Gary Hart: Support for Kerry based on constitutional grounds

[blm]

Kerry is candidate best able to keep America safe
Danger of terrorism is significant and lasting

January  09,  2004

Concord Monitor



by Gary Hart


Some time back I stated my support for Sen. John Kerry based on constitutional grounds - namely that the president has the responsibility to manage the domestic agenda, be head of state and be commander in chief of the military forces - and that Sen. Kerry best met these unique standards. The age of terrorism, however, has added a new, and even more important, dimension to the office - protector of the American homeland.



In recent years we've settled in to a pattern of accepting the inadequacies of national candidates on the grounds that whoever is elected can learn on the job and can select advisers experienced enough to fill in the gaps in presidential experience and command.

The immediacy of the terrorist threat now denies us that luxury. The next president must walk into the Oval Office prepared to set national priorities, repair damaged alliances, respond to international crises - and protect our nation from further attack.

As a co-chair, with former senator Warren Rudman, of the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st century, I experienced the sickening feeling of predicting terrorist attacks and seeing nothing done by the current administration to prevent them. I also participated in the documentation by the Council on Foreign Relations of a desperate lack of urgency about homeland security even after 3,000 Americans were killed. This situation is unacceptable.

Uniquely among all candidates, including the incumbent, Sen. Kerry has recognized the need for much greater urgency regarding preventing and preparing to respond to further attacks.
>>>>>

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2004_0109d.html

To refresh your memories, Hart is the author of the Hart-Rudman report which Bush did NOT read pre 9-11.

[SahaleArm]

1. Ah the perpetual state of fear...

Hey Gary - It's lasting if we continue to have sh*tty foreign policy.

[blm]

2. He studied the issue for 2 1/2 years. He knows the lay of the land.

Hart believes in a progressive internationalism and knows that Kerry has the goods to promote that vision.

Address his point about the Constitution. It is hard to argue.

[sandnsea]

4. I prefer honesty

Sorry, there's no way the General could have prevented 9/11 or can guarantee there will never be another terrorist attack. Terrorism is real and I prefer a candidate who tells the truth about it, without terrifying, and has solid plans, domestically and internationally, to deal with it. And who also has the international skills to make peace with nations, like Kerry did in Vietnam; and change political leadership without a shot, like he did in the Philippines. Kerry would be a better President. He exposed the illegal wars in Central America, he wasn't executing them.

[blm]

10. Kerry warned about terrorism, its funding and its roots

in his 1997 book, The New War.

Amazing that so many Dems want to remain blind to the advantage this point is for Democrats with Kerry as the nominee.

PLUS he's a REAL progressive with a record to prove it. Not some longtime centrist who repackaged himself as a populist.

[isbister]

3. I'm not afraid but don't need to be foolish either

I don't want the next President needing a lesson about whatever particular issues they must address. Training takes too long. I want a President that can hit the ground running, there'll be a lot of work to do (probably a couple of months recinding bush's executive orders alone)

Hart's right:

"In recent years we've settled in to a pattern of accepting the inadequacies of national candidates on the grounds that whoever is elected can learn on the job and can select advisors experienced enough to fill in the gaps in presidential experience and command."

[blm]

5. Yes. It's OUR duty to vote - It's the Constitution, stupid.

.

[mouse7]

6. Hart and Kerry were friends when Hart was in the Senate

Back in the time when Kerry was voting against weapon systems and for the nuclear freeze.

Back before he tried to distance himself as far as possible from those votes.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mouse7]

8. I read a lot. Read Kerry statements saying he was in error on those votes

You should read a little more. You haven't even read enough of THIS board to know I'm not supporting a candidate. I'm tired of the attack politics, thought. I'm tired of the attacks that do nothing but hurt the Part and write commercials for Rove, and Kerry is as bad as Lieberman now for injuring the party.

[blm]

9. Then how can you believe what you said about Kerry?

Kerry advocates AGAINST Star Wars (he has for years) and would end the program as soon as he took office. He is also against any new nuclear programs and advocated AGAINST tactical nukes.

Look at Dean's real record . His record of the way he ACTUALLY governed as opposed to the way he campaigns now is appalling on civil liberties and the environment and the most pro corporate record of all the candidates.

You seem bound and determined to deny Kerry and his actual voting record of 18 years, his progressive battles of over 30 years, his exposure of more government corruption than ANY lawmaker in modern history, and the fact that his lifetime liberal rating is the closest to Wellstone's of ANY of the candidates, including Kucinich.

The Dean camp pushing the story that Kerry is a "corrupt Washington insider" and that he is "Bushlite" is what has really divided this party and it started last Jan.23 and Dean never let up. THAT was a good move to you for party unity?

Deceiving many by saying he's antiwar when he was just as pro resolution as Kerry and others was a good move to you for party unity?

Berating other candidates who supported keeping middle class taxcuts for a year, then deciding to offer middle class taxcuts himself was a good move to you for party unity?

[mouse7]

11. Kerry distanced himself from votes against weapons and nuke freeze

Kerry did it. Not me.

Kerry ran from his record. Not me.

Kerry is to blame for portraying himself as bush-lite. Not me.

[blm]

12. Cite? Links?

I only heard him denounce new nuke programs.

[mouse7]

15. Here you go... you sure you want this?

"...Kerry entered the Senate race with the advantage of a statewide presence and organization. Within a few months of announcing his candidacy, however, he was in danger of losing strategic ground to US Representative James M. Shannon of Lawrence, his chief rival in the bruising Democratic primary.

Kerry had been outscored by Shannon in the endorsement questionnaire of a nuclear disarmament group that vehemently opposed the military buildup under President Reagan.

The nuclear freeze was a defining issue across the country for liberal Democrats, who were about to be flattened a second time at the polls by the steamroller of Reagan's conservatism. In Massachusetts, the activists were a key bloc, ardently courted by Kerry and Shannon, "the liberal twins," as the other two Democrats in the primary field called them.

Shannon had outscored Kerry, 100 to 94, on the questionnaire of the group, known as Freeze Voter `84, which favored canceling funds for a slew of major weapons systems.

Then a strange thing happened. Paul F. Walker, Shannon's most prominent backer on the group's executive committee, graded the answers and laid out for Kerry campaign manager Paul L. Rosenberg both the flaws in Kerry's responses and what the "correct" answers should be.

"Walker was confused about your answer" on funding the Trident submarine, Rosenberg wrote in an internal memo to Kerry, who had originally hedged in his opposition to funding new subs.

"It is critically important that we get a 100 percent rating," Rosenberg wrote, in a memo that has not previously been made public. "You should explain how your position was misinterpreted so that he will correct the rating before it is distributed to the board tomorrow evening."

Walker "is favorably disposed to change the grading because `he knows of your strong support for the freeze and knows this is what you must have meant,' " Rosenberg concluded.

Kerry revised his answers, tied Shannon with a perfect score, and at the activists' meeting in late June denied Shannon the 60 percent majority he needed to secure the endorsement for himself. Instead, Shannon and Kerry shared the group's stamp of approval in the primary field that also included then-secretary of state Michael J. Connolly and former House speaker David M. Bartley.

Kerry today says he does not recall the amendments to his Freeze Voter `84 questionnaire, which were publicized at the time, and says his initial responses may have been an error or misinterpreted...."

Freeze Voter '84
Read the previously undisclosed memo from campaign manager Paul L. Rosenberg to Kerry regarding changes to the questionnaire
Read the memo


---


"...In his zeal to keep pace with Shannon's leftward drift on disarmament, Kerry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might -- the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks.

These weapons became conversation topics at American dinner tables during the Iraq war, but candidate Kerry in 1984 said he would have voted to cancel many of them -- the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system.

He also advocated reductions in many other systems, such as the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet.

In retrospect, Kerry said some of his positions in those days were "ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I've learned since then...."

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061903.shtml

[blm]

16. You want to compare POST 9-11 America with PRE 9-11 America?

Kerry STILL is against tactical nukes and new nuclear programs, as well as the militarization of space.

YOU want to portray him as now being FOR it because he has merely adjusted his former FULLBLOWN opposition from almost 20 years ago?

YOU want to attack him sanctimoniously on this issue while Dean is allowed his longtime position more aligned with the right wingers?

Give it up. Your attacks on Kerry are petty reaches. Looking for the tiniest differences to blow it up into a wedge. If you study any of Dean's record and stances on Dem issues, you'd find plenty of REAL inconsistencies and lies. But, somehow I truly doubt you'd expend that effort because it's easier to hide behind the cry "They're attacking Dean."


Why don't you TRY addressing what Gary Hart said about Constitutional duty on presidential readiness?

[mouse7]

17. I don't need to. Kerry has flop/floped a decade of his record.

Kerry changed his whole platform regarding defense issues in order to invade a country that has no WoMD or any other imminant threat. Kerry was "convinced" to do this by that idiot pig farmer from Crawford.

What silly lunacy will Kerry change a quarter of his voting record for next?

[blm]

19. That's absurd and inconsistent with your proDean posts

when Dean's original position on Iraq was Biden-Lugar use of force resolution which was much the same as the IWR. If you're going to sound a sanctimonious tone over Kerry, then I suggest you be straight about Dean's record which also includes longtime support for nuclear programs and covert illegal wars.

[iowapeacechief]

18. I've considered Kerry a leader and ally...

...as one long active in disarmament and other antiwar efforts includng the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign. As far as I know, his record really is as good as they come.

However, during this campaign season, I've heard "peace" people talk about Kerry "running from" his record, and I am concerned about that charge. Your post presents more useful background than anything else I have seen about it, and I'm open to studying it more carefully. Thanks!

Since last spring I've been supporting Kucinich. I've been fortunate to see much of him and to work with some very fine people in his campaign. I'm not blind to his imperfections, but my admiration for Dennis only increases as he persists and grows stronger despite incredible odds. I am doing all I possibly can to make him The Big Surprise of the Iowa caucuses.

Nevertheless, I could face a quick decision about needing a second choice in my own precinct Monday night. Planning for that possibility has nothing to do with disloyalty or inconsistency and everything to do with responsible participation.

I have not committed to my Number 2 (and might not unless the need appears unavoidable), but I am openly negotiating and reasoning with members of the other campaigns. In these conversations, I've stated clearly that, the Iraq War Resolution, important as it was, is only one of many considerations for me. Although I never agreed with viewing IWR as a litmus test, I argue today that it matters less and less for any of us who would contemplate supporting anyone other than Dennis at some point. Present and future leadership matter more, and values and overall career records are what count in my calculations.

So I've been looking hard at all the candidates, especially Dean and Kerry whom I've listened to and spoken with during the past week.

I remain open to the prospect of joining "antiwar" Dean sometime--I've been giving him (and his formidable movement) the benefit of the doubt for about a year. I should say I give the movement its due. But I don't mind saying I am less satisfied with Dean himself the more I see of him. I do find myself feeling more drawn to Kerry (which is where I'd expected to be before IWR and before Dennis entered the race) and am giving him my most serious second look.

I welcome your help!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. There is no doubt that Kerry is not the almost-pacifist he was 20 yrs ago

I remember at some point someone here posted the GOP attack page on Kerry which listed many of the somewhat radical votes he cast on Defense in his early years in the Senate. Scarred by war, Kerry looked at defense spending with scepticism. But being an advocate for peace is not inconsistent with believing in a strong military. And if you look at Kerry's record, you will see he knows that the real strength of our military is not in weapon systems but in people. Kerry has fought for a fair deal for our folks in uniform and understands from first-hand experience how important it is not to place them in harm's way unnecessarily.

[sangh0]

20. 6 points?? Is that all you have?

If all you have is a six point difference from an obviously progressive organization which gave him a 95% rating, you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that Kerry is NOT a progressive.

[WiseMen]

13. Question: Is Hart in IOWA this Week?

[blm]

14. Don't know.

I only WISH I worked for the campaign. ;))))

[PATRICK]

22. Wrong contribution, too late

Hart might have better helped Kerry in picking campaign strategy both from his past successes and mistakes. I happen to agree Kerry is the best overall qualified and has the character to go with it, but if you can't win the White House you won't prove it either. Does Hart think anyone we choose will have an easy time? If someone proves they know how to lose the election the other considerations are vacated.

Still time, but it isn't about records or issues so much by now. Nor are the others slouches or a threat to the country by implication. In fact, if Dean proves his governor experience or Clark his winning abilities, then, you know governing best might solve all those headaches the "right man" might never overcome.

Still open to Kerry. He deserves ranking at the top, but he has to win it.

[PATRICK]

23. Somber Cassandras

of course, Hart beating at the doors uselessly about the terror threat before 911 accomplished nothing did it? No one barely remembers the Hart Rudman report. We need effectiveness. We already know what needs to be done.