Paul Hackett's Anti-Iraq War Position & Fallujah Makes Him too Dangerous

[radio4progressives]

Why it's taken this long for me to figure it out is understandable considering the voluminous postings that sided tracked from the central fact that the Democratic party's position and Paul Hackett's position (who share the concerns of the rank and file) are essentially polar opposite.

As far as Fallujah is concerned, the Dems do not want the Public informed about the white phosphorous and chemical weapons (and other harsh realities) probably because it was also used under Clinton's administration during the bombings of both Iraq and Kosovo, and we can't open up that can of worms for political and other reasons.

Also, the Dems are right along side of this administrations saber rattling of Iran, Venezuela and other countries. In fact, they seem to go out of their way to promote more Militarism in these countries, supposedly under the rubric of national security.

Paul Hackett is too DANGEROUS to the DLC's Neo Lib/Con schemes, and having him in the Senate sitting on the Armed Services Committee or the Intelligence Committees, and given his outspoken opposition to these policies, what do you think Hackett's reaction would be as soon as he discovers the Dems were in collusion of these policies that brought us to perpetual war?

What more do we really need to know?

For those who would scoff at the notion that the DLC and the Bush Administration are essentially one and the same in terms of ideology and what they support, one only need to listen to Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Bahy and others, and juxtapose rhetoric over the history of the past five years, and more notably the past several months.

The fact that the Democratic Party Senators actually do have a lot of Power (contrary to conventional wisdom) to bring the crimes of this administration to the publics attention but yet REFUSE to do so, should tell even the most ardent defender/loyalists and sycophants something.

But instead, at every turn these Senators have done SHIT about any of the crimes this administration is guilty of, and Joe Lieberman keeps reminding us that the policies of this Administrations should be supported by the Democrats.

But Paul Hackett ain't DLC material, so he can't be trusted to shut the fuck up and fall in line, and that is essentially what this is all about.

corrected an editing error....

[wakeme2008]

1. So true

and Brown was a coward. When Devine was looking good for reelection Brown said he was not going for the Senate seat. Then the Noe and others shit hit Devine and guess who changes his mind.. :grr:

[graywarrior]

2. This is a good indication about what the upcoming elections

are going to be like. We'll be stuck with the same old same old. It's depressing.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Great post, radio4progressives!

Don't forget, people like Schumer and Reid were the same ones that took issue with Murtha's call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

[Cocoa]

4. there's a flaw in your theory

a big one.

To make this about left vs. center you really have to twist yourself in knots. Twist away.

[MercutioATC]

5. I'm interested. What "flaw" are you talking about?

[Cocoa]

7. Sherrod Brown has been against the war from the start

[MercutioATC]

9. You're correct about that.

I have no real problems with Brown on the issues...just his behavior.

[Cocoa]

15. that's fine

but the OP and posts like it say something very different, they're trying to make this into a DLC thing, which makes no sense.

[MercutioATC]

16. Agreed, I like Brown on most of the issues...

...just not his behavior in this situation.

[Aaaargh]

48. Advocates of the DLC line on 'the Long War' run the DSCC

[eridani]

11. Deliberately going after civilians is not what I want in a leader.

Cutting off energy and water, and shutting down hospitals was inexcusable.

http://www.channel4.com/news/2005/01/week_2/11_iraq.html

I wanted to get inside Fallujah itself, but to do that I have to get the new “Fallujah Identity Card”

Everyone who wants to return to the city now has to get this ID from the American military. To most Iraqis, this seems crazy: it’s the only place in Iraq where you need ID to get into your own city.

‘The card is really a control measure.” – Major Paul Hackett

But the men queuing for the card told me they saw it as another punishment given to them by the Americans.

“This is just another humilation for the people of Fallujah. I think they are doing it on purpose to humiliate us”

Fallujans have always been so proud of their city: concepts such as honour and dignity matter a lot here. So to be finger-printed by an American soldier just in order to go home is embarrassing. That’s why these men are covering their faces.



‘They can keep card as a souvenir….’ – Major Paul Hackett

[autorank]

57. Let me make sure I understand. Are you saying Hackett endorses this.

[eridani]

66. He is on record as approving of the Fallujah assault

Although, to be fair, his current website has nothing like this on it.

http://shows.airamericaradio.com/alfrankenshow/node/3074

"I was against the war. It was a misuse of our military that damaged our credibility throughout the world and squandered our political capital. Still, I volunteered to serve, and I have no regrets." Translation "I will mindlessly do what I am told no matter what my brain says." And he has "no regrets" about the slaughter of innocents in Fallujah. On Fallujah, he says: "Religious fanatics and insurgents had seized the city. They had to be stopped."

[autorank]

81. That's an egregious leap. Please.

"Translation" .... you translation. I have no regrets means he didn't participate in any slaughter. He doesn't regret supporting his comrades. Come on, he wants us out and in a hurry. This is not fair.

This type of leap really turns off veterans too. There are 2.6 million Viet Nam vets who vote and many want to oppose our stupid wars and about 50 are running for the House. But they just hate stuff like this. Don't do this. It's not true and it just kills us.

[eridani]

87. And most of the Vietnam war vets regret the civilian deaths.

Cutting off water and power to a city, bombing the shit out of it and blockading hospital access happen to be major war crimes, putting Fallujah on the same list as Coventry, Guernica, Lidice and Oradour. Wanting to stand by your buddies and being stuck with doing what you are told I can get. Saying "no regrets" for civilian casualties I DON'T get. And no, Madeleine Albright isn't the slightest bit better.

