What I remember of Hart's run for the Presidency.
Posted on 09/04/2020 4:18:10 PM PDT by Kaslin
Jason Reitman’s 2018 film, “The Front Runner,” has been playing a lot on cable recently. It’s the dramatization of Sen. Gary Hart’s brief 1988 presidential run, with Hugh Jackman playing the role of Senator Hart.
The film is striking for 2020 due to its portrayal of Hart as a policy-focused candidate, someone uninterested in the “frippery” of campaign politics. Striking, because the 2020 campaign seems to be much-less about the serious contrasts between this season’s “front runners” when it comes to policy than it is about image and style.
It was starkly summed up by “The Late Show Host” Stephen Colbert’s post-DNC monologue, in which he admitted that this election was about contrasts (Joe Biden overcoming challenges and having suffered in life, with President Trump, according to Colbert, never having to suffer), and essentially said that Biden’s acceptance speech was the “grown-up version of the college essay.”
The problem, of course, is that elections are not mere “college applications”—and to make that comparison undercuts the seriousness not only of the quadrennial presidential election, but the paramount importance of this election! It’s not about which candidate has suffered more or overcome more challenges… it’s about which candidate is offering policies that a particular voter supports!
In “The Front Runner”, Jackman’s Hart sums it up thusly in his campaign announcement speech, “I intend, as I always have, to run a campaign of ideas…Ideas have power, ideas are what governing is all about.”
By ideas, the writers of the film, via Hart, are really talking about policy (since this was one of the knocks on Hart before his scandal, that he was too focused on policy).
This is why, it’s not just Colbert’s patronizing look at “convention as college application” hot-take is so wrong. In that same monologue, Colbert takes issue with President Trump squandering (in Colbert’s view) precious public speaking time by “whining” about things like “shower pressure”.
Shower pressure, low-flow toilets, the time it takes to wash a load of dishes in the dishwasher? These are issues of policy… and they’re issues the American voter actually cares about. They’re also issues that make a difference depending on who you vote for… since the Executive Branch, which POTUS presides over, actually makes those policies (and the Trump administration has).
Elections matter, and presidential elections manner with regards to the direction of those policies that are well-within the orbit of executive power. Regardless of what you might think about Joe Biden, given the historic stances of Democratic-led administrations on issues like these, you can not only guarantee that a Biden administration wouldn’t have made these policies more consumer friendly, his team would be appointing individuals to positions at agencies to ensure that there would be greater restrictions… and any reforms to these policies would be rolled back.
Also fully-within the orbit of the executive branch, of paramount importance in these volatile economic times, and of no less of a contrast, are what these candidates have done and will do on trade. At the earliest moment of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential bid, he was well-ahead of other candidates in talking about the predatory practices of other nations when it comes to trade with the United States—undercutting the US on regulatory and labor costs, massively subsidizing agricultural sectors to undercut US crop prices, and imposing massive tariffs to keep US goods out of their marketplaces. Trump saw this for what it is, a kind of economic warfare.
Critics scoffed at then-candidate and later-President Trump for his proposals. President Obama had, despite promising to do so, failed to renegotiate NAFTA, and Hillary Clinton was put in the tough position of having to navigate a position on the trade deal that she had championed when her husband was president, and which the electorate largely had come to agree was a bad deal for America.
Those same critics were shocked and angry when Trump not only renegotiated NAFTA, but made movements to implement a trade posture that puts American interests ahead of her competitors abroad.
And so, while, according to Stephen Colbert, Joe Biden was putting the finishing touches on his DNC “college essay”, Donald Trump took the opportunity of the RNC to create another vital policy contrast, this time on trade (because Trump knows, all too well, that there is much more work to do on trade).
In addressing the RNC delegates, Trump once again called out our competitors in global commerce saying, “They’ve been taking advantage of us for years and years, and I’ve already done it in certain cases. We have countries that tariff us and we don’t tariff them. So they tariff us. It’s very simple. It’s called reciprocal. They tariff us, we tariff them.”
In a perfect world, our trading marketplace would be free of tariffs, free of subsidies, and we would be free to compete on quality and price (while working tirelessly on our regulatory burden, another issue the Trump administration has taken and represents a clear contrast with Team Biden). But our world isn’t perfect. It’s messy, with countries engaging in precisely the kind of behavior Trump talks about.
It’s why people continue to advocate for a strong trade posture from the Executive Branch, but why conservative lawmakers are pushing for legislation containing the principles enunciated by the President at the RNC, generally known as the “Zero for Zero” concept.
Gary Hart was right on at least one point in 1988, ideas are what governing is all about. Electing a President should be about which candidate’s policies you agree with more, and which candidate will appoint people who will implement those policies.
Whether it’s shower pressure, dishwashers, or making sure that American companies get a fair shake on trade, these are the things that really matter.
What I remember of Hart's run for the Presidency.
Not my BIL and his half wit wife.
