Politics: April 2003 Archives
Hart's speech impressed me, and I expect I'll hand him my vote in the D.C. primary next year. (Which, if it is held in January, seems to be shaping up as a Sharpton vs. Moseley Braun affair. Ecch.) But the speech confirmed my view that Hart is the best qualified and the least likely future president. There have been candidates unserved by soundbite coverage, but Hart's entire monologue -- 45 minutes, mind you -- was just a survey of his platform. And it takes that long to understand what is essentially a Grand Unified Theory of geopolitics and the American polity today. So while there is an important and original message there, it will be very hard for the public, however interested, to hear it
While Lysander certainly has a point - it takes some work to realize the breadth of Senator Hart's vision - I don't think this makes him the 'least likely'. It just means there's got to be some work put into boiling his ideas down to those points that might resonate with the latent patriot in the undecided and/or non-voting electorate.
Senator Hart will be attending the Denver Gary Hart Meetup this Thursday. If you're in Denver and at all interested in what the Senator has to say, stop by: Sweet Rockin' Coffee, 414 E. 20th Ave at 8pm (note that this is a change from the original planned Meetup at the Englewood Public Library.) Bring a friend!
As for running a Green Party candidate for president in 2004, Robinson admits that "Bush has certainly given me pause; in fact I think Greens everywhere are thinking about it." But in the end, she says, it's more important to build the party than to defeat Bush -- and to do that, the Greens need to run a national campaign. "If we didn't run a presidential candidate, our organizing efforts would be set back years," says Robinson, who divides her time between the Green Party and law school at the University of Michigan. "Under state election laws, you need to field a candidate to maintain your line on the ballot. Running a national race also gives you invaluable exposure. If we didn't run a candidate next year, it would just confirm in voters' minds their suspicion that we're simply a different shade of Democrat."
We were just discussing Nader in some comments yesterday, and today Salon publishes an article on Nader, the Green Party and their plans to screw the country and themselves again in 2004.
"Legitimate" and "justice" seem to be the keywords differentiating Mr Hart from the Bush doctrine.[...]
From an Italian perspective, a Gary Hart America would be a lot more reassuring than a Bush America. Who knows, it might even make it easier for us here at the periphery to get rid of our own "B" guy.
Flavio likes the Senator. While they can't vote, I'd certainly be curious to get more European (and the rest of the world) views on the field of candidates given the concern amongst Democrats (and reasonable folk everywhere) about how the US is currently perceived by the world. I suspect, given the opportunity, "Unnamed Democrat" (thats a good name for a blog ... hmm) might win the European vote at this point.
Any thought that Democratic candidates or spokespersons can now successfully redirect public attention to the precarious domestic economy misses important new 21st century realities--globalization is erasing the distinction between U.S. economics and the world economy; the world economy cannot be separated from U.S. foreign policy; and our foreign policy also involves our military and security forces.
In his latest blog entry, Senator Hart points out that the Democratic Party can't just change the subject and hope to win. The point the Senator makes should be completely obvious, and yet - as proven by the abject failure of the Democrats in this past November's elections - it's evidently not. I've been convinced for a while, but Hart continues to surprise me at every turn.
As 2004 approaches, Hart is still thinking big thoughts. That makes his voice especially valuable in an election campaign that is bound to be uphill for any Democrat. Hart's party again needs a change of direction. He should run for president because he can help make it happen.
I suppose it's a bit early to be considered an endorsement. Perhaps it's more of an enticement. In any cases, the Concord Monitor wants Senator Hart to run - a sign that his time was well spent the last few weeks.
I don't actually live in Denver - I'm an Aurorite - but I work downtown, and obviously have some interest in who will be running the city. As such, I thought I'd mention here that John Hickenlooper looks to be the man for the job. A former geologist, turned beer-brewer/developer, Hickenlooper is largely responsible for the resurrection of Denver's Lodo district. He's garnered the endorsements of both the Rocky Mountain News the Denver Post (allegedly) and 5280 Magazine. He was also the highest scorer amongst the candidates (and reporters) in a recent metro-matters pop-quiz given by the Rocky Mountain News. Plus, his ads rule ;). For those looking for more details, his issues page is here. The election is May 6th and you can lookup your district information and polling places here.
Millions of Americans have hit the streets since last fall to protest George Bush's push for preemptive war against Iraq. But Mr. Bush wouldn't listen. He dismissed protestors and their concerns.Would he listen any better if everyone who has attended a march pledged to vote in 2004? Or if, in addition, everyone who carried a sign, made a speech, sent an email, wrote a letter or lit a candle for peace committed to register one new American voter every month between now and the next presidential election? Would he get the message if a groundswell of new peace voters went to the polls in 2004 and showed how regime change can happen peacefully?
