Mother Jones has a pretty long and interesting piece on how DNC guerillas fragged the candidacy of ‘Fighting Dem’ LTC Paul Hackett, who as recently as a few months ago was a Democratic party darling:
Hackett, an Iraq War combat veteran, was hailed last summer as just the kind of “fighting Democrat” the party needed to reinvigorate its base and end its years in the congressional wilderness. After narrowly losing a race for Congress in a lopsidedly Republican district outside Cincinnati last August, the telegenic veteran—famous for dissing President Bush as a “chickenhawk” and “sonuvabitch” while on the stump—was courted heavily by Democratic leaders, including Sens. Charles Schumer and Harry Reid, to take on DeWine. But no sooner did Hackett enter the Senate race last October than Brown announced his candidacy for Senate, reversing an earlier decision he had made to stay out of the race.
With Brown, a party insider, on board, the Democratic establishment quickly began pulling away from the fiery Hackett. Schumer, after having wooed him in August, called again in October. “Schumer didn’t tell me anything definitive,” Hackett told me at the time. “But I’m not a dumb ass, and I know what he wanted me to do.” Hackett, a maverick who relishes the fight, decided to buck the Beltway insiders, and stay in the race.
Hackett’s scorching rhetoric earned him notoriety and cash on the campaign trail. He declared that people who opposed gay marriage were “un-American.” He said the Republican party had been hijacked by religious extremists who he said “aren’t a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden.” Bloggers loved him, donors ponied up, while Democratic Party insiders grumbled that he wasn’t “senatorial.”
Swift boats soon appeared on the horizon. A whisper campaign started: Hackett committed war crimes in Iraq—and there were photos. “The first rumor that I heard was probably a month and a half ago,” Dave Lane, chair of the Clermont County Democratic Party, told me the day after Hackett pulled out of the race. “I heard it more than once that someone was distributing photos of Paul in Iraq with Iraqi war casualties with captions or suggestions that Paul had committed some sort of atrocities. Who did it? I have no idea. It sounds like a Republican M.O. to me, but I have no proof of that. But if it was someone on my side of the fence, I have a real problem with that. I have a hard time believing that a Democrat would do that to another Democrat.”
***Hackett backers suspected the smear was being floated by Sherrod Brown’s campaign. A senior Brown staffer angrily dismissed the charge this week as “ridiculous.”
Of course, this is not the first time the Democrats hosed Hackett, as the DCCC left him without air support in the Schmidt race:
As of early July, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), which gives money to House candidates, had offered none to Hackett’s campaign, according to local party officials. Not until July 12, nearly a month after Hackett decisively won the Democratic primary, did the DCCC put a notice on its blog asking readers to contribute to his campaign. Only after an outpouring of calls from local party activists, and with just three weeks remaining in the race, did the DCCC reportedly commit its own resources to the campaign. When asked about the Hackett race, DCCC spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg would not comment.
“We keep hearing that they’re going to be helpful, but it’s been frustrating,” says Tim Burke, chair of the Democratic Party in Hamilton County, which includes Cincinnati, Anderson, and a large slice of the 2nd District.
The funniest thing in all of this? Sherrod Brown is one of the ‘Deadbeat Dems’.
Such is politics.
Slartibartfast
You need to close yer fargan blockquote, John.
Brad R.
Shit like this just pisses me off. It’s like the party wants to frigging lose.
John Cole
It wasn’t the blockquote- I put a ‘ instead of a ” in thecenter alignment of *** and it queered the WHOLE thing.
Brian
That’s what losers do.
Marcus Wellby
Its not that they want to lose, they just aren’t supposed to win. Sort of like the Washington Generals vs. the Harlem Globetrotters — I am a little sick and tired of waving the Washington Generals banner in the stands. I mean damn — why can’t the Generals’ center just take the ball from the Globetrotter who is just spinning it on his finger — damn man, steal the ball and shoot a 3-pointer!!!
Anyhow, what do you expect — its the same thing Gerphardt and Kerry did to Dean in Iowa.
Bob In Pacifica
Hackett was losing two to one in a state primary poll, as well as around ten to one in fundraising. My understanding is that what little statewide organization he’d had was borrowed by Brown’s organization before Brown got into the race, which did not spell out positive movement in the primary. He had a shot of unseating Schmidt, though.
By the way, just because the DSCC doesn’t back you doesn’t mean you can’t run. My guess is that the poll was the killer, and the whining and frustration and blame came with the realization that he wasn’t going to get past Brown.
I’m more concerned about the DSCC backing Casey in Pennsylvania, or Lieberman anywhere.
Now, if only Cindy Sheehan would reconsider and run against Feinstein.
Brad R.
I’m more concerned about the DSCC backing Casey in Pennsylvania,
See, in that case I’m willing to compromise. Anything to get The Stupidest Man in the History of the Senate out of office.
Sine.Qua.Non
The is so bullshit. I’m tired of this BS. Brown is useless and we need change in Congress, on all political fronts.
Jaybird
I would like to be the first to offer the statement that Republicans do it too.
Thanks.
