Heart to Hart
On this President's Day, a short time-out to remember someone who might have been president. Who could have President. And if he had, might have radically changed the way the last two decades of American politics have so drearily played out (who would have imagined that --out of sheer desperation and self-delusion-- some two-bit con man trimmer like Bill Clinton would be so fondly missed by so many?).
My pal Bill Bradley takes the time to remind us what really happened to the Gary Hart campaign of 1988. We think we know what happened, he says. We think Gary Hart, then the runaway front-runner, challenged a nosy press to follow him around and then got caught in some monkey business. But Bradley, who had been a Hart campaign official, recalls things somewhat differently.
It's a sad tale, either way. Hart was and remains one of the smartest political thinkers we've got. Listen to him for a few minutes or read one of the detailed policy reports he now and then issues and you'll realize just what tiny, tiny little people folks like Bushes 41 and 43 are (not to forget the dimunitive Mr. and Mrs. Clinton).Â
February 20th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
He is a giant of a thinker.
February 20th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
GARY HART IS A PROPONENT OF FREE TRADE—BUT HE DOES NOT KNOW OR REFUSES TO ADMIT THE CONSEQUENCES OF GLOBALIZATION AND HOW IT LEADS TO WORLD WIDE EXPLOITATION.
He was also part of a scheme in 2003 with the Carlyle Group, a well-connected investment fund founded by a former Carter administration official.
This group proposed that the government of Kuwait give these guys a contract for helping Kuwaitis secure 27 billion dollars in reparation damages in the first Persian Gulf War from future Iraqi oil revenues—the deal fell through when the proposal was leaked to the press.
It seems that all politicians bathe in Mierda—that explains the need to wipe your hands with an antibacterial wipe whenever you meet one.
This is an excerpt of discussion that someone had with Hart on “foreign policy.â€
Hart also described himself as a foreign policy expert, saying he has the experience in foreign policy matters to be president; others would have to learn on the job and, according to him, we can’t afford that. He noted that he negotiated with the Soviets and some other things during his Senate terms.
After a rather long-winded intro, he opened things up for questions.
Dennis K. asked about free trade / fair trade, and Hart’s response was, (and I quote), “globalization is inevitable.” He said there was some fine-tuning that needed to be done… for example, finding ways to help American workers who lose their jobs. He said nothing about what’s happening to folks in developing countries.
So I followed with a question about free trade zones, asking if he didn’t think that conditions in these zones violated basic human rights. His response? He look confused for a few seconds and then asked me if I was sure I meant “free trade zones.” “Is that the term you mean?… I think you’re confusing it with something else…” So I assured him that I knew this IS what I meant, and briefly described various conditions in the free trade zones in Nicaragua and elsewhere, including very aggressive measures against union organizing. Hart stumbled, and wasn’t sure what to say… I was genuinely astonished how little he seemed to know for someone who was allegedly so well-versed in foreign policy.
He was better on Cuba. Someone else asked him about our embargo on Cuba, and Hart did say that he disagreed with it, and with conservative Cubans in Miami dictating U.S. foreign policy there. He predicted that if the U.S. lifted the embargo Castro would be gone in a matter of months…. (He also noted that he has been to Cuba and met Castro 3 times in his career.)
February 20th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
He could have done a much better job of handling the Rice affair. The The country was ready for a “this is how I am, warts and all, take me or leave me” figure in 1988, but he just didn’t want to be upfront. fact was that he was never comfortable in his own skin as a public figure. The same problems happened in 1984, remember how he couldn’t get his story straight about when and why he changed his name?
And it’s sad, because I think he could have GROWN into being a real stateman, the close thing to a philosopher-president since Wilson, at least.
February 20th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Just spent an infuriating amount of time at Bill Bradley’s website.
Unfortunately, contrary to Marc’s intro, he doesn’t begin to say ‘what really happened’ to end Gary Hart’s presidential campaign. He tells us that what we think we know is wrong but doesn’t tell us what, or why — except to offer a highly confusing timeline about Donna Rice, the stakeout, the Miami Herald, the New York Times magazine and the career harikiri of the Washington Post’s top political reporter.
If you go to his site you’ll see that I made some headway in trying to figure this out. But Mr Bradley seems to take an unhealthy degree of pleasure in telling his blog visitors, myself included, how uninformed and confused they are without actually taking any steps to enlighten them.
As you might say yourself, Marc, if I want cock-teasing then there’s always Vegas. Is your pal always this infuriatingly enigmatic?
February 20th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Hart was disgusted by the “Trivial Pursuit” nature of the game.
