Here's The Thing About Hackett

[ruggerson]

What Paul Hackett represented to many of us is a breathtaking prism through which we could view politics as it should be; as a vehicle for true representation of individual voters, instead of status quo, corporate domination of the process.

The spark he elicited in people is primarily due to the overwhelming thirst that tens of millions of Americans have for honesty, forthrightness and authenticity in their political system.

It's almost irrelevant to point to polling numbers from December that indicate that Mr. Brown may have taken the primary in a walk. To do so misses the point. Mr. Brown, while undoubtedly close to many of us on the issues, represents politics as usual. Progressive politics, to be sure, but politics still dominated by party strictures, party rules, corporate monies, Washington customs and calculatedly motivated caution on hot button issues.

Paul Hackett talked to another part of our soul. Sure, he was not uniformly "liberal" on every issue of the day, but that only reinforced the joyous glow of his non-slickness; he talked from his gut and he was AUTHENTIC. And bold. And unafraid.

There are many of us yearning with our hearts and minds and souls for truly authentic politicians. Ones who speak their minds, speak truth to power, ones who can help spark a people's true reclamation of their government.

This is the temporary loss we feel in Hackett's withdrawal. It is a sharp, painful loss, an angry loss, but one which ultimately will merely strengthen and reinforce the desire to take control back of our representative democratic republic.

Paul Hackett spoke to those feelings in many of us, and his campaign(s) have already changed the dynamics for many voters. We won't accept less as easily when we now know that the reality is we really don't have to settle.

Mr. Hackett will be back. Of that I am certain. You see, when you're the real deal, you just don't fade away.

[Blue Belle]

1. WRITE IN CAMPAIGN.

Grass roots. Door to door. all volunteer. Write in campaign.

That's what I wish would happen. No corporate money... just word of mouth.

[noamnety]

2. can you do that in a primary? (nt)

[Blue Belle]

3. I don't know.

But the way votes are counted anymore... I think EVERYONE should use the write in option.

[rexcat]

37. A write in candidate has to have the paperwork completed and

turned in to the BOE so they can be an official "write-in" candidate. If not, the votes aren't counted in Ohio. I found this out in the last election as a precinct judge . It sucks!

[LynneSin]

10. Oh pul-lease!

:eyes:

From 'The Nation' which is a pretty progressive magazine:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060215/cm_thenation/1559896;_ylt=A86.I1sYifNDHz8ARgb9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--
But it appears that an even bigger factor was a poll that showed Hackett trailing far behind his progressive primary opponent, U.S. Representative Sherrod Brown (news, bio, voting record). With the filing deadline for the May Democratic primary rapidly approaching, Hackett was confronted with new numbers from his own pollster, which showed Brown was ahead among likely voters by an almost 2-1 margin -- 46 percent for the congressman to 24 percent for Hackett.

Paul had a choice and he choose to quit. I think our time, money and effort would be better spent on candidates who actually want to run for office. And if you're looking for real grassroots candidates fighting Goliaths in the democratic primaries there are great opportunities in Montana, Pennsylvania and Connecticut to name a few.

[Armstead]

4. There's good professional politicians and bad ones....Brown is a good one

[nickshepDEM]

5. I sure as hell hope your right. Im really, really, really pissed off

about this whole thing. I mean, its to the point where I may not donate any money or time to anyone. Thats how serious I am about my support for Hackett, and I cant even vote for the man.

[OzarkDem]

7. Are you planning to vote?

If so, I suggest you check out Sherrod Brown and his record. He has a long, long history of fighting for working people and not backing down.

Recall, he had the nerve to tell Colin Powell that Bush went AWOL during Vietnam at a hearing in Congress.

[LynneSin]

11. If you knew anything about Sherrod Brown he's someone DUers can support

not that I'm saying we all need to donate to him. But this guy has been anti-war and anti-patriot act from the get-go. He's was one of the strongest voices fighting against CAFTA.

There's more to the story than just what Paul Hackett said. I'm not calling him a liar, I'm just saying that there are two sides to every story and then there is the truth. Personally, if I could vote in Ohio (and let's face it, no one can because of Diebold), without a doubt Brown would have been the candidate of choice for me. Paul Hackett was a strong voice against the war but after that he was a virtual unknown that has made many stances on other issues come off more to the extreme right, especially with immigration. He was too much of a wild card that for a house seat I would be fine with but a senate seat, Brown was the better package.

There are other great races out there than you can support. Me? I probably wasn't even going to do much with the Ohio races knowing that I was less than a hour from three PA congressional races where we have a chance to pick-up seats.

[nickshepDEM]

13. Im familiar with Brown. Im more or less upset that the dem leadership

pushed out a U.S. Marine and Iraq War Veteran. Something about that just bothers the hell out of me.

[LynneSin]

27. Like I've said - we've heard Paul's story

and there is always two sides to every story out there

[LynneSin]

38. I wish people would stop saying "PUSH"

because honestly, we're all jumping on board and assuming that's what happened.

Personally I believe that when the numbers came out (and The Nation even reported this) that they wanted Paul in a position for sucess and he was not suceeding at getting the numbers & money needed to win Ohio. Emmanuel of the DCCC really wanted the guy to run for OH02 where Paul probably would be sucessful. This is how DSCC/DCCC/DNC works - trying to get candidates in position so they can be sucessful.

Paul was NOT pushed out. DSCC provides money for campaigns and surely they are not going to give money/endorsements to a race that has not proven sucessful. DCCC does the same thing and they WANTED him because they knew he would be sucessful in his congressional district. Paul decided he didn't want any of it and walked. He's frustrated, he vented BUT HE WALKED - his choice. DSCC cannot boot someone out of a race and there are many many other states with grassroots activists fighting uphill battles that have NOT caved to any pressure. (Most notably in Pennsylvania and Montana).

As for Paul being a military person we've got like 56 of them including at least two Iraq Vets running for house seats in Pennsylvania (which would be pickups if they win).

I know I seem harping on the issue but I get concerned to see everyone jump on the one side of the bandwagon and make assumptions about the other. Hell, I'm probably doing it too. I truly believe that we had two sides that could not come to aggreeance and Paul walked & vented.

[Awsi Dooger]

26. Agreed, nickshepDEM, I'm beyond pissed off; nearly to resignation

In fact, this is easily the worst I've felt since joining DU. Losing in 2002 and 2004 was understandable due to the impact of 9/11 on party identification and specific voting trends, specifically among white women. I even understood the elevation of John Kerry as our nominee even though the rationale was horrible and I emphasized that at the time. Against an incumbent the resume is virtually meaningless. You need charisma and a positive message to draw from the center.

This Ohio senate race was a party litmus test and we flunked with remarkable precision. Everything revolves around proper handicapping and therefore margin for error. You can't forfeit 2-3% before the polls ever open simply based on your own stoic stupidity. Ohio is a state that defaults 2-4 points Republican. A gamble on greatness is required in a race like that. Sherrod Brown has no chance.

Meanwhile, look at what the GOP is doing with Lynn Swann in Pennsylvania. That is brilliant, demonstrating no fear. Only a unique challenger has a chance to defeat an politically savvy incumbent like Ed Rendell in a state that tilts 2-4 points Democratic like Pennsylvania. You hardly see Rove and Co. fretting that Swann trails big in the current polls, and isn't the logical nominee based on ho-hum rise up the ladder in state politics. They grasp the big picture and the unique handicapping criteria based on the individual state and race. We are beyond clueless in that regard and it is fatal. It's like the NFL Draft and one team enhances its future by astute evaluation in the later rounds, subtle picks that don't grab headlines but have huge significance down the road. Until we find an all powerful party chief who dictates who our nominees will be, we're stuck in the minority and have earned it.

[MercutioATC]

6. That's exactly what I feel we need...REAL politicians,

not business as usual.

Brown will make a good Senator but one has only to look at his part in the Hackett issue to see that he's a career politician...all back-room deals and power struggle. If that's the kind of person you want running the country, fine. I want something different.

[Armstead]

8. Backroom deals and power struggles is politics

That's the nature of the beast.

The question that matters is to what purpose those struggles and deals are being directed towards.

I'd rather havce someone fighting for me in the backrooms.

[MercutioATC]

21. I guess our views differ.

I want a politician who doesn't buy into all of that stuff.

Occasionally, one comes around.

[Armstead]

34. Who? I can't recall any,

Bernie Sanders is a master at backroom wheeling and dealing. So are most of the others who are considered progressive grass roots populists.

[1932]

9. I wish people could get as excited about committed progressives

who care about working people, even if they've never served in the armed forces or defined themselves totally by their opposition to some aspects of the Iraq invasion.

[LynneSin]

12. AMEN

:D

[GoneOffShore]

14. I completely agree

It looks to me as if this whole thing over Hackett is being blown out of proportion.

Hackett took a strong stance, and then couldn't deal with the rough and tumble. Brown has taken strong progressive stances all along, and because he's supported by Schumer and Reid, suddenly he's a bad guy?

Hackett is/was a "single issue" "politician" who, from what I've read about him and his stances has about the same knowledge of the issues as Lynn Swann. (Maybe a little bit more, but not much).

As I suggested in another thread, perhaps Hackett is actually a REPDAD (Republican disguised as a Democrat, which is slightly different animal than a DINO but the same species) sent, by KKKarl Rove, to sow the seeds of dissension among Ohio Dems.

Considering all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that's been going on over Hackett, who looks like he would have had trouble winning the DEMOCRATIC Primary, one would have thought that he was the second coming of FDR, rather than just a guy who went to Iraq, had a road to Damascus conversion from Republicanism, and called Shrub an SOB.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Look over your head!......the point is passing by.....

It ain't about Hackett or Brown; both are fine upstanding citizens who obviously appeal to many here and everywhere for different/same reasons.

The point is......the maneuvering by the party leaders.

Many here already feel somewhat helpless.....and this move just didn't help. It's a perfect example of being patronized by those who think they know better than you. Same ones that vote for a war that didn't have to be fought (and most here knew that). Same ones who brought you the Patriot Act, etc., etc., etc.

Plus it ain't about the primaries, it's about the general elections. Who can win that? That's the real question party leaders should have asked themselves before making "pronouncements". Strategically speaking, it really does depend on the geography of it all....doesn't it?

[1932]

17. You don't think the party leaders want to win?

I think Reid and Schumer want to win. They want to win individual races and they want to win with committed progressives who reaffirm the broader ideas about what Democrats believe in.

[FrenchieCat]

18. It's like.....do the party leaders have any power

outside of the party?

Didn't think so!

Wanting something and making it happen are not the same thing. Once they show that they can make it happen, then maybe I'll have some "benefit of the doubt" to gift to them.

You see, thus far when they say one thing and I say another....I win. So I won't argue that they might "want" to win. That ain't the problem.

[1932]

39. Brown beats Hackett 2:1 and Dewine 43:38. I wonder how Hackett was

doing against DeWine in his internal polling?


I don't doubt that you have a very coherent set of ideas about what will be successful in general elections, but the proof is in the numbers.

Of course, with a good strategy, you could be behind one day and ahead another. But I'm sure politicians take into account the trajectory they see their strategies taking when they look at their internal polls.

[Doremus]

19. They may want to win, too bad they haven't figured out how.

i.e., they've sure picked a spate of losers here in Ohio the last 20 years.

As to the poll numbers posted upthread, I'd be very interested in knowing the locations of those polled. If they called mainly northern Ohio, everybody knows Sherrod, and we're one of the few Democratic strongholds in the state.

Ohioans down south and west are more rural, conservative, and far more likely to vote for a straight-talking vet than a citified liberal. Those are the same people who gave * his 2nd term, btw, despite the fact that the economy here sucks and jobs evaporate faster than the morning fog.

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. do you feel Brown is too liberal/progressive to win?

[brentspeak]

22. You forgot to include a "tin-foil" smiley in your post

"As I suggested in another thread, perhaps Hackett is actually a REPDAD (Republican disguised as a Democrat, which is slightly different animal than a DINO but the same species) sent, by KKKarl Rove, to sow the seeds of dissension among Ohio Dems."

Congratulations. On a day of many stupid posts, yours wins the top prize.

[Aaaargh]

31. Nope

Your buddy makes more sense talking this way.

[Douglas Carpenter]

35. here! here! Mr. Brown is at least as liberal as Sen. Kennedy or Feingold

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

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 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 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 Education Association 89 percent in 2003-2004.

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 AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

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

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.

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.

[dolstein]

16. Corproate domination of the process? You've got to be kidding.

If any groups dominate the Democratic nomination process, it's the unions, civil rights groups, environmental groups and NARAL. Sure, there are occasional exceptions -- Ed Rendell managed to clear the path for Bob Casey to get the Democratic senate nomination in Pennsylvania, but groups like NARAL and Emily's List screamed bloody murder.

Do you hear ANY of these Democratic interest groups making any noise about Hackett's withdrawal from the race?

[Dr Fate]

20. There is also plenty of corporate money in elections. n/t

n/t

[dolstein]

23. Please identify the corporations that pressured Hackett to drop out

NT

[Dr Fate]

24. Or you could identify the Democratic interest groups that did this.

I was not even going down that road-

One would be naive to think big corporate donors don't try to influence who the party bosses may or may not support in the nomination process.

I agree with you that those entrenched interest groups also have influence-I just think your post was a little one sided.

[Aaaargh]

25. Thanks, Mr. Ruggerson

Great post, very well said! A whole lot of us here in Ohio sure hope you're right about Hackett coming back. We need him, and many more like him.

[Aaaargh]

28. Hackett and Democratic Party credibility

We DO want to represent middle-class Americans and win elections, right?

"...But this isn't about Paul Hackett. It's about the credibility that he brought to the national conversation on the war in Iraq. The issue is debated on the Senate floor by men and women who have likely never experienced war, let alone this war. It baffles me that we cannot, as a nation, agree that it is a worthwhile endeavor to send at least one person with firsthand experience to debate (and vote on) the future course of our military's engagement in Iraq.

Today, the Veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are a jump-ball. Members of the military past and present were once regarded as the Republican party's most reliable voting block. That is no longer the case, as evidenced by the fact that eight of the nine Iraq War Veterans now running for office are running as Democrats, if only because they are opposed to the status quo. But this isn't an issue to be defined along party lines. As I've said many times before, the Republicans got us into this mess and the Democrats don't have a plan to get us out.

Isn't it time we turned to those men and women with real credibility on the issue to lead us in the right direction?"

from 'The Worst Kind of Politics: Paul Hackett is Shown the Door,' by Paul Rieckhoff, 2-14-06
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-rieckhoff/the-worst-kind-of-politic_b_15662.html

[Cocoa]

29. the values you say Hackett represents are real, but superficial

Any newcomer automatically has that advantage over an experienced politician, they appear more "authentic", etc. There is some truth there, no doubt about it.

But much more important, imo, so much more important that it's no contest, are other, deeper values like committment to a coherent set of ideals. That's what Sherrod Brown represents to me.

That's why I'm so encouraged that the party backed Brown. I find the arguments about Hackett's electibility credible, and so I see the party's support of Brown as a move in the direction of standing for something of substance, over an unknown that has an edge because of his "freshness."

[Aaaargh]

30. But for the OH Senate race this year -- the case for Brown

From a LTE in today's Cleveland Plain Dealer:

"Brown to U.S. Senate

Now that it looks as if the race for the Senate in Ohio will be between Mike DeWine, the Republican, and Sherrod Brown, the Democrat, Ohioans have a very clear-cut choice to make. They can continue to vote for DeWine, who supports billions of dollars for a war we were led into by lies and has no end in sight, billions of dollars in trade and budget deficits, and more votes for NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR, etc., while our state and nation hemorrhage well-paying manufacturing jobs. All of this in the name of compassionate conservatism.

Sherrod Brown will put the working men and women of Ohio first, not last. He will vote for fair trade, not cheap labor trade deals. He would be a leader in the Senate to guarantee health care for every American citizen, not just the ones who can afford it. He will be a strong voice for the people who have had no voice under this present administration. Brown's election to the U.S. Senate would be a step in the right direction for Ohio.

Enough corruption, enough pay to play. Vote Sherrod Brown for the U.S. Senate."

-- Jack Hefner, vice president and rapid response coordinator for the United Steelworkers of America Local 2L.

Of course, what we have to worry about now is that the corporatist party leadership may have only made Brown their pick to knock Hackett out of the way, and will not really give him their full support in this campaign. That sort of thing has definitely happened before in recent years in Ohio races. We'll see.

In any case, Brown should not be made the scapegoat for Schumer's and the DSCC's betrayal of Ohio voters. He's a good man with a good record, and if he's to be the nominee, he deserves the full support of traditional Democrats.

[Cocoa]

32. what would be the motive for that?

"the corporatist party leadership may have only made Brown their pick to knock Hackett out of the way, and will not really give him their full support in this campaign."

And if Brown is a "good man," as you say, why would he go along with this nefarious plot? Or is he just a dupe?

Again, what is the motive? Is it about immigration, is the dem establishment beholden to illegal immigrants who don't agree with Hackett's vow to deport all of them?

[formernaderite]

33. if true, then why did he drop out?

come on...this is to pat of an explanation. He should have stayed in the primary, he was beholden to no one but the people who sent him their support. His primary mistake, was trying to run as a stealth repub in his last race against Mean Jean. And before you argue....did you watch those campaign spots? Him and Bush? You're NOT authentic when you're trying to hide the fact you're a democrat.