Guy dared reporters to follow him around and they did, what a friggin moron.
Good thing he is, or he may have beaten Bush.
Hartpence was a lightweight. He first won in 1974 against a decent (but ailing) incumbent Senator in Peter Dominick, almost entirely on the Watergate insanity (elected with him that year was nutjob Dick Lamm as Governor). When in 1980, the GOP had a four-way contest between the liberal Secretary of State Mary Estill Buchanan and 3 others, with her winning barely 1,500 votes ahead of fmr. GA Congressman Bo Callaway, Hart barely won ahead of her in a seat Callaway would’ve taken (ah, another no primary runoff state). He didn’t bother to run for a 3rd term (in a bad GOP year, they still almost won it back with a Jewish Congressman, Ken Kramer).
I thought Hart was another creepy Kennedyesque phony (which he was). I can’t really say I was surprised when he was found out to be just like ‘em. It’s funny, showing how deluded and out of touch Goldwater became during his unfortunate second 18-year stint in the Senate, that he said of Gary Hart, “...but I have never met a man who is more honest and more moral.”
He was a heavyweight faux intellectual.
“liberal Secretary of State Mary Estill Buchanan “
I always wondered why he didn’t go down in 1980, bad candidate, eh?
Maybe should have nominated Yorty in Cali too.
Not a horrible candidate. To her credit, she did manage to win the Secretary of State’s office in 1974 as the rest of the GOP ticket went down in flames. She won a landslide reelection victory in 1978 taking 67% statewide. Even as a somewhat disappointing candidate, she should’ve knocked off Hart.
The California Senate candidate in 1980 was subpar, an elderly Paul Gann, who was even older than Alan Cranston. They should’ve run a young, hard-charging Conservative against Cranston (at least someone under 65 !). Yorty was even OLDER than Paul Gann. He might’ve fared slightly better. There was John Schmitz, but he was probably too controversial (he barely held a GOP State Senate district in his return to elective office in 1978 with under 50% of the vote where his GOP predecessor got 61% in the Watergate year of 1974). I’d have preferred to run either then-Attorney General Deukmejian or Lieutenant Governor Mike Curb, or even Rep. Barry Goldwater, Jr. (who was better than his father). I wish Sen. Sam Hayakawa had run for a 2nd term in 1982 and kept Pete Wilson out (though that might’ve just merely delayed him running until 1986 in lieu of Ed Zschau).
He was beaten when the snarky underqualified demagogue Mondale said "where's the beef?"
I heard Goldwater really went off the deep end by the end of his Senate career, and was likely influenced by his new liberal wife in the late 80s. Ironic, since the guy was pretty much a model conservative in the early 60s and was the uncompromising "A Choice, Not An Echo" GOP standbearer in 1964, after the GOP had nominated Democrat Lite for President for 30+ years.
I could imagine 1962 Barry Goldwater would have bitch slapped 1988 Barry Goldwater and said "What the HELL is wrong with you?"
If Bob Barr hadn't been taken out by Barry Loudermilk in the 2014 primary, I imagine his return to Congress would have been similar to Goldwater's return to the Senate.
Goldwater was really more libertarian than Conservative. An enormous black mark against him for the longest time was his and BOTH of his wives involvement in Planned Barrenhood. He didn’t consider abortion much more than the act of flushing the toilet.
He realized he was on the wrong side of the issue party-wise by the late ‘70s and grew thoroughly disgusted with the pro-lifers. He straight-up lied to the base that he would get more with the program to save his ass in 1980 when a pro-life Democrat, Bill Schulz, ran against him and almost defeated him (Goldwater only got 49.5% of the vote, his worst-ever showing, only won 3 counties - Maricopa, Mohave (by just over 100 votes) and Yavapai. Schulz carried the overwhelming geographical majority of the state).
Add to all that his anger and bitterness towards President Reagan, whom he thought stole what he should’ve won. He should’ve retired in 1980 and allowed a real Conservative like Rep. Eldon Rudd or Evan Mecham to have succeeded him. Either would’ve prevented McQueeg from running in 1986 (although he probably would’ve run in 1994 instead of Kyl, so’d we still have been stuck with his sorry ass).
I noticed you endorsed Schultz on our campaigns, I wouldn’t go that far.
Did I ? A long time ago. For some reason, I no longer have the ability to “endorse” on OurCampaigns. It started after the website had those problems (new ownership or was briefly shut down ?) several years back.
Yes, I had higher access once I think but it got reset, I can still endorse though, but I hate it, you can’t see your endorsements passed the most chronically recent 10 or so, I’m sure there are some I’d like to delete.
I think they changed servers or something, they used to have sweet county level container for every office, used up too much space or something.
Sadly, it seems the peeps there lean left.
Not that there are that many peeps there, it’s really a great site though.
I was able to log in today, but trying to hit “add” to endorsements leads to a blank page.
Throw in some senility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.