A sad day for the Democratic Party

[TornadoTN]

No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, the Democratic party was the party that truly had room for varying political beliefs and ideologies. Part of the appeal of the party is the progressive and inclusive nature that it embodies, that there truly is room for everyone to work together for the benefit of the nation.

We have all fought and bickered about who really is calling the shots in the party and whether they really had the best interests of the nation at heart. We all believed that we could overcome our differences and put together solid campaigns to elect candidates that would appeal to not only our party, but to those who don't really identify with EITHER party and make up such a large portion of the voting populace. I live in a fairly conservative state with a lot of "middle-of-the-road" voters that are getting increasingly fed up with the Republican way of doing the business of the nation. Prior to 2004, my family had been solidly Republican (with me being the notable exception), but they cast their first votes for a Democratic in their voting lives. My father, who swallowed the bitter pill of his ego and voted for John Kerry, recently told me that he was planning of continuing to vote for the Democratic candidates as long as they appealed to a broad array of the population and weren't the hip-pocket of corporate or party interests. I believe that is a fair expectation for most of us, even those of us who fall into the more liberal lines of the party. That's what sets us apart from the Republicans - we know that there are other people and interests out there other than ourselves.

Today, I am very disappointed to learn that our party leadership with the backing of the DCCC/DLC forced someone out of a race where their message was truly broadening the appeal of the party and proving that a Democrat can transcend party lines. To learn that the voters of Ohio will not get the chance to make the decision but rather that decision was made for them by party special interests is shameful and reminiscent of RNC tactics. It is certainly true that Paul Hackett didn't appeal to many on all issues, he was a very attractive candidate because he stood for what he believed in and did so in an unwaivering manner that appealed to a lot of voters regardless of their party affiliation. While I recognize that Brown may have a more progressive voting record and may be further to the left than Hackett, I do not feel that the moderate voters in Ohio (or any other similar state, TN included) will be inclined to throw their support behind him merely because he can be easily painted as a "liberal', which is a turn-off to many of the less-educated voters that tend to sway so many elections. We may not like to admit it, but it is a dirty little fact about the political climate that we are currently living.

Honestly, I am very upset with our party because it shows a clear divide between the many camps within the broad umbrella. Reid, Schumer, et. al. have exposed this divide and shown many of us who supported Hackett (or even Brown) that there is a clear disconnect between our elected leadership and the voting population. America continues to suffer at the hands of a corrupt and incompetent Republican government, but our party is all too complacent to allow themselves to be stereotyped by the competition and pushed aside as irrelevant. It seems that the only person in our party that is trying to make any progressive steps to effectively winning elections is Howard Dean, but even he has been the victim of sabotage from within the party itself. We know that the Republican party is corrupt, it is all too clear, but when are we going to take a long look at ourselves and see that the first step in eliminating corruption is clean our own house first?

I donated to Paul Hackett's campaign because he was the type of voice that would have a great appeal here in Tennessee. I didn't agree with him on all of his issues, but I looked at the overall package and saw that I supported most of his ideals and he could win over voters that disagreed with many of the issues that I took him to task over. I'm debating on contacting the DNC today and trying to find out where Howard Dean stands on this matter. This is shameful behavior for any party, especially ours. Hackett was given the support of the party, only to have it taken away a bit later by elements of a special interest faction within our party. We need to ask ourselves is the DNC the leadership of this party or is it merely a side note to the real power of the party, the DCCC and the DLC? Which one is speaking for the party and which one gets to control who gets the official nod for candidacy? It should be the DNC, but it seems reality is not backing up this assumption.

All in all, this is a black eye to the party. Brown may be a great candidate, I have no doubt. But Hackett shouldn't have been backstabbed by his own party.

[bigscott]

1. Amen

I am not even from Ohio, so I guess i should not tell them what to do, BUT, I have contributed to PH's campaign and would have done all that I could to get him elected!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Backstabbed? HA!

Are you kidding me? To be backstabbed, don't you have to have actually DONE something first?

Hackett wasn't backstabbed - he was pushed aside just like all novices are whom have delusions of grandeur. He could not have won that Senate race, and he most certainly would not have won a primary against a seasoned candidate like Sherrod Brown, especially where Congressman Brown is a GREAT candidate in his own right. Mr. Hackett would be best served to either continue fighting for a U.S. House seat or he should run for State Senate, which would probably be a good place for him.

You don't start your career as a CEO, and unless you're enormously famous or wealthy, the same goes for politics.

[TornadoTN]

7. Point taken, but here's the catch

If you look back at current history and voting trends, it is the outsider who makes the most inroads in most elections. Remember 1994? A lot of first time office holders that year and many of them had never held any elected office. For example, take my state of Tennessee: Fred Thompson and Bill Frist. Look at 2004: Barack Obama.

Given the current state of affairs and the division in this country, I believe more people are inclined to take a look at a fresh, new candidate rather than play politics as usual. Let me add that I am basing these conclusions on the state of affairs in Tennessee (specifically, eastern TN) , where the GOP has had a stranglehold since 1994, but that grip is starting to loosen considerably. I don't believe its a twisted leap of logic to say that this is probably the case across the nation,especially in states that are more urban and progressive.

[KittyWampus]

14. Obama was NOT an outsider

[TornadoTN]

20. Plenty of people viewed him as an outsider

Maybe he wasn't an outsider in the traditional sense, but he certainly came across as one and one with a very strong message.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. None of your facts are correct.

Barack Obama was NOT an outsider. He was already in the state senate, which is exactly where I thought Hackett should go.

And Fred Thompson was a party lawyer during Watergate and gained some notability as an actor prior to running for Congress in a state that was becoming a GOP stronghold.

Frist did not start in politics as a Senate candidate either - he was a deputy director for the Bush-Quayle 92 campaign and served on many appointed political task forces prior to that. Plus he was rich.

NONE of the people you mentioned were ever outsiders in the first place.

[TornadoTN]

28. Such a literal interpretation

You are exactly right. They all held some form of job in government/politics prior to running for office.

But if you go back and examine their campaigns, they all ran on the approach of being the outsider, ready to take on Washington. In the Tennessee examples in particular, you will find that they were successful in creating this appearance because the people in the state were disillusioned with the party politics presented by Jim Sasser and the ineffective work of Harlan Matthews (Al Gores appointed successor). Regardless, they came onto the ticket as not having held elected office and were able to succesfully use the percieved "outsider" platform to win over a majority of voters.

Regardless of where you thought Hackett should have gone, he can run for whichever office he chooses. The Democrats gave their support to him, only to pull it away when another candidate appeared. Politics for sure, but a pretty shitty way to go about it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. The "outsider" label is so easy to accomplish.

Bill Clinton ran on an outsider label, and he was a friggin Governor. It's the oldest, cheapest, and easiest trick in the book. Almost every non-incumbent, regardless of their resume, uses it.

[TornadoTN]

35. Yes....but you ignore one glaring fact

It works

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

38. And it will work for Sherrod Brown.

That is my point.

[TornadoTN]

41. I hope you are right

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-Brown by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I identify more with his record than Hacketts. But I also realize that my ideology doesn't fit in with the type of vote that Hackett could sway. Hackett had appeal across party lines, while Brown has an established record that will be very easy to be manipulated by the GOP.

I certainly hope Brown wins, I really do. My main problem was how this was handled and the clear divide in the leadership of our party.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

46. I don't think Hackett held THAT much cross-party appeal though.

Yeah, you might look at that special election and think that, but really, it's hard to take that as a true representation as to how he'd do in a normal, state-wide election. For one, GOP took that seat for granted and used nearly no resources on the race until the end. For another, he was a complete unknown the first time around - his "war hero" gimmick won't be nearly as effective this time because now people want to know MORE about him, and it's clear he hasn't had an answer for most of those questions yet. Further, he has not faced the full wrath of the GOP smear machine. He is most certainly not ready for that.

Congressman Brown is.

[TornadoTN]

48. On that note, we can agree

You are correct in your analysis on the state-wide situation, but I would rather be given the opportunity to decide for myself which of the two I was going to vote for rather than being given a one-size fits all answer.

The only thing that I can say since I am not in Ohio is that Hackett had quite a few people talking here in Tennessee, especially those in the middle and moderate Republicans. That is saying a lot, at least as far as our end the state is concerned.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

53. I can understand your points.

But at some juncture, it becomes impractical to have a fight just to have a fight. Brown was almost definitely going to defeat Hackett. It just made no sense at all to have an internal battle that would waste resources when the REAL battle is against DeWine, especially since that internal battle is already a foregone conclusion.

There is a reason our founding fathers chose not to go with a true Democracy. It often makes little sense to have the people make every decision. It's unrealistic to do so. Such is the case within our party as well.

[TornadoTN]

58. Right on

It is amazing that the founding fathers had the foresight to establish a democracy in the manner that they did. I see your points, hell, I agree with most of them, but I still wish that the people of the state had been given the opportunity to decide. But I will concede the point that a prolonged and bitter primary probably would have ran contrary to the best interests in the general election.

Perhaps it is my distrust in our leadership to mount an effective campaign against the right-wing that makes me skeptical over just about anything that they do anymore.

[RazzleDazzle]

79. Oh, that's bullshit

There is a reason our founding fathers chose not to go with a true Democracy. It often makes little sense to have the people make every decision.

Simplistic, utter bullshit.

The founding fathers were trying to preserve minority rights -- so that "the tyrrany of the majority" wouldn't prevail at all times.

DO NOT trot out such a simplistic if not outright erroneous argument to try to justify an erosion in the democratic process, especially one that represents such a betrayal as this one.

[Catrina]

59. 'It's the oldest, cheapest, and easiest trick in the book'!! You say this

and you support it? Applaud lies?

This is why I supported Hackett. He was really an outsider, not using any cheap tricks to play the role.

I'm puzzled by your logic. First you say that the others were NOT outsiders, to argue that real outsiders don't win. Then you say they will PRETEND to be, calling that tactic old, cheap and dirty. Then you OPPOSE the only person who is a genuine outsider ~ after saying that playing 'outsider' wins. Are you saying that being a real outsider won't win, while pretending to one will win?

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but I'm trying to follow the logic and it's not making any sense to me. Maybe it's just me ~

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

67. Who's applauding lies?

Saying something is the truth and applauding it are two entirely different things. Surely you don't celebrate all truths in this world. Disliking a truth doesn't make it any less true, however.

And yes, I absolutely don't think Hackett can win because he doesn't know how the game is played, or as you put it, because he is ACTUALLY an outsider. Just because it's a good campaign tactic doesn't make it a good campaign quality.

[MrBenchley]

21. Hackett lost the only race he ever ran, to a crazy woman, no less....

He was 20 points behind in the polls when he quit, and he went out with a bitterly Nixonian jermeiad....

[TornadoTN]

24. You have a point

I even said so in a subsequent post, the way Hackett went out was certainly the wrong way to go about it. No doubt about it. But I also understand his frustration with the party at the same time. Hell, most of us here at DU have felt that way about the party at one time or another!

[MrBenchley]

26. What I find funniest about all this...

Is that Brown was endorsed by the PDA...

You know, if you want the Democratic party to have strong leadership, you follow the leaders. If you want to keep undermining their decisions and throwing slurs at them, then it's the height of hypocrisy to turn around and complain in the next breath that they are "weak."

[derby378]

29. Meanwhile, here in the real world...

You forget that the ultimate goal is impeachment.

IM-PEACH-MENT.

And we cannot achieve this goal unless Democrats take control of Congress.

And Democrats cannot take control of Congress if those at the top stab the new talent in the back.

Hackett was double-crossed. Now he's out of politics, possibly for good.

And Reid and Schumer cut off their nose to spite their face.

If you want Bush to go unchallenged and unimpeached, then business as usual is the way to go.

Me, I think it's time we DU the Democratic Party.

Now get off your ass and do something.

[MrBenchley]

34. The ultimate goal is good government and a strong America

not petty revenge on a corrupt incompetent drunk.

"Democrats cannot take control of Congress if those at the top stab the new talent in the back."
Bullshit. Hackett lost the only race he ever ran (to a crazy woman, no less) and was 20 points back in the polls. He was a Republican until very recently.

Brown is endorrsed by the Progressive Democrats of Aemrica...but the, not even the "progressive purists" here give two shits about that group...they're too busy pissing on actual Democrats and spouting puerile, chest-thumping bouts of impotent grandiosity.

[derby378]

49. FIRST impeachment, THEN good government

Otherwise, George W. Bush will have another two full years to cause even more havoc for American and help choose his successor. I am so tired of Republicans in the White House.

[derby378]

36. That sort of analysis convinces me...

...that the person making the analysis forgot what sort of district Hackett ran in to begin with.

[MrBenchley]

43. So because Hackett had some appeal in a clot of right wing crazies

that was supposed to translate to big medicine among the sane?

Hackett was 20 points down in the polls state-wide.

[TornadoTN]

45. Home cooking, anyone?

In polls that originated from Brown, he is down by 20 points. Of course that is going to be the case!

I don't doubt that he was down, but it is February.

[MrBenchley]

50. So where are Hackett's polls?

By the way, if Hackett truly is grassroots, how could Reid and Schumer have told his donors to stop donating unless they had thousands of e-mail addresses?

[TornadoTN]

55. So where are indepedent polls?

We don't trust GOP slanted polls or polls put out by GOP candidates, so why should we trust polls conducted by our own party candidates?

That's the problem, we get too wrapped up with polls rather than the substance of the issues.

[MrBenchley]

57. Feel free to trot them out....

"the substance of the issues"
What issues? Hackett was a one-issue candidate who was woefully unprepared to discuss anything else. His statements on immigration were both disgraceful and ill-thought out.

[TornadoTN]

62. Yes, immigration was a slap in the face

But I must respectfully disagree with your assessment that he was a one issue candidate. He had a lot of other very valid and progressive views on other issues, but the Iraq War was what he hung his hat on. That is mainly a fault of marketing the lowest common denominator, rather than being a one issue candidate.

I'm not saying that he was THE best candidate, but rather, our leadership sent the wrong messages to BOTH candidates and their handling of the matter was deplorable.

[MrBenchley]

64. LOL!

"I'm not saying that he was THE best candidate, but rather, our leadership sent the wrong messages to BOTH candidates"
How? I don't think it's the wrong message in any way to urge a losing candidate who becomes a public emabassment to drop out.

And let's note that Brown is endorsed by the Progressive Democrats of America, not the DLC (which doesn't prevent the usual suspects here from a hearty new round of idiotic DLC-bashing)...

[TornadoTN]

66. Such a mature discourse

LOL! LOL! LOL! HAHAHAH HAR HAR HAR - Let's just laugh in the faces of people that disagree with you!

Regardless, the wrong messages were sent all the way around, Hackett was wrong in taking a parting shot, but was not a "public embarassment" by any stretch of the imagination. The DLC/DCCC backed Hackett and gave him the impression that they were behind him, only to withdraw that support later on. I have a problem with that, just as you would if the tables were turned.

But lets just forget about the merits of the debate and laugh at the people that disagree with you!

[MrBenchley]

68. What else is there to DO but laugh?

"The DLC/DCCC backed Hackett"
Did they? Maybe you ought to tell that to the imbeciles claiming "the DLC is pushing Brown down Ohio voters throats" and otehr nonsense (snicker)....

[RazzleDazzle]

80. Did he lose? Or was it Diebold?

and/or all the other vote suppression/spoilage techniques used in Ohio?? We may never know for sure.

What we DO know is this: Hackett's numbers were incredible in that red district in that red state. Just incredible. And we also know that nothing this administration has done so far has exactly endeared the Republicans to the people -- quite the contrary.

[EFerrari]

39. Some people do start their careers as CEOs. They are called

leaders.

I've heard Hackett talk. He didn't sound delusional to me.

What is the leadership so scared of, that they won't let the people of OH choose their own candidate?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

42. You made me laugh with that first line.

But in answer of your question, all indicators show that Hackett stood no chance of winning that primary. So why waste resources on a pointless primary, which would allow our incumbent opponent in a GOP leaning state to walk through to September unscathed, amassing his already larger warchest instead of having a very strong Senate candidate AND a very strong US House candidate too? Yeah, that would've been a fucking brilliant plan. Good thing DU is NOT in charge.

[EFerrari]

47. Or we might wind up with a representative democracy

and we can't have that. :wtf:

It's okay, Vash. I just get a little nervous when people start telling me that they know what's good for me and to just shush and fall in line. :)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

51. At some point, that stops being practical.

It's the same reason why our Founders decided against going for a true Democracy. Sometimes, it just doesn't make any sense and some decisions NEED to be made by a smaller group of people. I'm sorry, but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to have a fight just for the sake of having a fight, and our party was completely correct to avoid a primary.

[EFerrari]

61. Well, I agree about the founders but not with them.

And fighting for the right to chose seems like a good fight, to me anyway.

Look, spending caps on primaries and then there is no reason for the Beltway to decide for OH -- is there?

Right now is it about the money, not the man or person. By the same logic, we don't need to have elections at all. I'll show you my bankbook, you show me yours and that's that. :silly:

[TornadoTN]

52. Yep...

That is what has me riled up about this whole thing. Hackett was forced out by the powers that be, rather than putting together a steady run at the primary, given the people of Ohio a choice. Is that not what Primaries are intended to accomplish?

