My post on Sirotablog about Paul Hackett/Sherrod Brown

[brentspeak]

Posting it here too because it provides a timeline for people to review.

Wow, Sirota, you're no better than the typical College Republican
All that research into Republican lies that you dish out on Franken's show seems to have taught you how to be an unrepentant liar yourself.

"My guess is he saw his poor fundraising numbers, saw that he was going to get crushed in the primary, wanted the race handed to him, didn't feel like doing the hard, unglamorous work that candidates have to do in the modern era to be competitive, and got out."

You know damn well why he left: the same party leadership who feted and encouraged him to announce a run for the Senate then turned around and stabbed him in the back after Brown changed his own mind to run for the Senate.

For those who want a breakdown on what this is all about and what exactly happened, here it is:

1) Ohio, 2005. Paul Hackett, a total unknown, an Iraqi war vet, running as a Democrat, nearly beats Republican Jean Schmidt for a House seat in an extremely red part of Ohio. His run excites the Democratic party base all over the country.

2) Hackett then considers running in 2006 for Republican Mike DeWine's U.S. Senate seat. But before he can declare his candidacy, he needs to know something: Will Democratic congressman Sherrod Brown announce a run for the Senate? If Brown says "yes", then Hackett would abandon trying for the Senate, and instead in 2006 run a second time against Jean Schmidt for a U.S. House seat.

3) Sherrod Brown tells Hackett that no, he won't be running for the Senate after all, you, Paul, can have the honor of running against Mike DeWine. After Brown announces he won't run, national Democrats encourage Hackett to announce a run for the Senate. Which Hackett then does, in front of TV cameras, with balloons, fanfare, the works.

4) Hackett then tells other Ohio Democrats that they can be the ones who should run against Jean Schmidt, because he's been given the go-ahead to run for the Senate. He assures them that he they don't have to worry about him jumping back into that House race. Good luck, fellas, and beat Jean.

5) Initial polls show that Hackett may indeed beat DeWine in a Senate race. This excites a lot of people -- including Sherrod Brown, who now, unbelievably, changes his mind about running for the Senate. "If Hackett can beat DeWine," Brown says to himself, "Well, then, so can I." So Brown announces a run for the Senate after all.

6) This is all a bit awkward for Hackett, as can be expected. But it then becomes unbearable when those same Democratic leaders -- like Chuck Schumer -- who had earlier encouraged Hackett to run for the Senate and not the House, now ask him NOT to run for the Senate because they want Brown to be one to run. They say that Hackett try again for Jean Schmidt's House seat.

7) Hackett says that he can't try again for Jean Schmidt's House seat, because he already promised the other prospective Dems that they needn't worry about him jumping back into that race: the seat was theirs to win. He says he won't stab them in the back. And besides, Hackett's going to look pretty stupid to switch to the House race after he already made a splashy, enthusiastic TV announcement for the Senate run.

8) Chuck Schumer and the other leaders then proceed to stab Hackett in the back. They call up his financial donors, and ask that they not support Hackett's run for the Senate. They know that Hackett at this point is not going to switch to the House race, but they feed the public line that "This is all about trying to get Paul to run against Jean Schmidt." That's right -- the same people who got him to abandon running against Jean Schmidt in favor of running for the Senate.

9) Understandably disgusted and heartsick after being lied to and betrayed by his own Democratic mentors, and also for being used like a political guinea pig by Sherrod Brown, Hackett also understandably drops out of politics entirely.

10) People like Sirota and Markos (Kos) blog B.S. about the circumstances surrounding Hackett's dropping out, forcing those of us who had earlier regarded them as like-minded, truth-telling fellows to make a serious re-evaluation of who we want to be associated with.

P.S. All those young Iraqi War veterans who were beginning to lean towards the Democratic party and who were possibly going to spearhead a new Democratic party generation? Might not happen now.

[liberalnurse]

1. This would be nice to see

over in the Ohio Forum. The issue has been a hot topic there. Your feedback would be a breath of fresh air.

[Kolesar]

2. why don't you give me the link to Sirota-blog

I want to read something meaningful. David is good for that.

[brentspeak]

3. Link is

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=6C04F5A4-D4C6-9CD5-11DFA30DABB8A9D4#Top

[Kolesar]

5. thanks

lots to read. lots and lots to read.

[leftchick]

4. excellent work!

:applause:

[Cocoa]

6. your summary is very truthy

[Totally Committed]

7. I agree with Sirota on a number of issues, but on this one, no....

"no crying in politics", "a winner cannot be 'forced out'"... comments like this throughout that article illustrate a number of things about Sirota, among the many of which are his dislike for Hackett to begin with (if you've read any of the instances he's savaged Hackett, you know what I mean... my guess is that Hackett wasn't "Left" enough, but I could be wrong), his rigidity about certain kinds of Democrats (I agree with his dislike of DLC-ers, btw, fo rthose who have never read any of my posts...), and his inability (it seems) to grasp the mind-set of the Democratic Party as being sort of set in stone at the moment. He doesn't get that there is no one in this Party's leadership (except for Howard Dean) who gives a rat's ass what any of the grassroots activists think or want or need from them. He doesn't get how little effect we can have on these people. They are looking at ways to hold on to their power, not do right by us. Sirota is screaming about not being able to find the forest whilst standing among the trees in this "opinion piece".

The Hackett/Brown debacle is not about timelines and taking anyone's balls and going home. It is about doing what is right. It is about starting whisper campaigns; it's about intimidating donors into stopping their funding; it's about guaranteeing that the one most willing to play along gets to play. It is about having decent men and women who are will to do what's right and to fight for people, not corporations, being able to run for office with the big, bad "body politic" forcing them out. Every time an incident like this happens, when a non-politician gets forced out because he refuses to play "the game", this Party is all the weaker for it -- not stronger.

And, finally, to paraphrase Sirota, himself: "No whining in blogging." Go back to Hawaii until you can see that forest for the trees, my friend.

TC

[sybylla]

8. Well said!

I totally agree. It is all about decent men and women who want to do what's right and fight for people. The Dem party is indeed weaker when games like this are played.