 |  |  |
| | |
Paul Richards for Senate for Montana in 2006
In the state of Montana, Republican Senator Conrad Burns has gained an infamous reputation for failing to stand up to the increasingly corrupt culture his political party has created in Washington D.C. For a while, many Montanans have asked each other, "When will someone stand up to this guy?"
Thanks to Paul Richards, the answer to that question is: Now. Paul Richards is running for the Democratic nomination to the United States Senate in 2006, to stand up to Conrad Burns in the general election.
Unlike so many political candidates these days, Paul Richards has the guts to show real leadership. Richards stands strong for government accountability and moral responsibility against the Republicans' amoral drifting from excuse to excuse to excuse. Richards has a sustainable, positive vision for Montana and America, and as you'll read below, he's willing to put his life on the line for that vision.
When I think of Paul Richards, I think of a passage I recently read in the book Reason, written by Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor in the Clinton Administration. Reich wrote,"If you want to be a malleable politician, you campaign from the center. But if you want to be a leader, you define the center. You don't rely on polls to tell you where to go. At best, polls tell you where people are, and it's pointless to lead people where they already are. The essence of political leadership is focusing the public's attention on the hard issues that most would rather avoid or dismiss."
I spoke with Paul Richards myself recently, and the transcript of our conversation can be seen below.
I'd like to know what the specific event was that provoked you into considering running for a seat on the United States Senate.
I thought that voters deserved a chance to vote for peace.
What about the other Democratic candidates and peace? Do you know where they stand?
No, and that was one of my reasons for running, that the other Democrats weren't addressing foreign policy and weren't addressing peace, and I felt that we needed a pro-peace candidate that was completely out of the closet, for peace and for supporting our troops by bringing them home.
I have been active in the Montana Peaceseekers Network, and we are always contacting our elected officials asking them to support peace, but it would be better if we had one that actually believed in it from the start. I thought that if I was in that office, we wouldn't have to start from ground zero every time. We'd actually have a person who philosophically believes in peace, which I do.
I was very active in the pro-peace movement in the Sixties. I helped coordinate the McCarthy campaign here in Montana, and I helped us get out of Vietnam, and I think I have experience that I can bring to bear.
So why run for the Senate in particular? Why not run for a seat, for example, in the House of Representatives, or some other seat where you could make a difference?
Well, the incumbent senator from Montana is particularly egregious. I'm trying to be a positive candidate, so I have to watch what I say, but I can truthfully say he doesn't represent renewable energy. He doesn't represent the native Americans in Montana. He doesn't represent a pro-peace viewpoint. He doesn't represent sustainable agriculture. He's very anti-protection of wildlands and Forest Service lands. He's very corporate in his thinking. He doesn't have any sort of grassroots populism in his thinking, and I find myself disagreeing with him all the time and I felt that he would be a good candidate to run against.
You've said that your leading issues are energy and the war in Iraq. How did you go about selecting those two issues as the ones to focus on the most?
Actually, I have four leading issues. I'm pro-peace. I'm pro-renewable energy. I'm pro-wildlands, and I'm pro-sustainable agriculture.
These are just the four most important issues as I see it. I didn't do any focus groups. I've been in Montana politics since 1960, and I just had a sense that those are the four issues that need to be tackled.
Iraq and Montana, they couldn't possibly be further apart, geographically. So, how do you see the war in Iraq affecting the people of Montana?
Well, it's draining our resources and it's killing our people. We've lost soldiers over there. It's killing Iraqi people by the hundreds of thousands, which is something that we often fail to look at.
The most important thing as I see it is expenditures. We've spent about almost 300 billion dollars now on that war, and for 300 billion dollars, there's so much, over there to start with, instead of bombs we could be dropping building materials and food and tools and water treatment facilities and medical supplies. We could be spending that money on productive things over there.
If we were spending that money on productive things at home, we could actually convert our country's energy infrastructure from fossil fuel finite resources to sustainable resources. With 300 billion dollars, you could have every farmer generating wind power and every rooftop generating solar electricity and every car be made fuel efficient and every home and factory be insulated. 300 billion dollars is enough to change the energy infrastructure from finite fossil fuels reserves to renewable energy.
Once we're in a state of renewable energy, we're out of dependence on foreign oil reserves. Once we're out of dependence on foreign oil reserves, we no longer have to set up such a network of military bases and be the armed policeman of the world to keep those oil supply lines open.
What would you do as a United States Senator to deal with the war in Iraq?
Well, I'd try to get on really good terms with all the senators. I respect that it's a very select number of people and they're all very special people. So, I would get on good terms with the other 99, and then I would stage a hunger strike in the Senate cafeteria or in some other prominent Senate facility. I would strike, and I would not eat food until we started pulling troops out.
