Wow! Did you get the letter from Gary Hart (via the PAC)

Dear TayTay,

"The public trust must be earned, and speaking clearly, candidly and forcefully now about the mess in Iraq is the place to begin."

I wrote those words in August in The Washington Post to call on Democratic Party leaders to step forward on Iraq. My years in the Senate and as co-chair of the Bipartisan Commission on National Security had convinced me that, unless Democrats provided real leadership, Americans would never receive the honest and open debate about Iraq that our country deserves.

When I first read John Kerry's October speech on Iraq, I knew it was a turning point. He spoke with the same unwavering voice - truth speaking to power - as he did when I first heard him speak out about the war in Vietnam in 1971. John Kerry got it right last month when he said, "Asking tough questions isn't pessimism; it's patriotism" and then answered those questions by offering a detailed plan to get the troops home.

In recent weeks, Democratic leaders across America - Jack Murtha, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Pat Leahy, John Edwards and Barack Obama - have questioned the Bush Administration's unfocused "stay as long as it takes" approach. Democrats have joined together to offer substantive alternatives to get it right in Iraq and made it clear that our conscience and conviction lie with taking care of our troops.

The grassroots community at johnkerry.com has played a critical role making sure these ideas are heard and that brave Democrats are protected against the inevitable Republican attacks.

When John Kerry called for the withdrawal of 20,000 troops over the holidays, and the majority of remaining combat troops by the end of 2006, linking bringing troops home to clear benchmarks, you added energy and passion to that initiative.

When John Kerry called for accelerated training of Iraqi troops, greater international involvement, and improved reconstruction efforts, you amplified his voice.

Now, because of your efforts and those of all these Democratic leaders, make no mistake: the wheel has turned in the national debate over the war in Iraq. The American people have responded to the tough questions we've been asking because they had the same ones. The result is that the Bush Administration is being forced to engage in something they've gone to great lengths to avoid: an open debate about the war in Iraq.

We should all be proud of what has been accomplished, but never complacent. Asking questions and debating the issues alone will not rectify this disastrous situation exacerbated by the endless stream of Administration failures. You have to demand answers. You have to demand results for our troops.

That means making sure the intensity of your grassroots effort doesn't fade over the holidays. Our troops don't have the luxury of taking it easy over the holidays, and neither do we.

We have to continue to speak out - on talk radio, in letters to the editor, and to our neighbors - to demand an Administration strategy to get our troops home.

This fight isn't just about the future of the Democratic Party - whether we're going to have a strong Democratic Party that speaks its mind or settles for being a second Republican Party. This fight, at its core, is about restoring the strength and honor of America.

America needs your continued leadership, courage and passion on the grassroots level. I can't thank you enough for everything you have already done, and I am confident about what the johnkerry.com community is sure to accomplish in the future.

Sincerely,

Gary Hart

******************************************

Discuss: This is really nice. Really, really nice. Hart was very critical and it's nice to see him giving credit where credit is due.

Discuss, discuss.

And came over here to kvell!!!!!

GO, Gary!!!!!!

What a wonderful vote of confidence for our guy. :loveya:

And while I'm on the subject, it was John Kerry and Jack Reed who rebutted the * speech, not Joe Biden or anyone else. I think they (the Dems) know when they've got a good man to come up against the prez.

DU freepers can just put a sock in it.

I just heard Ed Schultz's new promo - with JK!!!!!!!!!!

Though I admit I didn't even check in GD. :hide:

haven't gone over there yet to see what's shaking down today.

answered Bush's speech. S(he) complained that he wore it all the time, and he wore it during the campaign - and s(he) hates it because it's a loser tie. The recommendation was he get a blue or purple(?) tie.

oh, he made good points.

I thought that was an in-group argument. For the record, I like the blue ties. I just think they are softer but nicer.

He had so much vision when he himself ran. It's too bad Bush ignored his and Rudman's report.

Kerry and Reed did a great job today. Kerry sounded so good in the Q&A part.

It was especially nice after Senator Reed didn't specifically endorse Senator Kerry's Iraq plan/legislation today. (Not that there were indicators that was going to happen, but I did have my fingers crossed.)

Good move.

hope they show some appreciation for Hart's words.

Do you have a link?

I signed up at the request for name and e-mail. (I even unsubscribed a while ago for an old e-mail and put in my 'new' one and have got every e-mail since.)

Shouldn't be a problem. If it is, let us know and we will try and contact one of the web people and tell them there is a problem.

Hart contacted them and asked to write this?

I thought Gary Hart had one and that's where it was from. I am on the Kerry mailing list--sometimes get them late, though.

johnkerry.com, so yours will probably get to you at some point.

