individuals in African leadership who have created barriers to AIDS treatments in their nations, Richardson also said U.S. diplomats play a big role. "A lot of this is politics, but it is also people," he said. "Who we appoint to do these things is a big decision. I would have a big focus in our programs for AIDS prevention, especially in Africa."
For more on Governor Richardson's health care policy platform, click here.
For the Des Moines Register today, David Yepsen wrote a column discussing Governor Richardson's continued momentum in Iowa:
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's uptick in the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign was visible here Tuesday night at a town meeting he held at Coe College. About 200 people showed up on a steamy summer evening to spend close to two hours listening to what he said was the "short version" of his stump speech - it still went 35 minutes - and then posing questions to him.
In Iowa, Richardson has moved from 1 percent support in the state to a middle tier all his own. That's more movement than any other Democratic candidate has seen this year...
Richardson has set the ambitious goal of finishing in the top three contenders in Iowa, which means he has to beat Clinton, Edwards or Obama, a feat that would deal an almost mortal blow to one of them and slingshot him into serious contention. While that objective is the correct one - no one who has ever finished worse than third in a caucus fight has ever gone on to win a nomination - those are formidable contenders. Moving into their top tier will be harder than moving out of the bottom ranks.
Still, it's possible. Edwards' populism sounds increasingly angry, and voters don't elect angry people to the presidency. Edwards has seen a clear lead in Iowa shrink to a statistical tie with Clinton and Obama. Also, many Iowa Democrats are worried about Clinton's electability... Obama is vexed by questions about his lack of experience. He also has upset some Democratic constituency groups by blowing off a number of Iowa events and debates because he doesn't want to be seen with his rivals. And with celebrity candidates like Clinton and Obama come big crowds and big security operations that make it hard for an activist, or a local reporter, to pose a question.
All of which gives Richardson an opening. A growing number of activists believe he puts together an impressive package. He notes in his stump speech that Clinton talks about experience, and Obama talks about change, "and with me you get both."
He is a former congressman, former U.N. ambassador, former energy secretary and current governor. He is of Latino ancestry. All of that gives him a unique portfolio to deal with a number of front-burner issues facing the country. Richardson's Iraq plan promises to get the United States out of that country faster than any of the leading contenders, something's that's music to the dovish hearts of many caucus-goers... caucus campaigns are more than just air wars. It takes a ground game, too, and Richardson seems to love retail campaigning. He's done more than 50 town meetings, including his often lighthearted talk-a-thon here Tuesday night. He calls them "job interviews," to dovetail with his paid media message.
Yepsen wasn't the only one recognizing the virtues of Governor Richardson's candidacy. For the Columbia Tribune, Boone County (Missouri) Democratic Committee member Bill Clark wrote a column about the importance of taking the time to seriously look at all presidential candidates - especially Governor Richardson:
Between now and early February, the campaign becomes a huge publicity war that will burn up hundreds of millions of dollars to select a candidate who might wind up being a lot less attractive tomorrow morning than tonight. In 8½ months, you might find you've chosen a loser and you'll lose for sure in November. It happened to the Democrats in 2004...
We need to have more time to learn more about the "lesser" candidates who don't have the funds to compete in the popularity derby. Their messages might be heard, but they are muffled by the ever-increasing volume of those better heeled. The press follows the leaders, and the "also-rans" will remain so because they are ignored...
The very interesting program at the August meeting of the Boone County Democratic Central Committee recently was stump-speaking for the various candidates. The committee members were given a chance to stump - or to speak - as if they were Obama or Clinton or Edwards - or Bill Richardson. Bill who? Ol' Clark is the Second Ward Democratic committeeman and finds himself amazed that our nation cannot see Bill Richardson as the next U.S. president; the only person with the experience and the negotiating ability to lead our country in the international arena, to attack the problems of immigration, to work both sides of the aisle successfully...
He's the governor of New Mexico, elected to a second term by 68 percent of the votes in a very Republican state. His treasury, though, is hardly a tenth of that of Obama or Clinton. I made sure I spoke first in this old-fashioned stump exercise, and I laid out the main reasons I want Bill Richardson to lead our nation.
I want a friendly person with a soft smile, but with the steely resolve to negotiate with the world's toughest leaders. I want a person with experience at many levels of government who understands the diverse needs of our domestic society as well as having international experience and respect. I want a person who has sat across from the world's leaders and touched those in need in the state where he governs...
This is Ol' Clark's man. His record was heard by the committee for the first time. No one had spoken for him in the past. He has no paid staff in Mid-Missouri. I might be his only spokesman.
When a vote was taken after the stump speaking, Richardson was the winner. Obama was second and Clinton third.
When facts, not hype, are given to the thinking public, things change.
That's all for today. Be sure you check out these blogs and others, and do your part to spread the message of Richardson for President. Set the record straight when others out in the blogosphere get the facts wrong. Write your own diaries. Pass these links and others like them along to your friends and family. This is your opportunity to participate in politics and help the campaign!
Until next time,
Alison