ASSIGNMENT DESK: BILL RICHARDSON FOR VP?

Ryan asks, "Could you do an evaluation of Richardson for VP? He seems like an obviously good choice, but there hasn't really been any discussion of him as a nominee. He has a great deal of diplomatic experience, energy experience, he's a governor of a Western state, he may be able to help with the Latino vote, etc. So why no discussion of him?"The normal dismissal of Richardson's VP chances tends to focus on the personal rumors that swirl about him. But aside from his troubling habit of inappropriately touching underlings, I'm going to leave that aside. Rather, Richardson shouldn't be vice president because he lacks the policy heft to be president. I became suspicious of Richardson when he made it a point in his speeches to praise balanced budget amendments -- an awful idea last seen advocated by Newt Gingrich and Orrin Hatch. So I scheduled an interview with him to talk through some of this. It wasn't reassuring.

I no longer think Richardson is an economic conservative. I was misled by his support for a balanced budget amendment, his attempts to contrast himself with anti-growth politicians, and his constant comments that "The Democratic Party, our first solution is to tax, but I'm not of that school." [...]Rather, Richardson is an economic opportunist. He's adopted the conservative's rhetorical critique of liberal economic thought in order to distinguish himself from the other candidates, most of whom are responding to this moment of mortgage crises and insecurity with a forthrightly progressive vision. Richardson's vision, which ticks off the same checkboxes as all the other candidates (crumbling infrastructure, rising college debt, 45 million uninsured, Social Security under attack, etc.), comes couched in a superficial critique of anti-growth Democrats he won't name and a strain of economic thought he won't specify.Worse, the policies that Richardson is backing, and the political promises he's implying, actually are anti-growth. Richardson might want to carve out enough exemptions in his balanced budget amendment to render it essentially meaningless, but his emphasis on an end to red nevertheless narrows his ability to run deficits.

The rest of that piece -- and a transcript from the interview -- can be found here. In general, Richardson just wasn't particularly knowledgeable or thoughtful about domestic policy. He seemed almost curiously disengaged. His health care plan was weak, and our conversation on the subject disappointing. His economic take is unacceptable conservative or, if you prefer, opportunistic. At times, it contradicts itself. But none of that really engages with Richardson's apparent strength: Foreign policy.