Paul Hackett: "The Democratic Party is...addicted to failure."

Sorry if this is a dupe.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2005/10/hackett.html

<edit>

Then, last week, his phone rang again. It was Sherrod Brown calling to tell Hackett he’d changed his mind: he was running after all. Then Schumer called, and this time he wasn’t delivering a pep talk. Hackett got the distinct sense that he was being asked to make way for the party insider. “Schumer didn’t tell me anything definitive,” he says. “But I’m not a dumb ass, and I know what he wanted me to do.”

DSCC spokesman Phil Singer insists that “We didn’t play any role in bringing Brown in. We were as surprised as anyone else when he decided to reconsider.” Putting a positive spin on the contest, Singer notes that “six months ago, reporters were writing off the state” for Democrats. “Now we’ve got two excellent candidates who would be good senators and can beat Mike DeWine in 2006.”

Hackett, who says he’s still considering his options, is less sanguine—and less diplomatic. “The Democratic Party is like an addict,” he says. “They’re addicted to failure. I want to help the party. The question is, how do you help someone that doesn’t want help?”

Brown dismisses the controversy his decision has sparked as a “tempest in a teapot.” He insists that “nobody recruited me to run against Paul Hackett.” And though Hackett says Brown told him point-blank that he wasn’t running, Brown maintains that he was simply wrestling with whether to run because of family considerations. “If your readers or others can’t understand that, then so be it, but my family comes first,” the congressman says. “Paul Hackett is a decent man, he served his country,” he adds, “but no one is entitled to a Senate nomination.”

more...

to get the nomination either. But let's at least let the people decide.

The fact is that many of the political lefty bloggers are right and Dems are running from an Iraq discussion because they are afraid. Well with guys like Hackett in the fold you can have that conversation with a little more backbone. But of course they are choosing to not even have that option.

...but it still doesn't give him any more of a right to a seat or a nomination than it does anyone else. My point is let the voters decide either way.

groundword) and he took it. With a little encouragement from dem insiders, of course.

Let the voters decide for a change.

... and hands him his ass. Folks say "you don't know Brown, he's a great liberal". Fuck that shit. He's a typical politician who says one thing and does another.

All I have to know about Brown is that he said he woulnd't run, and now that he has more of an advantage he's "changed his mind".

Well, guess what, I'm tired of people who's word means nothing, be they Dems or Republicans.

Go Hackett.

going to run, watch Hackett get a team together after already laying the groundwork, and spend over 100,000 on a vehicle for the campaign and then decide to run after all. :mad:

I totally agree with you. Go Hackett!

In other words, who the hell is Brown? When did he get national attention? Nuff said

We have a congress full of silent representatives.

:-)

Go Hackett.

Paul Hackett is not the second coming people.

You are joking, right?

Ohio went to Bush by a tiny vote margin. I think the independent voters are going to vote Democratic as a "make up vote" for having voted for Bush, and as a way of expressing their displeasure with this royally-effed up government.

Republicans destroyed Democratic candidates in every other statewide election (2000, 2002, 2004). The "swing" begins and ends with the Presidential Election. A Democratic candidate hasn't won statewide in 13 years.

"If Democrats want to start winning races, he adds, they might need a dose of boot-camp discipline: “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.” "
Yeah, that democracy is a messy thing....

Which is that liberal is bad. I had my worries about him being a DLC type democrat and his rhetoric is comfirming that.

Yeah? and I own a Bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. :eyes: Why do all those Washington politicos think we're idiots?

I love Sherrod Brown and Paul Hackett is one of the best things to happen to the gutless/spineless Dems. This is a tough one. I wonder why the Dems changed their minds? Did they think Hackett was too vocal/honest/plain spoken and would damage their precious non-combatant reputation? Who the hell knows what they're thinking, but I agree with Hackett. They're addicted to failure.

Could it be they fear the truth and Hackett brings truth? Please run paul!

Though I do not see why there could not be a primary (and this goes for both those who advocate Hackett to leave OR Brown to leave), he has a good point that if Hackett cannot play the game, he should not be in politics.

There's no savior in politics, let the two make their case in a primary with a pledge of not entering into destructive attacks, and let the people choose. What is it with this idea that only one candidate should run.

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/10/true-shame-if-hackett-bows-out-of.html

..he should retire from Politics.

Personally, I think a strong, competitive primary would benefit either candidate in the long run against DeWine.

Remember the best thing that DeWine has going for him is statewide name recognition. Everyone in Ohio knows who he is. But Hackett & Brown aren't known statewide. Hackett is new to politics and Brown is from Cleveland.

I remember the primary in PA for governor with Ed Rendell vs. Bob Casey Jr. Both spend about $12mil for that very tough primary race and ultimately Ed Rendell won. But what the primary did was force the candidates to travel around the state and make their names known statewide. And although the repukes had a weak candidate running in the main election I think that the reason that Rendell won so overwhelmingly is due to the fact that he gave himself a statewide name from the very competitive primary he had. I also think this hurt Joe Hoeffel's chance against Specter because they forced the other democratic candidates out of the primary.

So I'm not here to endorse either candidate. I don't know enough about either to say that one of them should be the candidate. But I am saying that if Hackett bows out now before there is even a primary then he should give up his political career now. A primary will help both candidates get strong statewide recognition and whoever doesn't win the primary would be ready for either the Governor race or Voinovich's upcoming race.

That no one knows who Brown is. Sherrod Brown is from Akron. His district doesn't include Cleveland.

http://www.house.gov/sherrodbrown/district13detail.htm

:shrug:

But the point is this - Hackett needs to see this through or maybe he just wasn't meant to be in politics. He'll get the money to run that race from many supporters like myself who aren't from Ohio but would love to see him run.

I've seen it dozens of times here that Brown is from Cleveland. Folks in southern Ohio think Cleveland and Akron are the same damned thing. They also think my part of Ohio is actually annexed to West Virginia :D ;)

I'd love for Hackett to formally announce his candidacy. If he doesn't, I think it will be because he doesn't think he has the support of the party. I'm not thrilled about a contested primary in Ohio simply because I would rather have candidates spend money and energy on the opposing party rather than each other. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

much of a benefit. Hackett already has recieved a lot of press, both statewide and even nationally. We know Hacket can raise money online for a run against DeWine, and we know he can generate a lot of excitement. We also know he can get votes in republican strongholds.

I'm sure Brown is a very nice liberal. The question isn't which of the two OH Democrats like better, the question is which has a better chance of wining the whole state, and I fear that without a big war chest or personal wealth and if the party backs Brown, he wont win the primary, and then Brown will get trounced in the election.

But what really cheeses me off is that Brown indicated initially he would not run, and the party encouraged Hackett to do so. That made a big impact on Hackett's decision. And now Brown and the party reverse themselves?!?! :banghead: This will force him into an expensive primary fight he wasn't expecting, before he even gets to the fight for the election.

As a general rule I'm all for primaries and think they are a good thing. When the candidates can remain civil at least. I just think we had a great opportunity here (to spend the whole year focusing on the election itself, both in $ and organizational effort) and the party is shooting itself in the foot because Brown decided to be lame.

Ohio IS NOT LIBERAL. The Democratic strength in Ohio is blue collar union members and urban minorities. People are moving out of the cities and the urban minorities CANNOT offset the Republican vote. Labor's strength is waning, thanks to those damn Republicans. The state becomes more and more conservative, thanks to the media and those damned mega-churches. The Wall Street Journal's most recent poll has that lisping, smarmy bastard Ken Blackwell defeating Ted Strickland. To all of you out-of-staters who think Coingate and all the other corruption charges will bring us an easy win with a liberal candidate, I tell you cannot be more wrong.

Sherrod Brown is a fine congressman. But I compare the two candidates and I see that Paul Hackett most accurately represents Ohio as whole, and IMO has the best chance of winning. He's proven that he can swing those moderate Republicans. He came damn close in OH-2 and got 48% in a district that saw the Republican candidate win at 70 percent in 2004.

For every dollar spent in a competitive primary, you get massively more press coverage than if there were none. Then people are motivated to go out and campaign during the primary season, and you have a large working machine ready for the general. This is general political logic, not just Ohio (I live in MA)

Another question -- which of the two candidates is really more progressive in substance? Is there a difference on the issues? People will have a much better idea of what the candidates stand for after a competitive primary. Hackett feels that someone "trustworthy" (to the machine) is being brought in because he is a wild card who could win. (The same accusation, with a lot less plausibility, was made by the swarms of copperheads supporting Al Sharpton as the putative political leader of black America when Mosely Braun had the audacity to try to run for president also. She pulled out early, and Sharpton came in behind several white candidates AMONG BLACK VOTERS in South Carolina. (such uncooperative, self-referential, arrogant walnuts those voters can be, eh?). At any rate, my guess is that Hackett is the less DLC oriented, but how would I know?

What's the latest on all the NEW mountains of information and studies about over 100,000 votes stolen for Bush in 2004 in Cuyahoga County alone? Just curious.
___________________________________________________

Totally off topic -- are other people having to RELOAD every time they click a new link within the DU site? or is that just me? THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED

Way to ambitious also. We complain about politicians that run just to boost their ego and Hackett seems to be doing just that. He isn't ready for prime time yet, but he doesn't want to wait and gain experience. He wants it all now. If he really is as good as some seem to think, waiting and gaining political experience will only enhance his appeal. However, this all seems to be more about him than doing what is right for the party and the people.

He was going to run because the Democratic leadership asked him to. Nobody else but Hackett was interested in this senate race until Brown decided the water was warm enough to jump in.

... without exception.

When Hackett goes back on his word, I'll lose respect for him. For now, it's Brown whose word means nothing and I'm not supporting him for that reason alone.

"What's right for the party?" I still think Hackett has a better chance of winning than another Brown. The electorate is sick, sick, sick of career politicians. Hackett may well be one in 10 years, but for now he's an outsider, and that is gold.

If you keep repeating that, it will become "common knowledge".

... This voter is SICK SICK SICK of career pols, and the current inability of the Dems to do anything useful is why.


They are more interested in keeping the status quo than accomplishing anything. Does it matter if the war ends? No, they still have their cushy perk-ridden jobs. Does it matter if the economy sucks? No, they can vote for Bush** ridiculous policies and it is no skin off of their asses.

"learning to be a good little toothless dem." We have enough of them. We need people with fire in their bellies, who will do something to fix messes instead of enable the folks across the aisle. Paul Hackett is the kind of person who can do that.

Maybe what we need more of is people without so much political experience. People that are not willing to sit quietly and let the system run itself. We have enough of these do-nothings. They are in both chambers of our federal legislature.

or other calling other Dems to liberal to win. That's just stupid. We need discipline.

The party we have now is not cutting it. They keep losing and losing and losing. And they keep telling us they have tricks up their sleeves and spreading empty platitudes. Then, they shack up with their corporate buddies. Hell, if I wanted this kind of party I would be a Repuke. It is time to wrest this party from the hands of the milquetoast posers. That is not cutting down the party...that is saving it from Puke wannabes.

But the funny thing is you look at where Hackett stands and he's well to the right of Brown....Brown lead the fight against CAFTA in the house.....i imagine Hackett would have voted for it. He's very DLC.

A circular firing squad isn't going ot help our party take back the house or the senate.

I'm all for the primary but these two can take a look at how the NYC mayoral candidates behaved themselves. They didn't attack each other, the focused on the enemey. Hackett needs to just put this Brown thing behind him and run a positive campaign on HIS STRENGTHs and quite bitching about the party or Brown being too liberal.

Why on earth should Paul Hackett have to "wait and gain political experience"?

He's so ready for prime time, that he gets more coverage on prime-time TV than any Ohio politico in recent memory.

I don't follow your point.

whenever a politician says he wants to spend more time with his family, you know he is lying. (yes, he. i have never heard a woman try to pass off this shit.) that is enough to disqualify brown, imho. he was pushed to keep the likes of paul hackett out of the rich boys club. run, paul, run.

because her teenage son was in all kinds of trouble with
deliquency issues and she HAD to go home to deal with it.....
obviously, this doesn't mean she left her job, just her residency in DC.

She continued as a consultant, and it is clear that she left her job to work on Bush's reelection campaign in the background, until she came back in August 04.

I call bullshit! Unless you personally know Brown, then we can't know his family issues. When I spoke to him in the summer of 2004, it sounded like he planned to run. This isn't a new idea. And, one of the major reasons he waited was because he need to know how running would effect his wife's job. (Pulitzer Prize winning journalist with the Cleveland Plain Dealer.) The other reasons? Like everyone else, I'm not privy to know.

Have you met Brown? Even seen him? Read about him? He couldn't be less "rich boys club." He has a voting record to prove he stands by the little guy, not big business.

or I'm outta da democratic party!

There is no reason under the sun , that a republican should win here, but look at what we are stuck with... Fernado Ferrer.
Fuhgettabout it! Not that the other choices Democrats gave us were so
great either..but God what a disappointment. This was the best they could do? I don't think so. Sad.

Schumer should mind his own business, in 2000 neither he nor Hillary wanted to back a new politican,Tom Suozzi,for Nassau County Executive..they had their own candidate picked.

Enter Mario Cuomo who really fought for this guy...the result? Suozzi is the first Democratic County Executive in Nassau County in 50 years. That was quite an accomplishment. And yes people called him arrogant, but he struck a cord with the voters in the very Republican Nassau.

There is such seething anger towards bush in the city, and how do we capitalize on it? We get Candidates from our party that no one truly likes.
Not a question of holding my nose to vote for ferrer, more like having to put on a gas mask to do it. I really want to vote for someone with my heart, not because I have to. This was an golden opportunity & we just seem to have thrown it away. Why? Boogles the mind.


Time for new faces.

And donated to your candidate of choice and volunteered. We had a primary here in NYC in case you didn't notice. The party picked Ferrer.

whose feelings are hurt just because he's expected to participate in democracy instead of being anointed a messiah....

I doubt if they're happy about this.

They need both peopel to run, to see how effective they are in the party, and where the party is going. Its an experiment. hackett will win.

it's called democracy. when unperverted by money and greed, it is proven to work quite well.

grassroots of the Democratic party is most decidedly not.

Bunny Luv!


:loveya:


Hackett for Senate!

Hackett's OH-2 special election appears to have been suffused with fraud, but despite many DUers' best efforts to inform him, Hackett did nothing. Will he behave differently the next time? If not, he's not a horse worth backing.

Maybe we need a Karl Rove to be party boss. The only imperative is to win.

I was excited about Hackett running just like the rest of us on this Board.

Then...he opened his mouth.

He starts out the campaign by--get this-- pitchforking the Dems...from Howard Dean down to the Brown County Chairman...calling them "addicted to losing." (Gee.. thanks for writing smear blurbs for the Dewine campaign!)
:grr:

JustBTW...I'm an Ohio Democrat and I contributed to his OH 2nd campaign. He had greater financial resources than any other Ohio Dem Congressional candidate in the past election cycle. Yet HE LOST!!!!! Does this mean that Major Hackett himself is a crack-Dem?