Disappointed in the Democratic Party, re: Paul Hackett

[journalist3072]

So I must say that I am extremely disappointed in the Democratic Party, regarding how they have seemed to treat Paul Hackett.

I just finished reading that many in the Party (including Rahm Emanual) have been trying to talk Hackett into dropping his Senate bid, and run again for the House.

Why can't the Democratic Party just keep their mouth shut regarding Hackett and Sherrod Brown's primary campaign, and then put their full endorsement, money and weight behind whoever wins that primary, to ensure that person wins the general election.

Why are they even getting involved in the primary race like this?

Edited to insert link to piece on Political Wire:

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/02/13/emanuel_wants_hackett_to_drop_senate_bid.html

[FreedomAngel82]

1. Right

The people deserve to choose who they want. If it looks as though, through polls, that he won't get the nomination than it could be up to him and he could try for Congress. Are there any polls out about who's doing how well?
I get tired of this too.

[lldu]

4. They want a twofer!

They believe they have a better candidate for Senator and they KNOW he would win a House Campaign. SO, they get a twofer!

[sandnsea]

16. No brainer

Would seem to me.

[OzarkDem]

19. Bingo

Why are Hackett supporters so opposed to the idea of having him in the House?

[wndycty]

22. Some hate anything that Rahm Emanuel is involved in. . .

. . .if he succeeds in taking back the House Howard Dean they will give Howard Dean all the credit. . .LOL

[liberalnurse]

2. I plan on supporting Hackett

100%. I am actually disappointed in Sherrod Brown.....

[xxqqqzme]

3. r emanual is DLC

the DLC does not like Hackett which is why they recruited duckworth instead of backing Hackett.

[Botany]

5. Egg Zac Lee!

but the democratic power structure in this state is dirty .....
they do just what the repugs want.

[mom cat]

9. Not just in that state.

[upi402]

21. Before I joined this forum

I read that they didn't like people to rock the DLC boat here.
I wonder if losing to the worst President in history has given rise to a revolt to have a real Democratic party again.
:shrug:

[Talismom]

30. I and friends have just been warning our wimpy dem congressman that

we're ready for a real progressive and if he wasn't ready to do it, we were ready to do all we could to replace him. Even if the dem power structure isn't ready, much of the grassroots is itching for a major revolt!

[acmejack]

6. Rahm did just the opposite in illinois sixth district

And enraged everybody there too. That is the Duckworth Cegalis fiasco. methinks Rahm will not be invited back for the next election cycle.

[wndycty]

10. Don't you think we should wait and see what his record is in November?

:kick:

[acmejack]

20. Oh I remember we did the I love the DLC thing before

No need to reprise here.

[wndycty]

23. This is not about the DLC its about winning. . .

. . .besides Rahm heads up the DCCC, which is not the DLC.

[upi402]

33. but it's not really winning if R's are in the D party

like wolves in sheeps clothing, we're gonna get eaten!

[acmejack]

34. Thank you for clearing that up for me!

I am so completely uninformed as to the Democratic Party structure that I was totally unaware of that fact! Rahm most certainly is a member of the DLC! I invite you to check their membership, my friend before you make any more claims. I am well acquainted with Emanuel's role in the DCCC, after all I receive daily entreaties for money from them!

But please do not insult my intelligence if you desire to carry on a conversation, I really resent simplistic repartee. Stating the obvious in an attempt to score cheap points accomplishes nothing!

[DaveinMD]

7. they want to win the house

so the DCCC recruits him for that. Its their job.

[lldu]

14. Exactly!

Instead of having both go for Senate and only one winning, with a possible repub winning the house, they have a Senate candidate and a SURE-FIRE House candidate. Twofer!

[Greyhound]

8. Isn't this exactly why we get the choice of douche-bag and turd sandwich?

The last thing the Democratic Powers that Be want is a populist candidate that says where he stands on issues without equivocation (i.e. his position on illegal immigration).

[leftchick]

11. Because the DLC(rnc) Wants him marginalized

that is why. Pretty simple.

[OzarkDem]

12. Its their job to position candidates for maximum benefit

Hackett has a very, very good chance of winning a Congressional seat that Dems haven't held in ages. He's a much stronger candidate than any other Dem in the race.

Brown is the strongest candidate for the Senate. There's already a very strong Dem candidate who can run and keep his seat in OH-13.

Its a net benefit for everyone - a pickup of a Senate seat and a Congressional seat.

[sandnsea]

13. 2 wins instead of 1

The bastards, how dare they try to get both of these fine Democrats to Washington!!

[wndycty]

17. Well you do know. . .if Rahm has anything to do with this victory. . .

. . .it really is not a victory. :sarcasm:

[lldu]

18. TWOFER!

Two, two, two fer the price of one!

[Guaranteed]

36. You think Brown winning is a sure thing?

Or Hackett beating Schmidt, for that matter?

Wouldn't it be nice to just take the damned Senate seat, for sure?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

41. How in the world would having our candidates fight each other increase

our chances for winning the Senate seat?? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Yeah, great idea - let's slander each other and waste resources while our INCUMBENT opponent in a red-leaning state gets to amass his already larger warchest and not take a single scratch until September. Fucking brilliant. :eyes:

[mzmolly]

15. They didn't "treat" him any way in particular. They have CONFIDENCE

that he can win a congressional seat in a heavilly Republican area.

If we trust Hackett to serve us in the Senate, we have to trust that he'll make a good decision in this regard folks.

[OzarkDem]

24. Hackett is behind in the polls

Over 20 points behind. Senate races are not the place for voters to learn about new candidates. People don't usually vote for candidates they're not familiar with in a senate race.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/12/175639/16

[wakeme2008]

25. If you read Kos that was a Brown paid Poll nt

[OzarkDem]

26. And Hackett didn't refute the results

I know Sherrod Brown personally, I've known him for many years. He's not the type to lie about polling or run a dirty campaign. That's why he's gained more support than Hackett - he hasn't gone on the attack.

Face it, its over, Hackett's not doing well in this race and its better to have him in a race he stands a chance of winning. He should do it soon or risk losing the goodwill and respect of a lot of Dems.

[wakeme2008]

27. DId Brown flip flop on running

YES...

[MercutioATC]

31. Brown didn't "flip-flop"...

He for staying out of the race before he voted against it.

:eyes:

[sandnsea]

28. Don't know one way or the other

on the particular poll. But I do know not to believe everything Kos says and I do know he has a monetary interest in outsider candidates winning. He's part of a few well-funded think tank type organizations and if candidates don't win based on what he's saying, he stands to lose a bundle.

[iconoclastNYC]

29. It's called paying your dues.

I don't see how you think your first run in a party can be Senator, especially not when Brown has been fighting for progressive values int he house so long.

[MercutioATC]

32. Yeah, let's support that tradition!

It's been working soooooo well for us...

[iconoclastNYC]

35. Sherrod Brown is an excellent candidate.

Do you have anything that says otherwise?

[MercutioATC]

38. Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. Hackett's withdrawl.

I'm a little pissed about this right now, so please accept this reply in that spirit.

FUCK SHERROD BROWN.

[iconoclastNYC]

39. Very mature of you.

:eyes:

[MercutioATC]

42. As I said, that was an initial reaction...

I've since added Schumer and Reid to the "fuck you" list...

[OzarkDem]

37. Sorry the voters make that choice

Ohio voters are notorious for choosing only the most experienced candidates for senate races.

John Glenn is the only person in recent history to win a Senate seat in Ohio who was a political newbie. Paul Hackett is no John Glenn, he wasn't going to win.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

40. Because you don't waste time and money fighting each other

when you have an uphill battle in front of you.

Defeating DeWine is NOT going to be a cake walk, I can assure you of that. Hackett was not going to win the primary, so why waste resources on an internal battle?

[journalist3072]

43. I can understand that....however....

When Ron Brown (God Bless Him) was the Chair of the Party, he also believed in a very short primary, so that you could focus your attention on the general election.

HOWEVER, he did not go forcing people from the primary, and threatening to withold money from them.

And in Hackett's case here, we are talking about a veteran. Someone who fought for his country, and now he wants to serve his country some more.

I look at it like this: When veteran's apply for a federal job, they of course get Veteran's Preference. There is a reason for that. It's our way of acknowledging their sacrifice, and saying "thank you for your service."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. Sorry, but with Sherrod Brown running...

...we have better chances of having fewer Iraq War Vets.

And as far as I'm concerned, that's a much better "thank you for your service".

U.S. Senator is not a job in the mailroom. Prefential treatments are rightfully checked at the door.

[journalist3072]

45. But that's for the VOTERS to decide, not Chuck Schumer!

The puprose of elections is to let the voters decide.

It's not up to Chuck Schumer or anyone else in the Democratic Party to say to Paul Hackett 'We don't think you can win against Mike DeWine. We don't want you.'

That's up for the voters to decide. And if the voters choose Brown over Hackett to run against DeWine in the general election, then so be it.

But it appears some people don't want the voters to have that chance to decide. And that is pathetic.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

46. Bullshit, it was for Paul Hackett to decide and you know it.

Hackett left of his own accord, period. Maybe he was pressured into leaving, but he wouldn't have done so if A) he really didn't want to or B) he knew he had a legitimate shot at winning.

Schumer decided nothing.