One question for those attacking Hackett

[400Years]

If Reid, Emmanuel, etc. made it clear to you that if you ran for office they would fight against you and actively work to dry up your funding, would you run under these circumstances?

Not only would you have to be fighting the machinery of the republican party but that of your own party as well. How can anybody run an effective campaign under this scenario? Those who insist on attacking Hackett by calling him names are really off base here.

I believe those attacking Hackett personally are really just trying to deflect the conversation away from the fundamentally undemocratic way this situation is working out.

[Kagemusha]

1. They're saying if he had guts he'd have run anyway

and if he had brains he'd have run in OH-02.

In other words, obey as a samurai, break his word as a samurai, run as just another weenie politician.

I'm glad he quit. He has some self-respect left.

[400Years]

11. the question is: would you run under these circumstances?

[Laelth]

2. Nobody's attacking Hackett.

(or, at least, not much) ;) He could have pulled out of the race a little more elegantly, perhaps.

Many of us are, however, supporting Sherrod Brown.

:dem:

-Laelth

[400Years]

7. keep telling yourself that

[madfloridian]

49. Yes, attacks are being made on him.

I just responded to you in some other thread. You guys are attacking Dean and Hackett and the grassroots for being so arrogant as to think we have a place in the party.
This is getting very ugly.

[Laelth]

53. I admit to attacking Chairman Dean a little.

As I've also said, I approve of Mr. Dean's tenure, in general, but the DSCC is charged with securing Democratic victories in the Senate. Schumer and Reid felt they were doing the right thing in supporting Brown over Hackett. I don't like it when Chairman Dean criticizes them for doing their job.

But Mr. Hackett? Him I am not attacking. As far as I can see, he did nothing wrong other than, as I also said, choosing an inelegant way to bow out of the race.

-Laelth

[MercutioATC]

65. Want links? There are a busy few who have been doing nothing but.

[The Magistrate]

3. The Fact Is, Sir

Maj. Hackett has no particular right to run for a Party nomination and receive it; the leadership of the Party has every right to exercise some control over who they slate, and who their fundraisers' donate to. There is no great issue here at all. Avoiding a primary fightis generally the wisest course, and that was the one the professionals adopted. Good for them.

[xchrom]

5. lol -- i was batting a thousand with you there for a while.

i'll go sit in my corner now.

[400Years]

8. yeah, I assumed we live in a democracy, my bad!

[The Magistrate]

14. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Sir

What do you mean by that statement?

A political party is not a government; it is a private organization, and as such entitled to its own rules and proceedures. How a party chooses to slate candidates says nothing about the form of government the parties contest to control in the general election.

[DancingBear]

Perhaps, Mr. M, he was rather upset with the top down management style

that was exhibited in this case.

A more participatory form of actually electing, rather than selecting, candidates is perhaps what he was looking for.

Me too, come to mention it. :)

[The Magistrate]

20. Top Down Management Does Not Bother Me, Sir

Primary fights have ruined many candidacies, and the wisest course is to avoid them. They provide fodder for the enemy's attack machine and consume funds better spent in the general election. They are certainly nothing to be indulged in for their own sake, which seems to be the root position of some here, that a contested primary is a good thing in and of itself. It is not.

[400Years]

23. well let's just go ahead and admit we have an aristocracy

and get it over with.

[The Magistrate]

32. That Is A Totally Different Concept, Sir

The leaders of a political party are those who rise in its ranks through success in elections, both for office in government and for party office, and who demonstrate thus some acumen in the business of the party, namely winning elections and securing the things required to prevail in elections. The idea that the leadership of a political does not reflect and represent the views of the great majority of that party's membership is a very odd one. A number of people seem to treat it as an established fact, but there is no ground whatever on which to do so.

[400Years]

33. you are not living in reality

You said "The idea that the leadership of a political does not reflect and represent the views of the great majority of that party's membership is a very odd one."

I think the events of the last several years provides plenty of examples that show otherwise.

The invasion of iraq is but one issue that disproves your view.

[The Magistrate]

39. Again, Sir

You are working from an unsound foundation. The first element of it is the claim that the leadership of Democratic party supports the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This charge, though commonly employed, is false. In the early stages, many felt caught in an obvious but powerful politiocal trap, and sought to take a course that seemed to them likely to minimize the political damage suffered. If this calculation proved mistaken, that still does not add up to support for the invasion. The next element is the idea that npt demanding immediate retirement from the place constitutes support for the occupation. It does not. Retirement from a failed expedition is a difficult thing to manage withjout doing further damage, and there are sopund arguments for doingt he thing slowly. My own preference is to bite the bullet and do it yesterday, but it is also clear to me such a course would indeed produce a great deal of bloody chaos, and understandable to me that figures charged with some responsibility for the consequences of government action are loathe to set off that chain events. The third elemnt of it is the belief that your views represent the views of the majority of members and voters loyal to and aligned with the Democratic Party: it is quite likely that on many matters, they do not, and therefore an action by the Party;s leadership that you disagree with may still be representative fo the viws of a majority of the Party.

