Hackett being forced out of the Senate race is an outrage!

[Cascadian]

This is a dirty, dirty manuever done by certain so-called "Democrats". This is why I am furious at some people within the Democratic Party. It's just dirty and it's wrong. I can only see a disaster coming from this. Paul Hackett is a straight-shooter and very anti-war. What makes him not qualified???

America and the Democratic Party needs people like Paul Hackett, Cindy Sheehan, Mark Wilson, and Howard Dean. How on Earth can I support those people who railroad the people who are for the little guy and believe in the core principles of the Democratic Party??? This makes me sick!

I get the feeling that Progressives are systematically being drummed out of the Democratic Party or being muzzled!


John

[rockymountaindem]

1. He was pushed out in favor of another progressive

in the hope that he would run for Congress again and we'd win two seats. I don't see what's wrong with that. Calling the donors was a heavy-handed tactic, in my opinion, but I can't say I disagree entirely with the overall strategy. Will Pitt made some good points about this in his thread.

[MrSlayer]

2. Well it is a bit fucked up the way they did it but it makes sense.

Brown, by all accounts, is a good dude and we already like Hackett so why not get all the Senate resources spent on Brown for Senate and get Hackett in the seat he ran for last year? This way we get the possibility of two good D's in D.C. instead of just one. Plus the primary where Brown and Hackett tear each other up might not leave the winner with enough for the main event and we end up with nothing. Down the line Hackett may well become Senator, but maybe he should cut his teeth in the House first.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Democrats in Ohio should have been the ones to choose between them

not the politicians in Washington DC!

[Cascadian]

4. Exactly! Why couldn't the people in Ohio decide?

This lack of giving people a choice, even in the Democratic Party, is very troubling. :scared:


John

[MrSlayer]

5. Perhaps, but the long term strategy of this early move makes sense.

If in fact they are doing what I think they are doing. We have to now get Hackett to run for the House.

[strategery blunder]

6. This was a very heavy-handed way to do it

If the beltway Dems wanted him to run for the House instead so Dems could get two seats instead of just one, they should have tried to convince him of that in person instead of calling donors behind his back. Now, they'll be lucky if Hackett doesn't just quit the Democratic Party. He would be perfectly justified in doing so, though I hope he doesn't.

:cry:

[emulatorloo]

7. Who knows -- maybe they cut him a deal? EOM

[JI7]

8. do you consider Hackett's position on immigration to be Progressive ?

and how exactly is Sherrod Brown not a Progressive ?

[Donna Zen]

9. Two seats?

Brown needs crossover votes to win. And Brown, who is indeed a liberal, won't get them. Hackett could get them because he was viewed as a maverick. Besides, it was the Dems who wanted him to run...they courted him. Brown said he wouldn't run. Well, he said that until DeWine's numbers tanked.

Now Hackett is saying that he gave his word to the Democrats who are running for the house seat. It's a rather hopeless run considering the demographics of the seat anyway. Hackett gave them his word and he keeps his word. Which is more than one can about the beltway Dems. Hey, those are the same Dems who said that they would uphold the Constitution until they voted for the Patriot Act.

Sorry...but everyday I wish I had someone representing average Americans in Washington. The current people just don't get it.