Gary Hart: This election is about transition not power-We either move forward or we will go back

Gary Hart
The Democratic Crossroads: Stay With the Known or Accept a New Generation of Leadership
Posted January 9, 2008 | 01:48 PM (EST)


For the party of the status quo it is always easier. Who best represents "stay the course." The only complication this year is how to be the candidate of stay the course without mentioning the president from whom you are inheriting the course.

....................

The Democratic party is once again faced with a decision: whether to stay with the known, the familiar, and the "experienced" or whether to accept a new generation of leadership composed of those who have not had power or the experience of governing. If you believe, as I do, that the early 21st century is an age of huge transition -- of globalization, of information, of failed states, of climate change, of rising new powers, and so on -- then leadership hamstrung by old arrangements and commitments will not do.

.......................

Democrats and Americans are faced with a big decision. Will we play it safe? Or will we embrace the future? This is not a time to put gender or race above what is best for the country or to make superficial choices. We have huge debts and deficits. The climate is rapidly approaching a tipping point. We are stuck in the Middle East. Most of the people in the world do not like us or trust us. Our education system is declining. And the list goes on.

Only a new generation of leaders can solve these new challenges, because only a new generation of leaders is unbound by old policies, old commitments and arrangements, old deals and old friendships. This is a time when America must leave old politics behind. This election is about transition not power. We will either move forward or we will go back.

more at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/the-democratic-crossroads_b_80723.html

:thumbsup:

A man who likes his women young and juicy and on the side.

We're not considering Hart for pope, president, or dog catcher. So why do you feel the need to bring horniness of 20 years ago into the discussion? What, if anything, has that to do with the subject the man is discussing? How does it help determine if the argument is valid or not?

And so in the spirit of Gary Hart, circa 1987, I say to you: "Catch me if ya can. I dare ya. I double-dog dare ya."

:rofl:

Whenever someone tried the Bill and Monica crap on me, I was able to point to Bill's record with women who were NOT young and juicy: his Secretary of State, his Attorney General, and his Supreme Court justice.

Got anything like that for Hart? He can't handle aging for himself. He certainly can't handle it in women. I'd bet money that Hillary's hard-won wrinkles scare that man to death.

and then there are personal issues. At the moment, I prefer to focus on the ones that worry me ... climate change (forget about stopping it, it is a freight train already started down the track), creeping corporatism, crashing currencies, totalitarianism re-emerging abroad (this time armed with market position), totalitarianism on the rise here ...

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Clinton is certainly not my first choice on the issues ... but let's face it. She would be so much better than what we have had recently, it would feel like paradise.

But I still want impressive congressional oversight of ANY person we endow with so much power. By not impeaching Bush, all his encroachments, all his defiances become accepted precedent. If we do not closely question the person we elect, the majority will return to the Republicans in two years on a reform movement.

Two years. All we got.

You said:

By not impeaching Bush, all his encroachments, all his defiances become accepted precedent. If we do not closely question the person we elect, the majority will return to the Republicans in two years on a reform movement.


You got to quit stealing my lines ...

:toast: :yourock: :headbang: :woohoo: :applause: :thumbsup:

Seriously, I'd rather have 'em screwing a model (if they MUST), than the Country.:patriot:

Young and ... well, hello ... :evilgrin:

(Sorry. Couldn't resist. Someone should really smack me down.)

There's a lot in his past he'd rather we not remember. ;-)

You should also remember that Donna Rice is now a right wing "Christian" anti-porn crusader, which means it's more than likely that she played for that team all along.

Would Hart have beat Reagan in 1984? That's debatable. Ronnie's "Great BullshitterCommunicator" act had a lot of people fooled.

But he would have easily kicked Poppy's ass in 88. Hart (like Bill) has to take responsibility for falling for it, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that it was a Bush Crime Family setup.

As a matter of fact I find it admirable. :evilgrin:

Young/old instead of black/white and male/female. Everyone wants to be young, after all.

So, could a young woman run for the presidency?

group---Bloomberg.

No talk of bipartisanship from these same people while the Republicans were kicking us in the head all these years.

I don't trust these people in the Boren group at all. None of them.

Got too many people falling all over themselves to show their love for a lot of diaper wearing, toe-tapping, child molesting Repigs lately for me.

Don