U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 08, 2007 10:04 PM UTC

Gary Hart Mad at The Economist

  • 69 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

From M.E. Sprengelmeyer’s Back Roads to the White House blog:

Former Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado couldn’t hold his fire when The Economist, in a piece on Sen. Barack Obama, boiled down Hart’s past runs for president into one dismissive sentence.

“The Democratic Party has a long history of anti-establishment candidates, such as Eugene McCarthy and Gary Hart, who surged to prominence on talk of ‘new politics’ only to collapse in confusion.”

Hart, never one to suffer things trite and simplistic, fired back with a letter to the editor first noticed by Ben Smith at The Politico.

Someone who was there SIR – Were Lexington not so insistent on mischaracterising an ancient campaign of mine, I would refrain from responding (April 14th). But, alas, to write that my presidential campaign of 1984 “surged to prominence…only to collapse in confusion” is to misstate the facts, yet again. To clarify the history: as a long-odds dark-horse candidate, I won more than 25 primaries and caucuses, including all of New England, Florida and parts of the South, seven of nine Super Tuesday states, and all the western states, including the largest, California. Those victories produced 1,200 delegates to the Democratic National Convention and, had it not been for non-elected “super delegate” party figures, could well have produced a nomination against almost insurmountable odds. So much for collapsing in confusion.

Gary Hart

Kittredge, Colorado

Tweet
Share

Comments

69 thoughts on “Gary Hart Mad at The Economist”

      1. Hart refers to his ’84 campaign (and it seems slightly exaggerated but I trust he wouldn’t quote the facts of his victories and # of delegates if they weren’t true) whereas it was in ’87, long before the primaries began, that he got into (monkey) trouble.

        1. “monkey business”-who ever named that boat was probably a pretty fun person, wouldn’t you say?  🙂

          Hart is the epitome of someone who’s pining about life 20 years ago.  Uncle Ricco anybody?

          1. the man remains one of the more useful and intelligent men of the west. For example, in 2001, he pushed for America to take correct actions to prevent terrorism attacks against us. Sadly, not only did W. and his staff not pay attention, but to this day, much of what Hart and others espoused STILL is not implemented.

            If you follow his history, you will find that he has been by far one of the brightest leaders that America has had, and certainly one of the brightest of the last 50 years. And like so many others, he got cocky and was brought down by a photographer. Oh well, I guess that was “Mission Accomplished”.

            As to defending himself from a poor article, well, I think that he has the right to correct bad journalism. And while he left out the reason WHY he did not win the primary, he is correct about just missing it.

            2. Or since?  If he had good ideas that could have prevented terrorism, that’s great.  But he wasn’t the only person to have reconized that as a problem only to be ignored by plenty of people on both sides of the isle, so please don’t use that as an attempt to pin terrorism on Bush (Clinton has a far worse record of not doing anything to prevent terrorism).

              In any case, there wasn’t anything bright or innovative about how he got that upset over one line in someone’s article.  I would think that someone that “bright” would either have something better to do with his time, or someone who is as taken away by Hart as “libgirl” would have taken the time to do it for him

              1. I doubt you’ve read anything he’s done before or since, so you’re hardly an authority. You’re a demogogue. I appreciate your half-assed attempts at being reasonable on this blog, really…I do! You’re just not an intellect any where near the intellect of Gary Hart.

                And for the umpteenth time….thick skull!….9/11 occurred on Bush’s watch, not Clinton’s! Clinton gave ample warninig to Bush and all evidence shows Bush ignored it! Geez!

                “If he had good ideas that could have prevented terrorism, that’s great.”……….Christ almighty, you’ve just attempted to unravel four years of debate with a malapropism (look it up).

                For your edification, a persons legacy may argueably be all that is left to the world after worms eat up the rest. It’s worth defending! Sorry you can’t understand that. When someone lies about you, or me, “we” have the right to defend our record. You and the rest of similar lame brains on this site just don’t get it. Maybe in the next life.

