MONDAY

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Archives
• Young Voices
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis

FEATURES

• Election 2008
• Right to Return
• Examining Hip-Hop

RELATED LINKS

• Gov. Richardson's official site
• Article on Gov. Richardson
• Time magazine profile of Gov. Richardson
• Gov. Richardson's campaign site

E-mail a friend

New Mexico governor Bill Richardson discusses being the first Hispanic presidential candidate. (1:21)
 

Full interview
 

Tavis: I suppose it's only fitting that Bill Richardson is running for president, because that is perhaps the only job in public life he does not yet have on his resume. In addition to being, of course, the current governor of New Mexico, he is a former congressman, a former Cabinet secretary, and a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N.

See what I mean? The only job he hasn't had is that of president. His most recent book is now out in paperback. The book is called "Between Worlds: The Making of an American Life." Governor, an honor to have you on the program.

Governor Bill Richardson: Thanks, Tavis, nice to be with you.

Tavis: Good to see you, man.

Richardson: Thank you.

Tavis: I wanna get to some things in the book, now out in paperback. Some things about your running for office, president specifically. Let me start, if I can, though, with some news of the day. Three or four things I want to get your take on, if I can, in no particular order. We are now year five into this war in Iraq. President Bush says we are making progress, he just needs more time. You say what?

Richardson: I say he's wrong. I think we have to pull out, but with a diplomatic plan that allows Iraq to retain its identity, its security, its sovereignty. What I would do is get the troops out this year, determined by the military. But I would also have a reconciliation conference, a coalition government of the three religious sects in Iraq, coupled with Iran and Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, securing a conference to provide Iraqi security and reconstruction.

Invite all of these nations in. We can't just leave without a diplomatic plan, and that's what I would do; a Dayton-type plan for Iraq. You don't divide up the country into three countries, but you divide it up into three different entities headed by a federal government. That's what I would do. Diplomacy, strong diplomacy coupled with a withdrawal.

Tavis: You've raised a couple issues here, not the least of which is the issue of diplomacy. There are a lot of people who argue that this administration has lost sight of what diplomacy means. They don't know what the definition of diplomacy is. That this has not been an administration that cares about diplomacy. That would be obviously in stark contrast, the antithesis of what your career has been. Talk to me about this administration and diplomacy, or the lack thereof.

Richardson: Well, we've had a policy in this administration of preemption using military means, preemption before you use traditional diplomacy dialogue negotiation. It wasn't until recently that we talked directly to North Korea, and when we did something happened. We don't talk to Iran. I believe we should. Tough negotiations with them. We don't talk to Syria.

Even the Iraq Study Group, which is bipartisan, said "Mr. President, to resolve Iraq, you've got to talk to Iran and Syria. You gotta bring them in for an overall Middle East peace initiative." So my vision of American diplomacy is that you talk to everybody. You don't make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies.

Yitzhak Rabin did that. We don't have an engaged policy of negotiations in the Middle East. We've lost in Latin America, I believe, a lot of stature because we're not negotiating there. We're not participating, we're not engaging. And then lastly in Africa. Why is it that Africa's always forgotten? I was just in Darfur about two months ago.

We got a very gradual ceasefire, but that region of the world that has a lot of wars and famine, nobody cares about it. So I believe diplomacy is the key. Backed by a strong military, we would be insurmountable. Diplomacy backed by a strong army, which we need to have strong armed forced, but use diplomacy first. Use the protection of human rights and democracy first before you engage in preemption and military means. Build international coalition for our goals. Use the U.N. more effectively. Use NATO, use Muslim countries and Iraq. That's what I'm about.

Tavis: I don't wanna ask you to speak for the Bush administration, that'd be foolhardy. Let me ask you, though, given that you have been a diplomat extraordinaire down through the years, what the value is, ostensibly, in freezing someone out of a conversation and not talking to people? Because clearly, this administration has its reasons for not talking to Iran, for not talking to Syria, for not talking to Chavez in Venezuela. What's the value, ever, in not having conversation? Is there value in that?

