I got emails from Paul and one of his staffers that I know of this morning.
The letter is on Liberal Common Sense for anyone that wants to read it. It's the same email most of us who supported him got.
The "powers that be" wanted him to run in OH-2 but he's not going to do that. He feels it would be doing to those who have been running there the same thing that was done to him.
So much for having a choice, now the choice is Sherrod or Strickland or not bothering to vote for either unless you like the Republican ticket.
There was already a lot of bitterness on some of the blogs prior to this, now it's at least for the moment gotten worse.
posted by psyche777 at 04:33 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 14, 2006 #
Remember when Redfern was in Town last month scolding the A team and B team Democrats and making political threats if they don't shake hands and kiss up?
"Mr. Redfern warned the Monday meeting that if local Democratic factions - the so-called A Team and B Team - can't bridge their differences soon, the state party will set up its own operation for statewide candidates in Lucas County and those candidates, including the Democratic nominee for governor, might curb campaigning here."
As if a split in the Democrat party is relegated to only Lucas County.
From a December The Economist article that was reprinted in January in the Blade, concerning Ohio politics:
"Talk to young Democrats and it is all doom and gloom. The party is an old-boys' club that is better at covering its backside than thinking ahead. Young activists are joining single-issue pressure groups such as Campaign for a New Ohio rather than the Democratic dinosaur. They worry that the Democrats are too fissile -- divided between blue-collar workers and middle class professionals and fractured along all sorts of line of racial and sexual politics -- to produce a clear message."
The Economist was right based upon today's news. Ohio's Democrat party is fractured. I don't see how forcing Hackett out of the race is good for the political process. Maybe Hackett should turn his back on the Democrat party and run as an Independent. Maybe he can turn this into a positive for himself. It goes to show that the political machine is alive and well on both sides of the fence despite the bilge spewed by Redfern.
From a January Blade op-ed that commented about The Economist article:
"Mr. Redfern wears his partisanship on his sleeve. But he has bigger problems than Lucas County alone. Just as there is a fractured Democratic Party in Toledo and Lucas County, so is the state party a splintered conglomeration of single-issue interest groups unable to offer a unified voice or challenge to the Republicans."
Rolling Stone article from a short time ago:
"Maybe Dick Cheney can't shoot straight, but at least he didn't shoot himself in the face. Sadly, you can't say the same for the leadership of the Democratic party. Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and Rahm Emanuel have not only strong-armed Iraq War vet Paul Hackett out of the Ohio senate race, but out of politics altogether."
"If Sherrod is really the top Democrat for the job -- if his name truly is "gold" with Ohio voters -- shouldn't he be able to prove that through, you know, an electoral process? What does it say about his electability that top Democrats felt it necessary to play king-maker and shield him from his popular, populist competition?"
So the Democrat party in Ohio is the option to Republicans?
New York Times story:
"[Hackett] said he was outraged to learn that party leaders were calling his donors and asking them to stop giving and said he would not enter the Second District Congressional race."
Hackett quotes:
"This is an extremely disappointing decision that I feel has been forced on me."
"For me, this is a second betrayal. First, my government misused and mismanaged the military in Iraq, and now my own party is afraid to support candidates like me."
"The party keeps saying for me not to worry about those promises because in politics they are broken all the time."
Anti-democracy Redfish said:
"It boils down to who we think can pull the most votes in November against DeWine. And in Ohio, Brown's name is golden. It's just that simple."
Just that simple, eh?
More from the NY Times story:
"Democrats wanted to avoid a drawn-out primary, especially one that could get bruising with a tough-talking outsider like Mr. Hackett."
"Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races for the Cook Political Report, said that part of what made Democratic leaders nervous about Mr. Hackett was what had also made him so popular with voters."
A tough-talking outsider is what's appealing about Hackett. He says what he thinks. He's not running every thought through Redfish's political washing machine.
Ms. Duffy said:
"Hackett is seen by many as a straight talker, and he became an icon to the liberal bloggers because he says exactly what they have wished they would hear from a politician. On the other hand, the Senate is still an exclusive club, and the party expects a certain level of decorum that Hackett has not always shown."
My comment about Hackett after his January visit to UT:
----
Why must politicans be like Szollosi and Gerken and have to agree with every single issue the party stands for? I don't know how it's possible for a free-thinking person to agree with everything any party supports.
Hackett has certainly made some "out-there" statements, which ain't all bad. He probably has livelier discussions than any other politician in these public visits.
Maybe Hackett is simply being Hackett and not being a politician. Some voters like that. It's refreshing and unfamiliar to us because we are normally fed the usual nonsensical political speak.
Reminds me of another scenario. Dean vs Kerry two years ago.
Dean made several bonehead statements, and a lot of Dean supporters lost their nerve, their conviction, and their spine by voting for Kerry because the Dean supporters thought Kerry had the better chance of beating Bush.
Could the same thing happen here with Hackett and Brown? Democrats may like the fact that Hackett isn't a long-time politician like Brown. And they may like Hackett's honesty no matter how whacked at times he gets and no matter if they disagree with Hackett on some issues.
But when primary time comes around, will Hackett supporters start looking ahead to November? Is the main objective to oust DeWine or elect Hackett? If the former, will Hackett supporters turn on their guy at the last second and vote for Brown, thinking Brown has the better chance of defeating DeWine?
----
I never expected that Hackett would be forced out by the party leaders three months before the election. But it's because Redfern and other party leaders believe Brown is more electable than Hackett. Well, why not let the voters decide that? What happened to making every vote count? Where is the voice of the people?
Here's a January 12 Blade article about Hackett that made me like the guy more.
Hackett said:
"I stand up and clearly articulate what I believe in, good or bad, whether you like it or not. I can't be everything to everyone, but at the end of the day, you know who I am. I don't feel the need to be careful. I don't feel the need to be something I'm not or something that I should be."
posted by jr at 04:40 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 14, 2006 #
There is no voice of the people anymore. As I just got done writing as a part of my article for tomorrow's Carnival of Ohio Politics this quote from Michael Meckler:
(Chris) Redfern once told me during his campaign for ODP chair that he wanted to be the Democratic Bob Bennett, by which he meant that he wanted to achieve the same degree of success and stability for Ohio Democrats that Bennett has achieved in his 18 years running the Ohio GOP. One of the hallmarks of Bennett's tenure has been the avoidance of primaries, which has allowed Republican candidates to save their money and their venom for Democrats in the general election.
We are repeating history once again and this is more than just Hackett, Fingerhut is out and it's clear that other candidates are being pressured to drop out as well.
posted by psyche777 at 05:33 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 14, 2006 #
Sounds like a pissy, whining crybaby who took all his marbles and went home.
And this guy was the "star" of the Democratic party in Ohio. Guess that tells us the caliber of Democrats in Ohio.
posted by MemyselfandI at 06:40 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 14, 2006 #
It probably does say something about the caliber of some Democrats if the way they think they can win is to become like some Republicans and make sure there is no real primary.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 07:07 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 14, 2006 #
Just as I have concerns with Phillip Copeland's one year on city council qualifying him to run for County Commissioner, Hackett lost a house race and now wants to be a U.S. Senator. Sherrod Brown has been in congress since 1994 and before that was Secretary of State and did a great job. Hackett should have run again for congress or Attorney General. He seemed to me to be an uninformed blow hard who would have fizzled just like Howard Dean. Kerry wasn't my first choice but with Dean as the nominee, it would have been a landslide for Bush.
The questions democrats need to ask are: Do we want to win elections or continue to lose elections and then complain about the republicans? And if we want to win elections, is a moderate democrat who can appeal to independents and moderate republicans better than a moderate to conservative republican? I hear democrats saying that they would rather have DeWine than Brown...that is ridiculous. I hear democrats saying they would rather have Blackwell than Strickland...that is even more ridiculous. Republicans win because they are unified. Democrats lose because we fight too much among ourselves.
Brown and Strickland are our best chances to win in November. Just like Tim Wagener is our best chance to win the County Commissioner seat.
posted by moderatedemocrat at 07:29 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 14, 2006 #
Republicans do plenty of infighting.
We went through this time when Nixon and Ford were president and tried to "out-democrat" the Democrats. We were split between those who felt it important to support their president and those who supported the party's principles.
Democrats are going through the same thing with its leadership. Clinton was no liberal and as hard as Daschle and Reid try, in their heart of hearts, they are not liberals.
Someone will emerge to unite Democrats the way Reagan united the Republicans after our time in the wilderness. Then it will be our time to take potshots without having to worry about governing.
posted by MemyselfandI at 07:45 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 14, 2006 #
That is of course your opinion moderateddem but I prefer to have a choice. To me that was the whole concept of the primary race as created back in the 1900's. For the voters to select who they wanted to run in the general election.
