Senate candidate unapologetic for saying GOP hijacked by fanatics

[Judi Lynn]

Posted on Tue, Jan. 17, 2006
Senate candidate unapologetic for saying GOP hijacked by fanatics

DAVID HAMMER
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Ohio's Republican leader wants Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Paul Hackett to apologize for calling some conservative Republicans religious fanatics and comparing them to terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.

Hackett was unapologetic Tuesday for the comments in a newspaper story, saying religious fanatics of any flavor should be ashamed.

"I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it," he said.

Hackett said in a Sunday column in The Columbus Dispatch: "The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of the other religious nuts around the world."
(snip/...)

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/13646787.htm

[ixion]

1. self delete

because apparently I can't read. :dunce:

[Paulie]

2. Paul is a Dem

Why did you think he was a repub?

[ixion]

8. d'oh! sorry, my bad

didn't read the lede fully. :dunce:

[snowbear]

177. Eeeek... ixion...

Please don't tell me you thought Major Hackett was a ReTHUG???

He, like the 12 out of 13 Veterans running for office this year are PROUD DEMOCRATS!!

[Radio_Lady]

186. You're forgiven, Ixion. Nobody's perfect... you deleted the info.

I made at least one mistake today. I thought Senator Byrd was from South Carolina (he's from West Virginia).
There's a lot to remember.

Saw Paul Hackett on a recent show (was it Bill Mahar's program, before it went on hiatus?). He's amazing.

In peace,

Radio_Lady

[liberal N proud]

3. Just when I am set to support Sherrod, Paul comes out swinging

He is going to make it tough for me to decide who to back in the primary.
WOW!

[geiger]

68. Check out Sherrod's record and some of his books from the library

No contest

[sadiesworld]

85. Yep.

Sherrod Brown is a Wellstone progressive.

Before DUers get too distracted by bright, shiny newcomers they may want to find out how Brown has spent the last 15+ years in the House leading the fight against our disastrous trade policies.

[Tiggeroshii]

125. Hackett's a moderate

more conservative of a Democrat, but he's a marine. He served two tours in Iraq and has a lot of insight more than most politicians as to what has went on in Iraq and how we are doing things first hand. I strongly support the man on that basis, and think that Iraq veterans finally deserve some good representation in our government. He may not be a progressive, but he still deserves the seat, in my humble opinion...

[sadiesworld]

129. Corporate influence over DC is the issue that

drives all others, including the Iraq War. Brown is a true populist. Perhaps THE PEOPLE need some representation in our government.

There's a House seat open in Hackett's district I believe.

[Tiggeroshii]

130. love him or hate him, he's probably already won

He won support by the largest union in the state, the UAW and has already aired a couple of commercials promoting his candidacy. He still has a lot of money from his run for the house left over and Brown really doesn't have the right kind of name recognition to guarantee a win in Ohio.

[EFerrari]

134. Is the election going to be held using the same machines

that ripped him off last time? Those same, election night power failing machines?

[Tiggeroshii]

176. I mean the primaries

He seems to be quite ahead as far as the primaries are concerned. We still have yet to see if he'll let himself get jacked like everybody else has in Ohio.

[snowbear]

180. Major Paul Hackett rocks...

And Sharrod should take a look at that vacant seat after the Major kicks his ass!!

Brown sounds awesome.. But Hackett is incredible! Besides.. the entire nation is pulling for Hackett !!

~ :patriot: :patriot: ~

[geiger]

151. Exactly! Brown is a tireless crusader...

and truth-teller.

[madfloridian]

128. Why is he taking a chance giving up his house seat?

We have so many who might give up their seats to run for something.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

4. A Democrat refusing to say "sorry?"

W-O-W! :wow:

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. He's quite right; however....

I think the idea in a state like Ohio is to appeal to the center. I don't think he really, at this point, wants to be associated with incendiary characterizations.... however justifiable they may be.

He's not running for Senator from Vermont. Hopefully he's got some folks in his corner who will tell him to tone it down.

I want him to *win*. Not just run a colorful and cathartic campaign.

[xchrom]

9. ok -- republicans can set the house on fire with their rhetoric but a

democratic candidate can't point that out in no uncertain terms?

hackett said nothing that alot of people haven't already thought -- regardless of party affliation.

at some point -- you have to say this thing is a threat -- nothing less than a threat -- and you -- the citizen -- have to be responsible and fix the problem in no uncertain terms.

[Smarmie Doofus]

13. Come on now. You know....

when you compare anyone in the political arena w. Osama you are *begging* the opposition to take that to the *bank*. Recent examples abound : Durbin's concentration camp analogy; Hillary's plantation analogy, many other examples.

Nothing wrong with the examples themselves from a logical POV, but from a tactical POV *everything's wrong with them. Allows the opposition to change the subject... in Durbin's case from the US gov't-sponsored torture to whether or not Durbin is insensitive to the holocaust.

It's called "changing the subject". They're quite good at it. Why make it easy for them?

Hackett's already done the plain-talkin' , fire breathing bit. Good . I like it. I like *him*. Everyone knows where he stands.

But he *lost*. Maybe he can win this time.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

21. You're spouting the same old, tired, and "safe" Democratic Party....

...strategies, the same ones that have cost the Democratic Party any identity other than one that is indistinguishable from that of the GOP.

IMHO, you're no better than the NeoCons/GOP that you claim to oppose.

[silvermachine]

38. Thanks...

...couldn't have said it better myself.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

55. Dial that back a bit...

Offering a modest critique doesn't make somebody a Neo-Con.

The fact is that the "left wing" media will make a huge deal out of this, castigating Hackett for being a "loose cannon" when a Republican can say something ten times as outrageous and get off scot-free. We do have to be more careful with our rhetoric, because we'll be called to account for it (whether it was justified or not). Given the state of the media, it's like trying to play a basketball game where the referees are all members of the immediate families of the other team.

