Recently, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill revealed that the Bush administration had been planning to go to war with Iraq since the inception of Bush's presidency. This is in contrast to Bush's campaign rhetoric, "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."
Democrats should be angry about this, but it should also inspire caution as we prepare to nominate a candidate to stand against George W. Bush in November.
Had voters been more aware of Bush and Cheney's record and less seduced by Bush's rhetoric they may have voted differently in 2000. Had Republican voters been more conscious of the amount of money donated to Bush's campaign by corporations like Enron, they may have nominated John McCain.
My question today is, will democratic primary voters be swayed by seductive rhetoric and media hype or will they cautiously investigate the records of the candidates?
I believe Democratic primary voters have a responsibility to go beyond the rhetoric and media hype and look at what a candidate has done, not just what they say. We must also consider who is funding a candidate's campaign.
My own research has led me to support John Kerry because he has an outstanding and consistent record on issues we democrats care about. Furthermore, Kerry is not indebted to special interest groups. Kerry won his seat in the Senate four times without accepting money from special interest groups, corporations, or Political Action Committees. Kerry is doing the same for his Presidential campaign.
What John Kerry says is consistent with what he has done. Kerry has a progressive environmental and energy policy that will make the US independent of mid-east oil by 2020. As he explains, "I will advance a national energy policy promoting clean renewable, and domestic energy and energy efficiency." His record backs up this commitment to alternative energy and environmental concerns. Of the candidates, Kerry has the highest rating from the League of Conservation Voters, a 96.5%.
The League of Conservation Voters had this to say about him, "Kerry's unsurpassed leadership on clean air, safe drinking water, and open space issues make him an invaluable environmental leader."
When Kerry says he supports civil rights, affirmative action or women's rights, he has a record that proves his sincerity. One of Kerry's first statements in the Senate defended a woman's right to choose. Kerry cosponsored and helped to pass the Violence Against Women Act. When Kerry says he will rebuild relationships with our allies he has the experience to back it up, having served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 18 years.
And when John Kerry says that as President he will call for a full and thorough investigation into the faulty intelligence used to support the Iraq War, he means it. As a lead investigator into the Iran-Contra affair, Kerry helped expose the ideologies and corporations that were hijacking American interests in the 1980s.
Some young Democrats are leaning towards Howard Dean. Dean has been campaigning longer than any other candidate (since 2001) and has, as a consequence, figured out exactly what many Democrats want to hear. And Dean is telling Democrats exactly what they want to hear, whether it is consistent with his record and beliefs or not. But Democrats must not make the same mistakes of their Republican counterparts and nominate a candidate just because they like his/her campaign rhetoric. We must ask whether or not a candidate's record matches this rhetoric.
Unfortunately, too much of Dean's record is in contrast to his campaign rhetoric. Dean says he wants to get special interests out of Washington, yet he was the first candidate to form a Political Action Committee and to begin accepting donations from special interest groups.
Dean trumpets his commitment to the environment saying, " I believe that a healthy environment will support a healthy economy." Yet as Governor of Vermont, Dean consistently sided with Vermont Utility companies, many of whom were campaign donors, rather than with environmentalists. In fact, in the early months of Dean's campaign, 20% of his donations came from the energy industry in Vermont.
Conservation Law Foundation lawyer Chris Kilian had this to say about Dean's inability to balance business and environmental interests, "The privilege to earn a profit in Vermont does not automatically come, as Dean apparently believes, with a free pass to pollute our waters, despoil our natural resources or destroy our communities."
Dean has criticized the Bush administration saying, "Throughout the Administration, former industry representatives are now quote `regulating' their old bosses and friends." Yet as Governor, Dean appointed a Killington Ski Resort executive to represent the general public on a Vermont land use panel.
Dean attacked the Bush administration for holding secret energy policy meetings with executives from the energy industry. But, as Governor, Dean also held secret energy meetings with industry executives in Vermont.
On the campaign trail, Dean uses Paul Wellstone's catchy phrase, "I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." However, Dean backed a plan to send toxic waste from Vermont to the poor and Hispanic town of Sierra Blanca, Texas. Wellstone called the plan "environmental racism."
As Annette Smith, Director for Vermonters for a Clean Environment says, "Dean's attempt to run for President as an environmentalist are nothing but a fraud. He's destroyed the Agency of Natural Resources, he's refused to meet with environmentalists while constantly meeting with the development community, and he's made the permitting process one big dysfunctional joke."
Dean's record and rhetoric are also at odds when it comes to gun control, affirmative action, the war in Iraq, civil rights, and campaign finance reform.
These discrepancies raise, what I believe is a fundamental question, how should we choose a candidate for President?
My friends who support Dean concede that he doesn't have the best record, but point to his use of the internet to build support and his harsh criticism of the Bush administration. While I am happy to see people getting involved in politics online and appreciate Dean's vocal criticism of the Bush administration, I do not think this is a valid reason to support a candidate for President, nor do I think we should pick the candidate with the bets soundbite solutions. I believe we should nominate a candidate who has a consistent record of fighting for the Democratic Party platform and an understanding of complex issues.
If Democrats want regime change in 2004, if we want a candidate who can stand up to Bush for saying one thing while doing another, we should nominate John Kerry.
John Kerry's record matches his rhetoric.