Richardson - New Sec. of Comm.

[ABQCOWBOY]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28019648

Obama names Richardson commerce secretary
Vanquished Dem rival was passed over for coveted secretary of state role

Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP
President-elect Barack Obama announces his choice of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as Commerce Secretary-designate on Wednesday, calling him an "economic diplomat for America."
View related photos Video


Cabinet nod
Dec. 3: President-elect Barack Obama announces his pick for commerce secretary.
MSNBC



Video

Obama misses Richardson's 'rugged look'
Dec. 3: "That whole western rugged look was working for him," President-elect Obama said, lamenting Bill Richardson's lack of a beard after nominating him for commerce secretary.
MSNBC


INTERACTIVE

Who will be in Obama's Cabinet?
What are the key roles and who will be filing them.

Video: White House
Richardson receives commerce nod
Dec. 3: President-elect Barack Obama announces New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as his pick for commerce secretary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama: 'We should maintain' viable auto industry
Obama misses Richardson's 'rugged look'
Strategy shift? The future of U.S.-Middle Eastern relations

Video

Looking back at the historic race
Nov. 5: NBC News offers a retrospective of the historic 2008 race for the White House.
Nightly News


Presidential legacies

Getty Images Harry S. Truman
From the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the end of World War II to the beginning of the cold war.

AP John F. Kennedy
The Cuban missle crisis, civil rights and Vietnam dominated his short presidency.

Getty Images Richard Nixon
Astronauts walk on the moon, shootings at Kent State, meetings with Brezhnev and the Watergate scandal.

UPI via Getty Images Ronald Reagan
Cold war, war on drugs, the Challenger disaster, Beirut and Berlin bombings and Iran-Contra scandal.

AFP - Getty Images Bill Clinton
Welfare reform, the Brady bill, Somalia, Kosovo, budget surplus and the scandals that plagued him.

AFP/Getty Images George W. Bush
A contested election, Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, war in Iraq, hurricane Katrina, and economic crisis.

updated 8 minutes ago
CHICAGO - President-elect Barack Obama named New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as commerce secretary on Wednesday, filling a top economic post in troubled times and placing a second former campaign rival in his new Cabinet.

Talking optimistically despite the recession, Obama also said, "We have everything we need to renew our economy, we have the ingenuity and technology, the skill and commitment — we just need to put it to work."

The president-elect called Richardson a leading "economic diplomat for America. During his time in state government and Congress, and in two tours of duty in the Cabinet, Bill has seen from just about every angle what makes our economy work and what keeps it from working better."

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement | your ad here

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama seemed in a lighthearted mood as he made the announcement. Asked about Richardson's recent decision to shave his beard, Obama joked that he was "deeply disappointed." He said he guessed Richardson decided to jettison the facial hair after his wife found it scratchy.

Richardson, 61, was United Nations ambassador and energy secretary during the Clinton administration, and he is in his second term as New Mexico's governor. He also served seven terms in the House of Representatives.

If confirmed by the Senate, he would take over a sprawling department that oversees the National Weather Service, the Census Bureau, economic development programs and more.

One of the nation's most prominent Hispanic politicians, Richardson pledged — in English and Spanish — to work to renew the economy.

Primary opponent
He will become the latest former Democratic primary opponent to join Obama's Cabinet. The incoming chief executive has chosen another adversary-turned-ally, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to be his secretary of state. Obama also chose former rival Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate.

Obama is considering another Hispanic politician, California Democratic Rep. Xavier Becerra, to be U.S. Trade Representative, according to two Democratic officials speaking on a condition of anonymity ahead of an announcement for the position.

New Mexico's Lt. Gov. Diane Denish, a Democrat will become the state's first female governor when Richardson leaves to assume his new post. Denish will take over for the remainder of Richardson's term, which runs through 2010.

In neighboring Arizona, the ascension of a Democratic governor will put the state in the hands of a Republican governor.

Under Arizona state law, the move of Gov. Janet Napolitano to secretary of Homeland Security will mean a Republican, Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer, will assume the reins there.

The president-elect has moved quickly to fill out his Cabinet, having named more than half of it in the month since he was elected the country's 44th president.


Click for related content
Obama teams scrutinize federal agencies
Gates: Military looks to accelerate Iraq pullout
Celebrities to flock to Obama inauguration
Obama has bipartisan economy pledge for govs


Worked for Clinton administration
An energy secretary and United Nations ambassador in President Bill Clinton's administration, Richardson was a contender for the State Department job, but Obama offered him the post as commerce secretary after choosing the former first lady as his top diplomat.

Among those Cabinet posts yet to be disclosed if not chosen: the heads of the Interior, Transportation, Labor, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs departments. Obama also has yet to name his intelligence team, including his director of national intelligence and CIA chief.

Hate to sound like a broken record here but this is not change. This is Clinton's Energy Sec. now Commerce Sec. Track record on Richardson is not very good. I hope he fairs much better at Commerce.

[Sasquatch]

Hate to sound like a broken record here but this is not change. This is Clinton's Energy Sec. now Commerce Sec. Track record on Richardson is not very good. I hope he fairs much better at Commerce.

Well, for some, competence and intelligence is change enough. I personally think that Richardson will be bumped to SoS after Clinton is dismissed after the first term provided he succeeds in being a two-term president.

[NinePointOh]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but please name a choice you would have considered "change."

Apparently, everyone who worked in any capacity under any previous administration is automatically disqualified, as is anyone who has known or worked with Obama in the past, as is any "RINO."

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well, for some, competence and intelligence is change enough. I personally think that Richardson will be bumped to SoS after Clinton is dismissed after the first term provided he succeeds in being a two-term president.


I hope not Sas. I actually know Richardson. I am not a close friend or anything of the like. I have just meet him on 3 or 4 occasions. However, I have had many dealings with DOE while he was there and as he was Governer of the State I live in, I have had opportunity to watch work while in office. I am not overly impressed. I really hope you are wrong on this one. JMO.

[masomenos]

I hope not Sas. I actually know Richardson. I am not a close friend or anything of the like. I have just meet him on 3 or 4 occasions. However, I have had many dealings with DOE while he was there and as he was Governer of the State I live in, I have had opportunity to watch work while in office. I am not overly impressed. I really hope you are wrong on this one. JMO.

Doesn't Richardson have one of the higher approval ratings among governors?

[ABQCOWBOY]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but please name a choice you would have considered "change."

Apparently, everyone who worked in any capacity under any previous administration is automatically disqualified, as is anyone who has known or worked with Obama in the past, as is any "RINO."

Or, perhaps it's just a case of knowing more about Richardson then the average guy. No, that probably isn't it.

To answer your question, I think a decent choice might have been Conrad Lautenbacher but hey, that's just my opinion and as we all know, I am in the minority.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Doesn't Richardson have one of the higher approval ratings among governors?

So does Palin...so not sure that means too much.:cool:

[BrAinPaiNt]

I hope not Sas. I actually know Richardson. I am not a close friend or anything of the like. I have just meet him on 3 or 4 occasions. However, I have had many dealings with DOE while he was there and as he was Governer of the State I live in, I have had opportunity to watch work while in office. I am not overly impressed. I really hope you are wrong on this one. JMO.

I think his power in the force increased with his goatee...he is a better man now.:p: ;)

[ABQCOWBOY]

Doesn't Richardson have one of the higher approval ratings among governors?


I can't imagine how. This state likes the fact that they have somebody who is known in Washington. Especially now that Pete Dominici has stepped down. However, it is pretty commen knowledge in NM that Diane Denish did most of the heavy lifting in NM, under Richardson. Bill Richardson has been politicing since he was elected Governer here. More time doing your job, less time trying to fit back into Washington politics is the commen believe in many circles here in NM.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think his power in the force increased with his goatee...he is a better man now.:p: ;)


Seriously BP, this guy is a trainwreck. No BS.

:o:

[masomenos]

So does Palin...so not sure that means too much.:cool:

You're preempting my argument Brain, damn you! I was going to say that, for many, Palin's popularity in her home state was a reasonable qualification for Vice President. Using the same logic, Richardson's approval rating would make him more than qualified for a cabinet position.

Spoil sport. :p:

[NinePointOh]

Or, perhaps it's just a case of knowing more about Richardson then the average guy. No, that probably isn't it.

That argument would have a lot more credibility if not for the broken record. It's not just Richardson - it's been every single appointment, without exception.

If someone has any kind of tie to a previous administration, they're "retreads," no matter what supporting role they played or who was giving them their orders. If someone has no ties to a previous administration, but has known Obama for more than nine months, he's rewarding his old Chicago buddies. Even the rumors about Powell and Hagel are dismissed because they're "just RINOs" who are jumping ship and joining the bandwagon.

To answer your question, I think a decent choice might have been Conrad Lautenbacher but hey, that's just my opinion and as we all know, I am in the minority.

That'd never fly here. He's worked in the executive branch for 7 years under the outgoing administration. He'd be a "retread" and therefore "not change."

[BrAinPaiNt]

Seriously BP, this guy is a trainwreck. No BS.

:o:

I don't know him well enough one way or the other. I also don't know how much power or influence he will have in his appointment.

I know that I don't like Hillary so I am not too pleased at her appointment, but she is qualified I guess.

I like him keeping Gates on.

But I don't know about Richardson so I can not say one way or another. But if there is any comfort for you, just consider at one time there was talk about him getting higher jobs in the admin.:o:

[ABQCOWBOY]

That argument would have a lot more credibility if not for the broken record. It's not just Richardson - it's been every single appointment, without exception.

If someone has any kind of tie to a previous administration, they're "retreads," no matter what supporting role they played or who was giving them their orders. If someone has no ties to a previous administration, but has known Obama for more than nine months, he's rewarding his old Chicago buddies. Even the rumors about Powell and Hagel are dismissed because they're "just RINOs" who are jumping ship and joining the bandwagon.



That'd never fly here. He's worked in the executive branch for 7 years under the outgoing administration. He'd be a "retread" and therefore "not change."


The problem here is that you seem to believe this is an argument. Your incorrect. My credability in this matter is not in question. All I have said is a matter of record. I can see that you have little knowledge of Richardson and his previous dealings as a cabinate member. That's fine, I guess we will all learn together. For me, it's more of the same but for you, it will be a bit of an education.

Notice you didn't comment on who I thought might have been a decent option. Did you not like the choice?

[MrMom]

All I know about Bill Richardson is that he occasionally sports a sexy beard.

http://brotherpeacemaker.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/richardson-and-obama.jpg

=Win

[NinePointOh]

The problem here is that you seem to believe this is an argument. Your incorrect. My credability in this matter is not in question. All I have said is a matter of record.

The problem here is that you seem to believe this is all about you and your credibility. It's not. It's about the tactic you and plenty of others used. My comments were directed at the scads of threads that pop up here and on every other political board following every new cabinet announcement, all of which ask "how is this change?"

You did exactly that, and in your original post, justified your question by pointing out that Richardson was in Clinton's cabinet -- once again making the argument that if you've served under a previous administration, you don't embody change.

I can see that you have little knowledge of Richardson and his previous dealings as a cabinate member. That's fine, I guess we will all learn together. For me, it's more of the same but for you, it will be a bit of an education. I'm rather curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion without my ever commenting on Richardson specifically. I can see that you have no knowledge of me and my background. That's fine, but that would preclude most rational people from making such assumptions in some attempt to, I guess, appear superior.

Notice you didn't comment on who I thought might have been a decent option. Did you not like the choice?Actually, I did comment on him. I'd asked you to name someone who would fit your definition of "change," and you named someone who possesses the same flaw you criticized in Richardson in your original post.

If you're asking do I like the guy, I'd say he's fairly sufficiently qualified, but that there's not a whole lot of information to go on indicating his stances on economic issues that would be quite relevant to the Secretary of Commerce. But again, my entire point was about how "do I like the guy?" is an entirely different question from "can this guy embody change?", and I asked the latter, not the former.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You're preempting my argument Brain, damn you! I was going to say that, for many, Palin's popularity in her home state was a reasonable qualification for Vice President. Using the same logic, Richardson's approval rating would make him more than qualified for a cabinet position.

Spoil sport. :p:

The problem here is that Richardson has already had opportunity to prove himself. He was Sec. of Energy from 98 to 01. It would probably help to read up on his tenure during those years.

In the case of Palin, there is the fact that they were both Governers in commen but that's about it. Your point, as I understand it, that because Palin is Governer and as such, qualified to be VP or perhaps President, does not carry over to Richardson IMO. AS of May, his approval rating was 56%, down 18 points from the previous year. He's not as popular as you might think. Richardson has already had his opportunity. Palin hasn't so I do think that it's different for both. My issues with Richardson are his actual performance of duty when in power.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The problem here is that you seem to believe this is all about you and your credibility. It's not. It's about the tactic you and plenty of others used. My comments were directed at the scads of threads that pop up here and on every other political board following every new cabinet announcement, all of which ask "how is this change?"

You did exactly that, and in your original post, justified your question by pointing out that Richardson was in Clinton's cabinet -- once again making the argument that if you've served under a previous administration, you don't embody change.

I'm rather curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion without my ever commenting on Richardson specifically. I can see that you have no knowledge of me and my background. That's fine, but that would preclude most rational people from making such assumptions in some attempt to, I guess, appear superior.

Actually, I did comment on him. I'd asked you to name someone who would fit your definition of "change," and you named someone who possesses the same flaw you criticized in Richardson in your original post.

If you're asking do I like the guy, I'd say he's fairly sufficiently qualified, but that there's not a whole lot of information to go on indicating his stances on economic issues that would be quite relevant to the Secretary of Commerce. But again, my entire point was about how "do I like the guy?" is an entirely different question from "can this guy embody change?", and I asked the latter, not the former.


Your comments were directed at me. I caution you. Do not let this get overly out of hand. The truth of the matter is that you know nothing of Richardson but because he has been selected, you have elected to lump me in with whatever stable of individuals you are currently ranting over. There is nothing, at all wrong with people asking the question, "How is this change?"

Richardson, in fact, was in Clinton's cabinat and was dismissed from it. The point and the question is fair. If you have nothing to offer up as info, then why try to argue over this?

I have no knowledge of you, that I know of. That's correct. I do, however, know that you don't have much knowledge of Richardson. If you had any, you would not have issue with what I said.

You asked who would represent change. Well, I told you who I thought might be a good choice. I don't know how you can say he's the same as Richardson. Be that as it may, Richardson does not represent change. He's a retread that has already been dismissed once.

[masomenos]

The problem here is that Richardson has already had opportunity to prove himself. He was Sec. of Energy from 98 to 01. It would probably help to read up on his tenure during those years.

In the case of Palin, there is the fact that they were both Governers in commen but that's about it. Your point, as I understand it, that because Palin is Governer and as such, qualified to be VP or perhaps President, does not carry over to Richardson IMO. AS of May, his approval rating was 56%, down 18 points from the previous year. He's not as popular as you might think. Richardson has already had his opportunity. Palin hasn't so I do think that it's different for both. My issues with Richardson are his actual performance of duty when in power.

The thing is, while Richardson has already served as a cabinet member, he's going into this Sec. of Com. position with new experience. Do you not think that six years as governor has shaped Richardson at all or changed the way he handles political matters? It's wrong to assume that past performance is indicative of future results. That's something that we so so often in free agency in the NFL.

As of Oct. Richardson's approval rating was 58% which easily places him as one of the top higher rated governors. At the same point in time, Palin's approval rating was 68% in Alaska.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The thing is, while Richardson has already served as a cabinet member, he's going into this Sec. of Com. position with new experience. Do you not think that six years as governor has shaped Richardson at all or changed the way he handles political matters? It's wrong to assume that past performance is indicative of future results. That's something that we so so often in free agency in the NFL.

As of Oct. Richardson's approval rating was 58% which easily places him as one of the top higher rated governors. At the same point in time, Palin's approval rating was 68% in Alaska.


No, I don't really know how it's improved him, to be honest. I mean, seriously, all Richardson has done since he's been here is get on a plane to somewhere else. He's worked to try and get eleceted President. That's why his popularity has taken such a hit over the past several months. Remember, a year ago, it was 68%. In a heavily democratic state (70%), 58 is not as good as you might think.

[NinePointOh]

Your comments were directed at me.

Of course they were. You were the one who made the original statement.

The truth of the matter is that you know nothing of Richardson but because he has been selected, you have elected to lump me in with whatever stable of individuals you are currently ranting over.So ... are you denying that you asked "how is this change" and called Richardson a "retread" because he was in the Clinton administration? If not, I'm afraid I don't see your point.

There is nothing, at all wrong with people asking the question, "How is this change?" Nobody's censoring them. But there's also nothing wrong with me responding to them and saying, "your criticism is based on an extremely tenuous argument."

Richardson, in fact, was in Clinton's cabinat and was dismissed from it. You've repeated this several times, but truth is you're wrong. Richardson continued to serve as Secretary of Energy until January 20, 2001 when George W. Bush was sworn in and he was replaced by Spence Abraham. When your entire argument hinges on being more "knowledgeable" than everyone else, it would probably help to have your facts straight.

I have no knowledge of you, that I know of. That's correct. I do, however, know that you don't have much knowledge of Richardson. If you had any, you would not have issue with what I said.Yes, of course. Because anyone who disagrees with you on a subjective political matter must be stupid or ignorant. Ad hominem attacks for the win, am I right?

You asked who would represent change. Well, I told you who I thought might be a good choice. I don't know how you can say he's the same as Richardson. Be that as it may, Richardson does not represent change. He's a retread that has already been dismissed once.Again, that's false. Richardson wasn't dismissed. Lautenhauer, despite his credentials, fits your own definition of a "retread" just as much as Richardson.