Echoing Kerry: Democratic Leaders to Unveil National Security Plan

[kerrygoddess]

Echoing Kerry: Democratic Leaders to Unveil National Security Plan
March 29th, 2006 @ 8:46 am

{snip}
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate will be unveiling a new plan on National Security today. Their goal with the new plan, is to rebut the Republican meme, that has been echoed in some editorial columns, that Democratic party leaders and candidates have not laid out a coherent set of alternatives from the Republican plan on National Security.

"Most of the proposals are not new" the NY Times reports. Much of the plan echoes positions put forward previously by the Democrats and by their 2004 presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry. The plan will include key points from Kerry's campaign, including "a demand for more military equipment and body armor for troops and improved veterans' benefits."

{snip}
The policy paper's title is reminiscent of John Kerry's December 8, 2005 "Real Security in the Post 9/11 World" speech. The NT Times reports that the Democrats' policy papers assert that in "combating terrorism, party leaders want to increase financing for Special Operations forces and interdicting terrorist financing and to spend more on economic development in troubled areas like the Middle East and South Asia."

{snip}
The plan also echoes Kerry's Iraq plan, in calling for 2006 to be "a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces." They also call for the United States to achieve "energy independence" by 2020 by increasing production of alternative fuels, obviously derived from John Kerry's 2020 Energy Plan.

MORE - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2452

[Mass]

1. Unfortunately, they are missing their goal by not stating that this was

their position for a while now and at least thru the 2004 election. They look as if they had just found the light.

Happy to see that the NYTimes is stating the obvious though.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. This time I sort of resent the Kerry spin

The attempt here is to promote a united Democratic Party. I don't disagree that there are echoes of Kerry in this, but Kerry afterall was the Democratic Party nominee in 2004. And yes Kerry has continued to speak out on theses issues, and speak out well, but his voice has not been unique, nor is his influence the only recognizable one in this plan. I refrain from proclaiming "Echoing Clark; Democratic Leaders to Unveil National Security Plan", though I could. I'm sure others could comb through this National Security Plan and claim that it reflects the thinking of this or that Democrat also. I won't go there any further, so I won't go digging up foreign policy addresses that other Democrats have given in the last year to compare with Kerry's past comments. Same thing for energy independence and other issues. I appreciate John Kerry's continuing positive contribution to the debate on issues of importance to Americans. I can say the same for other Democrats also, and I think that is the point of today's release of this plan, that the Democratic Party is providing leadership in these areas, not just one Democrat.

[kerrygoddess]

3. Not only

Is their title directly from the the title of a Kerry speech, but the 2020 Energy plan is STILL on JohnKerry.com. Sorry if you resent the obvious. Even the NY Times stated a lot of this came from Kerry.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Sure, a lot of it came from Kerry. Let's stop where we agree n/t

[MH1]

5. Perhaps

the post is emphasizing the basis in Kerry's previous proposals, because Reid seems bound and determined NOT to give Kerry a significant role on any major issue - yet Kerry was the Dem Party's presidential candidate in 2004 and he could command name recognition and media time far better than many that Reid is making "point" persons on issues (like Reed on Iraq and Cantwell on ANWR - both issues that the higher profile Kerry could easily own).

Funny too how the media piece (not sure if it's in the op or another one) mentions the press conference includes Hillary, Wes Clark and "other leading Dems." Huh? I know DUers like Wes but what's his job? Pundit for Fox? Oh right it's the Clinton connection. It all becomes clear now.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Reread what I wrote. I give credit to Kerry

I don't think knocks at Clark are called for, he is not among those pushing Hillary. General Clark's inclusion in a group of Democrats gathered to present a National Security Plan makes obvious sense, for Christ's sake, the valid question is why Kerry wasn't included prominently also. And for the record I agree with those who have posted here that he should be,

[kerrygoddess]

9. Attribute

tight control by "leadership". Which is BS in my opinion. I am told he will probably be there, not sure that he will speak, most likely not - only one or two speakers slated at this point.

[MH1]

11. Just to clarify

I base my understanding of the Clark relationship to the Clintons from them pushing him to get into the race in 2004. My understanding is that there is still an alliance there (just because Clark is not obviously "pushing Hillary" means nothing. Think inside a bigger box).

I suspect that part of the reason that Reid keeps downplaying Kerry (and perhaps actively undermining, based on some stuff last year) is that he may have thrown in with the Clintons for whatever reason. Or maybe it's just a bad decision, or for other reasons. But... when I saw the Clinton / Clark built up as "leaders of the party" and Kerry left out...you know I'm saying "WTF"? Except I think I know WTF. And I don't like it.

I could be totally wrong... so maybe you are right and I shouldn't bring it up here. But I disagree that Clark's inclusion "makes obvious sense" for the reasons in my prior post. Especially if he is included and Kerry is not.

But that's as much as I'm going to say on it; I just wanted to clarify my reasons. I appreciate that you agree Kerry should have been included. Peace.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Carter "pushed Clark" as much as Clinton initially, but

I don't want to revisit those days now either. Clark has prominantly taken a number of positions that do not go well with Hilary's, including stressing the need for the United States to negotiate directly with Iran and support for moving toward a Single Payer Health Insurance Plan, to name just two, and both are issues that can cause trouble for Hillary with her base. I don't see an alliance there at all. And in the spirit of peace, let's leave it at both Kerry and Clark deserve to be seen and heard.

[Adelante]

22. Clear as a mud splatter

Wes Clark is an Advisor to the US Congress Democratic National Security Advisory Group and was one of the authors of the Democratic National Security Advisory Group Report, the "Perry Report." His job as a partner in the firm of James Lee Witt and Associates is as a national security expert and he is known all over the world in this role. I won't go into the rest of his credentials, aside from the one as a national security and foreign affairs expert commentator on Fox News that you mention, because I am reasonably sure that in the ten months he did NO paying work of any kind and couldn't afford to pay a secretary, those ten fucking months he gave over to nobody but John Kerry, you became quite familiar with him and his various "jobs."

All clear now?

[Texas_Kat]

25. Clark is the leading Democrat on National Security policy

The whole premise of this thread is pretty funny.

Kerry doesn't have any more significant role in National Security than he did before the '04 election.

His 'platform' was written by Clark, Albright, Holbrook and others with stellar credentials and experience in National Security and Foreign policy.
That's the way it works..... the candidate 'blesses' work done by others and calls it his.

[Mass]

27. So, for you, senators who have worked all their lives on these issues

(or at least all their senatorial lives) have no credentials on the issue?

Very funny.

Certainly Clark, Albright, and Holbrooke have credentials, but saying that Kerry has no credentials on national security or foreign policy is just plain funny.

[Texas_Kat]

30. Re-read the post

"Kerry doesn't have any more significant role in National Security than he did before the '04 election. "

It's fairly plain language, I thought. I didn't say he had NO credentials, just that being the 04 nominee doesn't automatically enhance his 'credentials'.

[karynnj]

32. So he learned nothing in 20 years on

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That and his book on non-state terrorism, and the fact that he pushed the port security issues for years. This was an area of expertise he honed since he entered the Senate.

[madfloridian]

29. Who declared him the leading Democrat on National Security?

I was not aware of that.

[FrenchieCat]

33. Evidently not aware of an awful lot....too busy getting sick and things...

I guess! :shrug:

[Sensitivity]

31. For most of the Clinton era, Kerry was the leading Democrat on Security

Does winning the presidential nomination make him now irrelevant?

[FrenchieCat]

34. Is he "irrelevant"? I didn't think so.....

[karynnj]

6. The reason may be that the party itself is downplaying

how much they have taken from the 2004 plans. Those plans were Kerry's, but they reflected input from others as well - so it would be wrong to think Kerry went into his office and wrote them all up independently. Also, these plans take huge parts of Kerry's plans in their entirity - their is not the same closeness to Clark's positions. Also, Clark is listed as involved, Kerry is not credited in any way.

The problem is that Hillary and other Clinonistas such as Albright are the people who are bein spot lighted on this. In addition to feeling that they are losing something by not saying that this has been our consistent proposals from at least 2004, the party is using this - as they did port security - to position Hillary. Oddly, Hillary may be the worst person to have as lead on this - the energy issue and the port security issue were both Kerry issues going back into the 90s. Hillary can be asked by the Republicans why Bill didn't do these things.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. I largely agree with these comments. n/t

[blm]

12. Of course it's similar to what Clark believes - he and Kerry have often

aligned on most every issue, especially national security issues, and have for years before either ran for president.

[wisteria]

10. Kerry should be at this press conference,to lend some credence

to the ideas. For me, no one else will do.

[blm]

14. Kerry knows the plans inside and out - he worked on them for over 3years.

Amazing that the media wouldn't allow Kerry's issues or plans to be heard then and will likely not even recognize these plans from the 2004 campaign.

[kerrygoddess]

15. The NY Times has

recognized that much has come from Kerry.

[blm]

17. No broadcast media will acknowledge these plans - they'd be admitting

they didn't give them coverage at the time when it would have most made a difference.

[kerrygoddess]

18. I'm game for seeing what comes after the press conference

After all the MSM did acknowledge that Bush's line item veto plan was Kerry's. There's a dual edge sword, the MSM may not always cover things or acknowledge JK, but on the flip, there are repubs and dems who won't acknowledge even if the MSM covers something.

[kerrygoddess]

16. There's a possibility

he will be.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Then JOhn Kerry should be flattered....

Because it should be more important to him as a leader that some of his ideas are adopted...while getting the "Credit" should be secondary. This is supposed to be Unified Democratic plan, and John Kerry is a Democrat, last I looked.

Plus, I'm sure that he's not the only one who has come up with ideas adopted in this plan..... :shrug:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/29/94325/1284

[blm]

20. Actually, that is a trademark characteristic of Kerry that often goes

unnoted - he will let others grab credit and attention for his work. Even Joe Biden once said that Kerry would rather something get done than bother angling for credit, and that's why he lets others put their name on legislation he crafted.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Clark does this as well.....

So it must be the trademark of a leader, period....John Kerry being one of...

[blm]

26. I've always said the two seem very much aligned on many issues

and many levels. And that it goes way back long before either ran as candidates.

[madfloridian]

23. Ok, let me piss everyone off here with two questions.

Why was Clark chosen as the face to present this plan? Was it a Clinton play? Where was Kerry, why didn't they put him on the podium. It was obviously a lot of his plan they used. Why not have him on stage. I guess I missed it because of the Bush speaking.

But what about Jack Murtha, and I could go on with others. Were they in the background on the stage...not much shows at the Harry Reid website. Hard to tell. We have lots of military heroes in congress who should have been at the presentation. It would have felt more comfortable.

[Adelante]

24. To repeat

Wes Clark is an Advisor to the US Congress Democratic National Security Advisory Group and was one of the authors of the Democratic National Security Advisory Group Report, the "Perry Report."

[FrenchieCat]

28. Because Wes is a 4 star general who

won the last war we fought without losing a single troop....

And the only 4 star general who calls himself a Democrat.....


Plus, Wes Clark has only been out of uniform 6 years.....(it's not the Vietnam thing that carries any weight...it's the fact that he spent his entire life in the military).....

Get it yet?

You are also welcome to participate in your unique way here as well...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2541156

[ProSense]

35. Cool!

The Dems plan is also titled Real Security. Every time I hear that I think about Kerry's plan.

[jillan]

36. Why wasn't Kerry included in this group?

Alot of what was said is nothing new.
I'm shocked that he wasn't part of this group.

Are they trying to distance themselves from the man that lost the presidency by 1 state?
(even tho we know he really won)

The dem party should be using Kerry to their advantage.

That said, I am just happy that they finally delivered any unified message.

[FrenchieCat]

37. Do we know that he wasn't there?

Murtha was there....

[FrenchieCat]

38. Looks like Kerry is on board....

According to
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2542272