Dean sticks it to the 'so called' party leadership

[ECH1969]

Democratic party chair Howard Dean says he's not happy that Iraqi war veteran Paul Hackett is dropping out of the race for U-S Senate in Ohio.

Dean told a student audience in Miami that "some skulduggery in Washington" improperly led to Hackett's decision to end his bid. And he said Democrats will have a tough time winning if similar things happen to others.

Hackett was vying with Ohio congressman Sherrod Brown for the Democratic nomination. He said that Hackett was a "great candidate," and that a primary in Ohio wouldn't have hurt the party. Hackett says he's ending his eleven-month political career.

http://www.klfy.com/Global/story.asp?S=4503849

[The Magistrate]

1. This, Too, Will Pass, Sir

The only thing that matters is depriving the Republicans of their majorities in the Senate and House. Fomenting ill feelings over this incident will only hamper that urgent work.

[Boredtodeath]

4. That's NOT "the only thing that matters"

What MATTERS is participatory democracy.

You see, Sir, there was a time when the VOTERS chose their candidate through the primary process.

Winning at any price is NOT democracy - it's prostitution.

[FreedomAngel82]

7. Right

Check out this interesting information from Mark Crispin Miller:

http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2005_08_07_markcrispinmiller_archive.html

[Boredtodeath]

10. Thanks for finding that

I looked yesterday and couldn't locate it.

Says it all, doesn't it? It's been the plan all along.

[never_get_over_it]

12. Oh man now I'm really pissed

everyone should call Schumer's office and let him have it.

We have got to take this party back from the DLC

I thought it might be a good idea for Hackett to get out of the Senate race if he would then go run against that Smith woman - but then I learned he had pledged not to do that - and so Hackett got screwed and so did the Democratic wing of the Democratic party....

[Boredtodeath]

13. We should all be pissed

The voters, once again, are being told "shut up, we'll pick your senators and congressmen" by the all knowing, wise kiss ass leaders like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer.

[never_get_over_it]

49. Such a disappointment

I came to know Schumer when he was on the House Judiciary committee during the Clinton impeachment freak show and I LOVED HIM - man has he fallen from grace....

[RazzleDazzle]

136. No way I could call Schumer's ofc

I wouldn't be able to keep from lobbing a big bunch of F-words around, which doesn't help one get heard when the other end of the phone line is a Senator's ofc.

[leeroysphitz]

45. So it isn't one part rule...

Only 1 1/2 party rule with the DLC and repukes calling the shots instead of the voters.

[converted_democrat]

69. I think you are one of the few who "get it." n/t

[tnlefty]

48. Did you happen to follow the link to the expanded transcript (TN)?

"Let me tell you one other thing we did. We are no longer letting Democrats get in a circle and shoot each other. I was just in TN with Harry and with (...) and we have a primary and I stood up there Harold Ford is running and he can become the first African-American elected in the south to the Senate since reconstruction which would be a great thing for America. There is this young woman whose...not so young...but a nice woman running against him but everyone says she is going to attack him."

"...(unintelligible) we are going to intervene if anyone one democrat attacks another, we're doing that in states where there are primaries. We can't afford to do it anymore. This always happens in the primaries, we would throw up the cards and see where they landed. No more, we are finding the best candidates in every one of the seats where a Republican is vulnerable."

[FreedomAngel82]

62. They're talking about Kurita and the only "attacking"

she is doing is telling the truth. So now telling the truth about Ford is "attacking"? What bullshit.

[tnlefty]

87. I've heard her criticize his vote for the bankruptcy bill. If that is an

attack then so be it. The few times that I've been in the room when she is speaking this is the only thing that I've heard her mention, and then she describes what she thinks needs to be done. It was a criticism of a vote that he made, not anything personal or mud-slinging as some would call it.

[FreedomAngel82]

96. Right

Kurita does have class even if she too is a DLCer but I like her pretty well. She also sent an Email after the State of the Union talking about Ford going over to Bush and everything like that. There are some things that I disagree with Kurita on but I think she's more independent.

[sendero]

115. Yeah right...

... that's their story? If stopping divisive primaries in order to give our team a leg up is your goal, why didn't you side with the man who WAS IN THE RACE FIRST AND WHO DID NOT SAY HE WAS NOT GOING TO RUN AND ARGUABLY HAD A BETTER CHANCE OF WINNING?

Your "best candidate" is another of the known quantities who you can control. That is all this is about. And for all of your control, you are all useless as tits on a boar hog.

[Wind Dancer]

137. Silly me.

I thought at one time PEOPLE chose the primary candidates.

Hackett had the right to run in these primaries if the good folks in Ohio supported him.

Why is that so difficult for people to understand?

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[WildEyedLiberal]

60. He's not a very credible source

And he's using the same DLC strawman bullshit that various trolls are using on DU. This has nothing to do with the DLC. Reid and Schumer - whom I don't care for by the way - are not, however, DLC.

[Boredtodeath]

80. The HELL he's not

Did you BOTHER to listen to the audio file?

And Mark Crispin Miller is, was and always will be a credible author.

[WildEyedLiberal]

99. He wrote a book about election fraud.

A dubiously documented book at best. Tell me, if his case is so slam dunk, why isn't there a court case being filed now, by him, by Conyers, by anyone, based on his evidence?

I think fraud happened, but I don't think it's provable, and I don't think Miller proved it. I think he's a demogogue who's willing to stretch the truth and engage in shrill rhetoric to get attention for himself. No thanks.

[Boredtodeath]

120. Clearly you have a partisan, personal agenda against MCM

And, once again, you try to divert from the issue - it's not Mark Miller's words, but those of Chuck Schumer on that audio tape.

Slandering MCM because you don't like what Chuck Schumer said, and can't defend it, is the biggest strawman ever created on this forum.

I hope MCM sees your slander and sues you for it.

