One More Time: Sherrod Brown Is A Progressive Liberal Candidate

[cali]

You know, despite all the soundbites and the MSM coverage I don't know much about Hackett or how good a Senator he'd be. I do know about Brown. He's got a long record of supporting and voting for progressive causes. Enough with the DLC Establishment candidate bullshit. It's a lie.

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 /

[YOY]

1. Yeah, as an Ohioan I've been telling Duers that

He's a well respected Progressive Ohio Dem with a good history and track record.

Although it is sad that Hackett couldn't make it, perhaps he really should try for just a little lower on the political rung before he runs for Senate. I know he doesn't consider himself a career politician, but that's the game...

[stepnw1f]

2. **crickets**

It's not about who Brown is.... it's about who he isn't and he aint no Paul Hacket.....

To Dem Leadership: Let "WE the PEOPLE" decide, or you'll have no more political backing.

[Jacobin]

3. ...."who is not an IraqNam veteran and accordingly

does not have the bona fides to question the war and confront chickenhawks. That was a unique thing that the Corporate Dems blew, on purpose.

[cali]

5. It's lunacy

to buy into the mindset that only vets can challenge war hawks. It reeks of desperation. Sherrod Brown has the experience to get things done. What's more, 56 other vets are running, 12 of them Iraq vets. As for the Corporate dems blowing it on purpose: <snort>

[Jacobin]

13. Lunacy?

the democratic congressman (name slips my mind) who was a big shot military guy is the only person who got traction when he said we had to get out of IraqNam.

What is a chickenhawk gonna say to a guy that's been over there? NOTHING.

call me a lunatic all you want. But I'm right and you are not.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. The difference is that when vets challenge the war, people listen

I respect Sherrod Brown very much for how he has spoken out against this war. Anybody who thinks that a liberal democratic congressman speaking out against the war has the same effect as a veteran who just came back from Iraq speaking out against the war is politically naive.

If the DSCC had any common sense they would have done exactly the opposite of what they are doing now. They would have told Brown to get the hell out of the race and cleared the way for Hackett. Then they should have placed Hackett as much in the national spotlight as possible along with the 12 other Iraq vets running for congress. The campaign slogan for 2006 should have simply been this: "The troops do not support Bush because he does not support them." That's it, that's all we needed to do, but the Democratic party is too narrow minded to realize a gift when it's been placed right under their noses.

[Jacobin]

22. well said

[0007]

43. Very good Thorn

[Dr Fate]

4. This is about "Bossman" vs. Grassroots, not stances on issues.

The grass-roots should have more input on who "The Bosses" decide to support and fund. I think they want our money & volunteer time but not our input.

Iraq Vet Paul Hackett is 10 times more electable for the Senate that the Bosses pick...

I think the reaction you see amongts the grass-roots DEMS is a result of many of us not trusting the "strategists" who lost the last 3 election cycles...

[cali]

6. Fine. Then Hackett should have stayed in the race

and looked to the grassroots for support. Does this mean I have to get all indignent about Bernie Sanders openly trying to prevent Dave Zuckerman (P), State House member, from running for Congress?

[IndianaGreen]

10. 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

[OzarkDem]

25. Then he should have stayed in the race

[Dr Fate]

54. The bosses should have supported him instead of going behind his back...

Which is what they would have done if they cared what the grass-roots thought.

Machine politcs is the problem here, not the Paul Hacketts who will never run b/c of it.

[rexcat]

33. When the Democratic leadership started calling Paul's...

supporters and telling them not to support him I think the message is clear. Paul had the support early on with the Democratic leadership but when Brown entered the race the picture changed for the worse for Paul. That said, Brown's chances of beating DeWine are slim at best. The repukes have already defined Brown in their own terms without a response from Brown. He has already lost!

One more point. The repukes were really afraid of running against Paul Hackett. You can hear a collective sigh of relief coming from the repukes since Hackett dropped out after being bludgeoned by the Democratic leadership.

[Dr Fate]

50. If the bosses had funded him like we wanted, he could have. n/t

n/t

[sandnsea]

38. So he gets to the Senate

And votes with Salazar and other centrists. Then you just label him a DLC sell-out like so many have Obama, and look for your next hero. That's the problem. The left isn't consistent in standing up for politicians who really fight for their issues, then wonder why they have problems getting "The Bosses" to listen to them.

