This just in: Paul Hackett has dropped out of the Ohio Senate Race. The State Democratic party pressured him heavily to drop out in favor of seven-term Representative Sherrod Brown; they even went so far as to call donors and tell them not to give him any money. Senators Schumer and Reid also told him to drop out.
Their stated reasons: Brown had raised $2.37 million already (Hackett had less than $250,000) and Brown's name was supposedly "golden" in Ohio. So the Democratic Party has chosen to back a lackuster old Democratic hand, instead of a young, energetic, decorated Iraq war veteran with a strong civil rights stance. This is a short-sighted decision designed only to favor one of their own. Moronic. Color me "disillusioned."
"For me, this is a second betrayal," Mr. Hackett said. "First, my government misused and mismanaged the military in Iraq, and now my own party is afraid to support candidates like me."
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Why the Democrats Will Lose in 2006
Posted by Dr. Strangelove at 1:38 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I was all prepared to defend Brown (he is much more well known among average Ohioans than is Hacket). But Hacket's statement makes it clear that he at least believes this was handled very badly. I donated money to Hacket (as I said in an earlier comment) and I'm dissapointed that he has been pushed out by Brown. However, Democrats in Ohio (and the country) need to rally around Brown now. That includes Hacket and his supporters.
There has been talk on Daily Kos that the Party wants Hacket to run in his house district again. The Republican who barely beat him in the special election has been making a point of saying embarassing things (calling veterans "cowards" for example). Hacket is the only democrat with a chance in that district. But many Ohio Democrats seem to believe that both Brown and Hacket could beat DeWine - especially if DeWine get's connected to this crooked coin dealer/GOP fund raiser, Noe (53 felony indictments so far, including money laundering for the Bush Campaign).
Hacket's seeming betrayal by the Democratic establishment would be nothing but good for him if he chose to run for the House in his overwhelmingly Republican and conservative district near the Cincinatti end of the "I-75 corridor" (FYI: Noe is from Toledo at the other end).
// posted by Raised By Republicans
That's just Bogus, the Democrats 'establishment' is as much to blame as the Republicans for the mess government is in now. They should all be thrown out and replaced with new blood.
If there is only one thing you do this year is this,
"Vote against ALL incumbents!"
Time to bring back government by the people, for the people
Whatever happened to Term Limits?
// posted by Branedy
First, my apologies for not realizing this was already on the blog.
Second, RBR, look into Sherrod Brown's stance on free trade. As an avid free trader, I'm surprised you would have supported Brown. Let me quote the article that Sherrod Brown recommends on his website to those want to know him better.
If Brown had announced a decision to enter the U.S. Senate race over the summer when he was being recruited by the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, he likely wouldn’t be facing a primary challenger and the “netroots,” as progressive bloggers have taken to calling themselves, would be four-square behind him. But Brown demurred. His first marriage had ended in divorce, and he was aware of the strain that a campaign can place on a relationship, particularly a new one. After spending most of his first year of marriage in D.C. organizing against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), he and Schultz had not even moved in together. Brown was preparing for Emily’s wedding and sending Schultz’s daughter Caitlin off to college. And there were also questions about how a Senate candidacy would affect Schultz’s job at the Plain Dealer.
// posted by LTG
That last paragraph is a quote. I forgot the quotation marks.
// posted by LTG
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. My preference was for Hacket over Brown but I absolutely prefer Brown to DeWine. Why? It isn't Brown's idiotic position against trade but rather the simple fact that he is a non-Republican who has a chance at winning.
Branedy's proposed sollution of voting against everyone is both over simplistic and unworkable. It ignores massive and critical differences between the two parties with regard the Constitution and the checks and balances between branches of government. Also, IF it worked, we would have Congress just as divided as we do now except that Democrats would have a marginal lead. That's more or less the same result from Democrats' best case scenario anyway.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
To address Branedy's point... though cynicism is warranted whenever it comes to politics, it seems a bit naive to place the blame equally on both political parties. One party is in control of all branches of government; the other is not.
To vote against all incumbents blindly is not a bad start--since there are too many people who vote blindly in FAVOR of incumbents--but it is also insufficient. Some incumbents are decent folk, after all. It is too easy to paint everyone with the same brush. Only by carefully considering each race can we elect better people; the greater lesson of today's politics is that we need more informed, intelligent voting decisions--not another kneejerk reaction.
As for term limits... it would require a Constitutional amendment to create them. And frankly, I oppose such a thing. One must balance the desire to "throw the bums out" with the practical need for (a) institutional memory, (b) experience, and (c) the ability to insulate oneself from lobbyists and the political parties which can only come from having an established record and reputation. (Of course, most choose NOT to insulate themselves from lobbyists or anyone else, but some do.)
Post a Comment