[WildEyedLiberal]

148. ROFLMAO

:rofl:

[Wind Dancer]

140. Yes, I would choose to believe the government.

They've always been so honest and upfront in the past. :sarcasm:

You obviously don't know MCM or anything about the litigation on election fraud in Ohio.

This administration hasn't broken any laws either or they would have been arrested or impeached according to your logic. (shakes head in total disbelief)

[JNelson6563]

21. You are correct

I cannot understand the mindset that condones the back-room manuevering method over good, democratic (small "d") elections, even primaries.

Julie

[DainBramaged]

14. And following the same losing path since 1994 will bury us again

Read the details. And the details are all about Reid and the stupidity of the leadership.

[ScreamingMeemie]

15. right On!!!

I get sick of the "pick your battles" mentallity...with no battles ever being picked! :thumbsup:

[IdaBriggs]

28. What a Republican attitude -- "the only thing that matters is depriving

the Republicans of their majorities" -- wow. And too late on the "ill feelings" -- I'm in the "throw them ALL out" camp. Paul Hacket was a straight shooter, and the DINOs in Washington did it AGAIN.

Want to talk about some "ill feelings"? Ask me if I'm planning on holding a grude about Alito. Yes, yes, I will.

[mod mom]

41. I don't believe the Progressive movement is full of drones. We should

have a say in who the candidate is. Why should the Dem leadership have the last say. I believe the Dem base should be able to use their vote to support the candidate who best reflects their values. Why are primaries bad?

[Laelth]

88. I agree to an extent.

But Brown is the progressive, here, not Hackett. The Progressive wing got what it wanted. I refuse to criticize Reid and Schumer for giving me what I want while simultaneously preventing our progressive candidate, Brown, from having to endure a costly primary fight.

-Laelth

[FreedomAngel82]

98. The voters still should've chosen THEIR representation

[Laelth]

109. Last I heard Hackett made the decision, himself.

He could have stayed in the race if he wanted to. The party is not required to support his candidacy. Besides, voters will get their choice ... Brown or DeWine. Primary fights are costly and, generally, counter-productive. We can't really afford many of them in this environment.

That said, there are a few I support ... Lieberman, for example. Joe's gotta go!

-Laelth

[converted_democrat]

65. This too will pass.. Yea, it'll pass a victory straight into the hands of

the GOP..

[stickdog]

150. All Things Must Pass. (nt)

[Road Scholar]

2. Dean really knows how to piss the right wingers off. I've caught onto

what he does.It's really simple. Tell it like it is. ha

[Cha]

44. Yeah, Dean has that

knack..and to also piss off the dlcers out of their minds.

[Rageneau]

3. This is why Howard is waaaaay smarter than other Democrat "leaders."

He's not afraid of democracy.

[drduffy]

5. it is the damn DLC

and it is because of the DLC, the cowardice in the non filibuster of Alito that led to my ceasing a monthly contribution to the DNC..... and the Hackett thing simply confirms the correctness of my decision...

Until they clean house and get 'democratic' I say crap on em.

Not that it will matter much with Peak Oil, Coming Fascism and Martial Law, internment in 'camps', Climatic change..... it is the end of the American Republic and ultimately the die off of 4-5 billion from starvation with reversal of the 'green revolution'. Kiss your butts goodbye.

[FreedomAngel82]

63. So how do you explain Dean being a DLCer himself?

He was one until 2003 when he was no longer governor you know.

[MoJoWorkin]

6. I am gratified to know that Dean was not a part of the "skulduggery"

I figured the power brokers excluded him from any decision on this, as it was too similar to how he was treated by them in the primaries of 2004.

[FreedomAngel82]

8. Even though he was one of them (DLC)

[MoJoWorkin]

9. Dean is not, nor ever has been a part of the DLC

He is the head of the DNC. THEY have tried, at every turn, to undermine him

[sandnsea]

22. Yes he was

And his politics were as centrist as Joe Lieberman's until he hired Joe Trippi and took a sharp turn left to run for President.

[MoJoWorkin]

27. Dean gets attacked from the far left and far right, and no, he is not

perfect.

What makes me angry is that some just can't stand less than their perfect image of a politician. For example, Kucinich is thought of as a saint Progressive. I exhibit evidence that even he can be politically expedient or have a change of heart---which ever you prefer. I bring this up NOT to bash Dennis, but to show that there IS NO PERFECT POLITICIAN. One must decide what issues are of utmost importance to them, and above all, the measure of the person. That is why I admire Dean, Gore, Hackett, while knowing full well I won't agree with them on everything.

http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/democrats2004/kucinich.html
snip>
His supporters say he is someone who is committed to his principles. But on the subject of abortion, there seems to be somewhat of a calculated shift in position. A Catholic and long-time opponent of abortion, he suddenly became an advocate of "choice" as he entered the presidential contest...
and

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020527/pollitt
snip>
One thing you won't find on Kucinich's website, though, is any mention of his opposition to abortion rights. In his two terms in Congress, he has quietly amassed an anti-choice voting record of Henry Hyde-like proportions. He supported Bush's reinstatement of the gag rule for recipients of US family planning funds abroad. He supported the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits anyone but a parent from taking a teenage girl across state lines for an abortion. He voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it a crime, distinct from assault on a pregnant woman, to cause the injury or death of a fetus. He voted against funding research on RU-486. He voted for a ban on dilation and extraction (so-called partial-birth) abortions without a maternal health exception. He even voted against contraception coverage in health insurance plans for federal workers--a huge work force of some 2.6 million people (and yes, for many of them, Viagra is covered). Where reasonable constitutional objections could be raised--the lack of a health exception in partial-birth bans clearly violates Roe v. Wade, as the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart--Kucinich did not raise them; where competing principles could be invoked--freedom of speech for foreign health organizations--he did not bring them up. He was a co-sponsor of the House bill outlawing all forms of human cloning, even for research purposes, and he opposes embryonic stem cell research. His anti-choice dedication has earned him a 95 percent position rating from the National Right to Life Committee, versus 10 percent from Planned Parenthood and 0 percent from NARAL.
snip<

[sandnsea]

52. You said Dean was not DLC

That's the only thing I really addressed. I am well aware of the schizophrenia on politicians around here, drives me crazy too.

[mzmolly]

36. Comparing Dean to Lieberman?

That's quite the stretch ...

[sandnsea]

50. Not during the 90's

Not at all, they were very similar on most issues back then.

[mzmolly]

55. Lieberman has a pretty solid progressive record sans his hawkish

Iraq stance.

[sandnsea]

93. Dean's hawkish Iraq stance...

before 2002. Let's not forget that either, he supported the first Gulf War and supported dumping weapons into the Balkans too.

[FreedomAngel82]

66. Right

Lieberman has really changed since than. I don't think Dean has changed very much over the years. Not necessarily bad or anything. But he was a member of the DLC. Than he was no longer governor in 2003 and he started running for president and started bashing the DLC even though he himself wanted to turn the democratic party back to the center.

[sandnsea]

95. I think Dean changed

I really do think he sees that some of what he supported back in the 90's really didn't work out so well. Some health care things, deregulation, free trade. He sees that the implementation of things matters alot and Republicans don't do it so well. Lieberman still doesn't get it.

[FreedomAngel82]

97. So why was he a member of the DLC until 2003?

(I do think he's a fine DNC chairman though I'm just not a "Dean for president" supporter)

[sandnsea]

111. Because the DLC isn't evil-incarnate

It's just a group of Democrats who work on policy and strategy and try to control the Dem message. They do a very good job of it, it just isn't the message we like, that's all. Unfortunately, I think, we've targeted our energy into changing the DNC when we really should have targeted it at the DLC. And by targeting I mean phone calls and letters and campaign money, real targeting not just ranting and tearing apart DLC candidates.

It's funny. They put up nice progressive candidates like Brown, then the grassroots gets mad because they know nice progressives can't win just any place, but they can't bring themselves to have centrist discussions with the centrist DLC.

We're nuts. That's what I've concluded.

[RazzleDazzle]

138. That's not really true

There were a few things on which he was rather moderate, but a number of other things on which he was a raving liberal pretty much always. Abortion, medical care for all, saving children from abuse, environmental issues, things like that have always been liberal stances of his. Hell, he went into medicine to help people -- that's not what conservatives do (they make money practicing medicine).

Yeah, he was a part of the DLC for a while, back when the DLC MAY have been an okay organization. I think it's morphed over the years. But Dean and the DLC parted ways firmly and forever when they started attacking him AND his supporters. There's NO love lost between them and you can drag up historical fact (his once upon a time involvement), but it has no bearing on the present and more recent past and is this totally IRRELEVENT.

[WildEyedLiberal]

61. That is demonstrably false

When he was governor of Vermont, he was affiliated with the DLC. He was removed from their website solely because he left office. He was a moderate, centrist, DLC governor.

[FreedomAngel82]

64. He WAS a member of the DLC

He was a member of the DLC until 2003 when he was no longer governor. He is NOT a liberal politically. He is a centrist to moderate democrat which is what the DLC is for.

[FreedomAngel82]

68. Dean became the head of the DNC last year

He has been doing a good job and I do support him as party chairman because I think he knows how to do a good campaign and everything but fact is he was DLC. He never told them "goodbye" except for when he was no longer governor since only elected officials are apart of the DLC. This is why I look at individual canidates when it comes to supporting someone and not who they affiliate as a group. Don't forget John Edwards was a member of the DLC too and lots of people here support him (and I do too).

[ScreamingMeemie]

19. I admire people who walk away from the DLC...on their own accord.

People like Dean and Gore. I admire people who speak up without first testing the weather.

[MoJoWorkin]

24. I realized after posting that I didn't know for sure about the "never"

part, but like Gore,Dean wised up to what the DLC was becoming and wanted no more of it.

[MoJoWorkin]

25. I realized after posting that I didn't know for sure about the "never"

part, but like Gore,Dean wised up to what the DLC was becoming and wanted no more of it.

[FreedomAngel82]

70. Dean only walked away because he was no longer an elected official

Same with Gore and Edwards. Wasn't Gore a co-creater too? (Gore has changed a lot too since 2000)

[ScreamingMeemie]

79. I don't get your point with this. Care to elaborate why you are posting

that Dean was a member of the DLC? My father was a member of the JayCees until their belief system pissed him off and he quit. There is no longer a use for the DLC if they are just going to echo RW ideology. Can you answer why you are doing this??? Thanks.

[FreedomAngel82]

100. It's really quite simple

There are people here on this board who are hypocritical. They claim the DLC was out to "get Dean" in his presidential bid but he was DLC himself until 2003 when he was no longer a governor. Just pointing out the facts and trying to get it through people's minds. Sorry you can't handle the truth. And Dean is far from being a liberal.

[cascadiance]

142. And we weren't "out to get" Reagan because he once was a Democrat?

You have to see what is going on currently. There was a time, and still is a time to open a "big tent" for other constituencies besides very left wing folks. Maybe at one time DLC was helping with that. But it has become a corrupt corporatized entity that has NOTHING to do with being moderate or centrist other than a label it's attaching to itself claiming to be so (much like "No Child Left Behind", "Clear Skies Initiative", etc.). Read between the lines. The DLC is now the agent of corporate corruption in the Democratic Party that cares more about keeping pols in office that are beholden to them than having the Democratic Party win in elections. When corporate america thinks that a Republican can't win in a certain area, they call on the DLC to plant someone there to make sure they still have corporate control over that area. It really is that simple!

I'm guessing that there are many Dems that see the DLC as a "necessary evil" to get themselves elected in this system of institutionalized election bribery. Some have left, like Dean and Gore, and others probably would bolt later if they saw an alternative. But the DLC itself is the cancer and it MUST be removed now!

[RazzleDazzle]

144. Boy have you got it wrong

There are people here on this board who are hypocritical. They claim the DLC was out to "get Dean" in his presidential bid but he was DLC himself until 2003 when he was no longer a governor.

I don't know when Dean stopped being a "member" of the DLC, but I know that the relationship was irrevocably severed and plenty of bad blood generated when the DLC attacked him AND his supporters.

It's disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to try to link them OR say suggest any "hypocrisy" on the part of anyone. Any association Dean had with the DLC is ancient history and irrelevent at this point, especially in light of how thoroughly the ties have been broken.

Just pointing out the facts and trying to get it through people's minds. Sorry you can't handle the truth.

What we can't handle is mis/disinformation parading itself as "truth."

And Dean is far from being a liberal.

Wrong again. His Vermont record showee remarkable liberal positions and policies and results. Educate yourself other than through those who would mischaracterize Dean for their own gain (e.g., Dennis Kucinich and PDA).

[ScreamingMeemie]

17. I am almost hoping he walks if this shit continues.

I'm right on the edge of campaigning for viable third party now!

[ProfessorGAC]

47. The Unfortunate Word In Your Post, Mrs. G. . .

. . .is "viable". Alas, there appears to be no such group that meets the definition of that word.
The Professor

[ScreamingMeemie]

83. I'm betting on it Prof...The money I spent on a Dem candidate will

go to that candidate, along with lots of others like me, if the Dem Party refuses to voice its supporters belief systems. :hi:

[ProfessorGAC]

85. I Understand. I Just Don't See "Viability" . . .

. . .as something that will happen, financially or public relations-wise, in the next two elections. I just don't think that in this current incumbent-friendly climate, that it will happen anywhere near that fast.
The Professor

[ScreamingMeemie]

89. I do...I see this as a nation with a silent majority on edge.

Give them a candidate they can agree with on most of the important issues and the votes will be there. Here, in MI, many of the people I have met at meetups would work just as hard as they always have, to not be let down again.

[ProfessorGAC]

92. Completely Different Point, There!

One with which i agree completely. But the environment just doesn't seem right for people to run under a different banner. I think the change has to come from within the established parties. I'd love to see part of that silent majority take back control of the Republican party too. They are being run by Machiavellian idiots and lunatic zealots, and there just has to be tons of Republican leaning folks in the middle who are sick of it. There just has to be!

At the same time, if the Dems have lost their path toward a more progressive and caring system, the candidates need to be supported from within as well. I see that as more "viable", whatever that is.
The Professor

[sandnsea]

20. He can speak now??

But not when it would have done some good? Bullshit. I don't know what he thinks he's doing, but if it wasn't his place to get involved last week, it isn't now either.

[mod mom]

43. What exactly is skullduggery? A new one on me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. The bosses speak. The loyal serfs kiss their rings in gratitude.

Does anyone still believe the Democratic Party is democratic?

Vote issues, not party, or politican.

[sandnsea]

16. So much for staying out of races

Dean should have kept the DNC out of it. If he was going to get involved the time to do it was before Hackett stepped aside when he might have done some good; not to take pot shots and hurt the party even more. This is the Howard Dean that I truly hate, now's the time to bring people back together, not rip them apart more.

[KittyWampus]

23. Thank You, but let's actually find out what Dean REALLY said and not

get all hot and bothered by a partial quote, with no context and totally unattributable at this point.

[FreedomAngel82]

72. From what I understand

he just issued a statement yesterday talking about how the DNC was not involved in the whole Hackett deal. He was speaking somewhere and someone asked him about it and I think he was pissed off about it but not invovled. It was all other people like Reid and Schumer. And than he issued this new statement.

[KittyWampus]

18. I'd like an exact quote in context, please

[Norquist Nemesis]

26. The "party leadership" handed the seat to the incumbent

with their shenanigans. Idiots!

[leveymg]

29. So, if the Chair of the DNC didn't authorize this, who's been calling the

donors and telling them to stop funding Hackett? I heard Reid and Schumer's name mentioned yesterday on NPR, is that true?

Doesn't Dean have something to say about things like this down the hall at the DSCC?

Here's the DSCC leadership roster:

Leadership
Harry Reid
Nevada Senator/ Senate Democratic Leader
Senator Reid's skilled leadership in the Senate has delivered real results, including funding for the highways, schools, and health care system, tax relief, protections for our retirees, and preservation of our natural treasures.
Charles Schumer
New York Senator, DSCC Chair
United States Senator Charles E. Schumer is in his second term representing New York State. Before his election to the Senate, Chuck represented the Ninth Congressional District in Brooklyn and Queens for eighteen years. Before that, he represented the Forty-Fifth Assembly District in Brooklyn for six years.
Barbara Boxer
California Senator/ California Vice Chair
A forceful advocate for families, children, consumers, the environment, and her State of California, Barbara Boxer became a United States Senator in January 1993 after 10 years of service in the House of Representatives. She was elected to a third six-year term in 2004. In the House, she made her mark as a champion of human rights, environmental protection, military procurement reform and a woman's right to choose.
Barack Obama
Illinois Senator/ Midwest Vice Chair
Barack Obama has dedicated his life to public service as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, and leader in the Illinois state Senate. Obama now continues his fight for working families following his recent election to the United States Senate.
Mark Pryor
Arkansas Senator/ Southern Vice Chair
On January 7, 2003, Mark Lunsford Pryor was sworn in as Arkansas' 33rd senator. As a candidate, he pledged to be a strong voice for the people of Arkansas; one who would always put their interests first. As a Senator, he works every day to fulfill that promise.
Jack Reed
Rhode Island Senator/ Northeast Vice Chair
Jack Reed is the 47th United States Senator from Rhode Island. Elected to the Senate in 1996, Reed, who succeeded Senator Claiborne Pell (D-RI), previously served three terms as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Rhode Island's 2nd Congressional District. Reed has been a leader in the House and the Senate on education, health care and campaign finance reform, promoting and strengthening Rhode Island's economy and on defense, international affairs, child care and gun control issues.
Ron Wyden
Oregon Senator/ Western Vice Chair
In serving Oregon in the United States Senate, Ron Wyden pursues creative, bipartisan solutions to tough issues, offers unprecedented accessibility to his constituents, and stands up for Oregonians no matter the odds.

[Norquist Nemesis]

30. I heard Waxman was involved in turning Hackett's potential donors

toward Brown. :shrug:

[leveymg]

31. Do you have a source for that?

Waxman's on the House side. He's not part of the Senatorial campaign funding machine. Or, is there something else going on?

[Norquist Nemesis]

32. It was on Ed Schultz show yesterday

www.wegoted.com

Schultz started out on an absolute tirade about the whole thing. Waxman was part of his remarks. The interview with Hackett should be up on his site. IIRC, Hackett confirmed he saw emails/letter from Waxman about the donor thing.

[madfloridian]

33. Ed Schultz show yesterday.

Ed brought it up, Hackett said he had seen an email. Brief reference.

[leveymg]

34. Hmmm. Thanks.

Bad move, unless there's something we aren't being told.

[Norquist Nemesis]

37. There's only one thing that brought up some alerts

for me. It was about the 'whisper campaign'. Schultz asks Hackett about it flat out. But I'm not finding any clear evidence that the campaign was started by Democrats as Schultz was asserting...It may very well have been the GOP or a GOP operative acting within the Democratic Party. Politics is such a nasty, dirty, stomach turning business and Hackett just seemed very uncomfortable about the subject.

I suppose it's possible that Schumer and Reid may very well have convinced Hackett that he would be spending all of his time defending himself against those attacks and not be able to get his message out. But, if that were the case, I would think Hackett would have stated that up front. :shrug:

[leveymg]

40. Hackett apparently has had problems raising money.

If there's an "enemy within" problem, I say, follow the money trail. Which of the big givers one might expect to have contributed, didn't ante up? Why not?

Or, perhaps, they wanted to see whether Hackett would flame out before they started pumping big bucks into his campaign.

You'd think that if there was a lot of confidence in Hackett, the leadership would have made sure he had adequate funding from the beginning. There may be a reason they don't quite trust him.

[Norquist Nemesis]

91. Don't know about the trust thing

but I go back to that it should have been the Ohio voters' decision, IMHO. At least on the face of it, it appears to be all about the $$$$$. They've had a hand in manipulating those $$$$ and it's a slap in the face to every Democrat. They've pressure one candidate through their tactics to quit and undermined the campaign of the remaining candidate. DeWine's campaign now has the ability to exploit it negatively against Brown specifically and Democrats in general. Bad, bad move. :(

[FreedomAngel82]

76. Or democratic moles who aren't really democrats

Doesn't Ohio have a lot of them?

[Norquist Nemesis]

86. Those were the

GOP operatives I was referring to. Wouldn't surprise me if that were the case.

[FreedomAngel82]

101. I remember there was something going on

sometime late last year and they were trying to stop something. It might have been the election fraud but I'm not sure. I can't remember now.

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. Henry Waxman?

He isn't even a Senator. How would he have any say in this?

[Norquist Nemesis]

46. Access to donors on his rolodex. n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

75. I heard that too from Mike Malloy's show

I was really surprised because I like Waxmen. And Tim Ryan encouraged him to run for the House too instead.

[FreedomAngel82]

73. I think it was just Reid and Schumer

Those are the two names who keep popping up.

[Adelante]

122. Hackett doesn't seem to blame Reid for it

Hackett says Reid never treated him anything but well. Hackett blames Schumer and Brown, as far as I've heard in his own words

[usregimechange]

35. Thank you Dean.

[The Wielding Truth]

38. Darn, I like Dean!

[Cleita]

42. Thank the stars that we have Dean still in a prominent

position in the Democratic Party. It's time to purge our party of corruption. These back room deals that are done to shove the candidate of the DLCs choice in front of us has got to stop.

[WilliamPitt]

51. Way to throw Brown under the bus, Dean. That'll be helpful in November.

:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

53. Yeah no kidding; it's not his place to publicly take a side here.

Seriously he needs to be quiet if he wants to be chairman.

[mod mom]

59. I don't see him taking a side but rather making the case for the voters to

decide. I RESPECT DEAN FOR THIS!!!!

[FreedomAngel82]

77. Decide between Brown and DeWine you mean?

[mod mom]

90. I mean Dean is saying the Dem voters should have had the right to chose

between Hackett or Brown (or any other viable Dem candidate for that matter)

[FreedomAngel82]

103. Right

Isn't that what primaries and elections are for?

[spuddonna]

54. Can you explain how what Dean said 'throws Brown under the bus'?

As far as I can tell, he does not mention Brown in this article. :shrug:

[WilliamPitt]

57. No, but jumping into this defending Hackett

lets the GOP in that district say of Brown, "Look! Their Chairman doesn't even want this guy in the race!"

[spuddonna]

81. I think Dean is straddling a huge issue here, and is doing the best he can

I am sure Dean is getting hell from many constituents, lots of people from all over the country who have followed Hackett. How many posts have you read that said, "I told the DNC I'm not sending cash because I'm so mad at how Hackett was treated"?

So, Dean says nothing and alienates this group of donors? I've also heard many of these people saying the following, "First it was the Alito vote that they failed me on, now it's Hackett." These are the very people that we're trying to mobilize to action to do important work like backing Feingold and the filibuster of the Patriot Act. And again, Dean should say nothing to these people?

The GOP will use whatever tactics they can come up with, including stuff they'll pull out of their asses. But the bigger story here is not that Dean is voicing his, and constituents, anger over the mismanagement of this race, it is the actual mismanagement.

Look, if Schumer and whoever want to decide to manage this mess because they control the big money purse strings, fine - go right ahead. But let's not do it in the dark and then have a bloody mess of infighting because they pull funding. Say "this is our strategy" at the beginning. If they knew they were going to back Brown, why the hell didn't they tell Hackett that in the beginning? Why give the GOP this opportunity at bad press at all?!

I personally don't agree with the tactic of 'leadership deciding the candidate'. I support primaries. But I also understand that the bigger fight is against the GOP right now, and if this is the process then so be it. But you cannot convince me that this entire situation was not one colossal f*** up on the part of some bigger democratic players...

[WildEyedLiberal]

108. Yes and no

I agree Reid and Schumer fucked up. They fuck up quite often, in fact. But Dean fucked up, too. He undermined Brown with his comments and was out of line to chime in on the whole dustup to begin with. It's not Dean's job to meddle in intraparty conflicts, and in doing so, he set a dangerous precendent. What happens if Dean decides to subtly influence the presidential primary? And don't think that's not what a lot of his rabid supporters want, despite the fact that it would clearly overstep the boundaries of his job as DNC chair and be unethical. I hope Dean would be better than that, but after this Hackett comment, I don't know. I don't think Dean butting his nose into things is any better or more desirable than Reid and Schumer butting their noses into things.

[spuddonna]

114. I understand that if he spoke out against a candidate it's undue influence

... but he didn't in this case. He said nothing about Brown, and as many people have said here, this isn't about Brown - it's about the process and what was done to Hackett. I think Dean has every right to criticize the process. He was probably not only speaking for his constituents but himself.

And I believe I read another post on DU that Dean came out today and reaffimed his comittment to Brown. But pretending that a large portion of the Democratic party isn't enraged over what happened to Hackett is not going to make it 'go away'.

Shall we all chant together now? "Go Brown!" I will, give me a few days to see straight again. But JMJ these idiots in the party are kicking the very people they are supposed to be energizing in the gut...

[madfloridian]

133. Correct. Dean was critical of the party butting in like that.

He said it would not hurt for there to be a primary. Schumer last year said that they would decide the primary candidate in all contested races, and they would be sure there was no Democrat talking against them.

In other words, Schumer is on tape saying no primaries unless I say so.

[janx]

119. He didn't defend anyone--he defended the primary process. n/t

[madfloridian]

123. Why should he not defend Hackett? He did not criticize Brown.

He said "skullduggery" in Washington. If he keeps telling people to run to empower themselves and the party keeps telling them to get out....then he needs to say something.

[mod mom]

58. Will, With all due respect, this should have been left to the Dem voters

in Ohio to decide. I don't like the idea of party leaders taking away what little choice we have in our candidates, let alone having leaders from political groups whether it is the DLC or PDA (which I am a member) decide. Viable Dem candidates should all have a chance to present their case to the voters and then the voters should have the ability to decide who they choose to represent them as the Dem candidate. As a progressive, I have serious qualms with Brown giving his word to Hackett then going back on it. I value truth and integrity and that action doesn't pass the smell test for me.

[WilliamPitt]

67. Then with all respect, stay away from politics.

Seriously.

1. Party leadership is integral in choosing candidates, where they will run and where the money goes. That has been the deal for 200 years. Like it or lump it, but that is the way it has always been on both sides of the aisle. Your idea that "the people" should choose is valid, but does not jibe with political reality. The people get to choose after the party leadership, which has a much better idea of the lay of the land and a better idea of resources to be allocated, etc, takes a look at that what and the where and the how. If you don't like this reality, stay away from politics, because it has always been this way and will always be this way.

2. As for Hackett getting stabbed in the back? He had 1/10th of the money Brown had. There was no way he would have survived a primary with Brown, and if he had, he'd have been flat broke. DeWine wins in a walk.

As for that goodbye letter he wrote, it turned my stomach a little bit. Politics is rough, Mr. Hackett. Bring a helmet. This take-my-ball-and-go-home crap makes me more than a little relieved he is out of the race. If I get flamed for that, so be it.

[Missy Vixen]

74. That's really uncalled for

>Then with all respect, stay away from politics.<

Have you ever run for office? Why not?

We're in the market for integrity these days. Throwing a good candidate under the bus for political expediency really isn't a good idea. I'm glad Dean spoke up.

Julie

[WilliamPitt]

106. I certainly did not mean to be rude

but when I run into folks who don't see the process clearly and how it works, I feel the need to speak clearly.

[RazzleDazzle]

145. Maybe some people are tired of "how it works" and want it to

change. You're apparently okay with political hacks wresting control of the democratic process from the people. Pity.

[WilliamPitt]

147. Yeah, that's what I'm for

:eyes:

K. Tell me your plan on how to change things without winning first, said wins being necessary to achieve within the current system?

I'll wait.

[FreedomAngel82]

78. So isn't an election about oh choosing and electing reps?

So why didn't they let THE PEOPLE OF OHIO CHOOSE? Reid and Schumer could've come out and endoresed Brown period. This is crap.

[mod mom]

84. I believe you are doing the flaming and I have absolutely NO intention

for staying out of politics. Yes, leaders choose viable candidates for (in our case) the democratic party. Each of theose Dem candidates has the right to make their case to their voting base. Let the voters decide. (oooh what a scarey idea)

You might want to read the Gary Hart comments that I posted below. He compares these tactics with Republicans and calls them deplorable.

I find it obsene that big money is the issue you grasp onto. I would think, as a progressive, you might be interested in taking out big money so the will of the people might be better served. Sounds like you are just re-packaging the same old, same old. If there isn't big corporate $ behind a candidate, then they should step aside? I don't agree.

[WilliamPitt]

107. I did not mean to be rude

and I apologize if that came off like a flame. It was not intended to be.

But you need money to win elections. Period. As a progressive, I like Sherrod Brown a hell of a lot more than I like Hackett. For one example, I don't think that all illegal aliens should be immediately deported.

As a progressive, I like Brown. As a Dem, I like winning. As a realist, I know that money is necessary for victory.

[mod mom]

116. I am a Ohio Election Reformer...

I closed my business of 17+ years because of what I witnessed on Nov 2 2004. The blatant disenfranchisement of Ohio voters, mainly low income African American, brought a sea change to my life. The issue of integrity in our election system is the number one issue. Now for my problem with Sherrod Brown:

Only 31 members of the House of Representatives opposed the certification of the Ohio electors. Their names are Reps. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, John Conyers, Corrine Brown, Julia Carson, Bill Clay, James Clyburn, Danny Davis, Lane Evans, Bob Filner, Raul Grijalva, Alcee Hastings, Maurice Hinchey, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Sheila Jackson-Lee, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, John Lewis, Ed Markey, Cynthia McKinney, John Oliver, Major Owens, Frank Pallone, Donald Payne, Jan Schakowsky, Bennie Thompson, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, and Lynn Woolsey.

Where is his name?

Election reform groups in Ohio attempted to reach him, since he is a former Secretary of State in Ohio, so that we could get information about procedures to help us with our investigation into the '04 election. His office never replied.

Then there is the issue of going back on his word to Paul Hackett.

That aside, however I truly feel that the most clout that many of us have is in our vote. Taking Paul Hackett out of the race limits the voters of Ohio to either D or R. I am a strong believer that any viable democrat should have the right to make their case to their voting base. That is the purpose of the primaries. I believe $ should be taken out of the equation. There is absolutely too much corporate influence in our political system. It is my hope that the progressive movement will take out this influence and work to put the power in each vote.

[madfloridian]

127. This is how it is done. Dry up the funding, then say they can't raise it.

Just like they did to Cegelis. Just like they are doing all over Florida.

Will Pitt, I am very surprised at you.

I am amazed at the attacks on Hackett about this. If you are speaking because PDA endorsed Brown, that is one thing. Being insulting is another thing entirely.

[RazzleDazzle]

146. It's a tactic worthy of DeLay and other Republicans, isn't it?

Maybe that's why Dean objected so strongly.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

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

[autorank]

113. Free speech - Somebody had to say something.

Of course, Dean could have said "Hey the guys who have either lost every single battle or failed to fight key battles shouldn't be meddling in state politics unless we want to lose there." But he didn't and I'm proud of his restraint.

I remember Brown raising Hell in Ohio with Conyers when courts were issuing restraining orders on the locals not to talk about fraud. I remember that this took great bravery and he was one of the guys that stood up there and to the faux electors.

I can like Brown, support him and give without letting so-called party leaders muck around and trash a guy who was a true super star.

Give Alito a pass; stab Hackett in the back.

Good for Howard Dean. Our party needs debate. It's been so one sided with the losers dominating, it's time someone stood up and told the truth.

This sucks, we'll get over it, but it sucks.

We're not the Dallas Cowboys, we're the Oakland Raiders
We're not the Kansas City Royals, we're the New York Yankees (circa '70s_
We are not Republicans, we're Democrats and we'll get the job done.

But in the mean time, we will speak up. It's about time the party showed a pulse.

[mod mom]

117. Autorank, I researched whether Brown fought for the seating of the Ohio

electorate (he wasn't well know to me at the time) and I didn't find his name. I went to his website and could not find any speech from Jan 6 2005 either. Could you provide me with a link to this information, as it has been a sore spot with me. Thanks!

:yourock:

[mod mom]

56. Gary Hart concurrs days Dems imitating Repubs

Gary Hart: Pressuring Paul Hackett To Abandon Campaign is Old Politics at its Worst

Gary Hart Tue Feb 14, 10:50 AM ET

Based on news reports alone and knowing nothing (thank goodness) about behind-the-scenes politics, the pressure brought on Paul Hackett, the bold Iraqi veteran, to abandon his campaign for the U.S. Senate from Ohio is deplorable.


This is simply old politics at its worst. There is a party which hand-picks its candidates, decides who can and cannot run, directs money to the favorite candidate, and dictate terms. Up till now, that party has been the Republican party.

Now, it seems, my Democratic party is once again imitating the Republican party in a desperate effort to regain power. With the McGovern democratic reforms in the early 1970s, political bosses were diminished and grassroots voters were elevated. The theme was, Let the people decide.

Telling Paul Hackett that he cannot run for the Senate, and purportedly calling contributers to dry up his funds, is the worse kind of old politics. It will drive voters away from the supposedly "open" party, the Democrats, and further add to public cynicism about how politics in America is played in the early 21st century.

Shame on us.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060214/cm_huffpost/015637

[WildEyedLiberal]

71. This is a reckless and irresponsible comment

Dean just undermined Brown's candidacy and took sides in a party conflict which he is NOT SUPPOSED TO DO. He stayed out of it last week because the DNC chairman's job is not to meddle in races, so why is he spouting off now? I thought Dean was going to support "progressives" in the party, anyway? He basically offers no support for Brown or his positions, which leaves me to question his commitment to real liberals. Way to sell out Brown because you're pissed at Reid and Schumer.

Simply put, it's not his business to get involved in shit like this, especially when it undermines the party's candidate. Dean overstepped his boundaries and if Brown loses, he can't wash his hands of it.

It's also pretty hypocritical to talk about "Washington" and "establishment Democrats" when you're the fucking CHAIRMAN of the DNC. It rings just as false as when Bush calls himself a political outsider and refers to "Washington" as some corrupt entity of which he is completely apart.

[FreedomAngel82]

82. The DNC hasn't helped Brown?

Wow. I didn't know that. Are they working on helping? But remember that Dean is a centrist/moderate democrat himself.

[WildEyedLiberal]

105. I guess Dean came out with a statement about it today

It's in another thread, I can't find it now, but it is supportive of Brown. But even so, his comments in the OP of this thread undermine Brown, and they undermine HIS OWN DAMN STATEMENT. He just needed to stay the fuck out of this, since he didn't bother saying anything before it all went down anyway, and since it's not his job to influence primaries or support individual candidates. His remarks were way, way out of line.

And yes, I have no doubt ideologically he preferred Hackett to Brown, because Dean is not the flaming far-leftist many here think him to be.

[madfloridian]

126. Are you being misleading on purpose?

The DSCC is the one doing this. The DNC builds the party and supports the presidential campaign.

What stuff are you guys spreading here?

[tnlefty]

135. As Dean stated the DNC doesn't get involved in contested primaries just

as state or county party chairs aren't supposed to support one candidate over another until the primaries are over. If you'll remember Stuart James was called on the carpet for stating at the Kefauver Dinner that he was supporting a candidate and would gladly vote for him. At the time this race was uncontested but the major problem was that the filing deadline hadn't been met and another person was thinking about filing for the race. He was called on the carpet and he apologized.

The DNC shouldn't have been supporting either Brown or Hackett during a contested primary, period.

[Laelth]

94. Looks like Chairman Dean ...

... wants to run for President again. Our Dems. start shooting one another only when they're competing for the same office.

Dean's right to say that this kind of intra-party competition must be curtailed. We don't have enough money to be fighting one another. But, then, he goes and does exactly what he claims to be trying to prevent.

I approve of Chairman Dean's tenure, ultimately, but I don't like him attacking Schumer and Reid when they support the progressive candidate (as they did with Brown).

-Laelth

[WildEyedLiberal]

102. If he does, then he's a liar, since he promised he wouldn't

He promised he wouldn't use the DNC chairmanship as a platform to run for president. I have mixed opinions about his current job; on one hand, he does and says some good things, but on the other hand, he says shit like this that undermines the ultimate cause. He came out in support of the filibuster, but not very vocally - an offhand comment made at a speech. Why didn't he hammer that home? He's made more press releases about the Hackett controversy than he did about the filibuster. I think he has his own agenda, and you may be right, and if so, it's really shady and deceitful.

[FreedomAngel82]

104. I haven't seen any indication of him running for president

:shrug: Where do you get that from?

[WildEyedLiberal]

110. He promised he wouldn't

I think Laelth is just saying the signs might point to that. I hope he's wrong, because that would be incredibly weaselly for Dean to run after explicitly promising not to - not to mention the shadiness of using the DNC as his own personal propaganda megaphone.

[Laelth]

112. I see no other reason for him to refer ...

... to the very sane decision of Reid and Schumer to support Sherrod Brown as "skulduggery" if not to endear himself, directly, to some Democrats. There was no excuse for that comment. I expect the DSCC to make decisions for the benefit of the party. They're trying to win, and it's important that they be allowed to do so without Chairman Dean attacking them for it.

Makes me suspicious. That's all.

-Laelth

[WildEyedLiberal]

118. I agree. He was completely out of line

BTW I love your sig pic.

[Laelth]

121. Thanks.

Not as inspiring as yours, though. :)

:dem:

-Laelth

[madfloridian]

125. Wow, now we can all attack each other, Reid and Schumer...can sit back

and just laugh their heads off. They got Hackett out, they got others attacking Hackett and attacking each other.

Politics is a beautiful thing

[Laelth]

129. I hear ya.

... but Reid and Schumer gave me a progressive candidate. It's hard for me to be angry with them about that.

-Laelth

[madfloridian]

131. It should not be their choice. It should be your choice.

.

[Laelth]

132. In this case, it was Mr. Hackett's choice.

He could have decided to stay in the race; instead, he decided to bow out.

The DSCC is not required to support him, as far as I know.

-Laelth

[madfloridian]

134. Keep telling yourself it was his choice.

It is what they will say whenever another one drops out because the party dried up their support. It is going on everywhere in the country.

Some seem not to mind. I do.

[madfloridian]

124. They asked Hackett to run, they asked him to get out.

They should have been called on these shenanigans.

I can not see why you took it as Dean running again. No one really thinks that.

This was all so wrongheaded, and he was right to speak out.

The grassroots are afraid to run for office, and they feel like they get shot down. I saw this as his taking up for those who were not the handpicked.

Someone needed to say something.

[Laelth]

128. Perhaps someone did need to say something.

But, surely, it would have been better to do so in private.

Perhaps I'm wrong about that. :shrug:

-Laelth

[madfloridian]

130. I don't think so this time.

This is way too many candidates who are being "urged" out. Way too many. Hard to keep silent when that keeps happening.

There will be no change in the party if "new blood" is "urged" out all the time.

It will always be the same old same old. This had nothing to do with anything but that the party leaders interfered when they should have butted out.

[SeattleRob]

139. come on...

You're reaching here. Dean didn't undermine Brown. He spoke in favor of the primary system.



"It's also pretty hypocritical to talk about "Washington" and "establishment Democrats" when you're the fucking CHAIRMAN of the DNC. It rings just as false as when Bush calls himself a political outsider and refers to "Washington" as some corrupt entity of which he is completely apart."

You know very well there is a struggle going on in the leadership of our party. The Washington DC Democrats are trying to keep outsiders out of the process. While Dean is the Chair of the DNC, he does represent a threat to the status quo of the power elite. The insiders have been trying to undermine Dean from the moment he started gaining traction in the Presidential Primaries of 2004. Remember, Dean has angered many insiders because he is putting a lot of effort into organizing the state and local chapters of the party.

It's time for the Washington insiders to step aside. Look at what they have done to us over the last several years? Their brilliant Strategy gave us the debacles of 2002 and 2004. I am sick of hearing all their talk about "viable candidates." Let the people decide! Now I think Brown is a good man and I wish him success. I just think that we need to let the constituents decide who will represent their interests.

Hackett was behind in cash and in the polls - so what. Let the process happen. If Hackett lost in a primary, I am sure he would have enthusiastically supported Brown.


Sorry for going off on a tangent - but the Democratic Party needs to stand for democracy!

[SeattleRob]

141. Delete - Double post

!

[B Calm]

143. It bothers me that Paul Hackett gave up so easily..