Yep, he's a real team player. I haven't had too much to say about Hackett because I just wasn't sure what actually transpired, but now he's gone on Hardball and accused the Brown campaign of swiftboating him. If he keeps this up, he's going to sink Brown's campaign. Not helpful.
9. So What? He Undercuts That Work By His Selfishness
And make no mistake -- by attacking Sherrod Brown despite what has been pretty well-documented problems in his campaign and his egotistical refusal to run in a campaign for a "lesser" office he could have won, he makes it harder for Democrats to take over the House.
Which means every issue he claims are important to him will suffer.
69. Telling the truth is "attacking" Sherrod Brown?
Shame, shame, that there are any people here who would counsel that we protect and enable people who do wrong by keeping secrets for them. That enables them, allows them to continue doing wrong. That's how and why we get dysfunctional elected leaders in the first place, and it's how our government becomes ever increasingly sick and dysfunctional.
Sherrod Brown and his staff have never denied the allegations. Hackett said today that he heard it again and again from outside parties ABOUT Brown's staff (that they were spreading rumors about his military service). If I were Sherrod Brown (and innocent), I'd get to the bottom of this and fire the asses of anyone involved in such skullduggery.
But all we've heard from the Brown camp are non-denial denials. Strange, that.
... points out to me that an awful lot of people are either
1) completely ignorant of what just happened, you know, the salient facts
2) basically as immoral as the average Republican politician
It's not a pleasant thing to see. Hackett got screwed. You guys (not you :)) apparently think he should be a good boy and wipe the KY off his butt and crawl into a hole somewhere, you know, like a typical Dem would. But he's not a typical Dem, and we need a few like him among us - but every time one shows up the party bosses get nervous and cut his legs off.
3) So afraid of "losing" some more that they're willing to do anything. Most especially, though, they erroneously believe that protecting wrongdoers (by censuring those who dare speak up and talk about the wrongdoing) will make it possible to win.
I've been ranting since the day I got here that Dems need to learn to talk shit the way republicans do. I believe we have to use some of the same rhetorical tricks that they do. I do not believe that becoming liars or backstabbers is going to get us anywhere. Anywhere I care to go anyways.
116. Sorry but that is baloney. Reid and Schumer admit they asked him to run.
And it is equally true they asked him to withdraw. That alone is enough. And it is obvious, as they do NOT deny it that they called donors and asked them to hold off. Drying up someon's money because you want another candidate and then using the excuse you didn't raise enough, stinks. And it also stinks that Paul asked Sherrod for permission initially and Sherrod said go ahead, he wasn't running. Hackett refused to do that to the other congressional candidates and I respect him for it. Call it politics as usual if you like but it still isn't right and a so called "liberal" like Brown ain't gonna win in Ohio. I hope I am wrong but I think Hackett"s military backgrounf and straight talk would have gotten the Repuke vote. Sherrod's vapid "intellectualism" won't work statewide. But whatever. Keeping quiet and not acknowlwdging the nastiness won't make it go away. Sherrod Brown hasn't even reached out an olive branch to Hackett and asked for help. Hackett said he would help if asked. That also says something!
Back when Brown was trying to decide if he should run for the Senate. Hackett told the candidates that are now running for the House seat that he wouldn't run against them if they ran. It wasn't an egotistical choice not to run for a "lesser" office, it was keeping his word to others. Something the DLC/DSCC should try sometime. They caused this mess. They would rather have DeWine in the Senate than risk a maverick like Hackett joining the Senate Club and causing trouble (like actually standing up to the GOP once in a while)
Nobody knows anything was done to him, including HIM. What he thinks was done to him by Brown could have just as easily been done by DeWine. We do know his staff leaked crap on Brown though, we know that for sure. And we do know Hackett intends to spend the year bashing the Democratic Party, and somehow expects that to win in November. We know that too. He got a little party pressure and folded. I'm glad he won't be in the Senate, if that's how weak he really is.
2. This wouldn't have happened if Brown didn't reverse course
It was poor performance of Brown to say he wouldn't run and then change his mind long after Hackett got the gears in motion and say he would run, which rendered Hackett's efforts as pointless. All that money sunk into arranging a campaign, planning, etc. wasted because Brown reversed course.
35. So you ignore Brown's broken word for Hackett's ego?
Edited on Mon Feb-20-06 06:42 PM by Selatius
Nice strategy. If I looked at it from this point of view, your guy is just as bad as Hackett, so you have no grounds to attack a person's pigheaded ego, which is a subjective call, to the fact that an agreement was broken.
it was told here on DU that Brown decided to run because Hackett missed the date that people go and sign up to run. So it's obvious that Hackett was slow about signing up to run and Brown figured he wasn't going to run and did.
anything. I don't think she's cut out for the congress. She's a teriffic activist. That doesn't neccessarily translate. In her case, I don't think it does. And DiFI actually has a pretty liberal voting record, contrary to revisionist DU conventional wisdom.
I agree with you about Diane. I worked for her campaign when she was Mayor of San Fran back when I attended SFSU and I worked on her Governor's campaign against peetey. I was just curious because there are many here who have said the same thing you have about Hackett -- the working your way through the system, but then turn around and say they'd support Sheehan over Diane. I find this to be a double standard.
And it's so obvious he can't handle peer pressure. Gee, shouldn't you have learned that by high school? :eyes: Just because someone serves their country doesn't mean they know politics. There are great vets running this time around who are newbies but as far as I know they're mostly running for the Congress. They're not getting over their heads. They're also actually doing the work it takes in a campaign...even the events you don't want to go to.
87. Brown has a documented almost 100% progressive voting record.
nothing to sneeze at IMO, although conveniently overlooked and, worse, impugned by some out of anger over what happened to Hackett. I worked for Hackett in his last campaign; regardless, one cannot reasonably ignore Brown's excellent record. Hackett has proved he's not ready for prime time with this response.
128. But why did Brown change his mind and run when he said he wouldn't?
I think that's the crux of the issue, not progressive voting records. Yes, I'm for Brown, and was before Hackett came on the scene, but I frankly don't understand what they did to Hackett. Seems like bait him in with support and at the last minute, cut him off at the legs. If I were Hackett, I"d be upset, too. I might react differently, but my reaction does not negate or excuse retroactively the apparent backstabbing.
75. Not unless you consider telling the truth "trashing" Brown --
What he said, and he said it several times, was that there were a lot of (county?) Dem Party chairs who told him about the rumors and that they came from Brown's staff.
Is that trashing Brown?
Not in my book. YMMV.
Brown's staff has not, to my knowledge, issued any REAL denials, only those non-denial denials like calling the charges "ridiculous" and saying "this race isn't about Paul Hackett or Sherrod Brown, it's about the people," yada yada. Pfffft. Non-denial denials.
2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Council on American-Islamic Relations 100 percent in 2005.
2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.
2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) 100 percent in 2004.
2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.
2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 84 percent in 2003-2004.
2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 96 percent in 2005.
2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004.
2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Council of La Raza 100 percent in 2004.
2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 77 percent in 2003-2004.
2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 90 percent in 2003-2004.
2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.
2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Education Association 89 percent in 2003-2004.
2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.
2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 100 percent in 2005.
2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2005.
2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Postal Workers Union 100 percent in 2004.
2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.
2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2004.
2004 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 88 percent of the time.
2004 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Communications Workers of America 100 percent in 2004.
2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 100 percent in 2004.
2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 100 percent in 2003-2004.
2003-2004 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers considered to be the most important in 2003-2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.
2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.
2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2005..
2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2004.
2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 94 percent in 2003-2004.
2004 In 2004 National Organization for Women endorsed Representative Brown.
2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.
16. He's in over his head, he doesn't get how the system works
That "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" ideal hasn't existed for many, many, many decades, if it ever did.
So long as campaigns are privately funded, it will always be thus. If ya wanna play in the arena, ya have to play by those ugly rules. You can rail against them, but it is an entrenched system, very resistant to change--kind of like an infection that no penicillin can kill!
I didn't see the piece, but he probably would have benefitted from a sit-down with one of the old pros whose stance on the issues he respected.
It totally sucks, but it is the way it is. And so long as we are out of power, we are not going to change it. For now, we have to work within that framework, like it or not.
22. Brown really does not need any help to sink his campaign...
I am sure he can do that all on his own.
Hopefully, the anger over this "handling" of Hackett will die down and we can focus on the primary mission of ousting DeWhine. I would rather have seen Hackett either win the primary or go home based on the primary, and yeah, playing seesaw with candidates is a suck ass business...
However I personally feel Ohioans now have to unite to defeat DeWhine and Blackwell (that is my call who will come out on top of the Repub primary as I believe the WH PROMISED it to him in exchange for Election 2004 shenanigans). And I think we will unite on that front.
(At least I hope it is Blackwell..he scares the hell out of Independents and true moderate Republicans....scares the beejesus out of them.)
85. Considering the Brown supporters attitude I don't think
they want a united Democratic Party in Ohio. It is all about them and not the issues. They keep piling on Hackett and rubbing it in noses of Hackett supporters. Brown is a reflection of his supporters. Brown can be as progressive or liberal or whatever he wants to be labeled but he will need the independent voters in Ohio to pull this off. The independents in Ohio have voted repukian for the past 12 years.
Also DeWine may not be running in the general election. That will be decided in the primary and there are a lot of repukes who do not support DeWine in Ohio. That will be the death nell for Brown's campaign, IMO.
Edited on Tue Feb-21-06 12:16 AM by FreedomAngel82
You've got your shit backwards. It's not the Brown people who are going about this. They're trying to move on and do the campaign. Hackett and his supporters keep whining "oh we were robbed!" while forgetting who robbed them (it wasn't Brown, Reid, Schumer or the DLC).
and changed his mind. Do you have a cite for his pledging to Hackett not to run? In any case, I don't mean to split hairs, and I don't think it was an admirable thing to do. I wish he hadn't done it. I wish Hackett hadn't been pressured to leave the race, but Hackett made his own decision to do so. Then he blathered on about being a team player. Now this. They're both guilty. I think what Hackett's doing is worse.
with this deal Hackett told Brown he was running and he said "okay, fine" and the date came where they are supposed to file to run and Hackett didn't do it on that day. So Brown went and filled out the forms.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Additionally, candidate selection based on past "performance is not only irrelevant, it's counter-productive because it discourages novelty, change, and growth within the Party. Politics should not be a lifetime career for anyone; it isn't healthy for a true Democracy.
111. Even if you know jack about where he is on all the issues?
So just because he calls Bush a son of a bitch you'd follow him? :eyes: And you people wonder why we have less power than we should? LOL. We're too busy fighting each other instead of fighting for our country.
In some ways the OLD way of selecting candidates was best. Smoke filled rooms of guys pre-selecting candidates based on strengths and support. It's worked for republicans ever since WE quit doing it.. I take that back..we still DO it, only we do it in public now, and PROVE how stupid we can be..
48. I've got nothing against Intelligent Design in campaigns.
Initially, it was done less publicly when Hackett asked Brown if he was going to run for Senate. If Brown had gone for it, Hackett would have demurred. Brown opted out so Hackett made his move. That makes sense to me, since it would avoid an expensive, divisive primary fight.
...because I knew Hackett was popular here, but I've had a distrust of him ever since I saw him on Bill Maher last year. Something about him just seemed too glib or something - hard to explain - but I had a gut distrust of him from the first time I saw him (although, of course, he would have been much preferable to Mean Jean).
51. Perhaps Mr. Hackett resents Mr. Brown's IWR vote
Sherrod Brown was an outspoken opponent of *'s illegal invasion attempt. He voted NO on the IWR.
Without the illegal Iraq invasion and occupation, (which almost 2/3 of Ohio voters disapprove of) there would be NO IRAQI WAR VETERANS!! Mr Hackett would not have credibility as an IRAQI VET, ergo, no political career.
80. I didn't see that much opportunity for him to do what you suggest
Edited on Mon Feb-20-06 10:24 PM by RazzleDazzle
Tweety portrayed Hackett as an anti-war candidate, and said since he has left that takes away the war as an issue....Of course Hackett didn't bother to correct Tweety.
It wasn't like there was so much lapse in the talk, or that it was an easy, free-flowing "conversation," or even that Matthews' remark was a DIRECT attack on Brown.
You frankly had to reach some to find that to fault Hackett on.
And for that matter, just because someone DIDN'T vote for the war doesn't mean that the war isn't still an issue -- has Brown, for example, voted in favor of continued funding for the war? Did he get behind Murtha? One vote doesn't necessarily excuse Brown from any and all criticism here.
Tweetster maee a big deal out of it. It would have been easy for Hackett to slip in something like "Well Sherrod brown has always been an opponent of the war, so that isn;t necessarily true."
Brown did not just vote against the war. He was very active in legislative efforts to dertail Bush's plunge into that war at the time. He is currently working on a plan to press Bush for a defined plan that will bring significant number of troops home this year.
Brown said something very important in his interview today. He talked about how the LACK of enough money to fight this shit from Brown ($3 million) would've meant that all he would be able to do would be to RESPOND to Brown, instead of being able to put his own message out there and DEFINE HIMSELF on his own terms. THat makes sense to me.
So why would someone want to go through that and risk having their good name FOREVER TARNISHED in the process, just to ALSO lose??
Brown was supposed to be out of the picture. Brown lied. The political whores that make up the DLC have the blood of Hackett's murdered campaign all over them. The DLC, swiftboated Hackett because they want their candidates to run unopposed. They want someone who'll promote and push their "centrist" agenda. The DLC are sado-masochists, they have Terminal Perpetual Stockholm Syndrome.
They don't want to win, so they'll destroy anyone who has a chance to pummell the Pukes, reclaim our country and our courts, rebuild our shattered alliances, and renew our committment to peace, and protect the planet from the Environmental Devils to whom America's very soul has been sold.
The DLC railroaded Hackett just like they do with any strong, articulate, candidate that doesn't bow down to these disingenuous political weaklings or their bastard cousins - the Repukes. If you don't toe the DLC line, you're through. It's not about the money. Even controversial, 'outspoken' or relatively unknown candidates can raise money, with our help, and even if it's 3,4, 5, 10, or 30 dollars at a time---Dean proved that.
If Brown wasn't a two-faced lying sack of shit, and hadn't been fellatting the DLC scumbags, we'd be getting ready for the next Hackett rally this weekend :)
THE DLC WAS NOT FUCKING INVOLVED! Brown is a progressive and Reid is NOT A PART OF THE DLC! Please get your facts straight about that. Yes you should get the DLC when they deserve this but they DID NOT do this.
141. You attempt to sow discord among Democrats is annoying.
The knee jerk suspicion of betrayal by anyone who competes against our sentimental favorite (I wanted to see Hackett get the nomination, too--I even sent him money) is textbook McCarthyism. Brown is not a perfect candidate, but he had the chops statewide to gin up more support in a competitive race with Hackett. He knew the right people around all parts of the state--and that will translate into votes when it counts in November. The whole point of the primary process is to vet out the stronger candidates.
Is Brown ambitious? Did he play hardball in building a commanding lead in the race? Sure. Hell, don't you want that in a candidate? DeWine won't play pattycake in the fall, so the party needs a guy who can raise bucks, play angles, and twist arms to get across the finish line. Much as I love Paul Hackett for standing up and teling the trush on the bastards, Brown by any objective standard, is the stronger candidate.
Brown acted like a bastard by jumping in late, and Paul didn't stick to his guns. I wish the two would have duked it out, it would have been a better situation for the state as a whole to actually see what the democrats are made of and fight for.
Hackett told he was going to run for the seat and Brown said "okay." Hackett was supposed to go and file for his campaign on a certain date and Hackett DID NOT do this. He did it late. So Brown jumped in. Gee the great Hackett shouldn't have had anyone run against him? :eyes: Please grow up.
90. Ohio, please secede from the union and take the Democratic Party with you
Everytime I've seen Hackett in the media, I've had this horrible feeling that the guy was a disaster in the making. But never underestimate the Democratic Party leadership of taking a rather messy situation and completely fucking it up beyond repair. If Hackett had run in a primary against Brown fair and square, Brown probably would have come out the winner and would certainly have built up a momentum going into the general election. Now, a once vulnerable DeWine looks like he might be running against Democratic candidate with a fractured party behind himand will assuredly squeak through another election (with some help from Diebold). Ah yes, the Democratic Party at its finest.
Remind me again why I should keep giving the brainless twits money to run sure fire losing political campaigns.
let's establish some ground rules for campaigning during the primaries ...
there have been so many violations of what I believe the "rules" should be that i see no way Brown can beat DeWine ... and that's just way beyond pathetic ... the stumblings and bumblings in this campaign have truly grasped defeat from the jaws of victory ... it may end up costing the Dems control of the Senate ...
so, let's make some "rules" about campaigning ... issues, as they relate to national policy, should always be fair game ... criticizing your opponent for hideous votes or hideous views is NOT a circular firing squad ... we should respect the idea that everyone has a right to their beliefs and that sometimes, on critical issues, these beliefs are deeply held and can lead to very emotional debate ...
but there's a difference between battling on issues and personal attacks ... in the Hackett/Brown race, I would argue that we don't, and probably can't, know exactly what happened ... if Brown did spread rumors about Hackett's military conduct, that should be way out of bounds unless he can prove his allegations ... and Hackett should not charge Brown with spreading these rumors unless he could prove his case ... this kind of crap, regardless of who is right and who is wrong, does nothing to help either the party or the country ... primary battles should be fought on a higher level ...
underlying all of this, however, is a major failure by the party's leadership to act as a referee ... in fact, some of the public comments made by Rahm Emanuel destroyed his, and the party's, neutrality ... once this happened, Hackett became a loose cannon ... whether his complaints were or were not justified is not the essential issue here; the failure of the party to ensure a fair "fight" that didn't damage the party's interests should have been of paramount importance ... i don't condone what Hackett's done but, without knowing more, my primary criticism is directed at the Party's leadership ...
they failed and now i fear we are going to lose this race ... i sincerely hope i'm wrong about this but it's hard to see how Brown will ultimately overcome all the damage that's occurred here ...
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.