Failed Senate candidate Hackett's opposition research leaked to paper

[Algorem]

Failed Senate candidate Hackett leaks opposition research to paper
Monday, February 20, 2006

http://www.davidsirota.com/2006/02/who-is-really-weak-on-national.html

Who Is Really "Weak" On National Security?

Karl Rove has made no secret of his desire to try to ramrod the 2006 elections into a debate over who is "tough" on national security. And it seems more and more Democrats are frightened to actually have the debate. Oh sure, these Democrats wouldn't tell you that - in fact, many are posturing as tough guys even as they cower in fear of Rove. A few weeks back, it was Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), self-servingly reinforcing Rove's dishonest storyline of Democrats as "weak" on national security. And now today in the Toledo Blade, it's failed Ohio Senate candidate Paul Hackett.

Yes, you read that correctly. A week AFTER Hackett got out of the race, Hackett's campaign - now in the process of closing down - leaked all of its "opposition research" on Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) to the Toledo Blade - opposition research that regurgitates the same Karl-Rove-esque "weak on national security" lies that have eroded Democrats' image over the years.

Clearly, Hackett's move is disgusting on many levels. First and foremost, is the sheer pathetic, sore-loserish quality of it. A week ago, it was Hackett who appeared on Air America radio saying: "I’d rather see Sherrod Brown as my next Senator …Why do I want to hurt him if we can get him elected...I’m proud to say that I’m a team player...Everybody who is upset about this, get over it now and let’s work hard to get Democrats on the ticket elected." Now, this "team player" is out spreading GOP propaganda. Classy.

But let's just look at the Toledo Blade story and what it represents at a deeper level. Hackett's campaign tries to attack Brown for voting against the Patriot Act - even though polls show the public has serious reservations about the law, and want it to be changed (see question 19 of this USA Today/CNN poll from last month for reference)...


http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060220/NEWS09/602200340

Article published Monday, February 20, 2006


U.S. SENATE RACE

Hackett's research targeted Brown

Votes to cut funding for intelligence cited


By JIM TANKERSLEY
BLADE POLITICS WRITER

Congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Sherrod Brown voted to cut intelligence funding more than a dozen times before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a record that Paul Hackett's campaign advisers called proof that Mr. Brown could not win in November.

A consultant hired by Mr. Hackett, Mr. Brown's onetime Democratic opponent for Senate, estimated the funding cuts would have totaled billions of dollars if enacted. None were. The consultant called Mr. Brown's votes on those proposals and a dozen more recent national security issues "toxic in today's political environment," according to campaign research documents obtained by The Blade.

Mr. Hackett quit the race last week, leaving Mr. Brown as the near-certain Democratic nominee against incumbent Republican Sen. Mike DeWine. But not before his campaign paid more than $5,000 to comb Mr. Brown's background for political weakness.

The research concluded it was unwise to attack Mr. Brown's career voting record in a Democratic primary, because he toed the party line faithfully. It also predicts Republican attacks on Mr. Brown this fall...

[DemonGoddess]

1. I'm taking my toys and going home...

and breaking YOURS before I do. JEEEZ

[liberalnurse]

10. If you think this blitz on Hachett is bad.....

Go into the Ohio Forum and see what some of the familiar, local swift boat blogger-posters have done there. This is only a continuation of their message to squash any review of the "DEMOCRATIC INSIDER" destroyer mission Paul Hackett......To attempt to minimize Paul Hackett as a winning Candidate and to paint Brown as an alter boy.

[Algorem]

14. liked your post yesterday,especially when it turns out bad guy was a Ha-

ckett campaign guy-

Ohio Beware, local political hacks have infested the blogs. -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=172&topic_id=9796&mesg_id=9796

>Reply #13: Multiple personality disordered Bryan Clark became Hackett's Field Director-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=172&topic_id=9796&mesg_id=12900

[liberalnurse]

22. That remains to be seen as of yet.....

If Clark was the mole. If so, who endorsed him and planted him into the Hackett Camp? It would be a Democratic insider who recommended him to Hackett...Now, who had the most to gain from such a deception? The other thought, Clark will ultimately be the scape goat to shield the true benefactor as Clark is of no consequence and expendable like a disposable diaper.

Lets see how this shakes out.

[Algorem]

24. the great hackett,surrounded by conspirators.

[EFerrari]

37. Why do you keep posting these threads?

What does DU gain or what do you Democrats gain from them?

[Algorem]

48. useful,enlightening information.

"He who controls the mail controls ...information!"-Newman

[EFerrari]

52. I don't buy it. Because you know what is going to happen.

The thread will be angry and people will yell at each other. There will be little critical thinking and lots of uproar.

[Algorem]

53. if it was a thread saying Hackett's God and Brown's the Devil you'd be

all praises for it.Why don't you just drop it and go read something you agree with.If you can't handle a news story,don't read it,and spare me your goddam accusations.

[EFerrari]

54. No, I wouldn't. If you do a search, you'll see that I dropped

this whole deal days ago.

And, I haven't made any accusations.

[Algorem]

55. .

[EFerrari]

56. Nicely said. nt

[OzarkDem]

51. Exposing RNC plants

who are trying to destroy Dems in the primaries.

Here in Ohio, we don't like that kind of thing.

[SaveElmer]

2. To be fair...

And I say this as one who supported Hackett's withdrawl, it does appear Hackett himself has nothing to do with this, but is the work of disgruntled aides. Course if these were the same aides he was relying on to get him elected, to me it reaffirms what a wise decision it was for him to get out!!!

[FreedomAngel82]

8. So why didn't he make sure they didn't do this?

In the end it's still Hackett's campaign and he's the boss. You should make sure that people don't do that and you make it clear to rally around the other person. It sounds like someone who is a sore loser to me perhaps.

[pat_k]

33. Propaganda that labels anyone "sore loser" has ALL the earmarks of a . . .

. . .Rovian attack.

This reeks of tactics they use over, and over, and over again. It's Greeaaat for them. Attack Brown AND discredit Hackett, IN ONE SHOT!!!

The only mistake Hackett made was in who the campaign hired as a Consultant.

[pat_k]

34. <deleted>

[eridani]

41. It sounds more like someone who doesn't have a lot of experience

If he had had that experience, he would have been better qualified to be a Senator.

[HereSince1628]

9. as someone not involved, I'd say the same. There is nothing to

indicate Hackett turned this information loose.

[FreedomAngel82]

3. So a team player huh?

Sorry I don't think so. A good example of being a team player is after the 2004 primary when all the failed democrats came out to support Kerry and Edwards. I loved that unity. How could Mr. Brown be seen as weak on security if he voted against everything with Iraq in the beginning?

[Paulie]

4. Get it out now

because they will use it later.

This isn't anything new, if anything, Sherrod will either be stronger, or not....

[Jackpine Radical]

5. If this is what it looks like, it's disgusting.

Well, it's disgusting under any circumstances, but especially so if it actually came from Hackett.

Let's not forget that there are some possible alternative explanations.

Like maybe a mole in the Hackett org, a Puggy operative simultaneously taking down Brown & Hackett, or...well, these are strange times.

[hang a left]

6. On the surface this appears like a very nasty move.

One has to wonder "who" the leaker was.

[Hubert Flottz]

50. We know that KKKarl has some PNAC cell members at work in...

Ohio 24/7! Anyone can inject some bullshit and blame it on anyone. Dirt is the name of the game look at what they did to the dem front runner in 04! Is there anyone on the planet that never saw Howard Dean's political crucifixion on TV? Is there anyone who never saw the media tear into Al Gore in 2000? Even though the Blade has been a fairly straight shooting source of real truthful news, is it not possible they were baited or mislead by KKKarl's propaganda crew, like CBS news was during the 04 campaign?

KKKarl wants to make sure this guy don't get a leg up so he's doing a number on him IMHO.

[JackRiddler]

7. Hmm...

I've ignored this issue entirely so far, but if that's the case -

i.e., that Brown voted a bunch of times to deny more funding for the gangsters of the hidden government

- then all I can say is, Go Sherrod.

[Beelzebud]

11. See... What were Hackett's motives? I'm starting to wonder..

Is he really one of us, or a wolf in sheep's clothing?

[liberalnurse]

23. I can see you always

reply with a indirect questioning as to whether hackett is a real Democrat. The answer is yes, so you can stop the republican slant NOW.

[PsN2Wind]

12. Only skimmed the article

but didn't see anything from Hackett, only his campaign. Maybe disgruntled workers? or?
But if this is all you get for $5,000 and it's being claimed that it is going to hurt Brown, how will he survive the Repubs that will spend hundreds of thousands in "opposition research"?

[Javaman]

13. No proof of this, but I believe what we are watching is the new repuke...

tactic. They join various democratic campaigns in area's that there will be a democratic primary, in order to gain information regarding either of the candidate. This way, if one or the other implodes, as in this case, they have all the dirt on the other guy and they can swift boat him or her from the inside claiming that they were unfairly treated, that the other person is really a slime, etc. beware of pukes in Dem clothing.
To me this reeks of a rove like tactic.

[creeksneakers2]

16. I agree

GOP style attacks twist voting records to make outrageous claims. The whole bit on Brown sounds like a GOP issue too. Either this story was fed to Hackett's campaign by Republicans, or Republican moles in the campaign took it to the Blade, or both.

[Pithy Cherub]

15. kos states very clearly Hackett did NOT do this.

The political operatives inside his team did. Hackett was not part fo that. kos states it right on the front page.

[FreedomAngel82]

19. Why did he allow them to keep this information?

Sometimes I wonder if he had any control over his campaign.

[Pithy Cherub]

20. That's beyond politically naive.

Every campaign has oppo research done on all of its opponents. What did you think of Kerry hiring certain operatives to do his oppo research. Only a complete novice would not have done it.

[Algorem]

26. does Kos say how he knows this?

[stickdog]

44. Do say say why you think differently or what you hope to gain

from dissing a guy who has already dropped out of the race for doing rudimentary opp research?

[Algorem]

46. so you don't know how Kos "knows" it wasn't Hackett's idea to leak the

opposition research either.Did I say I think differently?You don't realize that this story isn't about doing opposition research,they all do that,but about leaking it to the press to hurt an ex-opponent in what you claim is your own party?What I hope to gain is a Democratic Senator in Ohio.Call it "dissing" or whatever you want.

[yurbud]

17. Only $5,000? That would be a good investment for some local politics

[Kansas Wyatt]

18. Get ahead of the Republican attack

By diffusing and dulling their attack weapon?

[Beelzebud]

21. With democrats like these:

Who needs republicans!

Fuck you Paul Hackett. Fuck you for crying like a baby and going home, and FUCK YOU for trying to smear a REAL PROGRESSIVE.

Just disgruntled staffers my ass! I wasn't born yesterday...

[seabeyond]

25. i want my money back. hackett at best would be a dlc dem. at

best. he was no liberal dem. which was the silliness of every rooting for hackett as the true dem over progressive brown. i liked hackett. would have wanted him to win, but then i am a conservative dem, so he probably wouldnt have bothered me as much as others. but hearing this about hackett....... bummer

and to suggest he was more of a dem than brown, silliness

[Cocoa]

27. I'm glad Brown fought the Patriot Act

it shows he stands for something.

I'm glad the dems backed the candidate who opposed the Patriot Act, and they're fighting the phony "weak on defense" meme. The truth is that people like Bernie Sanders and Brown and Kucinich would make America safer than the neocons, and it's very possible to help the voters of Ohio see that as the truth.

Oppo research be damned. :bounce:

[Timbuk3]

28. If you haven't read this you probably should

The questions no one wants to ask
It strikes me that as all the whining and crying by supporters of Paul Hackett continues, there are a few questions that no one is asking - likely because no one wants to face the hard truth. So I'm just going to ask them.

So let's say it actually is true that Sens. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer called a couple of big donors to tell them not to give any more money to Hackett and instead give money to Brown. Remember, they have denied doing that - but let's just take Hackett's conspiracy theory as fact for a moment. Here's a question: if Hackett was such a strong candidate building such a national movement with such devoted supporters as he purports - why would those donors listen?

I mean, come on folks - the idea that these Senators have that much control is terribly naive, especially at a time when most people admit that one of the big problems plaguing the party is not enough unity. Sure, they might have some sway - but again, if Hackett was such a strong candidate with such a fervent national following as people purport - why would those donors listen to a call from Schumer or Reid? The answer, as anyone who has ever worked in the political fundraising world, is that they wouldn't listen. And that means what really happened was Hackett didn't have the fundraising base he would need to begin with.

Second question: if people are angry about there now not being a primary, and thus voters aren't going to make the decision between Hackett and Brown, why are people upset with everyone other than Paul Hackett for that reality? Last I checked, he was the one who decided not to take the question to voters. So if people are going to be mad at anyone about the "let the people decide" issue, shouldn't they be mad at Hackett?

What I find particularly disgusting about all of the attention Hackett's decision got is the utter lack of issues being discussed. Its just disgustingly pathetic. There is no discussion of the two candidates' differing positions on Iraq, no discussion of the candidates records on issues that would be voted on in Congress - nothing. It's all horse race crap - and it is a sad, sad commentary that such a loud part of the supposedly progressive "base" is so comfortable following cults of personality, and appearing not even interested in the actual issues. For me, that's what this has always been about - issues. Here we have an extremely rare chance to put a proven progressive champion into U.S. Senate - Sherrod Brown, a guy who has championed the progressive agenda in Congress for years. And yet here we have many people in the blogosphere - people who purport to be part of a progressive base - simply uninterested in that. It is, in a word, pathetic.

Here's the cold, hard truth: Paul Hackett was going to get crushed by Sherrod Brown. Paul Hackett's internal polls showed Paul Hackett that right before Paul Hacket decided to leave the race.

Those poll numbers were not surprising - Sherrod Brown has been a progressive champion building grassroots support around Ohio for years, while Paul Hackett had been on the political stage for less than a year. That doesn't mean Paul Hackett isn't a good guy, with a lot of potential - it's just political reality.

Paul Hackett saw those poll numbers, didn't want to get embarrassed on election day, and bailed out. People shouldn't be bitter about that, and they shouldn't be sore losers. And Hackett supporters fueling a false media story about Democratic leaders "forcing out" Hackett do nothing but undermine a good, solid progressive who is still in this race against Mike DeWine.

Paul Hackett got beat, and he got beat badly by a better candidate and a more proven progressive who had far stronger statewide support and appeal. You can cry, whine, and make up conspiracy theories all you like. You can throw a temper tantrum, stomping your feet, screaming that "it's unfair!" It's a claim I used to make when I was 12 years old playing Nintendo against my brothers and they would beat me. I would claim the game was "unfair" - when in fact it wasn't - I just lost.

I sincerely wish Paul Hackett had decided not to get out of politics altogether so quickly - I honestly thought he had more mettle than that. I thought he would lose the primary, and then go on to run again. But he didn't and that's really sad. The the facts about why he decided to get out are the facts. They are reality. And you either come back to reality and we win this Senate seat, or you continue living in a fantasy world of your own creation.

Posted by David Sirota at 8:29 AM | Link http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=78DB45BF-A0F6-61CE-05B33DD4D2B1466C

[RazzleDazzle]

30. WHERE did Schumer and Reid deny it?

So let's say it actually is true that Sens. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer called a couple of big donors to tell them not to give any more money to Hackett and instead give money to Brown. Remember, they have denied doing that...

Maybe they did, but I haven't seen it. I'd like a link, please.

[RazzleDazzle]

31. Factually incorrect, logically flawed as well

Here's the cold, hard truth: Paul Hackett was going to get crushed by Sherrod Brown. Paul Hackett's internal polls showed Paul Hackett that right before Paul Hacket decided to leave the race.

For a minute you had me going there -- you were sounding like you actually knew what you were talking about. You apparently don't, for at least 2 different reasons relating to the polls.

First, this is mid-Feb. The primary takes place sometime in May. That's several eternities in politics. Maybe a dozen or so of 'em. Internal polling NOW that showed Hackett at a disadvantage wouldn't be anything more impactful than to provide material for course correction purposes or the like.

Second, those internal polls happened to be much better than you portray:

Early polls show both Brown and Hackett running in a dead heat against DeWine. An internal poll done in February for the Hackett campaign that was obtained by the Cleveland Plain Dealer showed Brown leading Hackett by 20 points, but Hackett took the lead if voters simply heard both candidate’s bios. The analysis concluded, “If Paul Hackett can raise the funds necessary to communicate his message to the voters of Ohio, he will present Sherrod Brown with a formidable challenge in May.”

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2006/02/hackett_drops_out.html


Twenty points this far out is NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. Especially with a multi-termer as your opponent. Hell, he'd get that on name recognition alone.

I don't think much of the rest of your post, but wanted to single this out. I'll also address this:

What I find particularly disgusting about all of the attention Hackett's decision got is the utter lack of issues being discussed.

We're talking about an event, a rather cataclysmic one and one in which the structure of the party and the behavior of the party insiders figures in largely and NEEDS to be discussed by interested Democrats, not who we want to vote for and why. You could call this a meta-discussion, so your criticism is unwarranted and pointless. B esides, plenty of people have jumped into these discussions with posts or threads praising Brown's "progressive" record. Their posts have been irrelevent and annoying since the ISSUES isn't the campaign issues or even whether Brown's any good or not, but the process of what went on and whether or not we want to ever allow that to happen again or not.

[Timbuk3]

32. I should have been clearer

I reposted David Sirota's blog entry verbatum. By supplying the link at the end, I thought that I was making that clear but obviously I didn't.

I was also aware of that Mother Jones article. I got both links from Cursor.org, today.

I have a choice. You do, too.

We can either believe that the Democratic party is a big, evil organization that crushes people like Hackett, or we can beat the GOP. I don't see any way to do both.

I'd like to see Hackett run for a house seat. If he doesn't, I'm sure we'll find someone else. No one is indispensable.

Brown is a good, progressive candidate. I, for one, am not going to let this "controversy" affect his chances of winning against DeWine.

Of course, you're free to do as you please. This was still America, the last time I looked, so speak out while you still can.

[RazzleDazzle]

38. Oh, more crap

This one the old either/or logical fallacy. It's RARELY true that we have "either this or that" choice -- quite often, almost always in fact, there are more choices than that. To wit:

We can either believe that the Democratic party is a big, evil organization that crushes people like Hackett,...

First, no one that I've read has suggested anything of the sort. There are about 3 people -- 4 if you include Brown -- who are the bad guys here. That's hardly the whole party.

or we can beat the GOP. I don't see any way to do both.

I don't see how we crush the GOP permanetly unless you deal with the corruption and venality like this in our own party which undermines the strength, vitality, and future growth of our party. Any "victory" would be short lived and extremely hallow in the meantime. Any "victory" involving people who aren't any better than the GOP is no victory at all. YMMV, I suppose.

Finally, it's NOT an either/or proposition. You fight evil wherever you find it. You fight evil in your own party WHILE YOU ARE dealing with defeating the evil in the other party. Shrug. Seems simple enough to me. Why anyone would want to make it an "either/or" argument mystifies me. It's just not. As I said, few things in life are.

[Timbuk3]

39. The either/or fallacy?

As long as we have an electoral college you will "either" be able to vote for a Republican, "or" a Democrat.

Now that Hackett is out of the race, you can "either" support Brown, "or" not.

You can "either" believe that Hackett was the better candidate, "or" Brown is the better candidate. (BTW, the internal polls say that Brown is the better candidate by 20 points. He can "either" close that gap, "or" he can't.)

Now that we have Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito on the bench you can "either" see that this election is about more than a lone Senate seat in Ohio and accept the Democrats (warts and all) if you want to have some say in lifetime appointments, "or" you can demand perfection from the Democrats and raise such a ruckus that the GOP holds the majority (and buddy lemme tell ya, they've got warts.)

"Oh, more crap"?

You're angry. (Well, either that or you're just sowing discontent. Do you actually want to see DeWine re-elected?) Whether you can see it and admit it, or not, posts like yours will punish Brown and no one else.

Maybe you'd like to take this opportunity to list the reasons why Brown is the better candidate and should be elected to replace DeWine? I suspect not.

[stickdog]

45. Wake me when Brown becomes a Senator and then takes a

courageous stand and makes a positive difference.

[OzarkDem]

49. Will do

Should happen this fall.

If you're looking to see him taking a courageous stand on the issues, tune in to CSPAN and watch him in the House, where he now serves. He does it every day.

[bvar22]

29. I will wait 24hrs.

Lets see what Hackett has to say about this.

[pat_k]

35. Reeks of Rovian tactics: Attack Brown AND discredit Hackett, IN ONE SHOT!

The only mistake Hackett made was in the Repub plant the campaign hired as a Consultant.

[Catrina]

36. Yes, I'm beginning to think that also, that this was a plot, and may occur

in other races. Both Brown and Hackett, if it does turn out to be a Rovian plot, could foil it by joining forces and exposing the person who is responsible. Most people are tired of these tactics ~

I think this whole mess should be thoroughly investigated ~ because if the party is being infiltrated it's better to know now and other campaigns will have to be more careful who they hire.

As far as Reid and Schumer, we already know that Reid questioned Hackett about the whisper campaign last Fall. So if Reid knew about it, it had already started back then.

Schumer has already interfered in two other campaigns, so I don't doubt he called donors. Someone needs to tell him to mind his own business and stay out of other states. The party needs to tell him ~ stay away from campaigns that are none of your business ~

[mod mom]

40. Of course. A Dem would be foolish if they didn't think rove would

infiltrate, especially threatening candidates like Hackett. The repukes were afraid of his ability to attract republicans. They don't have to worry now.

[eridani]

42. The question is--

--how can we avoid doing this and still remain open to anyone who wants to pitch in and help? It's a mistake that any of us can, and probably will, make again.

[stickdog]

43. WTF is Sirota gaining by dancing on Hackett's grave so gleefully?

His take on this "leak" is way OTT.

[Algorem]

47. I didn't realize a dead man could go on MSNBC and slur people.