RANDI'S RANT: Hackett, DeWine, NSA & Dirty Deals

feb. 17, 2006

"It’s not exactly what happened--it’s what I think happened. This is a theory of mine. Okay? It’s not a fact. It’s what I think happened when everybody was paying attention to Cheney’s story that was full of more holes than poor Mr. Whittington was. This is what I believe happened in the Senate.

I’ll start with Mike DeWine because it’s easier if I do it that way. Senator Mike DeWine, who sits on the intelligence committee, actually is suggesting and drafting legislation today that would exempt the NSA and the spying-on-Americans programs from the FISA court. Meaning DeWine has been shaken down.

Now we know that last week Rove was over at the Senate and he was shaking down GOP members and he was on the subject of: “If You Want Money For Your Senate Campaign (you gotta run this year DeWine) And If You Want Money You’d Better Play This Our Way. We Don’t Want No Stinking Investigation. You got that? You got that Mike DeWine of Ohio? You got that Pat Roberts of Kansas? I don’t want no stinking investigation. You’re gonna do to this investigation what you did to phase II of the Saddam Hussein al-Quada connection investigation. That phase II thing--we liked the way you handled that. You said you’d do it. You kept going on Meet the Press saying “it’s coming, it’s coming!” and it never came. That’s what we want here. And in fact, DeWine--you’re in a bad race. You could lose. You could lose. So if you want any of our money--if you want the GOP Senate Congressional Committee to give you one red cent, man then you are not only gonna end this thing but you are gonna write a piece of legislation that says that if we want to spy on Americans we don’t have to go to no stinkin FISA court.”

And DeWine’s probably sitting there saying: “Yeah, but I got a tough race ahead of me. There’s this kid, Hackett--he’s an Iraqi vet, he’s a major in the U.S. Marines; this guy looks good, sounds good and he could win.”

And it seems to me they said “let us worry about Hackett--we’ll get him out of the way. You write that freakin’ legislation!”

And look what happens last week. All of a sudden Paul Hackett gets a call from the party leaders in my party saying: “Listen Dude, this is a tough break, but if you actually don’t run against Mike DeWine this time--if you don’t--we got a shot at investigating this NSA thing. Because we’re gonna trade you for this investigation. We want this investigation, and they want you outta there. So if we play ball with them and get you out of the way for Mike DeWine we got a shot at having the hearing.”

And I don’t know if this is true or not, but if I was Hackett I’d be sitting there going: “You mean to tell me that all the privacy rights of the American people, and a real meaningful investigation that could turn into a real vote--which was promised--on whether or not the president broke the law--hinges on whether or not I challenge Mike DeWine?” “Yeah, that’s what we’re telling you. So we made a deal and we told DeWine you won’t run. And DeWine’s gonna keep this thing alive in the intelligence committee for us.”

And they got duped again cause right after Hackett says he’s not gonna run, and was a real stand up guy about it--came on this show, said sometimes you gotta do what’s best for the country, bla bla bla, he was a real gentleman about this whole thing--he says he’s not gonna run and that he’s not gonna run for public office, ever. And the next thing you know, DeWine is introducting the legislation that the GOP wanted.

And that piece of legislation says that the NSA does not have to go to a FISA court to get a warrant to spy on Americans. He’s gonna make the whole thing legal--DeWine is.

You got big problems in Ohio. DeWine is up for reelection in the Senate; you don’t get all the senators in an off year but you got him this year. You got all the house members. You gotta get rid of James Sensenbrenner--and you do have a good candidate there in that district in Wisconsin--that Brian Kennedy--he’s a good kid, he really has the goods and he wants to unseat Sensenbrenner. So you got some decisions to make around this country.

But I’m telling you--in Ohio--you got to get rid of Senator Mike DeWine.

Now, Sherrod Brown has been put up instead of Hackett. But I reallllly think the senate democrats got duped on this one. I mean, I’m telling you just what I think--I have nothing to prove it. (Guess I could call Paul over the weekend--guess I could do that. I don’t know what he’ll tell me but I guess I could do that. Or I could say Paul, you know the number, give me a call if you’re listening.

But I just have this sick feeling that Rove was up on the hill making. There’s no way, it’s not true that Karl Rove was up on the hill talking to senators about this NSA wiretapping investigation and that he actually said “if you are disloyal to the White House, if you’re disloyal to this president, you would appear on his…and this is a quote from the Washington Times magazine section, Insight Magazine, it says: “Rove is lining them up one by one another congressional source said. Rove is leading the White House campaign to help the GOP in November’s congressional elections. Sources said the White House has offered to help loyalists with money and free publicity such as appearances and photo ops with the president. Those deemed disloyal to Mr. Rove would appear on his black list. Sources say that dozens of members in the house and senate are on that list. So far only a handful of GOP senators have questioned Mr. Rove’s tactics."

They are a bunch of spineless cowards. DeWine is one of them. I’m sure they said to DeWine: You’re gonna write this legislation and he said I’ve got a tough election, this kid Hackett looks good, he’s a major in the Marines, he wears the uniform, he was in Iraq, I don’t think I can beat him. And they said “don’t worry about him. We’ll get him out of the way. We’ll make a nice deal with the democrats--we’ll go, we’ll shake their hand, and we’ll tell them you get your NSA investigation if you tell Paul Hackett he can’t get another nickel outta ya. And you’re gonna call his donors and tell them to not give him another dime--national security is at stake here.”

And I’m telling you they were duped. If that happened--they were duped. Because I’m sure that there are some members of the senate who have been there a really long time who have fond memories of a glass of glenn livviet in this hand and a big fat cigar in that hand, and deals being made after five o’clock when republicans and democrats all got together to be friends, and if you shook a man’s hand in the senate it was his bond. THOSE DAYS ARE OVER! These people are animals. Their word means nothing. Their promises are as full of as many holes as Harry Whittington. (On a hunting trip. On a Friday, or a Saturday--we’re not sure.)

I really feel like that happened. How else can you explain that senator DeWine, who was making noises at the beginning of the NSA hearings, that he didn’t approve of this either, and now all of a sudden he’s gonna be the one who writes and authors and sponsors and puts on the senate floor the legislation that actually says if you wanna spy on Americans you don’t have to go to no stinkin FISA court. I just find that very coincidental and suspect. Am I suspicious? Yes, I am suspicious. I think the timing on this is so suspect. Just like….fourteen hours….very suspicious. I just don’t think that there’s anything that you can take their word on. I think democrats want to work together--I think that’s the problem. They don’t understand that you cannot work with these people yet. I don’t know how many times they’re gonna have to get kicked in the teeth by them but I know democrats want to say that they want to reach across the aisle, America’s sick of the divide, America wants bipartisanship, they want everybody to get along. It can’t happen with these people."

on edit: end of rant. and randi--i hope you call paul. it makes sense to me!

:wow:

Politics is hard to follow, but I know that last part is right--Democrats want to play, and Republicans snatch the ball out of their hand everytime....so could be that--could be that!

Randi rocks!

Wow, reading all of that.. I really feel sorry for our Ohio DU'ers.

DeWine, Ney, Blackwell.. .. Mean Jean Schmidt, Voinovich, Taft, ..

OHIO !!! How on earth do you do it???

if hackett really did drop out on some bullshit premise like that and they just went back on their word--he should DROP BACK IN!

i mean, what's to really keep him out at this point if they used him as a bargaining tool and then they screwed the dems on the bargain. why not go all the way and jump back in the race?

I'm interested how that will go..

we can fire the entire ohio democratic party?

(then again, i heard harry reid & charles schumer were telling him to get out of the race too)

i still want to fire the party in ohio!

I hope the rumors are true that they're thinking about selling the voting machine section of Diebold..

I've read that there's a lot of pressure from Soros-related groups where they are ----

PLEADING

---for him to buy out the Diebold Voting section of the company.

Haven't seen anything that would suggest he's in negotiations (yet).. just one article that does mention that Soros may now hold some stock -- although, they don't know for sure.

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/agabor_20060211.html

It is not known whether the Soros Funds have invested in Diebold or shorted their stock, whose shares are up 10% in recent months despite a class action lawsuit.

I hope he does wind up buying them out though. And soon!

and what a thing to have to do to have a fair election!

expressing their unhappiness, shock, sadness etc over hackett--it's amazing.

i think this guy ought to get back in the race--he's too loved and has too much potential to throw it away over the party's bad judgement, horse-trading, or whatever they are up to.

i've heard the rationale that it is time for payback for sherrod brown--he's been in politics a long time and it is his time to run.

but why would they run him if he is left of hackett? and if hackett had such a great chance to beat out dewine? why would they risk dewine getting back in the senate?

(and why do they call ohio the buckeye state?)

http://www.netstate.com/states/intro/oh_intro.htm


William Henry Harrison entered the race for President as a candidate of the Whig party. An opposition newspaper said Mr. Harrison "...was better fitted to sit in a log cabin and drink hard cider than rule in the White House." Harrison capitalized on this image by issuing an engraving of himself seated in a rustic buckeye wood cabin with a barrel of cider and rows of buckeyes hanging from pegs. Buckeye cabins and buckeye canes carried by Harrison supporters ensured that the buckeye would be forever associated with the state of Ohio.

I learned this stuff in Ohio history, but it was a long time ago.

There are some who believe that Brown's camp gave Hackett's campaign a little push out the door.

If you really want more info, go over to the Ohio forum and read VolcanoJen's post about the "Mother Jones" article. Be sure to wear your body armor because it's hot and dangerous over there.

:hi:

Amazed at the depths of her ignorance of things political. Reminds me of the many keyboard commandos here who wouldn't know the first thinga about actual participation in politics.

Pretty sad.

why did hackett drop out? why did the dem party tell him to? why is dewine going to write legislation to give the nsa a pass when he had issues with the eavesdropping?

you say randi is so ignorant--let's hear your thoughts on what is going on? what is your explanation? or do you just simply and consistently disagree with her no matter what?

Hackett polled much lower numbers than Brown and had raised substantially less money, giving some credence to reports that he wouldn't do finance calls--which is absolutely crucial regardless of how you actually feel about it.

Juile

hackett--hackett nearly beat out schmidt in a republican stronghold--the democratic party asked him to run to begin with, and then they were calling his donors telling them not to donate to him when all this crap began.

(re brown polling better than hackett--if brown is LEFT of hackett, who is gonna vote for him in OHIO?)

Brown Tops DeWine in New Poll
An Opinion Consultants poll finds Ohio voters favor Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) for the U.S. Senate over incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), 43% to 38%

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/01/26/brown_tops_dewine_in_new_poll.html

Sherrod Brown is endorsed by PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) and is an outspoken member of the Progressive Caucus.

Representative Brown is at least as liberal as Sen. Kennedy or Sen. Feingold

Representative Brown voted against the Iraq War Resolution and the Patriot Act.

courtesy of vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H3141103&type=category&category=Foreign%2BAid%2Band%2BPolicy%2BIssues&go.x=12&go.y=8

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 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 AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 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.

in a heartbeat.

but, we're talking Ohio here

how is such a progressive gonna fly in ohio?

wouldn't hackett have a better chance? (getting the dem vote along with crossover votes? and veterans?)

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

by virtue of his leading the effort to stop CAFTA. His antiwar stance won't hurt, either.

he voted against it the first time around back when everyone was jumping on board to support it!

isn't that beside the point when the topic is the crashing/burning of paul hackett? and the horse trading that goes on?

i mean, i don't live in ohio--so technically i wouldn't be voting for any of them. i don't have a horse in the race (so to speak). i was only putting up a few minutes of randi's "theory" on possibly wtf happened to hackett.

and then he up and quit on us.

Not really getting what the furor is over. It was his decision but geez, not like we're sticking Ohio with Joe Lieberman or something

came from otherwise conservative states; Frank Church(Idaho), Birch Baye(Indiana), George McGovern(South Dakota), Ralph Yarborough (Texas) and many more. And not to forget that Howard Mitzenbaum (Ohio) served a long time in the Senate until 1995.

I suppose the "moral majority" types had a lot to do with ending the careers of these legendary figures.

I don't think it is an impossible dream to reestablish that legacy. I think polls indicated that Ohio may not be in the bag, but it is well within reach..

...it sounds like we're being sold Sherrod Brown, while Paul Hackett sold himself.

And the poll nubmers? I smell political manuevering going on here - as in telling other Democrats to drop their endorsement of Hackett.

You can say that Brown is progressive until the cows come hom, but so was Hackett. And if Brown can't get the job done in Ohio, Reid and Schumer will bear the blame.

the democratic party asked him to run to begin with, and then they were calling his donors telling them not to donate to him when all this crap began.

I have seen this charge posted, is there any evidence to support this claim that you could post? So far, to the best of my knowledge it is unsubstantiated.

As for poll numbers, there's this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060215/cm_thenation/1559896_1

The article starts off citing Hackett's claim of pressure from Dems but doesn't substantiate. Then they talk of polls:

<snip>

But it appears that an even bigger factor was a poll that showed Hackett trailing far behind his progressive primary opponent, U.S. Representative Sherrod Brown (news, bio, voting record). With the filing deadline for the May Democratic primary rapidly approaching, Hackett was confronted with new numbers from his own pollster, which showed Brown was ahead among likely voters by an almost 2-1 margin -- 46 percent for the congressman to 24 percent for Hackett.

Despite the fact that Hackett had been campaigning for the Senate seat since last fall -- while Brown had been tied up in Washington leading the fight against the Central American Free Trade Agreement and other administration initiatives -- the poll, details of which were obtained by the Cleveland Plain Dealer, revealed that Hackett had made few inroads among Democrats outside his southern Ohio base.

This is not to say that Hackett was a bad candidate.

An Iraq War veteran gained national attention with his blunt criticism of President Bush during the campaign for an Ohio U.S. House seat that he almost won in a special election last summer, Hackett would have been serious contender in a Senate race against just about anyone else. But Hackett had a hard time convincing most Ohio Democrats -- particularly more liberal voters in the northern Ohio counties where the party is strongest -- that he would be a bolder or better candidate than Brown, an early and consistently outspoken critic of the Bush administration's rush to war in Iraq who is one of the House's leading foes of corporate excess.


Julie

"Ohio Senate Rasmussen Poll numbers
Someone kindly forwarded me the Rasmussen poll numbers just released for the Ohio Senate race

Dewine 45 (43) Brown 40 (41)
Dewine 43 (42) Hackett 39 (41)

December numbers in bracketts. Pretty static, with perhaps a small uptick for Dewine - who I keep saying isn't as weak as some would think."

it's dated jan. 6

http://www.buckeyesenateblog.com/2006/01/ohio_senate_ras.html

looks to me like hackett was slightly closer to dewine than brown.

While Hackett did drop out in your time period, the party's support apparently was withdrawn in October when Schumer called Hackett. Hackett says that's when it happened and I guess he would know. He didn't all of a sudden get calls last week, though he does say he got more calls and he was asked to run for the House.


I'm very concerned about veterans being swiftboated and I've been keeping a rough timeline based on what's been published:





I think there is probably more to come about it all and the timeline will change accordingly, but this is what is so far and based on what is in public.

To my mind, if it is true the rumors started in the "summer" - it could have been when Hackett was running in OH-02 against a Republican, and even if the rumors were repeated by Dems, which is inexcusable to me, they could still, by this timeline, been started by Repugs. This is what I am trying to get to the bottom of, because in all probability, this will happen with vet candidates all over the country.

Eric Massa running in NY-29, is a different example. The Repub incumbent's campaign circulated rumors about Eric's having battled cancer, which he did successfully. The DCCC didn't back Eric's candidacy because Eric hadn't met the standard for fundraising. A monied Democrat was pushed, although not by the DCCC, at least openly, to run and announced, so there would have been a Dem primary which Eric hadn't been facing before. But Eric fought off the challenge, the other Dem dropped out, and now the DCCC is supporting Eric. So it worked out.

But we have to be on guard for these situations, know when they are happening, so we can help defend our candidates with rapid response. The longer time there is between a planted rumor and when it's debunked, the stronger the smear becomes.

I guess I've gotten off the point of your post :hi: but you can see this all goes back 4-6 months, not to last week.

but, what she says jives with what you are saying.

they certainly could've traded hackett for the nsa investigation. everyone has been saying they're gonna investigate it since december.

so then the repukes say--you want to keep the investigation open then get hackett out.

the dem party yanks hackett.

hackett gets out of race.

repukes go back on their word and screw the dems over, shutting down investigation--which pat roberts did last friday

(and now dewine is suppose to write the legislation that allows nsa to do whatever the hell they want--and give them a retroactive pass on all their activites to date.

it could happen