Frankly, who gives a rat’s ass about him shortening his name from Hartpence to Hart? What kind of lightweight nitwit thinking does it take to focus on that effluvia instead of the beginnings of an unsustainable deficit and secret unaccountable war?
Now, that is what I would say. But perhaps I am not a gentleman.
February 20th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
“modestproposal,” the post is what it is, as I told you repeatedly. Don’t worry, I will lay out precisely for you, like bacon and eggs from mom, why he DID drop out. Today is about why he DIDN’T drop out.
Incidentally, it all there in the public record once you get past all the silly web sites and “what you think you know.”
February 20th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Incidentally, how is the timeline I lay out “highly confusing?”
>a highly confusing timeline about Donna Rice, the stakeout, the Miami Herald, the New York Times magazine and the career harikiri of the Washington Post’s top political reporter.
February 20th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
BTW, regarding the Carlyle Group conspiracy theory. I think you will find Carlyle is filled with Republicans …
February 20th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
It’s been a long time since I read it, but I enjoyed Richard Ben Cramer’s book What It Takes, which is all about the 1988 race. It’s long and detailed, and as I recall, covers some of the Hart campaign coming to an end. It’s worth a read.
I’m looking forward to what Bradley regards as the real reason Hart dropped out.
February 20th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
BIll,
The Carlyle group needed to show that they had political clout to overcome the Bush administration’s announced intention to minimize Iraq’s debt payments so they offered to put the following Americans in Kuwait’s service:
George H.W.Bush; James Baker; former British prime minister, John Major; Madeleine Albright; Carole Browner; GARY HART and Jeane Kirkpatrick—MAKING MONEY IS A BIPARTISAN ACTIVITY–27 billion dollars is a lot of Shekels.
February 20th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Hart is not in the Carlyle Group. Which of course has nothing to do with how he was driven from the presidential race, unless you consider that members of the Carlyle Group had something to do with it.
February 20th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
That doesn’t make him a member of the Carlyle group as far as I can see either. It just gets wilder around here all the time.
February 20th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
I’m saying he allowed himself to be used by this group–so either he is an idiot or a crook.
February 20th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Well, that’s an “either or” alright.
February 20th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Oh, I love a conspiracy …
February 20th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Gary Hart’s failed 1988 run for President should be a clarion call for all people who truly call themselves progressives to demand electoral primary reform.
In 1988, Gary Hart was the clear front runner in the New Hampshire Primary (Cuomo had earlier declined to run). However, according to wikipedia.com, Hart’s numbers among Democrats in that conservative state dropped from 32% (before the infidelity rumors) to 17% (after the rumors) in a poll taken (and a poll which Hart and his people presumably payed some attention to).
And since New Hampshire and Iowa – for reasons I cannot fathom – have so much weight with subsequent primary and caucus voters in other states, Hart didn’t have much of a chance in 1988.
In other words, a few hundred (yes, a few hundred) Democratic voters in this right wing state were allowed to decide who should be the Democratic presidental nominee that year – and who will be president in 2008. You see, nothing has changed (look at Howard Dean in 2004, who was the Dem. front runner before Iowans decided to listen to the Anti-Dean media and instead go for Kerry, the safe guy).
If I had been Hart, THAT right there would have been the reason I would have dropped out (and maybe it was the reason): the frustrating fact that a few backwards thinking people can decide the Democratic nominee every four years, millions of other Democrats in the U.S. be damned.
February 20th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Oops, “paid” some attention to. lol, payed
February 20th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Wow, Bill Bradley comment-dogging your blog, Marc!
I’m willing to wait. I’d bet that even now there are people convinced that Dean’s scream is what cost him the nomination.
February 20th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
One more thing I should have added, even though it is off subject:
Clearly, we should change the nomination process so that New Hampshire and Iowa are not allowed to be the sole arbitrators of who will shine in the limelight. Unless someone here has a better idea(s), I think it would be preferable to have all fifty states (and U.S. territories) hold their electoral primaries and caucuses on the same day.
February 20th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Actually, in an earlier post, I had said that Hart was the front runner in 1988. Actually, I meant 1987 (before May 8, 1987, when the aforementioned polls came out and he dropped out).
Of course he re-entered in December 1987, but in the New Hampshire Primary a few months later he tallied only 4%.
Sorry about the dates being mixed up, hey I was barely walking back then.
February 20th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Spin, baby, spin!
February 21st, 2006 at 4:00 pm
“It’s been a long time since I read it, but I enjoyed Richard Ben Cramer’s book What It Takes, which is all about the 1988 race. It’s long and detailed, and as I recall, covers some of the Hart campaign coming to an end. It’s worth a read..”
An outstanding book. FWIW, Cramer said when the book was published that, in his humble opinion, he DIDN’T think Hart and Rice had sex. And this was a man who’d studied Gary Hart for 5+ years.
February 21st, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Yeah, they did look kinda distant toward each other in that photo of her straddling him aboard that boat.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:01 am
“I think it would be preferable to have all fifty states (and U.S. territories) hold their electoral primaries and caucuses on the same day.”
Terrific idea if you want to have a coronation of the establishment candidate. Forget about any dark horses or candidates who build momentum.
The problems with the primary system as it currently is:
1. Too many primaries. It’s up to the parties to fix this, but there should really only be maybe 20 or so primaries with the remainder of the delegates filled by caucuses and of course the usual grandees of the party.
2. Stretch the primary system out, not shorten it. It used to be that New Hampshire had its primary and then there was almost a month before the next contest. Now it’s more likely that within a week or two there will be a dozen or more primaries. This keeps candidates who connect with the voters from having a chance to connect with the moneymen afterwards.
3. Go back to the smoke-filled rooms. The old pols may not have been responsive to every whim of the party activists, but on the other hand, they saved the party from getting crushed like a grape.
Remember, because of the front-loaded nature of the primaries in 2004, John Kerry steamrolled to victory. If voters had a chance to look at him as a front-runner, you gotta think they would have realized that he wasn’t up to the job. But as it was, once he won Iowa and New Hampshire, it was Katie bar the door.
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:07 am
“you gotta think they would have realized that he wasn’t up to the job.”
Pfftt…to you maybe and a handful of scared Ohio voters who now regret it. Oh contraire.
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:08 pm
The problem is not Gary Hart, it’s the Party. Too many “Progressives” and not enough genuine old-style Populists.
There is nothing wrong with the Democratic Party that the old-time FDR religion won’t fix, but too many Progressive causes would have to get tossed aside.
This is why you get awful candidates. Dean, Hart, Dukakis and Carter are just as truly awful as Gore and Clinton. Look at Bill. In Pakistan during Cartoon Jihad and calling for the Danish Cartoonists to be punished. Al Gore in SAUDI bemoans the “inhumane treatment” of Arabs right after 9/11 and the new tough visa program for Saudis. This in the country that provided 15 of the 19 hijackers.
A populist party would have candidates reflecting the concerns of Average Americans and so a Bill Clinton or Al Gore would have ripped the Pakistanis and Saudis a new one, letting seething Muslims know there are bright lines that should not be crossed and they are getting awfully close.
Republicans win elections because they make half-hearted attempts at populism and Democrats don’t even bother. Ask yourself why the hell is Rudy a Republican?
Changing dates on primaries or returning smoke-filled rooms won’t fix things. The Party IMHO needs a near-death event to get serious about the fundamental direction it wants to take: catering to coastal and urban elites or the suburban average guy.
But the bottom line on Gary Hart is that he couldn’t keep his pants buttoned long enough to be President. And the Press no longer reacting to J Edgar Hoover’s blackmail campaigns (finding out which people he didn’t like were fooling around and feeding that to the Press) wasn’t going to cut him JFK type slack.
February 22nd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
William Jennings Bryan was an old syle populist. I wouldn’t want him.
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:51 pm
“Republicans win elections because they make half-hearted attempts at populism and Democrats don’t even bother. Ask yourself why the hell is Rudy a Republican?”
Rudolph Giuliani is a Republican because he reflects the hard right wing on everything except for a few social issues, such as abortion. As a Catholic who has said he is personally against abortion, Giuliani has adopted a “populist” position on this issue because frankly, in my opinion, he – like Pitaki – knows that over 70% of his state is pro-choice.
As a Catholic who is supposed to theoretically do good works and help his fellow poor neighbors out, he instead cuts people’s welfare and warehouses entire families into dingy motel rooms that they share with the worst kind of element (drug dealers). This, again, is what New Yorkers want, so he has given it to them.
Jim, I think that being a Populist means taking a stand on some issues that may not be supported by a majority or even many of your constituents, and still being able to walk away with those people’s respect and support.
Sen. Russell Feingold and the late, great Sen. Paul Wellstone are men whom I would call Populist; but not Giuliani.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Republicans convince voters that they’re on their side when it isn’t true. The policies work against most Americans. They’re just fooled is all.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:28 pm
Well Mr. York, I do believe that you and I are in agreement on this.
February 24th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
It’s bound to happen since the truth lives in the middle of the road.
November 11th, 2006 at 11:50 am
Buy Antivert…
Buy Antivert. Buy Antivert online. Buy cheap Antivert….