NAFTA critically important for US as well as Mexico: Strongly Favors {supporting & expanding free trade}
Expand regional trade with Chihuahua: Strongly Favors {supporting & expanding free trade}
Supports NAFTA, GATT, & WTO: Strongly Favors {supporting & expanding free trade}

Protective tariffs generally had been a Republican thing up until Richard Nixon. With this in mind, it was not surprising to old fashioned Republicans that it was a Democrat, Bill Richardson, who worked to fashion a trade policy that allowed American jobs to go to underpaid child laborers in foreign countries that lacked environmental and labor safeguards while American consumers chose foreign goods over American goods. Bill Richardson, promoter of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), saw his dream of a corporate-run world manifested when Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law. Richardson's plan to become President is also the dream of his backers, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which more recently brought us the bankruptcy-elimination legislation. To this day, Bill Richardson stands for free trade and big business.

"NAFTA was critically important, and not only for the reasons commonly cited by its supporters. Yes, the treaty would create the world's largest free-trade region, a market of 360 million people in the US, Canada, and Mexico. Estimates of NAFTA's economic impact varied, but the treaty promised to be a win-win-win for all three countries." http://www.massscorecard.org/Archive/Betwe... Between Worlds by Bill Richardson, p. 112, Nov 3, 2005

In Bill Richardson's own words, his answers to questions about NAFTA, GATT and the WTO:
Q: Do you support broadening North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to include other countries?
A : Yes.
Q: Do you support the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support the WTO?
A: Yes.
Source: 1996 Congressional National Political Awareness Test Nov 1, 1996,http://www.massscorecard.org/2008/Bill_Ric...

Any questions about where this guy stands on the WTO, GATT or NAFTA?

Is anyone surprised that he is a poster boy for the DLC? His corporate connections may explain why he supports continuing to cut taxes for the rich.

Interestingly, his work with the Bilderberg Group has done nothing to prepare Richardson for rescuing corporations from disaster. Serious questions have arisen over his involvement with Peregrine Systems. Inc. He served on the board of directors from February 2001 to June 2002. During that time, the company was reportedly covering up accounting fraud in the amount of $509 million in overstated profits and $2.6 billion in understated losses. He resigned two months after the SEC uncovered the fraud conspiracy. According to Wikipedia, Peregrine's leadership covered up their schemes while selling off their stock, as the result of an audit by BMC. This and other scandals led to the demise of Arthur Andersen, who reportedly aided executives involved in the cover up deceptions. The shareholder equity loss totaled over $4 billion dollars. His close friend and in-law, Peregrine's former president and CEO, Stephen Gardner pled guilty on March 13, 2007 to three felony charges of defrauding the company and shareholders out of millions of dollars. Peregrine filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on September 23, 2002, after laying off the majority of its employees, thousands of workers. During his time on the board Richardson reportedly attended 15 board meetings and was briefed several times on the accounting meltdown inside the company. Richardson made no known move to protect the stockholders or employees. Some believe that Richardson will have little better odds of being elected President than anyone on the board of Enron, a company where similar leadership resulted in a similar disaster.

The Bilderberg Group's power would make a good plot for a movie. Most informed Americans wish it were as fictional as most movies. It is a quasi secret consortium of the international elite who meet annually to plan world economic and political policies. It is connected with the powers behind the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. The attendees and events at the meetings are known, despite attempts to keep the meetings private. Much has been written about the organization, its members and selection process for the U.S. Presidency. Bill Richardson and most 2008 candidates for the Presidency have attended its meetings. The Bilderberg Group is looking forward to seeing one of its vetted candidates, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Chris Dodd, becoming the next commander and chief.

Bill Richardson's campaign is promoting the International Money Fund (IMF), the front for a group that believes corporations should be able to privatize the world and its resources, including food and water. This has been a disaster for countries where the citizens had to march in the street to get rid of the unsanitary privatization of their resources. On Richardson's campaign website, there is a call for providing the IMF with more resources. Bill Richardson received praise at a G-7 summit for his call for the United Nations to serve as a parallel forum to the Bretton Woods institutions. The Bretton Woods Committee notes, in its mission statement, that it "seeks to increase understanding of the World Bank, IMF, WTO and the regional development banks and their efforts to spur economic growth, alleviate poverty and improve financial stability." Mr. Richardson has a history of participation in the Global Marketplace G-7 conferences.

California and Nevada farmers are concerned about the impact of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository. Scientists have found that the design is unsafe and that normal ground water levels could flood the containment area, leading to contamination of the ground water and the Colorado River. As the head of the Department of Energy, Richardson approved a $3.1 billion contract with Bechtel for work on the project. Richardson's department issued a controversial report validating Yucca Mountain's suitability for the project.

Richardson has declared his strong support for the death penalty, a punishment that, in the Western Hemisphere, has been only used by the United States in recent years.

Some Americans would use the word "racist" to describe Richardson's call for revoking citizenship of children of immigrants. "Children of illegal immigrants, born in the United States, should not automatically receive US citizenship." http://www.massscorecard.org/2008/Bill_Ric... The ambiguity has caused Latino groups to ignore Richardson and look for candidates who will not threaten the rights of children.

If politics were a sport or an adventure, Bill Richardson would be a leader of a mountain-climbing expedition for a pot of gold at the top of a dangerous mountain. He would make sure that the richest climbers had the better equipment. After learning that the hard-working climbers in his party were using defective equipment, he would silently rush on while allowing ropes to break and his supporters to fall off the cliff. When he got close to the goal, he would tell the majority of climbers who stuck it out with him they are no longer needed and to return home.

NAFTA was critically important, and not only for the reasons commonly cited by its supporters. Yes, the treaty would create the world's largest free-trade region, a market of 360 million people in the US, Canada, and Mexico. Estimates of NAFTA's economic impact varied, but the treaty promised to be a win-win-win for all three countries.

That didn't mean the absence of dislocation: while NAFTA figured to create more jobs in the US, some jobs would be lost. A key part of the final bill presented to Congress needed to include worker-adjustment programs and other so-called side agreements addressing such issues as labor standards and the environment.

I felt the treaty was crucial to Mexico. I thought NAFTA would create positive economic change and help to stimulate a broader political debate. I thought it also had the potential to affect the immigration issue: if Mexico's economy boomed, better-paying jobs would provide Mexicans an incentive to stay home.
Click for Bill Richardson on other issues. Source: Between Worlds, by Bill Richardson, p.112-3

Thoughts on the South Carolina Presidential Debate

I saw most of the South Carolina debate tonight. However, I just had gotten home, was eating dinner, and cleaning up while it was on. Here is my feelings on how the debate went:

I was impressed with the questions that were asked by Brian Williams. These weren't at all softball questions. With 8 candidates however, it was hard for them to get very in depth on the answers during the 90 minute debate. The yes/no, raise your hand, and 1 sentence answers were dumb. Just ask the question, give them a time limit, and let the candidates go.

As for how the candidates performed, I think Biden did very well. He came across as knowledgeable and personable. Gravel made some good points. At least he had some fire, though he will probably be known as the crazy old guy from now own. He and Kucinich probably had too much time. Obama's charisma showed on the debate stage and it was interesting to see Kucinich and Gravel go after him about being anti-war. Edwards and Clinton all did well enough and didn't hurt themselves at all.

I was disappointed with Richardson. He hogged all the time and every answer had at least 3 or 4 parts before they cut him off. Note to Richardson: we aren't looking for 12 point plans, we are looking for someone to lead based on principles. We can get to the details later on. Was Dodd even there?

Here are my rankings of their performance during the debate...
1. Joe Biden
2. Barack Obama
3. John Edwards
4. Hillary Clinton
5. Mike Gravel
6. Dennis Kucinich
7. Chris Dodd
8. Bill Richardson

As U.N. ambassador under Pres. Bill Clinton, Richardson represented the administration’s view that free trade could ultimately be a positive thing for the country. In a speech at the City of Denver’s Annual Free Trade Dinner,

“Richardson warned …against the threat of pacifism in the face of global opportunities and challenges, and emphasized the growing importance of free trade, both to Americans and the world at large….'We must be willing to embrace, not selfishly evade, the responsibilities and obligations that the imperative of American leadership entails,' Ambassador Richardson told the several hundred guests. To do so, 'we must do more to seize the opportunity and the limitless possibilities that free trade and global engagement represents for the American people.' ” (Richardson’s remarks, 5/19/98)

But Richardson supports stronger enforcements for wage disparity and worker and environmental protection.

"On the pending free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia, Richardson said, 'I'm a free trader. But I think free trade agreements have to have stronger enforcements in three areas: wage disparity, worker protection and environmental protection.' He said he would only support the pending trade deals if they contain stronger enforcement provisions in those areas." (Miami Herald, 2/26/07)

He stood at the center of "Spin Alley" -- a room given over to candidates and their chosen mouthpieces for hours of post-debate "analysis." And Richardson was analyzing away.

"I came out as the most moderate candidate with the clearest position on Iraq," Richardson insisted as he took a slug from a bottle of water. "I'm a different kind of Democrat."

Richardson was working overtime -- hence the sweat -- to sell that message, a pitch he had struggled to make during the 90-minute debate, where he often looked uncomfortable on stage and failed to distinguish himself from the other "second-tier" candidates.

For Richardson, Spin Alley offered a second bite at the apple, a unique opportunity to change conventional wisdom before it hardened.

"I am not a rock star, but I've got a solid record," he said. "I have got serious experience. I get things done."

Richardson is a former congressman, an ambassador to the United Nations and Secretary of Energy under President Clinton. A staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, he said he believes he is the party's moderate candidate.

"We can also win by sending another strong message, and that is that we are, as Democrats, capable in maintaining and defending our country. We have to be able to use force when diplomacy fails and when our national security is threatened."

In early 1998, at another moment when the United States was gearing up for war against Iraq, Secretary General Kofi Annan went to Baghdad and negotiated a last-minute agreement with Saddam Hussein. The agreement was designed to resolve problems with the arms inspections and to stave off the threat of a U.S. war. When Annan came back to New York, the Security Council crafted a new resolution endorsing his agreement. Then-US ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson demanded that the resolution call for "severest consequences" if Iraq should violate the agreement in the future; under pressure, the Council agreed.

(snip)

So on March 2, 1998, after the resolution passed, a parade of ambassadors emerged from the Security Council chamber, one by one, to insist that their resolution did not include "automaticity." It did not, they said, authorize any country—including the United States—to launch a unilateral military strike against Iraq. Ambassador Richardson came last. Dismissing his predecessors' insistence that the resolution did not authorize a military strike, he shrugged and told the press, "We think it does." Months later, without UN authorization, the United States and Britain devastated Iraq in the four-day mini-war of bombs and cruise missiles known as Desert Fox.

As a former senior member of the Clinton Administration, I know first hand of the efforts that were made to capture and eliminate Osama bin Laden. This includes the trip I made as United Nations Ambassador in April 1998 to Kabul, Afghanistan. During this trip – the first by a U.S. cabinet official to Afghanistan since 1974 – I met with high ranking officials of the ruling Taliban regime and directly requested that bin Laden be expelled or extradited. The Taliban refused, but I know this sort of muscular diplomacy got bin Laden’s attention since he threatened to kill me.