Explaining my stance on the Hackett/Brown deal

[FreedomAngel82]

I thought I should make a separate post just explaining where I come from on the Hackett v Brown deal. Before I begin I want to just say I did like Hackett. I thought it was really great when he started getting involved in politics. He said what he felt and stud by his words. I admired that because I believe in politics, especially politics, if you're going to say something you should mean it and stand by it (mean what you say and say what you mean) and not do like for example Reid has done a few times and backtracked (it does make you look weak). I also agreed with him on lots of different issues and was halfway there with him on immigration. I thought he could help out with the Iraq deal because he was there and had experiences in Fullja, the worst thing that happened with "shock and awe" (gee and I thought we were supposed to be "liberating" them). While it's nice to have someone who can talk tough and stand by their words and connect with "red" voters on various issues I do like someone who can actually stand up and fight when it comes to the test. Hackett failed twice now at that. First time was after his failed Congressional run with Schmidtt. I do highly believe he won that race (maybe beat her by 2-3% or so) and I don't buy their "humidity" bullshit. I mean c'mon this is the twenty-first century so get real. Do they think we're that dumb? Lots of people encouraged Hackett to do a recount because of him being so close to winning. And I do remember someone from the election forum giving him some materials on election fraud. But what happened? He didn't do it! Instead didn't he go on vacation with his family? So a little while passes and he announces he's going to run for the Senate. I was excited again to see him not giving up on politics and forgetting about the whole recount incident. Than this whole deal with Reid, Schumer and others happened. While what happened was wrong (especially the "whisper campaign" and I even wonder if that was done by democrats quite frankly because of an article that someone posted in another Hackett/Brown thread that showed doubt and thought it was republicans) Hackett didn't stand up to peer pressure. He could've told Reid, Schumer and anyone else involved not from Ohio to fuck off (maybe not in those words) and to let the people decide and stay in the race but he didn't do that. If he was so worried about money he could've used the internet like Dean. He could've set up an online account where people could send him money through paypal and have a PO Box address or something like that. There have been people to quote the Nation and others Mother Jones showing where he was with the primaries. If Hackett knew for damn sure he was going to win the primary why did he pull out? Why didn't he stay and fight? Imagine if John Kerry gave into peer pressure with BCCI. Remember not one damn democrat supported him. Nobody did. He was all a lone but he didn't give in to peer pressure and he closed them down. Look at Cynthia McKinney. She even lately has had her life seriously threatened but she's still out there fighting. And other good democrats too from Dennis Kucinich to Jim McDermott. So I think in the long run while there is plenty of blame to go around Hackett is the one who pulled out of the race. Nobody has control over his life (nor his campaign) except for him. This reminds me of how a lot of Christian's I know go around and say "oh the devil made me do it!" when talking about temptation whether with sex or something else like cheating on a test. Nobody makes you do anything except yourself. So while it's nice to have someone say the same words I use when talking about Bush and my frustrations in the end I want someone who I know I can count on. Someone who doesn't always have to say the words to get things done and in the long run Hackett doesn't do that. And if he's quitting politics all together because of this than maybe it wasn't for him. Imagine if Ted Kennedy quit after his car crash. Or John Kerry after his two failed campaigns (Congress and than Senate like with Hackett). Of course there's so many democrats who are inspiring I could point to but I think you get my point. Thanks for reading. :)

[insane_cratic_gal]

1. I hope you'll listen to this

He's a much bigger person.. then I have been.

I've been angry and pissed off.. this interview just took the fight out of me.

He's right

http://blog.oh02.com/2006/02/14/paul-hackett-interview-in-full

thanks to Du's ohio2nd

[FreedomAngel82]

2. You still don't get it do you?

HE'S the one who backed down. NOT anybody making him. Please. :eyes: Why didn't he stay in the race and fight? He can't handle peer pressure.

[Cookie wookie]

3. Candidates need support from the players

and money. This was taken from him.

Didn't exactly give him much of a choice. His interview on Randi Rhodes this week was great. Schumer and Reid courted him and asked him to run, pledging support, then pulled the rug out from under him. That interview, although Hackett wasn't about sour grapes, but he also wasn't going to lie and also wasn't going to run against a candidate that was being backed by the party's power. He's too honorable a guy.

That's the current behavior of the dem leadership. I know it's against the law to criticize any democrats here, but since I rarely come here anymore because if I wanted to fall in line like a republican mindless robot, I wouldn't be a democrat. But the leadership of the democratic party has failed us and I'm not going to pretend that they haven't so I can "behave" and fall in line with their party line. They are driving in the wrong direction and any thinking person has to be able to see it plain as day. If anyone should fall in line, it's the democratic leadership who need to fall in line and stand up for our frigging democracy before it's too late if it isn't already.

But no, they can't even stand up behind someone like Hackett who has the best chance to win.

Well, I don't vote for republicans or republican wanna be's. There are some great dems that I'll support all out, with everything I've got, my heroes like Conyers and all the other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Boxer, Feingold, Holt, McKinney, Howard Dean, etc. As for the rest, they have lost me over the last few months, what with their surrender on issues on which our freedom, our very lives as Americans turn. I've never been so ashamed of the leadership of my party and all the dems who follow it, ever, than I am now, and I've been a democrat all my life (and an active one).

[FreedomAngel82]

4. But once again

he's the one who backed down. He should've stud up and told them to fuck off and stop getting involved with Ohio politics. WHY didn't he do that? And if he did have the best chance to win WHY DIDN'T HE STAY IN THE FIGHT?! And Reid and Schumer aren't "the leadership." They are highprofiled democrats who are leaders but they are not THE leadership. There are lots of other democrats involved in the leadership like Pelosi.

[insane_cratic_gal]

5. I get what you are trying to say

Did you listen to it?

[eridani]

6. Exactly

The party regulars are not backing Cegelis in Illinois or Pennacchio in Pennsylvania either, but neither of them are quitting. Either they will develop their ground games to do an end run around the money game, or they won't. What Paul Wellstone did, others can do if they are sufficiently well-organized.

[rucky]

8. somebody sure took the fight out of HIM

but he IS right. another month of that would've been destructive to everyone involved.

[Richard Steele]

7. DAYUM that's hard to read!

What's the dealio, FA82; did an offset denoting a new paragraph
kill yer father or something?

I know you are young, and all full of vim and vigor;
but do YOU know that alot of us reading DU after 1:00AM
are OLD, and full of pet-peeves and cheap red wine?