If no one wants to run then running unopposed is a reality. To do things like contact financial backers and tell them to stop financially supporting someone as well as for out of state Democrats to demand someone step down isn't something I agree with. I don't believe Schumer or Rahm or Reid or Strickland or Redfern should be making those decisions for me. As I'm sure those that support Petro are not going to be happy when he is forced out of the race to give Blackwell a worthless primary victory. Or Grendell if he is asked to step down for Montgomery. If a candidate decides on his own merits not to run that's one thing, but I don't agree with the pressure being placed on any of these candidates; Fingerhut, Hackett, Reardon, Quill or Chandra to pull out. I also hope Bryan Flannery sticks with it though he's not getting enough attention to create much of a stir, at least he offers an alternative to those who do not want Strickland, or until he's forced out as well.
posted by psyche777 at 07:51 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 14, 2006 #
There are two schools of thought on primaries:
One says that they cost the candidates money and raise their negatives.
The other is it allows candidates to test their message and prepare for battle.
Of course, both schools are right under unique circumstances. In 1980, the Bush challenge really helped hone Reagan's campaign. His democratic opposition did the same for Clinton in 1992.
However, I think McCain hurt Bush in 2000 by raising his negatives.
On the Republican side, I think a primary helps Petro and hurts Blackwell. On the Democratic side, I think a primary would help Strickland because he's never run for statewide office and would be able to test some messages.
posted by MemyselfandI at 08:09 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 14, 2006 #
The money spent on a primary could be better used for the general election.
I don't think it's a good thing to have negative commercials about you which was bound to happen in the contested primaries for governor and senator.
There is a reason why Bennett for the republicans and Redfern for the democrats want to avoid primaries. They are not helpful to the cause of electing candidates from their party.
And on a side note, while some people may like to vote, in a way the people did speak. Brown and Strickland picked up a lot of endorsements from County Parties and elected officials. They picked up Union endorsements and raised a great deal of contributions from people in the state. If Fingerhut or Hackett would have done as well, they'd still be in the race. And, sure someone might have told people that stop giving to Hackett. But notice, the people that were giving money to him were not from Ohio. They were out of state activists. That is why Hackett wasn't going to win. He was the darling of the bloggers from out of state but not the Ohio likely democratic primary voters. If he thought he could win, he would have stayed in the race.
posted by moderatedemocrat at 09:53 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 14, 2006 #
Soros donated to Brown, most of Hackett's supporters were small individual donations, the average donation if I remember correctly was $51.00. Nor is Soros the only out of Stater who has donated to Brown's campaign, if that really matters.
The primary exists legally for one purpose, as it was created in 1906.
Ironically because of back room deals where the voters did not have a choice in who was selected to run in a general election. So while I understand why the Redferns and the Bennets may not want a primary? It is the law and it should be as it was designed to allow voters to decide who they want to represent them. I mean really when it comes down to it, who makes up these parties? The people...and if you continually create situations where they feel they have had the freedom of choice taken away from them that is not a good thing.
posted by psyche777 at 10:51 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 14, 2006 #
I feel that Hackett really mislead people with his campaign, and I am one that won't miss him. I would like to see the Democrats put up a viable candidate and see great choices for our state come election time!!!! :-)
posted by alexandra at 11:00 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 14, 2006 #
http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/21406Hackett.mp3
I'd suggest anyone interested listen to that. Then tell me that what has happened is "okay"
posted by psyche777 at 11:13 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 14, 2006 #
This seems really odd to me. Paul and his type of candidate seemed to be the Democrat's hope in 2006 and 2008.
Paul was being sold as the "best thing since sliced bread" and now they have abandoned him. What explains this?
Lisa makes the point that we are slowly doing away with primary elections. The primaries are now being help at party headquarters and not at the election box.
posted by lloyd at 12:03 A.M. EST on Wed Feb 15, 2006 #
It's a sad day when The Economist, a british magazine, is reporting on Ohio politics. We can sit here and argue about the validity of primaries and such as much as we want, but our interests will never be represented. Ohio has no real political power anymore, aside from having a lot of electoral votes. Ohio has ascribed to rust belt politics, and Southwest Ohio believes in none of that. Yet, we keep electing Southwest Ohioans to positions of power based on their party affiliations. Republican or Democrat, Southern Ohio does not represent our economic interests. This isn't an issue of Republican or Democratic politics, this is an issue of regions, of which Ohio has many. MMI, Obama will eventually unite the dems.
posted by junta330 at 12:16 A.M. EST on Wed Feb 15, 2006 #
Strickland and Redfern would be the reason why Paul was no longer "sliced bread" and Sherrod was "golden". Evidently Strickland feels that he can promote a better party ticket with Sherrod.
Maybe that could end up being true, though I doubt it, especially given the last polling numbers on Hackett v Brown that came out but? At the end of the day I wanted a choice. To me that is what the primary is all about. Just because the Republicans have tried to make primaries a non-issue doesn't mean the Democrats had to join in -if anything they should have used it as a reason why they were the prefered party because they at least gave the pretense they cared who we wanted.
Maybe Sherrod Brown would have kicked Paul Hackett's behind in the primary, then that would have generated more support towards him from those who supported Hackett. Discovering that even Henry Waxman was in this mess as well as the bs rumors that Paul Hackett had committed some type of war crime coming from fellow Democrats? On top of those who were calling people telling them not to contribute to Hackett? That's pretty low to me. It's bad enough when the other party does that crap but your own?
Then to have Hackett after all of that still say that he would rather have Sherrod than DeWine? I don't think I could do that if I had gone thru what he had, at least not initially.
posted by psyche777 at 12:38 A.M. EST on Wed Feb 15, 2006 #
MemyselfandI posts:
Sounds like a pissy, whining crybaby who took all his marbles and went home.
And this guy was the "star" of the Democratic party in Ohio. Guess that tells us the caliber of Democrats in Ohio.
By gosh, honey, you nail it perfectly every time. Such wisdom and insight.
posted by limedrops911 at 07:24 A.M. EST on Wed Feb 15, 2006 #
Thanks Limedrops. It's good to have my "work" appreciated.
posted by MemyselfandI at 07:50 A.M. EST on Wed Feb 15, 2006 #
Dems have been sipping at the hemlock cup of "electability" for some years. The Dems are abandoning progressive values just to obtain a mishmash of an electing majority. Note well that it has in part cost them the Presidential races for 2000 and 2004.
Progressives such as myself have been pretty damned angry at the Dems for abandoning so many of their platform planks, just to create this fog of electability. Nowadays I joke that Democrats hate democracy. But the sad thing is that it's not really a joke. It's true, under the Holy Doctrine of Electability.
Hackett can tell the Dems to SIUTA ("stick it up..."), but then he's be left dry of advertising funds. I expect him to compete nonetheless, if he has any minerals.
posted by GuestZero at 12:54 P.M. EST on Wed Feb 15, 2006 #
To any democrat who doesn't like what the Party official apparently did to Paul Hackett, I say this...
1. Get involved in a local democratic club.
2. Run for a precinct committee position. Precinct committee people play a role in determining which candidate is endorsed.
If you really want to change how the party works, it starts from the ground up.
And again, I say that while I might not like how it happened, I am for anything that gives us a better chance to beat Dewine and Blackwell.
posted by moderatedemocrat at 04:11 P.M. EST on Wed Feb 15, 2006 #
"I would like to see the Democrats put up a viable candidate and see great choices for our state come election time!!!! :-)
definitely something they've not tried lately!!
posted by billy at 04:31 P.M. EST on Wed Feb 15, 2006 #
Sherrod Brown hasn't got a snowball's chance in Hades of beating Mike DeWine.
Democrats who are angry about the way the party handled the "star" of the party, I have a piece of advice: Become a Republican. You'll learn what it is like to win a statewide election.
posted by MemyselfandI at 06:12 P.M. EST on Wed Feb 15, 2006 #
MemyselfandI...Mike Dewine could very easily beat Brown. But I think you'll be hard pressed to find any objective political observer tell you that there is no way that Brown can win. Most political observers rate this race as a true toss up or a slight advantage for the incumbent. Some polls have Brown winning. He's won statewide before, Dewine has alienated some of the conservatives, Ohio is a swing state, it is shaping to be a year where there are advantages for the democrats...this race is up for grabs.
posted by moderatedemocrat at 10:16 P.M. EST on Wed Feb 15, 2006 #
"I am for anything that gives us a better chance to beat Dewine and Blackwell."
How about a bag of fertilizer then?
See, that was the problem with Democrats in the 2004 presidential election. It wasn't about electing a candidate that could do good. It was simply about defeating Bush. And you're repeating the same thing here. And that's whey Dems will continue to lose. If the consensus among Democrats is the "for anything" type of thinking, DeWine and the rest have nothing to fear.
This whole Hackett incident is another flagrant example of why most Americans don't vote. Hell, the voters don't even get a chance to vote for Hackett.
If Brown is so "golden" then he should have no problem in the primary against Hackett, right? What's he afraid of? What do you have against the electoral process?
In case you weren't sure before, this is more proof that we don't live in a democracy. It's all about greed and power by a priviledged few, and it's not about serving the citizens. That's for both parties. And you can't say it's not.
That December 2005 The Economist article knows more about Ohio politics than Redfern.
It's funny to see moderatedemocrat suggest:
"To any democrat who doesn't like what the Party official apparently did to Paul Hackett, I say this...
1. Get involved in a local democratic club.
2. Run for a precinct committee position. Precinct committee people play a role in determining which candidate is endorsed."
Why? So that so-called Democrat leaders from other states can run right over you?
No, don't get involved because it serves no purpose. What about the people involved with the Hackett campaign? Getting involved does nothing but wastes your time, energy, and money. I'm now an official advocate of not voting.
It's true. The people who don't follow politics and don't vote are the smart ones.
Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and Rahm Emanuel, are those all Ohioans? Why do these punks have the right to take away Ohioans' right to vote?
posted by jr at 11:33 P.M. EST on Wed Feb 15, 2006 #
MMI said: "Democrats who are angry about the way the party handled the "star" of the party, I have a piece of advice: Become a Republican. You'll learn what it is like to win a statewide election."
Really, buried in this seemingly-silly advice is a hard nugget of truth, which holds very important implications. Dems who are being "Republican Lite" are pushing their party's progressive elements away. That old maxim of "piss or get off the pot" still holds. Dems who largely espouse Repub party principles should be honest and just become Repubs.
The issue of self-honesty and public-honesty produces a larger picture than that, however. To be honest -- not likely to occur, but still -- America's political parties should split into 5 distinct entities:
Fascist Party
Fiscal Conservatives
Social Conservatives
Fiscal Liberals
Social Liberals
The Fascists will naturally hold the majority, since anyone can see that most pols now approve of the merger of corporate and government power, which is used to perform violent acts of nationalism under goofy-looking leaders. Similarly so, most Americans either support this kind of thing, or are accepting of it out of fear or laziness.
The rest of us can affiliate with whichever party suits our actual stances, and can try to implement change from our beseiged neighborhoods.
posted by GuestZero at 03:48 P.M. EST on Thu Feb 16, 2006 #
After Hackett's January 18 Toledo visit, Frank Szollosi's impressions of Hackett appeared in the January 20 Blade.
"Frank Szollosi, a Toledo city councilman, said Mr. Hackett appeared “to the right of Pete Wilson” — a conservative Republican and former California governor — on immigration. Mr. Szollosi said he supported Mr. Hackett but would reconsider if he did not moderate his immigration stance."
I was scanning mags today, and Szollosi's quotes landed in last week's The American Conservative. His name didn't, only his words. From the magazine in a blurb about Hackett being nuked by the Dems:
"How serious are Democrats about opposing the war? Not very, if their treatment of antiwar Iraq veteran Paul Hackett is any indication. In response to a voter question about illegal immigration, Hackett noted that the Bush administration "is willing to let illegals come in and take the jobs of Americans." "Deport them?" asked one young liberal in the [Toledo] audience. "Yeah, if we can afford to," Hackett replied."
"This response was enough to send some of Hackett's fellow Democrats running for the hills. A blogger at the popular liberal site Daily Kos accused the Ohioan of -- horrors -- channeling "the spirit of mid-80s Buchananism." "
"A Toledo city councilman fretted that Hackett was "to the right of Pete Wilson" and he might have to reconsider his support."
"These Democrats are apparently willing to abandon a candidate whose antiwar message resonates among red voters -- he took 48 percent in a solidly Republican House district -- because he has the audacity to believe our borders mean something. Hackett isn't backing down. "Illegal immigration is illegal," he told the Toledo Blade. "It's that simple." Not that simple to everyone, it seems."
posted by jr at 10:51 P.M. EST on Mon Feb 27, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