A good call by Tompaine.com. While I tend to believe that in the end we had no choice but to fight this war - thank you France - I think Bush shares a good percentage of the blame for setting the tone in an effort to discredit the UN. If protesters really care about what goes on in our government - and as I've stated before I think most of the protesters are protesting Bush rather than the war - perhaps they should commit themselves to becoming involved in the process.
[via TAPPED]
An informed Political Wire reader writes to say Gary Hart "is definitely running, and it's just a matter of time until he formally declares." This news concurs with a report made earlier by another reader.
The suspense is killing me.
[via Political Wire]
Late on Thursday, April 10, 2003, the Senate and House the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act (formerly known as the RAVE Act) as an attachment to the Amber Alert Bill (a child abduction bill). The bill is likely to be signed into law by the President in the next few weeks. Fax Attorney General Ashcroft right now! Urge him and President Bush to make clear and careful enforcement decisions that uphold our freedom of speech, right to peacefully assemble, and our right to dance! We thank our supporters for their faxes and encouragement. We will continue to work in coalition to fix this dangerous law.
Oh well. At least go tell Ashcroft to watch how he uses it.
Murdoch's success has been described in many ways, but for my shilling, it comes down to this: He has always had a keen insight into liberalism's greatest psychological vulnerability--that liberals, above almost any other virtue, want to be seen as fair-minded and reasonable. He exploits that condition daily, but he's never exploited it quite like he did in the summer of 1993.
An interesting article in The American Prospect on Rupert Murdoch's rise to power, culminating this week with his acquisition of DirectTV. I'm not sure I agree with their end conclusion, that liberals need to stop being so reasonable - I'd prefer to leave the unreasonable shrillness to the far edges of both sides of the political spectrum - but it does paint an interesting picture of Murdoch's shrewd manipulation of that trait.
A Political Wire reader writes to say Gary Hart spoke at Loyola University Chicago today. When answering a question about whether he knew if he would run for president, Hart said:"No, I don't. When I do, I'll announce it. I think now we're going to wait a little. People say its getting late, all the activists are signing up for other candidates, but I'm reminded that Clinton didn't announce until September of '91 when he ran. So, it's possible to wait a while. And, second, right now Bush is very very popular, and no one wants to rain on his parade. But I'll continue to speak. I don't think we have to make a decision right now."
Oops, never mind.
[via Political Wire]
Former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart said Tuesday a decision on joining the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is only days away, maintaining the feedback he's received so far is very encouraging.
[via Political Wire]
EMERGENCY: In an attempt to sneak the RAVE Act through the Senate, Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) has just introduced the legislation into conference committee as an add-on to the otherwise unrelated National AMBER Alert Network Act of 2003 (S151). S151 has passed the Senate and House and is now in Conference! If Biden is successful, the RAVE Act is likely to become law without ever having a public hearing, debate or a vote. Don't allow overzealous prosecutors to send innocent people to jail for the crimes of others.
This is bad. The AMBER Alert Act is VERY popular, and its being used by Joe Biden to push through some very stupid crap. If you aren't familiar with the RAVE Act, here's a brief blurb:
If enacted, the RAVE Act would make it easier for the federal government to punish property owners for any drug offense that their customers commit - even if they work hard to stop such offenses. If enacted, nightclub and stadium owners would likely stop holding events - such as rock or Hip Hop concerts - in which even one person might use drugs. Because of its broad language, the proposed law would even potentially subject people to twenty years in federal prison if one or more of their guests smoked marijuana at their party or barbecue.
Senator Hart responded to three reader comments over on his blog. There's been some doubt expressed in the blogosphere over how "real" this endeavor is - suggesting that the blog will be used as just another medium for polished campaign tidbits and not the give and take the blogosphere expects. I think this is a good demonstration that Gary Hart is willing to use this medium to not only get his message out but more importantly hear what people think. This bit in particular gets me excited about the possibilities:
I welcome a dialogue with Chuck and others on this, since it needs to be further thought through. I understand the complexity of the proposal and can think of a number of questions myself, but let me know a better alternative.
He's not talking at us, he's talking with us. How many politicians can that honestly be said about? I've said it before, and I imagine I'll be saying it a lot more in the future - This man gets it.
This program is a revealing one-hour interview with former U.S. Senator Gary Hart. Hart discusses the War in Iraq in detail, as well as hitting difficult domestic issues such as Social Security. Hart also talks about the 2004 Presidential Race.
Some of the questions on the show include, "What is your take on the war in Iraq?" "What do you really think Bush’s main motivation is with the war?" "Why don’t we have U.N. backing in this war?" "Has the US hurt itself internationally?" "How do we mend these relationships?" "With a war in Iraq underway, are we more vulnerable to a terrorist attack?" "What is the present value of all accrued Social Security liabilities?" "What would you do as President?"