Blue Neponset
I don’t have much sympathy for Hackett. Suck it up and run without the DSCC’s support if you want to but don’t throw a temper tantrum because you got the short end of the political stick. It isn’t as if this kind of thing doesn’t happen every day in Washington and in every single state capital. If he can’t make it through a primary without quitting who the hell needs him?
Otto Man
I was a big backer of Hackett, but I think he bears some of the blame here.
He was the first choice of the DSCC for the race, but he initially passed and as a result Brown entered the race. Brown wasn’t brought in to knock Hackett off his game; he entered an empty field. The Dems meanwhile tried to recruit him for another House race instead, and Hackett refused.
I love Hackett’s spirit, but Brown has a better shot at unseating DeWine, and that’s all that matters. Same with Casey in PA.
rilkefan
Brown is not useless. He’s a good guy, and more liberal than Hackett, and it’s the damn still-collegial Senate of the US, for crying out loud – Hackett should get a little experience in politics first. He’s bitched and moaned the whole campaign and then he leaves making a private matter of politics into a public stink – not indicative of the desireable level of maturity or, failing that, political savvy. Brown’s a better candidate, and he’ll make a better Senator – Hackett would have made a fine Representative from OH-2.
Paul Wartenberg
Both parties do it, they kill off the genuine candidates who want to do something right, and trade off for ‘insiders’ who know not to bite the hands that feed ’em and end up being the same bland SOBs that keep getting caught doing stupid greedy things.
I’ve been saying it for awhile now: Perot came out with that Reform Party idea a decade too early. Where is a viable third party that will accept genuine Americans who will actually fix the messes we’re in?
Bob In Pacifica
Otto Man, I agree with almost all you say, but I understand that Pannachio (is that how it’s spelled) actually polled better than Casey.
Whoever the Dems run in Ohio and Penn will have a very good shot.
Steve
Brown is clearly more liberal than Hackett – and yet posters at the far-left Daily Kos overwhelmingly backed Hackett over Brown! Can you find the flaw in this statement?
Bob In Pacifica
Steve, Hero-worship often blinds one’s own goals. Happens on the Left, too.
Otto Man
Chuck Pennacchio is great, but it’s clear he doesn’t stand a chance in hell in the Democratic Primary. Check out this Quinnipiac poll:
I think a 65 point lead is a good sign Casey has the primary wrapped up. And it looks good that Casey can oust Santorum, too:
Personally, I find myself closer to Pennacchio, but if Casey can unseat Senator Man-on-Dog, I’m all for it.
Bob In Pacifica
This is a good Hackett quote, though: “They [candidates from the grassroots] simply can’t rely on any of the party infrastructure to help them, and they must assume that people at high levels will work against them. These guys,” he says of the party insiders, “view the Senate as a club. They’re not gonna welcome you if one day they turn the key on the clubhouse door and you are sitting there with your feet on the table flippin’ them the middle finger. I understand that from their perspective. It works for them, but not for the rest of us out here.”
Richard 23
From what I have heard, Hackett pulled out because he wasn’t doing well in the polls and wasn’t raising enough money to run a successful campaign. He should still run against the Schmidt-head for congress.
Bob In Pacifica
Otto,
The poll I saw had Pannachio against Santorum. At this point Joe the bagger at the supermarket probably polls well against Santorum (depending, of course, on his man-on-dog position). Casey certainly has the family name and I won’t squabble about polls in PA. May the best man show Rick the door.
Gray
“From what I have heard, Hackett pulled out because he wasn’t doing well in the polls and wasn’t raising enough money to run a successful campaign. He should still run against the Schmidt-head for congress.”
This and other comments with the same message is just the kind of s*** that Markos and some a**kissers are praying at dkos. People don’t seem to read the articles that are linked. Firstly, how are you supposed to match up in fundraising if your own party asabotages these efforts? Secondly, where are the polls that show a significant advantage of Brown over Hackett? Thirdly, didn’t you notice that Hackett gave his word not to run in OH 2 or does a promise simply mean nothing to you?
However, all this isn’t important. What’s important is that the Ohio Dems now will be pictured as a corrupt party that’s intrigueing against his own members. After Hackett and Brown both threw their hat in the ring, Dem leadership should have accepted that the candidateship would be decided by the primary. Ok, for them, it’s all about the money, and they didn’t want that Brown had to waste funds for a campaign against a Dem rival. But the way they tried to solve the problem was the worst possible one.
Vladi G
That game was fixed! They were using a freaking ladder!
Otto Man
Bob, I think this Zogby poll is what you’re referencing:
kl
kl
…but with much, much more whining by the losers.
Kimmitt
The Brown/Hackett thing really was a mess; it didn’t seem like there was a good solution. It would have been nice to have a primary between two really good candidates, but I dunno. Tough call for the DNC.
That said, the DSCC isn’t precisely the most successful group of folks out there, so I tend to cast a jaundiced eye at anything they do.
Bob In Pacifica
Gray, maybe I never was sold on Hackett and so I didn’t have much invested in him. I agree with you that the DSCC should have stepped back and let the two at it. The DSCC seems disconnected from the people out there. But I think that the Republicans in Ohio own the trademark for “corrupt.”
Gray
“But I think that the Republicans in Ohio own the trademark for “corrupt.””
I hope so. But this episode doesn’t help establishing Ohio Dems as the “clean” party…
rilkefan
More reason for Hackett to have shut up and bowed out gracefully.
“Far-left” is a good start. Well, it’s not so much a flaw as a deliberate mischaracterization. Kos is openly pragmatic. That’s why he gets a lot of grief from the Mary Scott O’Connors out there. Hackett’s military background, outspoken nature, and connection to the netroots endeared him to many at dKos – but he’s less liberal than Brown and he’s not as good a candidate.
Gray
Totally OT and I’m sorry if it may disturb you, but german TV just reported that the turkish movie “Valley of the Mountains” turns out to be a huge success among the turkish minority
youth here…
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/movies/article.adp?id=20060202084309990001
Oh, and I’m obviously too dumb to understand how this “Ext.Link” Button is supposed to work. Help pls!
rilkefan
Try plain-old link.
rilkefan
That is, type something, highlight it, hit link, paste in the url.
Steve
This is exactly the answer I was looking for. I’d add that most of the commentors at dkos seem to care much more about spine than ideological purity, not that the latter is unimportant. It’s just that the liberal netroots are activists at heart and they are tired of what they see as the emasculated Democratic leadership.
Gray
AOL story on “Valley of the Wolves”
Gray
Gr8!
“Ich danke dir, du tiefe Kraft”, rilkefan.
rilkefan
Gray, immer ein Vergnügen.
Trans: now it’s more fun posting on the job.
Gray
Hehe! But I have to admit that I had to google Rilke
At school, we had to learn only very few poems, and that has been my special problem – I forgot them all after 48 hours. Thank god that this didn’t keep me from getting my degree.
Today, I’m only able to recite one poem by Christian Morgenstern and I guess that’s almost untranslatable. But maybe you like this one from him that’s unviversally understandable and called “Fisches Nachtgesang” – “Night Song of the Fish”
rilkefan
I love Morgenstern, e.g. Das Mondschaf, a well-known subject of translation and meta-translational discussion. I’ve written a poem called “The Tree Bass” in hommage.
Bob In Pacifica
This started out intended as a snark on Demos by Cole, and it ends up a discussion of German poetry. Hmm.
rilkefan
No one expects the German Lyrical Tradition!
Gray
Check the timestamps, Bob. This happens when nobody is participating in discussion.
Rilkefan, the only poem that I can really recite is “Nein!”. The reason obniously is that it’s short enough for me :)
Zifnab
The old school Democrats are just Republicans who haven’t been getting elected much, from what I’ve seen. To the “middle of the road” John’s got it right on the nose. This is a club you’re not allowed access to unless you’re a blueblood of the American elite. The best you can hope for as a blossoming political candidate is to make some good friendships (with, say, a Kennedy) or staking out turf the opposition doesn’t want to touch. In Hackett’s case, he was going for virgin territory in Ohio. But the moment that territory looked “winnable” he lost his claim.
I’d love to see Hackett run in a primary and frankly, I think he’s earned that seat far more than Brown. What’s more, I think the Senate could use a firebrand like Hackett if for no other reason than to do and say what so many stoggie veterans can’t afford to do or say. He’d be a John Murtha in the Senate, something we sorely need right now.
Gray
And neither the British Cooking Fanaticism!
Not to speak of the Spanish Inquisition…
:D
Gray
“I’d love to see Hackett run in a primary”
Yup! Me 2! And I’d like to know what JC thinks of Hackett. John is a determinedly “support the troops” kinda guy, so he should like Hackett.
S.W. Anderson
Otto Man, I’ve read and heard repeatedly that the opposite was the case. Do you have a reference for that sequence of events?
rilkefan
No, the moment an experienced, confident, mature, well-connected, organized, and generally stronger and better-polling candidate showed up his fate was sealed. You think Kos cares whether Hackett’s wedding registry pattern was in fashion in Boston?
S.W. Anderson
Uh, how then do you explain the late Sen. Paul Wellstone?
Zifnab
I can’t explain Wellstone, but I can explain Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, Stevens, Murkowski, Brownback, Burns, Dole, and more. It’s not impossible to break into the US Senate, but the DSCC and the RSCC have their darlings.
Do you think Brown would honestly be running in ’06 if the political landscape looked like it did in ’02? Hell no!
What disgusts me is that Dean seems to have let a guy like Hackett pass by. I was under the impression that the 50 state strategy involved building from the bottom up, not powerbrokering from the top down.
Gray
100% ack! When they asked Hackett to run against DeWine, it looked like a very difficult race. Only when Ohio Rep polls were going down because of the corruption scandal, Brown emerged from his mousehole. Brave, brave…
rilkefan
Gray, think you’ve got the timeline confused – I think Hackett and Brown declared within a short time frame. And it’s not so much “brave, brave” as “not stupid, not stupid”.
Zifnab, Dean apparently objected.
I don’t think he’d be running if it turned out his actual name is Voldemort. So what? This isn’t a what-about-this-hypothetical, I-got-here-first, my-turn, mommy-you-promised event: it’s an election that Brown is more likely to win, and some Dems wanted him to have a clearer road. Frankly I suspect Hackett is relieved to have an excuse to storm off.
