Drew Richardson and the issues... UPDATED

A quick read of the issues statements found on Drew Richardson's website gives very basic idea of where he stands. These statements are brief and will need to be expanded. I wonder if he has time to do so. So far his campaign has been generally about him, his experience, his character and not so much about where he stands on the issues. I"m concerned that there won't be time for adequate discussion before we choose our candidate. For the sake of that very discussion, here's my take on what Drew has to say.

Iraq War:

Richardson wants to stay and at least try to "loosen the knot of sectarian violence" before withdrawing. This might be a noble effort and sounds politically correct, but in effect he's saying the same thing as McCain. We'll be there for 100 years. That sectarian knot has been tied tightly for thousands of years. The presence of our troops in Irag and the effect of the recent military expansion has only tied the knot that much tighter. To say that we have the moral obligation to stay in Iraq and try to undue the mess that we've made there seems thoughtful but consider the words of Ali Fadhil an Iraqi journalist as interviewed on the Charlie Rose Show last week:

ROSE: And obviously, what we want to accomplish on this fifth anniversary of the American invasion, or the coalition invasion of Iraq, is how they see it as Iraqis, five years later. Give me an assessment.

ALI FADHIL: That's a big question, assessment. Well, basically, probably, I`ll kind of sum it in a few words.
It's -- we have a country where the government is not functioning after five years. We have too many internal problems. And we have the violence increasing day after day. We have a huge crisis of refugees inside and outside Iraq. We have a total failure of the -- of the civilian -- the civilian structure and what's happening inside. We have the sectarian divisions increasing. We didn't have that before. Now we have it. So, basically, my assessment is we have a whole nation called Iraq, now it's wiped out.

CHARLIE ROSE: And Iraq is worse off because the United States came?

ALI FADHIL: It's worse off because the United States came to Iraq, definitely, and because the United States did all these mistakes in Iraq. Anything [Americans] do -- probably even in good intentions -- is bad for us, everything they do, everything. There's nothing they're doing is right. And that's what is going to happen. It's just prolonging the diaspora of the Iraqis. We're suffering more and more every day.

I think it will be hard support the position of staying and trying to "fix the mess."

Agriculture:

Richardson would try to protect local farmers and food production. I think some specifics would be necessary here. Bob Goodlatte has extensive knowledge and influence in this area, not to mention support from the AG corporate community. Drew needs to build his repertoire of specifics to even come close to challenging Goodlatte on this issue.

Richardson tells us to be very afraid of "agricultural bioterrorism" a "tragedy" to be perpetrated by our opponents who are prepared to "wreak economic havoc on our nation and by extension our Valley." This is a strong statement that I THINK I'm in agreement with. Again, I'd like to hear more from Drew about "bioterrorism" and "economic havoc." These are pretty strong attacks. Can Dr. Richardson support these attacks with position statements?

Immigration:

Richardson acknowledges that it is a serious problem. He would enforce the laws already on the books and support efforts in Congress to secure the borders. At the same time, Drew recognizes that immigrants have an "important role in the workplace" and that we share a cultural heritage as a nation of immigrants. Continuing this heritage is difficult in "the face of limited resources." I'd like Drew to give more details about the last statement. I think his position is clear, but is he giving up because the money is too hard to find? Why is the money so scarce for this particular issue? Perhaps a statement of spending priorities would be appropriate here.

Energy and the Environment:

The information on the website is very sketchy on this point especially. Richardson does say that he wants a "smart energy policy" for all the normal reasons. I'd like to know more specifics, especially with regards to Wind, Solar, hydroelectric, Biofuel, Coal, and Atomic energy. Let's hear a good definition of "smart energy."

I think he's in favor of a "Green" economy. This statement though is a little confusing:

"The replacement of an unsustainable petroleum-based energy economy with one based on greater utilization of renewable sources of energy is not just good energy policy."

Based on the rest of his energy policy statement, I take this to mean that he IS in favor of replacing petroleum-based energy with renewable sources.... If he really means that "utilization of renewable sources of energy is not just good energy policy" he is in deep trouble with Democrats. Drew's campaign really needs to focus on this issue and come up with a more coherent policy. Again, I THINK I know what he's saying, but a clearer more detailed position paper would be welcomed.


Torture: Drew makes one simple point. "This is an outrage." AMEN!

Drew Richardson has given us basic position statements. His clarifications in speeches and debates have begun to delve into the issues, but where's the depth? Does he have time to develop support for his positions before the caucuses and the convention? Dr. Richardson, please don't say "Trust Me."

UPDATE: Drew has just posted a long interview adding more detail to his position statements. You can read it HERE.