[Aaaargh]

47. Brown "has been against the war" or "was formerly against the war"?

We might just get the impression that it's the latter from what Rep. Brown's folks have chosen to post on his campaign website about his position:

"Congressman Sherrod Brown voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
Months prior to the invasion of Iraq, Congressman Sherrod Brown drafted a letter, signed by 122 Democratic colleagues, urging President Bush to give United Nations weapons inspectors more time before sending United States troops into war.

Congressman Brown offered an amendment to the resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq that would have required the President to answer a number of questions before going to war. The list included questions about the impact of "regime change" in Iraq, the extent of support for military action among members of the international community, and a comprehensive long-term financial plan for the action.
Congressman Brown, joined by two representatives who supported the resolution, Joseph Hoeffel, Democrat from Pennsylvania, and Ellen Tauscher, a Democrat from California, in sponsored the "Presidential Report on Iraq Resolution of 2003." The legislation would require President Bush to make a public report to Congress on the possible consequences of war with Iraq prior to ordering US forces into such a war. In addition to forcing the President to detail the human, economic, environmental and political costs of a war, the act would require him to submit "a determination that further diplomatic or other peaceful means will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq."

Congressman Brown also introduced the "Accountability and Responsibility in Contracting Act (H.R. 4394). This legislation would withhold Federal contracts from any companies and corporations that do business with terrorist organizations or state sponsors of terrorism."
http://www.sherrodbrown.com/foreignpolicy

That's just fine and dandy for 2002 and 2003. This is 2006, and over 2200 U.S. service members have died in Iraq, along with huge numbers of Iraqis, in a quagmire war whose true goals are seldom spelled out by either Republicans or Democrats.

What does Sherrod Brown propose we do now? It just doesn't say on his campaign website, does it now? Isn't that a funny thing? Could that absence maybe have something to do with the fact that the political power brokers in the Democratic Party who have their claws on the campaign financing purse-strings, like Emanuel and Schumer, are determined advocates of continuing and expanding the Bush administration's 'Long War' against 'terrorism' -- that is, the war for the U.S. to gain firm control over the global oil supply, and bring U.S. and Israeli dominance to the Muslim Middle East -- while the actual threat of terrorist attacks against the U.S. is allowed to worsen and worsen?

Oh, BTW, here's what it says on Hackett's campaign website about Iraq:

“I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning, but as a Marine I had a sense of responsibility and commitment to my brothers and sisters in the Corps who were over there fighting and dying. I volunteered to serve by their side. I know first hand the problems we face in Iraq and the reason we need to bring our presence there to a swift and secure resolution. The war is over. We’ve accomplished every thing militarily we can. It time for the Senate and House to set a policy that brings our troops home as soon and as safely as our military leadership can plan for.”
http://hackettforcongress.com/about_issues

[Cocoa]

54. are you kidding?

Brown is in Lynne Woolsey's Out of Iraq Caucus. His current activities against the war are easily found.

[Catrina]

60. True, but he won't call Bush a 'liar'. He'll take the position that 'I was

against this war from the beginning, as you know, but now that we're there etc. etc.

Hackett would not do that. He would not be controllable ~

I agree with the OP ~ and not just on Iraq. The DLC is allowed to let their members SOMETIMES vote for liberal issues, but only when it's certain that their vote won't count.

They can afford to have a 'liberal' or two in the party (have to keep up the prestense that there is a two party system) ~ so, if Brown wins, they'll 'allow' him to vote his conscience knowing his vote won't make a difference ~ and he won't yell or scream about the crimes that are being committed, the way Hackett or Cindy Sheehan would.

It's really just a numbers game, I see that now, after watching the DLCers votes. I used to be so frustrated by them, Hillary eg. Constantly expecting her to vote for the people. But most of the time, being disappointed by her. She was allowed to vote for a filibuster, because they knew she needed to keep her base, but only after they knew her vote wouldn't matter.

Schumer is the same way ~ they are the neolibs as opposed to the neocons and they actually are more liberal because they would not get elected in NY if they were not ~

Brown, of course, may not win, so it won't matter how liberal he is ~ I think the Republicans may get rid of Dewine if he looks weak, and replace him with, maybe AN IRAQ WAR VET! Not Hackett of course, but that would not surprise me at all. I bet they're actively looking to recruit war supporting vets, as Democrats manage to turn away the 56 or so vets who were willing to run against the neocons. I think it's all fixed and there's not much we can do about it, other than starting a new party ~

[Cocoa]

75. Brown had a very dramatic confrontation with Colin Powell

at a hearing, he brought up Bush's AWOL and Powell lit into him. Then Powell castigated Brown's staffer for looking at him in a way he didn't like. Colin really lost his cool.

[radio4progressives]

20. This is Not a Left vs Center vs Right ...

This is about socio-economic and political hegemony.

To put it more bluntly, domestically, it's about the Ruling Class vs the Working Class. Foreign policy it's about geo-political hegemony and economic dominion - always benefiting the Ruling Class.

Paul Hackett is representative of the working class as one who gave his life to serve this country - still at the behest of the Ruling Class, the Makers of War and Perpetual War.

The Makers of the The Long Wars, the Great Wars, The Evil Wars, the One Hundred Year Wars, The Cold Wars, the Wars on Imperialism, the War on Nazism, the Covert Wars, The Wars on Terra, the Wars on Islamo Fascists, the War against Usoma Bin Laden, the Wars against the Axis of Evil, the Wars on Drugs, the Nuke U Lar Wars.

All the Wars of Our Making.

Being against making of war is not really a Left/Right issue. It is about policies and the makers of those policies, and interestingly the Neo Libs and the Neo Cons are about making war policies.

[Cocoa]

28. if Paul Hackett stays in politics and works hard enough for twenty years

he might become as much of a champion of the working class as Sherrod Brown is now.

