"DLC" liked Paul Hackett - said he'd be a good candidate against DeWine.

[mzmolly]

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=177&contentid=253583

Paul Hackett's near-win in Ohio's 2nd Congressional District should give Democrats a confidence boost for 2006.

But Democratic optimism rests on more than just recent trends in the news. There has been a test case: a special election in August in Ohio's 2nd Congressional District, normally an extremely safe Republican seat, in which first-time Democratic candidate Paul Hackett stunned the political world by nearly pulling off an upset victory Hackett lost the seat by only 4 points, 52-48. This is the same district that Bush won with 64 percent of the vote just nine months earlier, and then-incumbent GOP Rep. Rob Portman won with 72 percent. Bush later appointed Portman to be the U.S. trade representative, leaving the seat vacant and setting up the special election. Hackett, an Iraq war veteran, lost to Republican former state legislator Jean Schmidt by fewer than 4,000 votes out of 114,000 cast.

That was unquestionably a good sign. ... the race had three particular features that could have important implications for potential Democratic strategies in 2006.

... To put it another way, a three- to five-point increase in the Democratic vote in exurban, rural and small-town Ohio would probably swing the whole state in the party's direction in the gubernatorial and Senate elections of 2006. Hackett did that at least three times over. It's no wonder that national party figures are hoping he will run against vulnerable Republican Sen. Mike DeWine next year.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=177&contentid=253583

Food for thought.

[MrBenchley]

1. According to the Progressive Purist brigade, he SHOULD have been purged

But they're up in arms, imagining that they got what they have been screaming for....

Funny how that works....

[mzmolly]

2. Yeah,

funny. ;)

[iconoclastNYC]

3. What in the hell is a progressive purist?

You people who defend the DLC crack me up.

The DLC is a cancer in our party.

[The Magistrate]

4. So We May Put You Down As Happy, Then, Sir

That their favored candidate has been removed from the Senate race in Ohio?

[mzmolly]

7. : )

:popcorn:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

10. Not many folks ARE left of Joe Lieberman

But don't let any facts get in your way.

[jsamuel]

11. ...

:rofl:

[MrBenchley]

16. Yeah, you got no facts to get in the way....

[ClassWarrior]

18. You mean facts like...

...Progressive DUers are "purists" who favor "purges," are "up in arms," and "have been screaming?"

:rofl:

NGU.

[MrBenchley]

29. Yeah, those are the kinds of facts lacking in his post....

[RazzleDazzle]

54. Far more than you imagine are

[MrBenchley]

63. Well, the lunatic fringe is....

But in the Senate (or the population as a whole), damn few are as liberal as the man our "progressive purists" love to hate.

[Moochy]

91. They are all better than that.

good breeding and all, keeps the riff raff from ever rising to our "House of Lords."

[MrBenchley]

9. What do you suppose it is?

"You people who defend the DLC crack me up."
Then the feeling's mutual. Because I never fail to get a kick out of the specimens who wail that John Kerry or Hillary Clinton's not a true Democrat.

[LincolnMcGrath]

68. "Progressive Purist is just the attack meme of the day.

Some might call it MrBenchley's one note opus...(snicker)

There really is no level too low for some of the Democrat haters here on DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=412199&mesg_id=414184

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=413848&mesg_id=414087

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=413848&mesg_id=413904

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=413954#414109

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=414458&mesg_id=414747

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=452373&mesg_id=452480

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2459183&mesg_id=2459301

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2459183&mesg_id=2459450

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2460894&mesg_id=2461217

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2458865&mesg_id=2461234

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2458629&mesg_id=2461274

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2460751&mesg_id=2461960

Honesty is optional I guess...

[Dr Fate]

96. Snicker! Snort! Chortle! n/t

n/t

[ClassWarrior]

6. I find it hysterical that Progressives have been subject to this kind...

...of treatment by party machines for decades, yet when for once it happens to a Progressive candidate's advantage, suddenly there are all kinds of questionable people shouting "purge."

Give me a break.

NGU.

[mzmolly]

8. Excellent point!

:hi:

[ClassWarrior]

15. Now quit screaming.

LOL

:hi:

NGU.

[mzmolly]

19. THIS IS SCREAMING!!!

This is enthusiasm! :P

;) :hi:

[LincolnMcGrath]

60. You know what else is funny?

When that article was written, (an article analyzing the specials, NOT endorsing Paul Hackett, BTW) You thought the DLC was idiotic.

And you clearly do not like Paul Hackett, but endorse the DLC. (Now Anyway!)

What gives?

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[LincolnMcGrath]

65. Should I post them in blocks of ten or twenty.

:shrug:

[Moochy]

93. On the Road to Damascus

A reading from the Acts of From 9.

As he traveled, it happened that as he left DC, and suddenly a light from the sky shone around him.
He said, "Who are you, From?" The From said, "I am Al From, whom you are persecuting."

"But rise up, and enter into the boiler room, and you will be told what you must do."
The men who travelled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one.
MrBenchley arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened, he saw no one.
They led him by the hand, and brought him back into DLC basement."

[MrBenchley]

100. Feel free to post anything I've ever written...

It's clear you got nothing to say yourself worth hearing....

[DancingBear]

12. Um, evrybody thought Paul Hackett was a good candidate

That's the point, you see.

[mzmolly]

13. Many voters in OH were not familiar with him until they were push polled.

I don't think that jibes with "everybody thought he was a good candidate." If everybody thought so, he'd have raised more than 200k.

I liked Hackett and I supported him FINANCIALLY, for the record.

[DancingBear]

23. Sez who?

They sure knew him in OH-02.

And how many were familiar with Sherrod Brown? I'm as much a political junkie as the next person and until he started running ads on DU I never heard of him.

If you have info re: the push polling argument, please post it. I'd be interested in seeing it, because I had not heard that before.

And I sent him a few fishnagle$ myself... :)

[mzmolly]

30. Linkypoo

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/2/14/193851/113

:hi:

Funny how Mother Jones quoted the poll without quoting the fact that it was basically a "push poll."

[DancingBear]

34. Thanks for the link

but I don't understand how it proves/disproves anything.

What was his internal pollster supposed to do? I'm guessing he was looking for the appropriate way to frame Hackett's candicacy, and was probably looking to use those responses to begin to build the frame.



:hi:

[mzmolly]

37. True, but people use this poll as as "proof" that

Hackett was beating Brown in recent polls - that's just not so.

[cosmicdot]

28. only raised $200K? ... so the facts at opensecrets.org are incorrect?

how does not 'raised more than 200k" jive with "Raised: $1,334,881 (last report 12/21/2005)?


Paul Hackett (D)

Raised: $1,334,881 <------------
Spent: $1,079,946
Cash on hand: $254,933
Last Report: 12/31/2005

PACs: $66,596 (5%)
Individuals: $1,253,490 (94%)
Candidate: $0 -
Other: $14,795 (1%)


Sherrod Brown (D)

Raised: $817,932 <------------
Spent: $551,785
Cash on hand: $2,368,982


PACs: $343,369 (42%)
Individuals: $424,821 (52%)
Candidate: $0 -
Other: $49,742 (6%)

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?ID=OHS1&Cycle=2006

Sharrod Brown (House campaign info)

2003-2004 Total Receipts: $1,047,900
2003-2004 Total Spent: $601,435
Cash on Hand: $2,102,835
Debts: $0
Date of last report: December 31, 2004

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?CID=N00003535&cycle=2004

[mzmolly]

32. Excuse me only HAD 200k remaining.

Cash on hand: $254,933 HACKETT

Cash on hand: $2,368,982 BROWN

[Catrina]

41. Hackett raised over one million dollars ~ in fact, he raised more than

Brown ~ until he was betrayed by those who first asked him to run, then asked him not to, he was far more likely to raise funds from across the country, than Brown, who is unknown outside of his own state ~

As far as the DLC liking him a few months ago, I'm sure they did, but he may not have liked them. The link says nothing more than that they watched his campaign (but did not contribute to it, AIRC) and worked out some statistics which just about everyone was doing after he nearly beat Schmidt.

Reid liked him also, as did Schumer, enough to ask him to run, and Brown told him he was not going to run then said he was. But then they changed their minds again ~ and a nasty, vicious campaign to destroy him personally, began.

They better clear this up ~ most Democrats that I know, unlike Republicans, do not like this kind of thing, even less so when their own party does it. Telling people to 'move on' will not work. Unless Brown makes it clear he had nothing to do with this, Reid also, they will be tainted by it. But so far, their silence has been deafening ~ Reid, we know, did know about it ~ if he had nothing to do with it, why did he not speak out against it and make it clear that we Democrats don't DO personal destruction campaigns ~ especially lies, and more especially against other Democrats.

No, we won't get over it. Not until we are assured that this is not going to be the strategy of the party against Democrats the leadership doesn't approve of.

[mzmolly]

42. Lots of speculation in your post.

To suggest that Schumer and Reid would court Hackett for a position in the Senate, then work to take him out requires evidence, and I've not seen it.

As for my saying he only "raised" 200k - corrected myself in post # to say he "only had 200K remaining" - thanks for pointing that out though.

[Armstead]

14. The point though is that this was not a DLC plot against Hackett

One of the rumors going around is that the DLC ousted Hackett for being too outspoken.

The DLC certainly deserves a lot of the slings tossed its way from here. But we oughtn't do it when it's most likely baseless.

[DancingBear]

20. Schumer and Reid put the screws to him - that much we know

Calls were made to dry up his fundraising events - that much we know.

Brown left him high and dry when he "changed his mind" - that much we know.

Ohio Dems have a history of running candidates based on the "my turn now!" mantra - that much we know.

Somebody, somewhere in the upper echelons of the Democratic Party thought it best that Sherrod Brown get his "turn" to run for Senate.

Who do you think it was?

I'm asking this not in an offhand way , but as a serious question.

Who did it?

And why?

[mzmolly]

22. WE don't know that though?

I don't. All I know is that Henry Waxman made calls to contributors asking for support of Brown. Schumer and Reid have been implicated by DU-ers, but I've not seen any evidence that Reid/Schumer are to blame?

This came down to money and a possbile Rovian "swift boat" smear IMHO.

[DancingBear]

26. They're being pretty quiet, aren't they?

Schumer never met a microphone he didn't like, and now he's AWOL?

I have to take Hackett's word on this, and he has publicly stated that they were the ones they asked him to run. He also stated that he got calls from Schumer "requesting" that he not run anymore.

Let's get out the lie detector - I'm betting that a certain Senator from NY is going to come up short on that one.

The "swift boat" angle has merit, but only in the fact that if that happened it scared DEM leadership, and if they can't stand up to that I want no part of them telling me/you/us who are candidates should be.

Hackett would have, I believe, came back at them with such vengeance that we'd all be doing the happy dance. :)

[mzmolly]

33. No, they issued a formal denial. Schumer specifically said he did not

interfere with fund raising. If Schumer asked him to leave the race IMHO it was a question of money. "You can't win without the money, all you can do is hurt Brown." Makes political sense to me.

As for Hacketts word, he says he didn't have the money. He also said after he cooled down - "that's politics" and "it's been a wonderful experience."

The "swift boat" angle has merit, but only in the fact that if that happened it scared DEM leadership, and if they can't stand up to that I want no part of them telling me/you/us who are candidates should be.

I really think they would have stood up to it if Hackett had raised cash. But, if all it takes is a call from Waxman to discourage donors, that wasn't going to happen - sadly.

I'm sure we'll hear more from Hackett, and I plan to support him when we do.

:)

[Aaaargh]

44. Every OH Dem I've spoken to wanted to vote for Hackett in the primary

This wasn't out of hostility to Sherrod Brown, but because a lot of us felt Hackett had a better chance of getting elected in this state. We've had a string of nominees very much like Brown in statewide elections in recent years, and they've all been defeated. I myself don't agree with Hackett on every issue, but I'm very used to compromising to get the best outcome that seems available. Hell, I even voted for a presidential ticket with Joe Lieberman on it once!

The fact that Schumer denies that the corrupt behind-the-scenes 'fixing' happened does not mean that that's so. After all, you had Emanuel and Reid saying very publicly last week that Hackett should withdraw, which certainly suggests that insiders were taking strong measures to end Hackett's bid.

If Hackett was as far behind as some here have tried to allege, with distorted and cherry-picked poll results, then these guys wouldn't have BOTHERED pressuring him to get out. There's no other challenger to Brown, and if he could easily defeat Hackett, so be it. A solid primary victory over an opponent only makes a nominee stronger.

People who say that putting up a primary battle is WRONG, and that a candidate who's behind the other guy in the polls at some early stage of the game should bail out, and that Democratic incumbents should NEVER be challenged (unless they're Cynthia McKinney), are peddling a line which is very much at odds with the history of politics and elections in this country.

Take the 1970's battles in OH between Democrats John Glenn and Howard Metzenbaum over Senate seats. Glenn and Metzenbaum ran against each other in the primary for a seat in 1970. Metzenbaum got the nomination but lost the election. Then Metzenbaum got appointed by a Democrat governor to fill a seat vacated by Republican William Saxbe, who became Nixon's attorney general. Glenn challenged Metzenbaum in the '74 primary, though Metzenbaum was now the incumbent, and Glenn won the primary, and then won the general election. Metzenbaum ran for the other Senate seat in, I think, '76, and won. So they both became senators, and they were both liberal Democrats with similar views. Both were also, in their time, among the best-respected men in the Senate.

So, according to this new rhetoric that says primaries are bad and the contender who's behind (at some undefined point) should get out or he's a scumbag and a traitor: who was wrong in this struggle between Glenn and Metzenbaum? Should Glenn have known that Metzenbaum would win the primary in 1970 -- or should Metzenbaum have seen that astronaut-hero Glenn had a better chance of winning the general election than he did?

The bottom line: DSCC betrayed Ohio Democrats by intervening in this dirty way to undermine Hackett's candidacy. It's wrong. We wanted a contested primary. I'm telling you, I know that a whole lot of Ohio Dems wanted Hackett, because they thought he could win, and that he had an appeal that might help bring about a shift that lays to rest the stereotype about wussy and dissembling liberals and Democrats which the whore media promotes (and which the DLC agenda only encourages.) Ohio Democrats should decide who their candidates are going to be, not Raum Emanuel of Illinois or Chuck Schumer of NY or anybody else. These underhanded measures by the DSCC are very much resented here, and though he shouldn't be made a scapegoat over it, that can't help Sherrod Brown.

[mzmolly]

49. The polls showed Brown ahead - so did the latest fund raising.

The rest is speculation.

[radio4progressives]

95. Excellent Post... Aaaargh..

I'm in California... I defer to rank and file in Ohio, i have responded to this issue in another thread when news broke early in the week..

in my book, this stinks.. in fact, the proverbial smell from Denmark pales in comparison to what i see happening here.

it reminds me of what's going on in Washington right now.

I've been watching a rebroadcast of the House Intelligence committee hearings - the more i learn, the more i think our party has to be completely rebuilt from the botton up, now. it's a pox on both parties and in many important respects - i believe the general public is going to a major revolt come mid terms and '08.

[brentspeak]

103. Can you please link to where Schumer denied interfering w/

Hackett's fundraising? I looked all over, and couldn't find any such story.

[mzmolly]

104. Here's the google search on this, there are numerous comments

in the blogsphere. I saw the original press release/denial by Schumer, but I did not bookmark, sorry.

http://www.google.com.ar/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2004-45,RNWE:en&q=DSCC+denies+hackett

The Moderate Voice - Hackett Out. Entirely.AP: Hackett wins UAW nod · David versus Goliath · Veil of Ignorance · Broken Mirror · UPDATE: DSCC Denies Asking Hackett to Drop Out. Posted on February 14, ...
www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1139901816.shtml - 71k - Cached - Similar pages


Hotline On Call: He Just Couldn't Hackett(BTW: The DSCC denies that it asked donors to eschew Hackett.) Three days before OH's 2/16 filing deadline, Dem Eric Fingerhut was mushy by comparison in ...
hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/ archives/2006/02/he_just_couldnt.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages


Wednesday Wire...The DSCC denies that they were asking Hackett's financial supporters to back off their support of him. By pulling out, Paul doesn't have to prove that ...
wonkspot.com/wire/ - 47k - 17 Feb 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

[brentspeak]

111. I couldn't find a single article about an alleged Schumer denial

Nothing.

[mzmolly]

112. "The DSCC denies that it asked donors to eschew Hackett"

Schumer heads up the DSCC

http://www.dscc.org/news/ny/20041117_schumer/

I can't find anything beyond a small rumor that Schumer "MAY" have attempted ???

Hackett had demonstrated his ability to shake money from donors during a January fundraising roadshow in California and New York. But he soon discovered that top Democrats were attempting to cut off his money. The hosts of a Beverly Hills fundraiser for Hackett received an e-mail from the political action committee of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) that concluded, “I hope you will re-consider your efforts on behalf of Hackett and give your support to Sherrod.” Waxman’s chief of staff, Phil Schiliro, said the e-mail was only sent to a handful of people and that “it probably came from a suggestion from the Sherrod Brown campaign.”

Michael Fleming, who manages Internet millionaire David Bohnett’s political and charitable giving, was one of the recipients of the Waxman email. Bohnett has given to hundreds of progressive candidates, but Fleming says, “This was the first time I had ever gotten an email or communication like that. I find it discouraging and disheartening. It’s unfortunate that the powers that be didn’t let the people of Ohio figure this out. We should be in the business of encouraging people like Paul Hackett and viable progressive candidates like him to run. The message instead is don’t bother, it’s not worth your time.”

Sen. Schumer was also reported to be trying to turn off Hackett’s cash spigots. No one would confirm this to me on the record. But veteran political activist David Mixner, who described himself as “a fanatically strong supporter” of Hackett and who helped sponsor a New York fundraiser, confirmed that he “received calls from a couple people in Congress urging Paul Hackett to withdraw or not to contribute money to his campaign. The reasons ranged from he can’t win, to he’s too controversial, Brown has more money, is more centrist, and more appealing. It was that inner beltway circle crap,” said Mixner. “They are people who have no idea what’s going on in the country but believe they know everything.”

I need more to convict Schumer personally. If people have an issue, they should be calling Waxman.

[brentspeak]

115. Yeah, but you said

that "Schumer specifically said that he didn't interfere with Hackett's fundraising."

[mzmolly]

116. Yes I did.

Read the google links provided above.

Have you asked for the proof that he did interfere? I'm still searching for that myself.

[LincolnMcGrath]

62. Implications came from more than DUers

Across the board, every show on AAR said the same things about Reid and Schumer.

But then again, AAR is Leftist Radio to some...

[mzmolly]

73. I'm an AAR fan and a "leftist" myself.

However, AAR and others have quoted articles that base their info on "speculation."

Hackett was recruited by Schumer and Reid, it doesn't make much sense that they would conspire to remove him from the race.

It came down to cash.

[LincolnMcGrath]

74. And Howard Dean's Skullduggery comment?

Based on speculation?

[mzmolly]

76. Can you find me one competitive political race without "Skullduggery?"

I need more of an explaination as to what exactly was meant by that remark personally. Another word for skullduggery is "hankypanky." ;)

It makes no sense that Reid and Schumer would recruit PH and then take him out for the sake of political sport.

[LincolnMcGrath]

78. Stop the rotation! Dean said it. Ask him for his definition.

;) The fact that you need an explanation, does not mean he didn't say it.

BTW I have been involved in recruiting and un-recruiting of local candidates, I know the game, and I know some folks take it really personal. :hi:

[mzmolly]

80. I don't need to ask him as I'm confident that what happened was

typical in politics today. I don't take it personally. If your involved in recruiting, you know that the goal is WINNING.

:hi:

[Armstead]

25. I can't say for certain, but it's contrary to the MO of the DLC

Since the Democratic Party is often like herding cats (as the saying goes) it is difficult to tell on the available evidence whether this was a coordinated campaign, or some freelance operation or the Ohio machine or all of the above.

But I seriously doubt that the DLC was involved. Their specialty is trying to bump off liberals or progressives and trying to push centrists. That was not the MO in this case. Brown is a lot more of the kind of liberal that the DLC wants to purge.

[DancingBear]

31. That is a good point

Perhaps we should turn our attention to the inabilty of whomever is making "electoral" decisions (DSCC, DCCC?).

The fact that Schumer and Reid were knee-deep in getting Hackett to run discounts it being an Ohio "inside job", at least in my mind.

Add Emanuel to the mix from the DCCC side and the thing begins to stink.

[mzmolly]

36. Agreed.

I don't understand why Hackett was unable to raise money unless Republicans were floating the "war crimes" thing all over Washington?

The Dems should have no interest in taking out an intelligent, attractive, returning Iraq war veteran.

[DancingBear]

46. Yea well they shouldn't have had any interest in renewing

the Patriot Act either.

Or rolling over on Alito.

Or rolling over on wiretapping.

This is no longer a party of hope, or of strength, or of honor. It is a party of fear, and CYA, and don't rock the boat.

Thats what frosts a good many of us - and that is why many of us believe that Hackett got too close for comfort with his rather firebrand rhetoric.

I truly would like to believe that the party looks to its grassroots for guidance, but it doesn't. I have no idea why they would want to kill a candidate like Hackett, but I truly believe they did.

Think about it - NO candidate in the last 20 years ( I think) has come as close to winning OH-02 as Hackett. If Sherrod Brown had decided to leave his district and instead run in 02 he would have been destroyed. We know why he came so close - it was because of where he spent his summer vacation. He had the authenticity to speak out, and MODERATE Dems and Repubs alike took him at his word, predicated on where he had been and what he had seen.

We know that he gave us all a road map on how to neutralize Bush and the war.

And we threw it away. We just threw it away.

Southern Ohio.

I see it in my dreams. It will be, I'm afraid, the death knell for Sherrod Brown. I hope as hard as I have ever hoped for something that I am incredibly wrong, but I am fearful.

Hackett could have won it, and with Brown we have to take a chance.

