Let's Compare Brown and Hackett On One Hot Button Issue

[ruggerson]

For those of you who keep telling us that Brown is as upfront, honest and outspoken as Hackett.

Compare and contrast when Sherrod Brown and Paul Hackett are asked about gay marriage, certainly a hot button issue in Ohio.

Which one of them has the guts to answer the question directly, forthrightly and courageously and which one of them dances around with Inside-the-Beltway, professional Democratic party-pol avoidance double-speak?

First, take Sherrod Brown:


Q: On some social issues, particularly gay marriage, you appear to disagree with a majority of Ohioans.

A: BROWN: "Mike DeWine and I both opposed Issue 1 last year (the state gay marriage ban); so I think that's kind of a wash. The issues in this campaign are about family security. And family security means better wages, better health care, more opportunity to send your kids to college."



Second, Paul Hackett:


Q: Define being "pro-gay rights"?

A: HACKETT: "Anybody who tries to deny homosexuals the same rights, including marriage, as every other citizen is un-American"

Q: Are you saying that the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted in November 2004 to constitutionally deny same-sex marriages are un-American?

A: HACKETT: "If what they believe is that we’re going to have a scale on judging which Americans have equal rights, yeah, that’s un-American. They’ve got to accept that. It’s absolutely un-American."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't tell the difference between these two guys, you don't understand the first thing about what millions of voters are yearning to hear from their leaders.

DISCLAIMER: I will support Brown enthusiastically. I want every last Democrat elected in '06. But don't expect myself and others to not feel that Hackett was treated in a very unfortunate manner by the leadership of the Democratic party and don't expect us not to be disappointed that we have been temporarily cheated out of supporting a fighting, outspoken leader who actually has the strength and the guts to tell the truth.

[MercutioATC]

1. And THAT is what I think our leaders should be.

I thought we had a shot with Howard Dean (at least he's now the DNC chair).

I saw Hackett as another potential leader who would speak his mind and not mince words.

I thought this Toledo Blade article touched on that:

http://www.hackettforohio.com/newsroom/93/honestly-whats-the-gimmick

[noamnety]

2. both answers are good

Brown is using it as an opportunity to state his position clearly, and taking the opportunity to reframe the issue as family security, and draw attention to more important issues.

Hackett is framing the gay marriage issue as a civil rights issue, strongly.

We need people who can do both of those things.



(I remain extremely ticked off at the audacity of party leaders to decide primaries are inappropriate, however, as a matter of principal.)

[ruggerson]

3. I read it completely differently

I think he's trying to draw attention away from it, not willing to step up the plate with a strong statement, and defining "family security" as an issue APART from gay marriage.
I would be delighted if he would include same sex marriage as part of his definition of "family security" but I don't see him doing that at all. At best, it's a wishy-washy, politician's answer. Very unlike Hackett's.

[noamnety]

4. I guess you're right

I read too much into that on the first go round. I think I'm still okay with it, he's clear he supports gay marriage, but also clear he doesn't think it's what the overall campaign should be focused on. If he HAD related it to family security, though, and then talked about the other family security issues that affect all of us, it could have been a great answer.

[Cocoa]

5. Brown knows gay marriage is a wedge issue

like flag burning.

He knows if the OH senate race becomes defined by the Rove-designed wedge issues, he loses. If he makes it about unifying issues like jobs and healthcare, he wins.

[ruggerson]

9. It's only a wedge issue

because we let people like Rove define the framing, thus the other side of the argument never gets made because people like Brown buy into Rove's setting of the agenda.

"Pro life" politicians only have about 30% of the public that agrees with them, but because they are principled and bold and are unafraid to frame it as an important moral issue for them, nominal pro choice voters overlook the disagreement on the issue and see a principled politician. Reagan, Bush I and Bush II all got elected in a pro choice country by being passionate and strong about their belief system.

Hackett was doing just that on gay marriage. Strongly framing it as a matter of equality and framing opponents, at the same time, as "un-American." It's called conviction and leadership.

We only let "Rove designed" wedge issues like this work, because we play into their hands and instead of forcefully challenging them on those issues, we go along with THEIR framing.

[Cocoa]

13. I think Hackett is the one who fell for the framing

Rove wants a culture war, and Hackett is serving it up on a silver platter.

Fuck the culture war. The Ohio senate race should be about jobs and health care.

[ruggerson]

26. So a strong pro civil rights position has no place

in your short list of where a candidates should take an unflinching stand?

Why bother to run for office?

[Cocoa]

28. where did I say that?

[ruggerson]

31. Right here:

"Fuck the culture war. The Ohio senate race should be about jobs and health care"

The culture war, such as it is, is about equal rights under the constitution and about privacy rights for all Americans.

I see it differently than you. I think those things are equally as important as jobs and health care and I want a politician who isn't afraid to talk about it.

[Cocoa]

33. you're right

you see it different from me.

I don't see falling for the culture wars as standing up for civil rights. Whenever there's a vote for flag burning, I urge my reps to vote for the phony flag burning law. Fuck the culture wars.

[Doctor_J]

6. I'll never understand how we got to the point where civil rights

are subject to referenda.

[SaveElmer]

7. Lets look at Hackett and Brown on a couple other Hot Button Issues

Immigration

Hackett

The Bush administration, Mr. Hackett said, “is willing to let illegals come in and take the jobs of Americans.” The answer made several of the young Democrats squirm in their seats.

One pushed Mr. Hackett to clarify. “Deport them?” Mr. Hackett was asked. “If we can afford to,” Mr. Hackett said, “yeah.”

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013764.html


Brown

Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment.
Vote to pass the bill that would require hospitals to gather and report information on possible illegal aliens before hospitals can be reimbursed for treating them. The bill would also make employers liable for the reimbursements if an undocumented employee seeks medical attention, unless the employer meets particular conditions for exemption. The bill would specify that hospitals aren't required to provide care to undocumented aliens if they can be transported to their home country without a significant chance of worsening their condition.
Reference: Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments; Bill HR 3722 ; vote number 2004-182 on May 20, 2004

Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules.
Vote on motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would extend by four months a law allowing some immigrants to remain in the country while pursuing legal residency.

http://www.issues2000.org/International/Sherrod_Brown_Immigration.htm


Gun Issues

Hackett

Hackett loves guns, and loves talking about them, especially to squeamish liberals such as the campaign staffers whom he delighted in taking out shooting on the weekend. He declares flatly that Dem- ocrats are “wrong on guns. I think they need to accept that.” During the campaign, he’d quietly reassure skeptics that he supported enforcing existing federal gun laws, but it was his enthusiasm for hot lead that won him converts.

“I always thought gun control was when you hit your target,” he chuckled to a guy in a T-shirt in front of the GE factory gate.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/11/paul_hackett.html

Brown

Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse.
Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit liability lawsuits from being brought against gun manufacturers and dealers based on the criminal misuse of firearms. The bill would also block these actions from being brought up against gun trade organizations and against ammunition makers and sellers. The measure would apply immediately to any pending cases. Several specific exceptions to the ban exist. This includes civil suits would be allowed against a maker or dealer who "knowingly and willfully violated" state or federal laws in the selling or marketing of a weapon. Design and manufacturing defect lawsuits are also permitted when weapons are "used as intended.
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill HR 1036 ; vote number 2003-124 on Apr 9, 2003

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
Vote to pass a bill requiring anyone who purchases a gun at a gun show to go through an instant background check which must be completed within 24 hours .
Reference: Bill introduced by McCollum, R-FL; Bill HR 2122 ; vote number 1999-244 on Jun 18, 1999

Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.

http://www.issues2000.org/OH/Sherrod_Brown_Gun_Control.htm

[derby378]

15. You forgot one...

Last I heard, Sherrod Brown actually supports reinstating the semi-auto ban that expired in 2004.

[ruggerson]

17. Not only do I agree with Hackett on both guns and illegals

he again spoke his beliefs simply, honestly and without the usual waffling and straddling that most politicians engage in when talking about "hot button" or cultural issues.

I don't think we know yet how profoundly his voice could have resonated with the voters.

[SaveElmer]

21. If you ask me...

His responses to both issues were flippant and cold hearted. Displays a lack of compassion at the very least for victims of gun violence and for the plight of people who felt the only way they could provide for themselves was to come here.

[ruggerson]

30. I couldn't disagree more

I'm a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, I think we have to respect the rights of gun owners if we want to have credibility with a huge swath of the electorate and I think if people are here illegally (that is, contrary to the LAWS of the land), we have every right as a country to remedy and redress criminal behavior. We are, after all, a land of laws, not a land of what we would like the laws to be. If someone disgrees with immigration statutes, work to change them. But don't support violating them.

[SaveElmer]

32. I was talking about his comments...

Seperate from his stands on these issues. The "Gun control means aiming straight" is flippant, and does not denote any compassion for gun victims.

Same with his immigrant comments.

As to his positions, the second amendment canard is why Democrats lose on this issue. There are precious few Democrats who actually believe all guns should be outlawed, or that gun owners should have their weapons confiscated. Reasonable resrtictions on the type of gun one may own, and under what conditions have been upheld many times as constitutional.

I agree illegal immigration is a large problem, but focusing our efforts on deporting and harrassing those who are here already will not solve the problem. It's like treating the measles by having the measles surgically removed...doesn't mean you don't still have a problem. Focus should be on why these poor people feel the need to come here in the first place, and how our policies have helped create the situation.

[Pryderi]

8. I believe most Americans like someone who speaks plainly. Even people who

disagree appreciate knowing exactly where someone stands without political considerations.

[ruggerson]

10. Bingo. Exactly right. n/t

[Pryderi]

11. Bernie Sanders is an example.

[Cocoa]

34. Bernie Sanders said the exact same thing as Brown did

At the root of this problem is a Democratic Party that has been, for at least 30 years, wishy-washy on economic issues facing working families. Having received large campaign contributions from the wealthy and the powerful, many Democrats have refused to stand up to the corporate interests waging vicious class warfare. While many Democrats have focused on such important issues as women's and gay rights, the environment, civil liberties and war and peace, the needs of working families have not received adequate attention. The result is that a majority of lower-income Americans no longer votes, and of those who do, many don't see a clear difference between the two major parties.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political/HowKerryCanWin_Sanders.html

[Cocoa]

12. not me

I think the more a candidate uses "plain speaking" as a calling card, the less they have going for them.

I've always preferred thoughtful, nuanced candidates like Russ Feingold or John Kerry, over the "have a beer with" folks.

[Pryderi]

14. Nuanced is fine, as long as it isn't political calculation/triangulation

etc

[Cocoa]

16. it's not

[WildEyedLiberal]

18. You and me

Apparently we're a minority.

BTW I have had a beer with John Kerry, and he's quite warm, relaxed, genuine, and fun! He knows that there's a time and a place for being casual, and and a time and a place for being dignified and statesmanlike. Best of both worlds, I say.

[Pryderi]

19. So...anyone who likes a plain speaker is a disingenous drunkard?

[WildEyedLiberal]

24. Er, that's quite a leap. n/t

[ruggerson]

20. Nuance loses elections

candidates can be nuanced and thoughtful in private. But in public, if they want to win, they have to convey their message in powerful sound bites.

Plain speaking is an art. It does not necessarily have to go hand in hand with anti intellectualism.

[Pryderi]

22. Agreed. n/t!

[Cocoa]

23. nope

see Alan Keyes vs. Barack Obama.

The nuanced Obama obliterated the firebrand Alan Keyes.

[WildEyedLiberal]

25. But it panders to anti-intellectualism

"We don't need no stinkin' complex sentences! Mebbe I kin throw in a few cuss words and really wow 'em!"

Being plain-spoken doesn't have to be that way, but insisting that it's a requirement for office is pretty much acquiescing to the forces in our society that want to obliterate higher education.

[ruggerson]

27. You're assuming that "plain speaking"

is the cracker version that Bush propounds.

Hackett is very plain spoken and comes across NOTHING like Bush. Again, you can be plain spoken and smart. And convey that.

[1932]

29. better wages, better health care, more opportunity to send your kids to...

college.

I like that.

[Cocoa]

35. Bernie Sanders sides with Brown over Hackett

Sees the real battle as a class conflict

At the root of this problem is a Democratic Party that has been, for at least 30 years, wishy-washy on economic issues facing working families. Having received large campaign contributions from the wealthy and the powerful, many Democrats have refused to stand up to the corporate interests waging vicious class warfare. While many Democrats have focused on such important issues as women's and gay rights, the environment, civil liberties and war and peace, the needs of working families have not received adequate attention. The result is that a majority of lower-income Americans no longer votes, and of those who do, many don't see a clear difference between the two major parties.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political/HowKerryCanWin_Sanders.html