"We are conducting a two-front war on only one front,"

November 6, 2002 12:35 PM

"We are conducting a two-front war on only one front," according to former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman. Even before their U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century report in January 2001, Hart and Rudman had predicted that "Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers" at the hands of terrorists, but they were ignored. And today, according to them, "more than a year has passed since the 9/11 attacks, and basic security priorities have not been met." On another note, Hart is considering a bid for the White House in 2004. With his record on national security issues, and after yesterday's Democratic performance, I think he might have a chance.
posted by homunculus (18 comments total)

Donna who?
posted by junkbox at 12:46 PM on November 6, 2002

...might have a chance to win the Democratic nomination, that is. I don't know what his chances of winning the Presidency would be, that would depend on how the next two years go.
posted by homunculus at 12:46 PM on November 6, 2002

But others said Clinton's later scandals, including his impeachment for lying about an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, show that character is important.

no, i think it set it up for Bush to have the opportunity to be up front about his coke habits back in the day and be respected for telling us about it. funny how Clinton had even a dress dragged in for questioning, but the current administration isn't being questioned about everything, and what they admit too is respected just because 'as long as they're not lying' (which is an ideal that repubs set up once they interrogated Clinton).

i don't want bush and cheney's skeletons exposed by the democrats. i don't want the dems to sink that lowly.
posted by prescribed life at 12:49 PM on November 6, 2002

It is too late for Hart...what he does have going is that there is no one in the Dem. party that seems to have stature any longer. Sad. There is Joe L., but he is more GOP than Dem.
posted by Postroad at 12:52 PM on November 6, 2002

I think Hart has served his sentence, and I would consider voting for him. At least from what he's said on the radio recently. But even if President Clinton's personal stupidities hhave made Hart's look tame, he doesn't have a chance: too professorial.

But, perhaps, maybe an appointment to a Democratic cabinet?
posted by ParisParamus at 12:55 PM on November 6, 2002

Why not Mondale-Hart or Hart-Mondale in 2004? The National Retro Clock should be pretty favorable to an 80s tandem by then...
posted by COBRA! at 12:57 PM on November 6, 2002

Though upon reading this FPP: the number of first dates gone on since I dated a Gary Hart supporter at BU in the early '80's.
CRINGE.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:58 PM on November 6, 2002

Why not Mondale-Hart or Hart-Mondale in 2004? The National Retro Clock should be pretty favorable to an 80s tandem by then...

I'm hoping that the retro clock skips the 80s. I don't think anyone needs to relive that decade.
posted by oissubke at 1:02 PM on November 6, 2002

I'm hoping that the retro clock skips the 80s. I don't think anyone needs to relive that decade.

Amen to that.
posted by hank_14 at 1:04 PM on November 6, 2002

Everyone is talking about Hart's possible presidential bid for 2004, but the real meat of the article is the currently unfulfilled domestic security measures that are needed. The article does not deal with the possible reasons why domestic security has been neglected after 9-11.


However, many other people are saying that domestic security necessarily entails a border crackdown, and the Money Men that feed the politicians in DC and the state capitals do not want the border crackdown that is needed for true domestic security. That is because they like the cheap labor b/c they make more money from the imported cheap labor than they would from domestic labor (and the corresponding increased price of domestic labor that comes when the cheap labor is not available).

So therefore, when the next episode of terrorism crops up, more American citizens will likely pay for the cheap labor needed to give more Plutocratic Profits.
posted by bannedThrice at 1:11 PM on November 6, 2002

I was disappointed to see in the article that Hart and Rudman agree that the creation of a national security department should be an excuse for union-busting. It's appalling that the Bush Administration would hold the new department hostage to their union-busting scheme, and shameful that Hart and Rudman would go along with it. Why do they think unions are a greater menace than Al Qaeda? If unions aren't such a menace, why not allow government employees remain in their unions when their agencies are switched over to the new national security department?
posted by Holden at 1:52 PM on November 6, 2002

Sitting here in Minnesota, I can safely say that recycling Democrats from the 80's is not a viable option for the Democratic Party. Not only did Mondale fall short in his biid, but the Democratic candidate for governor, Roger Moe, failed to stir the electorate as well.

Democrat's need to develop a crop of new candidates with a strong message of core democratic values to motivate the non-voters to show up on election day.

Perhaps two years of the class warfare that the corporate interests will be wageing on the working folks will provide clear vision and some issues for the Democrats to pursue.
posted by mygoditsbob at 2:08 PM on November 6, 2002

Holden, way to overinterpret. Here's what they said:

They are all now national security workers and no longer traditional government employees. Congress and the White House must immediately reach a legislative compromise that provides job protections appropriate to their new national security status and sufficiently flexible to allow for swift action in a national emergency.

Compromise; job protections; flexible. Strikes illegal, certain collective bargaining illegal, hire-fire restrictions eliminated, etc. Work rules more like most people have to live with, in other words.
posted by dhartung at 2:33 PM on November 6, 2002

Big need to hire and fire over Homeland Security, eh? In case someone is incompetent, right?

Anyone been fired over 9/11 yet? How about among those serving at the President's discretion, who obviously do not come with any legal encumberances? Anyone? No? Why not?
posted by dglynn at 2:58 PM on November 6, 2002

Compromise; job protections; flexible. Strikes illegal, certain collective bargaining illegal, hire-fire restrictions eliminated, etc. Work rules more like most people have to live with, in other words.

Whether pro or anti-union, that sure sounds like union-busting to me...
posted by jalexei at 4:27 PM on November 6, 2002

Donna who cares.
posted by LouReedsSon at 7:15 PM on November 6, 2002

I had a girl, and Donna was her name.
posted by allaboutgeorge at 2:34 AM on November 7, 2002

Democrat's need to develop a crop of new candidates with a strong message of core democratic values to motivate the non-voters to show up on election day.

What are those values? What are the Republican values for that matter? Is there someplace that states in type "theses are the core values of the party?"

I cannot claim to know the core values of either side.
So, I google the phrase and it comes up with quite a number of hits But it looks like these hits have more to do with teaching the fundamentals of our gov't.

Here is one that lays it out fairly straight forward. But, I think this more of the gov't and not the party.

Here is a statement of values of the Green Party.
Certainly admirable, yet naive in a way. I think it is how everyone wishes things could be, or something like that.

Green Party of Connecticut has there own rules too.

Oh well, I am on hold with Exabyte. Cannot continue this quest. I would appreciate seeing the supposed core values of the Dems and Reps so I can evaluate them.

See what 40 minutes on hold can produce? FYI: Steer clear of Mammoth M2 drives
posted by a3matrix at 8:34 AM on November 7, 2002