For those in Denver that might be interested, Senator Hart will be on the Aaron Harber Show (a good local politics show for those not familiar with it) tonight at 9pm (repeats Sunday at 2pm) on KBDI - Channel 12. Thanks to Katy for pointing it out to me!
In private conversations, Gary Hart “sounds pretty certain” he’ll run for President, according to his longtime New Hampshire friend Dan Calegari.
“But whether he can generate the kind of enthusiasm he did in 1984 remains to be seen,” Calegari says.
1984 was the year Hart shocked the nation by upsetting former Vice President Walter Mondale in the New Hampshire primary.
Calegari said that Hart’s affair with Donna Rice, which took him out of the 1988 Presidential primary campaigns, wouldn’t be a serious issue. “After all,” said the ever-blunt Mr. Calegari, “Bill Clinton made him look like an amateur.”
Calegari said he won’t even back Hart if the former Colorado senator does run because he thinks it’s a mistake. He’d rather see Hart involved in someone else’s campaign “so he can have a major role in a new administration in reshaping government.”
Calegari says Hart, who privately spoke with about 35 people at the Merrimack Restaurant during his visit to the state last week, is expected back in the state later this month.
If Hart did enter the race, he would “elevate the whole dialogue. I remember him predicting this war in 1983, when he said that if we do not develop energy independence, men and women will someday be dying on the sands of the Arabian peninsula,” Calegari said.
Looking good. I'm a bit worried by all the folks that seem to appreciate Senator Hart as a person and thinker, but would rather he be an adjunct in someone elses administration. While this would be better than Senator Hart heading back to the mountains again, I'd be worried that his ideas would get diluted in such a role, which may very well be why those who currently hold power in the political world would rather see him as an adjunct.
[via Political Wire]
He hasn't declared yet, but that hasn't stopped Project Vote-Smart from putting up some useful information on the Senator, including links to transcripts of interviews (including the Sputtery and Colmes interview I mentioned earlier,) biographical info, and eventually position statements.
Also, Salon has an article today about the Senator's proposal last fall for a reasonable resolution of the situation in Iraq. It was ignored by the Democrats, leading to the mess they find themselves in today. I think it provides a good view of his position on the war.
Lastly, don't forget that tonight is National Gary Hart Meetup Day. If you're interested in talking with other Hart supporters and especially if you are interested in volunteering, be sure to check out your local Meetup.
The letters section of The New York Times is sometimes more penetrating than the editorials. A March 23 letter from Lawrence Borok: "As someone who was very active in the [anti-Vietnam War] protests, I think that the antiwar activists are totally wrong on this one. Granted, President Bush's insensitive policies in many areas dear to liberals (I am one) naturally make me suspicious of his motives. But even if he's doing it for all the wrong reasons, have they all forgotten about the Iraqi people?"
And, in the March 23 New York Times Magazine, Michael Ignatieff, a longtime human rights investigator, wrote of "14,000 'writers, academics, and other intellectuals' - many of them my friends - [who] published a petition against the war . . . condemning the Iraqi regime for its human rights violations and supporting 'efforts by the Iraqi opposition to create a democratic, multi-ethnic, and multireligious Iraq.' " But they say, he adds, that waging war at this time is "morally unacceptable."
"I wonder," Ignatieff wrote - as I also wonder - "what their support for the Iraqi opposition amounts to."
When the Village Voice is publishing articles extolling the virtues of this war, you have to wonder what it is the anti-war protesters are protesting. I suspect it's more about protesting against Bush and using the Vietnam protests as a model. If you want to protest Bush, then protest Bush, don't protest against the war - it just makes your completely legitimate points easy for the masses to dismiss. I'm not saying don't protest, just make sure you know what you're protesting against. And you know what the best way to protest against Bush is? Make sure he has worthy challengers awaiting him in 2004. Regime change begins at home.
Calling himself "a kind of dusted-off old figure" and "the last idealist in America," Gary Hart said he may run for president in 2004 because prominent Democrats are not challenging the Bush administration's foreign policy.
Hart, 66, who spoke to about 150 people at Amherst College on Saturday, is on a tour of campuses to drum up support for his campaign and his anti-war platform.
The former U.S senator and presidential candidate in 1994 and 1998 said that he can win the presidency this time - despite the fact he has only recently begun to raise funds - if young people aged 19 to 25 and "concerned citizens" propel him to a victory in the New Hampshire primary.
He sure sounds like he's ready to run. I suspect all this college campus touring is getting him fired up.
"If you win New Hampshire, the whole thing changes," Hart said of the nation's traditional first primary election.
The whole thing changes indeed. From a fellow idealist to the Senator: here's hopin'.
