Gary Hart announces "Party of Patriots"! Primary challenge coming??

[Hart2008]

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

Party of Patriots

Manifesto: We believe that: we are all in this together; a just society protects its children, elderly, and disabled; all are entitled to a healthy environment; the able-bodied should have the opportunity to work; corporations and banks should deal honestly with consumers; workers’ safety deserves protection; quality public education is crucial to democracy; special interests should not finance campaigns; our foreign policy should reflect our highest principles; judges should be appointed on merit not ideology; foreign oil is not worth American blood; our government should protect our Constitutional rights.

Those welcome:: all Americans of good will; those who think for themselves; those with strong convictions but who resist extremes; those who respect the rights and opinions of others; those who uphold the national interest; seekers after truth; those who are open-minded, informed, and willing to listen; everyone with a sense of humor.

Those not welcome:: those who are dogmatic, self-satisfied, and closed-minded; screamers and shouters; the intolerant and divisive; cult-followers and character assassins; the small-minded and ill-informed; those who listen to radio ranters to have their prejudices confirmed; all who put their narrow or special interest ahead of the national interest; the humorless.

Our purpose: to bring Americans together; to achieve a just society; to care for the wounded in and out of uniform; to help America stand tall and deserve respect; to be a leading nation in the international community; to reduce threats to ourselves and others; to maintain integrity among ourselves and with others; to keep the government off our backs by keeping our hands out of its pockets; to export our best ideas, services, and products and not our crude entertainment; to leave all children a healthier, safer planet; to seek wisdom and practice humility; to see that everyone gets a fair shake.

What it will take: Americans who care enough about their country to be engaged; genuine leaders from all walks of life; dreamers, idealists, poets, and prophets; dedication to the national interest; suspension of cynicism; compassion for and connection with each other; noble journalism; commitment to learning; suspicion of hucksters, political and otherwise; quality before profits in business; praise for innovation in all walks of life; insistence on intelligence in leadership; a sense of history; acceptance of the long view.
Timing: just over the horizon.
Care to join?

http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=746

Also posted on huffingtonpost:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/party-of-patriots_b_948572.html?ir=Yahoo


So what is just over the horizon?

A primary challenge to the President?

Retaking our own party from the special interests?

It sounds like the Patriot Party is the Democratic Party's answer to the teabaggers?
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:
:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:
:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

[dionysus]

1. ROFL

:spray:

[SidDithers]

4. You're about 85 "spit take" smilies short for this thread...nt

Sid

[TBF]

2. He's a little old to run - even Bernie is 5 years younger

but thank goodness there are people thinking in this direction

[hulka38]

209. There's no age restriction on sound thinking and moral courage.

Besides, all that's required of a Democratic president is to appoint a couple Supreme Court justices and fuck up everything else.

[bluestateguy]

3. Where's the beef?

I mean seriously, did he actually say anything in that bloviating statement?

[bluestate10]

196. Hart is still trying to regain his land legs. Things were a little bouncy on the Monkey Business. nt

[SusanaMontana41]

228. He's talking Democratic ideals. That's bloviating?

Is that fringe, too?

[Hart2008]

232. There is a certain angry element that can't discuss issues without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

There is a reason that Gary Hart wrote that some are not welcome in the Party of Patriots:

Those not welcome:: those who are dogmatic, self-satisfied, and closed-minded; screamers and shouters; the intolerant and divisive; cult-followers and character assassins; the small-minded and ill-informed; those who listen to radio ranters to have their prejudices confirmed; all who put their narrow or special interest ahead of the national interest; the humorless.

Obviously, some people object that they have been excluded.

[secondwind]

You are insane, Hart. Seriously. This President will not be primaried.

[ThomWV]

7. and he won't be President much longer either.

[DCBob]

26. Barring another recession.. he wins.

bank on it.

[girl gone mad]

35. What do you mean "another recession"?

[DCBob]

40. cleary you dont understand the meaning of a recession.

[girl gone mad]

50. Of course I do.

Ultimately, it's a judgment call. Economics is a soft science, after all.

When you understand that, then you will have made progress and can focus on finding solutions to the real problems that exist rather than trying to spin them away with talk of green shoots and a recovery summer that never materializes because your economic ideologies are based in pure fraud.

[DCBob]

52. Nothing soft about this graph..

The bars going down are a recesssion. The bars going up are not a recession. Questions?

[girl gone mad]

56. That would be your definition of a recession.

"The bars going down are a recesssion. The bars going up are not a recession."

My definition involves unemployment, wage stagnation, widening wealth gap and rapidly declining home values.

[SwampG8r]

91. so you use a real measure instead of

whatever that thing is?

[BNJMN]

110. 'widening wealth gap'. That's the one.

And less generational income mobility.
Plus, an even bigger, more centralized, banking system.


I support Democrats.
In fact, I support the most Democratic person available.

I think, we as a party, need to consider our options for the long term.
Say the next 20 years. Not just election to election.

Slowly, being pulled right.

[DCBob]

134. its the definition most economists use.. two consecutive quarters with decline in GDP.

Granted there are other factors that make this feel like a recession such as unemployment.

[DeSwiss]

98. Your pretty little graph doesn't mean sqaut to the unemployed. n/t

[BNJMN]

111. Or the employed losing their health care, wages, chance at college, etc. [nt]

[DCBob]

138. yes I agree.

[sabrina 1]

Well, Wall St's doing great. Where's the graph for the Main St.?

[DCBob]

136. GDP is not a measure of Wall Street.. its a measure of the entire nation's production.

including Main St production.

[Broderick]

127. Yes, I try to tell people everything is great

But they think I am crazy. This graph may help my fight to make people realize how wonderful the economy is.

[DCBob]

135. you are confused.. things are not great.

just gradually improving since 09.

[Broderick]

147. I see pretty ponies

and illustrious unicorns on the way up! Can't figure too many more people can lose their homes and the 16.9% of people unemployed and underemployed is merely a fiction of the imagination. I tell em to quit whining and find a job. Your graph shows they are too busy complaining instead of doing.

[DCBob]

148. wow, you have seen the light! hallelujah!

[SusanaMontana41]

226. And doing drugs. Orrin Hatch said we the unemployed should be drug tested.

And we know Orrin is always right ...

[Muskypundit]

193. Only 1% of economic growth has gone into wages

Since 2009. The rest has gone to corporate profits, pure profit. Thats not a gradual improvement, thats a damn insult.

[dawg]

150. Those last two bars are probably within the margin of error ...

and we are about to cut spending! Yay!

And if the Repubs manage to block an extension of the payroll tax cuts, there will be even more contraction to the economy.

So, I'm thinking the possibility of negative GDP growth before November 2012 is probably above 50%.

[DCBob]

152. yes, considering the effects of the teabagger Republicans, we could go negative next year.

hopefully the "moderate" GOPers come to their senses.

[Claudia Jones]

167. don't try to peddle "trickle down" here

The notion that the GDP is an indicator of how the working people are doing, which you are trying to imply, is false.



Reflect on this for a second. The average American’s income (i.e. not the average income but the median income) doubled between 1948 and 1973 - within 25 years, one generation. Then in the 34 years since 1973 or so, it went up by 1.25 times.

Now I'm no economist, and if you're a layman too, I ask you: how often do you see a graph for median income? When magazines want to illustrate how a country is doing economically, the first reach is for GDP data. And a graph of GDP growth shows America doing steadily better ever since WW2, at a consistently pace throughout. But from 1978 or so onwards, the regular middle-class American all but stopped benefiting. While GDP kept growing, he was excluded from its fruits.

In fact, looking at this graph, you see that the median income did not increase at all between around 1978 and around 1993. Much like it has stagnated between 2000 and now. The increase by 1.25 times mentioned above took place almost entirely in the mid- and late nineties.

Coincidence that it was the Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr administrations during which middle-class income stagnated even as GDP kept growing? Or the consequence of Reaganomics and its offspring? Give tax cuts to the wealthiest and the wealth will 'trickle down', was the theory; but it never happened.

http://observationalism.com/2008/10/19/sometimes-a-chart-says-more-than-1000-words/

[gkhouston]

72. People can't use graphs or definitions to pay their bills.

If you are unemployed/underemployed, a textbook definition is meaningless. What matters is finding and keeping a decent job with bennies.

[DCBob]

143. of course, that was not my point.

my point was things have improved since 09 and Obama would likely win as long as we dont go double-dip.

[JackRiddler]

101. Clearly you think some statistical wanking is going to hide economic disaster from the victims.

[DCBob]

144. no.

[anamandujano]

178. Well put JackRiddler

Off to continue reading this hopeful thread.

[cherokeeprogressive]

Another recession? Strange way of looking at things.

I think you mean if the recession we ARE IN ends.

[DCBob]

42. you dont either.

see above.

[bayareamike]

70. For millions of Americans

the recession has never ended. Wages have experienced declination, jobs are still incredibly hard to come by, and people all over the country are buried in debt that is preventing them from spending. Sure, strictly speaking we are out of the recession, but there's a reason that it's called a "jobless recovery".

Please spare me the "I don't understand recessions". I majored in economics during my undergrad. There's no way to deny it: Obama has done far too little to help the average person survive the pitfalls of global capitalism.

