Richardson Out Amid Scandal
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is withdrawing his nomination to be commerce secretary, he and President-elect Barack Obama said in statements Sunday.
Richardson cited the distraction of a federal investigation into his ties to a California company that won municipal bond business in New Mexico after contributing money to various Richardson causes.
Richardson’s statement explained that he asked Obama “not to move forward” with his nomination now.
“I do so with great sorrow. But a pending investigation of a company that has done business with New Mexico state government promises to extend for several weeks or, perhaps, even months,” the statement reads. “Let me say unequivocally that I and my Administration have acted properly in all matters and that this investigation will bear out that fact. But I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process.”
Obama sure knows how to pick them, doesn’t he. Whether it is his friends or members of his administration.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2009 at 1617 hrs
That’s not the Richardson Obama knew…
Posted by Owen on January 04, 2009 at 1627 hrs
How is this different than anything Doyle’s done?
What the hell’s up w/ the New Mexican State Capital Press Corps? Aren’t they supposed to just take the Guv for his word and then just re-print his press releases like good little soldiers?
Swear that’s how I was told the professionals in Madison did it all the time.
Posted by Kevin Binversie on January 04, 2009 at 1730 hrs
As much as I don’t mind seeing Dems get some of their own medicine, I like Richardson and think he is a good man.
He has the decency to step down rather than have clouds hanging over the administration. Back in my day that is what statemen did, even when they were innocent.
Hillary’s deal sounds more shady but you won’t get her to step aside with a crowbar. Either prying her fingers or bonking her on the head.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2009 at 1931 hrs
Unnnhhhhh….so what about an investigation into Paulson?
Posted by dad29 on January 04, 2009 at 2148 hrs
John Galt: ditto to everything you said.
Posted by David on January 04, 2009 at 2307 hrs
Man, to hear the narrative since 2005, you’d think only the GOP were corrupt SOB’s.
Between Blago, Richardson, and now Clinton, they make the GOP of late look like pikers, and lest we forgot our own Governor Doyle.
Is there a clean one in the bunch, or do their motivations absolve them of their means?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2009 at 2324 hrs
I just want to make the point that if you think wanting to help out your donors makes you crooked, then pretty much every politician on earth is crooked. The only reason wealthy people and lobbyists max out is to curry favor with politicians. You think wealthy couples are forking over $4600 in two checks to a candidate because they love democracy?
If PLW cuts Dan LeMahieu a check and encourages its members to donate to him, and then LeMahieu pursues a bunch of PLW initiatives, does that mean he’s crooked too? I would argue not. If he gets some pro-life bill passed and PLW cuts him a check afterward, does that mean he’s corrupt? No.
There’s a distinction between helping your friends and engaging in quid pro quo that needs to be drawn here, and I think some of you are blurring the line without having any factual basis for doing so.
Quid pro quo shouldn’t be tolerated under any circumstances. But we don’t know that either Richardson or Clinton are guilty of that. The Blagojevich tapes, on the other hand, spell it out rather clearly. But even he’s entitled to his day in court.
The only way to eliminate this type of real or perceived corruption is to go to a system of full public financing, I’m guessing most of you don’t want to do that.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 05, 2009 at 0115 hrs
RS,
Good to see that itch to beat up on Pro-Life Wisconsin was scratched again. Must be hard to not be able to egg their offices personally from out there in South Dakota.
While your point is valid, you’re also generalizing a tad too much. This isn’t about legislation, it’s about state contracts. You more than any of us, know the difference between that.
There’s a proper and legal process for both, and it appears from the early information coming out of Santa Fe that Richardson was leaning hard for an out-of-state contractor - and contributor of his - to get a state contract only his office could hand out.
As for Richardson’s decision to pull his name from nomination, it could mean either he’s a statesman, or he’s more concerned he could have the shortest tenure ever for a Commerce Secretary.
Posted by Kevin Binversie on January 05, 2009 at 0756 hrs
Or it could mean that Obama demanded his resignation because he didn’t tell the transition team that he was being investigated. All of you seem to assume that it was Richardson’s idea to pull his name from consideration. I think there’s an even chance that a directive came from above.
Posted by Ordinary Jill on January 05, 2009 at 0856 hrs
Sorry Jill, but he has been under investigation for sometime and it’s been common knowledge. If Obama and his campaign didn’t know, then they are dumber than we all thought.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 0903 hrs
“There’s a difference between helping your friends and engaging in quid pro quo that needs to be drawn…”
No, there isn’t. And yes, that does make many politicians crooks.
Public financing won’t change any of this. Public financing would merely entrench the existing parties even further.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 0931 hrs
BBB,
Public financing would merely entrench the existing parties even further.
Explain, please?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 0945 hrs
Any public financing scheme is going to be centered around a minimum number of sigantures/votes in prior elections/other funds raised, etc. All of this will favor the existing parties and their candidates.
The problem isn’t financing. The problem is that government now controls a purse that is far too large. Any purse of that size will be corrupted.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1032 hrs
The problem is that government now controls a purse that is far too large. Any purse of that size will be corrupted.
Exactly… Too many spoils to be fought over. When there is this much “wealth distribution” everyone needs to volley for position under the faucet.
as for quid pro quo… good grief. Thats ALL politics is these days. “Vote for me, I’ll give you a tax breat and raise taxes on the guy across town.” “Vote for me and I’ll give you free healthcare”
Work on my campaign and I’ll appoint you a judge…
There’s no end.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1247 hrs
Kevin,
That’s a fair point. Obviously, the legislative and contracting processes are different, and certainly the control of the contracting process tends to be more centralized. That should probably increase our level of scrutiny, since they’re often run via sealed bid by a handful of people and the decisions made are often far removed from public scrutiny.
As for PLW, hey, I just needed a hypothetical. I suppose I could’ve used WMC too. Although I will say that I think the tragedy of PLW is that the members spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbyists and lobbying efforts that never amount to squat - another thing I’ve witnessed firsthand. They’d be better off spending the money on grassroots organizing and developing a good media campaign. At least then they’d have something to show for it.
Also, thanks for passing that hello along from our mutual acquaintance a few weeks ago. He’s certainly a fountain of knowledge and the most terrifying source of fantasy stats ever. Next time you see him, ask him about his baseball spreadsheets.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 05, 2009 at 1307 hrs
RS,
Hey, I’m just grateful I’m not on some sort of auto-block with your comments. You never know these days.
Until then, how about we agree to keep on perpetual lookout for Bill Richardson’s baseball draft status?
Posted by Kevin Binversie on January 05, 2009 at 1339 hrs
Is there a clean one in the bunch, or do their motivations absolve them of their means?
Publius - Ask Scott - the resident Dem - he has admitted on a few occasions that the ends justify the means as long as it is a dem doing it…
Once again for Obama to be the smartest president ever - he sure isn’t that bright when it comes to the people that he hangs out with and has preaching to him…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1504 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 106
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 03:16 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).