[400Years]

47. polls have shown otherwise

[radio4progressives]

58. It seems to me that you arguing against the principles of a meaningful

representative democracy, which how i see the current, autocratic, status-quo system.

Shortly following the 2004 elections debacle, Senator Dianne Feinstein did something quite surprising, and out of the blue (to me) and introduced legislation to abolish the Electoral College system. I merely skimmed the bill last year and didn't read the details, so i don't recall which elections method was proposed to be implemented in place of the EC, but coming from San Francisco, it's probably safe to assume she proposed Proportional Representation, with an IRV or otther preference method.. (don't remember right now)..

In any event, abolishing the Electoral College System (which i feel very strongly in favor of) would open up for more meaningful representation, vis a vis multiple parties and it would also serve both Democratic and Republican parties much better, because the so called "big tent" charade can then be dispensed with - and the leaders of the parties can be a bit more honest in regards to their legislative conduct.

All this to say, when the Electoral College is abolished and the Democratic Party intends to dispense with primary elections and grassroots participation, then fine. If the rank and file decide they don't mind an autocratic style party structure, then that will be their individual choice and decision.

But in the meantime, i think it's not accurate to claim that the party has an inherent right to front load candidates of their own choosing, without the approval of the rank and file (vis a vis an election process, a la primaries) based on the notion that it isn't a government.

In this so called two party system, they may as well be a government and NOT a private organization - because the fact of the matter is, these "party leaders" ARE INDEED very much apart of the government.

That's the PROBLEM.

[The Magistrate]

67. Not At All, Ma'am

The current system is a form of representative democracy. What makes it often seem otherwise to some of us is that its workings sometimes lead to different people than ourselves being represented. But that is a flaw inherent to any democratic system, since in all such a majority will exercise power and a minority will not. It is not comfortable to be in the minority, but it does not prove the system does not act to represent the will of the majority. Nor is there ever in any democratic system any gaurantee the majority will be wise, or even see its own interests clearly, or not be duped by sharpsters and demagogues. Both Mr. Churchill's "Democracy is the worst possible form of government, with the exception of all others that have been tried," and Mr. Mencken's "Democracy is a system of government based on belief the people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard," will remain operative so long as a massive number of people must both be ruled and consulted on how and by whom they will be ruled.

Abolishingt the electoral college would be an excellent reform. That device is an antiquated "safe-guard' against popular rule that it has been demonstrated quite recently can work very well to frustrate the openly registered popular will. It introduces a number of distortions in campaigns for President, and functions a sort of gerrymander favoring rural regions against cities, which is a fatal flaw for any governing system called upon to face a changing world full of novelties: city folk deal better with that that sort of thing then do countrymen, for they encounter much more of strangeness and change and the unfamiliae that must nonetheless be dealt with in their daily lives.

The "first past the post-winner take all" style employed is also a problem, and my own preference would be for a party-list system, whether embodied in a Parliamentary form precisely or somehow grafted on to out curent district and state structure.

But the fact remains that as of today, as of this year, the system exists as it is, and political action must take cognizance of this, and find ways to make its structures work towards the ends desired.

[brentspeak]

46. I'll jump in here and say

that I actually agree that, in this case, I would not have wanted a primary. It would probably damage the eventual Dem candidate enough so that DeWine might win.

The issue for me is that the Democratic leadership should have kept its original word to Hackett, and endorsed him for the Senate, and only him. If anyone was to be frozen out of the picture, it was Brown, who deferred to Hackett at the very beginning.

Now if it was reversed, if Hackett was the one who changed his mind and screwed up everything, I would also be outraged for Brown as I now am for Hackett.

(Of course, the fact that this party really needs someone like Paul Hackett, as well as the fact that the damage to the party over the shabby treatment he received, makes me more angry about this than I would normally be.)

[400Years]

48. I agree with that

the real issue here is how it was done.

[sui generis]

26. authoritarianism in all its various forms is to be reviled.

consent by the governed, and all of that, sir.

[DancingBear]

30. How then, does this play out in a Presidential race?

Should conventional wisdom, as exhibited by party "higher-ups", be the final say on this matter? Or should those who wish to undertake the primary process -not because they wish to bloody their opponents (which is the obvious by-product of said primary) - but because they truly believe that their leadership should win out, have their say?

You are of course correct in the premise that "art for art's sake" re: primaries is foolish, but I find the notion of The Democratic Party, LLC being able to dictate its course with no input from its stockholders a bit troublesome, though when put into the aforementioned context it is easy to view it as such.

And that in itself is troubling, but a discussion for another time...

[The Magistrate]

34. The Course Of Selection By Party Leadership, Sir

Has produced some excellent Presidents in the past, althouigh it has certainly thrown up duds and non-entities as well. The current system does not have a record that can be claimed as decisively better than the older one: in the era of the modern primary our Party has had two winners and four losers by off-hand count....

[DancingBear]

37. But the fault, then, lies with us

Not with those who claim they know better.

I can live with the results.

I can also work to make the Corporation a bit more user-friendly.

I believe I'll do both.

[The Magistrate]

41. That Is A Good Point, Sir

And if the present system is approached in a proper spirit, represents a real benefit of it.

[sendero]

56. Your argument...

.... would make a bit of sense if

1) they selected the candidate who announced his candidacy FIRST instead of the one who said he would not run

2) if they selected the candidate with the best chance of actually winning

Since they did neither, excuse me if I don't accept the arbitrary nature of their actions.

[400Years]

24. You know exactly what I mean by that

actions speak much louder than words.

[The Magistrate]

29. No, Sir, Your Meaning Is Not At All Clear

The best that could be said about the statement is that it seems rooted in a confusion between the operation of a government and the operation of a political party. They are not the same thing, and it is the former, not the latter, that defines whether a polity is a democracy or no.

[400Years]

31. If people are not allowed to choose who to vote for then it isn't

a democracy. Your efforts at justifying what was done are really anemic.

[The Magistrate]

42. Again, Sir

What determones whether or not a polty is governed demnocratically is the means by which those who take office arrive there, namely by the selction of the people in a general contest between opposing factions who are free to argue their merits and demerits to the voters. How a particular party selects its candidates has nothing to do with it.

[400Years]

50. without the primaries we have not really made a choice

just like in the presidential elections where we are not given a chance to vote for someone who would actually change things in Washington. Just like the way Howard Dean was hounded out of the running so we had to vote for Kerry, who I knew was a loser. We really had no vote in that one.

[rinsd]

54. "Howard Dean was hounded out of the running so we had to vote for Kerry"

That's ironic considering quite a few liberal commentators were suggesting doing away with the primaries when Dean was riding high and getting good press coverage.

The reasons given? To save money and avoid muckraking for the republicans.

[The Magistrate]

66. At The Risk Of Igniting A Dormant Volcano, Sir

Gov. Dean was not run out of anything by anyone but the voters in Democratic Party caucuses and primaries. It was abundantly clear once actual votes began to be cast, as opposed to media predictions being bandied, that the rank and file of the Democratic Party, the people who vote Democratic and pay enough heed to turn out in primaries, did not want Gov. Dean to be their candidate. His committed supporters did, and they were proved to be a decided minority. The entire episode is illustrative of the basic incoherence of the position being urged in this matter of Ohio: it is one thing to argue there should be a primary, and quite another to refuse to acknowledge the result of previous primaries as valid indications of the will of the Party membership....

[SaveElmer]

55. Exactly right...

Political parties are free to choose their candidates under any rules they wish. If people have a problem with the way the is done, they must either work within the party to have that changed, or form their own party.

And of course, party rules have been changed. Primaries are the result of people working within the party for change. And after 1972, super delegtes were introduced to dial back the amount to which party leaders were excluded from the process.

[radio4progressives]

59. so when dis-affected and dissatistifed people go to form "their own party"

you'll harbor no baseless resentment and mean spirited grudge against the new third party, if the election results do not turn out to be favorable for your guy, because too many disaffected and disastified voters voted the New Third Party ticket? You'll take it all in good sport? you won't disparage those who did not see your guy as a true representative of their interests ?

you'll accept a democratic process on it's face, and not blame the existance of the third party for your loss?

[SaveElmer]

60. Absolutely not...

If I believe their reason for doing so was spurious and ill-conceived. I am simply pointing out that political parties are private entities and are free to make any rules they wish for advancing candidates. And if people want to effect change they have two options...the ones I mentioned.

[radio4progressives]

61. I'm not sure I understand your response...

are you saying you will not begrudge those who are dissafected with the Democratic Party and vote the third party canidate, you won't harbor ill feelings, launch spurious attacks against their charachter for voting for who they see as more representative, even in the face of another very close election?

[SaveElmer]

63. Sorry it was muddled...

If I thought someone was bolting the party for what I thought were unwise reasons, I would criticize them for doing so. I would not say that they were not doing something which they had every right to do, and would not say that forming a third party was illegitimate.

I criticize Ralph Nader because I believe he aided in the election of George Bush. However, I would never say he did not have the right to do what he did. He worked within the system for what I thought were the wrong reasons.

So to relate it to the Hackett situation. Criticizing the party leadership, though I disagree with it, is not something I would say is not working within the system. But complaints that Hackett was denied some kind of due process I believe is not legitimate, because that is not how the system works, nor has ever worked.

[Catrina]

17. Why would a Democratic primary need to be a 'fight'? Why not a way

for the people to take a look at two (or more) candidates who are offering their services to the people? Why is the party leadership considered to be more informed, or have more of a right to choose a candidate than the people who will be served by that candidate? Neither Reid nor Schumer are from Ohio. Shouldn't the people of Ohio decide who they want to represent them?

And if having a 'primary fight' is so bad, why not just get rid of the system altogether? It's there to be used, and for a very good reason, imo.

Without it, there is no semblance of Democracy. We end up always, in a country of nearly 300 million people, with only TWO choices, those two having been chosen by the leadership of two political parties?

Tell me, where do the people fit into this system? I know in the last election, we in NY had no say in the final choice of candidates. We were given a candidate to support. It didn't feel very democratic at all.

Not only that, but had the primaries continued, the debates among the candidates were a huge threat to the Bush campaign. After all, it was the first time anyone was permitted, on national television, to criticize the current resident of the WH. Each time there was a lively debate among the Democratic candidates, Bush's poll numbers went down. The only party to benefit by ending the primaries in that case, was the Republican Party.

I, otoh, would like to have seen them continue until a month or so before the election. I'm puzzled by this acceptance that the people should play no role in the choice of candidates ~

[The Magistrate]

27. ButThey Are Fights, Ma'am

Every election at whatever level is a stylized combat, in which the various contestants strive to damage their foes. Charges against other candidates are always made, and the candidate who falls behind typically redoubles the effort to damage the leading rival. This damage is real, and often lingers to affect tyhe general election. Attacks from the enemy gain a veneer of consensus, since it is possible to quote persons from a candidates own party in making them, which gives them greater heft. These things are unavoidable, they are in the nature of the thing. There are a number of flaws to the primary system, though of course, there are flaws to evry sort of human endeavour....

[brentspeak]

40. You don't understand something

Hackett didn't enter the Senate race in some arrogant belief that he, and only he, should be the nominee; it was the party that encouraged Hackett to run in the first place.

"Good for them?"

*Chuckle*. If it was a primary fight they wanted to avoid, the easiest way to do that would have been NOT to encourage Brown to enter the Senate race after they had already had Hackett enter the race.

[The Magistrate]

43. People Change Their Minds, Sir

And in any organization, the senior who has toiled long in the apparat will be prefered to the newcomer....

[madfloridian]

51. Hackett has a right NOT to backhanded to get out of the race...

that he was asked to get into by Reid and Schumer, and the wives of Reid and Schumer called Hackett's wife to sacrifice for her country once again and let him run.

Oh, let's be honest now.

[sui generis]

4. here's a theory:

If Hackett hadn't been openly FOR same sex marriage and equal rights they might not have pressured him to leave.

How many of our leadership are not just merely against the FMA but actually for civil marriage for everyone?

Yeah, it's not a sexy issue is it. That's why Brown doesn't even mention it in his issues list.

I think Hacket got canned for being just a little too inclusive, and it's something the GLBT community needs to start considering.

Brown was against the marriage amendment, but equality is not on his issues list.

[bullimiami]

6. i think they really believe they have a better candidate in brown.

and im inclined to agree.

[sui generis]

10. I think they have a more sophisticated and politically apt

candidate.

"Better" is subjective.

I believe Brown was by far the stronger candidate on listing the issues he supports. That's why I thought in that EXHAUSTIVE list of issues it was truly odd that equality issues are not listed.

Things that make you go hmmmm.

Both answers may be true, at the same time.

[cali]

18. I don't think that's it.

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 /

[sui generis]

25. not good enough. why isn't it in his issues list?

He gets an honorable mention for not voting FOR the marriage amendment, but that's not the same thing.

I'm not trying to be unfair or misinform or imply that Brown isn't a worthy candidate; just saying that it is something to consider, and that I have questions.

I would like a direct statement. Everything I've seen here today has been carefully second hand reporting of other people's opinions about his stance, not a direct statement BY Brown himself.

[OzarkDem]

9. Who's attacking Hackett?

Most of us are defending Sherrod Brown and his wife from all the baseless accusations made against them.

[400Years]

13. the usual crew, I won't name names but they are using words like

"wuss" etc.

go look it up if you want.

and from what i have seen everybody against this has said quite clearly that the issue is not brown versus hackett but they way this decision was made.

[DancingBear]

15. Could you elaborate on the "baseless accusations?"

I have seen the "swift boating" charge, and I reject that, although it was not directly aimed at Brown (if it was, I stand corrected).

I've not seen others, unless you would be inclined to put the "waffling" on entering the Senate race charge in there, but that seems to be correct, based upon time lines I have seen.

What other accusations have been made against Mr. Brown?

[OzarkDem]

16. Check the threads

they are numerous and I'm growing weary of linking to them. Sherrod lied, Sherrod's campaign said Hackett committed war crimes, etc etc.

[DancingBear]

19. Sorry - you made the charge

It's really up to you to provide the documentation.

I'll listen to what you have to say here, and condemn if need be, but you're not making a very strong case with "I'm too tired."

[Cocoa]

28. being tired is no excuse

you make a claim, you have to back it up.

[OzarkDem]

64. Sod off - here it is

Try looking here for some of this ridiculous crap. Oh wait, you already have, you're just pretending you knew nothing about the Sherrod smears.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2459640

[VolcanoJen]

62. Now *that* is really rich.

:-)

[Cocoa]

12. link?

I haven't seen attacks against Hackett.

I have, however, seen threads like this one linked below about Brown. Are there equivalents against Hackett?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2458824

[400Years]

21. right here is an example

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2458619#2458667

[melissaf]

36. Any more examples?

Because from what I've seen, most of the posters I've seen debating this issue try to shut down anyone whose opinion isn't "Hackett was betrayed, down with the Democrats!!!"

I personally was accused of wanting to rob the voters of Ohio of their democratic rights (or some such drivel) because I was advocating looking at all sides of the issue before flying off the handle. And if ad hominem attacks on fellow DUers are the only way for the Hackett supporters to defend themselves, I don't have much respect for them.

[sui generis]

57. you haven't been here long enough to really be offended

;)

Some days you give it, some days you get it. Some days d all of the above.

People who supported Hackett feel betrayed by the system. There are other people here who are gloating, or at least playing the "we're with the winning team" crap that grade schoolers play. It's not a good starting point for rational discussion.

And our bullshit detectors are ringing too; which is a bad thing whether you liked Hackett or not.

[DancingBear]

35. I just went to your link

This does not seem to be an attack, but rather a link to the Cleveland Plain Dealer which has published the "pilfering" article.

I would think this is fair game, and as much as I hate to say this it could be good to get this out now, for I am sure our friends on the other side of the aisle have an ad already made up.

Accusing someone of stealing funds, or lying, or something of that magnitude predicated on made-up allegations is what is troubling to me, no matter who uses it.

This, however, seems like something that Sherrod will have to deal with.

It's an honest shot to the gut - no below the belt punching here - at least to me.

[Cocoa]

38. I think it's throwing all the crap you can find at someone

that kind of crap could be done against anyone. Was it done against Hackett? Any dirt thrown on him? (calling him a wuss doesn't count as dirt).

[DancingBear]

44. If he was the candidate, and the bad guy found it, they'd better throw it!

Boy, I'd bounce 'em off my campaign staff so fast it would make their head spin if they didn't.

And remember, AFAIK no one from Hackett's staff used this in any way against Sherrod. This was found by a DU'er, and posted for edification.

You're right that this crap can be used against anyone - remember that come November, because it will be all over the Ohio airwaves.

Sad, but true. And again, not a cheap shot.

Crap - yes, but this is one time I must say that this is indeed part and parcel of attempting to Paint your opponent in the colors you like, and that IS politics.

[Cocoa]

45. yeah, I'm familiar with that rationalization

unfortuantely it makes no sense in the case I posted. Hackett had dropped out. The poster was throwing dirt on Brown, pure and simple.

[DancingBear]

52. Why is it dirt?

Is it true?

That is what you must ask.

If it is, believe me DU is the least of Sherrod Brown's problems.

From little acorns and all that stuff.

John Kerry got killed by one ludicrous ad.

Sherrod could just as easily get killed by one article.

Please -don't kill the messenger -fix the message.

For all our sakes.

[rogue emissary]

22. Hell yes

Other candidates have run against the beltway and won without them. That's how they can honestly call themselves outsiders.