[Flubadubya]

84. Maybe its time we quit cowering in the face of the media too...

Truth is truth no matter when it is said or by whom. The Dems will show they have backbone when they stand up to the pirrhanas in the media as well. They have GOT TO or else we remain marginalized ad infinitum. To hell with the media, it's time some truth be told by true patriots!!!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

102. Have fun losing the next election....

Your testosterone-induced rant may be cathartic, but its not the way you appeal to voters -- that is to say, specifically, the broad swath of moderate Democrats, liberal Republicans, and Independents that one absolutely must have in order to win in Ohio.

There a huge difference between telling the truth and telling the truth while gouging somebody's eye out. I personally don't think Hackett went over that line, but he danced pretty darned close to it.

[President Kerry]

106. IMHO, the GOP have been so monumentally and outrageously

corrupt and extremist, that anyone still backing them is not even worth pursuing. You can see it with a naked eye, despite the biased media. The only thing they haven't done is using the military domestically, and I wouldn't put it past them. There is nothing to lose. It CANNOT be overstated that this government is DESTROYING DEMOCRACY, all in the name of a fictional war. There is no toning it down because of the astounding outrageousness of their actions. There is NO centrism anymore - even folks like Jack Murtha they paint as Michael Moore unpatriotic fringe. I'm tired of this, and I do NOT want conciliatory talk from Dem leadership. It's a fight for life, and I'm not giving them an inch.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

119. Not worth pursing?

This is a numbers game, my friend. If you can't produce a majority, you don't win the election. Game. Set. Match.

Let me be as plain as I can be. I have no interest in your "humble opinion" or with moral victories. Unless we have a plan for winning an election -- which calls for us to draw in a significant portion of those people who voted FOR this administration in the first place -- we cannot win. If we do not win, all is lost.

Check you ego at the door. I'm about winning and nothing else.

[Zenlitened]

152. I totally disagree. We're not going to win by pandering to...

... right-wing republicans. People who refuse to see what a mess the repuke party has become. Nothing we say or do can sway them. Nothing can draw them in.

Let's win with the votes of Democrats. of progressives, and of intelligent people who are ready for genuine change. There's a clear majority out there, hankering for a candidate who will inspire and lead.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

157. Not at all what I said....

Two posts up -- I said that we need the votes of "moderate Democrats, liberal Republians, and Independents" who really do tend to vote for the candidate and not the party label. The progressive base in Ohio is simply not enough to win a statewide election.

Don't get me wrong. Hackett (and any other Democrat) is perfectly within his rights to throw a few elbows at the religious right, and he certainly should take absolutely zero crap from them. But if he starts to come as needlessly beligerent, it will give the media a reason to raise all sorts of asinine non-issues.

Case In Point: The treatment that Howard Dean got after the Iowa primary.

[Zenlitened]

164. "...anyone still backing them (the GOP) is not even worth pursuing"

That's the statement that caught my eye, and I agree with it. Anyone still backing the GOP is not worth pursuing.

I don't think moderate Democrats fall under that heading, nor Independents. I have no idea what the heck a liberal Republican is anymore, honestly. But if you mean the old socially-liberal/fiscally-conservative species -- well, it seems to me that's just the sort of person Hackett's comment would appeal to.

If he becomes needlessly belligerent... well, let's wait to see if he crosses that line before sounding the caution caution caution alarm.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

171. Here's a couple of examples...

An individual I know in the area (southern Ohio, that is) is the political director for a trade union. He tells of countless blue-collar, dues-paying union members (mostly rural) who vote Republican because of gun control. These guys are regular church-goers.

I came across dozens of people in 2004 who were life-long Republicans who decided that they could no longer support the Republican Party. There was a "Republicans for Kerry" yard sign just a few doors down from me. One dedicated campaign volunteer -- he and I worked the same precinct for Kerry -- said that he never considered himself a Democrat before. He and his wife home-school their daughter.

A hunting buddy of mine in northern Michigan said that he was going to vote for Bush in 2004, in order to "give him a chance to correct his mistakes." Now that might be the dumbest reason you've ever heard of to vote for a candidate, but that's where he was.

The most fertile field for picking up support is to get the non-partisan and non-ideological votes. They may have voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, but now is the time to win them over to our side. And to get back to the original topic, I still think that you catch more flies with honey.

And if you don't sound the "caution caution caution alarm" until after the candidate has imploded, it really isn't a warning, now is it?

I don't think Hackett was out of line with what he said (it's early in the campaign season, after all) and, Please God, don't let him apolgize to anyone for having said it. I just think that a little of that can go a long way.

[Zenlitened]

172. "The most fertile field for picking up support..."

"The most fertile field for picking up support is to get the non-partisan and non-ideological votes."

Agreed. But, again, that should entail energizing them -- not mollifying them.

The blue-collar, gun-totin' church-goers... they can come along or not, based on the totality of Hackett's message (which should appeal to pro-gun types, BTW). But we shouldn't let them hold our candidate hostage, which is exactly what we've let the "swing voters" do in the past.

The Republicans for Kerry... sounds like they're already leaning our way, if not on our side outright. Sounds like they're pretty appalled by what the GOP has become -- which is exactly what Hackett articulated.

That "give Bush a chance" guy... he's dumber than a bag of pine bark, and I don't think our candidates should waste any time of effort making overtures to someone like that. Let him listen in on the dialogue, and if he comes along, great. If not, we've spent our energies more wisely by aiming our message at our base and other forward-thinking people.

As for the "more flies with honey" bit... that seems less like sage wisdom than buzzkill. Stifling creativity with warnings of implosion can be just as -- if not more -- deadly as an implosion itself.

[President Kerry]

178. very well put.

The only other thing I'd add is that if it turns out the "election" was stolen by Diebold (certainly a big possibility), the honey wasn't worth much. We've shown ourselves as spineless AND losing elections. No, thanks. Give me somebody with fire who's not afraid to speak the truth.

[President Kerry]

179. Zen really nailed it.

I'm convinced we've got numbers on our side. Between convincing wingnuts or just confused folks (though the latter may be important) and booting Diebold, I say we need to ensure fair elections first. BEFORE we try to diplomatically persuade people we need to know the effort isn't going to waste, with elections decided before they occur.

[reprobate]

158. Not 'to hell with the media'. Let's USE the media.

The media likes nothing better than to cover a good fight. I've heard it said more than once that the reason Dems don't get the coverage that repugs do is because they don't say much that's controversial. When Dems start to stand up and throw the mud back at the nazis that's when they'll get the news coverage. The media WANTS to cover a fight. The Dems should give them one.

The meek might inherit the earth, but they'll never control government.

[Zenlitened]

168. Yup. "I think I maybe agree with everyone a little bit" doesn't...

... make the news. They want a quote or sound bite that's juicy, controversial.

Fortunately for us, the TRUTH is controversial these days. So all our candidates need to do is speak the truth, speak it in plain language and stand by their words.

Like Hackett has done here.

[pokercat999]

133. Except for the personal attack I agree with you. Politics today is

a back alley knife fight, no rules, just win at any cost. Any truthful statement is usable, ANY soft spot in your opponent is fair game. Wanna be above that, no problem, you lose.

[silvermachine]

39. He had the strongest showing...

...of any Democratic candidate in that overwhelmingly Republican district in ages. What was supposed to be a *cakewalk* turned out to be a very close elction. And if it were held *today*, he would beat the harpy. *Understand?*

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. He lost a squeaker in the reddest area in Ohio

Gimme a break. People are clamoring for this kind of intensity.

[lumpy]

66. Hackett said it, believes it, and isn't

going to apologize for saying it. End of story.

[wordpix2]

74. I agree, the repukes use inflammatory rhetoric constantly but when Dems

do it, the rethugs call fould. Ridiculous.

[chefgirl]

10. See, and I think thats the problem with Dems

I want him to *win*. Not just run a colorful and cathartic campaign.

Too many Democrats, IMO, have been worrying about winning, rather than just saying what they mean and standing behind it.

Think about Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Both of them let themselves get run off the rails by 'handlers' telling them to appeal to the center. As a result, neither one of them ran a campaign that showed who they really were.

Sure, saying such incendiary things might turn off some voters at first, but ultimately, because there is truth at the root of what they say, I believe it is the ONLY winning strategy for Dems in the long run.

-chef-

[zanne]

52. Yes!

It's true that people like "strong" leaders!

[lumpy]

70. There is no middle ground left

between the 2 parties. Both sides are capable of roaring. Let the flames roar. Let the games begin. Might get some people off their sorry asses.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. But Hackett's remarks do appeal to the center imho

and here's why: the repukes have gone too far. There is no way the far right regime in the WH and Congress is representative of the center. If Dems don't point this out, the PR machine of Roveco will simply make the repukes appear rational. Hackett was like the kid in the story who shouted out that the emperor had no clothes. Until he did, no one dared say so, but afterwards, everyone saw the truth.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

121. YES. THEY HAVE GONE TOO FAR. And he's calling it what it is.

[Crunchy Frog]

18. Even centrists like someone who tells it like it is and won't

back down. Everybody seems to think that centrists like milquetoasts who won't take strong positions and are constantly apologizing, and I just don't see any evidence that's the case. The Repukes managage to get alot of centrist votes even while being extremely incendiary.

I very much hope that he does NOT tone it down.

[InsultComicDog]

187. I don't think this is a very good tactic

I think when you start comparing people to Osama, you invite some emotional, irrational responses. Like when people compare someone to Hitler. And you know how this will be twisted, as an attack on Christianity.

I think he should have left that part out, even though there is truth to it.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

20. So, do you want him to just bend over like the majority of elected.....

...Democrats in Congress?

Additionally, you do understand that until the election fraud issues are resolved in Ohio, it is extremely doubtful ANY Democrat will win an election in that state.

[Inland]

26. I go half way. The breezy comparison to Osama is bad tactics, but

the fanatic part right. Not that a good case for a similarity to Osama can't be made, it is just so inflammatory that it can't be dropped into a sentence without the case being made, or it does more harm than good.

[xchrom]

45. ask gay liberals how scary pat robertson and

pat robertson are?

more, i would suggest that alot of people are tremendously bothered by this crew -- but they are always represented as the center -- to EVERYONE.

here comes hackett and says -- gee sounds like osama, walks like osama, talks like osama...

and don't forget t. mcveigh listened to guys like this as well.

eric rudolph did.

and on and on.

[Inland]

62. Which was exactly the point.

Sure, some don't need any convincing and they are glad to hear Hackett say it.

Everyone else isn't going to get it right off, so there's a net loss.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[sojourner]

54. y'know....i have a tough time figuring out how asswipe republicans

can have all the inflammatory rhetoric they want (and need) -- but we are supposed to be "careful"? bullshit. time to come out with both barrels blazing.

[Inland]

63. For one, they don't have their candidates say it.

Seems pretty simple to me. There's an entire right wing enterprise dedicated to funding, publicizing, republicizing on talking head comment shows, and then distancing candidates from, scurrilous attacks.

It's unfair, but it hardly changes the fact that it hurts candidates to make that sort of inflammatory connection without making the case for it.

[xchrom]

80. ever heard of newt gingrich?

what are you on about -- repuke candidates make extreme statements all the time.
and stand by them to boot -- hackett does nothing but call the extreme statements exactly that and you make the argument that is too strong.

:eyes:

[brentspeak]

87. Newt Gingrich is no longer in office

He made himself a target because of his inflammatory rhetoric. Quieter Repubs have avoided getting investigative scrutiny shone on them just by remaining quiet and letting the RW talk show hosts make all the crazy comments in their stead.

I like Hackett, I even donated some dough to his congressional campaign (I'm from NJ), but the Osama comment might backfire. Hopefully not.

[NashVegas]

91. Or Rick Santorum?

Although I agree that *most* Republicans leave the outright insanities to their lapdog pundits, there are few, if any, telegenic, well-known leftie flame-throwers out there. Liberal members of the media are too concerned with their credentials.

If Democratic party members need to wait around for the media to do their work for them, they'll be in nursing homes before the RW stormtroopers are forced to play defensive.

[Inland]

138. Rick's losing PA. nt

[Inland]

136. Newt was Clinton's punching bag, and Delay's antecedent.

Newt was electd out of a right wing district and made his bones organizing internal house matters, ideology and raising money. But outside of his own party, he was horrifically unpopular, which is why Clinton made a point of beating the shit out of him while smiling all along.

Newt was delay, powerful because his strident partisanship. But he couldn't win Ohio, either.

[MADem]

86. Your point is cogent, important, and CRITICAL

The GOP has fringe attack dogs who say the 'darndest things'; and the lamestream media covers it like mad. The Democrats respond, and then, after the fuss dies down, the GOP elected "leaders" (term used loosely) comes out with a wimpass statement that distances them from the remarks.

But the point is made. The media is either stupid, in that they don't get what is going on, or friken COMPLICIT. In any event, it all adds up to horseshit.

However, on the bright side, plain speaking is needed, and Hackett just might punch through the horseshit--people are getting wise to this tactic, and after a while, ya just sort of get tired of watching a group of spoiled children, with ALL the toys, whining. Maybe it's past time that someone "gave them something to cry about!"

[TankLV]

116. I am so tired of whiney "careful" democrats and their repuke apologists.

VERY tired.

[Inland]

137. Like I said, there are people in it for the entertainment value

of listening to someone insult the republicans. Try the Stephanie Miller Show, I have it on right now. But leave the business of convincing people to the pros. In brain surgery and politics, there's something to be said for being careful, for example, the situation of a post that might be read as implying that I am either whiney or an apologist and lead me to invite you to fuck off. Just saying.

[CAcyclist]

155. Politics isn't brain surgery.

Politics is a fight and the guy isn't fighting is the guy who is losing.

[Inland]

156. Fight, yes. But remember....

it isn't a boxing match, where we all know a punch has landed when the guy falls on the floor. Here, only the voters judge when a punch has landed, and in my mind, everyone on this thead who thinks the OBL reference did good is someone who already thought the point was valid.

Merely fighting isn't good enough. It's a precondition to winning, but it isn't winning.

[TankLV]

182. Like I said, I'm tired of all the repuke apologists here

masquerading as democrats.

It's really annoying.

We need fighters, not whiners.

Glad he isn't listening to Reid today. What an embarassement HE was!

[sendero]

34. You know what..

.... we don't KNOW if this kind of rhetoric can WIN because NOBODY has had the GUTS to use it.

I'd rather lose telling the truth than win with a bunch of milktoast bullshit.

Thank god Dems are starting to understand that nobody likes a mealy mouthed fence sitter.

[President Kerry]

107. couldn't have put it better myself - thank you!

[Inland]

181. That's not true. That sort of rhetoric is used all the time.

What you mean is, nobody with a meaningful political following uses the most explosive and inflammatory rhetoric available. That might tell you something about the limits of entertaining and gratifying political theater.

[silvermachine]

40. Yeah....

...*Mean Jean* really appeals to the center. Perhaps the center of the circle of insanity.

[xchrom]

42. lol -- ding! ding! ding!

and w have the winner right here!

[silvermachine]

69. I accept with honor...

Tee hee.

I'm meltinnnnngggggg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[martymar64]

93. AAAAARRRGGGHHHH!

Back to the loch with you Nessie!

[zanne]

51. Republicans didn't win by being "careful"...

They won domination of all three branches of government by being rude as hell to Democrats. We've tried the "soft" approach before--it didn't work. Dem leaders just wind up turning off progressives and send them running to either the Greens or Independents. It's time to stop being so deferential.

[InsultComicDog]

188. Actually in some cases they did.

Depending on where they were from, they often advertised themselves as much more moderate than they actually were.

[MissMillie]

79. I think those in the center

would agree that the party has been hijacked by the extreme religious right.

[rexcat]

105. This is typical Paul Hacket...

He was the same last summer running for the 2nd Congressional seat in OH. I don't think he is going to change. He called Bush* a son-of-a-bitch during the election. He gave the repukes a scare during the election. It was a five point spread but he lost. Typically the repukes have one this seat by a 70-30 margin over the years. One would have to go back 20-25 years in this district for a Dem to come this close.

I meet Paul at a dinner in Oct 2005 and I like him. He is straight forward. He does not dance around issues. It might have something to do with him being a Marine. He spent 7 months in Iraq in 2004-2005.

[Doremus]

115. Nahhh, let him talk. It's a breath of fresh air.

Besides, Ohio is deep purple, not blood red. If something like 4 votes/precinct had gone his way (or not been swept into the wrong column vis-a-vis Wally O'Dell), Kerry wouldn't have had to leave us all hanging.

I say KEEP SPEAKING THE TRUTH, HACKETT! It's the right and ONLY way.

[Exiled in America]

153. That mindset is why our country is in such trouble - and why dems lose.

Sooner or later folks who share this "I want to win more than I want to tell the truth" mentality need to get it through their heads that their strategy fails.

What's more, I DONT want to win, when I winning means sacrificing everything of value along the way.

You want to win and be wrong. I don't. And I believe there has never been a time in our country when people were more desperate to vote for someone who would stop playing fucking triangulation politics and just tell it like it is.

I don't want to be the party in power when we dont STAND FOR A FUCKING THING WHEN WE GET THERE. And I completely reject the notion that you can LIE about your beliefs during your campaign in order to win and then expect some kind of miracle transformation once you get elected. That has NEVER happened. You get what you vote for.

[Catch22Dem]

6. How incredible is THAT???

I've been saying the same thing my entire life. Dude's got guts, heart, and brains.

