Swing State Project

« Weekly Open Thread: What Races Are You Interested In? | Main | PA-07: Update on Republican Push Polling »

Monday, July 10, 2006

OH-Sen: Hackett Endorses Brown

Posted by James L.

It's about 5 months later than I would have liked to see, but hey, at least the hatchet is buried:

U.S. Rep. Sherrod Brown will finally win the endorsement today of his former Democratic rival for U.S. Senate, Mr. Brown's campaign said late yesterday.

Mr. Brown, a Democrat from Avon who faces incumbent Republican Mike DeWine this fall, is scheduled to receive the endorsement of primary election opponent Paul Hackett at a "unity rally" in Cincinnati, the Brown campaign said. Mr. Hackett could not be reached for comment.

(Hat-tip to pontificator.)

Posted at 01:23 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Ohio | Technorati

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/mt/mt-track-ssp.cgi/2440

Comments

Oh how the fire still burns. Hackett would have been a great candidate. I saw Brown on Cspan (flipping channels, I swear) this weekend promoting himself during a campaign. The DSCC played a large role in Hackett's withdrawl, correct? Funny, the established Dems seem to like to try to scare off fresh faces that would fight for real Democratic values. Hackett, Lamont, etc are much more likely to get my time and $$ than a Clinton, Schumer, or Kerry. Now Feingold on the other hand...

Posted by: Ferris at July 10, 2006 02:16 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Your comments reveal your ignorance. Brown a Clinton, Schumer, or Kerry? Oh please. Look at what the man has fought for over his entire career before making a silly statement that doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny. Brown is much more in line with Feingold and Lamont than Hackett is. What is Mr. Hackett's Iraq policy? What is his stance on fair trade? a living wage? universal health care? Or do you just like him because he shot his mouth off a lot? You know I gave money to Paul Hackett in the Oh-02 election. I was very enthusiastic for him. I'd still be if he ran for office again. But this shit about how Brown is some DSCC DLC stooge is just idiotic.

Posted by: nada at July 10, 2006 04:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

First of all, the only "idiotic" or "ignorant" thing about my post is that withdrawl is missing an "a."

Besides that, your drastic misreading of my comment is understandable, as we democrats are unfortunately more than eager to jump all over one
another (great post today at huffingtonpost.com on how liberal bloggers are mean and they suck).

I asked a question, "The DSCC played a large role in Hackett's withdrawal, correct?" Never did I call Brown a stooge of the DLC or DSCC. And in regards to Clinton (Hillary), Schumer, and Kerry, I simply said I am less likely to give them money compared to netroots candidates such as Hackett, Tester, Lamont, etc. That doesn't mean I don't like or respect them, but the $10 or $25 I can give goes a lot farther for campaigns trying to build momentum that do not have large fundraising
advantages.

Feingold on the other hand, is a senator who, even though he can raise a hell of a lot of money, still receives contributions from me.

If you want to have a discussion about the DSCC and its role in Democratic primaries, I would be all for it. If you want to continue calling other people's comments ignorant and idiotic you will quickly be talking to yourself.

Posted by: Ferris at July 11, 2006 10:07 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Ok I just posted something and I wasn't signed in, so I'll try to write most of it again (arghhhh!).

Anyway, I apologize if I overreacted. Specifically, this was the sentence that caught my (misdirected?) ire,

"Funny, the established Dems seem to like to try to scare off fresh faces that would fight for real Democratic values."

Now how else would you expect someone else to read this sentence other than to say that you don't believe that Sherrod Brown doesn't fight for real Democratic values (i.e. fighting for a better life for all Americans)? If this is not the case, then once again I apologize.

One more thing though. When you mention jumping all over other Democrats, this isn't something that hasn't been done by Paul Hackett either,

"You're not gonna throw out a sitting senator in a Republican state with a very liberal Democratic longstanding U.S. Congressman," Hackett told Mother Jones magazine. "How come this doesn't happen in the Republican Party? ... It's because they sit down guys like Sherrod and put him in a corner and make him wear the dunce cap."

It sounded there like he thinks real Democratic values are too "liberal". Like I said, I supported Paul Hackett and I'm glad he's supporting Sherrod Brown, but one of the things that I thought we were fighting for was for Democrats to not be afraid to stand up and fight for a progressive movement (like Feingold). Sherrod has been doing that all his life and that statement by Hackett makes it sound like he thinks Democrats just need to be more like republicans (at least in Ohio) but to be very tough about it. Now how will that make this country better? Sherrod has never backed down from a fight. Neither has Paul Hackett. I appreciate that. And I hope you can appreciate that Brown isn't just a tired old establishment face, he's actually fighting for a movement.

Posted by: nada at July 11, 2006 11:35 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Thanks for keeping this somewhat civil, guys. The last thing we need to see is a Hackett v. Brown flamewar 2.0

Posted by: James L. at July 11, 2006 11:52 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Ahhh, my mistake. I should have taken the time to re-read and catch "real democratic values." Yikes. The entire situation was messy, Hackett feeling screwed by Brown, Schumer, and Reid, and what truth their is to the screwing is still TBD in my eyes. Maybe this all stems from 12 years now of being the congressional minority. And you are right, Hacket and Brown are both fighters. Which is just cause to not want them to face-off against each other in a nasty primary battle that would give any advantage to DeWine.

The fresh faces comment did not imply that Sherrod Brown is not a fantastic candidate who will make a strong Senator for many years to come. It is, however, an attestment to political newcomers finding a difficult time winning the support of the Democratic establishment (unless your name is Barrack Obama).

Anyway, glad we could clear up any misunderstanding. There was no negative connotation regarding Sherrod Brown in my comments, just positive ones about Hackett and questioning/frustration with the DSCC. I guess that brings us to the larger question: how large of a role do people think the DSCC should play in state primaries?

It is tough, in my mind, because the purpose of the DSCC is to win Senate races so Democrats can control the Senate. Just how far should the committee use its influence before the state party has a nominee?

Posted by: Ferris at July 11, 2006 12:36 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I basically agree with Sean Carr. I can not belive Paul Hackett endorsed Sherrod Brown. He is a much better man than I am; I'm actually considering donating to Dewine just to stick it to Brown.

I am sure you've all heard about the pictures-"swift-boating" that Hackett recieved almost surely from the Brown camp....mere rumors of "war crimes" struck a fatal blow to Hackett's military credentials(the way Harry "I voted for the war" Ried gave weight to the accusations by even considering the pictures was terrible and deliberate) ....when Brown was asked about the rumors he avoided the question. Why not just lie, it's better than being spineless, it really is Sherrod.

And another thing "Sherrod Brown" the great reformer.. WHAT??? He sure has done a great job for the grand metropolis of Akron. The tire factories are just a booming aren't they? Wait, they're not. He is just another career politician collecting a paycheck.

That being said, the career political hack might actually be able to beat Dewine. The Republicans can't do much worse. And maybe Hackett was a little too outspoken (but then again, Bush was a cokehead, --maybe still is, pretzel, yeah right--, he is a chickenhawk, and Jerry Fallwell "Kill all of the terrorists in the name of the lord" and Pat "Ariel Sharon deserved it" Robertson really are not that much different from Islamic Fundamentalists, and I agree Paul -- George Bush is a son of a bitch) ... but back to what I was saying, maybe Hackett is a little outspoken, but I am a Buffalo Bills fan and this reminds me of the current quarterback situation:

Kelly Holcomb is an ok backup, he won't mess things up but he won't do anything great either. He fits the system and does not ruffle any feathers. He might be the best shot to take the Bills to the wildcard round of the playoffs this year, but he will never take the Bills to the Superbowl.

JP Losman on the other hand is hot-headed, dives head first on 2nd down in preseason games.. scrambles out of the pocket a little too much, but he's got a killer arm, has thrown some of the most beautiful passes to Lee Evans I've ever seen. Losman has the tools and the attitude to lead the bills to 4 more superbowls, just maybe 4 years from now.

A guy like Brown might win this race (this time) but he is never going to take us to the Superbowl, he'll be one more very "senatorial" very useless politician.

What the party desperately needs is balls, balls to fight for gay marriage in states like Ohio, and the balls to stand up against resolutions like the 2002 Iraq resolution, we need the balls to fight for the environment and educaton, the balls to stand up in real humanitarian situations like in Sudan... and even the balls not to act disgusted when you see I've used the word balls 7 times in that really run-on sentence.

getting the balls might be tough for our leadership Rahm Emanuel especially.. ballet tights just don't go well with balls, they cause bulge and we all know these Democrats can't handle bulge.

Howard Dean offers a little hope though, the 50 state strategy takes us closer to the superbowl. Schumer and Emanuel are clearly satisfied with a playoff run.

Posted by: firkel at August 3, 2006 02:19 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment