Swing State Project

« MT-Sen: Conrad Burns Denies Being Corrupt | Main | OH-Sen: Who is Sherrod Brown? »

Friday, October 07, 2005

OH-Sen: Democrats Need to Support Major Paul Hackett

Posted by Bob Brigham

The Democratic Party has a major problem on the issue of Iraq. The voters have decidedly turned against the war, but Democrats have been unable to capitalize upon the movement because Democrats have lacked a clear message and support for the war by Washington Establishment Democrats has created a situtation where Democrats don't have credibility on the issue.

It doesn't have to be that way. The Democratic Party has a unique opportunity in Ohio to finally have both credibility and a message on Iraq. Major Paul Hackett can single-handedly change the national dynamics around the war. But, instead of embracing this opportunity, Washington Insiders decided to frag Major Hackett. From the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

But before [Sherrod] Brown, 52, can talk about his own work on health care, trade, Social Security and the environment, he'll have to deal with a clumsy situation that his entrance created Thursday.

Brown announced his intentions just three days after another Democrat, Paul Hackett of suburban Cincinnati, got into the Senate race. Hackett decided to run after Brown announced in August that he would stay in the U.S. House - a decision that, Brown said two weeks ago, he didn't regret.

The Hackett camp says it feels betrayed, since Brown, of Avon, assured Hackett face-to-face that he was not running.

"Sherrod Brown told the candidate three weeks ago that he was not entering the race, so the campaign was surprised at Sherrod's indecisiveness and change of heart," said Michael Brautigam, an adviser to Hackett. "Sherrod's entry into the race is not only dishonorable, it's disloyal to the Democratic Party and to democratic ideals."

While Congressman Sherrod Brown is attempting to clean up the mess from him breaking his word, Major Hackett is drilling with his Marines. The contrast between another untrustworthy Washington politician and a true leader couldn't be clearer.

Posted at 01:21 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Democrats, Ohio, Scandals | Technorati

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/mt/mt-track-ssp.cgi/1798

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference OH-Sen: Democrats Need to Support Major Paul Hackett:

» Brown, Hackett, Sirota, Brigham from Majikthise
David Sirota is very angry at Bob Brigham of Swing State Project for calling Sherrod Brown "untrustworthy". Excuse me, but Paul Hackett and his supporters shouldn't trust Sherrod Brown. Brown assured Hackett in a face-to-face meeting that he would not [Read More]

Tracked on October 7, 2005 09:54 PM

» Hackett v. Brown: The Blogosphere Heats Up from Simianbrain
The Cleveland Plain Dealer provides the overview while missing a key component:U.S. Rep. Sherrod Brown, a leading Democratic critic of the Bush administration's handling of health care and trade, will run in 2006 for Republican U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine's ... [Read More]

Tracked on October 12, 2005 08:51 PM

Comments

Out of curiousity, what's the "clear message" on Iraq that Hackett sends by continuing to drill with his Marine unit?

I know he's obligated to do so, and that it sends a message that he's a stand-up guy. But what's the "clear message" on Iraq that Hackett's candidacy helps the Democrats to send?

Posted by: Kagro X at October 7, 2005 02:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I agree. What is Hackett’s position on Iraq? All that I have heard is we need to pair American and Iraqi troops together in order to accelerate the training process. Does he think we should pull out now? If not, when? If Iraq is Hackett central message, then please clarify. Again, like Dean, I have head a lot of red meat rhetoric but no clear solutions.

Posted by: fightingdemocrat at October 7, 2005 02:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I am not sure why Bob feels compelled to draw a line in the sand, pitting blogger against brother. We are all much stronger when we stand together. Philosophically, I believe that we all want to see a similar change in the world.

Why is everyone pairing up before the first song has been played? For what its worth, I would like to offer a few words of caution. Paul Hackett’s campaign has all the elements to be the next Howard Dean. Hackett clearly lit fire to the online community like no other congressional candidate with his shoot from the hip style. This ultimately translated into beaucoup de argent and volunteers for his campaign. Moreover, the media was fascinated with his political ascension because he was not a starchy politician.

Unfortunately, his strengths are also his weaknesses. It is hard to imagine any better political coverage of Paul Hackett than what he received on his congressional race. In a 14-month Senate race, I believe that the media will ultimately turn on Hackett similar to the way they publicly sacrificed Dean. Like the sleepless summer, the Hackett campaign was a four week sprint and that type of coverage is not sustainable. The truth is, all of our perceptions of Hackett are reflected from this positive coverage. Before everyone pushes their chips into Hackett’s corner, take a moment to recall what happened the last time the netroots bet on loose-lipped sprinter running a marathon. When the media turns on Hackett, the online money will dry up.

Posted by: fightingdemocrat at October 7, 2005 02:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

>>I am not sure why Bob feels compelled to draw a line in the sand, pitting blogger against brother.

Bob didn't draw the line.

Posted by: desi at October 7, 2005 02:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Fightingdemocrat, I've seen about a dozen posts around the net almost verbatim what you just posted here. I wonder why that is?

Posted by: desi at October 7, 2005 02:47 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

the line in the sand was drawn by brown imho when he first told hackett he was not running, then when hackett entered the race and he's running now. if this is some mysterious genius plan by the Ohio Dems I'd love to hear it!

there seem to be two camps: hackett "devotees" and brown "apologists".

brown could have avoided all of this by at least being more vague about not running (a common political trick no?) or keeping his word and serving the people of NE Ohio in the US House of Reps.

don't blame hackett supporters any more than you do brown supporters for the division. place the blame where it belongs: squarly on congressman brown's shoulders.

Posted by: ericv at October 7, 2005 02:47 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I am posting all over the net is because I cant believe their are so many democratic activists caught up with Hackett's media-generated G.I. Joe Hollywood celebrity that they would rabidly attack one of our nations best Congressmen. Hackett has done nothing to tell us that he is running other than leak his announcement date. Sherrod Brown has already banked well over $2 million for this race. Hackett has not opened up an FEC account.

This is the U.S. Senate and I don’t know where Hackett stands on a litany of core Democratic issues.

Posted by: fightingdemocrat at October 7, 2005 03:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

From what Hackett has told me he's given up on the idea that the administration will be able to support the effort enough to train the Iraqis.

Every appearance he's had since the special he's been saying bring the troops home. He's done several appearances on Hardball talking about that.

Posted by: Ohio 2nd at October 7, 2005 03:02 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

>>Columbus Donkey

Jeanne, is that you?

Posted by: desi at October 7, 2005 03:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

nope

Posted by: Columbus Donkey at October 7, 2005 03:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Calling other commenters names is totally prohibited on this site. A comment was deleted as a result.

If you can't participate without name-calling, then you'll get banned.

Posted by: DavidNYC at October 7, 2005 03:27 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Hoofah. That was some hot stuff.

But David, is this policy going to extend to those who call people "professional election losers?"

Posted by: Kagro X at October 7, 2005 03:36 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Why am I not surprised. I am sure it had nothing to do with the opinions expressed in said comment.

Apparently its OK for a moderator on this forum to call a respected leader an "untrustworthy Washington politician" with ABSOLUTELY no basis for this comment.

I won't say more, for fear of angering the gods on this site. I still hope that someone will be able to read my previous comment. But I understand that having not drunk the kool-aid here my comments are subject to deletion at any time.

Posted by: Columbus Donkey at October 7, 2005 03:38 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I'm in agreement with kagro X and fighting dem here. Bob writes: "The contrast between another untrustworthy Washington politician and a true leader couldn't be clearer."

Are you kidding me? Sherrod Brown is untrustworthy why exactly? Just because he supposedly waffled on whether or not to run?

Also, kagroX is right on, what the hell is Hackett's position on Iraq, or anything else for that matter.

Don't start trashing Sherrod Brown just because you support Hackett. I love Hackett and want him to win both the primary and the senate election, but I'm not about to badmouth Brown. Wanna know why? Because if Brown wins the primary then he's our candidate and all the bad things we said about him (though I don't know any bad things) can then be used against him by DeWine and company.

ps. I'm a cuyahoga county voter.

Posted by: Samson at October 7, 2005 04:08 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Damn, I agree that Columbus Donkey's post went a little overboard, but he made some good points in it. For anyone else just now following this thread, one of the better points was that Bob is from California not Ohio and perhaps should let Ohio voters best determine whom should represent them in the US Senate.

Posted by: Samson at October 7, 2005 04:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I'm a Hackett fan for real, and I think Brown handled this very poorly. But I feel confliced. I look at Brown's voting record and ask myself, "What does one have to do to get my support if not exactly what Sherrod Brown has done for the past ten years?"

One thing I'm not conflicted about: Bob's post is petty and disgusting. Let's hope this nonesense calms down quickly.