                1. Since I’m not the “intellect” that Sir Hart seems to be (which I never claimed to be), why don’t you show me instead of making ass-ish snarky comments, because maybe….just maybe I really wanted to know.

                  I’m so glad that you appreciate my “half assed” attempts at being “reasonable”-something which you apparently make no attempt at.  Maybe it’s too much for a “thick skull” like me to understand, but everyone whines about how Bush knew about 9/11 and could have prevented it.  Apparently now, Hart would have saved us all.  For the 100th time, Clinton did nothing of substance to stop the multiple terrorist attacks that occured on his watch.  If that’s not an issue to you, then maybe your skull is thicker than mine.

                  You know, I really appreciate the times when you actually try and debate.  I really do.  But your preachy, broad brush, out dated liberalism and name calling is getting pretty freaking old.

                  1. I apologize. The destruction in treasure, lives, and international respect is so profound…I’m edgy. I apologize. But look….at the record….the Republican controlled Congress while Clinton was President distracted, blocked, deferred, underfunded and obstructed reasonable attempts to solve this terrorism issue. In fact, I take exception to the “terrorism” label. The deeper issues here, which are geopolitical, cultural, religieous, economic and justice related will take a much longer post…and some distance to gain adequate perspective….I admit to being at a loss and treading water…emotionally, historically and in so many other respects…..it’s a huge mess….but Clinton din’t get us into this. george Bush and the Neocons did. on that score I firmly believe history will agree with me and so many others. For Christs sake, just read the Texas monthly (I think that’s the magazines title) where a dozen native state historians and former GW appointees agree with me!

                    I’m trying, man. But friends and family are in the cross hairs. My patience runs thin. Ego’s are taking the place of prescience and wisdom. IMHO hubris and political expediency, greed and imperialism are taking MUCH TOO GREAT A TOLL on the America I know and love…brother.

                    1. Just as a friendly caution, if you keep up the name calling and abrasive posts, you will run the risk of being viewed as the LIAS of the left, where people will debate whether or not to ignore you completely-a debate that I’ve had with myself more than once.

                      Anyway, back to the debate….I agree that there are a lot of factors at play with terrorists, but I don’t agree with the “blame Bush” stuff.  The stage for this was set when Israel was granted statehood and the UK drew the boundaries in the middle east.  And it can be reasonably argued that it goes back to when God put oil in the middle east.

                      Did Clinton get us into this?  No.  He didn’t do a lot to fix anything, but he didn’t get us into it.  Did Bush get us into this?  No.  He invaded Iraq, but the terrorists didn’t strike because Bush was in office, and he managed level all of this political, economic and religous inequality to make them mad at us in less than a year in office.  No one “got us into this”.  The terrorists hated Clinton as much as they do Bush.  Their hatred towards us has nothing to do with any one political figure.  But as long as America supports Israel, we will have problems in the middle east, because they blame everything on Israel.

                2. While I believe that 9/11 occurred due to W’s total incompetence, I think that Clinton has to take his lumps as well. For starters, the first real attack against us occurred on his watch. In particular, the first attempt on the towers occurred in 92 and Clinton lucked out. If OBL had more info on the towers, he would have realized that his approach was not going work. He would have needed a fuel tanker in there. Of course, he had a decade to study the building and do another go at it.

                  During Clinton’s term, they stopped at least 7 attempts against us (one of the few that kind of made the press  was the Y2K Seattle attempt; That was OBL; He was stopped). Clinton kept things quiet on that, whereas W. likes to spread fear (doing more damage to us than a real attack).

                  So when is the next attack likely to occur? It will be either just before the election or about 3-6 months after the next president starts. While I think that the next one is almost certainly going to be dem, I hope that they think about this. One of the smarter moves would be to keep NSA/CIA/DHS heads for the first year, and THEN switch them out 1 dept at a time.

                  1. I just hope the next president is a Republican  🙂

                    My biggest problem with the Clinton years is that it just doesn’t seem like he did a lot when we were attacked.  I don’t think that shooting a couple of missles at some camps is an effective way of dealing with terrorists.

                    1. Clinton preferred not to put this out in the open. As I pointed out, they Y2K issue in Seattle that hardly made the press was an attempt. That is very low key. Since none of his attempts were successful, then it made it hard for Clinton to go after him. In fact, if not for 9/11, W. would have done far less against OBL (which has been far too little).

                      As to preferring a rep, I am fine with that if it is Ron Paul and I say that knowing that he liked reagan. :). Sadly, I give him little chance of getting the nod. 

                    2. But I remember the foiled Y2K attack.  I think it’s pretty safe to say that we will never really know how many attacks was thwarted by either administration, but you are right, Bush has been more open about thwarted attacks.  Part of that may be his personality, another part is that I think Americans want to know when we have stopped something.

                      What gets me too is how Americans want more security, but they get so impatient at the airport.  Remember when that plot was stopped where the terrorists were trying to blow up planes with liquids?  I flew right around that time and there were a lot of people complaining about not being able to take water on the plane.  If the terrorists had succeeded, everyone would have been complaining about how we didn’t prevent it.

                    3. during Y2K. (1997-2005 to be precise.) That was one of the reasons Paul Schell wasn’t re-elected mayor.

                      Here’s the thing about the terrorist attacks that occured during Clinton’s administration. International rules likely kept him from doing much. With the exception of the twin towers bombing in ’93 they all occurred in Africa and Asia. (And they rounded up everyone they could who had anything to do with that.) I’m not sure but I think that meant that it was up to the locals to investigate. And it’s not like Clinton did nothing – I remember that he bombed al Quada camps in Sudan. But you have to get permission to fly over someone’s airspace to attack, at least if you want to avoid fucking up diplomatic relations with the countries involved.

                      I remember reading a lengthy article in the New Yorker in early 2001 (months before 9/11) about how Louis Freeh, the director of the FBI under Clinton, made something of a personal crusade to find the Saudi Arabian embassy bombers while he was still in charge. I think his biggest obstacle was dealing with the Saudis.

                      This isn’t my best post and I may be missing something big, but it’s not fair to lay a lot of blame at Clinton’s feet. Until the whole world could be shocked and shaken by the carnage and destruction of 9/11 no president was going to get a whole lot of necessary international cooperation in going after the terrorist. In all the finger-pointing I think that point is often lost on the debaters.

                    4. That’s my point.  Republicans can point to things that Clinton didn’t do right, Democrats point to the things that Bush didn’t do right.  The point is, nobody does everything right, but Democrats seem pretty bent on laying **everything** at Bush’s feet.  “It happened on his watch, he should have stopped it.  He should have listened to Gary Hart.  He should have done this, he should have done that.”  If Democrats are going to blame the man who was in office for nine months for not having some sort of revelation that the terrorists were going to attack the twin towers on 9/11, then I’m going to bring up at every opportunity the man who was in office for eight years, and did little more than shoot some missles off into the desert. 

                      Both sides deserve blame and some credit.  And you are an ultra-partisan, concerned only with spin for your side if you can’t admit that.

                      Just so you know Ari, very little of this post was directed at you-more just “soap-boxing” than anything else.

                    7. As several chemists outlined, they would have had to do things like order a bucket of ice, disappear into the loo for an hour or more, etc. etc.  Worst case of error on their part and the loo door would blow open and we would have a cartoon frizzed/fried Muslim. 

                      So we now have another step of people control, just like taking shoes off.  If Richard Reeve hadn’t done that trick with his Nikes, it wouldn’t be an issue.  How much explosive can you pack in a shoe, anyway? 

                      “I’d rather die young and free than old and ‘secure’.”  Of course, I’m past young, but I have neither freedom nor security. 

                    8. gave standing orders to the military that if they find OBL, kill him.  You don’t need to call me and ask.

              2. You will find that he is a very interesting individual. Attended divinity school and then went on law school. Elected to the senate quickly where he helped Colorado’s stature in the nation (of course, it is not like oil and gas hurt us 🙂 ). Had he not been doing the run for pres. he probably would have remained a senator for a number of terms (of course, many prefer term-limits).

                He was also one of the saying in the late 80’s that if we were not fully energy independent that we would be fighting in the middle east. He called for balanced budgets and more money into energy research esp in nukes. In addition, he was pushing for real reform of the political process. His argument was that if we did not correct the election process, that it would lead to corrupt politicians (I am guessing that that has been true through all of the ages).
                Even in the 80’s, he was considered one of the brightest minds WRT the military and planning. The military loved him. During his time in the senate, he was always seen as a hawk (and not a chicken hawk) by both sides of the isle. Of course, back then, the senate worked together for the good of the nation. Sadly that has changed over the last 6 years. But it was his hawk attitude and his earlier calls for military reform that lead to him being on the 2000 report.

                  1. Many of our old senators and congressman were pretty good for this state. The 2 that comes to mind, was Bill Armstrong and Gary Hart routinely working together for the state, and really did not split their votes when it came to the good of the state.  Obviously, they split on other issues, but they overlooked parties when it came to the state.

                    1. Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith of Oregon.  They travel the state together and do a pretty good job.  It may not be enough to keep Gordon from getting stiff competetion in 2008, but it’s good for the state.

      1. When you think about it, Hart’s pathological inability (as a lot of people here know, his indiscretions were widely-known) to keep his damned trousers zipped put The Chimp in the White House, and arguably caused 9/11.

        If Hart hadn’t melted down, he probably would have been elected President in 1988.  Bush #41 would have lost and thus melted into oblivion; Incurious George might well have even been prosecuted for insider trading in Harken Energy, as opposed to becoming the “managing partner” of the Texas Rangers.  Either Bill Clinton or Al Gore would have been elected in 1996, and under their leadership, we would have been steered into a sounder and ‘greener’ energy policy.  (Lest you think that I as a Republican would find this to be a bad thing, let me remind you that Republican Teddy Roosevelt was an environmentalist long before it was in vogue, and that the bulk of our balance of payments goes to pay for oil for our SUVs.)  And Hart, with his considerable geopolitical savvy, might well have found a way to have kept the first Gulf War from happening (Bush #41 essentially gave Saddam an engraved invitation to invade Kuwait), thereby eliminating al-Qaeda’s casus belli.

        Imagine a world where the dollar was worth more than the euro (as opposed to becoming as valueless as the peso), and where we could still get on an airplane without stripping down to our friggin’ shorts.  The blood is on your hands, Gary Hart.  Now, please STFU. 

        1. No one could have beaten Bush in 88, not unless he were to royally screw up his campaign. As I posted elsewhere Bush milked the “Reagan/Bush” thing for all it was worth and it was worth a lot. Had Gore tried to do the same thing in 2000 he would have carried Florida outright and maybe a couple of other states.

          1. I seem to recall that at the time, the CW was that Hart was basically a lock.  Could you see Bush #41 debating geopolitics with him?  And with Dan “He’s Only A Heartbeat Away” Quayle as his limping mate?!?

            1. I’ll grant you that. I also recall the so-called “wimp factor” that was supposed to be the heavy stone around Bush’s neck, and going against a guy like Dukakis solved that for him. He would have had to try to do something else against Hart, and he would have had to work for it, not cakewalk to the Presidency as he did. I’m still fairly certain that Reagan’s long coattails would have been the difference. Hart could have ended up Sec’y of State or something under Clinton …

      2. I remember that address because it was nearly as ironic as “Monkey Business,” and also because I used to ride my bike past that road when pedaling up Bear Creek Canyon.

        2. From AmericanHeritage.com:

          When rumors began circulating about his supposed extramarital affairs, Sen. Gary Hart, the leading candidate for the 1988 Democratic nomination for President, challenged the media. He told The New York Times in an interview published on May 3, 1987, that they should “follow me around. . . . They’ll be very bored.” As the NBC anchor John Chancellor explained a few days later, “We did. We weren’t.”

          http://www.americanh…

  3. Gary lets be honest: it was the was the good ship Monkey Business that sunk your campaign and lets not forget about the hot night at Donna’s apartment……………

    Sorry Pal but it collapsed because you were not discreet about your action on the side so STFU and enjoy your retirement.

    1. pointed out ad nauseum, the “Monkey Business” business brought Hart’s ’88 campaign down–not his ’84 campaign which is what the article is referencing.

      Mondale’s “Where’s the Beef” debate challenge is what brought down Hart’s ’84 campaign.

  4. That the truly brilliant guys, like Hart, just didn’t have the same kind of trouble with their zippers that so, so many men and women have.

    1. Other than being much brighter than the all the others, how is any different than leaders like Owens, W., reagan, Gulliani, Gingrich, McCain and Clinton?  All in all, the last perfect person was about 2000 years ago.

  5. The 1984 Hart campaign was a true grassroots, seat of the pants organizing effort. With little money, and the patience and outreach capabilities of an army of college students and true believers, they came very close to winning the nomination. The super delegate system was new in 1984, and it was designed to make sure that party regulars like Mondale, elected officials and Dem institutions like organized labor could produce a nominee with no surprises along the way. Hart came very close to upsetting the apple cart, and did it without the Internet, without mega buck Pioneers, and without the support of the conventional wisdom.

    Whatever you think of the collapse of the 1988 campaign, it is important to give Hart credit for that acheivement, as well as for the role he has played in the conversation about the issues over the years. Bear in mind that he was one of the people who predicted an attack like 9/11, and a year after the fall of the towers reminded Americans that we were still (and are still) not safe. A member of a charismatic Christian church as a child, he has been a thoughtful critic of the role of religion in today’s politics. His students today at the Graduate School of Public Affairs at UCD are lucky.

    The easy joke, reducing a public servant’s career to one mistake or indiscretion, is one of the reasons it is hard to get good people to run for office today. Don’t dismiss Gary Hart, now or in the future – his ideas continue to influence a generation of us who worked for him two decades ago.

    2. I recall in 1973, at the Colorado Democratic Convention, when Hart ran for a Senatorial position from Colorado. This was the year of Nixon’s downfall and emotion ran high. And most of the people at the Convention had no knowledge of the history of the CO Dems.

      Those previously involved with the Dems referred to him as a “carpetbagger” since he had barely changed his state of record in time to run in Colorado.

      His speech at the convention failed to mention this fact but he implied he was a longtime CO resident. Maybe even a native.

      His record, IMO, speaks for itself.


      2. Gary Warren Hart was born on November 28, 1936, in Ottawa, Kansas, an agricultural community where his father farmed and sold farm equipment. The family moved to Colorado several years later. At college, he shortened his family name from Hartpence to Hart. He married the former Oletha (Lee) Ludwig in 1958. They had two children, Andrea (born in 1964) and John (born in 1966).

        It would appear that he moved to Colorado when he was young child. He later went out of state for college and then came back.

      3. If I read the term “carpetbagger” in reference to ANY politician anywhere I will first puke, then figure out a way to email that puke to the moron who posted it. I imagine that thousands of elected officials in our country’s history were people who moved to a state or district where a convenient open seat was waiting for someone to run, and the voters there liked what they heard and gave it to him/her. (Liddy Dole anyone? Not to mention Both Ways Bob Beauprez. Just in case you thought only Dems like HRC did this…)

        At the very least make sure that the charge makes sense. People move around all the time, get involved in their new communities, and decide to get into politics. (Tom Tancredo, remember, is a NW Denver native – or should he have been disqualified from running in the south suburban CD6 since he was a “carpetbagger?” I can name lots of others here in Colorado.)

    5. “With Republicans, it’s money … and with the Democrats, it’s always SEX!!!!”  [Okay, today, with Republicans, it seems to be more and more about sex with underage boys.]

      Ultimately, libgirl, it’s about judgment.  We want our pols to show some semblance of it, and whether it is Hillary’s cattle futures debacle or Bush’s insider trading in Harken, when we presume the worst from our public officials, we are rarely surprised or disappointed. 

      As a former Hart supporter (yes, I am a Republican, but I have known about the Bush clan for decades), I was disappointed and to some extent betrayed by his abysmal judgment.  Which skank he slept with was beside the point; if you don’t have enough sense to know that as a candidate for President, you are living in a fishbowl, you probably aren’t qualified to be President. (Not that the present occupant belongs anywhere other than on the Love Boat as Cruise Director, but that is also beside the point.)

      Hart had his chance to grab for the brass ring, and blew it.  Though we are all poorer for it, it is as it is.  He should STFU or at least, stop whining.

      1. The repeated “STFU” is a bit harsh – don’t you think?  He has the right to speak – just the same as you do.  The only difference is that you do your blogging anonymously w/o the fear of recourse.

  7. I understand that the story was about the 84 campaign but since so little is ever said about him any more I thought I’d mention this.
    Stephen King in his Dark Tower series does a little time travel jaunt where Hart stares down the press after the whole Monkey Businees affair and decides to continue on with the campaign, ultimately winning in a landslide. Got me to wondering what if…

    1. It reminds me of the old joke – what does Dukakis mean in Greek?

      Mondale.

      Hart would likely have been crushed in 84 or 88 in a general.  Only my opinion, but it seems reasonable to assume.

      1. but only because Reagan was so popular and Bush the Elder milked his connection for all it was worth. But Hart would have made him earn it. He was a fighter and would not have put up with any of the BS that Bush was able to stick on Dukakis.

        No one could have won more than 3 or 4 states against Reagan in 84, so you’re right on target there.

  8. Maybe Gary Hart was mad only because it was The Economist that published this. That’s one well respected publication, unlike Time or Newsweek, so it matters more if they get things wrong.

    1. I’ve yet to see a story in which I have been involved or on the inside where they’ve gotten it right.

      The only decent investigative reporting in this state is done by the Westword.

      1. What passes for journalism today.  The trade is so shoddy as to be almost worthless.  Constant errors of substance, obvious questions unasked, facts missing.

  9. The race was in 1984 when the world was way different, both parties were different, but the monkey business was similar.

    Hart should be greatful that his race was mentioned at all in the Economist and not an archeology journal.

  10. For the benefit of your readers who prefer the whole story, here’s what Senator Hart has been doing for the last twenty years:

    —————————

    Council for a Livable World Announces Former Sen. Hart as its Chairman
    Dec 18, 2006

    Washington, D.C. – Council for a Livable World, one of the nation’s oldest and most prestigious organizations devoted to national security issues, today announced the selection of former Colorado Senator Gary Hart as its chairman.

    Hart replaces Jerome Grossman, now chairman emeritus of Council, who has served in that position since 1980.

    Hart served as a Senator from Colorado from 1975 to 1987 and was an active member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

    He was a candidate for his party’s nomination for President of the United States in 1984 and 1988.

    Hart has remained active on national security issues. He co-chaired both the U.S. Commission on National Security/ 21st Century, which issued three public reports forecasting the age of terrorism and outlined a new, post-Cold War national security policy, as well as the Council on Foreign Relations task force on homeland security, which recently released its report “America-Still Unprepared, Still in Danger.”

    Boston Globe columnist Scot Lehigh recently wrote a column saying that “Gary Hart has long been one of America’s most interesting political intellectuals, someone not just provocative but prescient.”

    Lehigh also noted that the commission chaired by Hart and former Sen. Warren Rudman of New Hampshire “predicted both that the United States was becoming increasingly vulnerable to terrorist attack and that `Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers.'”

    Hart recently underscored the need for our nation to renew its commitment to improving national security by opining, “We are going to be attacked again, it is just a question of when. These are patient people. . . and they are coming to get us.”

    Council for a Livable World, founded in 1962 by nuclear pioneer Leo Szilard, has focused on political action to reduce the danger of nuclear weapons and increase national security. The Council actively works with Members of Congress on national security issues and its connected political action committee raised more than $1.5 million for congressional candidates in the 2006 election.