I hope he chooses to do that and doesn't go back into the private sector, but we'll see.

[Aaaargh]

49. Wrong, Cocoa, we do NOT live in the Soviet Union.

[Cocoa]

51. you calling Brown a commie?

just kidding, I know you're not. :-)

Seriously, I don't know what the USSR has to do with this.

[Dhalgren]

6. You are very close to right.

This may be our best opportunity to form a third party. The hard right didn't win the Republican party until after many peeled off to form a third party. They were willing to take the losses in order to win in the long term. We are being forced to do the same thing. And I think we should...

[cali]

8. BWAAHAHA

Codswallop. Sherrod Brown voted against the Iraq War Resolution. He's MORE liberal than Hackett. He's anything but DLC. I've pointed out more than once that the DSC is actively supporting Bernie Sanders. And just as an aside, Bernie is trying to keep a Progressive out of the race for his House Seat. There's no great DLC conspiracy here. It's politics and it ain't pretty. It's a rough and tumble game, but this one's not about right or left.

[radio4progressives]

10. I have never Ever Heard Sharrod Brown Speak Out Against this war

I've never even heard of him, why is that? What's the point in being for or against something as critical as this issue, if those views are never heard?

Paul Hackett has been heard far and wide.

that's the difference.

[cali]

19. Your not having heard of him

only means you should educate yourself. From The Council For A Liveable World:


"Representative Sherrod Brown, now serving his seventh term, is the most prominent elected democrat in Ohio. He is an unabashed progressive, one of the House's most articulate and respected spokespeople for progressive causes: universal health care, labor rights, responsible gun ownership, gay marriage. Brown is totally committed to nuclear arms control and responsible national security policies, and has the voting record to prove it. On the two most recent PeacePac Nuclear Arms Race Voting Records, he achieved 100% and 91%.

http://www.clw.org/candidates/brown/

I know a hell of a lot more about Brown and what he stands for than I do about Hackett, even if Hackett has been blasted all over the MSM.

[radio4progressives]

26. He sounds like a great Guy, I'm sure we would be comrades in arms

(in a manner of speaking of course)

But Brown's voting record or philosphies (which i support whole heartily)as wonderful as they are - have not made it on the radar screen. His opposition and his voice has been effectively silenced.

They would not be able to silence Paul Hackett's voice once in the Senate. He would be invited on Sunday Morning talk shows, and he would be giving voice of the American people, instead of the voice of the DLC.

Brown is NOT invited to appear in the Media, therefore his voice is silenced.

Hackett voice on the other hand, has been heard, would be heard and that why he is dangerous.

[sadiesworld]

92. Corporate media will give time to those who tow the corporate line.

Timmy Russert is not going to have ANYONE on his show who effectively argues against the military-industrial-congressional complex. And it doesn't matter whether it is Brown or Hackett.

You know this, right?!

[NCarolinawoman]

25. Also, Hackett called out all the Senators who voted for the war.

I remember when he was asked about the evidence that Bushco had put out, and he said something to the effect "that you had to be stupid to have fallen for it and voted for the IWR".

I am sorry I cannot remember the exact quote, but I remember thinking at the time that a lot of Senators WERE NOT going to appreciate what Hackett said. Of course Schumer was a big supporter of the war, along with a whole bunch of others.

[OzarkDem]

29. Well that doesn't say much for you

You may want to pay closer attention to candidates besides Hackett.

[radio4progressives]

38. LOL!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[radio4progressives]

12. I'm a C-span Junky - and Unemployed Never See Brown on the House Floor

Speaking OUT against this war.

why is that?

[cali]

22. Beats me.

I've heard him on C-SPAN.

[OzarkDem]

32. Because apparently you don't watch often enough

If you did, you would see Brown giving speeches on a number of issues - Iraq war, health care, prescription drug companies, CAFTA, etc.

[radio4progressives]

37. I have watched nearly everyday since i've been unemployed...

I never even heard his name until the past few days, in connection to this issue.

[Aaaargh]

53. As Hart says, it's "old politics at its worst" and anti-democratic

Stop peddling that baloney about this open corruption being the usual "rough and tumble" game.

If the same standard now being promoted as 'business as usual' by DLC scouts on this forum was applied to the '04 presidential race, all the candidates but the backroomers' pick would have been forced out of the race months before the primaries began, by the old boys using their influence to cut off contributions from big donors. But of course, that doesn't work so well in a presidential campaign, especially when some traditional Democrat upstart is raising a lot of money through small donation and rising in the polls on sheer popularity rather than media manipulation. That's when you have to call out the smear machine. Of course, we all know what the final outcome was in the presidential race in '04.

The DSCC's move here is a disgrace and a disaster for Ohio, and perhaps for the Democratic Party's chances nationwide. Ohio Democrats know that Brown fits the mold of Democratic nominees who've been stomped again and again in statewide elections over the last decade and a half. But the warmongering DLC allies who run the DSCC would prefer to put up a sacrificial lamb candidate like Brown rather then a popular loose-cannon who doesn't go along with the imperial program on the 'Long War,' and who might actually get elected, and that's why Hackett and Ohio voters have been stabbed in the back.

[LittleClarkie]

13. That would make more sense if Brown was DLC

He's not DLC material either.

[radio4progressives]

30. It isn't necessary - all that's required is for the DLC to have control

and apply pressure to silence the anti-war critics, which they've done quite successfully. we never hear Brown invited to Sunday Morning talk shows speaking out against this Administrations Foreign and Domestic policies.

Would have heard a lot from Hackett though..

[LittleClarkie]

41. If that's what Reid and Schumer were doing when they pressured

him to get out, then what were they doing when they pressured him to get in, before it became clear that Brown was running?

Surely they'd seen him in action against the Schmidt. And it has been said they'd like him to run for the House again. Surely he'd be just as vocal as a House candidate as he was going to be as a Senate candidate.

I think it was all just a muddled mess. I'm still trying to figure out who announced before who, who was pokey in announcing and how that effected the other, and such.

[neverevergivein]

14. And yet, we'll all still vote like Schumer and Reid tell us to in November

It's sad, but true. We can be treated like crap, but we will carry their water as long as they wish. We have no other choice. I'm not trying to sound defeatist, I'm just a little frustrated.

[MercutioATC]

17. Unfortunately, you're right.

I'll hold my nose while I do it, but I can't vote for DeWine....I'll vote for Brown.

[Catrina]

64. Well, not really ~ I know I'm just one person, but I know many more

who have been loyal Democrats all their lives and who will no longer support anyone who does not represent the issues that are important them. There is a point of no return, and for me it was the actions of the Democrats after the stolen election last year. So far, they're not giving me any reason to change my mind.

I was an ABB supporter last time, but never again ~ it didn't work ~ they should NOT count on what they knew they could count on last time. Some of us are just too disgusted by the virtual tsunami of crimes that have been exposed, an administration that is so unpopular that impeachment should have happened already. But I hear Obama, and others tell us to 'move on' (I hate those words) and ignore the crimes, and focus on 2006, or 2008 or last time, 2004, and 2002 ~ and the crimes continued, in fact they got worse and will get even worse. At least next time, I will support what my conscience tells me to support. I don't think I'm alone either.

It's no use telling me that that is handing the election to Republicans either. That's going to happen anyway if we continue down the same old road ~ so let it get worse. As The Magistrate says, no one will care much about White Phospherous killing little kids in other countries. It has to happen to them ~ maybe that's what has to happen before the people rise up and take back this country.

By 'going along' we're doing the equivalent of putting off taking care of a bad tooth, hoping it will get better, when in the end, it will have to be pulled anyway. So, let it happen quickly rather than slowly. Let the people who have been asleep really understand by experiencing it, just how bad it will be without the 'crazy lefties' barely holding things back.

So, I've decided that it's insane to keep on hoping for a different result by doing the same thing. Next election, especially after the Hackett situation, I will try something different.

[AX10]

18. This is shameless.

Hackett should have been allowed to stay in the primary.
But let us remember that Sherrod Brown is a MILLION times better than Mike DeWine.

[SaveElmer]

21. He WAS allowed to stay in the primary...

He quit. Nobody forced him to leave. Primaries are contested all the time over the wishes of the "establishment" The Minnesota DFL endorses a candidate every year before the primary. SOmetimes they win sometimes they don't. Bernie Sanders is trying to keep out a fellow progressive in his race, and the DSCC has endorsed Sanders. It's politics...it's about the party selecting the strongest candidate. If Hackett had the grassroots support everyone here seems to think he did, he should have stayed in the race. Direct your disappointment at him!

[IndianaGreen]

23. "it's about the party selecting the strongest candidate" Bullshit!

It is the party hacks subverting the primaries to prevent someone they don't like from being a contender.

Is this the same way the Beltway Democrats are going to ram their choice for President down our throats?

[SaveElmer]

24. And your proof for that is?

It's a lame talking point. Show me any kind of evidence whatsoever that Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer didn't like Pauls Hackett. They tried to get him to run for Congress. He was not the strongest candidate in this Senate race.

And again, the was nothing to prevent Hackett from continuing. He caved plain and simple.

[IndianaGreen]

40. Hackett polled better than Brown against DeWine

Ohio Senate: Tight Race

DeWine Now Narrowly Leading over Hackett, Brown

January 7, 2006--Ohio Senator Mike DeWine has eked out a narrow lead over both potential Democratic opponents in his re-election effort, but the race remains hotly competitive.

The Republican incumbent enjoys an edge of 43% to 39% over Cincinnati-area lawyer Paul Hackett, and 45% to 40% over Congressman Sherrod Brown. Rasmussen Reports polling in mid-November and early December showed DeWine neck and neck with both contenders. Hackett then led DeWine by a single percentage point, while Brown trailed him by just two. The margin of sampling error in each of the polls is +/- 4.5 points.

Brown and Hackett appeal to many of the same constituencies, and especially those who think the President is doing a poor job in Iraq. In prospective contests with DeWine, Brown wins the support of 77% of those who believe President Bush is doing a poor job waging the war; Hackett wins 78%.

Hackett has had to cope with on-again, off-again support from Democratic party leaders. Brown had initially decided to abstain from a Senate run but then threw his hat in the ring after all. Hackett, who drew national attention for a narrowly lost bid for Congress against Jean Schmidt, insists he'll remain in the race regardless of any pressure from fellow Democrats to cede the field to the more politically experienced Brown.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/January%202006/Ohio%20Senator%20January%204.htm

[SaveElmer]

42. They are virtually identical in that poll...

WIth a margin of error of 4.5% the 1% difference is meaningless. Brown had a significant lead over Hackett in money raised...10 times more. And Brown is an experienced campaigner. And the latest Zogby has Brown leading DeWine by 4.

[IndianaGreen]

44. Brown reached his high water mark while Hackett had yet to reach his

There is no way that Brown can be competitive in Southern Ohio, a region that was well suited for Hackett.