I understand the point that a prolonged and costly primary can be detrimental to the chances in the general election, but I believe this is the exception rather than the rule. Both candidates are strong in their own suit and a primary would, in my opinion, strengthen the chances of the winner in the general election.

At any rate, I will never support a candidate being cherry picked by a leadership group that still can't grasp how to effectively wage a political campaign as a minority party.

[xxqqqzme]

78. Hackett announced he would seek

the senate seat AFTER Brown said he would not. It wasn't until after Hackett announced that brown changed his mind & decided 2 run. It wouldn't surprize me 2 learn that the dlc darlings went 2 brown and encouraged him 2 run anyway. Hacket did not receive any support from the dccc during his run against mean jean.

[liberal N proud]

3. What it does for the party is eliminates an ugly primary battle

It give candidate Brown a chance to concentrate all his efforts on beating Dewine in November and not have to work smoothing over inter party issues after a long primary.

Hackett was behind in the polls by 20+ points, it is a smart move for the effort to take over control of Congress.

[asthmaticeog]

5. True, but this gives Brown's candidacy a black eye, too.

And a 20 point gap in the polls means very little in February.

[TornadoTN]

13. Yes, but this will most certainly be framed

The way this was handled is going to be fodder for the GOP Election Machine, you can mark that one down and take it to the bank. It hurts not only those who supported Hackett, but it also hurts Brown and the DNC in general. It illustrates clear splintering in the Democratic Party and a struggle to choose a message.

I am of the opinion that the less ammo we give the GOP, the better. Even the National Media was following Hackett, giving him clear exposure. 20 points is nothing this early in the game.

[asthmaticeog]

4. I'm a Brown supporter, and I agree with you.

National "leadership" should have left this one alone - whichever candidate was victorious in the primaries would have had widespread support. Those bastards Schumer and Reid took this choice out of the hands of Ohio's Democratic base.

And that this seems to have driven Hackett out of politics is nothing short of TRAGIC - though I support Brown in this particular race, I was really looking forward to Hackett's career.

[msongs]

6. remember crybabies who took their ball and went home when they

didn't get their way? back in elementary school when it was ok to act like little kids?

when you become an adult (if you every do that is) you are supposed to choose then accept your
choices.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Norquist Nemesis]

9. Well said! n/t

[KittyWampus]

11. Who says Hackett's career is over? Is he going to go after Schmidt?

[TornadoTN]

16. Hackett himself says no

In his statement, Hackett made it clear in no uncertain terms that he was so fed-up that he was stepping away from politics and not running for ANY election.

We can debate whether that was good on his part (I contend that it wasn't, but he is understandably pissed), but it does indicate that he is very upset at the Democratic party.

[KittyWampus]

32. But Politics is "Politics". I'm sorry, but if Hackett can't deal

with Politics, he'd no business running for National office.

He'd get chewed up and spit out by GOP machinations.

[MadHound]

74. No, Hackett himself said that he isn't going to break his word

And run for a House seat against three other Democrats that he had already made a promise to that he wouldn't run. He is keeping this word. Sad to see that the party leadership isn't as noble towards the people who support them.

And the party wonders why people are leaving in droves. I would say that this is example 2,692.

[asthmaticeog]

17. Nope. n/t

[sui generis]

18. you looked like you needed another one

;)

[DubyaSux]

8. Backstabbed...

...they asked him to run, then called his supporters to ask them to stop funding his campaign.

So, instead of a war hero that has the moral authority to call repugs on their bullshit war, we get another business-as-usual-politician. No wonder we haven't been able to win shit in the last 12 years. It will be a generation of republican corruption because the democratic leadership doesn't have a clue.

[sui generis]

10. this needed to be settled in the primaries.

How fucking pissy of us to think in a "weak" party system that doesn't enforce partisanship ideals that we have partisan organizations who at this late stage removed Hackett but sat with both thumbs and dainty size fives up their FUCKING ASSES when we had Zell Miller in place.

Day late, dollar short, and godammit Hackett should have stayed in anyway.

[Burried News]

25. The DLC better figure out where to get some energy for the campaign from.

Because right now all they are good for is letting the air out of the balloon.

[MrBenchley]

37. LOL! Brown is the PDA's candidate...

But don't let facts get in the way of some Democrat-bashing.

[The Witch]

72. Yes, and primaries need to be the deciding ground for this.

Not backroom machinations. A bunch of people say "Hi, I feel I can represent this party best," and the public goes to the polls and says who it will be, and then the whole party gets behind that one person.

In my opinion, people within the party shouldn't announce endorsements until after the primary. The primary itself should be the decision, not the endorsement.

[Burried News]

12. Do either of the major parties really love democracy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/politics/14ohio.html
Excerpt:
"This is an extremely disappointing decision that I feel has been forced on me," said Mr. Hackett, whose announcement comes two days before the state's filing deadline for candidates. He said he was outraged to learn that party leaders were calling his donors and asking them to stop giving and said he would not enter the Second District Congressional race.

"For me, this is a second betrayal," Mr. Hackett said. "First, my government misused and mismanaged the military in Iraq, and now my own party is afraid to support candidates like me."

Mr. Hackett was the first Iraq war veteran to seek national office, and the decision to steer him away from the Senate race has surprised those who see him as a symbol for Democrats who oppose the war but want to appear strong on national security.

"Alienating Hackett is not just a bad idea for the party, but it also sends a chill through the rest of the 56 or so veterans that we've worked to run for Congress," said Mike Lyon, executive director for the Band of Brothers, a group dedicated to electing Democratic veterans to national office. "Now is a time for Democrats to be courting, not blocking, veterans who want to run."
End of Excerpt

[sui generis]

15. I'd still vote for Hackett. By the way in case anyone has forgotten

what's the plan when the DLC INEVITABLY tells us who our primary candidate is going to be? Put their reject in charge of the DNC again to keep him out of the way?

. . . . (so that's what crickets sound like)

[Norquist Nemesis]

19. It's very, very sad. I've been holding back at criticising DCCC/DLC

Nine out of 10 times when I see a bashing of Dems going on around here vs. putting the Cons in the meatgrinder, I'll stay out of it and just shake my head. But this time, a good spanking is well deserved to the Democratic Leaders.

It all came down to the almighty dollar. And from what I see, they pulled and Ambramoff stunt to call Hacketts donors and shift them to Brown while also ponying up for Brown with the funds donated by members to support candidates. :grr: They should have let it play out, let the voters decide, then go to the mat for whoever earned the vote in the primary. :nuke:

[TornadoTN]

22. So true

That's why I am having such a hard time accepting this. Primaries are supposed to decide who is going to get the nod for the big run in the general election. The way this was done is deplorable and has all the shades of the corrupt GOP political manuevering.

The sad part is, we still haven't learned to play the GOP's game effectively.

[Burried News]

27. It's not a game and we are not playing. And the GOP has nothing

to teach us that the National Socialist Party didn't teach us 70 years ago.

[TornadoTN]

30. The game of politics.....

Wow, I never thought I would be accused of promoting playing a game of National Socialist (Nazi) politics.

Did it ever occur that using the word "GAME" may not actually infer that it is a game like baseball, tiddliwinks or kickball?

and I thought we were free to discuss politics around these forums. Silly me.

[KittyWampus]

33. Excuse, you don't think the GOP does its utmost to control primary races?

Remember what they did to McCain, as a prominent example?

[TornadoTN]

40. Pardon

I'm talking about framing the issues, not manipulating the election system by fraud or subterfuge like the Republicans.

[Burried News]

56. BUT as I see it all the GOP does is fraud and subterfuge.

Sorry you took my previous post the way you did, my fault - I should have paid closer attention to who I was posting to - didn't realize you were the originator of the thread.

[TornadoTN]

60. It's ok - and you are right

The GOP is in power because of fraud and subterfuge, there is no doubt about that. But they have also succeeded in mastering the art of framing the issues, while we have not yet grasped that concept effectively.

At any rate, sorry I became so bitter to your previous post. I need to soften up just a bit, but I am having a hard time doing that lately when it comes to our leadership.

[Burried News]

63. Here's to passion - on what other day of the year would it be more

appropriate? Your lead post was just great and you managed to energize the thread throughout it - nice job.

Kinda tightly wound myself.

[cascadiance]

70. Hmm.... How about changing the equation so that Hackett runs in CA...

against Feinstein, and Cindy Sheehan runs in Ohio for the Senate seat there! :)

Or perhaps Hackett can run for governor of Ohio instead!

[AnnInLa]

44. Not as bad as it seems....IMHO

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/14/0135/82714

To be clear -- Hackett didn't stand a chance. He had a tenth of Brown's money, and that was before party people allegedly tried to stop Hackett's donors from giving. His field operation in the special election was literally put together and implemented by Dan Lucas. Who is Dan Lucas? Sherrod Brown's campaign manager. Hackett's netroots effort in the special election was put together by Tim Tagaris. And while Tim is now at the DNC, he helped put together Brown's netroots operation.

So it was Brown's people who helped put together the nuts and bolts of Hackett's special election campaign, and they were now working for their boss -- Sherrod Brown.

To be further clear, Brown announced his candidacy before Hackett did. Yes, Reid and Schumer were urging Hackett to run, but he wouldn't commit to running. Labor Day, the traditional announcement day for most candidates, came and went with Hackett refusing to say what his plans were. So after waiting and waiting and waiting, Brown essentially said "fuck it" and got in. It was only after news of Brown's impending announcement were leaked that Hackett decided to commit to the race.

Bottom line? Hackett didn't stand a chance, he wasn't backstabbed by his party since Brown's candidacy was announced before his was (if he'd only committed sooner, Brown might've stayed out), and the party wasn't out to screw him, they were out to get him to run in the House.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/14/0135/82714

[SeattleRob]

77. So What?

"Bottom line? Hackett didn't stand a chance, he wasn't backstabbed by his party since Brown's candidacy was announced before his was (if he'd only committed sooner, Brown might've stayed out), and the party wasn't out to screw him, they were out to get him to run in the House"


The point is that the Democratic voters - the rank and file - need to decide who will represent them in the general election against the republican opponent. Not Washington insiders - who by the way have a shitty track record of late. I am sure Brown is a good guy - but because people stepped in and didn't allow the process to happen, it will ultimately hurt our party.

[redqueen]

54. I hate that these things divide us.

I wish we could all keep our eye on the big picture at times like these, and not be so ready to attack each other over disagreements.

So many battles to fight...

[LeftHander]

65. K&R - excellent post - eom

[radio4progressives]

69. k&r Excellent post..

As has been too often in our party, the leadership once again for the up-teenth time sent the WRONG message to it's rank and file yesterday, and worse to the Ohio citizens.

Even after all we have been struggling through, including all of the naval gazing and hand wringing, critical self analysis, the party leadership modus operendei still doesn't change, and seem to lack even the most basic democratic principles, as demonstrated by what they did to Paul Hackett.

Shame on Emmanuel, Reid Schumer et al.

But shame on the rank and file for accepting the party line to the extent that this was even allowed to be carried through.

In other words, the rank and file MUST demand ACCOUNTABILITY from the party "leaders" - the rank and file MUST storm their ranks, confront, admonish and quite literally take into our own hands.

[The Witch]

71. k&r for truth.

It has nothing to do with whether Hackett or Brown was the better candidate. It has to do with the election system being one where the primary no longer means anything, and where the outsider with the potential to be a great leader is fought by those who can't see the big picture.

[mzmolly]

73. I want specifics HOW was he FORCED out? I think he fell short of cash

because he didn't have "party" backing, but if progressives put their $$ where their mouth is, WE could have funded Hackett's campaign. I personally donated as I know many other DU'ers did, however, the Party is of course going to try to back who can win. If they don't feel X can win, they won't spend the resources. That is where WE come in.

I am sorry to see Hackett leave the race, I do hope he'll run for office of some sort and I hope progressives will put their $$ where their mouths are when it comes to supporting political change.

[FlaGranny]

75. One glaring thing stands out in this thread, and

that is that some people seem to think that our primary system of choosing candidates is bad. No matter how qualified the candidates are, they should all have the opportunity to run so that THE PEOPLE CAN CHOOSE their candidates. In my opinion it is just rotten of party leaders to decide who gets to run and to twist arms to prevent funding of "unapproved" candidates. Party boss leadership is what the Republicans do. It's rotten for them and it's rotten for Democrats. It's underhanded and un-American.

[EFerrari]

76. Strong arming people isn't leadership, it's thuggery. n/t

[RazzleDazzle]

82. it's rotten and it's un-democratic (anti-democracy)

[Catherine Vincent]

81. I doubt this was the first time this has happened.

Maybe their internal polls had the other guy winning with more points. There are times candidates will be asked to run just as much asked to step aside, imo.