    The Directors and staff of Council for a Livable World look forward to Senator Hart’s leadership for years to come.

    ————

    University of Colorado Names Hart to Wirth Chair

    Senator Gary W. Hart

    Since retiring from the United States Senate, Gary Hart has been extensively involved in international law and business, as a strategic advisor to major U.S. corporations, and as a teacher, author and lecturer.

    He is currently Wirth Chair Professor at the University of Colorado and Distinguished Fellow at the New America Foundation. For 15 years, Senator Hart was Senior Counsel to Coudert Brothers, a multinational law firm with offices in thirty-two cities located in nineteen countries around the world. He was co chair of the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century. The Commission performed the most comprehensive review of national security since 1947, predicted the terrorist attacks on America, and proposed a sweeping overhaul of U.S. national security structures and policies for the post-Cold War new century and the age of terrorism.

    He was president of Global Green, the U.S. affiliate of Mikhail Gorbachev’s environmental foundation, Green Cross International. He is a founding member of the Board of Directors of the U.S.-Russia Investment Fund; a former member of the Defense Policy Board; and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He was co-chair of the Council task force that produced the report: “America Unprepared-America Still at Risk”, in October, 2002. Senator Hart is currently a member of the National Academy of Sciences task force on Science and Security.
    Gary Hart has been Visiting Fellow, Chatham Lecturer, and McCallum Memorial Lecturer at Oxford University, Global Fund Lecturer at Yale University, and Regents Lecturer at the University of California. He has earned a doctor of philosophy degree from Oxford University and graduate law and divinity degrees from Yale University. He was visiting lecturer at the Yale Law School and is the author of fourteen books.

    Gary Hart represented the State of Colorado in the United States Senate from 1975 to 1987. In 1984 and 1988, he was a candidate for his party’s nomination for President.

    Senator Hart was first elected to the Senate in 1974, having never before sought public office, and was re elected in 1980. During his 12 years in the Senate, he served on the Armed Services Committee, where he specialized in nuclear arms control and was an original founder of the military reform caucus. He also served on the Senate Environment Committee, Budget Committee, and Intelligence Oversight Committee. During his Senate years, he played a leadership role in major environmental and conservation legislation, military reform initiatives, new initiatives to advance the information revolution and new directions in foreign policy. He is widely-recognized as among the first to forecast the end of the Cold War.

    Gary Hart travels extensively to the former Soviet Union, Europe, the Far East and Latin America. Beginning in 1988, he was active in negotiating ground breaking joint venture agreements in Russia and has published a book on the former Soviet Union entitled Russia Shakes the World: The Second Russian Revolution (1991).

    Senator Hart resides with his family in Kittredge, Colorado.

    Publications: Books:

    The Shield and The Cloak: The Security of the Commons (Oxford University Press, February 2006);

    God and Caesar in America: an essay on religion and politics (Fulcrum Books, 2005);

    The Presidency of James Monroe, in the American Presidency series edited by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (Time Books/Henry Holt, 2005);

    The Fourth Power: a new grand strategy for the United States in the 21st century (Oxford University Press, July 2004);

    Restoration of the Republic: the Jeffersonian Ideal in 21st Century America (2002), for which he received a D. Phil. degree from Oxford University;

    The Minuteman: Restoring an Army of the People (1998);

    The Patriot: An Exhortation to Liberate America from the Barbarians (1996);

    The Good Fight: The Education of an American Reformer (a New York Times Notable Book) (1995);

    Russia Shakes the World: The Second Russian Revolution (1991);

    A New Democracy : new approaches to the challenges of the 1980’s (1986);

    America Can Win: The Case for Military Reform (1985);

    Right from the Start: A Chronicle of the McGovern Campaign (1973);

    Four novels:

    The Strategies of Zeus (1985)

    The Double Man (with former Senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen, 1984)

    Sins of the Fathers (1999)

    I, Che Guevara (2000) (under the pseudonym John Blackthorn)

    1. If he only could have waited until he was in the Oval Office for the obligatory BJ.  He would have been an incredible president.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

128 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!