I think that's a bully pulpit, as Theodore Roosevelt used to call it. When you're a senator, you're one of a hundred. This goes back to your earlier question of "Why the Senate?" Senators have more clout than representatives. As a senator, if I were on a hunger strike, I think I could captivate the nation's imagination and the nation's emotions. I would like to think that the senators with whom I was friends and the country that I was representing would want to keep me alive. If that's the case, we'd be pulling out our troops. I see hunger striking and nonviolent civil disobedience as a very American philosophy that is nonviolent, is very peaceful, but does say something to get things done, and I'm willing to go through whatever is necessary to stop that war.
That's a pretty big risk for you personally.
Oh, yes it is. But you know, I don't mind. Like I said, somewhere between four hundred and five hundred thousand people have been killed already in Iraq due to the insanitary water supplies and things like that, and as the direct result of our bombing and shooting. I feel that putting my life on the line is worth it, if you're going to save potentially half a million people. I just feel that that's fine. That's an obligation I can handle.
So, as you mentioned earlier, your experience goes all the way from Vietnam to the current war.
Actually, I started with the Kennedy campaign as a kid. Then I worked through 1960, 1962, 1964, and by 1968 I had my own thought processes. I was actually at a point where I was able to diverge from the party line, and I did that, and that entailed working with the McCarthy campaign in Montana. That was my first independently thinking effort, putting together the McCarthy campaign in '68. So, I've been at this about 37 years.
Well, you've seen an awful lot of things, dealing with both war and peace. What do you think that we can do to prevent the United States from entering into another war like the one that's going on now?
The most important thing is to become energy self-sustaining. Right now, our war policies are dictated by our oil addictions. We have an endless opportunity to be at war over oil. We're building military bases right now in the Middle East and Central Asia. We're constructing, as quickly as possible, over a dozen military bases to assure that oil supply from Central Asia and the Middle East.
We're not looking at the reality that if we build those military bases and export and bring that oil over here, we are going to be alienating China, Russia and India. All three consider these their areas of influence. We are looking perpetual war over oil from now until all the oil is gone.
The way to avoid those wars is to become completely dependent upon renewable, sustainable energy. That doesn't mean that the nightmare scenarios of more oil and more coal and more nuclear here in America. Some of the PR people are saying that we can solve the problem by going nuclear. No, that's not true. It means, renewable energy, serious conservation, millions of small scale generation projects. The subsequent local economies will be strengthened by those things. Then we won't be terrorist-vulnerable because we'll have a decentralized energy production grid that can't be taken out.
How would that small-scale, decentralized production grid affect people's lives in Montana.
You'd see all the farmers and ranchers reaping profits from the wind, especially along the Rocky Mountain front, which is the interface between the plains and the Rocky Mountains. We have continual wind there. The farmers and ranchers are having great troubles, we're losing many farms and ranches. Each year they're going out of business and they're having great difficulty. This gives them a full time, sustainable, cash crop. It's very good for them, and of course, that's good for those local communities of which those farmers and ranchers are a part. As we've seen more corporate agriculture, a lot of the rural communities in Montana are drying up, and this is a way to put productivity and money back into those local economies.
You also talk about the wildlands. A lot of people these days seem to believe that issues like that are relatively frivolous and they discount environmental politics as an ineffective way to motivate voters. What do you think about those kinds of claims?
I can't speak nationally, but can speak that in Montana it's one of the hottest topics there is. Montana has 6.5 million acres of roadless wildlands, and those lands were protected by the Clinton Roadless Initiative, and those lands are now open to development due to the recent actions of the Bush Administration. We had, in Montana, 37 public meetings. 78 percent of Montanans were for protecting the roadless wildlands.
Nationally, there were over a hundred meetings, and there were 1.6 million comments in favor of protecting roadless wildlands. What the Bush Administration is providing tax subsidies to develop these wildlands to do logging, oil drilling, and mining on these wildlands.
These wildlands are in the upper watersheds. These are where all our rivers begin. This are where our creeks begin. This is where we absolutely have to have the best water quality. To develop them is to destroy that water quality. So, instead of spending that money to develop these lands and subsidize the development of these lands, the money should be spent on restoring ecosystems that have already been damaged by mining and logging and oil drilling, and protecting clean water, and enhancing wildlife habitat.
The Congress needs to stand tall against the Bush Administration's plans to develop these lands, and that's why I've identified it as an important issue. As a United States Senator, I would codify the Roadless Rule that came into effect when Clinton was president.