[Dr Fate]

51. Yes, its clear that the active base is out of step with Congress.

Who ever said I was "left?"

For me its about who can stand up to Republicans and speak their minds.

[sandnsea]

63. Then when they do

They're brutalized unless they do spout the lefty line, because anything else is selling out to the corporatists. Joe Lieberman is saying what he believes, like it or not. So what is it people really want. One day it's lefty politics, the next the politics don't matter as long as it's beating up Bush.

[Dr Fate]

65. I'm not a "lefty"- and your strawmen DUers dont speak for me.

For me the best strategy is to speak bluntly and to stand up to these crooks instead of going along with them. Unlike Lieberman.

The supposed hypocrisy of other DUers does not change my position at all.

For the record, when I say "spine"- I mean spine against Bush, not spine against the activist base- be they supporters of "left candidates", "fighting DEMS" or otherwise.

I dont recall anyone bashing Democrats who stand up to and bluntly speak their mind against Bush rather than going along with him. Do you have an example of that charge?

[LincolnMcGrath]

66. Well Said Dr Fate

:thumbsup:

[sandnsea]

67. So that's all you care about

Speaking against Bush. Do you know that at the same time Hackett was calling Bush a chickenhawk he was also supporting winning the war? Is that supporting Bush or not? Is it necessary to scream chickenhawk in order to be a "fighting Dem"? Or is fighting every day for things that really matter in our lives just as important, like Sherrod Brown has done.

I recall people encouraging Democrats to speak against Bush because he let Iran advance with their nuclear program. Now that Bush is getting tough on Iran, those same Dems are supposed to turn around and bash Bush because he isn't letting Iran advance with their nuclear program.

We can't just be about bashing Bush.

[Dr Fate]

68. Bashing? I'd settle for plain truth about Republicans in a blunt manner.

And yes, Democrats should indeed tell the truth about Bush's current and past positions on Iraq & Iran.

Telling the blunt TRUTH about Bush and supporting a good outcome in Iraq as hacket did do not need to be mutually exclusive.

I dont know which DUers positions you are comparing mine to, but the Democrats should indeed point out the fact that "the Republicans lied about Iraq, they are probably lying about Iran. We need new leadership we can trust before we proceed with yet another war..."

Somthing like this instead of pretending he tells the truth and going along with him- like the "leadership" types who squeezed out Hackett will probably do concerning Iran.

We can have fun arguing all day- my bottom line is that the "strategists" who lost the last 3 elections should have backed the popular Iraq War Vet.

Based on the last 3 election cycles, I dont trust their judgement, you do. Fair enough.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Sherrod Brown's credentials are not in dispute and he is not the issue!

The issue is the Beltway insiders deciding that they knew what was best for Ohio better than the primary voters.

Where I come from that's call arrogance!

[Donna Zen]

12. The saddest part for me:

The insiders have done this before, they're doing it now, and they'll do it again.

[Armstead]

35. They will do it forever -- That's the nature of politics

I don't like it either. But it is what it is. Always has been, alweays will be.

There was never -- and there never will be -- a golden era in which the upper echelons of political parties don't impose themselves on the state and local level.

That's the nature of our system. It may suck, but the trick is IMO to use it to actually promote a political agenda for positive social action and change.

In this particular case, they exerted pressure to get a solid progressive with a long track record OF ACTUALLY FIGHTING FOR THE ISSUES THAT MATTER TO US to move up from the House to the Senate.

I admire Hackett's bluntness and fighting spirit, but frankly, I was never sure what he was fighting for. Calling Bush an SOB is not an ideological position.

[Donna Zen]

69. Why are the insider assuming the Brown will be elected?

DeWine is being rejected by the voters of Ohio because he is too moderate.

[biscotti]

8. He is a

scrappy smart fighter just like Hackett. He is great on the tuesday night Dem house sessions on Cspan. I have seen him also in other venues and he is always on top of his game.

[Donna Zen]

9. You are absolutely correct.

You will get no argument from about Brown's progressive credentials. But what's the end game? Winning a senate seat in Ohio...is that also correct? DeWine's numbers have dropped not because he isn't liberal enough, but because he's not conservative enough. So why exactly would we think that a well-known liberal like Brown has the best chance of beating DeWine? Hackett OTOH, is a maverick who is perceived as not wedded to the DNC. Personally, for some reason that I'll never know, the DNC threw in the towel on this. Maybe, as another thread tonight poses, the insider Dems didn't want anyone talking that anti-war shit and reminding everyone that they gave bush a blank check. Dunno?

I favored Hackett and would have spent my summer in Ohio at my families house because I thought that Hackett had a real chance of pulling this off. I want the win.

Hackett had "it" whatever that is. I doubt you'll ever hear from him again. He's a team player, and the Democrats have proven themselves to be in it for "I" factor.

[lastknowngood]

11. His record makes him an easy target for the hate machine. He has

already lost. Ohio is not LA or NYC it's very conservative, a lib will get his head handed to him. And with that ass whooping the house seat will go as well. We had a real chance to take both but the Powers That Be determined that we the people can't be trusted to vote for the best candidate. We must be force fed their choice.

[sendero]

14. He's not going to win..

.. so your description is moot. Hackett was polling much better than Brown against Dewine.

[Kukesa]

29. You're correct. We'll be stuck with DeWine again. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. 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

[Aaaargh]

52. Brown's integrity is not the issue, the corruption of the DSCC is

In the first place, that's not a new poll. From the Opinion consultants' site:

"...That's the finding of a poll released Wednesday by Opinion Consultants. The Columbus company's telephone survey of 800 voters in the state, conducted Jan. 9-22, found the economy is the chief concern among Ohioans.

It also appears Ohio residents won't be voting strictly along party lines this fall.

The poll found Ohioans favored Democrat Sherrod Brown for the U.S. Senate over incumbent Republican Mike DeWine, but they also favored Republican Kenneth Blackwell for governor over Democrat Ted Strickland."

Obviously, this represents some soft opinion early in these races.

We who are actually from OH and have followed statewide races for some years, have been trying to explain to people on this forum who think they know stuff which they don't know that Sherrod Brown, decent guy that he is, resembles several other Democratic nominees in OH who've been defeated in elections here in the last decade and a half. Hackett was well outside that mold, and seemed like a very promising prospect to a lot of OH Dems, and a threatening one to a lot of Republicans.

In fact, Hackett seemed like the kind of politician we really need these days, who does not come across with the usual features that come with a lot of liberal Democrats, which the Republicans and their whores in the corporate media have rendered into baggage through many years of anti-liberal, anti-Democrat propaganda, and yet who takes staunch traditional Democratic stances on issues. After all, the American middle class is seeing their standard of living undermined by the corporatist agenda of both the Republicans and the DLC-ilk 'Democrats' who seek to emulate the Republicans. We need kick-ass, plain-spoken Democrats who middle class swing voters can relate to in these times, when a swing AGAINST the Corporatist agenda is desperately needed and, IMO, definitely within reach, IF traditional Democrats can knock the corporatist sellouts out of their way.

It's both tragic and disgraceful that Hackett was undermined by the DSCC, through their influence oiver big-money contributors. This is definitely not 'politics as usual,' as some have claimed here, but the open corruption of big-money-driven politics, which shuts out the voters and seeks to limit their choices. Furthermore, there's much reason to suspect that Hackett's position on the Iraq 'mission' was the major reason the warmongering leaders of DSCC sought to wreck his campaign.

It's TRUE that Sherrod Brown is not a DLCer, but a traditional Democrat, and a good man, however we might judge his timidity on key issues thus far as a candidate for the Senate. Sherrod Brown's integrity is not the issue here -- and, as so often on this forum with the contributions of DLC supporters, the effort to depict objections to the DSCC's actions in that way is a cynically calculated spin-point and a lie. Sherrod Brown, in fact, should be judged as nearly much a victim of this DSCC dirty trick as Hackett himself is -- while we remember that the main victims of it are Ohio's voters.

We who actually live in Ohio know that Mike DeWine has always been noted as an extremely DIRTY campaigner. In his first, unsuccessful campaign for the Senate, against incumbent John Glenn, the viciousness of his attacks in heavy-rotation TV commercials became an issue in itself -- but THAT was when he was running against the very-highly respected John Glenn.

I, and many Ohio Democrats I've spoken to, doubt that Sherrod Brown can stand up against that sort of campaign. Brown was defeated as an incumbent by Bob Taft for the office of Ohio secretary of state in 1990 through a TV-commercial-oriented campaign very much like what DeWine is known for. If he's going to be the nominee, than you can be sure that the hardcore Hackett supporters will back him up -- but what we really hoped Hackett would bring in would be swing voters, and it's hard to see Brown doing well with them. To make these observations is not to undermine Brown -- we're not going to win elections through blind optimism or refusing to face the reality before us.

The standoff in the Democratic Party is NOT between a Nixon-McGovern era concept of Left and Right. It's between traditional Democrats of both the left and mainstream vs. the corporatist sellouts exemplified by the DLC. Sadly, the latter managed to take out an extremely promising mainstream Democrat office-seeker, and in doing so, harmed the electoral chances of the decent man and good politician they picked in preference to him, by sliming him with their corruption. It's now up to traditional Democrats to try and turn this travesty into good news for Ohioans in November, with the election of Sherrod Brown.

[incapsulated]

15. One more time, this isn't about Brown

I'm sure he's a fine man and a good Dem. This is about Paul Hackett, who is also a fine man and I believe, would have been a great candidate. Now we will never know.

[Kahuna]

16. I remember when he tweaked Colin Powell and made him blow

a gasket when he said bush was awol. :rofl: Any guy who has the guts to do that has my respect.

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. Please keep reminding people of that simple fact. Sherrod Brown is one of

the most progressive members of the U. S. House of Representatives. He is endorsed by PDA (Progressive Democrats of America). And is a strong member of the Progressive Caucus with an overall VERY strong voting record all around.

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.

[IndianaGreen]

18. So what? That's has never been the issue regarding the Hackett matter

The issue is the decision by people in Washington DC to prevent the Democratic primary voters in Ohio from having a say so as to who they wanted as their nominee to run against DeWine.

[bvar22]

20. Say it again, IG.

Some people are refusing to hear.
This is about OUR Democracy, not Brown or Hackett.


"All Politics is LOCAL!!!!
Ah....What???....oh well, My bad
.
.
.
All Politics SHOULD be local!

[OzarkDem]

27. Then why have Hackett supporters attacked him?

This has been one of the nastiest primary races among Dems I've seen in a very long time. Hackett supporters have said and done some of the most incredibly bad things, including trying to get Brown's wife fired from her job as a columnist for the Plain Dealer.

If its not about Brown, you need to tell your fellow Hackett supporters about it.

[MrBenchley]

26. Our "progressive purists" imagine they got the purge they demanded

for months.....And now they're foaming with rage...(snicker)

[Laelth]

31. I represent that remark!

:rofl:

As a rational progressive purist, I realize that I got what I wanted in this case. Brown is better.

And I still support some reasonable purges. Lieberman must go!

-Laelth

[MrBenchley]

32. It's a big tent....

I find it hilarious to see the extreme rush by our "committed leftists" to support the Unknown Millionaire (who makes his dough off gated communities for the very wealthy).....

[LincolnMcGrath]

36. Where is the rush? Is that an attack on WillPitt?

[LincolnMcGrath]

34. Who and Where?

Stop your pathetic attempt to pin this on leftists or anyone else on your longterm enemies list.

[sendero]

28. I'll tell you what..

.... it makes no difference whatsoever what a "good liberal" Brown is if he doesn't get elected.

And a "classic liberal" like Brown is going to have a rough time in conservative OHIO.

I think the party has made yet another in a string of ham-handed mistakes, because THEY ARE AFRAID OF ANY OUTSIDERS GETTING A FOOTHOLD IN OUR PARTY.

That's got to tell you something, if you can think at all.

[OneBlueSky]

21. One More Time: That's Not the Point . . .

what has people upset is the way this was handled . . . and the resultant loss of someone who could have been an effective Democrat in the battle to the death with BushCo . . .

I don't know all that much about either Hackett or Brown, but when this story broke all I could think was "just who in the hell do Schumer and Reid think they are?" . . . and who do they think they represent? . . . no me . . .

[MrBenchley]

23. Hackett QUIT, and held a self-pity party blaming others for his failures

"just who in the hell do Schumer and Reid think they are?"
They're Democratic party officials who are trying to win races all across the country. And Hackett was an unprepared candidate who had a tenth of the money Brown did, and who was a liability on the stump.

[MadHound]

40. Wow, you're still peddling that spin despite the lack of facts

Amazing, just simply amazing. OK, let me go over this one for you again, and I'll do it slowly.

Hackett quit because Reid and Schumer were going behind his back pushing Brown. In fact they were calling up people and telling them to stop donating to Hackett. Sorry, but that is BS in mine and a lot of other people's eyes.

Hacket had made a promise to three other Democratic candidates that he would not, under any circumstance, get into the House race. That is why he dropped out of politics completely, at least for now. Digust with the way the Democratic leadership had treated him, and keeping his word to his fellow Democrats, something that is apparently in short supply amongst our leaders.

And frankly, Schumer and Reid took the decision away from the real leaders of this party, the people. Instead of letting Brown and Hackett duke it out in a primary, they went behind not only Hackett's back, but behind the backs of the people of Ohio in order to hand pick their boy. Utter and absolute bullshit. That should be the decision of the people of Ohio, not of a couple of good ol' boys from out of state.

And despite all of your posts to the contrary, when you look at the polls, Hackett was indeed doing better than Brown against DeWine. Hackett was in fact ahead of of DeWine in most of the polls, and in the rest he was within one or two points.

And I love that little phrase, "liability on the stump". In other words, Hackett wasn't afraid to speak truth to power, no matter who or what that power was, and quite frankly that scared the shit out of our quisling Democratic leadership. This wasn't a man who was going to go along to get along, he was going to shake up both the party and the Senate, and this scared the Dem leadership silly, and for good reason. With their track record over the past ten years, Hackett had lots and lots of valid arguements, and the Democratic leadership just didn't want to be questions over their multiple failings.

As far as Hackett being unprepared, well that's right to a certain extent. He was unprepared to sit down and shut up. He was unprepared to part with his spine. He was unprepared to say "how high" when Bush said "jump". He was unprepared to roll over and play door mat.

And as far as the money goes, well he was getting more and more, and gee, if the Democratic leadership hadn't backstabbed him, he probably would have been quite successful in raising money.

You can crank out all the BS you want on this one, but at the end of the day it all boils down to this. The Democratic leadership didn't want a winning successful candidate who would speak truth to their power, so they went behind his back and sabotaged his campaign. Apparently you can only be a Democratic candidate now if you're willing turn a blind eye to the party's many failures, including enabling this illegal, immoral war.

In a way, I'm really suprised at your lack of outrage over this. You've always come across as a moderate to conservative Democrat to me, which is exactly what Hackett was, which is exactly what is needed in Ohio for a Dem to win these days. But here you are, once again backing the traitorous Democratic leadership one more time. How come? You know as well as I do that a liberal like Brown doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning in Ohio, so why aren't you backing the moderate who had a great chance of winning Ohio? Interesting friend, very interesting.

[MrBenchley]

41. LOL! Hackett QUIT and lashed out at everybody else

"Hackett quit because Reid and Schumer were going behind his back pushing Brown. In fact they were calling up people and telling them to stop donating to Hackett."
Yeah? Who did they call?

"when you look at the polls, Hackett was indeed doing better than Brown against DeWine"
Only if you ignore the actual polls, which have Hackett 20 points back and fading. But let's pretend your claim's true...Hackett is a weenie for quitting then, isn't he?

"He was unprepared to sit down and shut up."
As result, he ran around blurting out idiotic crap like "Deport 'em all."

"You've always come across as a moderate to conservative Democrat to me, which is exactly what Hackett was, which is exactly what is needed in Ohio for a Dem to win these days. But here you are, once again backing the traitorous Democratic leadership one more time. How come?"
Because I'm a Democrat and know the difference between shit and shinola.

"You know as well as I do that a liberal like Brown doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning in Ohio"
LOL! And yet we've been lectured constantly on DU that the only way we can win is by having only candidates like Brown. Go figure that.

[MadHound]

45. Are you terminally dizzy yet?

Cause the spin that you are imparting must absolutely be killing you.

Even Dean is stating that there was "skulduggery in Washington" . Are you actually going to call the DNC chair a liar? This wasn't about Hackett quitting friend, this is about Hackett being forced out by the good ol' boy Democratic network who feels as though it is their perogative to decide who runs for which office, not the choice of the people. Apparently you support that system, again, making you part of the problem.

And your statement about the polls is sheer ignorance friend. First off, I was referring to the polls showing that Hackett would do better than Brown in the race against DeWine. You are referring to the primary poll. Well, let me tell you something about the so called "poll". First off, it was performed by the Feldman Group, headed by Dianne Feldman. A serious friend of the DLC, she and her company have been criticized time and again for their unprofessionalism, inaccurate pollling methods, and their tendency to produce polls that backs the viewpoint of those who pay her. Her methodology is screwed, because she poll was done mostly in Cleveland. In fact out of the 400 people:wtf: who were polled, forty percent of them, a vast majority, were from Cleveland. Two questions, how in the hell can you get an accurate sample out of only 400 people, and isn't it rather disingenous to have forty percent of those respondees coming straight from Brown's district?

And apparently you don't know the difference between shit and shinola. Apparently you would rather back the good ol' boy Dems, and deprive the people of Ohio of their right to choose who their next Senator is. And yet you call yourself a Democrat? Wow, the mind boggles.

You can spin this all you want, but it boils down to this. The good ol' boy network of the Democratic party decided that it was they, not the people of Ohio, who had the right to choose who their next Senator would be. To that end they sabotaged his campaign, depriving him of donors and money. All because they feared a man who would speak truth to power, including them. And yet you back this immoral position.

That right there tells people all they need to know about you. God forbid that the people have a goddamn say in this party, it must be a top down type of leadership, right. Fuck that!

And the Democrats wonder why they're floundering in the polls, floundering in public opinion, and hemoragging both voters and party members. It is exactly because of this kind of shit, and the lack of a spine. Backstabbing an rising star does not bode welll for other candidates.

But hey, you're free to support this shit if you want to. Hope your short ride on this Titanic is a pleasant one:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

47. LOL! Hackett QUIT and blamed everyone else....

"Apparently you support that system"
Yeah. I'm a Democrat.

Now I suggest you go cry about your boy pulling the plug on his failure to somebody who gives a shit about such silliness.

"deprive the people of Ohio of their right to choose who their next Senator is"
Nothing keeping them from writing Hackett's name in. For that matter, nothing was keeping Hackett from going on.

"All because they feared a man who would speak truth to power"
Please, give me a fucking break. Hackett was a blowhard who pulled his "truth" out of his ass. "Deport 'em all."

[MadHound]

48. Like I said earlier, terminally dizzy you must be

What, you don't understand such simple concepts such as "forced out" "deprived of money" "called donors behind his back, urging them not to donate to Hackett's campaign" No, apparently you would rather reduce the whole matter down to such Fox-like simplicities as "He quit". Sorry bub, were liberals and more intelligent than to fall for that BS.

And like you said yourself, you support that system. That good ol' boy, top down leadership, deciding for the people system. Real fucking democratic there pal:eyes:

And you accuse those of us on the left of being naive, yet here you are saying that without being on the ballot, without the endorsement of the party, without the monetary support of the party, Hackett could go on as a write in candidate. Whatever. Do you even believe your own spin anymore?

Sorry pal, but your arguement rings hollow, and the system you support is corrupt and mouldering. Like I said, you're welcome to the ride on this ship, just don't be suprised when it sinks underneath you. And remember, as it goes down, that you too had a hand in its demise, for you refused to oppose that which was wrong and immoral. Instead, you stuck up for that corruption and cronyism. Good fucking show!

[MrBenchley]

49. No, I know Hackett quit and blamed others for his failure....

"you accuse those of us on the left of being naive"
Actually, that's about the only adjective I HADN'T used. (snicker)

"the system you support is corrupt and mouldering"
Thank goodness there are alternatives like Paul "Deport 'em All" Hackett and his self-pitying band to carry on...oh that's right, HE QUIT.

[LincolnMcGrath]

55. Which came first, Hackett's immigration comment,

Or MrBenchley calling the DLC idiotic?

Let me guess, now you see Hackett's comment as ancient! lol

We should all be held to your high standards. Speaking of Blowhards....

[OneBlueSky]

44. well, they're doing a piss poor job of it . . .

they've lost at least one donor (me), and I would bet thousands more . . . I'll pick and choose who to contribute to from now on, but no more bucks for the party until they can prove they know how to do politics . . .

[MrBenchley]

46. Hey, if you don't want to be a Democrat, don't....

Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

[SaveElmer]

53. That naivete astound me...

Like everyone is shocked...just shocked...that politics is going on. Party politics has always been about winning and acquiring power. And it always will. That is true no matter what political stripe you are. Standing around holding hands and singing Cumbayah is just gonna get us beat again. Unless you have the power you cannot act to implement policies you think will benefit people.

The DSCC has done an excellent job of recruiting top notch candidates across the country. Brown is clearly the stronger candidate. Hackett was in over his head.

And I also would like to remind people that Ohio sent ultra-liberal Howard Metzenbaum to the Senate for many years, so the notion among our progressive friend that Brown is unelectable is just not right.

This is incredible, I cannot believe that I have to try and convince the DLC bashers to accept a highly progressive candidate over one more centrist. They are all of a sudden arguing that in Ohio we need a centrist.

[MrBenchley]

56. You'll notice DU is clogged with people

who announced they were going to storm away in a rage.....

"The DSCC has done an excellent job of recruiting top notch candidates across the country. Brown is clearly the stronger candidate. Hackett was in over his head. "
I couldn't say it better myself.

"I cannot believe that I have to try and convince the DLC bashers to accept a highly progressive candidate over one more centrist."
I know.

[SaveElmer]

59. Well with the number of people who say that...

I'm surprised there is anyone left here.

[MrBenchley]

61. None are pure enough to stand with thee and me

and i'm not so sure about me....(snicker).

[LincolnMcGrath]

57. Right Only progressives supported Hackett.

And only progressives need to have Brown's positions explained to them.

And of course only progressives have a naive understanding of politics.

Let go of the leftist bogeyman thesis, that dog don't hunt.

The MOST right leaning centrist on our county central committee gave huge money to Hackett, and he is furious with the beltway boy's treatment of Hackett. Even Centrist Governor H. Dean spoke of skulduggery in DC.

Is there any issue you will not try to pin on Leftists?

[SaveElmer]

58. It's not leftist...

It is about an apparent surprise that this is how parties pick their candidates...

[LincolnMcGrath]

60. Really

"I cannot believe that I have to try and convince the DLC bashers to accept a highly progressive candidate over one more centrist."

Need I post anymore?

WHOA!! As for how parties pick their candidates, I though Mr Hackett quit? He quit right? So parties pick their candidates by convincing one or the other to drop out?

[SaveElmer]

62. In many cases this is true...

Apparently the DSCC was able to convince Hackett that the party would be better off uniting behind one candidate. Hackett's comments today show he knew he was a long shot.

As to the leftist comment, I should have put that last statement into a different post. I was responding to a number of MrBenchley's posts in one.

It is not leftists as a group I think are naive, it is those who are expressing such shock that the party would try and get one candidate to drop out to avoid a primary fight. This happens every election cycle, yet it seems like for some this is the first time they ever heard of it happening.

[LincolnMcGrath]

64. 10-4

Carry On :hi:

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. Perhaps the DLC did this to confuse liberals

;)

[Armstead]

37. If so, they did a good job

This liberal is sure confused.

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. that's my theory too

:tinfoilhat:

seriously, for whatever reason the big boys in DC decided that a strong liberal/progressive with clear liberal/progressive positions was more electable than a centrist "new Democrat" with a charismatic personality and a vague-undefined message, I don't know.

But we progressives have been telling those guys for the last 30+ years that clear progressive candidates with a clear progressive message is what will sell. If they got this message as far as the Ohio race is concerned, I don't think that is so bad.

Call me cynical. But I want progressives to win and centrist to lose.

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

Sherrod Brown is endorsed by PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) and is an outspoken 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.

[MrBenchley]

30. Democrats pushed Hackett out because he was a white man!

says no less an authority than Rush Limbaugh!

(audio clip here)...

http://www.oliverwillis.com/2006/02/14/is-rush-on-the-stuff-again/

Here's that unworthy recipient of affirmative action, black Sherrod Brrown...