Sorry to those who disagree but please read this

[saracat]

and tell me I am wrong about Hackett and what was done to him. I am still furious and my research makes me madder.Scuhumer and Reid are evil, though they are at least our evil, but I can't stomach them.And Hackett was NOT a conservative. And he was NOT anti choice or a lot of other accusations that have been made on DU. This is the best explanation of what happened that I have yet read. These are the same people who are screaming about Kerry daring to take a stand. Grr.Peace.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2006/02/hackett_drops_out.html

[karynnj]

1. It bothers me not because I am pro-Hackett

I would likely pick Brown if I were in Ohio, but I never compared them sufficiently to make an informed judgement. I have two problems with what happened:

1) It's undemocratic. Why not have both go through a primary, with the party asking the candidates to keep it positive. Although the Republicans can (and do) often pick up on any negative themes and use them against the winner, the experience weeds out candidates who can't take it and lets the candidate develope a response in a less toxic environment. (In 2004, Dean's whining about not wanting to be a pin cushion hurt him as much as anything else.)

2)Running in a primary and losing can strengthen the candidate enough that he will have more skills and savy when running in a later race.

That said, the Senators said the DSCC wasn't backing him and per some accounts, called his contributors. The DSCC doesn't have to (and shouldn't) support everyone, but contacting his major contributors bothers me. It seems both (party) machine like and heavy handed. Imagine who this DSCC would have told to withdraw in a 1984 Massachusetts - the Congressman protege of Tip O'Neil or the charismatic Lt Governor. (Although keeping MA would have been less a challange than getting Ohio.)

I understand that they are trying to maximize the number of seats and that behind the scenes party officials are often not neutral, but what bothers me is that their effort was not to endorse Brown, but to discourage Hackett. The former, which Kerry has done via KAP in some contested races, is fair and doesn't have the same negative tone. (In fact, in LA the newspaper account had Kerry saying he was not against anyone, but for Villarosa.)

That said, the Primary is in May. Hackett COULD have simply insisted he was running. He was not a machine politician who could be hurt going against the party leaders. If he pulled an upset and won the primary, they would obviously support him then. Or, he could take their advise and run for the House seat, strengthening the party if he won and possibly lining himself up to run against Voinivich. Either way, what he runs for (or nothing) was in his hand alone. Shumer and Reid couldn't stop him. In a way, I think he mistook the fame and attention he got because he was running alone in the special election as a sign that he was somehow a special candidate. Brown not agreeing to run months ago before a decision had to be made makes him no worse than RFK deciding to run in 1968 after McCarthy had shown strength and LBJ puilled out. That's politics.

[FreedomAngel82]

23. Yes

While what happened to him is wrong he in the end was the only one who had control over his campaign. While I do like Hackett and agree with him on issues he in the end is the one who should have dealt with the peer pressure and told the others to fuck off and leave his donors a lone etc. Imagine if Kerry gave into peer pressure with BCCI. If he can't handle pussycats like Reid and Schumer how would he handle Specter, Sessions, Hatch etc?

[ProSense]

2. Sorry Saracat

I can't get worked up about Hackett. This is why I don't buy into the establishment Dems, DLC stuff. Hackett is not Kerry. A lot of these same people attributed the "establishment" label to Kerry to imply he was the chosen one. Kerry has been fighting the SBVT for three decades. It wasn't a secret that these forces existed, yet somehow he was the "establishment" choice. Kerry fought and earned his way to the nomination.

Now, Hackett is being opposed by the "establishment" Dems because of the existence of potentially damaging information and he quits. He should have fought back. Why isn't the focus on him not fighting back. Hell, some of these same people threatened to quit the party after the election because Kerry conceded. the difference is that Hackett's decision doesn't depend on evidence or anything, all he had to do was stay in the race. Also, they did encourage him to run for Congress, so they would have supported him in a House race. He chose not to take them up on the offer.

[FreedomAngel82]

24. Thank you!

This is what I have been saying in Hackett threads in GD as well. It's HACKETT'S race. He needs to learn about peer pressure.

[beachmom]

3. Call me cynical, but does this mean we're going to win in '06?

Reid and Schumer are undeniably ruthless. And one needs to be ruthless against the GOP. Pity that we may have to lose our souls in order to win.

Historical question: didn't Kerry have the job that Schumer now has back in the early '90s? Was he also "ruthless"? How did he handle the job? Was he successful? (I think he was, but just double checking). Can you be successful without going this far . . .

I didn't comment when the whole thing happened, but just to show my hand, I didn't think Hackett would make a good senator because he's too rough around the edges. I think he would be better off on a talk show, to be honest, or in politics in the more rambunctious House of Representatives. Having said that, this was handled very badly -- not sure who's to blame -- maybe a combination of the Party AND Hackett. I'll go read your link, Saracrat, and see if that answers any of those questions.

[karynnj]

5. The results from 1988 when he headed the DSCC ook good

Inspite of Dukakis losing in a landslide, the Democrats gained one Senate seat. How it reflected on Kerry is harder to tell as the races are far more determined by the candidates themself - but there were some interesting races.

Democratic gains:
In CT, Joe Lieberman defeated Lowell Weicker - don't mention this in DU-P, they would never forgive the head of the DSCC that year. :)

In NE, a Republican was defeated by Bob Kerrey, who was a popular Governor (I think)

In VA, Charles Robb, defeated a Republican for an open seat

In NV, Richard Bryan, defeated Republican, Hecht (whose live Kerry saved when he was chocking)

Republican gains:
Trent Lott replaced Democrat Stennis who retired (shift of the bigot party here - not anyone's fault)

Connie Mack replaced Democrat Chiles who retired

Democratic incumbent, Melcher replaced by Conrad Burns
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One interesting Republican win was that of incumbent, Senator Heinz.

The other observation is that Kerry is really really senior - I didn't realize that he was there before Kerrey, Lott, and Lieberman.

http://www.answers.com/topic/u-s-senate-election-1988

[TayTay]

7. Ahm, that was an interesting time.

There were a lot of interesting repercussions from that time
as head of the DSCC. The taller Sen from MA doubled the amount
of money the DSCC raised from the '86 race. He also was able
to successfully recruit some candidates to run in tough races.
12 seats had changed hands when Reagan came in in '80, giving
the Rethugs the Senate.

Boring historical stuff:

96th Congress (1979-1981) 
Majority Party: Democrat (58 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (41 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Independent
Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
97th Congress (1981-1983) 
Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Independent
Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98th Congress (1983-1985) 
Majority Party: Republican (54 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99th Congress (1985-1987) 
Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (47 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100th Congress (1987-1989) 
Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101st Congress (1989-1991) 
Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100

Seniority Listing:
                            First took  Current term
Senators	Party	       office	expires
Robert Byrd	Democrat	1959	2007
Daniel Inouye	Democrat	1963	2011
Edward Kennedy	Democrat	1963	2007
Ted Stevens	Republican	1969	2009
Joe Biden	Democrat	1973	2009
Pete Domenici	Republican	1973	2009
Patrick Leahy	Democrat	1975	2011
Richard Lugar	Republican	1977	2007
Paul Sarbanes	Democrat	1977	2007 (retiring)
Orrin Hatch	Republican	1977	2007
Carl Levin	Democrat	1979	2009
Thad Cochran	Republican	1979	2009
Max Baucus	Democrat	1979	2009
John Warner	Republican	1979	2009
Chris Dodd	Democrat	1981	2011
Chuck Grassley	Republican	1981	2011
Arlen Specter	Republican	1981	2011
Jeff Bingaman	Democrat	1983	2007
Tom Harkin	Democrat	1985	2009
Mitch McConnell	Republican	1985	2009
John Kerry	Democrat	1985	2009
Jay Rockefeller	Democrat	1985	2009

[karynnj]

10. Interesting list

I had seen you post there were 18 more senior people and knew Kerry beat the other 1985 people by being sworn in a bit early, but it's interesting to see the list. So Jay Rockefellow has been a Jr Senator as long as Kerry - I wonder if they actually share a record on this. (They may as it requires a 4 term plus a greater number of terms Senator.)

[TayTay]

11. Nice catch on Rockefeller

The actual Seniority ranking has something to do with other factors as well (years in service, of course, but also importance of home state and other stuff. This is what determines seniority in the case of 'a tie.' Sigh! Arcane Senate rules give me a headache in my eye.)

[ginnyinWI]

14. Of those top 22, only 9 are Republicans

Do Democratic incumbents hang onto their seats better than Republicans? Hm, I wonder why!! `:sarcasm:

[Mass]

4. I am still shared on that.

1/ If this is about Reid being a bad leader, I certainly agree, but this is nothing new. It has started a long time ago and it will not stop. The man seems to think that having a tantrum on the Senate floor once in a while (and not following thru) is what it takes to lead the Democrats. The problem is that many of the people who are now mad because of Hackett dropping from the race like Reid (because of his tantrums) and do not blame him for that. They blame the DLC (and link Brown with the DLC, which, for a Kucinich Democrat, if quite a leap).

2/ I sincerely think there should have been a primary (particularly if they could not drop him out of the race more smoothly). Let Hackett be beaten in the primary and all would have been said.

