It isn't about Hackett and Brown.

[Punkingal]

What I have a problem with is our leadership taking away our right to choose. Are we supposed to be just like the Republicans and have Cookie-Cutter candidates? Breed more of the same kind we have now who let the Republicans get away with everything? I don't think that's what we need. That's why to me, it is a problem much deeper than which candidate you like. It goes to the very core of who we are as Democrats. We don't need a scared, clueless Democratic leadership telling us who we should have as a candidate, even if Brown is better than Hackett. The idea that voters are too dumb to choose the best candidate is ridiculous.

Okay, that's my rant!

[laruemtt]

1. what you said. and it's not

like they have such a great record for us to trust their choices.......... :eyes:

[acmavm]

2. That's what I see as being the main issue, they are telling

the people who they have a right to vote for, not the other way around. The biggest problem with the democratic party today is that the 'ins' have forgotten who put them there, and why. We did, to represent US, not themselves and their own personal agendas.

[wisteria]

3. It's more a matter of not having an all out exhausting primary that

weakens both men and depletes their funds fighting each other. Especially right now when we are in desperate need of seats in the Senate.
I agree, this way of choosing our candidates should not become the norm, but I am willing to give the leadership the benefit of the doubt in 2006.

[Punkingal]

4. Why give them the benefit of the doubt?

It is so clear they are out of touch.

[LynneSin]

9. Punkin - look up the records

I started a thread just about that and in there are some of the comments that Hackett made about immigration that would make the minutemen border patrols proud of him.

If Paul wants to be in politics run against Jean Schmidt again and give us track records that you're really more than a 1-issue candidate. Because nothing scares me more then these guys who switch parties for one issue and have no record on all the other issues out there. Say Hackett was able to overcome the primaries and Diebold to win. How would you feel if it turned out this guy was republican all along except that one issue. I mean, he was registered republican for the longest time, that just doesn't change overnight.

I would have been more upset if somehow Schumer/Reid forced out Chuck P in Pennsylvania. At least there both candidates have been quite vocal on their stances and I felt that 'grassroots' candidate Chuck Pennachio would definately do us liberals proud. I cannot say that about Paul Hackett and yet I can easily say that about Brown

[Punkingal]

20. I am not touting Hackett or dissing Brown....

I'm just saying we don't need to be like the Republicans, and have a leadership that tells us who to vote for. And I think this is a pattern in the last couple of elections that has cost us dearly, in elections for the Congress and the Senate.

[LynneSin]

5. You know, I'd almost agree if it wasn't for the fact that Brown

was the better candidate with the proven track record of something we DUers find important: "Liberalism".

Paul Hackett frightened me not because of his grassroots effort but because outside of his stance on war which we all jumped on the Hackett bandwagon for, we knew nothing about this guy. And yet no one seems to flinch when the read about the comments he made about immigration which borders on the lunatic far-right. If the only candidate I had to vote for in the primaries was pro-choice, pro-environment, anti-war and anti-patriot act and had the voting record to back that up - then this is good.

I'd rather have a candidate who's record I know and I'm comfortable with like Browns, then an unknown who happens to give DUers wet dreams on one issues but could turn out to be republican like his voter registration up until few years ago.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Wes Clark was a Republican

and he has never held public office, so I guess that disqualifies him from running for President. I suppose that if Hillary leads in the polls, before a single vote is cast in the primaries, we should embrace her as the nominee now.

[LynneSin]

10. Hey, I've yet to jump on the Wes Clark bandwagon

I don't trust any of these democrats turn republican because of 1 or 2 issues. I mean, if the guy got the nomination (and I doubt he will - he's another internet darling like Dean that would win if only those of us who regular post online were to vote) I would vote for him. But I wouldn't give him the small change I found in my sofa cushions towards his campaign

[Adelante]

50. Wes Clark was never a Republican

And you know it.

[MercutioATC]

11. At least Hackett played above board. I respected that.

Being a more moderate Dem, I didn't have a problem with most of his positions (like immigration). What really impressed me, though, was his candor and refusal to back down or attempt to later soften his statements. With Hackett, you knew what you were getting.

The fact that Brown agreed to be a part of behind-the-scenes dealings to push out another candidate speaks volumes about his priorities to me. I've lost a lot of respect for him.

[LynneSin]

18. "his candor and refusal to back down" - I don't get it then

if he had candor and refused to back down right about now the NYTimes should have an article that says "Paul Hackett tells Reid, Schumer and the DSCC to go fuck themselves and that he's in this race until the end."

The fact that he backed down so easily leads me to believe he neither had the candor nor that tenacity to refuse to back down needed to be in the US Senate. Hell, I wouldn't even vote for him for dog catcher because first pit bull that guy sees and he'll be hightailing it the opposite direction

[MercutioATC]

22. He'd essentially be running as an Independant on the Dem ticket.

Of course, I don't know exactly what was said to him, but I can imagine he was told that he'd get no support from the party and he'd be vilified as the "spoiler" if Brown didn't win the general.

Under those circumstances, what sane person would run?

[Punkingal]

23. I can tell you what they said....

They held out the carrot of running in OH02 without really promising any help with it. That is what Reid does to candidates in Nevada...gets them to run for another office, and then doesn't help them win. Now he is taking it nationwide.

[MercutioATC]

24. I can bet that didn't happen...

...or, at least, that Hackett immediately rejected the idea. Hackett has pledged to support the OH-2 candidate. He wouldn't play the same game that was played with him and change allegiances.

"Similarly, I told party officials that I had given my word to other good Democrats, who will take the fight to the Second District, that I would not run. In reliance on my word they entered the race. I said it. I meant it. I stand by it. At the end of the day, my word is my bond and I will take it to my grave."

http://www.hackettforohio.com/newsroom/128/thank-you

[Punkingal]

29. That 's what Harry does in Nevada....

He offers a carrot like running for another office. I'm sure Hackett immediately said no...I just know firsthand that this is what Reid does here in Nevada. I know more than one candidate they have done this with, and then give them no help.

[DancingBear]

13. Please think of southern Ohio

Hackett wins it - Brown gets clobbered there.

End of story.

"Big city liberal."

Say hello to DeWine -again.

[LynneSin]

16. I hate to say this but all this arguing and I still think DeWine will win

and Dewine could have a national press conference where a $5 whore gives him a blowjob while he talks about how we should tax everyone 100% who makes less than $100k a year.

Thing is, Diebold owns those voting machines in Ohio so isn't this all a moot point. The winner has probably already been decided today and I think that it will still be DeWine

[Greyhound]

25. I think it is about the behavior of The Party Leadership much more than

it is about the candidates. You are right about DeWine being re-elected, but Hackett did have the outsider/Dark Horse/Underdog thing as well as attracting many disillusioned re:puke:s
The Party acting like this really turns people off and when they are faced with the status quo choice of douche bag vs. turd sandwich, they'll perceive it as business as usual and vote the same way they always have.
Another losing "strategy" from our fearful leaders.

[Punkingal]

27. Thanks....

That's what I was trying to say in my post...it isn't the candidates, it's the leadership.

[OzarkDem]

35. Dems can win races without repukes

that's talking DLC if you think candidates have to pretend to be conservative.

[Greyhound]

40. a.) They can't win in southern Ohio, according to the history and what

the people that live there say (typical amerikan layout, heavily concentrated democratic support in the city, outnumbered and out-moneyed in the suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas)
b.) He never pretended to be anything, his candidacy resonated with voters there because he didn't tow the Party line, vis a vis his statements regarding illegal immigration. He was perceived as having and standing on his positions, regardless of Party preferences. This made him attractive to many pissed off re:puke:s

Edited to add; This whole clusterfuck smacks of political payback, and tens of millions of us are sick of this shit. "Don't piss down my neck and tell me it's raining"

[Kukesa]

47. Here in Ohio we haven't won one since the mid 1980s. nt

[OzarkDem]

34. Educate your voters

I'm sick of hearing how we have to run some gun toting, gay and woman bashing candidate in order to win southern Ohio. If those people can't wise up to which candidate is going to screw them over and which one isn't then they deserve what they get. If they're that ignorant, the Dem party doesn't need them either.

[Kukesa]

39. I live in Dayton and you're correct. Hello, DeWine, again. nt

[MercutioATC]

6. They seem to like that strategy. I hope they choke on it.

How many races do we have to lose before our "leadership" changes the way it does business?

[LeftNYC]

7. Im not from Ohio so I dont the full details but Brown

seems like a solid liberal. He led the House fight against CAFTA and opposed the war from the outset. No point in having 2 guys with similar views battle each other and then have to battle DeWine...

Hackett should reconsider and take on Ugly Jean again...

[LynneSin]

14. How do we know they are 2 simliar guys?

I mean, Brown's record is out there by simply googling.

Have you seen what Hackett said about immigration? He sounds like someone doing border patrol in Arizona and we know what kind of repuke nut-job those guys are

http://hispanicvista.com/HVC/Opinion/NEWS/020106Gnews.htm

[LeftNYC]

19. Im in agreement with you...I think Hackett gained, rightfully so,

a high profile because of his views on Iraq and his race against mean Jean. The ammo needs to be saved for DeWine, not a dog fight between 2 dems.

[Edgewater_Joe]

12. It Isn't About The Leadership, Either

It's about a guy who could have had power by asking three candidates who may have a difficult time to win to step aside FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY -- remember that? -- but shrunk from it because personal idealism was more important.

Sorry, but politics IS bare-knuckled, and I thought most people on this board knew that. Here we have a bare-knuckled fight that COULD have resulted in a shakeout that would've been good for us in the end, and instead Hackett takes his ball and goes home.

It's about Hackett, and he couldn't. Step aside and let someone who can and wants to.

[Punkingal]

21. With all due respect....

I was inside a campaign in 2004 where this was done to a candidate, and I will not fault Hackett for giving up. You cannot even imagine how the powers that be treat a candidate they don't want. It makes you wonder if this is still America.

[KnaveRupe]

15. Same exact situation in Pennsylvania, except...

... that it wasn't a high-profile guy like Hackett that got shut out by the DSCC.

The Powers That Be decided early on that Bob Casey Jr. would be the Democratic nominee to run against Rico "man-dog-love" Santorum. Pennsylvania Democrats were preemptively denied the opportunity to choose from a number of candidates in a primary - apparently primary elections are now un-Democratic. It is MUCH more Democratic to have candidates selected by Senators from New York and Nevada than by Democratic voters in PA or OH.

I'm disappointed that Hackett didn't tell the DSCC to shove it up their collective asses sideways, like PA Senate candidate Chuck Pennachio is doing.

And, as you have said, the liberal "street cred" of Brown or Casey, or Hackett, or Pennachio is NOT the issue. Un-Democratic policies ARE the issue.

[LynneSin]

17. And that's why I have more respect for Chuck P

I'll be honest - I don't think he'll win. But I hope that even if he should lose his standing in Pennsylvania will grow even more so that he can consider running again. I'd love to see him as Governor Chuck Pennachio.

[KnaveRupe]

26. Agreed, Lynne.

I admire that Chuck is willing to stay in there and tilt at windmills. That's a big plus in my book. That's the main disappointment I have with Hackett, to be honest - if he felt like he was being forced out, he should have either stayed in and said "screw you" to the DSCC, or he should have bowed out gracefully for the good of the party. Either option would have been better than what he did.

That being said, I still think it's inappropriate for Schumer and Reid to be working behind the scenes to eliminate primary elections, which is what they have been engaged in. We have few enough election choices as it is, without the smoke-filled-back-room crowd limiting us even further.

IMHO, of course!

And I'd prefer to see Chuck P. take Specter's seat than Rendell's (assuming he can't win the nod for Santorum's seat.)

[VonDoomPhd]

28. Here...

I posted this in another thread but it has a place here as well:

Open primaries are essential in our political process. It is not enough that we give people the illusion of choice, they must be given in fact a REAL choice.
Behind-closed-doors machinations and maneuverings are always going to be with us. However, we can limit the extent to which these clandestine steps are implemented by making our voices heard and telling those behind the scenes that such behaviour is unacceptable and undemocratic.

I understand why some can appreciate these tactics from a political standpoint as a primary campaign (especially if it turns gnarly) can drain a candidate financially and emotionally. But while these tactics may have merit they have no moment in American democracy. So, boo-fucking-hoo if the annointed republican-lite saviour of the Democratic party in (insert state and district) is savaged by his challengers and considerably weakened come the general election. Politics isn't a pollyana at Grandma's house. You should EXPECT to get roughed up. True leaders can take the heat and still come out swinging against the oppposition come November.

The fact of the matter is that progressive candidates (and I am NOT using Hackett as an example or anyone else) are traditionally those that are approached to get the hell out of the primary, i.e., "clear the field."
Why?
Because traditionally progressive/grassrooots candidates don't have the money and/or exposure that the establishment has. So when they gear up for a primary they talk about issues, give scary straight answers to simple questions and point out how their challengers differ from them (this whole "pointing out how challengers differ" is sometimes called "attacking" and is indicative of running a dirty campaign. Again: boo-fucking-hoo.)
The progressive/grassroots candidate can say these things because he is like Marvel Comics' Daredevil: a man with nothing to lose is a Man Without Fear.

In regards to Chuch Pennachio, I like Chuck. He's friendly and doesn't give folks the brush-off. He is also a true-blue progressive Dem that gives answers to questions without a gratuitous helping of non-committals and qualifiers. But right now he is considered little more than an annoying gnat by PA's democratic leadership. However, should he take on a strong buzz in the coming months (and buzz is not money, money is money) then he will no doubt be approached and pressured by the leadership to "clear the field" so good-ole Bob (son of that Planned Parenthood Vs.) Casey Jr can keep his powder dry for Santorum and Santorum alone.
That's not even the illusion the choice.
But then again, "more than anything", we need to get rid of Santorum, so there's that little argument to make everyone feel better about shunting aside their beliefs...

I'm rambling.

In conclusion: Primaries = Good, Fire = Bad.

[KnaveRupe]

41. Nice analysis, and Welcome to DU!! (n/t)

[SaveElmer]

30. They didn't take away anything...

Paul Hackett could have stayed in the race, or run for Congress as they were recruiting him to do. Had Hackett been anywhere near as strong as Brown it wouldn't have happened. Fact is Brown was trouncing Hackett, and the DSCC whose job it is to recruit and back winning candidates saw correctly that Brown was the stronger horse. They aren't required to monetarily support every Democrat that comes along and says he is running.

[Punkingal]

31. You're right....

They aren't required to monetarily support every Democrat that comes along, but they don't have the right to use guerilla tactics to get people out of races.

[SaveElmer]

33. Paul Hackett was free to stay in...

The pressure they brought to bear was to financially support Brown. If Hackett had the grass roots support it would not have mattered, but he didn't, so he buckled.

I am dissapointed however, that he won't run for Congress.

[Greyhound]

43. Unlike the hacks you insist on defending, he is a man of his word.

He promised other candidates he wouldn't run in the House race. Just keep and . Eventually we will get a viable third party because the Dems will no longer have any support, except of course for their corporate masters.

[SaveElmer]

44. What hacks are y ou referring too...

Reid and Schumer?

[Greyhound]

45. Not specifically, but they do fit the bill. When the anointed "leaders"

of the party tell you to get out and they will support your opponent, there is no way left to win. If he continued with the campaign and won, he would've got to DC to find he has no friends, no meaningful committee appointments, no chance to get anything done. To defy Party Leaders is political suicide, they never forgive and they never forget, these are not nice people.

[SaveElmer]

49. Wrong...

Wellstone won against enormous odds. There are plenty of examples of the party annointed person not winning. The Democrats in Washington are concerned with winning, if Hackett had stayed in the race, beat Brown and DeWine, he would have been welcomed with open arms.

[mdmc]

32. great rant

now, get out there and help Jack Carter! :kick: (I used to work in Primm, NV!)

[Punkingal]

37. With pleasure.....

Jimmy Carter is the first person I ever voted for...I even wore his colors, green and white, to vote. I will gladly work for his son.

[mdmc]

38. Jimmy turned me on to politics

I was 5 when I went to a fundraiser with my folks for Carter... I have a friend in n.l.v... I might come out to work for Jack! :kick:

[Ciggies and coffee]

36. Well, the Big Money has to keep their bases covered

By anointing people who are unlikely to change much in BOTH of the big parties, so they are happy regardless of who wins.

[spuddonna]

42. Thank you...

The management of this race was so poorly executed, it's not even funny.

The whole issue of "he has a bigger war chest", "we can't have a bloody primary" all show the lack of good leadership/management.

You don't want a 'bloody primary'? Here's a suggestion: don't. Where is it written that the way you've done primaries in the past should be the model for today?

Why not do something different? Have a series of low-cost debates that travel around the state of OH for several weeks. Make it cheap. Save your war chest for the real fight - against the Repugnicans.

No, that's not how you want to do it? Ok, Dem leadership, you want to be the 'informed elite' and decide for us? Do it right and get your act togather at the beginnning of the race - tell Hackett "we aren't funding you unless you do the House" and save the grassroots the heartbreak and anger that's being shown today...

But JMJ do it soon. We don't have the time to piss around anymore...

[Dr Fate]

46. Bottom line: They want your money & volunteer time- NOT your input. n/t

n/t

[Kukesa]

48. Well, ain't that the truth! You said it Doctor. nt