[radio4progressives]

33. obviously, this is merely the preview of what lies ahead... n/t

[radio4progressives]

27. Once again. Can't compete in the Primaries with No Money.. n/t

[SaveElmer]

31. If he had the grassroots support...

Everyone here says he had, that should not have been an issue. There are plenty of cases where the well heeled candidate lost...Millionaire Senator Rudy Boschwitz losing to...oh what's his name...yes Paul Wellstone... springs to mind.

[radio4progressives]

36. A well financed and oiled opposition campaign who is controlling

voter roll information data and party apparatus to wage a campaign to divert contributions and funding sources away from Hackett's campaign for the primary, isn't a level playing field.

He had made the initial decision based on a promise of support from the party apparatus - so he didn't work as hard as he might have from the grassroots level - given that he was promised support - now he doesn't have time to consider the options of waging a grassroots campaign as an Independent. Tomorrow is filing deadline, he was informed in the past few days.

it was a bait and switch, and now it's almost too late for him to recalculate financial logistics and considerations.

[OzarkDem]

35. If he had so much grassroots support

he would have been able to raise money.

[OzarkDem]

34. Hackett made his own choices

He could have stayed in, he chose not to.

[John Q. Citizen]

39. Your analysis seems simplistic and designed to find a boogy man

to blame because Hackett decided to drop out of the primary.

Do you suppose that if Hackett had decided to stay in the race Hillery would have "Wellstoned" him?

[radio4progressives]

52. goodness, that thought never occured to me..

but maybe it occurred to Hackett... :shrug:

[The Magistrate]

43. A Few Small Points, Ma'am

Political parties are hierarchic organizations. A person who has been an active member of that hierarchy, and risen to high position in it, will always be favored by its members over a new arrival. To the people who actually constitute the Party organization in Ohio, it was Rep. Brown's "turn" for a shot at the Senate seat, and Maj. Hackett had not nearly paid sufficient dues to be slated for that spot.

The leadership of political parties are professionals, and pride themselves on a knowledge of how voters act and what can be expected of them. They would be remiss in their duties, and unsuited for their profession, if they did not make judgements about what candidate or other is most likely to prevail in either a state-wide or sa local contest, based on this practiced knowledge. Complaint that a party's leadership is picking candidates, rather than merely awaiting the outcome of a primary, is in my view quite misguided. In most instances, professional judgements are superior to those of amatuer enthusiasts. It does not seem to me to be any accident that the fortunes of the Democratic Party began to falter with the destruction of the old machines and the increased utilization and importance of the primary system.

No one is at any great pains to conceal incidents at Fallujah. The idea that great numbers of people would rise up in angry horror over, say, the use of white phosphorus to compell enemy fighters out of their holes is merest moonshine. Those who would be horrified already oppose the war, and among those who do not oppose it, the reaction would be split between feelings that war is hell, and grim satisfaction at the doing.

Statements to the effect that Sen. Clinton and Sen. Schumer, for instance, are interchangeable with the current regime are nonesense, and destructive nonesense at that. The objective result of such statements is to cement the hold of the Republicans in power; the effect of the "not a dimes worth of difference" line is always to dilute the power of the bloc hosting it, particularly when in contest with a bloc that does everything possible, by fair means and foul, to exaggerate the perceived differences between the groups. You might be able to convince a misguided few on the left that Sen. Clinton is interchangeable with Bill Frist, but you will decieve no one on the right about that; there, the knowledge that she is a demon incarnate, and Frist an angel in a suit and tie, will prevail unshaken. We on the left, in our intramural squabbles, forget this at our peril.

[IndianaGreen]

45. Let Schumer and Reid pick the 2008 Presidential nominee

and let's dispense with the charade!

[The Magistrate]

46. They Might Make A Very Good Job Of It, My Friend

The object of the exercise, remember, is not to please you or me, but to please a thumping majority of the voting public....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[IndianaGreen]

50. A voting public that approves of torture, PATRIOT, NSA spying, etc.

I no more trust that public than I would have the Germans in the 1930s.

How can one argue with people that believe that Commander-in-Chief is a Constitutional office and that it trumps the Courts and Congress?

[The Magistrate]

55. In An Election, My Friend

You are stuck with the voting public just the same. If you intend to win, that is who you must appeal successfully to.

[Catrina]

70. And the Democrats have so far, failed miserably in doing that

To ask that, one more time, we 'let Schumer and Reid' choose a leader for us, makes no sense to me. If anyone here had failed so miserably for so many years, well, they wouldn't still be employed ~ I will not support another person with a failed record ~ there simply is no excuse for that.

[Hippo_Tron]

56. Except that Hackett is the logical choice for that, not Brown

Hackett has more crossover appeal than Brown does to Independent and Republican voters. Brown is very popular with liberals in Ohio, but there's no reason that Hackett isn't someone that liberals won't be excited about when they get to know him a little better. I'm told that Brown is the more attractive candidate simply because he has campaign experience and a better machine with more money. I look forward to seeing just how effective Brown's machine really is.

[autorank]

58. They've lost every battle; or joined the Republicans. Thats leadership?

I'm sick of losing and I'm sick of loser strategies. This is pathetic. It reeks of
artless incompetence. I like Brown, btw, and I want a Democrat from Ohio. This looks
real bad, it was poorly done.

Alito gets a pass; Hackett gets stabbed in the back.

Way to go leaders, you are true geniuses.

[Doremus]

67. Alito gets a pass; Hackett gets stabbed in the back.

One sentence says it all. Unfortunately. :(

[autorank]

82. They're not that deep;)

:hi:

[radio4progressives]

59. Well.. there is much to agree, and much to disagree.

i think it is painfully obvious to all that the established hierachy is extremely well fortified and self sustaining, and to the extent that it exists at all for purposes of good or for ill.

