Gary Hart again defends his "anti-dual loyalty" comment" against critics.

Former Colorado senator Gary Hart insists he never meant to impugn the patriotism of any particular ethnic group of Americans --especially Jews --when he said in a speech last week that certain Americans can't separate their "loyalties to their original homelands" from their loyalty to America.

Insisting that his overall thesis was sound, Hart added, "Would anyone want to defend the negative?"

Hart said he "threw out a handfulof names" — he cited Irish Americans and Cuban Americans — in response to a question by ABC News at his Stanford speech, but he characterized that response as a "throwaway." He declined to elaborate on those examples, saying his foreign policy speech was not meant to be prescriptive, but only a "framework," a "statement of principles."

Asked whether he had any policy prescriptions regarding Israel, Hart said no. "Anyone who is familiar with my senatorial record," he added, "knows I took an active role in the Middle East and was a strong advocate for a free, strong, independent Israel across the board."

In our opinion, it's time to put this one to rest. The critics' concerns are groundless. Hart provided some more criticism of Bush's war plans in the Forward interview:

Hart had harsh words for current American policy toward Iraq, telling the Forward that "some senior American officials are on record as advocating" a plan for a long-term military presence in the nation that amounts to "an imperial design." "The president should account to the American people more clearly who will go with us, what military force we will use, how much it will cost... and how many American and Iraqi casualties there will be," Hart said. "On a desk in the Pentagon there are casualty estimates. The president is obligated to share those. The worst thing that could happen is that public support will erode, which is what happened in Vietnam."

A just released Harris Poll shows that Bush's approval rating has dropped to 52%. Right after September 11, he was at 88%. Two months ago he was at 64%. 46% give him negative ratings now, up from 35% two months ago.

Ashcroft dropped from 65% to 51%. The only cabinet member with non-declining poll numbers is Colin Powell who has a 76% approval rating.

Here are the poll results:

* President Bush down from 88% to 52%, a decline of 36 points.
* Secretary of State Colin Powell down from 88% to 76%, a decline of 12
points.
* Vice President Dick Cheney down from 69% to 45%, a decline of 24 points.
* Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld down from 78% to 56%, a decline of
22 points.
* Attorney General John Ashcroft down from 65% to 51%, a decline of 14 points.
* House Speaker Dennis Hastert down from 52% to 33%, a decline of 19 points.
* The Republicans in Congress down from 67% to 43%, a decline of 24 points.
* The Democrats in Congress down from 68% to 38%, a decline of 30 points

Source: PR Newswire.com Feb 19, 2003 15:54 ET

Say hello to one more Democratic contender for President in 2004: Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio has decided to throw his hat in the ring. The total number of declared candidates is now at 8.

Kucinich is known for his support for civil liberties and peace. He serves as Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, consisting of 55 of the most liberal members of Congress.

Others who have declared themselves are: former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun and the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Gary Hart is considering a run, but has not made a decision.

Daily Kos woke up at 6:30 this morning with a new idea for sending a grassroots message to DNC headquarters. He's asking for feedback, so go give him some.

He had a rough night--while at a nice restaurant having a celebratory meal with his wife last night, he was waiting to use the restroom, when he was rudely ordered around by someone who mistook him for the help. As he says, "Living Latino in the US of A.

We had the opportunity to sit down with Gary Hart for thirty uninterrupted minutes today and discuss his recent San Francisco foreign policy speech, and the concerns of some, including the hosts of CNN's Crossfire, that one line of the speech might be construed to be anti-semitic. We've investigated, here's our report. Hart's on solid footing with us. You can decide for yourselves.

First, context is everything. Read the whole speech.

Here's what Gary Hart said:

"We must not let our role in the world be dictated by ideologues with their special biases and agendas, by militarists who long for the clarity of cold war confrontation, by think tank theorists who grind their academic axes, or by Americans who too often find it hard to distinguish their loyalties to their original homelands from their loyalties to America and its national interests."

Is there anyone out there in the blogistan who believes the reverse of that proposition is true? If so, we'd like to hear from you. We certainly don't.

Second, Gary Hart doesn't talk in code. If he had a problem with a particular group, he'd come out and say it. That's his nature and that's how he has conducted himself during his 30 years of public service.

If you read Hart's speech, which again, is available here, you will see that its focus was not War with Iraq, although Hart certainly mentioned it. The speech was about American's foreign policy role in the 21st century. He sets forth the principles he believes should guide our foreign policy – for the purpose of establishing a framework within which policy can be made. He says that foreign policy is no longer the province of experts -- that the engagement of the American people is necessary in the discussion. "In the 21st century, the veil separating the foreign policy priesthood from the people must be removed...our policy toward the world must be the policy of the American people."

Hart says he was not singling out any one group. He had no specific group in mind. He was referring to any group with special interests, including any group that might put its concerns and feelings for the country of its heritage over the best interests of America. His point was that where there is a difference between what is in America's best interest and what is in the best interests of the homeland or country of origin of another group, America's interest must come first in shaping foreign policy.

Hart was not referring to Jewish Americans. He was not referring to the War with Iraq. He was talking about America's long-term foreign policy role in the 21st century. His comment applies equally to Cuban, Polish, Czech, Hungarian, Greek and Turkish -American citizens. He was talking about all Americans, wherever we come from.

Hart has been a strong supporter of Israel for over 30 years. His voting record in the Senate confirms this. That's not to say he's never been critical of Israel's settlement policy as a barrier to peace, but a large segment of Israelis and Jewish-Americans share that view.

His speech was about America's long-term foreign policy role–and the principles that should guide it. One of those principles is that Americans must become engaged in the discussion, so that America's role in the world does not become dictated by ideologues-- any ideologues -- who would put their special biases or agendas ahead of what is best for America.

Don't laugh. It could happen. And according to Michael Gerber, writing for American Prospect, it could be a good thing.

In fact, Springer's political record shows that he is very much a candidate progressive Democrats could embrace. So while no one in the party (understandably) looks forward to clips of Springer's show turning up in his opponents' campaign ads, Democrats shouldn't dismiss a Springer challenge to Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) next year. In fact, they should encourage it.

[Thanks to Hamster for the link]

Tapped disses MSNBC for putting three conservatives on to battle Eric Alterman during a recent appearance to promote his book, What Liberal Media?

Presidential hopeful John Kerry is not having a good week. First he is the subject of media slurs, MHO has all the details. Now it's disclosed that he is going to undergo prostate surgery.

His doctors say they caught it early and there won't be much down time. We wish him a speedy recovery, and hope the media magpies find another target during his convalesence.

The San Francisco Chronicle on Gary Hart's speech last night:

Hart says Iraq invasion will increase terror attack risk / Ex-senator may be fashioning political comeback

Sounding increasingly like a presidential candidate, former U.S. Democratic Sen. Gary Hart warned Monday in San Francisco that Americans should "get prepared" for more terrorist attacks if the U.S. goes to war against Iraq.

"We're going to kick open a hornet's nest, and we are not prepared in this country," Hart told about 200 people at a joint gathering of the Council on Foreign Relations and the World Affairs Council. "When we engage in a military conflict in the Middle East, the threats to this country will skyrocket."

Hart's speech, intending to present an alternative to the Bush administration on foreign policy, particularly regarding Iraq, is one of a quartet of such "major policy addresses" he will deliver nationally to measure support for a run at the presidency. At a press conference, Hart -- who wrote a report on terrorism that predicted domestic attacks two years before Sept. 11, 2001 -- said he would announce his intentions in the spring.

The full text of the speech is here.

Mark Katz, speechwriter and humorist, was a member of the Dukakis presidential campaign's rapid-response team. In the Week in Review section of today's New York Times, he writes a letter to Dukakis, urging him to run again.

Since Mr. Katz is a humorist, and there's plenty of humor in his piece, we don't know if he's serious or not, but it's an interesting read. It also makes us hope even more that Gary Hart decides to run.

If you are in the San Francisco area this week, Gary Hart will be speaking at these events:

February 10, 2003:
"Principled Engagement: America's Role in the World of the 21st Century"
World Affairs Council and the Council on Foreign Relations

Registration Begins at 5:00 PM, Program is from 6–7:00 PM

Grand Ballroom, Omni Hotel
500 California
San Francisco, CA

More details here.

February 11, 2003:
"Principled Engagement: A New Foreign Policy Framework"
The International Law Society and the American Constitution Society

1:00–2:00PM

Stanford Law School
Room 290
Stanford, CA

More details here.

IssuesGuy of Seeing the Forest has put together an impressive array of articles on the voting machine controversy.

Lisa English, of Ruminate this, is outraged, here are her thoughts on the black box voting revelations.

Colorado's Republican Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell is not doing too well in the fund-raising department for another Senate run. He could decide not to run at all. If he runs, he likely will face some formidable Democratic opposition:

Among the most frequently mentioned are Rep. Mark Udall, Denver Mayor Wellington Webb and state Attorney General Ken Salazar. Some are even touting the name of former Sen. Gary Hart (D-Colo.), who is currently exploring a presidential run. Outgoing District Attorney Bill Ritter and bureaucrat Mike Miles are also reported to be interested in the race."

We're for Mark Udall, big-time. We also like Denver DA Bill Ritter, who got sidelined in the last election by newly enacted term limits. Why not Hart? If Gary Hart doesn't run for President, he should be Secretary of State.