There's also an act called the Rockies Prosperity Act, H.R. 1204, which provides for the protection of these wildlands and the reclaiming of old logging roads and rehabilitating watersheds from previous damage from overcutting and mining. The Rockies Prosperity Act has about 178 cosponsors right now, and it would save 245 million dollars over a ten year period and would provide two thousand new jobs annually. It's the way to go. It makes a lot of sense, and there's a lot of support in Montana for that. I think that the rest of the nation would truly appreciate it if we saved these federal, public lands, because they do belong to everybody.
You've got a public interest media consulting firm. What has your experience in that business taught you about how a political campaign should be operated.
Well, I work primarily with the nonprofit organizations that do not engage in political campaigns. I believe it's the 501c3s. They don't run political campaigns. They run public information campaigns. So, I help them publicize their projects, their causes. I help them with their newsletters. I help them with their press releases and their news conferences. I help them achieve a sustainable, unified media presence so that the the media become aware of who they are and they become players. I elevate them to the level where they can all become players in their states and in their their regional and their national roles.
So, as far as actually coordinating political campaigns, I don't do that with them. As another part of my business, I do take on candidates, and I have worked with dozens of candidates and I've got some experience there that I'm bringing to bear in my own campaign.
What are some of the common mistakes that you see candidates making that you're hoping to avoid?
My budget will be a grassroots budget, which means that I won't have a lot of money for television. I don't see that as a real liability. I think that people are so diverse now in what television they're watching that if you buy major television time, you're wasting a lot of it. It's very expensive.
I see that, in a state like Montana, I can do more direct contact for cheaper means. I don't see the television as a really productive buy. I don't see telemarketing as a productive expense. I don't see polling as a legitimate expense. It's my job to be a leader. It's not my job to go out and poll to decide what issues I should lead on. It's my job to bite the bullet and be a leader on the issues that I consider to be important and the voters get to determine whether or not they consider those issues to be legitimate or not.
I've got a sense that, having been in this since 1960, I kind of understand where people are. Where people are is that they don't want more followers. They don't want people that are just taking polls and being comfortable and not saying anything controversial. They actually want some real leadership.
So, running that grassroots campaign, what can you do to actually run a grassroots campaign and have a possibility of winning the nomination?
The medium I'm using right now to great effect is bumper stickers. I have a large number of bumper stickers that are appearing now throughout the state, and they'll be there until the primary. The bumper stickers are very witty and they're pertinent. They also send people to my web site, and once people are on my web site they have the chance to read about the issues and where I stand. They have an opportunity to be part of my blog. They have an opportunity to be part of my listserv.
I've got eleven months to work a strong Internet-based campaign, contacting people, talking with them through the blog, making sure they understand where I stand on the issues, and as I take on new issues, emailing them so that they're aware even before the press is aware as I'm issuing my news statements. I think there's a real opportunity there to utilize the Internet for a grassroots campaign. With the right skills and the right people, I think I can tap that.
You're running as a Democrat.
Yes, I am.
Some people have said that the Democratic Party is a lost cause, that it's too much under the influence of corporate power to be the instrument of real change. How do you respond when people say things like that to you?
I understand, because the Democrats have been off-message for twenty years. They decided to go for the corporate money, and they decided to abandon populism and progressivism. They lost sight of who they were, and I can understand people being alienated and disenchanted with the Democratic Party, but I don't want them to write us off, because there people within the party that do really stand for things.
I believe that Howard Dean does really stand for things. He's the new Democratic Party chairman. I think that there are people who are working very hard to bringing the party back to actually standing for things and standing for the right things, and I am one of those people and Howard Dean is one of those people.
We need the support of the people that you're talking about. It is very easy to throw your hands up in disgust and just say, "I don't want anything to do with that." It's a little harder to get down and work hard to change it. People like Howard Dean and people like myself are working hard to change it. We need the support of those who might have been alienated and disenchanted in the past. We need them to get their interest perked back up and see what we're saying and actually come online and help us.
So, what can people do to support your campaign?
Well, the most important thing to do is to spread the word about the campaign, and spread the actual address of the web site: www.richards2006.us. Use that web site to stay in touch with me and my issues, to read about me and my issues, and then if they are really comfortable with me and my issues and what I'm doing, I really need their contributions.
In the primary, I'm running against about half a million dollars. In the general, I'm running against about ten million dollars. I think we figured it out that Senator Burns is prepared to spend 28 dollars per vote, and I feel I can beat him with 20 cents per vote. I think if I run a hundred thousand dollar campaign, I can win, which is well over a hundred-to-one odds economically, but I know what I'm doing and I know how to spend money effectively.
But, that means I have to spend a hundred thousand dollars, and so I am hoping that people, once they agree with my message, will support me with their contributions.
| Irregular Times require open minds and active mouths. Give us your quick comebacks on the Irregular Forum |
 |