Posted by: Cuchulainn at October 7, 2005 04:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Here's David Sirota's input: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10393

Posted by: Samson at October 7, 2005 04:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

'A' fcuking 'men'.

Posted by: nickshepDEM at October 7, 2005 05:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Wasn't Hackett going to go back to Iraq anyway if his unit went? I'm fuzzy on the issue, just want to know what the deal was with that.

And also, if Bob would do some f*ing research he would know that Sherrod Brown is about as far from an "untrustworthy politician" as you can get. That was a disgusting comment.

Part of the problem with the 'netroots' and their whole "fighting democrat" spirit, is that it definately lacks any coherent vision of the future besides Democratic majorities. I agree with some aspects of this that with Dem majorities come all the things we want. But if the goal is to build a truly Progressive Majority that will work towards an egalitarian and sustainable society, then I have to scratch my head at all the vitriol being directed towards Sherrod Brown. How is this productive? How will this help the progressive movement? Sherrod is in the race. Get over it. You can either whine and cry like a baby-bitch or you can come up with some coherent arguments as to why your candidate is better. Something better than, "he's a straight shooter" would be nice too.

Posted by: nada at October 7, 2005 05:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Seems odd that so many claiming to be Ohio dems have no clue where Hackett stands on the issues. It certainly isn't Paul Hackett's fault.

Posted by: desi at October 7, 2005 06:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

At least people are excited about Ohio.

I am not going to defend Bob referring to another Washington politician as untrustworthy but calling Hackett "G.I. Joe Hollywood celebrity" doesn't raise the bar.

Also the comment that Bob, being a Californian, should maybe step back. I think this site is all about national politics on the local level so comments like that are just crazy talk.

Personally I think Hackett's ability to speak on Iraq as a veteran of the War is HUGE nationally. So even if you could make the case that Brown would make a better Senator for Ohio (moot) he may not be a better candidate as a spoksperson for the Party.

Anyway. It seems as if the Brown crowd will get their wish in the primary--a chance to prove that a liberal can win Ohio. But based on the blogs the tone does not seem like it will be friendly.

Posted by: Bill Section 147 at October 7, 2005 06:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

An important note. There *is* a way around all the bs-ing. We already know who the party has chosen to back for the Ohio Senate race. You don't need to feel you are wasting donation money giving for a primary. Simply go to the Act Blue site, and contribute to the fund that will be held until after the primary for the *official* Dem candidate.

http://www.actblue.com/directory/federal/senate

As far as I'm concerned now, anyone who can't hype their own candidate without adding critical comments about the other is persona non grata. I got repubs to worry about getting out of office, not this nonsense.

Posted by: desi at October 7, 2005 08:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

>>As far as I'm concerned now, anyone who can't hype their own candidate without adding critical comments about the other is persona non grata.

To clarify,I'm speaking here of primary candidates.

Posted by: desi at October 7, 2005 08:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I think Bob could have maybe chosen his words a little more delicately.

If Brown truly promised Hackett face to face that he was not running, that is a problem, and the two of them should work it out like men, not like Republicans.

We are talking about two great candidates here, both of whom I'm sure want what's best for the country. They know infighting and insults won't advance our Democratic goals. I'd like to see the two of them cooperate to do what's best for all of us.

Posted by: Steve M at October 7, 2005 09:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Maybe I'm the only one to point this out, but so far, the only indication that we have that Brown assured Hackett face-to-face that he wouldn't run is by Hackett's guy. For all we know, Hackett could have asked Brown what his intentions were, and Brown could have said something along the lines of "no, not at this time". Call me stupid, but that's an assurance, and yet it leaves the door open. If that's what happened, and I strongly suspect that that's what did happen, then the onus is on Hackett for jumping in.

Somehow, I have a hard time believing that Hackett and Brown met, and Brown gave Hackett a Sherman statement.

Campaigns are a major undertaking. Brown was leading the fight against CAFTA--a major blogospheric bugbear, I might add--and planning his kid's wedding at the same time.

You really think he should have put both or even either of those things on hold for the sake of political expediency--i.e., to announce a Senate candidacy?

Okay, but that's pretty cold and mercenary. You can't blame the guy for taking things one at a time. He wanted to wrap one thing up and get his family on board--y'know, the folks that are going to have to put up with the slings and arrows of a modern statewide campaign, while we sit in the metaphoric peanut gallery. I, for one, don't blame the guy for having different priorities during the summer.

Posted by: Raf at October 8, 2005 12:58 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I've also heard mention that Brown should defer to Hackett and instead run in 2010, because he's too liberal to win statewide. I don't get the logic in that.

First, Brown won statewide in the '80s, and arguably, he was just as liberal then as he is now.

Secondly, if he's too liberal to run now, then how in the heck will he be not that liberal four years from now? You could argue that he'll have a chance to, ahem, moderate certain positions--but then...

If that's what folks mean, then isn't that a little opportunistic? Isn't that what we decry the most among the very people we support--the fact that they tack to and fro so as to catch the summer wind? And isn't that rather, ahem, hypocritical? What, all of a sudden, when it's us acting out of political expediency, then it's virtuous?

I don't think there's anything wrong with political expediency, per se, but let's not attach noble motives to ignoble acts. Let's call it for what it is.

If Sherrod Brown is too liberal to run statewide in Ohio, then you're foreclosing the possibility that any genuine progressive/liberal can run statewide in the state I grew up in and win. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to travel down that road.

And I'm sorry, but assuming that Paul Hackett is Paul Wellstone in BDUs isn't the same thing, not by a long shot.

It seems to me that, lately, being starved for real victories, we've decided to substitute posture for policy. And they're not the same thing at all--not by a long shot.

I can scream all day long, until the cows come home, that I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, and that Republicans are the very scum of the earth; if my perorations aren't followed by solid action in support of my words; if I don't vote for and support progressive policies, then what good does my posturing do, except to make you feel good?

Posted by: Raf at October 8, 2005 04:14 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

No wonder Democrats are such a bunch of losers. And I say that as someone who has voted for every Democrat since McGovern.

Sherrod Brown is unknown outside Ohio. He may be great, I don't know. He may breeze to victory over an incumbent Republican. I doubt it.

Paul Hackett became known nationally during his run last fall. The hook with Paul Hackett is he's an Iraq War veteran. His patriotism can't be questioned by sleazy Republicans and, from what I've seen of him on TV, he's a kick-ass Democrat. A genuine tough-guy Democrat. Just what we need.

In case you hadn't noticed Democrats need to quit being known as a party of, I can't put this delicately, pussies. That is precisely our problem with millions of voters. Does anyone seriously think his continuing to drill with a Marine unit is a bad thing?

Posted by: Pug at October 8, 2005 09:25 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I wouldn't buy a used Suburban from David Sirota.

Posted by: Pug at October 8, 2005 09:27 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

His patriotism can't be questioned by sleazy Republicans?

That's adorable!

Talk to Max Cleland about that some time.

Posted by: Kagro X at October 8, 2005 11:22 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Paul Hackett interview in Aug.'05 with Bill Maher:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002309.html

Posted by: desi at October 8, 2005 12:32 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

With all due respect. Fighting Democrat, my views of Hackett were not shaped by favourable media coverage but by hearing him interviewed on the radio, reading transcripts of his speeches and reading his positions on his website.

Also, Brown having won a statewide election in the 80s is almost totally irrelevant in 2006. Not saying he COULDN'T do it today (thought I have my personal doubts) but this isn't a useful measure of his profile statewide. I maintain both candidates are about equally unknown on a state level. I am a relative political junkie in Northeast Ohio and barely knew who Brown was until his book came out last year. I certainly don't expect casual voters in Dayton or Athens or Bowling Green to have a clue.

Posted by: Ansatasia P at October 8, 2005 05:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Hey Pug, Hackett is nationally known because he says things like the Prez is a "son of a bitch"... I'm not saying that I disagree (mostly becuase I think Hackett is right), however, lets think about Senators we respect.... Take Obama, its never been about him or his image when he speaks... its about the people that he serves, his community, our party, our ideals... That's what we need in the US Senate, not a guy that just speaks honestly about the Administration and HIMSELF. Isn't it time we bring true statesmen and women back to the Senate?

Posted by: turnohioblue at October 8, 2005 09:56 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Let's settle one thing once and for all, and leave then leave it aside from now until primary day: Both Sherrod or Hackett can beat DeWine. Period.

Posted by: Cuchulainn at October 10, 2005 02:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Cuchulainn, I wish I could agree. The more I think about this, the more inclined I am to believe that Sherrod Brown wrote the obituary on his potential for a 2006 Senate victory when he looked in Paul Hackett's eyes and told him he wasn't gonna run. Even if Brown gets the nomination, I see little chance for him to emerge victorious in a campaign that left the starting gate with an act of underhanded deceit. Hackett supporters would stay home on November 7 out of spite and independents would bristle at the prospect of supporting a guy who so breezily broke his word less than one week after making it.

If Hackett isn't the nominee, DeWine gets a third term handed to him on a silver platter. I only wish Brown would rectify his career by opting out of the Senate race, hanging onto his House seat, and waiting until 2010 for a Senate run. But to the contrary, the buzz is that the Democratic leadership is trying to drive Hackett off a cliff in favor of Brown. This is fast becoming a disaster and I get more melancholy about our prospects with each passing hour.

Posted by: Mark at October 10, 2005 02:16 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Mark, I have a higher opinion of Hackett supporters than you do. I know the Cincinnati area fairly well, and was around the Hackett campaign quite a bit, and I have no doubt that thirteen months from now they will have no trouble whatsoever going to the polls and voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is.

Thirteen months from now, the manner of Brown's entry into the race will be forgotten (frothy-mouthed bloggers notwithstanding!), unless Hackett and supporters are unable to come up with a better argument for his nomination - and I don't think that will be the case.

Which leaves the marginally more compelling argument that Brown is too liberal to win statewide. I think it's untrue, but more to the point, I feel strongly that Democrats need to quit calling liberals "unelectable" in order to win primaries.

Posted by: Cuchulainn at October 10, 2005 05:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

>>unless Hackett and supporters are unable to come up with a better argument for his nomination - and I don't think that will be the case.

Hey, how 'bout all the reasons our Dem leaders used to convince Paul that he should run for Senator? Remember that?

If our dear leaders allow Paul Hackett to slip away, no one will forget it.

Posted by: desi at October 10, 2005 06:41 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Desi, maybe I was unclear (and too cute by half). My point was that if Hackett's campaign isn't going to harp on the saga of Brown's entry into the race from now until the primary, then no one is going to consider it an issue when it comes time to vote. And I don't think that the Hackett campaign is going to harp on the saga because there are compelling reasons to put forth why people should vote for Hackett having nothing to do with Sherrod Brown's waffle.

Posted by: Cuchulainn at October 10, 2005 07:23 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

If I was one of Michael DeWine's advisors, I'd be busy right now planning the future advertisement as a "friendly reminder" to Ohio voters..."Sherrod Brown looked Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett in the eye and lied to him last year. If he would lie to a war veteran who he calls "friend," how can we trust him to look out for our troops overseas and our veterans at home?"

Bottom line: Even the seemingly insignificant snafus that an can be construed as relevant insight to a candidate's "character" will come back to haunt him with even a marginally competent opponent.

Posted by: Mark at October 10, 2005 08:02 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Cuchulainn,
If Paul stays in for the Senate run, and Brown's people continue to flood the internet disparaging the Major -- the waffle issue will remain an issue. I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: desi at October 10, 2005 08:06 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I just posted on this at my site, the DSCC is claiming they never asked Hackett to step aside. Very confusing.

Posted by: desi at October 10, 2005 08:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Hackett for Attorney General

For all those who have been ruthlessly criticizing Brown for deciding to run because circumstances changed; brace yourselves because Hackett is going to bow out because of changed circumstances. His campaign is starting to give indications that Hackett might not run after all. A spokesman for Hackett on Friday told the AP, “if he's reconsidering, it's because he's been forced into an awkward position.”

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/12838236.htm

My prediction; Hackett will bow out of the Senate race and run for Attorney General on the 24th, his original announcement date. Two weeks and counting…

Posted by: fightingdemocrat at October 10, 2005 10:18 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I don't agree that either Hackett's or Brown's candidacy would be handing the campaign to DeWine "on a silver platter." DeWine is going to have to do a few things to win, including not be linking to the corruption that is sliming most Republicans in this state. But I DO see Hackett's candidacy being a bigger obstacle to Dewine's reelection than Brown's and not because disgruntled Hackett voters would stay home. I just think Hackett would have more appeal to on-the-fence, somewhat conservative voter (who might not even vote in the primary or may be independents or even Republicans) who are upset in general with the Republican party in this state, and not because Brown is "too liberal." I just think he doesn't speak in a voice they will understand as easily as Hackett's. And he's been very timid in speaking out on the war on Iraq which is only going to get bigger and bigger as an issue. And while his positions on trade and jobs are good, I have yet to be convinced that he can get them across in ways that people will quickly grasp.

Posted by: Ansatasia P at October 11, 2005 01:23 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment