Q: Is Hackett running for the House again?

[Writer]

If not, then why?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Because he's taking his ball and going home

like the petulent 5 year old boy that he apparently is.

[MercutioATC]

5. So you think he should break his word and NOT support the existing OH-2

candidates?

That would be the "mature" thing to do?

[sandnsea]

12. He should talk to them

and be the leader that he claims to be. It isn't like there's one candidate trouncing Schmidt anyway. If he's the one to do it, then you damned right the mature thing to do is to sit down with those other ADULTS and convince them.

[MercutioATC]

15. I disagree.

I think that preserving the integrity of his promise is more important, both for the candidates and the process.

[sandnsea]

17. If he can't convince THREE people

He'll be absolutely worthless in a House of 435. He needs to go talk to them, if his "word" is the real problem.

[MercutioATC]

19. It's not a matter of "can't", it's a matter of "won't".

He doesn't believe that the process is best served by strongarming his way into a race. I agree.

[sandnsea]

21. Talking isn't strongarming

And again, if he can't convince three people, he'd be worthless in Congress.

[MercutioATC]

25. He'd be better than DeWine (which is who we'll be getting).

[sandnsea]

28. So progressive politics can't win???

Is that what you're saying? Because when I'm not listening to people wanting a candidate who screams "chickenhawk", I'm listening to people pissed because we aren't being true to our progressive values.

So which is it? Do we need progressive candidates? Or just candidates who lamblast Bush?

[MercutioATC]

31. In Ohio, we need candidates with broad appeal...we're the minority.

To win in Ohio, a Dem has to get crossover votes. Getting Dem votes isn't enough.

I don't believe that Brown has the ability to do that.

[sandnsea]

33. I fully understand that

Just like I understand it in Nebraska and Arkansas and Louisiana and Florida and Nevada. And just like I understand that someone like Hackett would make some of the same kinds of votes as other centrists, and the same anti-DLCers would blast him just like they're blasting Reid and Schumer now.

That's the problem I have with this current load, people getting in a complete snit over the DLC choosing the PROGRESSIVE when I know they'd have a shitfit over Hackett in the Senate, and blame those exact same DLCers.

It's not about Paul Hackett or his politics. It's because he said "chickenhawk" which is a piss poor reason to support a candidate.

[MercutioATC]

35. I, for one, am not a "progressive". I'm a centrist Democrat.

I think you'll find that we outnumber "progressives". Given the choice, many will vote for the centrist Dem over the progressive (we're talking about issues here, not political strategy).



Hackett came out against illegal immigration. I support that.

Hackett supports the right to privately own guns. I agree.



That might not all be terribly "progressive", but it represents the position of a lot of voters.


(Hackett also embraces progressive values like GLBT rights and choice...I'm not trying to imply otherwise)

[sandnsea]

38. You should want him in the House then

I would think a moderate would be sensible enough to know that adult politicians understand things change and that they have to be flexible for the benefit of the country, which is what they're supposedly interested in in the first place. I wonder why such a sensible moderate would prefer to rile up the anti-moderates in this instance. Peculiar.

[OzarkDem]

52. How about equal rights for women

I hear Hackett has problems with that.

[formernaderite]

46. very well stated

but no one "chose" one candidate over another candidate. He certainly had the choice to stay in the senate race, but it sounds like he thought it should be handed to HIM.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Yes, because candidates never say they won't run

and then do anyway. :sarcasm:

If that were the case, there would never be any Presidential candidates.

[tsuki]

53. No, I think that he should keep his word. n/t

[MADem]

9. My understanding is that he made a campaign promise of sorts

...and declared that he would only run once for the House seat. And he is keeping his word.

[Laelth]

20. Perhaps he learned something.

Perhaps he learned not to make stupid promises.

:shrug:

-Laelth

[MADem]

22. Well, whatever. I think he might want to consider running for a state

office. He is still a young man, and has wide appeal. He could make a run in future, and cutting his chops locally can only help him down the line if he chooses to stay in the political arena over the long haul.

[Laelth]

29. I like him.

I especially like that he had the courage to say that the Repuke party has been taken over by the fundinazis. That was awesome. That was a show of strength that many of us found appealing, but I don't deny that I like Sherrod Brown better.

And I agree with you that he can and should run in the future. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that he will.

-Laelth

[sendero]

44. No because he promised folks...

... he would not run and unlike Sherrod Brown, a promise means something to him.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

47. Sorry, but I'm a lot more cynical than you.

[sendero]

50. That's not possible..

... and you should know that :)

[emulatorloo]

2. he promised other current house candidates he wouldn't

That is not to say he won't in the future. Good hackett statements here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x428154

[MercutioATC]

3. No, because he's pledged support to the current Dem candidates.

Perhaps the best explanation (from an interview today):

"How could I do to them what Sherrod Brown did to me?"

http://flist.blogspot.com/hackett-the-day-after-FULL.mp3

[Totally Committed]

4. He says no...

Maybe he's just as effing disgusted with the Democratic Party way of doing things (for various reasons) as the rest of us are? Dunno. Not inside the guy's head, but that's what I'm thinking.

TC

[NWHarkness]

14. "the rest of us"

Speak for yourself please. Not everyone agrees with you on this matter.

[MercutioATC]

16. I'm definitely among "the rest of us" who are disgusted by this episode.

[MrBenchley]

6. Having flopped on a statewide level

he doesn't want to risk losing to a crazy woman a second time, I suppose.

[silvermachine]

43. I'd hardly call his last result a flop...

...he got the best showing of any recent Dem candidate in recent memory in one of the the heavily Repug districts in Ohio. He barely lost. He was expected to be trounced. I think he would beat her if he ran again.

[sandnsea]

7. My guess would be ego

Despite the reasons given. Whatever it is though, I wish he'd get it through his head that life's tough, politics are tougher, and running the country is too serious to not run in an election if you're the one who can win.

[patrioticliberal]

10. No, HE MADE A PROMISE TO OTHER CANDIDATES

YOU DONT BREAK PROMISES IF YOU HAVE ANY INTEGRITY IN YOUR SOUL OR BONES

GEEZUS!

[sandnsea]

11. oh bla bla bla

Grow up. If he's a leader, than he ought to be able to figure out how to sit down with those 3 candidates and come up with a solution that leaves them all comfortable for him to run in that race. We're not talking about who gets to be in front of the milk line for chrissake. This is serious business and if Hackett doesn't understand that, then I don't want him in Congress anyway.

[Pryderi]

37. Dem leadership begged Hackett to run, Brown flip=flopped, and Hackett got

knifed.

[sandnsea]

40. So Hackett says

Others have made different claims, including Hackett not polling as well as he claims or raising the money he needs to run or even being the first to announce his run. I don't know. I just know he's not the progressive in the race, could run for the House if he wanted, and should have the leadership skills to make it happen if he cares about the country.

[ldf]

39. talk about bla bla bla

would you please read what you just typed?

"If he's a leader, than he ought to be able to figure out how to sit down with those 3 candidates and come up with a solution that leaves them all comfortable for him to run in that race."

in other words, sit them all down and tell them why he is going to reneg on the promise he made. in other words, do EXACTLY to them what was done to him. but it is all ok because he told them to their face.

yeah, that's the strategy. :sarcasm:

we are all screaming for honest politicians with a spine.

your "solution" would pretty much remove the spine and reduce him to being just another politician.

we want change, but we'll put up with the little games they play to keep their power?

thanks, but no thanks. when the laws are passed to take away our freedoms and reduce this country to a third world status, it doesn't really matter whether there is an R or a D behind their name.

[sandnsea]

41. Talking man to man isn't spine???

Picking up his jacks and going home is spine? Pretty weird definitions of spine. Of course I've never been impressed with the spine of the netroots anyway. It's always looked more like the kid who pushes somebody else out in front to fight their battles, then runs away the minute it looks like they might be asked to fight too.

There's 3 candidates in the race. Is Hackett's ego really so huge that he believes it isn't possible for one of those other 3 to beat him in a straight-up Dem primary? Does he not know how to have a business conversation when circumstances change? Real adults have to do this every day of the week. You promise a client something, your supplier screws up, you have to call and re-negotiate. That's the real world. If Hackett doesn't understand that, then he really needs to go back to the military where all you have to do is shuffle shit up and down the chain of command to avoid making tough choices.

[Kukesa]

48. Where in Ohio do you live, sandnsea? I live in Dayton

and, unlike you, I wanted him in Congress.

[liberalnurse]

18. Absolutely.................

Integrity is his bonding character. What part of "one giving their word" don't folks understand???????????????????????????? :shrug:

[sandnsea]

23. What part of wide open House race

and respectful negotiations and leadership don't folks understand. If there were one person really pulling out in front in that race, it would be wrong to derail it. But there isn't. There'd be nothing wrong with him having a sit-down and discussing the best candidate and strategy to win it, whether it's him or somebody else. He won't even do that and that isn't leadership.

[MercutioATC]

27. I've had about enough of the "leadership" you speak of so highly.

We seem to define the word differently.

[sandnsea]

30. Frankly

I have yet to figure out what you define anything as or stand for, except stirring up dissent.

[MercutioATC]

32. Then we have similar opinions of each other.

:)

[Kukesa]

49. DeWine just pulled out in front. nt

[Sinistrous]

8. Because he gave his word to the people running against Shmidt

that he would not enter the House race. He gave his word, and, to a few of us, that still means something.

Sinistrous

[Laelth]

24. I'm cool with that.

And it's great that he's willing to stick to his word. But it was rash of him to give his word on this subject, as he is now discovering. He would benefit from being more careful about the promises he makes in the future.

-Laelth

[Greyhound]

42. He gave his word to encourage the other candidates and he based it

on the words of the bastards that stabbed him in the back.
I can't understand this attitude of acceptance we seem to have about unethical behavior on the part of Democrats. Ho won earth do we think we're going to attack the re:puke:s on issues of character when we don't have any ourselves?

[Innocent Smith]

26. Not this year

He promised he would not run. Perhaps he will run 2 years from now though unless he is totally turned off on politics.

[Writer]

34. That's sad.

Because I think he can beat Mean Jean.

[zalinda]

36. While I have a favorable impression of Hackett

there is something to be said about him sitting down and talking to the other candidates. Here is what I get from the situation. Reid and the boys looked at the situation and saw that Hackett was not going to beat Brown, but that he may even become somewhat damaged in the race. Hackett is a first timer with no experience on his side and while a valuable dem, would not be ready for the Senate. I've read they wanted him to run for Congress instead. Okay, so he promised the other 3 candidates that he wouldn't run. It makes no sense, and here is where we lose. Why are we fighting one another and wasting money? Dems don't have a huge amount of money to work with in the first place and to waste it fighting each other is stupid. The solution is for the 4 candidates and the dem head to sit down and discuss each others strengths and weaknesses and who could best beat the repub candidate. I'm guessing that there are a lot of egos involved so they can't look at this objectively.

We almost got a repub mayor here because that's what the repubs did. They had a number of repubs wanting to run and it even got a little dirty (it made the news). Eventually, they picked a candidate that almost won against our dem mayor. They played it smart, they ran a woman. And she was able to side step a lot of current issues that the repubs have because a woman is considered to be more honest, care about people more and want good things for our kids.

We need to get smart this election. Just because someone wants to run, doesn't mean they are the best to run.

zalinda

[tinfoilinfor2005]

45. Because his word is his bond.

He will never make it in politics.

And that's not a put down.

[TheDonkey]

51. he should run and actually win the house seat!!

It's very upsetting he's just throwing in the towel and going home. I understand he doesn't want to run against the other Democrats for a house seat but they should also step aside. Professional party politics is always going to use strategy that may hurt some people's feelings.