I haven't read it yet, but just wanted to give you a heads up that I sent you a PM. Got the card today!!! It's GREAT!!! Waiting for you to PM me back with the next address. Ir came too late this afternoon to get it to the PO, so it will go out in the AM. THANK YOU!! DC:grouphug:

Did Hart send them a nice letter that the PAC wanted to share? I can't imagine they asked him to write.

It's just different that it wasn't John writing. It has me wondering how it came to be that Hart was writing for the Kerry community.

I wish I knew more about Gary Hart. All I remember is that his presidential aspirations got derailed. And someone was "kind" enough to bring that up yesterday as well. I wonder if such zingers would have come re: Hart if the person didn't have issues with Kerry.

Gary Hart, according to my archive stories, campaigned for John Kerry for the Senate in 1984. They worked together in the Senate on various and sundry things over the years and such. So they do seem to have known each other a very long time.

Maybe he liked the plan? (You know, there is the outside possibility that he really liked the plan. It's not cynical or insider stuff or anything, but it happens sometimes.)

Hey, Hart managed Sen. George McGovern's run in 1972. That's interesting.

Hey, want to read something really cool I found in the archives: Talk about being consistent. This is an article from 1980. I can PM, if you like. (About 2 pages long, but interesting.)

I'd love to see it

check out who is consistent all the way back then.

VIETNAM FOES SPLIT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE, SUPPORT CARTER SPEECH
BOSTON GLOBE, FIRST, Sec. RUN OF PAPER 01-25-1980
By Richard H. Stewart Globe Staff

Antiwar activists from the Vietnam era are not as united about President Jimmy Carter's tough-sounding speech on the Persian Gulf as they were about the war in Vietnam.

In interviews yesterday, academics like Prof. Noam Chomsky of MIT and Prof. Howard Zinn of Boston University reacted to Carter's address to Congress Wednesday night by expressing concern that the heightened nationalism in the United States will result in increased expenditures for the military at the expense of domestic needs.

But Sen. George McGovern, who based his race for the Presidency in 1972 on opposition to the Vietnam war, offered his support to the President, as did the man who ran McGovern's campaign, Gary Hart, now a member of the Senate himself.

"I'm really worried about playing on the mood of nationalism which Carter seems to be engaged in," said Zinn. "That doesn't have much to do with what the Russians are doing in Afghanistan as far as the moral issue is concerned, but it does have to do with our oil interests.

"I see it all as a game of power by the elite leaders in the big world. The people whose lives they hold hostage are Americans, Russians, Iranians and Afghans."

Zinn insisted the President's proposal to revive registration for the draft "is part of a general attempt to bring the nation back to acceptance of a war economy and a war psychology."

"What will happen will be an increased allocation of resources for the military and less resources available to solve the problems of fuel and improving living conditions."

Chomsky viewed developments in much the same light.

"I think it's a further step toward enhancing a militaristic posture domestically and internationally, which is extremely dangerous at home and abroad."

Chomsky continued, "When we devote resources to arms - essentially to waste - that means we take them away from productive enterprises. We will suffer."

Chomsky added: "If we proceed to respond to the situation in Asia by giving arms to Pakistan, we will harm the long-term interests of Pakistan as well as our own." Chomsky said the military regime in Pakistan would use the increased weaponry "to repress its own population."

Jerry Grossman, longtime activist and currently involved with the Council for a Liveable World, an organization devoted to international arms control to reduce the prospects of nuclear warfare, said Carter's reference to "military force" if the Russians intrude on the oil-rich Persian Gulf region "means nuclear because that's the only way we can compete with them in that area."

Grossman also took strong exception to the President's move toward renewing the military draft system.

"I'm totally opposed (to the draft) in peacetime. It's irrelevant to the present crisis. We're not going to send masses of troops to the Soviet border or anywhere near it."

As for Carter's proposal to remove some existing restraints on the CIA, Grossman said it "would encourage the CIA to repeat some of the outrages they have perpetrated in the past 20 years. That is extremely dangerous to the health of the republic."

John Kerry, now a State Street attorney but during the Vietnam war the man who organized Vietnam veterans opposed to the war, said he agreed that Carter "has to make a statement about American interests in that area (the Persian Gulf), but I would like to see a greater effort made to bring our allies into that declaration."

Kerry said he would like to see Carter "use caution in the escalation of the rhetoric" involved in the warnings to Russia.

As he did during the Vietnam era, Kerry said he favors the draft - but a "fairly administered and equitable draft" that does not favor the rich and well-educated over the poor.

A spokesman for McGovern said in Washington that the South Dakota Democrat "thought it was a strong and constructive speech. He fully supported the President on the Persian Gulf but parted company with him on the draft."

Hart also offered his support to the President on the warning to the Soviets. A spokesman for the Colorado Democrat said, however, that Hart's position was coupled with an insistence that if the Carter Administration had pursued "a consistent, strong policy" the United States wouldn't be trying to solve these problems today.