S.W. Anderson
Zifnab, there’s no indication Dean is involved in what happened to Hackett. There is good reason to believe he probably isn’t happy about it.
From what I’ve seen and heard, it was strictly the doing of the Senate and congressional campaign committees, no doubt with help and cooperation from Brown’s people.
Gray
Haven’t found a timeline yet. But fact is that Hackett was asked to be the candidate and Brown publicly declared not to run when he thought the going would be tough. But you’re right, smart move to change his mind. But I don’t appreciate intelligence that isn’t accompanied by ethics.
p.lukasiak
Hackett was losing two to one in a state primary poll, as well as around ten to one in fundraising. My understanding is that what little statewide organization he’d had was borrowed by Brown’s organization before Brown got into the race, which did not spell out positive movement in the primary. He had a shot of unseating Schmidt, though.
this is a pile of crap.
Hackett was down by 20 points vs Brown, but purely based on name recognition. When the candidates were described by their biographies, Hackett beat Brown.
As for fundraising, Hackett was raising just as much (if not more) money than Brown — the big difference was that Brown had $2,000,000 sitting around that had been contributed to him for his House re-election campaign, and Hackett didn’t.
As for “who got in first”….. Sherrod Brown wanted nothing to do with the Senate race because he is a coward who didn’t want to risk losing his seat in the House — and having to get a real job if he lost to DeWine. After Hackett’s performance against Schmidt, people started talking about a Senate race for him — since NOBODY ELSE was interested at that point. Hackett wasn’t sure he wanted to run for the Senate, however. Polling was done, and Hackett was neck and neck with DeWine—and Hackett made up his mind. Brown, sensing an opportunity, suddenly decided to run for the Senate — and made interest “official” days before Hackett planned his official announcement.
This is why Democrats can’t win elections — politically, I’m far more attuned to Sherrod Brown than Paul Hackett — but at least Hackett is not an opportunistic sleazebag like Sherrod Brown is.
The good news is that I can now save more money — I would have supported whoever won the Dem Primary in Ohio, but Sherrod Brown can kiss my ass now. (and so can Move-On, after endorsing Casey in Pennsylvania, and NARAL for supporting Chaffee in RI….)
Gray
Yeah, sure. Like Gore was more likely to win. don’t we have learned to scrap those crystal balls? Fuhgedaboutit.
Gray
Safe Bet, Anderson: “I think there was some skullduggery in Washington that was going on, which I don’t approve of. And I frankly think that’s a shortcoming of the Democratic Party.” Howard Dean
rilkefan
p. lukasiak:
You’re right, your post is the reason Democrats can’t win elections – ridiculous attacks on our own good candidates, the whole “Sherrod Brown can kiss my ass now” attitude when things don’t go exactly our way, Hackett’s “If the DSCC likes Sherrod better I’m just going home to mommy” reaction.
Gray, if there’s any question of ethics here, the onus is on Hackett for helping DeWine.
Steve
Okay, but I think you could replace these names with Casey and Pennachio and draw the same conclusion. The more important point is, it’s not the end of the world to have a primary.
p.lukasiak
You’re right, your post is the reason Democrats can’t win elections – ridiculous attacks on our own good candidates, the whole “Sherrod Brown can kiss my ass now” attitude when things don’t go exactly our way, Hackett’s “If the DSCC likes Sherrod better I’m just going home to mommy” reaction.
the “ridiculous attacks on our own good candidates” was what Hackett was subjected to.
You know why the “Xtian Right” has power in the GOP? because the GOP is scared shitless that they will stay home if they don’t get what they want.
Well, 2006 should be the year that the Democratic establishment learns some fear for itself — it should be the year that progressive voters stay at home in droves rather than support the Liebermans, Browns, and Caseys that are being foisted on us.
Gray
Yeah, now liberals play “blame the victim”, too. I can’t say how much that p***es me off, JC would bane me…
rilkefan
Christ, another Nader voter. Thanks for putting Bush in office.
Gray
Nonsense. A bad apple doesn’t ruin the whole basket. K, I suspect you’re a Nader-like type of progressive (if not an ‘agent provateur’), but still, boycotting the 2006 elections would leave us with a Repub dictatorship. Promoting this is totally irresponsible.
p.lukasiak
Okay, but I think you could replace these names with Casey and Pennachio and draw the same conclusion. The more important point is, it’s not the end of the world to have a primary.
precisely. Its not the end of the world to have a primary —- but the Beltway Dems don’t want primaries where members of their tribe risk defeat. Pennachio is not seen as a threat to Casey, so he can run. But Hackett was a definite threat to Brown — what Hackett lacked in campaign cash could have been made up with “free media” — and with Hackett’s bio, he could have beaten Brown (and walked all over DeWine.) So Schumer, Reid, Wexler, and “Rahm” had to make sure that their “colleague” Sherrod Brown didn’t face any real competition…..
and that makes me sick. I’ll be going to the polls to vote for Pennachio in the primary, but I may just sit home in November — I’m sure as hell not going to vote for Casey.
rilkefan
Hackett’s not a “victim” – he’s a grownup, running for office in a partisan rough-and-tumble era – if he can’t take a few knocks, he’s in the wrong line. There are other candidates who have as much to complain about as he does, and they’ve either maturely stepped aside or they’re still running in their primary races despite the DSCC. There are times for a stand on principle, but this sure seems like a dumb one to me – a vulnerable seat; a darling but unprepared guy vs a progressive winner; an extremely important election.