That makes no sense.

[mzmolly]

50. I don't think they "rolled over" on many things you mention.

I think we are in the minority and can't stop the majority party from screwing us, however.

I also don't we "threw it away" again, it makes ZERO sense. WHY would Dems take out a sure thing, especially one that they encouraged initially?

The bottom line as I see it: Polls showed Brown doing better against Dewine, why? I don't know. People explain the poll disparity with arguments such as "the voters didn't know Paul." Perhaps? But, without the cash that wasn't going to happen, add to that the "rumors" of war crimes and you've got an iffy candidate who can't raise money and who's ability to win is highly questionable.

And, as has been noted previously - Dean raised most of the money for his campaign from small contributions. So, IMHO, those who "rolled over" are the progressives who are pissing and moaning about this situation yet didn't contribute dime one to the Hackett campaign. Most of them are simply here to bitch about Democrats when something goes "wrong."

I tire of it. Either contribute and work for the candidates you support or don't bitch when they don't make it into the end zone.

[DancingBear]

51. Sorry you're tired

Me too.

Southern Ohio.

Don't forget.

P.S. Hackett raised more than Brown, as you know, so at least a few of us progressives contributed a dime or two. But I guess that didn't matter to Chuck and Harry.

See ya down the road - hope it's at a Brown victory party.

[mzmolly]

52. Check this out:

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060131/NEWS09/601310361/-1/NEWS

Political observers say the Ohio race could be one of a handful that will decide control of the Senate this year.

The candidates must file finance reports today for the three-month period that ended Dec. 31, 2005. Mr. DeWine's campaign said yesterday that he will report raising $978,504 for the quarter, giving the two-term senator nearly $4.3 million to spend in his re-election campaign.

A campaign spokesman said Mr. Brown, a seven-term congressman from suburban Cleveland, will report raising $496,882. He finished the quarter with almost $2.4 million in the bank, thanks in large part to money left over from his previous congressional races.

Mr. Hackett is an attorney and Iraq war veteran who narrowly lost a special congressional election in southwest Ohio last summer - and who entered the Senate race last fall with a stockpile of cash that still paled in comparison to Mr. Brown's and Mr. DeWine's.

Mr. Hackett raised $465,779 last quarter, a spokesman said - about half of which came from contributions made through his Web site - and had about $230,000 left on hand.

Over all Hackett did raise more, but in recent months Brown did - slightly. I guess "why" again is the ultimate question.

This was a very touchy situation, and we couldn't afford to have two people competing for funds is my guess, so we went with the guy who had 2mil in the bank, was polling better, and didn't have lingering "war crimes" questions. Democrats gave Hackett a chance, I think we were all excited about him, but it's tough to compete with a guy who's got the cash and the polls in his favor.

I do hope Brown wins, I'm sure if he doesn't many will assume that Hackett would have - and we'll hear a lot of "I told ya so?" Even so, Hacketts 200k is no match for DeWines 4 million. I'll never believe he could have pulled this off with a discrepancy like that.

Peace my friend - thanks for the discussion. Now, I need to get off my tired ass as I've spent far too much time sitting on it HERE.

:hi:

[DancingBear]

53. Right back at cha

T'was a pleasure. :hi:

[MrBenchley]

17. Which is why he was running away in the polls...Oh, wait!

Actually Deport 'em all Paul was 20 points back and fading....

So he quit and lashed out at everyone else for his failure.

[Moochy]

109. Clever nicknames for everyone?

(snicker)
"Progressive Purists"
"Deport 'em all Paul"
"Junior Joe McCarthy Club"

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.wg.name.html

"Bad names have played a tremendously powerful role in the history of the world and in our own individual development. They have ruined reputations, stirred men and women to outstanding accomplishments, sent others to prison cells, and made men mad enough to enter battle and slaughter their fellowmen. They have been and are applied to other people, groups, gangs, tribes, colleges, political parties, neighborhoods, states, sections of the country, nations, and races." (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938)

[SaveElmer]

21. This was a clever DLC strategy you see...

The DLC knew that any praise from them would cause Hackett supporters to question their support. In reality you see, the DLC, being a corporatist republican mole operation, designed to snatch away our civil liberties, and install a puppet regime composed of white corporate CEO's, really wanted Brown to run, so that DeWine would be reelected.

It is all so clear!!!

:sarcasm:

[mzmolly]

24. Ahhhhhh.

I've got it now. :hi:

[DancingBear]

27. How cute

Be careful - you'll out yourself.

[Twist_U_Up]

35. The Corporate/Military Elite called this one. n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

43. then the Corporate/Military Elite was very confused--they should have

checked Representative Brown's voting record first

Peace Majority Report - link:
http://www.peacemajority.org/scorecard/scorecard.jsp?person_legislator_ID=242
Voting History
The Honorable Sherrod Brown
OH - 13OH

Final Score: 75%

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 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 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

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.

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.

[Aaaargh]

38. Notice how this article has a DATE on it?

"DLC | Blueprint Magazine | October 21, 2005
Midterm Lessons
Paul Hackett's near-win in Ohio's 2nd Congressional District should give Democrats a confidence boost for 2006..."

The significant thing left out here is the fact that Paul Hackett altered his position on the Iraq mission between the Schmidt race and his pursuit of the Senate nomination, in keeping with the turn of events in Iraq over that period of time.

When Hackett ran against Schmidt for the House seat, he strongly criticized the Bush administration for peddling lies to launch us into the war, but asserted that he felt that we needed to stay now that we were there and try to bring some level of security to Iraq. More recently, as a Senate candidate, he's said that he feels the military mission is now played out. Here's what's stated on his website, giving his position on the Iraq mission:

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

Thus, Hackett's position on Iraq has evolved in the same direction that Rep. Jack Murtha's has.