As far as it being Brown's turn, that he paid his dues has not been refuted. Your statment does not inlcude an important fact, and that is that Brown had no intention to run for the Senate, had passed up previous opportunties to run against DeWine (for reasons unclear to me, though it has been suggested that he didn't relish the fight and preferred to stay within safe territory)

Back in May, Sherrod Brown specifically announced his intention to run again for the House, not the Senate. That gave Hackett (following a previously made agreement with Brown) the go ahead to make a run for the Senate, which was also based on the encouragement and the blessings of the party hierachy.

For some reason that important point is omitted in these discussions, i don't understand why, because it is certainly relevant.

As to the points regarding professionalism, and duty to party, and judgement of suitability and so on, there seems to be some selective amnesia as to the worth and credibility of these particulars including circumstances surrounding this race.

It is true that I'm a Leftist Progressive, but I'm more of a Social Libertiarian (and strong pro-democracy advocate) in other words, i tend to reject Centralists Authority (decision making governance stuctures)on matters concerning representation.

Representation is where the rubber meets the road, for any form of democracy to prevail, imo. When you take that choice away from me, when you remove the opportunity for me to have a voice in that basic part of the process, i tend to revolt, because autocratic decisions on something as basic and personal as MY personal choice through my vote, is revolting to me and should be rejected by all, imo.

on the other hand, if the rank and file agree with you, that candidates should be chosen from on high, that primaries are dangerous to the strength of the party, then ok.. let's abolish primaries.

Let's have that out in the open, shall we? Out in the open sunshine.

Let's debate THAT issue. After a good debate, if concensus has been reached on the matter, and everyone agrees with you, let's not continue the charade of a "democratic process" or "participatory" (grass roots citizenry) let's call it what it is, and let's stop playing the "get out the vote" game, when the whole thing is a charade in the first place.

On Fallujah, there's a whole lot more to that story and it's not good, but people did rise up in horror to the napalm in Viet Nam because it was SHOWN ON THE TV and in the PRESS. Minds on the eficacy of this war in general has dramatically changed - yet people in this country don't know the half of it.

if they were informed, that would be a very different reality, but that goes straight to my initial point. Our party doesn't want our own people to know - or they would have made EVERY effort to make it known and they have not. I believe that it's stating the obvious, that they have War Plans of their own in order to prove to America that "We are Strong On Security". As far as interchangeablity on a lot of issues, the evidence of that is voluminous. Hillary co sponsored bills with Bill Frist.

If you honestly believe that is destructive nonsense to look at harmful aspects of a party so that it can be addressed, repaired or reformed - i frankly don't know what to say.. it pretty much feels like that "my country right or wrong, love it or leave it" - i say "it's my party too, when it's doing wrong, fix it!"

[The Magistrate]

80. There Is A Great Difference, Ma'am

Between criticism which is informed and intended to achieve a beneficial object, and criticism which is aimed at destruction, and rooted in conviction that does not match facts. The style of criticism which insists that leading Democratic Party figures are interchangeable with Republicans is an example of the latter sort. It does not match the facts: it is always based on a small number of points where the person engaging in it does not agree with some statement or act of the political figure so assailed; it is never the result of an examination of the political figure's voting record and career in ofice over-all. It is aimed at destruction: its purpose is always to reduce the vote from the left for a Democratic politician, while doing nothing to detract from the vote available to the Republican opponent he or she faces, and this exercise in biting off one's nose to spite one's face is proclaimed as a lesson the Party needs by most who level it. It is an absolutely sterile position that, if pressed, will never accomplish anything but to cement ever more firmly the grip on national power of the worst elements of reaction and plutocracy in our polity. Even in a contest between two admittedly reactionary figures, it is the proper line, even the duty, for a leftist to support the least reactionary of the alternatives. In the present situation, no consideration is more important to prevent the worst excesses of the other side, and this can only be done by depriving the worst of them of public office. It is simply not possible to achieve anything desired by the progressive left until this is done.

Political parties, Ma'am, are not governments; they are private organizations dedicated to achieving both ideological and personal ends. The question to be answered is what mode of organization and operation will best enable such an engine to achieve its goals. It is obvious from any study of political history that unity of action and discipline in action are vital ingredients for success in such an endeavour. A party that does not act as a bloc, a party that cannot rely on unified action by its members, will always fail to achieve its objects, and will do so spectacularly when opposed to a party that does so act, and can so rely on its members. The difference is precisely that between the slap of a spread-fingered hand and the punch of a closed fist.

[radio4progressives]

85. Yes, boil this down to the edict of please "shut up and fall in line" ...

but let's simply abolish the expense and the charade of the primaries..

the other night i was treated to a small Cheryl Wheeler concert, and the warm up performer was a brilliant accoustic guitarist hailing all the way from Montgomery, Alabama. He said something to the effect that voting was like choosing between shooting off your left hand or shooting off your right hand.

i had the notion to try and persude him to reconsider, that it was nonsense, that voting does matter. somehow, i couldn't spirit up the motivation to pitch that to him, because i've been struggling very hard to fight off similar feelings myself.

I've voted in every major election since 1972. After the last few elections (and particularly since 2000) it seems that it matters less and less if I vote or not, in terms of impact, yet it still matters to *me* personally, even if my vote is actually counted or not, or if the whole thing is merely a pre-ordained charade.

[The Magistrate]

86. It Does Not Boil Down To That, Ma'am

First, it distinguishes between persons who have the interests of the Party at heart, and persons who seek to harm it. That is a very important distinction, that should not be lost sight of.

Second, it recognizes what the actual requirments for success are. The thing must be approached on its own terms: having four of a kind in your hand will not help you at all if the game is bridge. A program that amounts to insisting on doing something contrary to what is necessary for success can only result in failure.

Radicals above all people ought to possess a cold-blooded assessment of what the real circumstances are, and a ruthless determination to do what they require. It is not a form of self-expression or a life-style choice....

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[radio4progressives]

93. Iraq War, Domestic Spying, Patriot Act ....

These matters are not merely minor issues, these are very significant matters all have exacted extreme violence on the doctrine which protects our personal rights and freedoms, exacting extreme violence on our own Constitution, exacting real violence on people's lives here and in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These are not matters of small differences in opinions. These are matters which the Democratic Party should be out front and center, leading the fight to stop this administration from any further action against our nation and other countries in the world, by any means necessary.

Russ Feingold has been trying very hard to convey to our party leadership of their deeply troubling and terribly misguided action (or inaction) on these matters.

At the moment of this writing, our party leaders, in their infinite wisdom, professionalism, and position in the hierchy of the party, are walking lock step with this evil regime on these critical matters which go to the very core of our democracy. At the end of the day, their "voting records" on issues of lesser importance than these, will be sent to the irrelevant circular files, while these MAJOR issues will be printed on "Third Party" banners and platforms, and demonstrated as proof positive that there is not a "dimes worth of difference" between the Dems and the Repugs.

I strongly suggest that DU'ers get into high gear right now and wake up their "representatives" in Congress to follow Feingold's lead in the fight against the most dangerous policies implemented by this evil regime, if they want a hope and a prayer for sweeping success of legitimate support in the next "elections" and beyond.

[Doremus]

61. If the DLC is so talented at picking winners, what's their excuse

for the last 20 years of losers in the Buckeye State?

Hierarchy is fine and good, but when you have a rising star in your grasp you don't kick it to the curb. Especially when your own track record is so dismal.

Fine, so Sherrod it is. He'd better learn how to kick it up a few notches because the GOP slime machine will be all over him like white on rice. I for one do not look forward to watching the bulldozers smash him into the pavement as he conducts a "polite" campaign using the same mealy-mouthed weasel words that all his predecessors uttered in similar fashion to an identical outcome.

[Douglas Carpenter]

62. Sherrod Brown is a strong outspoken progressive//nothing to do with DLC

Brown Tops DeWine in New Poll
An Opinion Consultants poll finds Ohio voters favor Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) for the U.S. Senate over incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), 43% to 38%

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/01/26/brown_tops_dewine_in_new_poll.html

Representative Brown is endorsed by PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) and is a member of the Progressive Caucus

Representative Brown is at least as liberal as Sen. Kennedy or Sen. Feingold

courtesy of vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H3141103&type=category&category=Foreign%2BAid%2Band%2BPolicy%2BIssues&go.x=12&go.y=8


2006 In 2006 Citizens for Global Solutions gave Representative Brown a rating of A.

2005 In 2005 Citizens for Global Solutions gave Representative Brown a rating of A.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Council on American-Islamic Relations 100 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 84 percent in 2003-2004.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 96 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Council of La Raza 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 77 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 90 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Education Association 89 percent in 2003-2004.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Postal Workers Union 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2004.

2004 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 88 percent of the time.

2004 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Communications Workers of America 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers considered to be the most important in 2003-2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 On the votes that the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 94 percent in 2003-2004.

2004 In 2004 National Organization for Women endorsed Representative Brown.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

[Doremus]

65. How much national print has he had lately?

Sherrod who? That's going to be the response in most of Ohio, all those areas outside of his congressional district.

When rural counties (there are plenty of those here), who by the way are responsible for Bush's re-election, hear his liberal positions they will run like they just ran the combine over a hornet's nest. To say they will vote for status quo, as repugnant as it is in this state, over an uppity liberal city boy is an understatement.

Hackett had many qualities that appeal to those sorts of voters. Can Sherrod kick it up and confront the evil empire on their home turf? I don't see it. I hope to God you're right, but I don't see it.

As far as your poll, wait 'til the state repugs fire up the slime machine. It won't be pretty.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

63. WHAT anti-war position??

Hackett is not "anti-iraq" war. He does believe it has been "mismanaged".

AMY GOODMAN: So, you would return to fight a war that you think is unjust?

PAUL HACKETT: Well, I've not said it's unjust. I have said that it's been mismanaged by the administration. I have said it was a poor use of our military. I'm not quite sure the implication of the label of unjust, so I'm uncomfortable using that. I have been critical of it up and down, but to me, that's not inconsistent with my desire to want to serve and my desire to want to lead marines and be with them in the field. .....

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that the U.S. should get out of Iraq?

PAUL HACKETT: I'm not there yet. I think that -- let me step back and say, when you say, ‘Should the U.S. get out of Iraq?’ Yes. Eventually, yes. The question is, are we going to do it tomorrow, or are we going to accomplish the bare minimum and allow the Iraqis to survive within their defined government and social structure? And right now, I don't think that any form of security force in Iraq is capable of providing that for the people.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/03/1419256
*************************************************

Hackett's "eventually" may be better than Bush's "eventually" but shit, he wants more kids to die in this freakin war!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Hackett, for a better managed imperialism.

[radio4progressives]

71. Well Tom Joad that sure the hell is one hell of a contradiction!

why is that i only heard this guy repeatedly blast this administration for this war, and how we got there????

[Tom Joad]

77. Read Paul's quotes. He wants the US to stay for now.

I think the US should leave now. I think people like Camilio Meija & Kevin Benderman( GI resisters) are heroes.
Paul Hackett does not agree.

Don't shoot me, i gave Hackett's quotes.