Of course, it is hard to deny the danger of splitting the liberal vote in the 2012 election. Obama is certainly better than any Republican.

[Creideiki]

82. Only because callous indifference is better than outright malice.

[me b zola]

121. thats a winner for the Obama '12 campaign

Obama: because callous indifference is better than outright malice

[undeterred]

130. I think we have a winner!

:applause:

[Sheepshank]

218. You just cancelled any potential membership in the new club

According to the article: "Those not welcome:: those who are dogmatic, self-satisfied, and closed-minded; screamers and shouters; the intolerant and divisive; cult-followers and character assassins..."

[DCBob]

140. yes but as a whole things have improved and are still gradually improving.

Your comment that Obama has done far too little is ignorant of the realities of politics. Surely you recall the GOP tried to block every initiative Obama and Democrats proposed to jump start the economy. All legislation had to be watered down just to get a couple of GOP votes to stop a filibuster.

[Exilednight]

216. Ignorance is Obama's belief that the GOP would not try to block every initiative.

Edit: That's what makes Obama an ineffective leader.

[newspeak]

166. what's disturbing

just on the morning news, a job fair, I can't remember how many to be hired; however, they were mentioning that people who were underemployed are applying to work two jobs. It reminded me of the lady who told Little Boots she was working three jobs to provide for her family and little boots, being the sociopath, stated something like-great, only in america. Actually Little Boots not only in america, in any banana republic you too can work two, three, four meager jobs to make ends meet.

Oh, and speaking about recession, I saw the lines--thousands of people looking for work.

[coalition_unwilling]

80. Yes, but it seems we may be just on the cusp of the dreaded

double-dip. You are correct, technically speaking, that we are currently not in a recession and have not been since June 2009. However, what you fail to heed enough, imo, is that the rate of change is indicating that quarter over quarter growth in GDP is slowing.

IOW, it's not whether GDP grows or declines (algebra) in any given fiscal quarter, so much as it is the rate of change (calculus). The trend in the latter does not favor Obama at this point.

One shudders, however, to imagine the nation's economy in the hands of a Romney, Perry or their like. A U2 of 25% (with a U6 of roughly 40-50%) would not be entirely out of the question.

Edited for pernicious typos :(

[DCBob]

142. Yes I agree. There is serious risk of falling back into a double-dip..

mostly because of the bogus debt crisis and the EU situation.. none of which Obama has much control over.

[JackRiddler]

100. Um, you mean, like, the Depression that never stopped since 2007 or so?

[Exilednight]

214. We're still in a recession. n/t

[LanternWaste]

229. The prognostications from either side carry the same weight...

The prognostications from either side carry the same weight, the precise merit, and the approximate validity of a Madame Cleo advertisement.

[Major Hogwash]

74. Just 5.5 more years.

That's not really very long if you think about it.

[LynneSin]

64. Oh he'll be primaried but not buy anyone who would have a chance to beat him

Hillary Clinton could beat him with her eyes shut.

Gary Hart wouldn't come close.

[DonCoquixote]

107. ah hillary

that great lira that did not vote for the Iraq war, that tells Israel we are not their army, that came out against NAFTA, the repeal of Glass Stegall, and the repeal of the fairness doctrine, as well as "welfare reform",

Oh, pardon me, that is the Hillary from that parallel universe where everything is the opposite of here. The one here would do all the selling out that Obama does, only better, because she wrote the damn DLC playbook!

[karynnj]

245. He says nothing of primarying anyone

To me it looks like he is trying to create the energy of the tea party in support of what has always been the best of Democratic values - just as the tea party supports the worst of Republican values.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Hmm interesting, right on schedule

as people realize that we have two business friendly parties. Just hope it don't take two generations.

[tblue]

6. I'm in!

Thanks for sharing. Do we get booted off DU if we change affiliation to this new party?

[Le Taz Hot]

141. No, you just can't talk about him.

Trust me, I have LOTS of experience in this area on DU. As careful as I am, my posts still get deleted from time to time. My favorite was the one in which I declared I would be voting for only progressive candidates. "Delete." :eyes:

[Sheepshank]

197. what new party?

and why would you continue to post on DU if your affiliation lies elsewhere? Oh you *want* to be kicked off for some martyr thing?

[shraby]

8. Sounds to me like he's in the process of forming a 4th

political party to counter the idiocy that is called Washington D.C. To do it right, it will take more than a few months. I wouldn't look to see it make it's mark felt before the 2016 presidential election, making significant inroads in the midterms between 2012 and 2016.

[tblue]

11. Yeah, it will take time but it's long overdue.

I'm excited. This that we've got is not working.

[hfojvt]

9. I like the sound of it, but I would add one person

to those not welcome, should be added - Dick Cavett.

If you get my joke.

[SidDithers]

10. Progressives' dreams are finally answered...

Gary Hart is going to primary Obama. :rofl:

Sid

[tblue]

13. Where does it say that? nt

[SidDithers]

14. Seems to be what the OP is hoping for...nt

Sid

[saras]

30. "DU is not the real world." It's a lot closer to the real world than America is. America's loss.

[quaker bill]

133. No, I am afraid the real world is out there

that is what makes it real. Real depressing perhaps, but real.

[SwampG8r]

93. he is all the way up in canada

so his view is distorted

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Where does it say any such thing, Sid?

It does not. What does that say about your comment? I'd say, but it would be rude.

[SidDithers]

20. Does nobody read the OP?...

So what is just over the horizon?

A primary challenge to the President?

Retaking our own party from the special interests?

:shrug:

Sid

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. Kind of a leap to think Hart would be the party's candidate imo.

[SidDithers]

24. If it's not Hart, then we're back to the nameless white-knight saviour...

who's going to ride in on a gleaming white stallion to save the Democratic party from a President that over 80% of the party supports.

Hi-ho-Silver, away!!

Sid

[cherokeeprogressive]

28. Nice walk-back. Kudos.

But why did you throw "white" in there?

Say what you like about me, but I've always given you too much credit to believe you'd be one who stifled debate by tossing out the race card.

And, in case you hadn't noticed... 80% of the Democratic Party does not a national majority make.

[SidDithers]

76. White-knight is pretty common phrasing for saviour or "knight in shining armour"..

no racism implied or intended.

Sid

[Number23]

89. I just read this whole sub-thread

I weep for this web site and for America.

Sorry you had to deal with all of that. Mind-blowing...

[Warren DeMontague]

208. I suspect it's the crowd who thinks Doonesbury is still 'edgy'.

The gang who, when asked "so what NEW music do you like" respond "Hall & Oates"

To say they're a bit, ah, out of touch would be an understatement, so cut em some slack.

By the way, I like "Doonesbury", I do. But it's not exactly on the cutting edge of political comic page humor.

[SidDithers]

211. Now you've done it...

you went all Hall and Oates on 'em, and then subtly inserted "out of touch" in the next line.

Now I've got that freakin' song in my head and it won't leave. :hi:

Sid

[Warren DeMontague]

212. what can I say

I'm a man eater.

[arcane1]

12. Sounds more like a 3rd party than a primary opponent n/t

[Hart2008]

119. GARY HART: Well, I think we need a courageous second party

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think we need a third party?

GARY HART: Well, I think we need a courageous second party, is what we need.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/3/28/fmr_democratic_senator_and_presidential_candidate

[mod mom]

15. I never thought I would say this, but worth a consideration.

Being a liberal means being open minded. I worked to earn Obama the nomination, hosting voter registration drives, telephoning Ohio voters, organizing rallies, knocking on doors and working on voter protection issues, I also was a contributor to keep the Obama office open in Ohio after the primary & paid to establish a booth at a local Junteenth Celebration when the campaign failed to fund one. Once the nominee, I worked on Voter Portection ending with working the boiler room on election day/night. I fully supported this president but his action and those he has surrounded himself with has indicated to me that he does not embrace the same Democratic principles that I do. I am an anti-war, pro-environment, pro-union, fair trade, verifiable election, equal protection progressive who fails to see how Obama's pro-corporate/Wall Street policies make him the candidate that I can get enthusiatic enough to not only support but GOTV for.

I'm open to hearing more.

[eShirl]

17. Now there's a name that takes me back to my freshman year...

Fall '83, first and last presidential candidate I ever met. I even bought one of his blue t-shirts. This was before his campaign crapped the bed, of course.

[TwilightGardener]

18. '83? Holy shit. That long ago? I thought he ran in '88.

[eShirl]

45. I looked it up in case my memory's playing tricks, and he ran in both '84 and '88

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Hart
I guess it was the '88 election when his campaign crashed though

he started running in '83 for the '84 election;
back then that was pretty early

[Hart2008]

48. Gallup polls in '84 showed Hart beating Reagan. Hart always polled better than Mondale vs. Reagan.

Hart delegates at the '84 convention in San Francisco put newspapers under the doors of delegates showing Hart being the stronger candidate. The results are history.

Reagan was beatable, and so was that Iran-Contra criminal Poppy Bush!

[WinkyDink]

66. "Monkey Business."

[Hart2008]

77. "Duck Soup" was the better Marx Brothers movie.

In '88 we got Mike "the Duck" Dukakis as the nominee, and he was clearly Duck Soup in the general election.

