Bill Richardson and the Senate Option

by Steve Kornacki | October 4, 2007

| Tags:

Getty Images

The United States Senate is the world’s most exclusive club, but it’s also where presidential ambitions go to die.

And now that New Mexico’s Pete Domenici is retiring after six terms, Bill Richardson has a tough call to make.

Mr. Richardson is running for President, but his campaign is going nowhere. There are several reasons for this. Given the shadow Hillary Clinton has cast over the field from day one, it was always going to difficult for any lesser-known Democrat to break into the top tier, and it became nearly impossible when Barack Obama jumped in last fall and sucked up most of the remaining oxygen. And whatever chance Mr. Richardson, who brought to the race one of the most compelling personal and political biographies ever seen at the presidential level, did have of breaking through he’s ruined with an inarticulate, gaffe-prone style that has left open-minded Democrats scratching their heads and asking, This is the same guy who negotiated with the North Koreans?

But Mr. Domenici’s Senate seat is suddenly available—the 75-year-old Republican announced on Oct. 4 that a progressive brain disorder that causes dementia will force him to stand down in 2008--and Mr. Richardson, who was easily re-elected to a second term as New Mexico’s governor last fall, can probably have the seat if he wants it.

He doesn’t need to decide right away: the filing deadline for the Senate race isn’t until after the first wave of presidential primaries and caucuses next year. So, in theory, Mr. Richardson can win his 11 percent in Iowa, call it a moral victory, then take a beating on February 5 and jump to the Senate race. It’s the perfect golden parachute. And there’s certainly a precedent for it, most recently with Elizabeth Dole and Lamar Alexander, who landed in the Senate in 2002 after George W. Bush outbid them for the G.O.P. presidential nomination in 2000.

But for Mr. Richardson, who is about to turn 60, it would be a much bigger decision than that. And actually, the Dole and Alexander examples are quite relevant to his dilemma. Each of them was advancing in years in ’02 (Mr. Alexander was 62 and Mrs. Dole was 66), and with Mr. Bush seeking re-election in ’04, they both realized they were out of realistic chances of winning the White House. So they took the next best thing available and ran for the Senate.

As Mr. Richardson is doubtless aware, taking the seat would undercut his positioning for another presidential run in ’12 or ‘16. Simply put, senators make terrible presidential candidates, a truism Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and Sam Brownback have done their best to reaffirm this year. (Yes, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are also Senators, but they are celebrities first and foremost and have succeeded in spite of their service in the upper house, not because of it.)

More to the point, by launching a Senate campaign next spring, Mr. Richardson would be removing himself from contention for the Number Two slot on his party’s ’08 national ticket—a role that would serve as the perfect stepping-stone a second campaign for the top job.

Mr. Richardson will be term-limited out of the governor’s office in 2010, so the pressure is on to plan his next move, especially since seats in New Mexico seem to open once every generation or two.

The real problem for Mr. Richardson is how disappointing he’s been as a presidential candidate. Had he matched the lofty expectations for his candidacy, he would at least be the “buzz” choice for vice-president, much the way John Edwards was in 2004. And he’d be able to count on a loyal core of supporters to keep his presidential flame burning until the next time the nomination is open.

Instead he's been a dud.

Senator Richardson, anyone?

11 comments

STEPHENFOX (not verified) says:

You are dead wrong in saying Richardson's campaign is "going nowhere." Somehow, New Yorkers get this Newyorkocentric view in many realms, like since you have two presidential candidates, no others exist or could possibly be in the same tier. You are going to be in for a rude awakening when the first primaries occur. You do a terrible disservice to your readers in myopically perpetuating such fatuous nonsense. This guy has singlehandedly changed the entire Iraq debate by being the strongest, most accurate, and most experienced in discussing that matter, and Iowans and folks in New Hampshire, and certainly New Mexicans living under Richardson's aegis as Governor: we appreciate that more than the wishy washy mamby pambiness of your two candidates in this regard.

After everything is said and done in this election, a few insightful folks may soon recognize the Iraq War as the most serious thing threatening the future of the USA. I hope your readers have read New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's op/ed piece from the Washington Post on how and why we must get out of Iraq, from about 30 days ago.If not, here it is, in full, after a remark by me:

There is a much larger scale confrontation with Bush from the candidates regarding the Iraq War and the problems it is continuing to cause, after six years of Halliburton and Brown and Root and Blackwater corporate kleptocracy. Only one candidate, it is abundantly clear to me, is really slamming the truth and providing the logistics and rationale for ending this disastrous war: Bill Richardson. This article was printed in the Washington
Post; please take the time to read it:

_______________________

Why We Should Exit Iraq Now

By Bill Richardson
Saturday, September 8, 2007; A15

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested that there is little difference among us on Iraq. This is not true: I am the only leading Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so quickly.

In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for what purposes. I got no answers. The American people need answers. If we elect a president who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay for years — a tragic mistake.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards reflect the inside-the-Beltway thinking that a complete withdrawal of all American forces somehow would be “irresponsible.” 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.

Those who think we need to keep troops in Iraq misunderstand the Middle East. I have met and negotiated successfully with many regional leaders,including Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that only a complete withdrawal can sufficiently shift the politics of Iraq and its neighbors to break the deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long.

Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with courage & professionalism, but they cannot win someone else’s civil war. So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the steps
to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.

The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq’s oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of
their country. Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border — not in Iraq.

Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight months. We moved as many as 240,000 troops into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in as little as a three-month period during major troop rotations. After the Persian Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half-million troops in a few months. We could redeploy even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to open a route out through Turkey.

As our withdrawal begins, we will gain diplomatic leverage. Iraqis will start seeing us as brokers, not occupiers. Iraq’s neighbors will face the reality that if they don’t help with stabilization, they will face the consequences of Iraq’s collapse — including even greater refugee flows over their borders and possible war.

The United States can facilitate Iraqi reconciliation and regional cooperation by holding a conference similar to that which brought peace to Bosnia. We will need regional security negotiations among all of Iraq’s neighbors and discussions of donations from wealthy nations — including oil-rich Muslim countries — to help rebuild Iraq. None of this can happen until we remove the biggest obstacle to diplomacy: the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.

My plan is realistic because:

It is less risky. Leaving forces behind leaves them vulnerable. Would we need another surge to protect them?

It gets our troops out of the quagmire and strengthens us for our real challenges. It is foolish to think that 20,000 to 75,000 troops could bring peace to Iraq when 160,000 have not. We need to get our troops out of the crossfire in Iraq so that we can defeat the terrorists who attacked us on
Sept. 11.

By hastening the peace process, the likelihood of prolonged bloodshed is reduced. President Richard Nixon withdrew U.S. forces slowly from Vietnam — with disastrous consequences. Over the seven years it took to get our troops out, 21,000 more Americans and perhaps a million Vietnamese, most of them
civilians, died. All this death and destruction accomplished nothing — the communists took over as soon as we left.

My position has been clear since I entered this race: Remove all the troops and launch energetic diplomatic efforts in Iraq and internationally to bring stability. If Congress fails to end this war, I will remove all troops without delay, and without hesitation, beginning on my first day in office.

Let’s stop pretending that all Democratic plans are similar. The American people deserve precise answers from anyone who would be commander in chief. How many troops would you leave in Iraq? For how long? To do what, exactly? And the media should be asking these questions of the candidates, rather than allowing them to continue saying, “We are against the war . . . but please don’t read the small print.”

The writer is governor of New Mexico and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

October 07, 2007 3:20 PM

mpost2 (not verified) says:

Bill Richardson needs to stop pretending he's a viable Presidential candidate. It's time for him to take one for the team and become Senator Richardson.

October 08, 2007 11:26 PM

e pluribus unum (not verified) says:

You may have a point. I've been a Richardson supporter, met him when he came to New York, gave him money, but realistically, he's not going anywhere and Hillary apparently doesnt like him, so the VP spot is out. He'd make a good senator and help squelch the Republicons for a generation.

October 09, 2007 11:17 PM

Joshua (not verified) says:

I am a Republican but enjoy all aspect of politics. I personally believe that Bill Richardson is the best candidate for President for the Democrats. The problem he has is that he is not from the East Coast, where all the major media outlets are. 90% of all the major candidates are from the East Coast (Hillary, Rudy, Mitt, Edwards) or have ties to the east coast media (Thompson).

Strong Republicans from the West Coast are having the same problem that Richardson is having Take Rep. Duncan Hunter for an example. A former Army Ranger who fought it Vietnam, strong anti-illegal immigration advocate, pro-life, chaired the armed services committee but is ignored by all major media outlets because he is from the West Coast with no ties to the Major Media.

Richardson also can't play the minority card as a political ploy because that role has already been sucked up by bout Hillary, for being a women, and Obama, for being half white, :-)

So essentially, the East Coast Media has made Bill Richardson just an ordinary governor from flyover country, rather than a legitamete President canidadte.

October 12, 2007 12:46 PM