[radio4progressives]

79. No Worries! I appreciate the Fact Checking!

I'm just wondering where all of the anti-Iraq War rhetorich came from? and when he ran against Mean Jean i could have sworn i heard or read pieces from that campaign - come to think of it, was a lot of radio interviews i heard him on AAR and so on. That's where i got that impression..

hmm.. strange, wonder why i did?

[Catrina]

74. And what's different about Sherrod Brown's current position on the war?

Q: Should the US still have troops in Iraq?

A: We can't pull out tomorrow. I voted against the Iraq war initially, I voted against the $87 billion at the beginning of the war to fund the war, I spoke out against the war consistently. I have a resolution right now that requires the President to submit to the American public and to Congress an exit strategy at the end of this year, and next year beginning the troop withdrawal - a safe, orderly troop withdrawal - by October, 2006.

......

Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops.
States that the House of Representatives:

1. affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq;
2. commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein's regime;
3. commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's interim constitution; and
4. commends the members of the U.S. Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.

http://www.issues2000.org/International/Sherrod_Brown_War_+_Peace.htm

I don't see much difference in their positions on the war at this point ~

Reference: War in Iraq Anniversary resolution; Bill H Res 557 ; vote number 2004-64 on Mar 17, 2004

[Tom Joad]

83. Yes, what is the difference?

Thanks for the info, saves me time looking it up.
I will not be voting for either of these people. I don't live in Ohio. I do understand and agree that Hackett should not have been forced out of the campaign, even if i thought Brown was better (I really have no opinion on that now) because i think democracy is a good thing, debate is a good thing. Even if it is a difficult process. Even if it is between two people who are very close in their thinking.

It would be even better if Ohio were offered a candidate who opposes the war and wants the occupation to end immediately. Supported McGovern's bill to defund the war. Support the efforts to assure US military bases in Iraq will be dismantled.

H. R. 4232

This Act may be cited as the `End the War in Iraq Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO DEPLOY ARMED FORCES TO IRAQ.

(a) Prohibition- Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may not be obligated or expended to deploy or continue to deploy the Armed Forces to the Republic of Iraq.

(b) Exception- Subsection (a) shall not apply to the use of funds to--

(1) provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of the Armed Forces from Iraq; or

(2) ensure the security of Iraq and the transition to democratic rule by--

(A) carrying out consultations with the Government of Iraq, other foreign governments, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United Nations, and other international organizations; or

(B) providing financial assistance or equipment to Iraqi security forces and international forces in Iraq.

[FreedomAngel82]

69. So what about these other democratic vets running?

Why are they supporting them so much?

[radio4progressives]

72. I guess we better find out what their positions on the war is too? n/t

[radio4progressives]

73. i take that back, it won't matter what we think anyway... n/t

[radio4progressives]

76. The issue is: Who is Entitled To Choose, to Decide... that's the issue.

[pat_k]

78. DRAFT him BACK in the race . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2460839&mesg_id=2460839

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rucky]

88. Naw...He just strongly defended Gay Marriage

and everybody's nervous that his honesty will come back to bite him on the ass in Ohio.

[lostnfound]

90. Mixed feelings about it now

R4P, your writing in this thread has been excellent and clear. And I share your concerns and felt exactly the same way about it -- even wrote a letter to Reid complainig about the handling of Hackett. I was pretty angry.

But after looking at the ranking of Congress on progressivepunch.org and finding that Sherrod Brown is actually very strong across the board, I'm not quite so sure how I feel about it all now. I guess I'll know in November, after the election. If the result of this maneuvre is that we get a stronger progressive in the Senate than we might have had even with Hackett, I'll feel much better about it.

Others here are correct, I think, that Hackett could have stayed in either race -- Senate or House -- if he wanted.

My sense that Hackett had a better chance than Brown to win in November is the same as yours -- I think he has a certain 'gut appeal' to conservatives. And of the handful of votes that Sherrod Brown cast which were not so progressive, those dealing with weapons programs worry the most. Is this reflective of the influence of General Electric on Ohio politics? I don't know.

[radio4progressives]

94. I'm in general agreement on your basic points

my concern is process, allowing the people to decide. Another post in this thread discredits the notion that Hackett was "anti-Iraq war", with quoted reference material, which goes to a great contradiction with our general perceptions, while Brown's voting record demonstrates a clear progressive position. The difference on these issues are great, and so we collectively would desperately want Brown to take that Senate seat based his voting record.

Hackett has been outspoken critic of this president and his war in Iraq, has been prominent in progressive media outlets, has appeared on C-Span etc... has given the impression that he opposes the war, in general but a careful look shows the contradiction.

Where as Brown like so many of our great Progressive House Representatives are largely marginalized, silenced, not invited on Sunday talks shows are rarely if ever seen interviewed on Washington Journal, rarely if ever seen speaking on the House Floor promoting progressive positions, because other House Democrats who do not speak out against the war are allowed time on the floor. these things are arranged by the party leaders. Will Brown allow himself to be silenced or marginalized in the Senate too? Or can he be courageous and outspoken like Feingold or even Hackett?

[MrBenchley]

91. Self-pity and delusions of grandeur

Paul Hackett lost the only race he ever ran (and to a crazy woman, no less). He excited lots of internet cowboys, but he wasn't exactly setting non-virtual Ohio voters on fire; he was only able to raise a tenth of what PDA approved Sherrod Brown had raised and he was 20 points down in the polls when he hit the silk.

So he quit, and let loose a blast of graceless Nixonian paranoia on the way out.

"Paul Hackett ain't DLC material"
Well, you at least got that right; on issues like immigration and gun control, hje belongs more with racist loonies like Tom Tancredo than with Democrats.