I hope it isn't really necessary to point out to anyone here that this is NOT the position which the DLC takes on the Iraq mission. They believe, instead, that the Democrats should pledge themselves to fight the Neocons' 'LONG WAR' against the Jihadists, and even position themselves as being MORE hawkish than the Bush administration:

"DLC | New Dem Dispatch | December 1, 2005
Iraq and the Vital Center

Yesterday, President Bush unveiled a "plan for victory" to shore up sagging public confidence in his Iraq policies. Though it broke little new ground, the president's speech at the U.S. Naval Academy did provoke an unfortunate reaction from House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who endorsed Rep. John Murtha's earlier call for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops.

We share the widespread frustration with the Bush administration's utterly inept handling of Iraq's post-conflict rebuilding. But too much is at stake in Iraq for America to simply give up and come home. What Democrats really should demand from President Bush is victory, not a hasty departure.

Just two weeks ago, a bipartisan majority in the U.S. Senate staked out the vital center in the rancorous debate over Iraq. Rejecting both President Bush's "stay the course" appeals and demands for a deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops, the Senate instead called for clear benchmarks for creating the conditions that will eventually allow Americans to leave Iraq safely and with honor." (Note - This was the bogus vote called by Republicans, in response to Murtha's powerful public statements on the need to end the Iraq mission, on a resolution calling for IMMEDIATE and COMPLETE withdrawal, an exercise in demagogy which willfully distorted Murtha's proposals. Here the DLC spokesmen are expressing their approval of the Republican's smear.)

-snip-

"Demands for an immediate troop withdrawal or arbitrary deadlines risk turning premature declarations that the United States has failed in Iraq into a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is why Democrats must reject them."
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=253638

So, it's clear that Paul Hackett's position as a Senate candidate was very much at odds with what the DLC, and their ally in warmongering Sen. Chuck Schumer, official of the DSCC, advocated. Sure, they liked the idea of an Iraq vet running as a Democrat for a House seat, and almost beating a Republican in a heavily Republican district. But they would not have supported Hackett for the Senate, given the further development of his position on Iraq.

Oh, and Sherrod Brown's position on Iraq? Well, in the section about Iraq on his campaign website, he relates that he voted against the IWR in 2002, and mention some other votes connected to the mission in 2003. He does not say what his position is on what we should be doing about the Iraq mission in 2006. In one recent interview, he talked about the need for some "exit strategy," without getting into any specific proposals. A little on the 'Bidenesque' side, disturbingly enough. But we'll what he comes up with, won't we?

BTW, I bet if you dug deep enough, you could find some warm, complimentary remarks about Howard Dean from DLC honchos -- from before the 2004 campaign, of course.

[mzmolly]

40. So? The date doesn't negate their position.

Nor do your links :hi:

[Aaaargh]

45. Now, that CAN'T be the best you can do, buddy

[mzmolly]

48. Your post does not negate the OP.

"buddy" :hi: I'm not going to respond to things that are not relevant.

[LincolnMcGrath]

61. Where is their resounding endorsement?

It is an analysis of the specials. Nothing more.

[mzmolly]

77. Where did I use the words "RESOUNDING ENDORSEMENT!!!?"

:)

[LincolnMcGrath]

79. Exactly!

There is not even a mild endorsement in there. It is analysis, period. :patriot:

[mzmolly]

81. I don't see the word "endorsement" either.

Nope, I see the words: "like" and "think he'd be a good candidate against Dewine" ... paraphrased, yet accurate.

:*

[LincolnMcGrath]

83. I see words like these.

"But while he may be the kind of candidate Democrats should recruit in the next congressional cycle, he and his district-tailored message cannot simply be transplanted elsewhere."

:hug:

[mzmolly]

86. I saw those words too,

which is why I bolded these ones "said he'd be a good candidate against DeWine"

[LincolnMcGrath]

88. 'anonymous' National party figures...

Not "We The DLC"

[mzmolly]

89. It's NO WONDER national party figures are hoping he'll run against Dewine.

Your grasping at straws here and I'm not backing down from my OP.

But I am out for the day. I'll check in later.

[LincolnMcGrath]

90. One of us is grasping at straws for sure! lol

Look Upward

"DLC" liked Paul Hackett - said he'd be a good candidate against DeWine.

[mzmolly]

92. Again we come back to context, and reading the article as a whole.

If upon reading the article you don't think the DLC "liked" Hackett and said essentially that according to their "ANALYSIS" - he would be a good candidate (against Dewine) I'd have to question your ability to comprehend/digest "political analysis."

Read their articles on Dean when he was running (for example) and contrast them to this article. It should be clear that the DLC felt differently about the two men.

I liked DancingBears response - "everyone liked Hackett." I think that is far more accurate than your attempt to discredit a clearly positive characterization of Paul Hacketts ability as a candidate - by the DLC.

My post is not intended to "insult" Paul Hackett, I liked him as a candidate and felt he had mass appeal. I also don't think of the DLC as "evil incarnate."

Ultimately I'm confident most DU-ers have the ability to read and discern the DLC's feelings about Hackett for themselves, YOU?

Now I'm out for a few, I hadn't time to check back in as it was. ;)

On edit: If you feel my post is inaccurate, alert and let the mods decide. As you know, it is against the user rules to post an inaccurate OP title as it relates to the context of an article. I am quite confident that my post will remain, as it is fully clear/accurate. So, if your case against my OP is as strong as you assert it is - take action, by all means.