Steve
The point is that the Nader voters completely failed to send any kind of message or affect the Party’s future decisions in any way, so why play the same game? Sure, you can stay home out of frustration, but don’t pretend like it’s really going to send any kind of message.
p.lukasiak
A bad apple doesn’t ruin the whole basket. K, I suspect you’re a Nader-like type of progressive (if not an ‘agent provateur’), but still, boycotting the 2006 elections would leave us with a Repub dictatorship. Promoting this is totally irresponsible.
get a fucking clue. We already HAVE a Republican dictatorship, and its the Beltway Dems who are enabling it to happen instead of speaking out about it. Paul Hackett and Chuck Pennachio are the kind of candidates who WOULD speak out — and the Party wants them silenced.
I never voted for Nader in my life, btw. But I’m so disgusted by the Democratic Party right now, I see no point in going to the polls in November, because THEY STILL DON’T GET IT.
Gray
I wouldn’t vote for Brown, too. But calling for a boycott of all Dem candidates? You don’t seem to have suffered enough…
Gray
Your opinion. I prefer the british bias for the underdog over the american philosophy of “The winner takes it all” along with the recent repub extension “The end justifies the means” and this idiotic machismo cowboy logic “a real guy has to be tough and never complains”.
Ok, I’m just a sentimental guy…
Richard 23
I heard from Rush that Brown is African American so there’s some kind of race card going on here…. Blah.
S.W. Anderson
FWIW, my chagrin about what happened to Hackett doesn’t extend to a need to make Brown into some kind of villain who should be punished.
Likewise, it makes no sense for Democratic voters or dissatisfied others to withhold money from Democratic candidates and stay home on election day. That’s a formula for making a disastrously bad situation immeasurably worse.
I see personal pique and pettiness creeping in here. Maybe fertilized by trollery.
The goal for everyone who’s dissatisfied, regardless of party or philosophy, should be throwing the bums who’ve done so much that’s bad, wrong, unfair, corrupt and costly, out — for a good, long time.
kl
SO SAYETH KAPTAIN KINKO’S
kl
“I’ll be going to the polls to vote for Pennachio in the primary”
My condolences to Pennachio.
Gray
Hehe!
Yup, I heard that, too, that reliable source Rush Limbaugh said that.
Bob In Pacifica
p.lukasiak, As far as the two to one, I think the poll said something like 40 to 20, which would be both two to one and twenty points behind. I will defer to you on the numbers because I’m only repeating here what I saw elsewhere on the net. The “Brown first in” meme, which was from Kos, seems to be incorrect.
Having said that, I never bought into Hackett and was not surprised that he dropped out of the race. If he was close money-wise and would have made up the difference by name-recognition, I am not particularly happy that Hackett dropped out. He either didn’t really have the stomach for politics, and I can certainly understand that having been through politics in my union, or those rumors about the DSCC pictures of him and the sheep are true (that was kind of a joke).
I don’t know how well Hackett would have held up over a campaign season and I’ve heard both men and like Brown better. Nevertheless, the DSCC’s interference is the kind of thing that’s wrong with the Demos, and a Pannachio and/or not-Lieberman win would sure help things.
By the way, p.lukasiak, I want to thank you for the good fight over at Tom Maguire’s site. Those people truly are hideous, self-deceiving creatures from a parallel universe and they all serve The Dark Lord, which is too bad, because I would appreciate a good discussion on the legal issue surround Libby et al without “moonbat” showing up every couple of words.
Bob In Pacifica
Here in California we have Diane Feinstein. To tell you how much I like her as a Democrat, when Milk and Moscone were gunned down and she ran for mayor of San Francisco I voted for Jello Biafra. Then again, I was playing in a band called the Vah Mitz at the time.
I don’t think Jello’s running for senator this fall, and no thanks to John Cole’s snark we won’t have Cindy Sheehan running either, so I’ll have to see who the Greens run.
Hooray, Barbara Boxer!
Perry Como
If only. Politics amognst the politicians has become too boring. The VP is left shooting a lawyer for entertainment. Elect Jello Biafra to the Senate and at least things might be intersting again…
Otto Man
SWA, I got that impression from a couple places. Can’t find them all, but one was definitely this post at Kos:
Sine.Qua.Non
John,
It just dawned on me. YOU are reading “Mother Jones?”
Holy shit!
dylan
WOW. An organization ditches a boisterous candidate for a “safer” one. You never have seen that before. How crazy and dysfunctional those dems are. Probably so unlike that board of directors/curators/administrators at WVU.
Don’t be a nerd.
Bob In Pacifica
If you’re reading Mother Jones, I’ve got a couple of books to recommend to you, you know, before you use JFK and conspiracy theories for your next logic test in your class.
The Other Steve
Umm… that’s politics my dear.
Just so others are aware… Wingnuts pick up on this stuff for the sole purpose of undermining the confidence of Democrats. It’s not that they really care or think this is inappropriate, as it happens all of the time in the republican party.
This diary is solely here so John can tell his buddies at Open Sores media that he’s playing the game and making the talking points.
Otto Man
I think he misread the masthead as “Mother Sheehan” and eagerly ripped open the cover.
Zifnab
This is the fundamental problem with a two-party system. You can’t vote for the Democratic candidate because you don’t particularly like him. You can’t vote for the Republican, cause he’s a giant sack of sleaze. You can’t vote for the guy you’d like to see in office, cause he got run out of the race. And you can’t not vote at all because then you’re really just voting Republican by omission (in some counties this is truer than others depending on the degree of election fraud).
So what do you do? If I was in Ohio, I’d want to vote for Paul Hackett. But then I’d just be “Nader”ing my vote away, wouldn’t I? How silly of me to suggest that Democracy was not represented by a boolean variable.
Armando
John:
And you attacked Jane Hamsher for making shit up the other day.
Glass houses my friend.
Or do you just accept Mother Jones’ assumptions now?
Evidence would be helpful.
And it is nice to see Lukasiak is in Dewine’s corner now.
Yes, Dems are losers all right.
CaseyL
And it’s been the fundamental problem with a 2-Party system for a lot longer than the last 5 years.
Let’s see… how many Dems sat out 1968 because they were Wallace supporters? McCarthy/Kennedy supporters? Enough to give Nixon the White House, that’s how many.
Look, the fundamental truth about elections is that sometimes your choices are between Bad and Worse. And the fundamental truth about ideological correctness is that there’s a hella lotta diff between a candidate who’s “not liberal enough” and a candidate who’s “a corrupt GOP swine.”
Brown won’t be running against Hackett. He’ll be running against DeWine. You want DeWine to win? Fine, then let your fit of picque determine your vote.
It’s not like Brown’s a Leiberman, a Miller, someone who’s a genuine turncoat. Maybe you don’t like how Hackett left the race – but that is not the issue now! The issue is whether you want to see DeWine win the election.
Voting in the general election isn’t for “sending a message.” Christ on a coatrack, that’s like the old bumpersticker that went Don’t vote: It only encourages them. How sophomoric can you get? Do you think the winning candidates give a good goddamn about how many people didn’t vote? They don’t. Believe me, they don’t. I have yet to see or hear of any candidate who said “Gosh, I can’t accept this electoral victory, because I know there were so many people who would have voted if there was some other candidate besides my opponent.”
You wanna know something? Candidates, esp. candidates who know they’re way out there on the winger fringe, love it when people decide to punish the Dems for not putting up their favorite candidate. The wingers think that’s the best thing ever, because that makes it easier for them to win. There’s not many things wingers love more than Democrats who stay the fuck home on election day or vote for someone who can’t possibly win.
Voting is for looking at the candidates you’ve got, not the candidates you wish you had, and making a grownup decision about which of them you actually want to see in office. If your favorite candidate isn’t on the slate, if there’s no one you like enough for vote for, there’s bound to be someone you dislike enough to vote against, by voting for the other candidate, even if you have to hold your nose to do so.
Jesus HF Christ, I can’t believe we’re still having this conversation after Nader voters helped put Bush in the WH in 2000.
Otto Man
Well said, Casey.
Look, we’d all love to have our candidates come straight from central casting — with a political ideology that matches our own 100%, right down to liking the same kind of ice cream! — but it’s not going to happen. Sherrod Brown isn’t Paul Hackett, but he is a solid liberal — more so than Hackett — and a man with an accomplished record, a good command of the issues, and a current lead in the polls over DeWine.
By sitting on the sidelines, you’ll certainly preserve your precious holier-than-thou ideological purity, but that’s all you’ll save. The Republicans will continue to fuck everything up and erode the liberal gains of the 20th c., repealing everything right back to the New Deal. But I’m sure your own smug self-satisfaction will keep you warm at night.
You can either hold your breath and throw a tantrum, or suck it up like a grown up and work to defeat the GOP this fall. Your choice.
Otto Man
That’s the opposition. Not Sherrod Brown, not the DSCC, not the DNC.
The current senator thinks we need to “move past” the issue of whether or not the president broke the law and continues to do so. I really doubt a Sen. Brown would feel the same way.
Richard Bottoms
Fortunately I am a Yellow Dog Democrat and I don’t care who the Republican is, he or she doesn’t get my vote because there’s is the party of gay bashing, wild spending, and inept war fighting.
Hackett would have certainly raised hell. Beating DeWine is the objective. Nothing else matters.
So my money goes to whoever isn’t the Republican in the race.
S.W. Anderson
CaseyL and Otto Man responded to this excellently, but I’ll throw in 2 cents’ worth anyway.
Anyone who’s served in the military, owned or managed a business and/or raised kids will tell you life is full of situations where you’re obliged to choose the least-bad option. The ideal selection just isn’t available.
People in government, elected, appointed or Civil Service, confront this situation all the time.
Trust me, Zifnab, we could have a dozen political parties and many people, maybe you among them, would still raise the same objection.
Several European countries, France and Italy chief among them, went for decades with governments rising and falling constantly, and being largely ineffectual and pleasing no one. The reason: they had multiple parties and splinter groups unable to muster enough consensus and power to govern effectively, but just enough to veto or short-circuit what others were trying to do.
Maybe the best thing to do is work from the inside of the party closest to your heart, trying to get it to be more like what you want, but realizing neither you nor anyone else is every likely to be completely satisfied. Your voice, money and vote can count if you make the effort and hang in there.
If you doubt that, just ask the radical-right base Bush panders to unfailingly. I’m old enough to remember when they were the unloved, unwanted, tiny-minority fringe of the minority party. Look at where they are now.
S.W. Anderson
Otto Man, thanks for the reference and explanation. I think I’ve got it straight now.
Otto Man
Great point, SWA. If disaffected liberals got into the trenches and fought hard, like the right-wing folks did after Goldwater in the ’60s or the religious right folks did in the ’80s, they’d be able to reshape the party more to their liking.
How ironic is it that many of the liberals who complain about the lack of fight in the Democratic Party refuse to roll up their sleeves, get involved and fight themselves?
tb
Even a moderate Republican is subject to their rigid party discipline (did a single one of them vote against the bullshit Clinton impeachment?), and also has to throw a few bones to the far right. So even if you agree with some of his positions, he’s going to have to cast a lot of votes you don’t agree with to avoid being punished by the party. Plus, they count towards a Republican majority in congress, which means right-wing control of commitees. A vote for any Republican is a vote for right-wing ideas, no matter how moderate-seeming a particular candidate is.
p.lukasiak
And it is nice to see Lukasiak is in Dewine’s corner now.
ah, and its good to see that Armando has joined the Zell Miller faction of the Democratic Party….
someone else noted that the party learned nothing from the Nader debacle in 2000…. well, Howard Dean learned from it, and was running a credible campaign until the Dem establishment decided he was too “radical” — but Dean emerged victorious with the Chairmanship of the DNC. But the Party “pros” didn’t learn the lesson of Nader in 2004 — and instead of giving America a Democratic candidate that could inspire voters, they gave us Kerry, the guy who supposedly possessed the “winnability” factor.
Too bad Kerry proved to be a complete loser, who couldn’t inspire a mouse to run away from a feral cat. There was passion in 2004 — but it was passion driven by those who loathed GW Bush, and that wasn’t enough. Most voters also wanted a reason to vote for someone — and Kerry didn’t provide it.
That is the lesson the establishment Dems — the club that Armando is desperately trying to join nowadays — still haven’t learned. Paul Hackett gave people a reason to vote, Sherrod Brown doesn’t because he’s just another beltway hack despite his “progressive” credentials.
If Brown really stood for something, he would have been running against DeWine from the get-go, rather than waited until Hackett showed that DeWine was vulnerable. (Brown’s district was reliably democratic and progressive — If Brown wasn’t a mere political opportunist, he would have gone after the Senate seat and given up his House sinecure.)
Gray
“Too bad Kerry proved to be a complete loser, who couldn’t inspire a mouse to run away from a feral cat.”
Another example of idiotic american obsession with “the winner takes it all”. A politician who misses election by very few percent is “a complete loser”. Well, judging by your characterisation of Kerry, I guess you would describe Dubya as the perfect winner, right?
I’ve got some doubts about Kerry being the best possible candidate in 2004 and I’m a Hackett fan, too, but you ahouldn’t smear Kerry to make your point. He was chosen as candidate in a fair primary, and imho he fought hard to win the election. It’s only a few weeeks ago that he was stomping for the filibuster and he didn’t hesitate to risk becoming unpopular with many of his peers in order to show them how a real opposition should act. This deserves respect and not being called a looser.
p.lukasiak
Another example of idiotic american obsession with “the winner takes it all”. A politician who misses election by very few percent is “a complete loser”. Well, judging by your characterisation of Kerry, I guess you would describe Dubya as the perfect winner, right?
not at all. Kerry was a disaster as a candidate — as I said in my original post, Kerry was unwilling to take the nececessary “risks” to provide people with a reason to vote for him. Kerry came close not because he inspired anyone — he came close because of “party loyalty” and a substantial and passionate anti-Bush effort that was put together by the grassroots of the party. NOBODY STOOD IN THE RAIN FOR HOURS BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED IN KERRY — they stood in line for hours because they wanted desperately to get rid of Bush.
Kerry is part of the same “club” that Armando aspires to — Kerry betrayed all those people who stood in line for hours on end by conceding before their votes were even counted, and Kerry did so because it was the “Beltway Club” thing to do. Kerry should have screamed bloody murder — and swore that he would not concede until EVERY person who had waited for hours to cast their ballot had their vote counted, and that scumbags like Ken Blackwell will NOT be allowed to deny people their right to vote without because called out for being the “uncle toms” that they are.
That is the passion that the Democratic party needs, and lacks — and until the “Beltway club” democrats understand this, they can kiss my ass.
Armando
Lukasiak:
If you live in Ohio, then when you say this:
“I never voted for Nader in my life, btw. But I’m so disgusted by the Democratic Party right now, I see no point in going to the polls in November, because THEY STILL DON’T GET IT.”
You have thrown Dewine your unintended support..
Hilarious that you accuse me, perhaps the most infamous hothead in all the blogs, of lacking passion.
What I don’t lack is brains. You don’t lack them either.
TYhink about what you are saying.
S.W. Anderson
Gray said many good, sensible things in response. I’ll add a couple.
Kerry is a smart, tough, trouper. I think he relied too heavily on a campaign manager who left a lot to be desired, but Kerry still put up a hell of a fight. He outclassed Bush in all three debates. He won more votes than any Democratic candidate has ever gotten, during a war, when people generally don’t want to change leaders, and on a percentage basis came extremely close to winning. So close, that for much of election day, Bush & Co. really thought it was all over for them.
As Gray says, he’s been a stand-up critic of Bush nonsense ever since the election.
Here’s something you might want to keep in mind, if in fact you want good Democratic candidates to run and win. Trashing unsuccessful candidates of the past does not encourage the best, brightest and most honorable to run in the future. That leaves it to those who’re just the most ambitious, aggressive and maybe unscrupulous — a type we’ve had too many of already.
S.W. Anderson
I want to add to my last statement that the “ambitious, aggressive and maybe unscrupulous” I have in mind have names like Nixon, Reagan and Bush.
Otto Man
I think you’ve got the timeline confused here. Hackett and Brown made formal announcements within a short span of time in October 2003, with Brown leaking word of his announcement and then Hackett making his formal one shortly thereafter. This wasn’t a case of Hackett chipping away at DeWine’s image and then Brown swooping in for the kill, like Bobby Kennedy stealing Gene McCarthy’s thunder in ’68.
Zifnab
This may be true, but it doesn’t mean I have to like it. When voting day comes, I’ll march to the polls like every other able-bodied, blue-blooded American. And I’ll vote for the individual I believe will make this country better.
But I refuse to vote for the “winningest” candidate just because the DCCC and DSCC have pitched the line that said candidate is the only one they will support.
Voting third party, voting for the underdog, and voting your conscience isn’t always the wisest thing to do. Ask all those Congressional Dems who passed the Patriot Act and authorized the Presidential use of force in Iraq. Ask all those Senators who choose not to filibuster Alito. They preserved alot of political capital by their actions. Had they done otherwise, they’d have just been “throwing their votes away” after a lost cause.
Call me naive and stupid and without foresight. Thus is life. But I refuse to lay down and take second worst as an option, unless second worst ends up being first best. I’m not saying I won’t vote for Brown given the opportunity. But I’ll remember who I wish I was voting for, and I’ll be sure to throw him my support at every turn.
CaseyL
Zifnab, no one’s saying you need to love Brown (though, who knows, he might pleasantly surprise everyone) or stop wishing Hackett was running.
Listen up, everyone: According to Jonathan Singer over at mydd, Paul Weyrich is predicting another SCOTUS vacancy: he claims to have info from a Senator that Stevens will step down in June.
That gives Bush yet another SCOTUS Justice nomination. Before the elections, God help us all.
If that happens, we’ll simply need to write off the SCOTUS entirely for at least 10 years. Our only hope will be a Democratic majority in Congress.
Look: I’m not happy with the spineless and ineffectual Dem leadership, either. But the simple fact is that they’re the minority party, and the GOP majority keeps changing the rules, ignoring the rules – and caves in itself whenever the WH threatens it. There’s only so far parliamentary maneuvering can take you when the majority simply steamrollers over everything. Even the Alito filibuster – which I supported; which I phoned and emailed and faxed to support – how would that have ended, really? Do you think we could have sustained a filibuster long enough for Bush to withdraw the nomination? How long would that have taken – weeks? months? Do you really think we could have kept Alito off the Court?
This isn’t about an ideal Democratic candidate. This isn’t a contest between Bad and Good, or Good and Better. The 2006 election is shaping up to be a contest between Acceptable and Oh My God The Apocalypse.
What do you think will happen, really and honestly, if the GOP keeps its majority in Congress in 2006?
Unless you subscribe to the Naderist view that we should let things get worse than we can imagine, in hopes of some great awakening and revolution, we have to vote the straight Democratic ticket – because a Democratic majority means we control the committee leaderships and the agenda.
p.lukasiak
What do you think will happen, really and honestly, if the GOP keeps its majority in Congress in 2006?
here’s the thing….
the only way that the GOP won’t be able to keep control of Congress is if Dems change their tactics — and stop playing beltway games like we saw with the Hackett/Brown fiasco. Instead of Rahm Emmanuel talking about how he supports Brown for the Ohio Senate on national TV, he should be spending all his time talking about what a corrupt piece of shit DeWine and the entire GOP is. Period.
Don’t threaten us with this “what if the GOP keeps control of Congress” crap UNLESS AND UNTIL THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS GOING TO TAKE THIS BATTLE TO THE GOP.
S.W. Anderson
That’s a completely reasonable, sensible way to proceed. There’ll be other days.