Richardson: Well, I don't see any value, because when you talk to somebody the perception that the Bush administration likes to lay out is if you talk to them, you're exhibiting a sign of weakness. That you're giving a country credibility. I don't believe that. I believe that when you talk to another country, when you're negotiating, you can also deliver a very tough message directly.

And you can find areas of common ground. For instance, with North Korea, for years the Bush administration wouldn't talk to them directly. The North Koreans. All the North Koreans wanted was to save face. They want to be recognized as a major nation. They don't deserve it because they're very irresponsible, but when we did talk to them directly three weeks ago—the State Department and Condoleezza Rice authorized this—we got some results.

They've allowed inspectors into their nuclear sites. They're gonna be also participating in further dismantling of their nuclear programs. We had to give them food, energy assistance. The poorest nation in the world. But this proved—and I said to President Bush, "Look,"—I was with him at the White House with a bunch of governors.

He didn't invite me directly. And I said, "Look, work with North Korea. You talk to them directly, and do it with Iran and Syria." And he said, "Well, I don't reward countries with bad behavior." And then I was kind of tempted to say "Well, pretty soon we're only gonna be talking to the Vatican." (Laughs)

Tavis: And that's debatable, but that's another issue. Let me run to this notion of Latin America. You raised Latin America, and President Bush, of course, just returned from there recently. What's your sense of—to paraphrase you, you said we've lost stature in Latin America. What do you mean by that?

Richardson: Well, by that I mean that his trip was maybe two years too late. I'm glad he made the trip. So we picked up some gains. But we've ignored Latin America, just like we've ignored Asia. We've ignored a hemisphere that is our sort of sister hemisphere, Latin America. We've failed to deal with one of the most fundamental issues affecting Latin America and Central America and Mexico: the need for comprehensive immigration.

We're not associated in Latin America with democratic populist movements that are winning elections there, in Chile and Brazil and Argentina. We need to have more initiatives to have energy cooperation, renewable energy. What I would do is I would start, like John F. Kennedy did, a new Alliance for Progress, where we work and collaborate with Latin America to reduce poverty, human needs, education, nutrition issues, entrepreneurship, renewable energy technology, solar exchanges.

But most importantly, Tavis, is just pay attention to them. And when you don't pay attention, we're always concentrated in Iraq, in the Middle East, in Europe, but not in our own hemisphere. Not in Africa. I believe that hurts us with the developing world.

Tavis: Let me ask you, to your point about our being hurt, whether or not under Bush administration, irreparable damage has been done to our reputation? And I ask that because last year, I think I did, I did maybe eight or 10 countries last year, got another eight or 10 on my schedule for the summer in between taping shows around here.

And you do more traveling than I do. Every time I travel, I'm always wanting to get amongst the people to find out whether or not they hate him—that is to say, they hate the president and his administration—or whether they hate us, the American people. And I'm always fascinated to find out whatever I find any particular place.

What's your sense of whether or not one, irreparable damage has been done under his watch, and whether or not the folk that don't like us—this so-called anti-American sentiment—is it really anti-American sentiment, or is it anti-Bush sentiment?

Richardson: Well, first, I believe that we have done a lot of damage to our reputation around the world. We're known sort of as the nation that now pushes military before diplomacy. Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, eavesdropping, torture, the lack of respect between the Congress and the administration.

That's hurt us internationally. But I think it is recoverable. I am optimistic. I do believe that we can move forward, and what I think it's cost us, Tavis, is our obsession with Iraq has cost us from focusing on the real foreign policy challenges that we have. Fighting international terrorism, nuclear proliferation, fighting poverty, global climate change.

The planet is crying for leadership from the international community. We need to bring a Kyoto treaty not just back, but make up for the lost time. So while I do think we've been hurt a lot internationally, especially among the Muslim world, the young people of the Muslim world, I believe it is achievable to come back. I'm optimistic.

I think a number of initiatives need to be taken where the United States is associated with movements of international democracy, human rights, dealing with poverty, refugees, AIDS, dealing with the Darfurs of the world, where thousands have been massacred, and associating ourselves with populist movements around the world that are, that are everywhere.

Tavis: Let me shift gears on a couple of other issues I wanna talk about in the news before we get, again, to the heart of this campaign that you're about to announce here shortly. The story today, of course, is this constitutional showdown that we are on the eve of with regard to the president and Congress over who's going to testify, under what conditions they're going to testify, when they're gonna testify, etcetera, etcetera. What's your sense of this showdown that we are facing on this constitutional crisis?

Richardson: Well, it's very troublesome. It's basically the Bush administration saying that we're not gonna talk to the Congress, fully disclose to the Congress, and constitutionally, Congress has a right to know. Oversight, that's the role of a Congress that I believe in the Republican administration kind of blinked an eye and forgot about some of the sins of the Bush administration.

Now that there's a Democratic Congress, I believe, rightfully so, they are conducting oversight. So there are several issues. One, should we politicize the U.S. attorneys? I don't believe that. They should be non-political. And the White House should not be telling the Justice Department what to do politically about prosecutions.

In my own state of New Mexico, we have a very courageous U.S. attorney, David Iglesias, who was fired because he wasn't prosecuting Democrats before the last election. He said, "Well, we're not ready." And so, there was dissatisfaction. Apparently, he was ousted along with seven other U.S. attorneys.

Tavis: Yeah, he has a piece today in "The New York Times."

Richardson: Right, an op-ed where he says "Look, I was trying to do my job and I felt pressured by members of Congress from New Mexico, and now my job has been eliminated and my reputation's been tarnished. And I just want the truth out. So I'm very proud of him, but at the same time, it raises a lot of issues about the politization of the Justice Department, and that has to stop. You can't do that. The attorney general should be the attorney for the American people, not the president's lawyer.

Tavis: Alberto Gonzalez happens to be a member of your community. Is this guy gonna survive? He's the first Hispanic to have that job.

Richardson: Yeah, I know. I'm rooting for him, I like the guy, I know him. I hope he survives, but he's got to clean up his act and at least know what's happening in his department. He, at that press conference, said "Well, I didn't know anything about this." When you're heading a Cabinet agency—I did at the Department of Energy—and it's very hard to do that, 'cause you got thousands of people working for you.

But you gotta know what is happening with U.S. attorneys, because these are the top Justice Department attorneys in every state. So, he's gotta get more engaged, he's gotta clean up his act, he's gotta be forthcoming. I think the Congress needs to really investigate, but if I were the White House, I'd say "I'm gonna let Karl Rove testify, I'm gonna put everything on the table, I'm gonna let Harriet Miers, the former legal counsel.

I'm gonna have Alberto Gonzalez. They shouldn't be testifying in private. They should do it openly before the American people. That's a separation of powers. We should do that.

Tavis: It occurs to me now, listening to you talk about your friend who you know, Mr. Gonzalez, it draws a stark contrast between—I haven't checked where all the other candidates are, but I know Obama is on record very clearly saying Gonzalez should step down. I suspect other Democrats running for president are maybe saying the same thing. That's a contrast between you and others on whether or not this guy should step down.

Richardson: That's right. I do believe that it's up to a president to make those decisions about Cabinet members. Obviously, Alberto's very damaged, and he's gotta be frank and testify and do what has to happen. But I think that's up to the president.

Tavis: So you would not call for his stepping down right now.

Richardson: No, no. And you know what? Part of it maybe is because he's the highest-ranking Hispanic ever.

Tavis: But wrongdoing is wrongdoing, though. If he did wrong.

Richardson: Well, I think it's more a lack of attention, lack of a plan, lack of being thorough. He's too much the president's lawyer. He's too much of a political person. And I recognize that.

Tavis: Maybe, to your point, Governor—and I've had this thought. It's not my conversation, it's yours. Maybe Gonzalez was the wrong guy from the beginning, to the point you've just made now, which I've made any number of times. You had to know that this is the president's boy. This is his guy. They've been hanging out for years in Texas, he's White House counsel, he was involved in the—we know what he did before about writing on the torture and how to get around.

He is the president's guy. What makes any president think—or makes the Congress think—they approved this guy, they gave the guy confirmation—that this guy could be an independent voice at the Justice Department? I didn't see that anywhere in those confirmation hearings.

Richardson: They probably shouldn't have confirmed him. I don't think the president should have given him that job. He was White House counsel. He might have been an excellent ambassador to Mexico. He's very loyal to the president. I've had conversations with him on immigration. I thought he was very competent.

But he obviously was not engaged with his department. So, I do believe that if he doesn't come forth and testify and be frank with the American people and tell the Congress, then the president should remove him. But I just think, Tavis, that this is a presidential decision. You can pick your Cabinet. And if somebody's not performing, let him go.

And I don't agree with the president saying virtually that Alberto didn't do anything wrong, and that the Congress shouldn't have access to Karl Rove and to Harriet Miers. They should. But there's a human side to me. The guy's a very, very—came up from a very poor family, he's the highest-ranking Hispanic ever. Maybe I'm waiting a little more so that he cleans up his act before I join everybody else and try to, I guess, make some political hay out of this.

Tavis: So speaking of the first Hispanic and the highest in the land, where federal government service is concerned, what do you make of the fact that President Bush, when he had the opportunity, did not, has not, as yet, appointed a Hispanic to the Supreme Court? And then I wanted to circle around to your being a Hispanic running for president, yourself.

Richardson: Well, I believe that the Supreme Court should have a Supreme Court that looks like America. Diversity of America. And I'm very proud to be the first Hispanic candidate running for president, but my main message is I'm very proud to be Hispanic, but I'm not just running as a Hispanic. I'm running as an American governor, very proud to be Hispanic, dealing with all issues, including Hispanic issues.

How can we improve the lot of the middle class in this country? Higher wages and pensions, healthcare. How can we make our schools better? How can we restore America's role in the world? How we can get out of Iraq. What can we do about climate change? My point, Tavis, is—and I'm gonna brag a little bit—I believe I have the background, the record, the positions; in other words, all of the things that we're trying to do with this country.

Create better jobs, get out of Iraq, talk to bad people, bad countries. I've done it, and I believe I've done it well. And I believe I can bring this country together. More than anything else, I think this country's really divided over the war in Iraq, rich and poor, red states, blue states. I believe I can bring this country together 'cause I've done it as a governor. I've done it as a diplomat.

Tavis: Let me ask you—not ask you; give you a chance, a platform to brag a little more about yourself. Is there anybody running for president on the Democratic side who has more experience than you that would help him or her become president? Be a good president?

Richardson: Well, with all due respect, I believe I have the best background. I have the most foreign policy background, national security background. I'm the only one that's negotiated with foreign countries, with dictators. I've been at the United Nations. I believe I have the most experience on energy issues, and we have to become energy independent with an Apollo program to shift from fossil fuels, 65 percent imported oil, to 10 percent with solar, wind, biomass, fuel cells, distributed generation.

As a governor, I'm the only CEO in the race. The only person that has—that's balanced a budget, that has increased access to healthcare, that has cut taxes. I'm a Democrat that cuts taxes for individuals, for working moms, for businesses, for movies—to bring movies and renewable energy companies to New Mexico. I would have a pro-economic growth policy.

I believe we need to do something about the thousands of Hispanic and African-American kids in our cities that have either a substance abuse problem, one parent, and nobody's talking about it. We need to do that. We need to bring the private sector in that solution and find ways to have urban policies that affect our cities, our transportation, the need for light rail, more efficient energy, water policy. Anyway, I'm getting a little wound up here.

Tavis: (Laughs) Nothing wrong…

Richardson: But you gave me the chance, and I'm taking it.

Tavis: I didn't interrupt. You could have kept going if you wanted to. But whenever you stopped, and since you have, I was gonna lean over to you and kind of whisper to you there's some bad news here. The bad news is that it takes a lot of money. This is free. You're not paying for this tonight. But it takes a lot of money to get this message out on television.

And the word is that once we get past the first quarter, Barack, Hillary, and John, as in Edwards, are going to have upwards of $20 million they've raised. That's a lot of money. And I'm not saying you can't raise money, but you got a long way to go to raise that kind of money. Because it just costs so much money to get the message out.

Richardson: Well, you know what, Tavis? You know who votes? People vote. The people of New Hampshire and Iowa and Nevada and South Carolina. The first primary votes. The people vote, not money. Now, I'm not gonna have the same amount of money they are. I'm not gonna have their resources. But I am gonna have a respectable amount.

But what I'm doing is I'm going state to state, house to house, door to door. I bet you didn't know this, but I hold the world's hand-shaking record. (Laughs) Over an eight hour period. No, I'm very proud of that. Thirteen thousand hands. Teddy Roosevelt, certified by the Guinness Book of World's—my point is that that's how I'm gonna campaign.

Go straight to the people, be scrutinized, go to living rooms. And I'm not gonna have their money. I'm not gonna just pop in to a state for an hour, have a rally, and leave. I stay for two hours, have a lot of house parties, have a lot of town meetings. That what I'm gonna do, and I think—I believe eventually, when the debates happen, when the candidates are compared, that I'll have a good shot. And I believe I'm gonna win.

Tavis: So that said, the minute you get in office, you'd like to do what on campaign finance reform? Because it's still a legitimate issue, your wonderful statement notwithstanding.

Richardson: Well, I believe in public financing. When I was in Congress, I voted for the McCain-Feingold bill that increases public financing and pushing ethics reform in my state. Limit on contributions, gifts, and ethics commission. I would try to do that nationally. I believe we need to get a lot of the money out of politics. If I spent all my time talking about issues and going door to door and campaigning, I'd love it. But a lot of my time has to be spent raising money, and it's part of the system, and that shouldn't be the criteria for who's the best president.

Tavis: There's been a lot of conversation—a lot of conversation—over the last couple of years, as you well know, you've been a part of it, about what the Democratic party's strategy ought to be to win back the White House. This so-called 50 state strategy that Howard Dean, the Democratic chair, has talked about. But everybody agrees on one thing, I think; that you've got—the Democrats, that is—have a huge opportunity out west to pick up. That would seem to play into your hands.

Richardson: Well, yeah. I believe we can't just have candidates that are very strong in the east coast and the west coast; in Boston and Los Angeles. I think we gotta be able to win everywhere. In the southwest, that is prime territory for Democrats. In the Midwest and the Ohios. In the south, one or two states in the south. We have to have candidates that don't just criticize President Bush but have positive solutions.

We gotta have candidates that don't just worry and help the poor, which I'm very proud of, but also have plans for the middle class. We have to have candidates too that have policies of economic growth and the ability to put money in people's pockets, and help working moms and help those young kids in the ghettos be part of the American dream.

I believe, too, we have to have an environmental president that increases our efforts dramatically to reduce global warming, global climate change, energy independence. I think the future is in renewable, in solar, wind, biomass, fuel cells, distributed generation, green buildings. And I'd ask the American people to give up a little bit.

Not necessarily to sacrifice; to become energy independent, because it's also our national security. When 65 percent of your oil is controlled by countries that are not friendly to us, we could be in for a real oil shock that affects our national security. I just believe—education. We gotta make our schools better. We have to start with preschool. We have to do something about the dropout rate, especially among minorities. We gotta pay our teachers better.

Our teachers don't make any money. I'd have a minimum salary for teachers, $40,000. I would change No Child Left Behind and emphasize and help the bad schools. Bad schools in America today, Tavis, get punished, and find ways to have community colleges and vocational schools available to every American. So I would shift a lot of the priorities of this country.

Tavis: I'm laughing inside—I'm out of time, first of all, but I'm laughing inside because all of this, and he has not yet officially declared (laughs) that he's running for president. So, we'll see what this guy has to say once he officially declares that he's in the race. Governor, nice to have you on the program.

Richardson: Thank you so much.

Tavis: I'll see you soon.

Richardson: Thank you.

Tavis: That's our show for tonight. You can catch me on the weekends on PRI, Public Radio International. You can access our radio podcast through our website at PBS.org. See you back here next time on PBS. Until then, good night from L.A., thanks for watching, and as always, keep the faith.