Richardson: Nice is not enough
Richardson has an impressive and admirable resume. I particulary liked his clear positions on equality for gay/lesbian people and women, his support of reproductive choice. There is not much he says that I’d take issue with, except gun control.
Problem for me is that he does not say enough. I did not come away with specifics of “how” he will accomplish his goals and “how” he will fund his proposals. The only topic he got the least bit specifc about was his 4-point immigration program; even here the “how” was thin. I’d watched the most recent debate and read his website before attending the house party. I mostly feel I left with the same level of information I came with. I did ask him about education - he wants to raise teachers salaries to $40,000, great, but he doesn't say how he is going to get rid of the local control which dominates our schools or how he'll help us pay for these salaries. He does want to see Art mandated in all schools - it raises academic success in math and science. I applaud this, but it is curious to me that such as big change, in light of the trends in other directions, was not mentioned in his speech to the NEA.
More importantly, Richardson frequently was not listening the questions being asked. (Exception: Gun Control: he would institute instant background checks. He was adament about not passing any new control laws. Assault rifles are fine with him.) Generally, he’d take a piece of a question and give what I felt was his stump speech. A few people actually asked the question again to give him a second chance to answer. This was his 3rd state of the day. Was he just too tired to think more deeply?