Dean vs Kerry and Hackett ordeal too

[FreedomAngel82]

Please for the hundreth time get this through. There isn't any consperiacy to the whole Kerry vs Dean deal. By the time the Iowa Cacus dinner Kerry was winning by 60% with Dean trailing behind him (not too far though, I believe he was in second place at this point). When Dean was on "Time" in 2003 Kerry hadn't even come out officially saying he was running!

Go to c-span.org and type in John Kerry and look for him on "Road to the White House" from August 8th, 2003. Towards the end of the program he talks to reporters and one reporter asks him about Dean and he mentions Dean on the cover of "Time." Kerry HAS NOT been affiliated with the DLC since 2003. Look in my signature at my Kerry quote. "We do not need two republican parties."~ John Kerry If you think the DLC was backing Kerry you are DEAD FUCKING WRONG. Look at all Kerry has done in the past. BCCI, Iran/Contra and his book "The New War" where he predicted a 9/11 type attack would happen next on our country if one did and where he talks about globalized crime (you can find it at amazon.com for around $10).

John Kerry is just as liberal as Ted Kennedy (right after him) and there is no consperiacy there. Kerry won Iowa pure and simple since isn't Iowa voice counts in the primaries? Now onto the Hackett deal. I'm disappointed in everyone quite frankly involved. I'm disappointed Schumer and Reid got involved (if they really did which wouldn't surprise me) since they aren't from Ohio. They could've just come out and endorsed Brown if they wanted but let the voters actually vote in the primaries. Isn't that what elections are about? I'm also disappointed in Hackett for rolling over to them. He could've stud up and said "hell no" as I told in my other post about this and he could've come to the internet and grassroots if he was so worried about money.

I'm even starting to wonder if money was the reason too or if there was something else. If Hackett is dropping out of politics all together because of this deal maybe politics isn't for him. This reminds me of McCarthy vs Kennedy. What if Kennedy never got involved in running for president? McCarthy already had a base and from what I understand was doing quite well as the anti-war canidate etc. and than Kennedy comes out.
From what I understand neither man rolled over. We need some real fighting democrats and I'm tired of democrats rolling over whether within our own party or with the Bushies. It's just so frustrating. Thank you for letting me rant.

[Ignacio Upton]

1. Good post

BTW, it was Eugene McCarthy who ran, when RFK entered in 1968. Also, McCarthy only died recently, back in December.

[FreedomAngel82]

7. I thought it was McGovern? Huh

:blush:

[Zen Democrat]

2. Just gotta challenge your Kennedy vs. McGovern thing.

If you're talking about Bobby Kennedy, he entered the race in 1968 ... and after LBJ dropped out, the race was between Eugene McCarthy and RFK, with Bobby beating Gene in the June 1968 California primary.

McGovern was in 1972. And Ted Kennedy didn't run that year. But Gene McCarthy ran again, but didn't get anywhere.

[FreedomAngel82]

9. I changed it

Hopefully it's right now. :blush: I thought it was McGovern so my bad.

[cali]

3. Rants are fine

but paragraph breaks are a must. I don't mind spelling and grammar goofs near as much as trying to read a monolithic block of words.

[bryant69]

6. Agree - hard to read when no spaces.

And you might esteem this a small thing, and complain about nit-picking, but if you want people to really read yuo words - you ought to consider how you present them.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. For the 101st time.

You don't have to look any further than the vote swap deal in Iowa.

Kerry <---> Geppie
Kucinich <---> Edwards
Dean <---> S.O.L.

If you think this arrangement (the insiders vs. the "outsider") was a coincidence...


Mr. Hackett, meet the Machine.

[FreedomAngel82]

8. ???

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. What part whizzed by you?

[FreedomAngel82]

13. As I mentioned

isn't the Iowa Cacus voice votes?

Rules of the Iowa Cacus:

Link: http://www.iowacaucus.org/faqs.html

Rules: Democratic caucus-goers express their presidential preference through a short of hands, a sign-in sheet or by dividing themselves into groups according to candidate. Democratic candidates must receive at least 15 percent of the votes in that precinct to move on to the county convention. If a candidate receives less than 15 percent of the votes, the caucus cannot end until those voters change their vote to one of the predominant candidates. A "third party" may hold a convention to nominate one candidate for president and one for vice president as well. The results of this caucus activity on both the Democratic and Republican sides are not binding on the elected delegates, but the delegates usually feel obligated to follow the wishes expressed by the caucus-goers. Thus the initial caucus results provide a good barometer of the composition of Iowa's national delegation.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. It may be or it may be written - but that's beside the point.

Depending on how many delegates a precinct has there are almost always fractional votes.

Just for an example, lets say there are ten people at your caucus table and 4 delegates to be portioned out. In order for a candidate to receive a delegate they have to reach a threshold, say 25%. A candidate then needs 2.5 votes to become viable. Everyone makes their case and then the voting occurs.

Candidate A gets 5 votes. Or two delegates.
Candidate B gets 3 votes. Or one delegate.
Candidate C gets 1 vote. Or no delegates.
Candidate D gets 1 vote. Or no delegates.

There's a delegate remaining. Typically, the group gets together and has another vote to see who'll receive that delegate. Voice vote or written vote, it doesn't matter because everything is out in the open, i.e., everyone knows who supports whom.

[karynnj]

25. Do you have a link to any Iowa story from before the caucuses

that has Kerry or Gephardt instructing their supporters to back the other if there was insufficient support? There were many reports that Kuchinich was asking that Edwards be backed if he didn't have enough support. (I never even read that it was mutual.)

I watched the CSPAN coverage of 2 cauci (if that's the plural). People in the second round were mentioning what Kuchinich wanted. His supporters did NOT monolythicaly follow. (A couple continued wandering around trying to get other people to support Kuchinich. I think some went to Kerry.)

The key is the candidates do not control people who vote for them in the second round - they pick their second favorite. For many non-Kerry voters he was their second favorite.

[FreedomAngel82]

30. Oh my

But Edwards was DLC! So why would Kucinich want his supporters to back Edwards?

:sarcasm:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. Use the power of your star.

It's all in GDP. A thousand times over.

[karynnj]

49. So, I gather you don't have a link to any article written prior to the

caucus? How exactly did Kerry and Gephardt do this.

I've seen posts that Diebold created the Iowa win - even though there were no votings machines. What I am saying is that there were many stories on the Kuchinich/Edwards alliance, but there were no similar Kerry or Gephardt stories - likely because both assumed they would be over 15% (which was the threshold - not the 25% of your conjecture.)

I KNOW people posted anything and everything in GD-P, but to be believable I would want a link to a Gephardt or Kerry directive or a news story (like the ones on Kuchinich). You made the accusation, you should provide the backup. I won't spend time looking for what I doubt exists.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

56. No, I can't find the link (I'll keep looking)

But I'm not lying to you.

How exactly did Kerry and Gephardt do this.

Simple. Their campaigns made an agreement. It happens every caucus. One of Dean's biggest mistakes in Iowa was that he wasn't nearly as familiar with the process as Kerry and Geppie. K&G had people in the caucuses instructing their supporters on how to vote the fractionals. They had their shit together.


I've seen posts that Diebold created the Iowa win - even though there were no votings machines. What I am saying is that there were many stories on the Kuchinich/Edwards alliance, but there were no similar Kerry or Gephardt stories - likely because both assumed they would be over 15% (which was the threshold - not the 25% of your conjecture.)

Diebold? Not from me. My point is that there WERE Kerry/Geppie alliance stories (I'll keep looking). Who did Geppie support when he dropped out, shortly after the Iowa caucus? Kerry. The 25% was to make the example easier to portray. It works just as well as 15%.


I KNOW people posted anything and everything in GD-P, but to be believable I would want a link to a Gephardt or Kerry directive or a news story (like the ones on Kuchinich). You made the accusation, you should provide the backup. I won't spend time looking for what I doubt exists.

All I can tell you is that I KNOW $$$ people in the Dean campaign and what I say is true. People inside the caucuses related the stories. Beyond this all-important link (which I will try to provide), use your reason. To whit: When Dean was the perceived frontrunner he took shots from all comers. When Kerry was piling up primary wins he took virtually no flak, save from the Dean camp. It's doesn't take a genius to figure out what was going on. The PTB had made their choice.

[FreedomAngel82]

61. And to echo what you said

if you go to c-span.org and type in John Kerry in the video search engine look for him on "Road to the White House" from August 8th, 2003. Towards the end he talks to reporters and one young reporter talks to Kerry about Dean and you can tell he's trying to bait Kerry to attack Dean but he doesn't. He just tries to stay on his campaign and he doesn't fall for the reporters little trick.

[karynnj]

77. I still think that the people at the caucus make their own choices

The Gephardt people would likely go to Kerry or Edwards. There was a very nasty fight between Dean and Gephardt, so his supporters would be very unlikely to go to Dean. If you think about Gephardt, one of his biggest virtues (to his supporters) was his long career in public service in the House and it's likely that supporters of Gephardt were looking for a flashy candidate. This might make his supporter far more likely to pick Kerry - a 4 th term Senator, former lt governor, former prosecutor, protest leader, and war hero over a 1st term Senator who was a (very charismatic) trial lawyer. If you see Gephardt as a good public servant candidate, there is far more similarity to Kerry.

Dean really wasn't hit be more than a normal front runner gets - he simply wasn't prepared for it. Also, he distorted Gephardt's health care votes challanging the heart of who Gephardt was. He also distorted his and Kerry's relative Iraq positions. There was very little difference in things they said throughout late 2002 and early 2003. Kerry spoke and wrote against the war before it started. Dean by characterising Kerry as pro-war in the long run helped the Republicans sell the idea that there was little difference between Kerry and Bush. (Given Kerry's history, these Dean actions were pretty bad)

Kerry did get flack - including nonsense like the Dean camp speaking of Kerry imploding - when there were Republican intern affair rumors. (Clark repeated the rumors as well.) The Edwards campaign was behind many "Kerry has no charisma" stories. One reason you might not remember the flack was that Kerry deflected a lot of it very smoothly and his credentials were strong. (THe Republican launched an unprecedented amount of slime - about $40 million dollars worth - not considering all the free coverage of it - and he still almost pulled it out.)

[Cha]

55. I just wanna jump on here and

thank you for standing up for this view point so well, RiF, since it is being rehashed.

Good ol' politics and Good ol' Dean..who turned lemons into one of the tastiest Lemonades slurpable

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

57. Hey, Zidzer!

Long time no see! :D

I'm not saying Dean won. I'm just telling 'em how their guy won. I won't talk about robo-calls if you won't! Saint Kerry! :rofl:

[Cha]

60. :)

[FreedomAngel82]

73. And your proof is???

[FreedomAngel82]

62. Oh sure don't let the facts get in the way

:eyes:

[blm]

52. For the 102nd time - watch Dean blow it during the last few debates.

Especially at the Iowa debate which was probably his worst performance at a most crucial time. Dean would be one of the first to admit this, and he knew his campaign had problems and that is one of the reasons he and Trippi were at such odds BEFORE the Iowa caucus.

The corporate media was OVER-REPORTING Dean's numbers on the ground in Iowa and UNDER-REPORTING Kerry's support on the ground. Dean and Trippi knew the internals showed them behind. Why doesn't anyone question WHY the corporate media was reporting so off, because THAT was the real manipulation going on.

That's why media exaggerated the Dean scream, to make it appear as if Dean imploded on his own while they escaped scrutiny for misreporting that part of the primary for months.

Plus - the corporate media and big money people in the Dem PARTY dried up Kerry's donations the last few months and that is why he had to rely on his own money.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

59. Hello, sweetie.

First off, just to get it clear, Dean lost.

Let's say Dean did blow it in those last couple of debates. It's understandable when you have everyone from Kooch and Sharpton to Kerry and Geppie taking aim at him. Over the following months, Kerry received a treatment that was completely different. This has to be admitted. It's all on tape. Remember when Geppie ripped into Kerry right after Iowa? Oh no, that's right, he dropped out and gave him his endorsement. Remember all the times Edwards tore into Kerry? Oh, that's right, they tossed powder puffs and became running mates. Remember...I think you get the point. I'm trying to make the point that the system worked the same way against Hackett. Apparently there is no room for firebrands in the Democratic Party.

As for the rest of it... :shrug:



Hope you, the Mister and baby blm had a great V day!

[FreedomAngel82]

63. Oh please

You just go on deaf ears don't you?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

69. Point out one thing that I've said that isn't true.

:shrug:

[LittleClarkie]

64. I think I will I go and beat my head repeatedly against a wall

because it will feel better than watching us fight on this thread over ancient history.

Is this trip really necessary?

Rehashing the primaries of 2004 now at just the moment when we need to get unified for 2006 doesn't seem like such a swell idea.

The original idea I guess was to compare Hackett to Dean. While the two of them do remind me of each other, their campaigns do not.

Surely having at each other over thing that happened 2 1/2 years ago is not productive.

Now if you'll excuse me...

:banghead:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

68. If you don't learn from history...

[LittleClarkie]

70. This does NOT look like a history lesson to me

It looks like something that will never heal if we keep picking at it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

72. Don't fear the scab. Understand it's properties.

I just don't understand the philosophy that we can't check the rear view mirror and at the same time, move forward. Every candidate in that race got fucked at a certain level. I can educate you on how Dean got screwed because I was closer to it. blm isn't shy about pointing out Kerry's drilling. You could tell me Clark's horror stories.


I thought that this was what differentiated us from our brain-dead brethren. :shrug:

[LittleClarkie]

75. The bit that I'm trying to avoid is where one of themis supposed to have

done the drilling, to the point that some folks think the voting machines were rigged. I just don't want to see the Deaniacs and the Kerrycrats at each other's throats.

I was still half sheeple during the primaries, only nominally a Clarkie because he said ONE thing I liked. It wasn't til I found an article about Gitmo(before that story broke in the MSM, mind you) that I woke up the rest of the way.

Just play nice in the sandbox if you will. I understand that DU was kinda ugly during the primaries. I just don't want to see us separate into fighting factions again. Kinda know what I mean?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

76. No one is talking about vote machine rigging. Just caucus rigging.

It happens in every caucus. Every year.

Fwiw, in my caucus we gave the fractional vote to Clark because the supporter was so adamant. Kooch, Kerry and Dean had already received delegates and there was an Edwards v Clark faction. The Edward's folk couldn't verbalize the reason for their support as well as the Clark folk. Had it been the other way we would have given the delegate to Edwards.


There is no malice intended from me. I've learned more than I ever would have had I not been exposed to a contrary view. That's the point. If we all play "nice," we learn nothing.

[karynnj]

79. Strange View

Each man acted in his own best interests:
-Gephardt dropped out, not to help Kerry, but because he lost badly in a neighboring state where he had been the favorite. He actually wasn't seen much from that point on.

-Edwards was running as the "sunny" candidate (with a lot of personality and intelligence, but a very short resume in public life). There are stories that his people were behind some of the Kerry has no charisma stories. To retain his strongest asset, he COULDN'T run a nasty campaign. Given his age, being a VP was a consolation prize - but it wasn't till after Super Tuesday that he seemed to stop pushing.

-Dean came into Iowa with by far more money than anyone else, more media, and the endorsement of both Al Gore and Tom Harkin. Clark was informally endorsed by Clinton - who was quoted as saying that Wes Clark and Hillary (who was not running) were the only stars the Democratic party had. (Kerry's campaign 2 months before the Iowa caucus was nearly broke, but he and his family had met many people in Iowa and had generated support. That he won is actually was due to hard, methological work and being having a good record.)

[karynnj]

78. That Iowa debate was awful for Dean

Wasn't that where he whined about not wanting to be a "pin cushion". The ads and the comments his fellow Democrats made about him were nothing compared to what the Republicans did to Kerry.

Dean would likely have imploded as thouroghly as McCain did in 2000 when he blew up over the Bush lies. All the people who argued that Dean would have responded better should consider how an angry blow up (he's too angry and unstable) or a second "pin cushion" (he's a baby) reaction would have played out. Very unfair - the media that SHOULD have savaged Bush in 2000 and 2004 for allowing these atrocities, was there to criticise everyone's reactions instead.

[sandnsea]

71. Dean = shitty politician

Whaaaaaaa, nobody would swap votes with me, whaaaaaa!!!!

Yes, the Machine knocked Dean out to make way for Clark, not Kerry. Kerry won on his own steam because he took out a 6 million dollar loan and told them to take their Machine and shove it up their asses.

Kerry kicked the Machine in the teeth, the way Dean and Hackett couldn't even dream of doing.

And that's what happened in Primary 2004.

[saracat]

5. I agree. Great post!

[lastknowngood]

10. Bull the DLC went on every program they could to dis Dean and to

pump the loser we had shoved down our throats. It's the same thing again. Anyone who speaks truth and with passion is intentionally destroyed by the repugs running our party. We will lose seats in the house and the senate because that is the plan and we will lose in 2008 for the same reason. The so called leadership of our party is ensuring that the corps and fascists remain in and extend their power over us. 39 years as a dem and now the grass roots aren't even allowed to get chance to vote for whom we want to represent us, just how low can the get. How do we keep hope when the very people who should be supporting new and strong candidates destroy them so we can lose two seats one in senate and one in the house. Brown has a long liberal record of votes which will make him a easy target for the reich wing hate machine. He has already lost and instead of momentum from the grass roots the "party leadership" has again told us to go to hell.

[FreedomAngel82]

12. And once again

John Kerry is NOT DLC and hasn't been since 2003. So why would they back someone who isn't a member of their group? In August of 2003 when Dean was on "Time" Kerry had NOT announced he was running as he said so on "Road to the White House" August 8th, 2003. And didn't the "Dean scream" happen after the Iowa cacus?

[lastknowngood]

14. Because he is owned by them and if you think leaving the DLC

in 2003 just before he runs for pres clears him then you must believe that Chaney isn't helping Halliburton.

[FreedomAngel82]

15. And you have proof of this where now?

Who stopped BCCI when nobody wanted him to? Who did Iran/Contra? And Iowa votes by HANDS. NOT machines. So please check your facts.

[FreedomAngel82]

16. And didn't DEAN USED TO BE DLC TOO?

I remember someone once pointed out Dean was apart of the DLC too wasn't he? Does anybody know? He stopped being apart of them when he was no longer governor.

[KittyWampus]

22. edit- I don't want to get in the circular firing squad

[LittleClarkie]

26. Personally, I think being treated like a red-headed step child by the DLC

is what clears him.

I think his far too liberal voting record clears him.

I think that the fact that the DLC's "help" during the campaign was actually a hinderance (tinfoil hat time: a DELIBERATE hinderance) clears him.

Gore was also DLC. The most DLCish thing about Kerry is a certain hawkishness. But even there, he's not toeing the DLC line, or he'd have never announced a withdrawl plan.

I've liked the passion of both Kerry and Gore since they were beaten by the Shrub. That must do something to a person.

[FreedomAngel82]

27. Wasn't Gore a co-founder of the group too??

Even my dad was wondering last year if some democrats wanted Kerry to lose because of Hillary.

[LittleClarkie]

31. Considering mutterings that some who were supposed to be on Kerry's

side in Ohio turned out not to be on his side, and his comment that he'd believed what he'd been told about Ohio when he decided to concede on Nov. 3rd, 2004, I would tend to think that some Dems indeed wanted him to lose because of Hillary. At the least, I think some Dems took the year off, thinking that 2008 would be THE year to take back the White House. I think when Kerry started to gain ground late in the race, it caused dismay among some on the Dem side as much as it shocked some Republicans.

And yeah, I thought I'd heard too that Gore a DLC founder along side Clinton, but I'm not sure. He sure doesn't act like DLC now though.

I got rather ticked today when I heard O'Reilly say that Gore was insignificant, and that he was being treated that way by some pundit I'd never heard of. Both men are far from insignificant.

[FreedomAngel82]

74. So Dean must be still owned by them too

Since he was a member too. And Al Gore and John Edwards. Right? According to you.

[Mass]

53. You're right. Dean is the only candidate that they dissed more than Kerry

They was a lot of other candidates that they loved. Kerry was certainly not part of them.

[karynnj]

80. I wish the DLC had gone on every show to promote Kerry

Donna Brazille, Begala and Carville in particular, had almost nothing positive to say about him. The latter 2 simply made snarky comments about Bush - and complained that Kerry wasn't Clinton.

Kerry was NEVER an insider's favorite - having regularly taken on projects that set him at odds with the powers in the party, especially on BCCI.

[tlsmith1963]

18. Is There Any Way...

...Hackett could be convinced to run as an Independent? I don't like any of the parties threatening to withhold campaign money if a candidate doesn't do what they want. Rove is doing the same thing to Republicans. It's disgusting.

Tammy

PS--Hey, I got a heart! Thanks!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. No.

According to Hackett, his "career" in politics is over. No take backs.

[eridani]

23. For this election cycle, anyway

It would look silly for him to go back into the 2nd CD race at this time, and he doesn't have any other options. 2008 is a different story.

[Pastiche423]

20. Bullshit

Total bullshit.

You must not have been in the same country I was in December 2003/January 2004.

Kerry was nowhere in the polls until the vote switching (among other TPTB tricks) began in the Iowa caucus.

Go look in the archives for the DU and other polls at that time. He was never at 60% before then. NEVER.

Btw, if Kerry is no longer w/the DLC, then why is his name in the 2005 DLC directory? Please supply a link stating he left the DLC in 2003.

[FreedomAngel82]

28. And why is Mark Warner still there?

He's no longer a governor but isn't his name still listed? And when Dean was really popular and on "Time" Kerry had NOT told he was running yet. He was just starting out. But Kerry won Iowa and Iowa is done by HANDS NOT MACHINES. So there goes your consperiacy theory. IOWA IS DONE BY HANDS. NOT MACHINES.

[Pastiche423]

33. What conspiracy theory?

Everything I mentioned HAPPENED.

Can't find a link saying Kerry left the DLC in 2003, eh?

What's this trash about Kerry not running yet?

It is very apparent that you were not at the caucus, nor know what happened. There were a number of DUers that attended the Iowa caucus and wrote about it here.

Does Kucinich and edwards saying they would trade votes ring a bell?

Kerry was appointed the primary winner.

[FreedomAngel82]

34. And don't you know

they vote by HANDS AND NOT MACHINES. And where is your proof? Do you have any of it eh? Nothing to back up what you say eh? Show your ACTUAL PROOF that Kerry was "appointed" as you say.

[Pastiche423]

39. Ya know, I asked 1st

Where is the link stating Kerry left the DLC in 2003?

Btw, the tricks that were performed at the Iowa caucus had nothing to do w/paper or machines.

You want proof that Kerry was appointed? Go back to the polls taken prior to January 2004. I was here, reading and observing. What were you doing?

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Pastiche423]

47. Where is the proof that Kerry left the DLC in 2003?

"January 12, 2003 John Kerry announced his run for president in 2004"

http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html

As to the rest, take the advice upthread and use your star.

[Mass]

54. No more proof than Dean .

Dean was dropped of the list of elected officials because he was no more an elected official.

This said, the DLC spent an awful lot of time dissing both Kerry and Dean and supporting other candidates.

[FreedomAngel82]

66. Exactly

Just like they'll drop Warner and they did Edwards (remember he was DLC too but lots of people here like him as well and Gore was co-creater).

[FreedomAngel82]

65. LOL!!!

Oh too funny! Go to c-span.org and in the video search engine type in John Kerry. Look for him on "Road to the White House" from August 8th, 2003. Towards the end he talks to reporters and one reporter asks him about Dean. THERE HE TELLS HE HAS NOT ANNOUNCED HE WAS RUNNING YET. THIS WAS WHEN DEAN WAS ON "TIME" AND BECOMING THE FRONT RUNNER! DEAN WAS A DLC MEMBER AS WELL AND STOPPED BEING A MEMBER IN 2003.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

40. Here's some more hurtful truth.

Dean, pre-Iowa, is tag-teamed by the other candidates. As it should be for the leader.

Kerry, post-Iowa, and now "Mr. Electable," gets a free pass in the remaining debates.

:tinfoilhat:

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

45. You're right.

Only non status quo "leaders" should be tagged. My humble apologies.




Whatever happened to letting people decide who they want to support?

You're finally getting the point.

[FreedomAngel82]

46. And Iowa Cacus voted for Kerry

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

48. Yep.

[karynnj]

81. Maybe the free pass came from being an outstanding debater

who left few openings. I remember many really good come backs and in several cases where Kerry answerd first, the others were put in a position of seconding what he said. The other thing was that for the most part from day 1, Kerry mainly attacked Bush and only occasionally a Democrat unless responding to an attack from them.

[seabeyond]

21. great post freedomangel.

good points. again i will say, i am a hackett contributor living in texas. would have been fun to have haskett, but it is sounding to me like brown will be damn good. that is what is important to me. all the rest......stuff. done and over with. to suggest kerry is dlc, dont know where that came from, i havent been in threads, but... that is silliness and kerry voting record proves otherwise. what more can be said on this. it is fact. go thru his record it is not dlc.

from what i have seen brown is liberal progressive. haskett as fun as he is.... bet your bottom dollar he would be more conservative than kerry or brown put together

[GoneOffShore]

24. Thanks for the post.

I've been following the Hackett outrage for the last couple of days.

When I first read some of the posts about Schumer and Reid I was disappointed, but have a certain amount of faith in both of them. Then I read some more about Hackett's positions (or rather reactionary positions) on immigration policy. I also didn't realize that he was a Republican turned Democrat until he came back from Iraq. So, a single issue candidate, with possibly suspect positions on progressive issues. If he showed up as a poster here on DU there's a good chance he could get a troll label in very short order.

Here's a thought - and fans of Mr. Hackett, please refrain from flaming, as I don't know the man, but only have read about him - Perhaps, and this is only a perhaps, no tin foil hat needed - that Paul Hackett, despite his calling Bush a lying SOB, is a Republican plant. Could it be that his vocal criticism of Shrub is really engineered by RoveCo in order to split Democrats in Ohio?

If I was a voter in Ohio, I'd be voting for Brown, just on his record.

[FreedomAngel82]

29. Hackett used to be a republican???

Where did you find that out? Hmm. That's a new one on me.

[GoneOffShore]

36. That's been mentioned

on several posts about him.
He was a registered Republican, went to Iraq, and had a 'Road to Damascus' moment.
I don't know if I can find the links here on DU, as I'm not the best with searches.
Here's the Wikipedia article on him - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Hackett
I'll see if I can find the other mentions of his Republican roots.

[FreedomAngel82]

37. Huh interesting

Has anybody ever asked about that? :shrug: This is the first I've ever heard about it. Thanks for the link. I'll go and read about it.

[GoneOffShore]

41. Here's a thread on DU

Scroll down to post # 84
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=411188
Sorry I can't find others.

So, my question would be - Is it at all possible that Paul Hackett is a Rovian plant, meant to sow the seeds of dissension within the Democratic Party of Ohio? Stranger things have happened.

Not only in Ohio, but here on DU as well.

We're chasing our tails over Deadeye Dick and the shotgun pellets; we're hyperventalating over Hackett and his 'You're not playing fair! I'm taking my bat and going home' , attitude towards basic state politics, we're bloviating over the Danish cartoons. (Did anyone listen to Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me over the weekend? The Iranian commerce department, reacting in much the same way as the US House did when we invaded Iraq without the support of France, has now declared that the pastry heretofore known as the "Danish" will now be known as the Mohammed.)

Does this mean that we can now walk into to any Dunkin Donuts and ask for a cheese Mohammed? And I'd like a couple of blueberry Jesus's and a cinnamon Moses, please.

I know I've wandered far off topic here, but it seems to me that we're devoting way too much bandwidth and emotion to one guy, who may OR may not have been a good choice for a US Senator, but who decided that the rough and tumble of politics was just a little bit too much 'Sturm und Drang' for him.

[madfloridian]

38. Oh my goodness.

That is a little convoluted.

[FreedomAngel82]

44. Republicans pretend to be democrats all the time

On edit from Hackett's site he doesn't seem to be too republican-lite or anything like that. People do change their policies and views all the time. I've changed on a few things over the years.

[WI_DEM]

50. Why are we resurrecting this?

[janx]

51. That was my first question too. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

58. I have to say I agree

The last thing I want to do at this point is pick an old scab.

Their campaigns were completely different, with different circumstances leading to what ultimately happened. I don't think we're serving anything at this point comparing Brown to Kerry and Hackett to Dean.

That's my feeling anyway.

[FreedomAngel82]

67. I'm tired of all the DLC nonsense

"Oh it's the DLC's fault this or that happened!" :eyes: It's really old and tiring. I don't like the group as a whole and how they are but individual canidates I'm fine with like Dean, Edwards, Warner, Kerry but I'm tired of people blaming them when they aren't to blame as in the Hackett deal. I wanted to show that Dean was also a member who is very much beloved around here and same with Al Gore and John Edwards. (On a side note I do think Dean is doing fine with the DNC chairman job)