[eShirl]

126. That whole mess seems quaint now, after John Edwards

of whom I was also an early supporter...
:grr: :cry:

[WinkyDink]

137. A baby ups the ante.

[Hart2008]

175. And John Edwards's problems pale in comparison to Bill Clinton's NT

[spanone]

19. the media elevated the teaparty in three short years. they would do no such thing for dems.

in fact, they will work overtime to demean and destroy any possibility.

[Octafish]

22. Sounds Democratic, supporting the interests of the people over the interests of corporations.

With the "centrist" crowd, it's Revolutionary these days, I know.

[NYC Liberal]

23. Too funny. A president supported by over 80% of his party's base

is going to be "primaried." :crazy: :crazy: :rofl::rofl::rofl::crazy: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::crazy: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::crazy: :rofl::crazy: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::crazy: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::crazy: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::crazy: :rofl::rofl::crazy: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::crazy: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::crazy: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::crazy: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Extra smilies to fit with the spirit of the OP!

[mod mom]

87. Wow... I must have fringe friends & acquaintances because i' m not seeing that 80%

Polls :eyes:

[NYC Liberal]

122. Yes, you must have. Between 80 and 90% of the Democratic base

supports Obama.

[mod mom]

163. well FYI the Obama administration should start worrying about Ohio.

Maybe your experience in NYC indicates support but out in my swing state I can tell you former ardent supporter have jumped ship & folks are pissed about his actions.

[NYC Liberal]

164. I'm not talking about personal anecdotes. nt

[mod mom]

171. What I am talking about are connections to party activists who did a lot of the legwork

since 2004. I'm saying they should NOT feel secure by some poll numbers.

[NYC Liberal]

172. It's politics. Nobody should feel secure. nt

[CakeGrrl]

25. The MSM will be a-ok as long as it spells trouble for Dems holding the WH,

but if it ever came down to Hart vs. the GOP, you'll suddenly hear everyone recalling the "Monkey Business" days faster than you can say 'Donna Rice' with Fox salivating as they lead the pack.

Until you get the MSM out of the GOP's tank, better get a frontman/woman with a little less baggage.

[TwilightGardener]

27. What is Hart, like..75? 80? He's back there with Cosby sweaters

and the Moonwalk. I don't think it's going to be him, unless he's delusional. He might be delusional. I don't know.

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. He's 74. What about it? We've learned YOUNGSTERS don't make good Presidents.

We might as well try an older person. 74 is young today.

[TwilightGardener]

32. Three youngsters made good Presidents. Obama is one of them.

[in_cog_ni_to]

38. JFK and Clinton are the exceptions. Obama, not so much.

When you put SS and Medicare "on the table" for cuts to be bargained with, you do not qualify as a "good Democratic President."

[TwilightGardener]

43. We'll have to differ. I think Obama is a good President. I want to see him re-elected.

[in_cog_ni_to]

47. We do differ and I think he needs to be challenged and

doesn't really deserve to be reelected. We need a Democratic/Progressive President to lead this country away from the right wing policies Obama has embraced.

[truebrit71]

227. Obama who, because the guy with that asme last name currently in the WH is a fucking disaster...

...unless you are rich, work on Wall St, or a Corporation...

If you are unemployed/under-employed, female, gay, an endangered species, or like clean air and water your are shit out of luck...

[Warren DeMontague]

60. AND GET OFF MAH LAWN!

[Hart2008]

62. Ageism! That is offensive. NT

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Okay, be offended.

if you want to whack me with your cane, though, you'll have to catch me first.

[WinkyDink]

65. Yeah, Reagan was just swell.

Ridiculous post.

[Raine]

34. Being 75-80 doesn't mean that you're delusional

plenty of people half that age are delusional. :crazy:

[TwilightGardener]

37. No. Being that age and having been mostly out of office and politics, having crashed and burned

a lifetime ago as a Presidential contender, and thinking you are going to now snatch away the Presidency from a sitting President, is delusional.

[in_cog_ni_to]

44. It's NOT delusional in this climate. People are STARVED for another choice.

I'm not so sure Hart is the best choice though. I do like him, but I like Bernie Sanders or Alan Grayson MORE.

[TwilightGardener]

46. I can only speak for myself--I am happy with my choice. I only hope he can

kick his campaign in gear and navigate the waters ahead.

[treestar]

156. Amen, it's obvious that Gary needs a little attention

And sees this as the only way to get it.

[Hart2008]

176. In '68 Eugene McCarthy didn't expect to win when he challenged LBJ.

McCarthy set out to make an issue of changing LBJ's policy in Vietnam.

He sent LBJ back to the ranch. The party, except for its leadership, was against the war.

We can't have a democracy, or a democratic party (small 'd') when our leaders ignore the wishes of the people.

[MilesColtrane]

104. He's just in it for the babes.

[Hart2008]

179. So that is why he mortgaged his house to run for President and never took money from a PAC? NT

[Hart2008]

186. Was Benjamin Franklin delusional at the Consitutional Convention? He was 81 at the time.

When the Republic is at a difficult time, the wisdom of its elder statesmen is most needed.

When you hear him speak, you will realize that he hasn't lost anything, and is quite sharp.

[Hart2008]

41. Really, with unemployment over 9% and the foreign occupations, it's old and still a wrong story.

Qui Bono? The Clinton camp sabotaged Gary Hart's campaign after Bill flunked an interview to be V.P.

See Partners in Power by Roger Morris (pg.433-434).
(Morris is a highly respected public servant, who worked for Dean Acheson, Lyndon Johnson, and Walter Mondale, before resigning from the National Security Council (He had been appointed by LBJ) over Nixon's invasion of Cambodia. Morris also called for other civil servants in to resign to protest the Bush administration's policies.)

Hart's problem was
1) He had previously hired, and then laid off, a guy named James Carville, and
2) He hired a media consultant named Ray Strother (also from Louisiana) who made the mistake of working for two men who both wanted to be President.

Ray Strother did Hart's media ads in his '84 campaign. After Hart's success in '84, Clinton hired Strother and his protege, Carville. Strother didn't see a conflict of interest in working for two men who wanted to be President. With Hart riding high in the polls, Clinton pushed Strother to get him a meeting with Hart about being named Hart's V.P. As Strother wrote in his book "Falling Up", after the interview Hart told him that Clinton had no political "core" values, and "doesn't believe in anything". Hart's words made it back to Clinton likely through hack James Carville, who was a protege of Strother. (Carville would later use an almost verbatim quote about Clinton, but attribute it to Ken Starr.)

After hearing that news, the Clinton's set out to sabotage his campaign, and cut their own deal with Dukakis. Remember Clinton's filibuster of a keynote speech at the 1988 convention? Gary Hart needed a press pass to get in to that convention and was escorted around by security guards.

James Carville is the former Hart adviser who told Newsweek that Hart had a problem "keeping his pants on". (Twenty four years later, not a single woman has come forward by name to claim she had a sexual affair with Hart.) Carville is now married to Bush and Cheney confident Mary Matalin.

In short, the Clinton camp preferred for the party to lose the election rather than to see someone else win the general election in 1988.

Hart did not challenge anyone to follow him around. He had already been followed by an agent of a political rival from within the party in 1986 while giving the national Democratic response at a radio station. He was then harassed by whispering campaign originating from James Carville. As a matter of fact, Gary Hart and Donna Rice were not acquainted before she was brought to the yacht at the dock and introduced as the friend of Eagles singer Don Henley, who was a Hart supporter. The trip was intended to be campaign related. Ray Strother was originally scheduled to be on board as well for that trip, but he was called away at the last minute for work for another Dem client.

Again, after all of his years in the public light, there has never been a woman who has come forward by name to claim any kind of sexual impropriety from Gary Hart. Both Gary Hart and Donna Rice have denied since 1987 that their relationship was sexual. The Miami herald had stalked Donna Rice, then lost her before resorting to hiding in the bushes and peeking in the windows at Hart's Washington, D.C., townhouse, where his wife had never made her home. The Miami Herald never followed Gary Hart anywhere, nor were their actions done in response to any challenge.

That story is and was pure propaganda.

It explains many things, indeed.

Remember that Gary Hart as the campaign manager for McGovern's '72 campaign gave Bill Clinton his start in national elections. Hart named Clinton in charge of the campaign in Arkansas and Texas. Yet, Clinton makes no mention of Hart in his book other than to talk about sex scandals. That is quite laughable, because compared to Clinton, Hart is a choir boy. With Clinton, the "bimbo eruptions" were constant, while with Hart, he had people hiding in his bushes and threatening to "out" a former girlfriend. So who was really the reckless womanizer?

Hart had urged Clinton to create the U.S. Commission on National Security 21. Clinton did but originally snubbed Hart by naming another Dem to head the commission. Hart only got the job after that person withdrew due to other commitments and Defense Secretary Cohen, a Republican, insisted on Hart.

The fact is that MSM had changed the rules on Hart in '87, then they perpetuated this myth that he had "challenged" them to "catch" him in the act. (I have demonstrated that this perception is false. Even the "Tail me." quote from Dionne's otherwise very favorable article about Hart has never been reviewed for accuracy or checked for the actual context in which it was made.) What Hart was angry about was that he wanted the media to expose those people in the party who were spreading the rumors around. That was the way that this kind of behavior had been handled in the past, before the rules changed. As it was, Dukakis's campaign got caught circulating an attack video of Biden, but the people who were smearing Hart got off scot-free. It was not a secret that Carville was the guy spreading those rumors. (Chris Matthews acknowledges that this man was known in his 1988 book. When he called to apologize, Lee Hart is quoted as refusing to take the call and replying, "Tell him to save his dime.") Hart wrote about the unwritten rules of party loyalty, and the Clintons' disdain for them during the last campaign:

Gary Hart, Breaking The Final Rule,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/breaking-the-fi...

Hart was under a near media blackout in the U.S. from 1988 until after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I was on a trip to Russia in 1999 and it was the first time I had read an article from Hart in a newspaper since '88. He was very close to running for president in 2004, but decided not to because of the obscene amount of money required to launch a credible campaign. When the word got out that he was considering another run, the Miami Herald republished its incorrect '87 story about Hart and Rice, not once but twice! The MSM were still afraid of him 17 years later!

RFK and Thomas Jefferson are Gary Hart's political heroes. I always thought he had one more run left in him. Will imitate RFK this year?

The result of this: The Democratic Party got 12 years of the Bushes with 8 years of the DLC in the middle.


http://www.life.com/image/51910982

This is what you got, the Iran-Contra co-conspirators:

The Masonic Brotherhood: President Bill Clinton bows to former President George H. W. Bush

http://www.http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=109...

Both of these two belong in jail for Iran-Contra, and neither of them would have become president unless the MSM had slimed Gary Hart in '87-88.

[coalition_unwilling]

84. Small point for lovers of Latin. It's 'Cui bono?' not 'Qui bono?' , meaning

roughly "Who benefits?"

[msanthrope]

103. Blaming the Clenis is so...1998....nt

[MilesColtrane]

204. "there has never been a woman who has come forward by name to claim any kind of sexual impropriety"

Then why did he quit...twice?

If he was squeaky clean, then his dropping out makes no sense and it shows that he doesn't have the stomach to stand up and fight.

[Hart2008]

210. He and his wife had separated and both apparantly dated other people before reconciling.

Because this was well known, Hart had roomed with the WaPo's Bob Woodward at one point, there was a campaign to "out" the other woman with whom he had been involved. Never before had any reputable media acted so invasively of a political figure's personal life. Reagan was the first divorced president, and he never was confronted with that failure. In contrast, the WaPo went out of its way to clear rumors that Poppy Bush had a mistress, and Nancy Reagan was dishing the dirt on that story. It was true!

After the incorrect Miami Herald story came out, the WaPo threatened to out the other woman unless Hart suspended his campaign. Now, had he been a "womanizer", he wouldn't have cared about that woman's reputation, but he did. The focus and emphasis on his personal life had become a distraction to his political message, so he let the furor die down. Having experienced reporters hiding in his bushes and CNN helicopters over his house, Hart suspended the campaign. Most Americans, according to Gallup, felt the media coverage of Hart had been unfair, and it was. Donna Rice was not the "other woman" in Hart's life. Their relationship, whatever it was, had been very brief and nonsexual according to all involved.

He never claimed to have been a saint, but Hart, the public servant, was beyond reproach. He never took PAC money and mortgaged his home to run in 1984. Campaign debts from the '84 campaign were still outstanding. He certainly was not a quitter. He handled an unprecedented incident with dignity and class, and later rejoined the fight and led in the polls when he reemerged in December 1987. His campaign in Iowa was derailed by another false story that his campaign had been "secretly financed". It was that, along with the refusal of the MSM to cover substantive campaign issues which ultimately sank that campaign. He lacked the financial means to buy advertising to confront all of the lies, since he was still in debt from the 1984 campaign.

After Super Tuesday in '88, he finally ended that campaign. In my opinion, he would have been better served waiting until after New Hampshire to reenter the race after the herd had been culled and it would have been harder to ignore his message. Al Gore in '88 was not the same alternative choice that Hart had been in '84. Some think that reentering that race was itself a mistake, that he should have gotten his '84 campaign debts cleared up before running again. He simply felt that that election was too important, and that other candidates were not able to address the issues of the day. In retrospect, he was correct. Dukakis was an embarrassment who lost a very winnable election against the Iran-Contra ringleader. In many ways, the party itself never recovered from the lack of leadership in the party in '88. It soon after lost the House for the first time since the 50's, and no longer was the majority party in the country.

[karynnj]

246. I never thought I could dislike Bill Clinton more, but this does it

I was strongly for Hart the two times he ran, but never knew any of the Clinton stuff with regard to him. Added to Clinton's net negative actions in both 2000 and 2004, Clinton really has been a long term negative for the party - where until Obama, he was considered to be the only "winner" in the last 40 years.

I was lucky to see Gary Hart speak before a Kerry Faneuil Hall speech in September 2006. I took this photo of Hart, with John and Teresa Kerry. Gary Hart introduced Kerry for a National Security speech - which given both of their prescient work in the 1990s was very appropriate. Hart later gave Kerry a very early and very strong endorsement for the 2008 race - which Kerry opted not to run.

[Hart2008]

257. All of that DLC money was used to take over the party.

I don't know of any of his supporters who went for Clinton in '92. The ones I know were for Jerry Brown. Hart submitted ideas to Clinton, and what became the Hart-Rudman Commission was one of them. Originally former Oklahoma Senator David Boren was named to head that commission. Only when Boren backed out, did Cohen push for Hart to get the job. The fact that Clinton refused to give Hart any credit for anything in his book, (Hart had traveled Cuba and Libya as a back door contact), and that he declined to mention the Hart-Rudman commission's work after 9-11 at all, can only lead to the conclusion that he still feels threatened by Gary Hart. Just remember that Hart did this out of a sense of duty. He has stated that Clinton was just a tactician, and that he left no legacy for the party.

On the other hand, John Kerry is a good friend of Hart's.

[in_cog_ni_to]

29. As long as it's NOT another Obama Bipartisan, come together and sing Kumbaya bullshit.

I would also prefer a Primary challenger who is PROGRESSIVE....Bernie Sanders/Alan Grayson would do. :)

[aikoaiko]

33. All I remember of Gart Hart is that Donna Rice was hawt.

There are better pictures out there of Donna. Gary looked old even back then.

[Tom Ripley]

36. She is now a profe$$ional kristian kook konservative

not very surprising

[bluestate10]

198. Yes. She is a national level christian conservative speaker. nt

[BOHICA12]

81. She might of been "Hawt" .... but she couldn't work a shredder

like Fawn Hall!

[Hart2008]

128. Donna Rice was Don Henley's former girlfriend. Henley was a Hart supporter.

Donna Rice has done some modeling and acting. As such, she qualified as a "public figure" for defamation lawsuits. Thus, she was open to all kinds of slanders as long as there was no proof of "actual malice" from the publisher.

Hart looks surprised in the photo. When asked to comment on photo, Hart is quoted with the witty response: "The attractive lady whom I had only recently been introduced to dropped into my lap... I chose not to dump her off."

[rucky]

39. 10 minute penalty for gratuitous use of smileys

[in_cog_ni_to]

49. BAD NAME! He needs to think of something else! Ron Paul's "American Patriot Party" is too close to

Hart's "Party of Patriots." People will get confused and vote for Ron Paul! G-d. That's all we need. :(

[in_cog_ni_to]

51. He doesn't have a web site up yet? He should! He could start raising MONEY$$$$$$$.

I'm just sayin'. :)

[Curmudgeoness]

53. Are you talking about the same Gary Hart who burst our bubble

when he challenged the press to catch him with a mistress----then proceeded to go to his mistress? The arrogance or stupidity pissed me off to no end at the time, and I have not forgiven him for it. I was so pumped for that election.

[cherokeeprogressive]

55. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1876521&mesg_id=1876866

[Curmudgeoness]

59. I have not heard all this, and thank you for the info.

I guess the MSM really did do a blackout on anything about Hart.

[cherokeeprogressive]

63. Frankly, I didn't know it either. I remember when it all went down, but never knew the background.

Honestly I don't think Gary Hart would ever be this party's nominee; I think he's just putting together an organization to draft a different candidate.

I thank Hart2008 for the info.

[Hart2008]

109. Montreal headlines, September 6, 2001: "Hart Predicts Terrorist Attacks on America."

Yes, Gary Hart was under a media blackout after 1988. This was true even after he had co-chaired the commission which had conducted the first comprehensive review of U.S. security since the end of WWII, and after Canadian newspapers screamed headlines of Hart predicting a terrorist at on America on September 6, 2001:

The Canadian headlines read, "Hart predicts a terrorist attack"–that’s Gary Hart, the former Colorado senator and two-time democratic presidential candidate who co-chaired the U.S. Commission on National Security with former Republican senator Warren Rudman. Hart had given his speech in Montreal. Interestingly enough, he was addressing the Air Transportation Association.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/3/28/fmr_democratic_senator_and_presidential_candidate

I would point out also that the so-called newspaper of record, the New York Times, didn't print one word about that final report. Keep in mind this wasn't just another federal commission. This was the most comprehensive review of U.S. national security since 1947. And so we weren't competing with a thousand other federal commissions. This was groundbreaking stuff, and we had spent two and a half years putting these recommendations and findings together.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/08/04_hart.html

By the way, when our final report came out in 2001, it did not receive word one in the New York Times. Zero. The Washington Post put it on Page 3 or 4, below the fold...
...I went out on my own throughout the spring and summer of 2001 saying, "The terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming." One of the speeches I gave was, ironically enough, to the International Air Transportation Association in Montreal. And the Montreal newspapers headlined the story, "Hart predicts terrorist attacks on America."

By pre-arrangement I had gotten an appointment with Condi Rice the following day and had gone straight from Montreal to Washington to meet with her. And my brief message to her was, "Get going on homeland security, you don't have all the time in the world." This was on Sept. 6, 2001.

Condi Rice's other wake-up call
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/04/02/hart/index.html

After September 11, 2001, I again started to see his face on television. It is a shame that it took that tragedy, and how his warnings had been ignored, to get him on the television again. When he was considering running for president in 2003, he went on crossfire. Paul Begala, Carville's consulting partner, was more aggressive with the questions he asked Hart, then the Repuke, (Sununu), as I recall.

Yet, when Hart wrote an editorial opposing the Iraqi war resolution, I never saw that published here in the U.S., only in the U.K.

[swilton]

90. Also, thanks for the info

[msanthrope]

102. Retroactive blaming of the Clenis is so.....1998.....nt

[Hart2008]

57. Please educate yourself about the old WRONG MSM propaganda against Hart.

Hart had already been followed in Dec. 1986, BEFORE he announced in 1987 after giving the party response to President Reagan's weekly radio address.

Mr. Sweeney said he was told that the detective's report traced Mr. Hart's movements from about noon Dec. 20 (1986) when Mr. Hart, a former Senator from Colorado, was seen driving to radio station WTOP in suburban Virginia, where he presented the Democratic radio response to President Reagan's weekly radio address. Mr. Hart was followed back to the District of Columbia and was seen later in the afternoon entering a bookstore.

That evening Mr. Hart was followed from his Capitol Hill town house to downtown Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/07/us/hart-s-link-to-2d-...

Gary Hart has denied challenging the media to try to catch him doing anything, and that full story has never really been told:

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/gary-hart-on-sca...

Donna Rice is the former girlfriend of Hart supporter Don Henley. The two had not met before she was brought by a friend to meet Hart on the dock. When he learned she was a friend of Henley's she was invited onboard. The trip was scheduled for a campaign strategy planning and speech writing.

The Miami Herald's Tom Fiedler admitted to reading this quote on the plane on the way to D.C., after the Herald had been pursuing this story for weeks, and only after two other Knight-Ridder where already in the street spying on Hart. More likely, with the way the New York Times is distributed, he read this quote after arriving in D.C. For the Herald to write that they had followed Hart around, which they didn't, in response to his "challenge" was another Herald cheap shot, since it was demonstrably false. The Miami Herald did not follow Gary Hart anywhere. They hid in his bushes and were peeking in his windows.

Donna Rice Hughes, who now devotes herself to combating children accessing pornography on the internet, has always been a class act. She never made any money from the "scandal", which was laughable in light of those which have followed. Both she and Senator Hart have always denied that their relationship had been sexual. (The recent Rupert Murdoch phone hacking scandal may also shed some light on how Fiedler's anonymous caller knew so much information about her plane reservations.)

The person spreading the rumors that Senator Hart "couldn't keep his pants on", was none other than Clinton operative James Carville. Carville's job then was to sabotage the Hart campaign after Bill Clinton had been rejected as Hart's potential VP. That was the real story behind the alleged anonymous phone call to the Miami Herald in 1987. (See above at post 41.)

Should Senator Hart choose to enter the primaries, NO ONE will care about what happened in 1987, especially since he and his wife have now been married for over 50 years. In all of his time in public life NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAS COME FORWARD TO CLAIM THAT SHE HAD AN AFFAIR WITH HIM.

[WinkyDink]

71. Now who's naive, Kay? Her female shipmate's story:

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20096528,00.html

Then and later, what struck Armandt most keenly was just how public all this was, given Hart's presidential candidacy. "I thought he almost wanted to be caught," she says. "He's a very smart man, but he was doing stupid things like being blatant with Donna." At the same time, she understood it. "I don't think he was in love with her, but I think he found her refreshing. She was so apolitical—it was a breath of fresh air. She was a very nice young girl who obviously liked him."

That night Lynn slept in the cabin where she and Donna had stowed their bags. "I awoke at 7 o'clock in the morning to the sound of the engines, and I was alone," Lynn says. "There were only three guest bedrooms, and I assume she didn't sleep with Broadhurst."

On the return to Miami, the men left for the airport, and Donna, eager to talk about her growing affection for Hart, lunched with Lynn. While she didn't put it "in so many words," says Lynn, "it was absolutely clear that she had slept with Gary. She's not one to detail , but she said she had a wonderful time with him...that he was very gentle and romantic. She said she really liked him and thought the feelings were mutual. And a lot of the conversation was, What did/think about it? I was skeptical."

The next day Donna called with the news that Gary had phoned: "He told her what a wonderful time he had and that he looked forward to seeing her again."

[Hart2008]

75. This is the same Lynn Armandt who brought Rice to the yacht and then stole her photos!

How much credibility do we give someone looking to make a profit from a salacious story?

Does a person who steals another persons property, her photos, then sells it for a profit in order to ruin her reputation have much credibility, especially if this person claimed to be her friend?

What else is she making up or embellishing?

Funny, but 20/20 did a story that got spiked about Lynn Armandt and what happened to those photos. (After Hart withdrew, they decided it wasn't important anymore, but when he reentered they still wouldn't air it.) From friends who have seen the video, there is another player involved who was British, with a cockney accent, and who is quite infamous in the U.K. for a similar "sex scandal" there. It sounds like a Murdoch connection for sure. Maybe if Hart runs ABC will finally air that story.

The problem with trying to sell this as a "sex scandal" is that it pales in comparison to those which have come subsequently. There is no semen stained dress, no love child, no sex video. More to the point, both parties denied it was a sexual relationship. The woman is getting outed by "friends" in order to sell a story. The sex in the story is all high school like gossip. Considering that both parties have demonstrated commitments to public service, decent people should give them the benefit of the doubt.

The country did and does have better things to do than speculate on what happens in the private lives of its public figures. The Europeans still think we are strange in this regard. The other point worth mentioning is that these scandals only happen to Dems. For perspective, Reagan was the first divorced man to become president. There was none of this kind of noise about his personal life to block out his political message. Poppy Bush is well known to have had a mistress, Jennifer Fitzgerald. The WaPo went out of its way to deny rumors about that, and it was true. Nancy Reagan was the source dishing the dirt about that. The double standard here was incredible.

[WinkyDink]

139. If you think handsome Hart had no affair with the beauteous Rice,

I'm sorry; that is being extremely naive.

[Hart2008]

174. His wife didn't believe anything happened and they have been married 54 years now.

The rumors came from the fact that they had been separated twice and then reconciled. The issues were about a conflict of strong personalities, and not sexual infidelity.

Obviously, during at least one of those times Gary Hart was involved with another woman.

Lee Hart always said that Gary Hart never lied to her, and she always stood by her man, and no she didn't want to run for office herself:


http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20096354,00.html

[WinkyDink]

240. Oh, yes; always believe what political people and their spouses say to the press!

[Hart2008]

250. It is more cynical to believe M$M gossip and innuendo about sex, which all parties deny.NT

[Curmudgeoness]

79. Thanks for the information. I have seriously never heard this

and it isn't as if I never pay attention to things. I suppose that once he was no longer the candidate, I moved on.

[Hart2008]

225. Consider what was the deal between Dukakis and Clinton that awarded Clinton the keynote speech?

On the one hand, Dukakis had gone to the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent the Massachusetts National Guard from deploying to Central America for training exercises ordered by the Reagan Administration.

On the other hand, Clinton had gladly sent the Arkansas National Guard to Honduras and had them leave their weapons behind for the contras to escape the prohibitions of the Boland Amendment. The Iran-Contra scandal had roots in Arkansas at the Mena airport.

Now considering that Bush was always the suspected mastermind of Iran-Contra, and Clinton has aided that effort, (See "Partners In Power" again), why did Dukakis give him the spotlight for the keynote speech?

Why does Clinton not prosecute Bush when the special counsel laid out the case against Bush?

Hart had experienced Republican dirty tricks as the campaign manager for McGovern's 1972 campaign, and he was fully expecting something similar in 1988 from Lee Atwater. The surprise was that the dirty tricks in '87-88 came from within the party itself.

[coalition_unwilling]

85. And the name of the yacht - Monkey Business -- priceless :). Brought

to mind that song by Carly Simon "You're So Vain."

[Hart2008]

115. "Monkey Business" was a Marx Brothers movie from 1931 and another 1952 movie

Both movies were silly fun, and non-sexual:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_Business_%281931%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_Business_%281952_film%29

The description of the 1952 flick is most apt:

Dr. Barnaby Fulton (Grant), a research chemist working on a fountain of youth pill for a chemical company, is trying to develop an elixir of youth, urged on by his commercially-minded boss Oliver Oxley (Coburn). One of Dr. Fulton's chimpanzees, Esther, gets loose in the laboratory and pours some chemicals into the water cooler — chemicals that just happen to have the rejuvenating effect for which Fulton is searching.

Unaware of the monkey's antics, Fulton tests his latest experimental concoction on himself, and washes it down with water from the cooler. Naturally, he soon begins to act just like a 20-year-old, and spends the day out on the town with his boss's secretary Lois Laurel (Monroe). When Fulton's wife Edwina (Rogers) learns that the elixir "works," she drinks some, again washing it down with water, and turns into a prank-pulling schoolgirl.

Things get out of hand when her newly quick temper induces Edwina to make an impetuous phone call to her old flame Hank Entwhistle (Marlowe), who, knowing nothing of the elixir, believes that Edwina is truly unhappy in her marriage and wants a divorce.

Meanwhile, more and more people at the laboratory are drinking the water and reverting to a second childhood, with predictably hilarious results. In the end, of course, everything works out, with help from the elixir itself.

[treestar]

157. Talk about "disappointment!"

[Hart2008]

192. Agreed, Obama has disappointed the party very much. NT

[treestar]

234. This is about Hart

Gary Hart

[Hart2008]

235. You are disappointed that his warning of terrorist attacks on America were ignored by Bush? NT

[bluestate10]

199. Very same. And that mistress has become a christian conservative speaker

and attacker of women's rights. Fuck Gary Hart and fuck Ralph Nader while I am at it.

[Curmudgeoness]

233. Just for information that you may not know, you might want to look

at the replies by Hart2008 to my comments. There is much more to the story than we were aware of at the time.

But I can understand that you would not want primary challenges or a third party to split the vote so Dems lose. That doesn't mean we can't look for the truth in the past.

Just want you to be aware of the full story that I didn't know either.

[Mojambo]

54. I'm open. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Oh, yeah, Gary Hart. I remember that guy.

Let me know if he comes out strongly in favor of funding a Single Payer Health Care System with revenue from legalized marijuana.

Otherwise, :boring:

[bluestate10]

200. Last seen on the Monkey Business love boat. nt

[Hart2008]

222. Last seen predicting terrorist attacks on America September 6, 2001

See note 109 above.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. he should team up with that "Coffee Party" lady

and form a 'completely irrelevant Party'

[mmonk]

67. I'll check it out but when I think of a populist revolutionary from the left,

I don't think Gary Hart. But I'll examine with an open mind.

[stevedeshazer]

69. Gary's ship, 'Monkey Business', sailed a very long time ago.

He went John Edwards twenty years before John Edwards went John Edwards.

No way this retread gets traction.

[Hart2008]

124. Sorry, unlike Clinton and Edwards there were never any bastard love child claims.

No sex tape.
No semen stained dress.
No sexual harassment complaints.
No rape accusations.
No reports of frequenting prostitutes.

Compared with Bill Clinton and John Edwards, Gary Hart is very boring. The man has been married to Lee Hart for over 50 years now, and there has never been any woman who has voluntarily come forward by name to claim any kind of sexual relationship with him.

He has a long and substantial record as a progressive in the party.

Please end your rumor mongering and gossip.

:hi:

[stevedeshazer]

170. How do you think the media will treat a Hart candidacy?

It doesn't matter what I think, Gary.

I agree with most of your positions, Gary.

They will kill you with innuendo.

Personally, I don't care who has sex with whom. But it kills political careers. And you, Gary Hart, are dead politically.

Sorry to inform you.

[LanternWaste]

230. I imagine your opinion will receive all the credibility it warrants...

I imagine your opinion on this matter will receive all the credibility it warrants... :shrug:

[undeterred]

132. At least he was a trailblazer.

If John Edwards followed him properly, he wouldn't have skipped the fatherhood part.

[WinkyDink]

241. Bwah! "Trailblazer"?! Even Ike had a mistress! (And hello, FDR!)

[Hart2008]

251. LBJ's mistress claims LBJ, Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover conspired to kill JFK!

Madeleine Duncan Brown had his son, Steven Brown, and her story about being an item with LBJ is not questioned:
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20199578,00.html

She claims that LBJ, Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover and Jack Ruby were at a meeting together the night before JFK was assassinated. Her statement about what LBJ told her after the meeting the night before JFK was killed is stunning:

"after tomorrow those S.O.B.'s will never embarrass me again - that's no threat - that's a promise."

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=15167

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. Principles in politics is an oxymoron. In government a miracle.

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians.  Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn’t be wise." Mark Twain

[Little Star]

78. I can't figure out what the bottom line is. I hope Mr Hart...

explains what the heck he is actually proposing.

I know he can't be talking about running for Prez himself. He would be a fine president but his age alone makes him not viable. I'm about the same age so that is not a slam, just a fact.

The other thing that bothers me about his post at HuffPo is it sounds like bi-partisianshit. I've had about as much of that as I can stand.

So, what exactly are you talking about Gary? I am open to taking back the Dem party and maybe even interested in a liberal third party that would stand up against corporatism.

[coalition_unwilling]

83. I guess I won't be able to join the Patriot Party. I believe with Samuel

Johnson that patriotism is "the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Oh, and I'm divisive as all get-out. I divide people according to their relation to the means of production, i.e., working class vs. ruling class.

[KG]

86. gary hart?

:rofl:

[Zorra]

88. I'll definitely, happily vote for him if he primaries Obama.

Or any other Democrat that primaries him.

[swilton]

92. Same same here

At this point age is a cosmetic thing anyway - some people stay vibrant long past their chronological years....

When Ralph Nader said he was 100% certain that someone would primary Obama - he mentioned elder statesman as one of the options....

[swilton]

94. If California's Jerry Brown

is an example of a successful elder statesman who made a comeback, why couldn't Hart also be the same?

[Hart2008]

129. Gary Hart and Jerry Brown were classmates at Yale Law School. They are the class of '64.NT

[Scurrilous]

95. ROFL

Primary like it's 1984!

:rofl:

[Hart2008]

146. So you are predicting that Hart wins the New Hampshire primary again? NT

[Scurrilous]

149. He's a 'shoe-in.' n/t

[Nye Bevan]

96. " to keep the government off our backs by keeping our hands out of its pockets"

Really?

[TwilightGardener]

97. Yeah, that was a head scratcher for me too. It was like he channeled Ron Paul there for a minute.

[Hart2008]

116. That refers to banks wanting government bailouts without government regulations.

The banks shouldn't complain about getting the government off their backs when they have their hands in its pockets.

[tblue]

123. I hope you're right. He should clarify that.

If you're working for him, please ask him about that. Are you working for him?

[Hart2008]

125. It is a very old Gary Hart quote rebutting Reagan's "get the government of your back".

"If you want the government off your back, get your hands out of its pockets."
Gary Hart

From memory, this goes back to 1984.

I am simply someone whom Hart inspired in 1984, and I have done my best to fight the MSM noise that has surrounded this great Dem for far too long.

[Hart2008]

184. Gary Hart has addressed this point very directly on his blog!

Gary Hart Says:
September 5th, 2011 at 6:43 am

Thanks to all for your comments. A couple of responses: the intent here was to illustrate what a serious, common-sense, mainstream political movement might look like, not to advocate a third party. These thoughts represent what I have always believed most Americans wanted their politics to represent. To Mr. Lucadello, I am simply being critical of the impact most of our trivial entertainment exports have on our image abroad when most people want more from us. And the line which irritates you is something from a previous campaign that seeks to point out the inconsistency of those who believe our government is too big and too burdensome but still want benefits from the government for their particular purposes.

http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=746

[MrScorpio]

99. Gary Hart? Am I supposed to be impressed?

What chance of winning does he have, 0.2%? Riiiiight.

If he has so much time on his hands, why doesn't he go after Congress?

[Hart2008]

191. Gary Hart caught lightening in a bottle twice in Presidential campaigns: 1972 and 1984.

Gary Hart is most dangerous when people underestimate what he can do with a national campaign, either as a candidate or as campaign manager.

Considering that he endorsed Obama in 2008, Hart's leadership in opposing the Presidents renomination will be significant.

[MilesColtrane]

105. Gary Hart=John Edwards in a Members Only jacket

They both talked a good game though.

[BNJMN]

114. Out come the knives.

[Hart2008]

118. Rumors, innuendo, and character assassination is all they ever had against Hart. NT

[stevedeshazer]

169. Gary, is this you??

:rofl:

[bluestate10]

201. No. Out comes the truth.

If democrats are fucking stupid enough to nominate Gary Hart, we will be slaughtered on election day. The Guy is a sick joke, at best. And he was not smart enough to have a mistress and hide her. BTW, that mistress has gone on to become a froth mouth speaker for the religious right and an assailant of women's reproductive rights.

[Joe Fields]

106. People need to listen up. Its time has come.

K&R and it is about time. No bullshit. Here is something that is an alternative to the lies we have been fed and the deceit dealt upon us.

When something new and different comes along, at first many will laugh dismissively.

I am not one of those to so easily dismiss this. I will be checking it out.

It might, I say MIGHT be the way we can take our country back.

[notGaryOldman]

108. Yesteryear's News

(Yesterdecade's, maybe?)

[Whats_Happening]

112. Monkey business!

But it makes one think, if only Hillary had recycled the "where's the beef" question against Obama at the right time, we might today have a President who knows how to fight.

[Hart2008]

223. Horse Feathers, Duck Soup, Animal Crackers, A Day At The Races, and A Night At The Opera!

How many more Marx Brothers movies can you name?


I guess that didn't work in the paid professionals' focus groups, huh?

Everything the Clintons ever did was tactical.

There was no real beef there with the Clintons either, so it didn't work.

[BNJMN]

113. NO 'SCREAMERS OR SHOUTERS'? WHAT THE HELL??!?!?!??!

[Supply Side Jesus]

120. +1

if I cant use my caps, then life ain't worth living.

[Douglas Carpenter]

117. remember all of Gary Hart's talk about "special unrest" in 84 - he meant unions

His whole attack on Mondale was based on attempting to paint Mondale as an old style big spending, big government liberal, pro-union New Dealer. Gary Hart may have begun his political career has George McGovern's campaign manager - but a McGovern Democrat he is not. Nor is he a New Deal Democrat or a Great Society Democrat and certainly not a social-democrat like Bernie Sanders. In fact he is one of the original "New Democrats" the same school of thought of Clinton, Obama, the DLC and that lot. If you are looking for a liberal or progressive challenger to President Obama - you need to look somewhere else.

[Douglas Carpenter]

131. remember all of Gary Hart's talk about "special interest" in 84 - he meant unions

His whole attack on Mondale was based on attempting to paint Mondale as an old style big spending, big government liberal, pro-union New Dealer. Gary Hart may have begun his political career has George McGovern's campaign manager - but a McGovern Democrat he is not. Nor is he a New Deal Democrat or a Great Society Democrat and certainly not a social-democrat like Bernie Sanders. In fact he is one of the original "New Democrats" the same school of thought of Clinton, Obama, the DLC and that lot. If you are looking for a liberal or progressive challenger to President Obama - you need to look somewhere else.

(sorry my spell checker played a trick on me - and I didn't check back until after editing time had expired)

[Hart2008]

203. The 49 state loss confirmed Hart was right and Mondale was a dinosaur.

Gary Hart was the original "New Democrat" but he was never DLC, and you should not judge the original based on the imitations:

Hart's 1984 run came at a moment that had similar promise for Democrats. A radical Left still sparred with the labor union-New Deal Democratic mainstream, while Hart and his fellow neo-liberals tried to forge a radical center by focusing on such un-Democratic themes as military reform, technology and economic growth. That was the last intellectual high point for the party.

Dick Meyer The 2nd (Or 3rd) Coming Of Gary Hart:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/30/opinion/meyer/main551733.shtml

In "Right From The Start", Hart wrote, ""The Democratic Party, under penalty of irrelevance and extinction, must bring forward a new generation of thinkers who are in touch with the real world..." Unfortunately, that didn't happen. After 1988, the DLC emerged and embraced triangulation while competing with Republicans for corporate money. All of this came at the expense of middle class America.

Gary Hart is far more progressive than Obama, Clinton, or the DLC. Somewhere, there was an interview online with him about being the original "New Democrat" and how he would have done things differently, but I can't find it right now.

[Douglas Carpenter]

219. Few things have harmed the progressive cause more than the marginalization of organized labor.

We can thank Gary Hart for playing a leading role in that. By 1984 the unions were no longer the archaic George Meany pro-war machine that they were in 1972. In fact they were the only real viable political force presenting a real opposition voice to Reaganism and the new cult of neo-liberal economics.

But all of that aside - I doubt that Gary Hart is going to run in the 2012 primaries and will at best make a marginal showing if he does. In today's political culture he is more of has-been than Mondale was in 1984.

[Hart2008]

224. Gary Hart opposed every part of Reagan's economic plan in the Senate.

The decline of the American labor unions was evident in 1976 when Jimmy Carter won the nomination.

If the unions "were no longer the archaic George Meany pro-war machine that they were in 1972", as you wrote and wanted to present a new image, why did they support Carter's VP when Carter's deregulation policies had badly undermined the unions?

Despite the myth that Reagan is the one that devastated private-sector unions, no amount of so-called “union-busting” that Reagan allegedly did matches the amount of devastation that President Jimmy Carter did to unions by crushing their monopolies in the Air, Rail Telephone and Trucking industries. Though the narrative is a convenient one, it is misleading.

According to Alfred Kahn, the ‘chief architect’ of airline deregulations stated years later:
"I have to concede that the competition that deregulation brought certainly was terribly, terribly hard on the airlines and their unions, who had heretofore enjoyed the benefits of protection from competition under regulation."
It is time to set the record straight and give Carter credit where credit is due: Jimmy Carter was the nation’s biggest union-busting president in the 20th century.

ttp://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/04/the-decline-of-unions-president-jimmy-carter-the-union-buster/

There was a reason that Eugene McCarthy considered Carter and Reagan to similar to distinguish on labor issuess. Labor found the wrong Minnesotan to promise its support if it wanted to reverse Reagan and Carter's neoliberal policies. You can't blame that on Gary Hart. Having thrown all of its support to Mondale before the primaries, the unions came across as trying to hand the nomination to Mondale, and Mondale was damaged goods politically. America wanted a new direction from the Democratic party than Carter's VP.

Should Hart decide to run, there will be a detailed economic policy paper to address economic problems with proposed solutions. That should include the problems with free trade agreements, etc. In a Hart campaign, the policy issues are always stated and explained, even if the MSM chooses not to repeat them.

[MilesColtrane]

194. Gary Hart was Bill Clinton before Bill Clinton was Bill Clinton.

[mmonk]

145. So. I've read the announcement at the blog and Huffington Post.

What is the next step to this party of patriots?

[Hart2008]

173. Watch Gary Hart's blog for more details!

http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/

[YvonneCa]

180. He say he doesn't advocate a third party...

...

Gary Hart Says:
September 5th, 2011 at 6:43 am
Thanks to all for your comments. A couple of responses: the intent here was to illustrate what a serious, common-sense, mainstream political movement might look like, not to advocate a third party. These thoughts represent what I have always believed most Americans wanted their politics to represent. To Mr. Lucadello, I am simply being critical of the impact most of our trivial entertainment exports have on our image abroad when most people want more from us. And the line which irritates you is something from a previous campaign that seeks to point out the inconsistency of those who believe our government is too big and too burdensome but still want benefits from the government for their particular purposes.

[MilesColtrane]

187. Right now it looks like an Underwear Gnomes' plan.

1)Sign up for Party of Patriots emailings

2) ?

3) Restore America

[WI_DEM]

151. And what will that accomplish? Hart wouldn't win a single primary over Obama

[librechik]

162. Of course not--but it will force Obama to the left, if it is supported by enough folks

I would welcome such a primary challenge--no fear that Obama would lose, but a wakeup call to the DLC

[Lorien]

153. So what about the CONTENT of this piece; the ideas presented- do the staunch

defenders of the status quo object to?

[Hart2008]

177. The ad hominem attacks come because they can't argue against the ideas.

It was always like that with Gary Hart.

[hifiguy]

249. Oh my, you hit the nail so hard

you bashed it right through the wood, there.

Well said, indeed. Sad to see yahoos here attacking one of the best minds the party has had over the last 40 years. I've been a big fan of Gary Hart's going all the way back to 1972.

[Hart2008]

258. He is a tremendous thinker. His critics resent his intellect. NT

[kentuck]

154. I have known and supported Gary Hart since the early 1980's...

He and a couple of others were the progressive leaders behind the McGovern campaign in 1972. He is a true progressive and still very sharp.

I don't think he would run. But he would use the threat of a run to change the policies of the present White House.

[JoePhilly]

155. The GOP has a better chnce of cloning, and re-running, Ronald Reagan.

but I do love it when the "primary Obama" masturbatory fantasy takes on some new characteristics.

The old versions (Bernie!! ... Dennis!!! .... Feingold!!!) were getting stale.

:rofl:

[treestar]

158. Yeah time to go to someone who actually tried to get the nom

and failed. :rofl: :rofl:

[anamandujano]

190. Laugh? You should cry. If Obama is our nominee again,

it won't matter if he wins or loses. We will only get to choose who continues the Puke agenda. Our country will still be on the road to ruin.

[Hart2008]

217. Go to Pat's or Geno's and get a cheese steak

Go self stimulate yourself somewhere else!

[grahamhgreen]

159. K&R

[WillyT]

160. K & R !!!

:kick:

[Pisces]

161. so far looks like you will have 25 votes.

[Hart2008]

188. 71 recs so far and now the most discussed thread on DU on a holiday weekend.

Lots of unreccers supporting the President out there but almost 2-1 favoring recs.

[Pisces]

220. That will win an election of 50+ million. Forget the minority vote. Yup you're right a winning ticke

[Hart2008]

221. Forget the majority vote and the ticket is a sure loser. NT

[xchrom]

165. interesting. nt

[BOG PERSON]

168. "party of patriots" sounds lame + creepy

[bluestate10]

207. Gary Hart was a trend jumper at best. He sees the tea party and now want his action. nt

[YvonneCa]

181. Sounds like a DREAM Democratic party...

...to me. :patriot:

[gulliver]

182. What has taken us so long on this?

I actually like Hart's Manifesto. I'm not sure about the name "Party of Patriots." Not sure why he didn't use "Patriot Party." Wesley Clark's vision (never realized) was a New American Patriotism. I love the idea of the left reclaiming patriotism from those who are merely nationalistic and jingoistic. If we lose the presidency in the next election, I would bet that some of the people who call themselves The Left will try to imitate the Tea Party and coalesce around some Tea Party-like association. Whether it is a costumed cult of barely coherent angry people like the Tea Party or a serious political group remains to be seen. We could do worse than Hart's Manifesto.

[grantcart]

183. Did you even read what you posted?

We welcome all Americans of good will; those who think for themselves; those with strong convictions but who resist extremes; those who respect the rights and opinions of others; those who uphold the national interest; seekers after truth; those who are open-minded, informed, and willing to listen; everyone with a sense of humor.




Resist extremes? Respect the opinions of others? Open minded and willing to listen?

That would include Republicans and Independents.

He is not organizing at all but if he was it sounds like a moderate party not a 'further left party'.

In any case very few here would qualify.

I certainly would not because I don't respect the opinions of the Tea Party, etc.

[Hart2008]

185. I read Hart's blog, and so should you! Hart does not advocate a third party.

Gary Hart Says:
September 5th, 2011 at 6:43 am

Thanks to all for your comments. A couple of responses: the intent here was to illustrate what a serious, common-sense, mainstream political movement might look like, not to advocate a third party. These thoughts represent what I have always believed most Americans wanted their politics to represent.

http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=746

Hart believes that the majority of Americans are now moving to the left, and he wants to move the party to the left as well!

Unless private interests that control America’s wealth begin to put this country first and do what should be done to create jobs, they should not be surprised to see a nation that has been tilting right begin to do what it has done under similar circumstances and demand action by our Government. Americans are not going to let this poker game go on much longer. And we shouldn’t.

http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=742

[bluestate10]

205. You are witnessing a prime display of insanity.

One mention of Obama and some on DU run to jump off 50 story buildings, without thinking of the obvious consequences. A ship of damned fools, I say.

[Arkana]

189. Gary Hart's a has-been who destroyed any shot he had at the Oval Office

when he had that affair.

[bluestate10]

206. Plus. He ran as a conservative alternative to the liberal Mondale.

And now, some on DU look at him as the great progressive hope. :rofl:

[Hart2008]

254. WRONG: Hart ran on a platform of new ideas, and a fresh approach, not conservatism.

Hart advocated rethinking programs while retaining progressive values.

Mondale was a dinosaur living in the past. He was tied to Carter's neoliberal economics while promising to raise taxes.

Hart had the best shot of the two to beat Reagan.

The then youthful and intelligent Hart would have contrasted nicely in the debates to the doddering old fool who was letting Poppy Bush destroy the Constitution and ignoring Congress as ring leader of Iran-Contra.

[bluestate10]

195. Gary Hart? He will see a few young skirts and that will be the end of it.

WTF? Get serious, please.

[Hart2008]

231. When you mortgage your home to run for public office, then you can make snide remarks about Hart. NT

[WinkyDink]

242. I think the First Amendment trumps your criterion.

[Hart2008]

244. Cheap shots are easy from those with no skin in the game. NT

[bluestate10]

202. I wonder whether Donna Rice will sit in his lap if he primaries Obama? nt

[Hart2008]

256. No, she is too busy working to protect children from porn on the Internet.

She is the president of "Enough is Enough" which works to protect children from watching porn on the Internet:

http://enough.org/

If I had to be involved in scandal, I want it to be with a woman who works to protect children from Internet porn, and who refused $1 million from Playboy.

[roamer65]

213. Abraham Lincoln quote.

"Show me a man without vice, and I'll show you a man without virtue."


Go Gary, Go!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

215. Another Obama bashing thread

-1

[McCamy Taylor]

236. OMG! Hart said no Dem ever criticizes the presumptive Dem nominee.

Yes he did. Back in the 2008 election, when he joined in the dogpile on poor old Hillary.

[AtomicKitten]

238. According to Hart: "Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party --

that can be used to destroy your party's nominee."

A bit different than how you remember it; see the piece he wrote below.

link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/breaking-the-final-rule_b_90420.html

Gary Hart, Author
Wirth Chair professor at the University of Colorado
Posted: March 7, 2008 12:45 PM

It will come as a surprise to many people that there are rules in politics. Most of those rules are unwritten and are based on common understandings, acceptable practices, and the best interest of the political party a candidate seeks to lead. One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party's nominee. This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned.

By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her.

As a veteran of red telephone ads and "where's the beef" cleverness, I am keenly aware that sharp elbows get thrown by those trailing in the fourth quarter (and sometimes even earlier). "Politics ain't beanbag," is the old slogan. But that does not mean that it must also be rule-or-ruin, me-first-and-only-me, my way or the highway. That is not politics. That is raw, unrestrained ambition for power that cannot accept the will of the voters.

Senator Obama is right to say the issue is judgment not years in Washington. If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition.

[McCamy Taylor]

237. Prediction: Hart is being blackmailed to savage Obama. NewsCorp caught him at it again,

And Murdoch has told him "accept this big barrel full of Super Pac money or else."

Gary Hart was so spineless, he dropped out over an adultery scandal. A few years later, Bill Clinton proved that adultery does not mean squat. I do not think he will be an improvement.

[Hart2008]

239. WOW! Another smear campaign! No facts and all make believe!

In 1972, Sen. Edmund Muskie dropped out over a fake letter on his letterhead, which had been stolen.

Was Muskie spineless too?

Maybe we should recognize that dirty pool happens in out primaries, and usually it is directed against the candidate the GOP fears the most in the general elections!

Prior to Hart, the media didn't intrude into the private lives of political figures.

FDR died with his mistress.

JFK's exploits are well known.

Ronald Reagan was the first divorced president and no one asked why his marriage failed.

Then Gary Hart looks like a shoe in to win the presidency and the rules were changed on him after he had announced his candidacy. He had to deal with reporters hiding in his bushes and the CNN helicopter hovering over his house. His family had to hang sheets in their windows to keep the media from trying to look inside. No candidate should be required to endure that kind of harassment.

Bill Clinton had it easier four years later because the "new" rules had been formed. Clinton could learn from what happened to Hart. Still Clinton's comeback in New Hampshire came from promising people tax cuts which he couldn't deliver. Clinton was the first president in history to break a campaign promise before taking the oath of office.

Lastly, while the media circus over his personal life did cause him to suspend his campaign, he did return to lead the national polls in December 1987 only to have another false story about his campaign having been "secretly financed" printed on the eve of the Iowa caucuses. It was that story which ultimately sank his 1988 campaign, and it was 100% false. Hart had mortgaged his house to run in 1984, but he never took a dime in PAC money. That is what happens to a man in Washington who refuses to be corrupted by the money. They just lie about him so much that he can't correct all of the lies.

[WinkyDink]

243. Look; you posted. Now you reap the whirlwind.

[Hart2008]

253. HA! HA! HA! The whirlwind hasn't started here yet. It comes because the Hartistas shall ride again!

Maureen Dowd is going to have fun with this!

[COLGATE4]

247. Once again, the Great Groucho Marx said it best: (With apologies

to Groucho) - "I wouldn't be a member of any political party that was crazy enough to have me".

[hifiguy]

248. The best president this country never had

in the last 40 years.

Sign me up, Mr. Hart. :applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

[Motown_Johnny]

252. This is even less credible than Nader finding someone to Primary POTUS

Your hopes are way to high


it won't happen

[Hart2008]

263. Maybe Nader recruited Hart? NT

[Hart2008]

255. Gary Hart-"I do my best to try to summon [the Dem. party] to those ideals and principles."

Gary Hart Says:
September 8th, 2011 at 7:17 am
...We all must place our flag in the soil and promote principles that most Americans believe in. In the rancor of the day, the extremists get all the media attention–indeed, have their own networks–and the rest of us remain silent and on the sidelines. I belong to a party that, throughout history, has stood for most of these ideals and principles. As a member of that party, I do my best to try to summon it to those ideals and principles. A while back I did so in a book entitled: The Courage of Our Convictions. This is when the party began to lose its way in search of some amorphous position called “centrism” and its leaders voted, mostly out of self-protection not principles, for the war in Iraq.

Gary Hart Says:
September 5th, 2011 at 8:10 am
And to Windy, may I say my purpose here is to bring us back to “an even keel” by advocating an agenda that many–I believe most–Americans can embrace. I could not agree more about the civil war brewing not only between the wealthy and the rest of us but also between everyday Americans who believe in progress and the far right.

http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=746

[Warren DeMontague]

259. Your OP is giving me a headache.

Bouncing, Clapping, and woo-hooing smileys are like hard liquor.

They should be used sparingly, responsibly, and in moderation.

[tallahasseedem]

260. It's hard to read the substance of this post...

when there's so many of these damn smileys all over the place. It looks like the work of a six year old.

[Hart2008]

261. So then follow the link!

http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=746

[NeedleCast]

262. Nah

(Cant tell if serious or not due to ridiculous use of emoticons).

[AntiFascist]

264. Sounds like an intelligent alternative to the Tea Party...

and Gary Hart is one of the most intelligent.

[Hart2008]

265. Exactly! NT