Iraq Veteran Paul Hackett Endorses Brown for U.S. Senate

[gully]

http://www.sherrodbrown.com/press/releases/343/

Former Primary Rivals Call for Unity at Cincinnati Rally

CINCINNATI - Ohio Democrats took another significant step today towards victory in November when Congressman Sherrod Brown (D-Lorain County) and Iraq veteran Paul Hackett stood shoulder to shoulder before a cheering crowd of more than 100 supporters in Cincinnati.

The former primary rivals called the Unity Rally to announce Hackett's endorsement for Brown in his Senate race against incumbent Republican Sen. Mike DeWine.

"I want to help Sherrod, because I want to make our country better, make Ohio better," said Hackett. "We need quality leadership like Sherrod Brown, someone who will stand up for Ohio families and Ohio veterans. And he has done that."

"Paul is very supportive of this race, because he shares my same values," said Brown. "We need change from the pay-to-play culture in Washington embraced by Mike DeWine that has hurt Ohio families and Ohio veterans."

[longship]

1. Good man, Paul Hackett. Good man.

Recommended and :kick:ed.

[SaveElmer]

2. Good...but

Why did it take so long...the primary was May 2nd wasn't it?

[still_one]

6. it took so long because he was encouraged by DEMOCRATIC LEADERS

like Shummer to run, then they pulled support away from him. You would be hurt to if you had your chain yanked. They were not particularly kind to Hackett.

Hackett realized that Democrats winning were more important than him as an individual, and there were more issues that Brown and he agree on then disagree.

Now Shummer and some other Democratic leaders are also messing around by saying they won't necessarily support the winner of the Democratic primary in Connecticut. It is fine to favor one candidate over the other in the primary, BUT ONCE THE WINNER IS CHOOSEN, IT IS A NO BRAINER THAT THEY SHOULD SUPPORT THE WINNER

[sandnsea]

12. Shummer??

Hmmm.

And then you repeat the lie that Democrats are saying they won't support the winner of the Democratic primary?

Double hmmm.

[still_one]

16. I called Chuck Shummers office, and others and asked the question

if they would support the winner of the Connecticut primary. They would NOT give me a direct answer

Why can't they say they will support the winner? I am reflecting my direct experience by calling their respective offices. HOW IS THAT A LIE WHEN they won't say whether they will or will NOT necessarily support the winner? Don't believe me, I suggest you call Senator Shummers office and ask point blank if he will support the WINNER of the COnnecticut primary? I am NOT askig him who he wants to win the primary, I am simply asking if he will support the winner of the primary

Why won't they say they will support the WINNER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY?

My Senator, Barbara Boxer's office gave me an even more perplexing answer. They said it would be a violation of ethics to comment if the Senator would support the winner of the Connecticut primary.

If they cannot answer a question as simple as that then we have more problems then the repukes

[sandnsea]

17. Because they didn't say that

"saying they won't necessarily support the winner of the Democratic primary in Connecticut."

None of them have said this. They've stayed out of the primary altogether or expressed support for the winner. That's what they've said. Including - Schumer. Shoe-mer not Shum-mer.

[still_one]

18. that is not how I interpreted my responses from their people

answering the phone

but let's assume I did misrepresent it. Why couldn't they say they would support the winner of the primary?

[sandnsea]

19. Because they choose to stay out of it

Let Lieberman sink or swim as an Independent candidate on his own.

For someone like Barbara Boxer, criticizing Lieberman's independent run now would be used against her should she advocate legislation down the road that supports third party runs. Lieberman has put the entire Democratic Party in a horrible position and he's the one who should pay for it, not all these other people who are trying to make the best of an awful situation.

[still_one]

20. I still don't get it

I am not asking them NOT to be for someone in the primary, I don't care, all I am asking is if they will support the winner of the Democratic primary? I did NOT even bring in Lieberman running as an independent

Anyway, we probably won't see eye to eye on this, but I do appreciate your point of view, and that equating non-commitment with not necessarily supporting the winner was incorrect on my part. However, I still see no reason why they cannot say they will support the winner of primary

[sandnsea]

21. Many of them have

Why do you choose to ignore the ones who have in order to stir up a fake controversy over Democratic Party leaders saying stuff they never said??

[AtomicKitten]

3. Good, finally.

Now when is he going to retract the shit he said about Jack Murtha?

[still_one]

4. what did he say about John Murtha?

[AtomicKitten]

5. he is defending one of the Haditha marines

and said Murtha should "get back on his meds and quit shooting from the lip," and then went on to say in essence that Murtha was full of it in his reporting of the incident.

[still_one]

7. He is speaking as an attorney defending his client. he has no choice

once he took the case

I have also heard Hackett agree with Murtha on withdrawl from Iraq. In my view those are two different issues

The agrument might be why did he take the case of the marine, and that is debatable, but I am sure we all agree that everyone is entitled to a defense. It does gray the issue regarding what principles do you stand for, yet at the same time you are innocent until proven guilty

[AtomicKitten]

9. there was much discussion on this already

One can defend a client without trash-talking the opposition a la Faux News. Of course everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense but that isn't the point. His comments about Murtha were gratuitously demeaning.

That's my point of view. Yours apparently is different. That happens.

[still_one]

10. I have a problem that he took the case

Tom Delay has Dick DeGuerin, a Democrat defending him. I have a problem with that also

I cannot understand that. It is like James Carville and Mary Matalene(sic), how can people who subscribe to a philosophy compromise their principle?

[AtomicKitten]

11. it's his job as a defense attorney

Still the egregious nature of the crime would be such that most normal people couldn't stomach it.

I don't object to Hackett taking the case, but I REALLY object to him trashing a decent, brave man for stepping forward and speaking out on this travesty, especially now that Murtha is being targeted by the GOP Wrecking Machine.

[Fabio]

14. because politics/policy does define everyone's life

if it did, we would have 100% voter turnout.

[OzarkDem]

13. no excuse

his remarks to and about Murtha were inappropriate and unnecessary and not the kind of thing one would say about a fellow Democrat.

[gully]

8. Valid question.

eom

[Fabio]

15. To me, he comes off as a blowhard and a whiner