[kurth]

7. It's the fucking truth

Kudos to Hackett.

[mdmc]

11. ditto

[mbperrin]

12. We need much more like this - please someone in Texas!

Further down in the article:

"Hackett said Pat Robertson, a television evangelist and former GOP presidential candidate, is an example of the kind of Republican he was criticizing. Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's recent stroke was divine punishment for ceding the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority."

Get 'em!

[Caretha]

14. Call it like you see it

How refreshing and how right he is.

Give 'em Hell Hackett!

Has a nice ring to it.:D

[Crunchy Frog]

16. Good for him!

What he said was absolutely right and he's just what this party needs a hell of alot more of.

[Auntie Bush]

47. Right...just like Dean and Clark! They don't pull any punches either.

[Democat]

17. He shouldn't let fanatics tell him to apologize

They will probably now prove him right.

[Village Idiot]

19. I agree with Hackett...BUT

He should not have used UBL's name. The rules plainly state that any reference to UBL, Stalin or Hitler constitute a foul.

[DS1]

23. UBL can't be that bad of a guy, hell even George W. Bush doesn't care

where he is :eyes:

[Inland]

28. It's so inflammatory that people will stop listening.

Not that the case can't be made, but you can't make it on the morning show, so don't start.

[400Years]

29. just the opposite will happen

[0rganism]

90. Quite the opposite -- he'll get a lot more coverage this way

Right now, he's drawing fire from the GOP, but the GOP spokesmen expose themselves on both flanks when they go after him -- to the moderates (such as they are), because deep inside they know Hackett's right, and to the religious nuts, because they feel they've earned their ascendency within the party through decades of blind partisan support. And every bit of the criticism thrown his way only gives Hackett more name recognition, more airtime, and frankly, more credibility. By NOT apologizing, he shows that he has the courage of his convictions, that he doesn't just shoot his mouth off and come crawling meekly back later.

[NashVegas]

92. Exactly

I loved this:

Hackett also said the practice of denying homosexuals equal rights is un-American. The newspaper asked Hackett if that meant the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted to ban gay marriage were un-American.

"If what they believe is that we're going to have a scale on judging which Americans have equal rights, yeah, that's un-American," Hackett said.


If the shoe fits ...

[Inland]

139. He'll get coverage. So does a train wreck, or a murder.

Doesn't mean people are FOR those things.

[President Kerry]

108. what rules?

there is nothing absolute! It just goes to show you the kind of evil we're living under. Kudos to Hackett for pointing it out!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

122. Whose rules are these? You got a copy?

[DS1]

22. Hackett for Prez

[wordpix2]

73. let's get him in Congress first

[zbdent]

24. When the GOP apologizes for what they did

to the Dems . . . in other words, when Hell freezes over . . .

[stepnw1f]

25. They Are Run by Fanatics

There is nothing to apologize for.

[Onlooker]

27. The fear card

That's great what Hackett said. I think if he sticks with it, a lot of people will start thinking twice about the radical fundamentalists in their midst. If their perverse agenda gets exposed, their days will be numbered. Clearly, the kiss-ass approach to fundamentalists of the Liebermans hasn't done any good, so let's start going after those religious nuts and scare people into rejecting them.

[Frances]

30. Yesterday I defended Nelson of Nebraska

for his decision to vote for Alito even though I am personally desperately against Alito. Today I am defending Hackett's words.

Why? Because I think Hackett is an authentic man. And I think many voters will sense this fact. Will he win the primary? I don't know, but I think he has a good chance to do so. And I think he has a chance to win the general election.

Would someone else have as good a chance as Hackett does if that person said what Hackett did? I don't think so.

[Beetwasher]

31. Damn, Hackett KICKS ASS!!!!

"I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it," he said.

FUCKIN A RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!

[AzDar]

32. He's telling the TRUTH!! Folks aren't used to this sort of behavior..

I'm sure it shocks them. GOOD!! Wake 'em the f&*k UP, Hackett!!
Perhaps if we had someone like this in Congress 5 years ago, things might not have gone so awry.

[The Stranger]

33. PLEASE IN THE NAME OF WHATEVER YOU HOLD DEAR, DON'T APOLOGIZE.

Go ahead and let The Dick Durbin do that. The first rule of politics is never apologize. The second rule is that you tell the truth: When the Republicans are dominated by the Christofascists, call them out on it.

[sendero]

35. To all of you hand-wringing fence sitters...

... GET A FUCKING CLUE ALREADY. The Republican party has gained power on the shoulders of EXACTLY THIS SORT OF RHETORIC.

It's sitting right in front of your face and still you want Dems to parse words, to moderate the message, and then you wonder why the polls show that Americans don't think Dems stand for anything.

For god's sake, wake the fuck up. We need 50 more Hacketts, 50 more Deans, 50 more Gores - and please get off Hillary's case for making the best statement she's made in months.

Remember this, the louder the Republican noise machine bleats, the deeper the wound. The one thing that really scares them is someone capturing the emotions of Americans the way they have.

Wake up.

[Inland]

65. As proof of your thesis, I am convinced by being told to fucking wake up.

Yep, nothing like being told that I need to get a fucking clue to make me change my mind about everything or anything.

Now I know exactly what you stand for, because being told to wake the fuck up is so informative.

There's so much MESSAGE that's not being moderated.

I'm entirely on board with whatever it is that's right in front of my face.

[TankLV]

117. Glad it's finally working!

The other poster was mild in comparison what I would tell you.

A fucking clue is needed by you, indeed.

[Inland]

144. See, proving my pont.

Some people are in it for the psychic gratification of insulting people, and some people aren't. People like you hold down the serious people who can actually help you. You would rather insult somebody than let them actually do anyone any good.

Lckily, the smart guys don't listen to people like you, so there's hope. Speaking of not listening, welcome to Ignoreville.

[TankLV]

183. And apologists like you would rather hold us all BACK than let us

march proudly forward, proving OUR point nicely.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

78. amen

here's to 50 more Hacketts. And 50 less apologies.

[Zenlitened]

145. Well said.

...still you want Dems to parse words, to moderate the message, and then you wonder why the polls show that Americans don't think Dems stand for anything.

It's well past time for some plain talk from Democrats. The "let's be careful" crowd has delivered us nothing but ruin, in their vain pursuit of some illusionary "swing voters."

Give us a candidate who speaks clearly, says what needs to be said and stands by his words... and I'm confident the votes will come. Not from the phony "swing voters," but from genuine Democrats as well as the disenchanted eligible voters who might otherwise stay away from the polls in the belief that no one speaks for them.

[VirginiaDem]

36. Here's how he should rephrase it:

Rather than saying they aren't that much different, which opens him up to charges of moral equivalency and allows the wingnuts to dominate the argument, he should say they have a lot in common (or important things in common or something like that) and then go on to list the things they have in common, which would give us a shot at proactively setting the terms of the debate. On his list he can include the incontrovertible points--they're both opposed to secular gov't, they're both opposed to modernity; they're both opposed to science, progress, liberty, public education, etc. He can even qualify his statement to show that he doesn't believe that our fundies are actively seeking to acquire dirty bombs and blow them up in Cairo or whatever.

Then he can sum up it in pro-freedom, pro-liberty, pro-American terms.

IMO

[Straight Shooter]

43. *yawn*

Americans, sadly, need to be grabbed by the shoulders and shaken. How far do you think he would get with your approach? Not very. Remember he came so close to winning in Ohio by tearing george bush down and calling him out on his actions. Now he's calling the GOP out on their actions.

Repubs understand strength and they understand attack. Dems need someone who won't back down. The more they go after Hackett, the stronger he'll respond. He was in frickin' Iraq. I don't think he's scared of Repub pols and I don't think he's scared of losing. He's a man on a mission and I bet he gets it accomplished.

[VirginiaDem]

56. Yes, by all means attack. But don't leave your flanks

unprotected. I'm not calling for him to apologize or anything like that. Just suggesting, rather, a potentially more effective phrasing.

[sojourner]

57. f*** that! exactly what the dems have been trying for the past 6 years and

it's a losing strategy. parsing phrases and carefully choosing words that won't offend has not done a thing for any democrat. the media is all over dems NO MATTER what they say. good sound bytes are edited down to gibberish, good points are twisted and presented as if having an entirely different meaning.

sick of it all. sick of candidate advisors who tell their candidates to play it safe.

time to tell it like it is. :rant:

[VirginiaDem]

59. I'm not asking him to not offend. I perfectly expect that

my phrasing would offend wingnuts and fundies. You call it "Playing it safe". I call it a more effective attack. I should have made it clear that I like the fact that he didn't apologize and I like the fact that he's fighting back and attacking. I suppose we can agree to disagree on such a matter without blowing gaskets, dontcha think?

[sojourner]

64. thanks for clarifying...and i didn't mean to go off on you...i'm just SO

fed up and frustrated. i, too, want an effective attack. but i'm beginning to believe that as long as there is a credible message underlying the statement, then sometimes engaging in a bit of hyperbole can be forgiven -- as long as the candidate comes across as reasonable and honest.

there's also a chance that, given the mind-numbing fear that grips people these days, it will TAKE some strong language to break through to their consciousness. even if the RWers try to flip it, the fact that it was said MIGHT break through --- kinda like a slap to bring a hysterical person to their senses.

[VirginiaDem]

83. No problem.

:-) I understand your frustration.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

124. NO REPHRASING!!! Then he will become another Durbin, who backed down,

when he was right!

He doesn't have to qualify anything.

There's been entirely TOO MUCH QUALIFYING.

[VirginiaDem]

135. I respectfully disagree.

No, he would not become another Durbin who backed down, because he wouldn't be backing down. I should have made my post more clear. I don't want him to apologize in any form. If in the future (or a counterthetical past), he were to discuss this, he would be more effective by rephrasing. I agree that Durbin backed down and that it was a big mistake. I understand you probably still disagree--I just want to make my original position clear.

[SillyGoose]

37. Good for him! Its about damn time a dem stood up and told it like it is

without backing down from their comments when the RW complains.

:applause:

[gunsaximbo]

41. How can you NOT agree?

[VegasWolf]

44. Hackett is fantastic! He calls it as he sees it! nt

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

46. (5th vote for Greatest) Hackett to Dems: Truth requires no apology.

Go Paul!

[sofedup]

48. Good!!!

Dems need to stop apologizing for speaking the truth. Pukes don't apologize for the flood of lies they're using to destroy our country.

[cappy]

49. It's about time

a Dem had the guts to say the truth without backing down. Personally I would be very disappointed if he did apologize. His remarks got me to contribute to his campaign.

We need people like this in the Senate and obivously all the years the Democrats have been wringing their hands over how the Repukes were going to portray them has lost them control of all the branches of gov't.

[f-bush]

50. It's about time

somebody calls the wing nuts on their bullshit!

[sojourner]

53. Good for him! About time someone said what they meant and meant what they

said!!!! Go Paul!!!

[superconnected]

60. A Dem with a back bone?

And he's standing on his words!

Maybe we will do good next election if this spreads.

[geiger]

71. Hackett is challenging a seasoned, accomplished Democrat

in liberal Congressman Sherrod Brown, however, whose record shows backing up words with action. Hackett's barking, but really doesn't know how to hunt yet.

[Pithy Cherub]

131. Hackett was in the Senate race first for Democrats.

Brown said he wouldn't run, then he did. Hackett knows exactly what he is doing. hence the huge union endorsement - already. He's hunting just fine.;)

[geiger]

147. Labor has been losing elections for Dems for years in Ohio

Since he's gone hunting with this particular possie, he's bound to lose.

[Pithy Cherub]

159. Hackett is coalition building.

Time will tell, but he's off to a mighty fine start. A LOT of positive Hackett buzz! Go Hackett! :woohoo:

[geiger]

162. buzz isn't substance

what coalition?

[Pithy Cherub]

167. fact of political life: Buzz turns into fundraising!

Hackett has raised the stakes and by virtue of just this thread microcsm, Hackett has also engendered good will - boots on the ground. Momentum starts just like this and once rolling (as Hackett's currently is)it is very hard to stop. The big donors are placing bets on those who can sustain buzz, an organization and lays out clear plans. Hackett is starting out beautifully!:applause:

[Eurobabe]

61. damn straight

GO PAUL!!!!

[geiger]

67. Problem is...

he's alienating more potential voters than winning over Dems. He cant win statewide.

[lumpy]

72. Hackett was refering to 'fundies'

the ilke of vituperous Pat Robertson. I assume not all people of faith follow the tenets of Pat Robertson but rather the tenets of their religion. So therefore people of good faith might be apt to realize the ungodliness of some Republican leaders. The Repub hack, known as Bob Bennett, implied that Hackett's comments applied to all people of faith in Ohio. Of course that is not the case. Most people of ggod faith are not biggoted and try to follow the message of tolerance and good will set forth in most religions. Hackett was rightfully attacking leadership that is morally corrupt and power hungry, not the voters of Ohio.

[geiger]

81. Sherrod Brown is a man of faith, also,

and will not shy away from it, either.

Paul Hackett is not wrong in what he is saying, he is just inexperienced as to what to do about it.

For those of you not from Ohio, you need to understand that Hackett is running for Ohio Senator, but, weirdly, challenging Congressman Sherrod Brown, who is one of the most, if not the most, liberal and outspoken Congressmen in Washington.

Hackett should run for Representative first, rather than Senate, like Congressman Sherrod Brown did. There is a seat there, in his district, against the now totally discredited Jean Schmidt. I would send him money for that. She was actually able to win against him last time, with all her lunacy; he needs to prove he can beat her first.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

123. Yes, but didn't Brown leave Hackett out in the cold by saying he wasn't

going to run, then changing his mind after Hackett had declared? Put Hackett in a difficult position to say the least. So in essence he created his own problem and now has to compete...

[geiger]

149. Just because Hackett has a mouth and spouts off

doesn't mean he has the experience or even a grasp of issues that actually affect average Ohioans on a day to day basis. I dont see any evidence of a superior intellect here.

[jsamuel]

76. no, your wrong, he has just won over every republican who is upset that

the Republican party isn't representing them anymore...

some people just don't get it...

[geiger]

77. Well, here's another thought....

We're not talking about Republican voters; we're talking about angry voters.

[jsamuel]

89. haha

There are two main groups of voters who usually vote Dem:

1. Those like us who vote everytime for Dem, no matter what.
2. Those who only go out and vote when they make a point to.

Hacket has not pissed either one of these voter types off. He has encouraged #1 and he has given #2 a reason to vote.

[geiger]

97. no

plus, you forgot about the other 28% persuadables.

[jsamuel]

99. and "persuadables" love to vote for the guy who says nothing and vote

against the guy who is saying a lot?

right... :eyes:

"persuadables" can fit into the #2 category above because they usually don't vote unless they have a reason to vote. Again, Hacket is giving them a reason to vote.

[Zenlitened]

148. I like that. I think it boils things down nicely.

I've come to believe that there is no such thing as "the swing vote," a huge block of people who are so wishy-washy that we have to spoon-feed pablum to them in order to win.

Quite the opposite: the pablum only turns off people who crave a little spice in a candidate. Forget the "swing vote" -- doting over them is a waste of time. We need to get people fired up and excited to go out and vote.

:thumbsup:

[President Kerry]

112. how can you say that when he got 48% of the vote where

* got 2/3? No offense, but that makes that district as backwards as they come, and even they are waking up. He CAN win state-wide, and he WILL!

[nautibits]

75. why apoloogize for telling the truth

[truthisfreedom]

82. this will empower lots of people who feel the same way but have suppressed

those feelings because of the false shame and guilt imposed on them by the fanatics themselves.

Hackett is spot-on, but who knows what twisted means the thugs will use to silence him.

[Initech]

88. Ah, another example of the morals and values party afraid of the truth!

[TexasLawyer]

94. LOVE

I LOVE this man. Tell it like it is, Paul. And I know you won't back down!

[malmapus]

95. "I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it"

Hell yeah!! This is what the hell all of our Reps and Senators should be saying. When they speak something only to have Repugs scream like babies about the attack, then backing down.

We could use a lot more like him.

[JackORoses]

98. if he can make it to the Senate

Gore/Hackett '08

has a nice ring to it ;)

[Zenlitened]

150. Ain't that a breath of fresh air!

"I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it."

Heck yeah! :applause:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

163. In my opinio, THAT is more important than what was originally said

(Not that what was originally said didn't kick ass -- but the REAL breath of fresh air is he RESISTING TO PRESSURE.)

"I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it"

Beautiful.

[malmapus]

166. Agreed, important and powerful

It is a breathe of fresh air to have a canidate speak his mind, stand behind it when he comes under attack by the Repugs.

[baby_mouse]

96. YOWSER!!!! THIS IS THE GODDAM WAY, PEOPLE.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

:toast:

[Sgent]

100. Both of my parents

voted for Bush in '00 and '04 not because they like hime -- they think he sucks.

They just thought that Gore (who switched from pro-life to pro-choice in '88) and Kerry had no internal compass -- no backbone to stand up for what they believed. They both regret that decision now for what its worth.

I don't agree with their assessment, but they feel like they should know where a candidate stands on an issue -- and not be constant worried that changing public opinion will allow them to be easily swayed. Someone like Hackett would appeal to them, and IMHO many other swing voters.

[jsamuel]

101. yep see posts 89 and 99

they are in #2

[Laelth]

103. Woooohooo!

Now, that's a Democrat I can support. Tell it like it is, brother, and show no fear. The truth is on our side!



-Laelth

[progressivebydesign]

104. Since WHEN do you apologize for speaking the truth?? n/t

[Geo55]

109. OMG !

Strike me dead LORD , an ' take me home !!

Hackett was unapologetic Tuesday for the comments in a newspaper story, saying religious fanatics of any flavor should be ashamed.

"I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it," he said.

parallel universe fer sure !....pinch me , I'm dreamin'

[katty]

110. Just Say NO - Apology - to these whinney GOP asses

[Bushies gotta go]

111. You go, Paul!

Makes me proud to wear my "Baptists - America's Very Own Taliban" button.

[mcscajun]

113. I LOVE This Guy! Ever since I saw him on "Real Time with Bill Maher"

when he and Bill had this exchange:

MAHER: I mean, you called Bush a chicken-hawk.
HACKETT: Right.
MAHER: I mean, I—
HACKETT: I said it.
MAHER: A lot of us—
HACKETT: Meant it. Stand by it. Say it again. And I don't know why that's such a big excitement. I mean, the facts are the facts. I mean...
MAHER: Yeah—
HACKETT: --come on, this is not complicated.
MAHER: Well I mean—
HACKETT: --this isn't rocket science.
MAHER: But guys like Rush Limbaugh have come—
HACKETT: Rush who?
MAHER: Rush, the guy who came out—
HACKETT: Wait, wait. The guy who's the drug addict? The re— I'm sorry, recovering drug addict.
MAHER: And another—
HACKETT: Wait, wait. The guy who didn't fight in Vietnam and got, what, five deferments for fighting in Vietnam ? That patriot?
MAHER: Come on, to be fair, he had anal cysts.
HACKETT: Right. I'm sorry, anal sex?
MAHER: Cysts.
HACKETT: Oh, cysts. I'm sorry, Bill, I didn't know you that well. This is California , man!
MAHER: Okay.
HACKETT: You were saying?

(snip)

MAHER: All right. Last question. More troops or less? I mean, we hear both. We see a lot of people now saying, let's just pull them out, and then we see the other side saying, there's not enough troops, there's not enough troops. And President Bush keeps saying, well, the generals tell me they don't need any more troops.

HACKETT: Well, sure, when you fire General Shinseki who says, “Give us 500,000,” guess what? Everybody else is going to say, oh sir, well, 140? If that's you said, that's what we need. So...

MAHER: So what are you saying, more or less?

HACKETT: I say, right now, it's not working, the country is in chaos. It's in civil war. It's not getting better, it hasn't gotten better in the last year-and-a-half. News flash – the war is over, let's get ‘em home.

[Vidar]

114. Good man

[pro_blue_guy]

120. Paul Hackett is one reason why I am not ashamed to be from Ohio!

[aaronbees]

126. May not be particularly prudent...

thing to say in the minds of some, but it's spot on correct and hits at a gut-level, emotional truth even people in the "center" can feel when they see the news blast every day. Hats off to Hackett!

[appleannie1]

127. Why should he apologize

for telling the truth?

[Hekate]

132. They ARE fanatics! Where can I donate to his campaign?

We need all the straight-talkers and truth-tellers we can possibly get on board with the Dem Party.
:bounce:

Hekate

[wordpix]

140. "I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it." LOVE IT, whatta guy!

"I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it."

[raccoon]

141. I hope he doesn't apologize. I'm going to look for an email

address for him and email him so.

Mo Fo Cheney didn't apologize for tellilng somebody to fuck off in the Senate. He acted proud of himself for doing it.

And that's not to mention the many, many other objectionable things Republicans have done, and of course the sob's NEVER apologize.

[slackmaster]

142. He's right, and that's why my mom quit the GOP several years ago

The party got hijacked by RW Christian fundamentalist fanatics.

[raccoon]

143. Tell Hackett how you feel about this!

http://www.hackettforohio.com/page/s/contact

I just sent an email encouraging him NOT to apologize for speaking the truth.

[0007]

146. "I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it,"

That's loud and clear. Now what don't you understand?

[geiger]

154. Doesn't have a clue except that he needs attention to keep his candidacy

alive.

For those of you not from Ohio, he's just helping to galvanize the right-wing here even more.

He should cut his teeth in local office or even the House of Representatives, not the Senate, where one has to necessarily be more temperant and methodical and needs to get a grasp of and be able to articulate sensible solutions about complex issues.

Sherrod Brown's proven activist career demonstrates that he puts actions behind his words. He is quite arguably the House's most liberal and progressive Representative.

I really don't have anything against PH, I just think he's barking up the wrong tree.

[Zenlitened]

169. Is it possible to galvanize the right-wing "even more"?

:shrug:

I doubt it. But what he is doing is galvanizing the opposition to the right-wing. And that's the only way we're going to win.

[geiger]

174. seems like it shouldn't be, but...

he also turns off Dems who think he's just a hot head, plus today's Zogby proves he doesn't have a chance. See latest breaking news posts.

[Zenlitened]

175. You're right. Hackett's comment really cost him.

Sigh.

:silly:

[OKthatsIT]

160. I think Im having an orgasm....lol...

GAWD, its been along time getting any satisfaction from OHIO.

[mikeybabe125]

161. Great job, Hackett!!

He doesn't cower from the Repukes... beautiful!

Love the Neocon connection with Iraq Fundamentalists. It's true!

[rodeodance]

165. truth hurts doesn't it.

[progdonkey]

170. Hackett is God

Does that make me a religious fanatic too? O8)

[Endangered Specie]

173. Damn, I wish we had a Senator like that in NC

:(

[TankLV]

184. I wish we had a senator like that in NEVADA!

what was reid thinking?!?!

[MODemocrat]

185. I've begun to love Paul Hackett

He says what he means and means what he says, and he's not afraid of the Bush apologist-bullies. He is an Iraq Veteran and knows first hand what is going on over there in Bush's war. Something Bushgang knows absolutely nothing about.
:toast: :thumbsup: