Progressive heart-throb David Sirota on Hackett

iconoclastNYC

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Feb-15-06 02:27 PM
Original message

Progressive heart-throb David Sirota on Hackett

Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 03:15 PM by iconoclastNYC

My Take on Ohio - http://www.davidsirota.com/

I was actually sad to see that Ohio's Paul Hackett decided not to run for the congressional seat that he almost won last year, and that instead, he is publicly whining about being "forced out" of the Senate race, and saying he's leaving politics. Here's my take on the situation, since I've written about it before.

Beyond who you liked in this potential Democratic primary, one thing is a truism: successful candidates - whoever they are - have to have the tenacity in order to be elected. I'm sure Paul Hackett has tenacity in parts of his life - hell, he went off to combat in Iraq. But its clear he doesn't have political tenacity. And successful candidates, when in office, will likely tell you that's the intangible you need. In fact, every successful candidate is - in one way or another - a walking example of political tenacity.

The need for such tenacity is especially critical in major, high-profile races like a U.S. Senate contest against an entrenched Republican incumbent. Primaries can be good places to see whether candidates have that tenacity - they tend to weed out the candidates who don't. And what we've seen here in Hackett's decision to get out and cry about being supposedly "forced out" is the system work. He clearly didn't have what it took to win. Whatever the reason for that - be it that he couldn't raise the money, he couldn't build the organization, he didn't really have the widespread support people claimed he had, he didn't like people asking him tough questions about his positions, whatever it was - he was weeded out.

In short, the primary process unfolds well before election day. And what we've seen with Hackett is that the primary process worked.

That's a good thing, not because I like Sherrod Brown - but because I want Democrats to win this seat. Someone who bails out in a primary claiming they got "forced out" clearly would not have had the mettle to win this race when the inevitable GOP onslaught came. Further, Hackett's behavior raises serious questions about what he would have been like in the Senate. When adversity struck - would he have picked up his ball and gone home? When he didn't like what the Democratic leadership was doing, would he have voted with Republicans? Thankfully, we won't know.

I'll try to sum up what I'm saying here by referencing the ironclad rule I've written about before: there's no crying in politics. The successful candidates are the ones who don't get forced out - who CAN'T get forced out because they've built up too solid a political organization, a message, and a winning operation in general. These are people who tell those trying to "force them out" that no, they are in. Such stubbornness usually comes because the candidate knows they have the operation that is ready to win. Alternately, the people who scream and whine about being "forced out" are the ones who knew they were going to lose anyway. The nihlistic outrage and conspiracy-theory claims over Hackett's announcement is really pathetic. I mean, come on folks, all contested seats are about one thing: trying to "force" the other guy out, whether through the ballot box or through other forms of political pressure. That's the VERY DEFINITION OF POLITICS - and a political candidate who says they are "upset" about political pressure is like a person being on a baseball team and then getting upset that they are asked to play baseball.

Frankly, I don't think Hackett even believes he was "forced out." Why? Because I think he is a smart guy, and to actually believe you got "forced out" is just too ridiculously stupid a concept for someone like him to actually subscribe to.

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. Then, to save face, he created this ridiculous martyr story that he got "forced out" - a concept, remember, that doesn't exist in this country. There are no people with bayonets preventing anyone from running or "forcing" candidates out of the race. That's Third World stuff. In this country, when someone says they've been "forced out" of a race, it really means they weren't ready for primetime, they knew it, and were desperate to save face.

Finally, one other word to those who are pissed at Sherrod Brown (for no reason) and using all sorts of uninformed hyperbole saying he's supposedly some insider, aristocratic member of the club. You can tell yourselves that to make yourselves feel better - but saying that kind of thing only makes you look incredibly stupid. A guy who has consistently gone up against Big Money interests on wholly unpopular issues in Washington like trade is not an "insider." The concept that the U.S. Senate - one of the most corrupt and conservative institutions in the modern democratic world - just loves someone with Sherrod Brown's progressive politics and that they "forced out" Brown's opponent because of that is so stupid its hard to believe that people could even think that, much less even imply it or utter it.

The truth is, Hackett and his supporters tried desperately to ramrod this primary into an "outsider" vs. "insider" or "progressive" vs. "conservative" dichotomy. And let's be clear - when that dichotomy exists, I support vigorous primaries to help the progressive win. But this wasn't the case at all in this potential matchup - especially not for Hackett. The outsider-insider dichotomy wasn't there, and on the ideological spectrum Hackett proved totally evasive on even the most basic issues, while Sherrod Brown was the known progressive champion.

That last point is not to be taken lightly. Sherrod Brown is not only a known progressive, but a known progressive who has taken the tough votes when it wasn't the cool thing to do, when there was no blogosphere to support him or cheer him on for doing so, when the DLC ran the party and vilified anyone who actually stood up to power, when challenging the establishment was shunned even by Members of his own party. Brown's record is the kind that is all too rare for candidates for the U.S. Senate. That is why Sherrod Brown is such a formidable candidate. That is why Sherrod Brown was going to crush Hackett in the primary (and why Hackett ultimately got out). And that is why Sherrod Brown is going to be the next U.S. Senator from Ohio.

So my message to Hackett supporters is simple: If you are as serious about your progressive convictions as you say you are - and not just devoted to a cult of personality as you so vehemently claim - then shut up and stop crying. Let's go put a genuine proven progressive in the U.S. Senate.

http://www.davidsirota.com/2006/02/my-take-on-ohio.html