3/ I was sincerely amazed by the number of people around me who dislike Hackett. Most are progressive and not necessarily from MA and Hackett was not their favorite. I think a lot of Hackett's supporters were so anxious to see an outsider (and a star) run that they dismissed the fact that some people care more about the issues than about the demeanour.
4/ I think the real issue here is "insiders" vs "non-insiders". The Democrat establishment seem to favor people they know, whether they agree with them or not. No real surprise there, this is pretty much what I expectedand it really seems to be the same thing everywhere (even here in MA). The real question is how do you get good people in politics that are not interested to pay their due to the machine. The point is that, if they fold before the primary, it is a pretty bad sign of how they would be fighting against the establishment and change things in the Senate.

[TayTay]

6. It's about time you called 'bullshit' sweetie.

I was waiting for the call-back on this one. That's because there are two very legitimate sides to this issue. The 'insiders' in DC are also the ones who did not want a filibuster of Alito and who were mightily pissed at JK when he did it anyway. These same 'insiders' are the ones who are trying to micro-manage the '08 election and have a nominee chosen before the primaries begin. (Haven't you read the stories that say that JK's donors are being 'allowed' to go with him now, but only until a certain Sen. from NY calls and then she is supposed to absorb his doners and JK will get nothing?) Discarding the '08 primaries in favor of a candidate who can 'fund-raise' is something that I would scream bloody-blue murder over, so should I just allow it to go by for Hackett? (Yup, I argued the opposite before. Devil's Advocate side of me.)

There is a classic political civil war going on in the Democratic Party. This is not uncommon in a Party that is out-of-power. (The Rethugs went through this during and after the 1st Bush Presidency. They re-solved their differences in favor of extremely strict party discipline and adopted a very, very top-down management style. Is that the model we want for the Dems.)

I can argue both sides of this civil war. (Because I am fundamentally evil, and geeky, and love a good argument.) Call it out, state 'this is bullshit' and let's have a good discussion on this. It's an important thing to try and get a handle on. (Yes, I really can argue both sides on this equally. That's the problem with civil wars, there are lots of areas to ponder.)

[karynnj]

8. What I don't understand is why they think they have this power.

As you mentioned;
"Haven't you read the stories that say that JK's donors are being 'allowed' to go with him now, but only until a certain Sen. from NY calls and then she is supposed to absorb his doners and JK will get nothing?)" What's illogical is why Kerry's donors need permission to go with him. Oddly, the whole reform movement might help Kerry here. Kerry's huge list of people who can give some money - with no strings attached might be better than a shorter list of big money donors. Kerry's not in his 2002 position where they could dry up his money by little (or bad) press and discouraging donors.

They can send me all the Hillary mailings they want - I'm not biting. If they sent anything out that suggested not supporting Kerry in favor of DU, I would post it with Kerry's most recent fund raising letter here - except several people would likely beat me to it.

What may have changed in 2004 is that the email lists can cheaply and efficiently raise money and get messages out. Neither really were worked out before 2002 -2004. So, while it's true that Hillary will likely have more money, the question is at what amount do things become "saturated" where spending another dollar buys almost nothing. Can Kerry reach that level? (I actually think that the crowd raising ability of Bill and there control of many of the super delegates may do more than the party control of money.)

[TayTay]

9. IT is a big 'pissing game' at the moment

Nothing is really happening until after the 2006 race. A lot will depend on how this year goes. Score 1 to JK for his fight on the filibuster. First, it was an act of conscience. (That has to be clearly stated.) Second, it called out other Sens and, in effect, asked them, 'What do you believe and where do you draw the line in the sand on the Repubs.' Kudos to him for doing this. Certain other Sens were forced to declare one way or the other. I think the blogging world noticed how that went down.

The 'insiders' want one thing but that is not set in stone. JK has always bucked 'the insiders' and has run his own course. The times that he did allow the consultant class to intervene unduly, it may not have worked out. So, I don't think he is going to rely on them too much going forward. I think he is going to be less cautious and more inclined to 'follow his gut.' I really do.

The problem with 'insiders' is that they don't actually know any more than anyone else. (Honest to God.) They just want people to think they do and make them pay through the nose for this implied knowledge. One of the uses of the 'blogosphere' is to put the lie to the 'all powerful consultancy class' that has ruled for the last 30+ years. They don't really know more than a bunch of folks in front of their computers typing away. They really don't. This is very threatening and part of the background reason for the 'civil war.' These people are being seriously called on their own 'bullshit' by a bunch of knowledgeable outsiders.

[karynnj]

18. It may be that people reading the best of the blogospere and

being careful to demand a primary source link to a trusted source can get a broader and/or a more detailed picture of what is happening in the world.

I am reminded of Helen Thomas's reply to someone here (KG?) when she had written that Kerry, unlike Edwards hadn't backed away from his IWR vote. She was given links that she could verify and replied that she hadn't been aware of it. Thomas is among the very best of reporters, but I assume she mainly talks to other reporters and the inside the beltway pundits.

Although you would think something labelled as a major speech on Iraq by a man who a year before was the Presidential nominee of the Democratic party would be given considerable coverage. That it received less coverage than a short, non-specific Edwards editorial that said "I was Wrong" and reguritated the 2004 Iraq plan shows how inbred the pundit/reporter class is in DC. That Kerry had gone to Iraq, spoken to many generals and lower military officials and to various Iraqi officials and had put together a comprehensive plan that he had laboriously vetted with the military and (I think) career state department, while Edwards had done none of this speaks volumes. They see the political game, but they ignore governing. (No wonder they are so impressed with Rove and Bush)

The other side though is that a person can become unevenly informed. I admit that I am at this point. Like everyone here, I know about most of the statements/legislation/party work that Kerry has done. As a byproduct, I find I recognize way more Senators' faces than I ever have in my life and have strong opinions, positive or negative, about many of them. But, I really don't know ALL the work done by say, Hillary or Feingold. For some reason, almost every Senate hearing I've seen includes Kerry - I've seen Feingold often because of the judiciary hearing recently and because he's on the SFRC.

When we are looking directly at the Senate with people speaking on the floor, working in committees or voting, we are close to getting primary source information rather than a description filtered through the perception/agenda of a few reporters. (It does make for a weird conversation in real life when everyone else read the "official" reporter view and you're saying - "not really Rice said ... and Kerry asked ....") Although CSPAN existed before and written copies existed before, the blogospere lets us find places where we can talk about what we heard. It's an intellectual, political experience that is really new.

As to its use, all of us have so much information that doing either phone banking or canvassing for Kerry would be much easier. It's hard to think of a topic where we haven't agued that his position is good for over a year.

[ginnyinWI]

15. I'm not biting, either

Hillary Clinton is NOT John Kerry! My money is going to a candidate I believe in! :)

[wisteria]

16. I am with you, I will not give Hillary any money!

I find the very notion that all it takes to win is having the most money obnoxious. I also have issues with Hillary running because I think it is assumed we get Bill along with Hillary and then somehow everything will be as it was before.
I like the idea of the internet following for JK. I think he has been very successful using it to get a message out and raise money. It's not enough though. Although, it appears to me he has gained more out of its use that say Hillary or even Senator Boxer.

[FreedomAngel82]

27. You should post this in GD

For those who say the DLC wants him.

[nolies32fouettes]

12. I saw this at DCP

http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=1024&view=findpost&p=3971

[TayTay]

13. Nolies: I haven't yet welcomed you to this group

:blush: I don't know how I missed you and I am very sorry. :blush:

Welcome to the JK Group. Thanks for the great posts you have been making and I hope I was able to help on the web site for the scholarship. It is wonderful (and gratifying) to have accomplished, intelligent 'young people' coming in here.

Welcome, welcome, welcome and forgive me my lateness on this.

:patriot:

I think it was my mind being in two places at once. I am away for this President's Day weekend. Perhaps I will have my act together again when I check in here on Sunday night.

[nolies32fouettes]

19. thank you!

I myself have not had much chance to visit here.

Though I'm sure you will get your act together just fine. Just don't scare me by using past tense on "was..." because this blog has to run until June! (Yikes! That does seem like a long time, but college is so expensive!)

Anyways, any help you can give is really appreciated.

[TayTay]

21. I hear you.

I have two kids in the 'college crunch.' Best of luck on this and keep us posted in here. It's really nice to be able to help out.

Again, welcome!

[wisteria]

17. Hello and welcome! n/t

[nolies32fouettes]

20. thank you!

It's nice to be here. I think the JK forum appears to be the friendliest one I've seen so far.

[saracat]

22. Yes. It is friendly and we have "real " debate! Welcome!

[FreedomAngel82]

28. Hi nolies!

I hope you're enjoying it here! :hi:

[JI7]

25. i think Hackett would have lost without Schumer and Reid doing anything

i think his campaign and himself realized it also and that's the real reason he dropped out. but it's easier to blame things on others, in this case Schumer and Reid. and they do deserve blame for the way they handled it.

all the posts about throwing HAckett to the wolves and whatever is crap also. he is being given the chance to run against Schmidt again with full party backing including funding. that's not throwing him aside.

it was similar to what happened to Schumer when they urged him to stay out of the NY Governors race where it would have meant a bitter primary between him and Spitzer which tends to hurt the Dem when they run against the Republican. and why Republicans keep winning in the mostly Dem state.

Schumer's current position of running the Senate campaigns was what he got in exchange for staying out of the Gov primary against Spitzer.

[sandnsea]

26. That's what people miss

It's good when people like Hackett, or even Dean, step up and breathe some new life into the party, or any institution. But you can't just walk over top of the people who have put their whole lives into the same endeavour, or assume they aren't just as committed as the new person.