[LincolnMcGrath]

110. "alert and let the mods decide"

Not only are you wrong about the rules, That is the funniest thing I have read for quite some time.


"Question my abilities to comprehend..."

There is a novel and refreshing idea on a message board. :eyes:

“The broader, national implications of Hackett's run are positive for Democrats, but not so clear.”
"But to fully understand its broader implications, Democrats must carefully analyze the Hackett campaign in its specific context. It was a "special" campaign, for a variety of reasons. For starters, it was the first congressional contest since Bush's re-election, so it was viewed at least partly as a referendum on the president's less-than-inspiring second-term agenda."
"But the Hackett campaign offers lessons, not rules; an opportunity, not a guarantee."

"discredit a clearly positive characterization"

It is not the article I am questioning. It is your use of it I find puzzling.

[mzmolly]

114. Sorry, do the bold large letters make your case somehow? Cause

the words you posted have not.

The DLC specifically referred to DEWINE and OHIO, as did my OP. What about your bold/large words changes that fact? (We've been over this, remember?)

As for the user rules, the mods have deleted threads on numerous occasions when the subject does not accurately jibe with the content of an article/link. I've personally alerted on several and have seen questionable threads locked - lickity split. So again, ALERT if you feel my OP misrepresents the analysis by the DLC.

I am fully comfortable with allowing people to read the analysis and judge whether or not it is positive.

[LincolnMcGrath]

119. You Say,

"I am fully comfortable with allowing people to read the analysis and judge whether or not it is positive."

Yeah, it shows! You've been real comfortable with my judgment so far. I have noticed you are referring to the article as an analysis now !

As to your "alert on me if I am wrong" defense, that is just the oddest thing I have ever seen here on DU. :hi:

[mzmolly]

120. My issue was not with your interpretation of the article, it was with your

characterization of my statements. As for referring to the article/analysis as both - that's what it is. I know you preferred the word "analysis" and I spoke to you on your terms.

Peace out.

:hi:

[rinsd]

39. Heads are exploding as I read this....

:popcorn:

[Free the Press]

47. Rahm is Chair of the DCCC and a DLC member, but DLC & DCCC aren't linked!

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

The Democratic Congressional Primaries are transparent!

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

P.S. I am officially on the record as backing Brown for the US Senate, and I have never held a view opposing his candidacy for Senate.

However, Rahm being a member of the DLC and Chair of the DCCC does strike me as a link between the DLC and the DCCC.

I guess we'll wait ti see what the IRS says about it when they take up the issue on the next Republican challenge to the 501(C)(4) tax-exempt status of the DLC organization.

See ya when you're a 527!

[pat_k]

55. It's Insiders v. Outsiders (Outsiders = We the People)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2463516&mesg_id=2463516

[ClassWarrior]

56. Bullshit.

How about let's all be critical thinkers on a case-by-case basis and leave the labels for the lazy Corporate Media?

NGU.

[pat_k]

97. I for one think it's critical to know the dynamics we are up against. . .

. . as we fight to take back our country.

I refer again to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2463516&mesg_id=2463516

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. only if you consider liberal/progressives insiders and centrist outsiders

[pat_k]

98. No. As I noted in the post I referenced, those labels are so loaded they.

. . . have lost all objective meaning.

from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2463516&mesg_id=2463516 (emphasis added)

. . .
The labels -- liberal, conservative, progressive, right, left -- have become so loaded they have lost all objective meaning. . .

Hackett's fate -- and our reaction to it -- tells us a lot about the REAL divides we are up against as we fight to take back our country.

We are NOT dealing with a divide between left v. right positions on "issues."

We are dealing with fascists v. anti-fascists; insiders v. outsiders; weakness v. strength.
. . .

[Douglas Carpenter]

99. so supporting the most progressive candidate is being a weak- insider

and a fascist. That's very impressive spin.

The Progressive Caucus, Progressive Democrats of America and several peace groups and labor unions in Ohio will be impressed to learn that they are insiders too. Although I don't think they will like being compared to weak fascist.

[pat_k]

101. Your assertions have nothing to do with my post

You could accuse me of hating chocolate too. Since my feelings about chocolate have about as much to do with the discussion as your assertions, I wouldn't bother to deny it either.

[greenohio]

57. So if the DLC "likes" you, you need to be purged?

Do we have a list of the the DLC likables?

[1932]

66. No. But it means the theory that DLC purged Hackett has less weight.

BTW, to anyone who thinks that the DLC would prefer an anti-free trader over a guy who says Iraq was wrong but we need to finish the job: please visit my site: www.ebay.com/brooklynbridgeforsale. Thanks!

[greenohio]

67. But he was purged. He was black balled financially...

as donors were called to cut off funding.

[1932]

69. There are lots of rumors. But the guy spent over a million dollars and

it only got him to 1 supporter for every 2 that Brown had according to polls. I suspect that was a major contributing factor to his decision to drop out.

[greenohio]

72. Only one poll counts.

The Dem leadership wouldn't let him get that far.

[LincolnMcGrath]

59. Funny I don't see a resounding DLC endorsement there.

:shrug:

But hey, don't let reality stop you from trying to attack Democrats.

[mzmolly]

70. Me, attacking Democrats? You have it backwards.

First - I did not use the term "resounding endorsement" what I said was that the DLC, not the DNC liked Paul Hackett. And for the record so did Dean/head of the DNC. Also for the record, I contributed to his campaign.

However, the reason I posted this was to quell the rumors that the "DLC" is choosing our candidates and took PH out of the race.

Paul Hackett was the victim of nothing more than a political race. Brown had money left from a previous campaign and that gave him the advantage along with recent polls. There was no conspiracy to take out Paul Hackett, he went like many before him - legit like.

:hi:

[LincolnMcGrath]

71. You're still spinning.

Does it say anywhere in the article exactly what the DLC thinks of PH? No it doesn't. It is an analysis of the the specials of the last cycle. Nothing more.

For the record; I contributed to his fight against mean Jean.

Also for the record; Dean has called the whole affair skullduggery from out of DC.

[mzmolly]

75. I'm aware of Dean's friendship with Hackett, and aware of his

personal experience in politics as HE was a victim of the worst that politics has to offer. I am also aware of the statements made by both men before and after they had time to reflect upon what happened. Further, I am aware of the fact that Dewine has 4 million in the bank, Brown - 2 million and Hackett 200k.

Additionally, I'd like your proof that the "DLC took out Paul Hackett" as has been suggested here on several occasions. In NO FAN of the DLC, however my post was in response to statement like "DLC lapdogs Schumer and Reid took down Paul Hackett."

Reid/Schumer/the DLC/the DNC share one goal - to WIN seats IN 2006.

As for the spinning accusation - I'll chalk that up to projection on your part. ;)

The statement is clearly a positive one in regard to Paul Hackett and his Ohio campaign. I never used the words "resounding endorsement" I said "like." Though I personally do consider their analysis an endorsement, albeit an informal one.

Here are the actual words used to describe PH and his appeal by the DLC in the article I note: Confident, mainstream, charisma, clear personal tale voters want to hear. The DLC also states: Hackett's special run in the 2nd District of Ohio should give hope to all Democrats -- indeed, to all Americans who are tired of government by unaccountable incumbents in Washington.

I have NO problem characterizing this article as positive in regard to Paul Hackett. If you can find anti-Hackett rhetoric from Democratic groups with influence anywhere please post it. I can find much from the DLC for example "disliking" Dean.

[LincolnMcGrath]

82. I never said the DLC took out anyone.

I'll chalk that up to projection on your part.

In fact, the majority of posts I have seen claiming anything of the sort were posted by anti-progressives.

Why cherry pick the article?

BTW It is interesting that the DLC went from "liking P Hackett" to "positive words" in half a thread. :hi:

[mzmolly]

84. I stand by my original characterization - "like."

in the political sense of the word.

As for your never saying the DLC did X, Y Z - I never said YOU did. I said that my post was an attempt to quell the odd conspiracy theories that "the evil DLC" pulls strings for the entire party.

Peace :hi:

[LincolnMcGrath]

85. 10-4 Have a nice weekend mzmolly

:hi:

[mzmolly]

87. You as well LM.

:7

[ruggerson]

94. That's crap

Sorry, but normally Reid and Schumer and others do not push a candidate to get into a race and then three months later organize a phone campaign to get people NOT to donate to him.

It's not politics as usual and it's not "legit like."

[mzmolly]

105. Right, normally one does not encourage a candidate to run only to take

them out. The scenario seems based upon speculation and makes no sense to me. I'm still waiting for something beyond "rumor."

:shrug:

[CarlSheeler4U]

102. Sheeler - My brother Marine, Hackett was "Hatchetted"

I will do everything in my power to give the voice of military and veterans who have served with honor the safety and voice they deserve by opposing this amoral president and his War in Iraq. Fact is I need your help. Let's bring back the Paul Wellstone grassroots and common sense by working together with uncommon courage.

Carl

Sheeler for US Senate
www.carlsheeler.com

[mzmolly]

108. The question is why and by whom?

I look forward to your run for office Sheeler. :hi:

Regarding Paul Wellstone, I recommend you read "The Conscience Of A Liberal" if you haven't already. Paul was my senator and he's missed greatly.

[CarlSheeler4U]

118. Thank you. I will read. Pass on the word, please. I need your help

[Capn Sunshine]

106. Don't misconstrue

Paul hackett WAS jobbed, and where it came from is inconsequential. It's the taint of politics as usual that reeks.

That doesn't change my stand on the DLC. I know enough to know that the first letter stands for "Democratic", so why wouldn't they endorse a right of center guy like Hackett?

You still don't get it apparently. You don't HAVE to be leftwing to be progressive. Just let people know what you stand for and what you are.

Nothing is black or white, and until you explain to me how taking major funding from the leading arch right wing warmongering foundations is in any way amenable to the Democratic Party cause you can't tell me the DLC is qualified to say one way or the other what the party is or is not.

[mzmolly]

107. Misconstrue?

If you have an issue with the legitimacy of my post, alert the moderators.

Additionally, I've not seen proof of the "jobbing" you speak of. However, if he was "jobbed" and it came from outside, I think it is most definitely "related." War crimes rumors were floated and that doesn't make for an easy time raising funds.

As far as what *I* get or not, you must have me confused with someone? I am a leftist/progressive. I felt Clinton was also a "progressive" though I would not attempt to paint him as "liberal." You see, I understand that one can be progressive and not "liberal."

Regarding Hackett, I think Hackett had mass appeal, and that's a strength IMO. I was sorry to see him drop out.

As for the DLC, my post is not an ENDORSEMENT of their organization, nor is it an attempt to shit on Paul Hackett as I contributed to his campaign and supported him. Further, I've never given the DLC a dime. However, if I recall you were a member at one time? As for me, I fund the DNC, and I don't wish to purge anyone from the party.

I think you misunderstand what I attempted to communicate in my OP? That's ok, if you did, it was not directed at you anyhoo. ;)

[Capn Sunshine]

113. That's OK

my post was directed at those who might misconstrue things.
Obviously you are not one of them

[LoZoccolo]

117. This is a good find.

:hi: