Paul Hackett’s decision to drop out of politics, neither running for Senator nor for congressman, has already rippled across the blogosphere leaving mayhem in its wake.
I think there are some pretty bad misperceptions going on. The biggest misperception is about Sherrod Brown. If you want to get to know Sherrod Brown, read this:
Brown lacks the national profile of colleagues like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders, but for the duration of his six-and-a-half terms in office, he has been one of Congress’s most stalwart progressives. “I’ve known him for many years,” says Sanders. “What’s very clear is that Sherrod Brown knows which side of the struggle he is on.” And when Brown’s friend John Ryan, executive secretary of the Cleveland AFL-CIO, says, “Sherrod Brown is one of us,” he means it in the literal, familial sense.
The l’affair Hackett has validated my theory of Reid and Schumer. I have been arguing for months that Reid and Schumer cleared the field for Bob Casey Jr., not because they liked his positions on the issues but because they liked his name recognition and fundraising potential. The same appears to be true about Sherrod Brown.
And if my theory is correct, Paul Hackett was not pushed out of the Senate race because he had the wrong positions on the issues, or even because of his temperament, lack of experience, or position as a netroots champion. He was pushed out because he didn’t have enough money, because, netroots aside, he didn’t have that much name recognition, and because he had a good chance of picking up a very red congressional seat in the bargain.
In theory, this move made perfect sense. The problem was that Hackett gave his word to fellow Democrats running for OH-2 that he would not jump into the race if his senate bid fizzled. Schumer and Reid were effectively asking Hackett to act in a dishonorable way. They didn’t offer Hackett something worthwhile in exchange fro dropping out of the senate race. They offered him ignominy.
Paul Hackett has every justification for what he has done in response. And yet, he is still letting down his constituents. Hackett was a creature of the netroots. Ignored and abandoned by the DNC, the netroots took up his banner and carried it forward. His ardent supporters never gave a shit what Reid and Schumer wanted. That was half the point. The more he was pressured to step aside, the more Hackett should have taken it to them. “Get the fuck out my way, you’re screwing everything up.”
A true outsider, running a true insurgency campaign, cannot back down when Reid and Schumer and Emmanuel come calling. Think about it. Hackett should have stuck it out to the end just for spite. Even in losing to Brown, it would have been a victory for the netroots.
But it’s Hackett’s decision. And I don’t blame him for getting disgusted when dealing with people that have no honor.
But, back to Sherrod Brown. We lost Paul Wellstone. Sherrod Brown is a good person to pick up that banner and carry it forward in the Senate. Progressives should have a mixed feeling this morning. We lost a fighter, an articulate tough, handsome, up-and-coming politician with a lot of credibility on the war in Iraq.
But, we also improved the chances that a true progressive politician like Sherrod Brown might become a Senator in a truly purple state.
but I have a lot against Schumer and Reid right now.
And I wonder…how effective is someone like Brown going to be with the centrist-right Powers-That-Be in charge? He’s going to be one voice crying in the wilderness, drowned out by the prattlings of the Business As Usual crowd…and pushed aside for someone more palatable if he gets too “uppity”.
I’m just feeling pretty pessimistic about our electoral system; we’re “spreading democracy around the world”, but we’re losing it at home…
With actions like this, it’s no wonder young people look at politics and say, “Eeeew, yuck!”
Back in the day, idealistic teachers taught classrooms of wide-eyed children that someday they could grow up and make a difference. Well, the truth has come out: you can make a difference, but only if you’re the right color, have the right name, make the right connections. The rest of us, just send our money and STFU.
How many children now want to grow up to be President of the United States? And what does that mean to the future of our country?
Here endeth the rant…
I never understood by Hackett abandoned going after Jean Schmidt a second time. He almost beat her. And she’s been an embarrassment, rather publicly.
And I didn’t understand why Hackett jumped up to running for the Senate when 1) he has zero political experience except for his previous run, and 2) Sherrod Brown is a good candidate.
I hope he reconsiders. It doesn’t matter that he promised — unless that Cong. district has a really hot candidate (do they?). I wish Hackett had stayed where he was because, by now, he’d have a huge organization and the support of all of us. … we need to win House seats badly too.
And the Senate will always come up in the future for him. He’s young.
the info last night, it was Schumer and Reid who encouraged him to go after DeWhine…only to pull the rug out from under him in the name of “politics as usual”…
I understand Schumer and Reid’s perspectives: They wish to win seats. Sherrod Brown is a good candidate who’s very popular.
And it sounds like there are lots of versions of the story of how this all happened. … and it’s also very clear that we’ll NEVER KNOW OBJECTIVELY how this went down.
So, given that, let’s try to focus on helping Sherrod Brown, a very good candidate.
And I hope that Reid/Schumer/Emanuel/et al. go to the mat for Hackett, and find him a great spot.
I’ve heard — but can’t quote — that the three people running against Jean schmidt are weak candidates. However, Hackett gave them his word. Now, if the Reid/Schumer group talk HARD to the losing candidates, and get them to step aside for Hackett, he should jump at the chance.
We need to win BOTH seats.
(Btw, I got sick again last night and slept — missed all the long chats about this at other sites, and have only read BooMan’s story — so don’t get mad at me. But I’m just trying to be practical here for ’06.)
i think its really interesting to compare pa and oh in this matter.
in pa we have the party establishment pushing an anti women, anti gay, conservative choice down our throats.
in oh we have the party establishment pushing a truly progressive candidate down our throats.
its not the person so much as its the pushing.
it is enti empowering at a time when we should be doing everything we can to empower as many people as possible and make them part of the process.
this in the long run will be our undoing.
I think the core question in all this is this.
Is it better to (maybe, a big maybe) win seats for the party by betraying oner’s principles and honorable intentions and weed someone out pre-emptively because he doesn’t have as much money as someone else, or is it better to stand on principle, honor the committments you’ve made to fellow party members, and risk losing if necessary in order to honor the principles you claim to believe in?
Either way, Reid, Schumer, and all the rest of the so-called Dem party leadership give new meaning to the word pathetic.
You can’t be serious in throwing the blame back on Hackett for lacking conviction of principles. You’re advocating that he intentionally disrupt and deliberately damage the Democrat’s progress?
Was there any mention of the dynamic duo going to the ones who Hackett supposedly had given his word to and asked them to drop out?
You may have a good point here. It’s not just Hackett being pressured. How about Cindy Sheehan? Was she?Is this a pattern?
Here’s an interesting piece “DiFi and the Royal Democrats..The Curious Withdrawal of Cindy Sheehan”
I have always liked Sherrod Brown. Anyone who doubts that he is a liberal ought to go through the archives of his wife, Connie Schultz’s, columns in the Plain Dealer. She is a champion of reproductive rights, gay rights, minimum wage hikes, universal health care etc.
I just read somewhere this morning that her platform might work against him by having to yield to a conflict of interest now.
CNN, if it is to be believed is reporting this slightly differently. The CNN report has something a bit more sinister to say:
CNN Link
I think its a shame that Hackett believed his donor base could be so easily influenced. Maybe he was right in believing that (maybe it was already drying up). But its a shame that he didn’t just come out fighting through the primary and spend whatever he could raise.
I admit I don’t know much about his campaign. I thought he had a grassroots base which presumably couldn’t be affected by these types of tactics? How much of his support was grassroots and how much was corporate/DNC ? Was he not raising much money through grassroots support?
the donor base CAN be easily influenced…..we arent much of a base….in fact we are pretty much close to nothing…and the party leaders know that…thats why we get shit on.
the donor base CAN be easily influenced…..we arent much of a base….in fact we are pretty much close to nothing…and the party leaders know that…thats why we get shit on.
Mary, I just wish he’d been more practical, and stuck to trying to unseat Jean Schmidt.
Without any experience in elected office — which would concern me as a voter — I think that’s his best shot. …
Now, if the Dems will go to bat for him in running for Schmidt’s seat, that’d be great.
P.S. Did any of you ever see him interviewed on Bill Maher a few months ago? It was well after he’d lost to Schmidt, but he was still getting lots of “bozz.” To be blunt, he gave a poor interview and almost seemed like a jerk … I think he was trying to be funny, and it backfired on him …
Regardless of the quality of his jokes, which came across very poorly and didn’t speak well of him, it showed that he is green.
We all seized on Hackett like a Wunderkind. He’s human. He is new at this. He needs help. He needs to start JUST A BIT smaller.
And then grow into running for the U.S. Senate.
As you know I’m in favor of practicality.
I never really knew much about Hackett. And I know just as little about Brown.
I just wondered about where his financial support came from and why it could so easily be shifted to Brown. That’s one reason I don’t see a third party making it, for the time being, in more than a local race. No matter how much the netroots may support a third party.
Campaigns cost money. Its a fact of life.
Thanks for the info.
Actually, I do not know either one of the canidates. However, I would love to hear the debate between them both. Maybe then one could get a chance to make up ones mind. I personally do not like to be told who is running and to vote for that one. I personally like to make up my own mind on things…I know…this has gotten me in lots of trouble in the past. But you see, I am an analytic person. I like to weight things out and then see….I simply do not like to be told who, what, when and where. That seems to be happening here. The party should have kept their noses out of it. Let the best man who wins run. After all, Isnt it up to the ppl? or am I wrong on this?
don’t misunderstand me. I think there is a big difference between a multitude of candidates running for the Democratic nomination. I think that’s fine and most of the time good.
I was just thinking out loud mostly. Why wouldn’t Hackett just say “screw you” to the Democratic establishment and keep running? He’d either win or lose the primary. The story about the dry up of his funds could explain it. He may not have wanted to saddle his family with substantial debt in order to keep running.
I guess I think that if a Democratic candidate with netroots support cannot continue to run a primary race because he doesn’t have adequate financial support — how can I reasonably expect to start a third party that will have NOTHING but netroots support.
How does the party financing of candidates work? I’m not familiar with it but I think the scenario you suggest would create a lot of confusion in the contributers if you look at netroots money as something either all the same as party money or something totally seperate from party money.
Some of Hackett’s funding would’ve stopped and some would’ve taken away from the party in general while his individual contributions increased, maybe.
sorry, I’m not being very clear today because of work issues 🙂
I’m talking about regular donors, not the party funds (although I guess that comes into it to). I understood the article to say that the party was contacting his donor base and telling them not to contribute. Presumably this wouldn’t work with the netroots supporters who supported him on principle. So we must be talking about the corporate/big donors that the DNC has influence with. The type of donors who want to get results. The type of donors who don’t give money to start up third parties.
I assumed that if Hackett wanted to fight the party guys on principle he could have. He would have just kept his name on the ballot and run on whatever funds he could raise. But without adequtate funds its hard to run any kind of campaign. And some people don’t want to go through the stress of a campaign, or put their family through the stress of a campaign, if they have no realistic shot of winning due to inadequate funds.
I wasn’t really making a suggestion for a solution. I’m not really trying to make a point here. I’m just thinking about it out loud. Sorry for the noise.
Maybe the net, grassroots of this should be making a stink. I think we could have carried him and his family if he really wanted to do it. Look at what the grassroots did in 04. and he almost made it inthe district that mostly republicans..so he must be on to something. I would have rather liked to see a debate between him and brown to see which the state of ohio would like. It is not like a nation wide run.
My guess, and that’s all it is, would be that they contacted major contributers that had shown interest specifically in Hacket. This probably comes down to arrangements similar to what DeLay got caught up in, but presumably legal. I would figure that some donors would follow a candidate from one party to another and/or give lump sums and say use it any way you want.
It’s fair marketing to let the donors know exactly who they’re buying.
Lots of talk about big tent in public, while privately, for all kinds of reasons, candidates and potential candidates are strong-armed and silenced by party leaderrship.
The last time a Democrat ran in my congressional district (OK-4) was 2002 (the party couldn’t be bothered last time, even though Congressman Tom Cole only got 54% of the vote in 2002). The Democratic candidate that year had won the nomination by, in part, coming out against the upcoming invasion of Iraq. He was a combat veteran, which gave him real authority on the issue. But he shut up about Iraq during the general election (which for an open seat, the race for which was even closer during October than it turned out to eventually be in November). I later heard that the DCCC had essentially told him to STFU about Iraq, or they’d withdraw financial support from his campaign.
More back-room deals in Pennsylvania, orchestrated by Ed Rendell…
Bryan Lentz, recent hero at DailyKos as one of the “fighting Dems,” has decided to drop his primary bid for the PA-07 seat (Curt Weldon) after a ‘private conversation’ with Rendell.
From the local paper:
MEDIA — Believing they can accomplish more working side-by-side, Democratic military veterans Joseph Sestak Jr. and Bryan Lentz are training their sights on a pair of entrenched Republican incumbents — instead of each other.
The candidates formally announced their plan Friday at a joint press conference at Lentz’s campaign headquarters. Sestak, a retired Navy vice admiral, will take on U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon, R-7, while Lentz, an Iraq war veteran and former prosecutor, will run against state Rep. Thomas Gannon, R-161.
Advertisement
Up until late this week, both men were set to meet each other in their party’s May congressional primary, but Gov. Ed Rendell headed off that confrontation when he asked Lentz, 41, to pursue Gannon’s seat instead of Weldon’s.
“The governor’s interest, I think, was more in the state House race and having a good candidate in the state House race, and less in who was going to be the congressional candidate,” Lentz said.
Rendell’s office has declined to comment on details of the conversation he had with Lentz.
Sestak, 54, a Springfield native who retired last month as deputy chief of Naval operations for warfare requirements and programs, can now focus his resources on Weldon, who has won his last 10 elections by large margins. As a Navy leader who served as director for defense policy on President Clinton’s National Security Council, county Democratic leaders believe Sestak could give Weldon a serious challenge in November.
Two things on this:
First, Rendell is the Governor of Pennsylvania and not a Senator from New York or Nevada. He has much more right to offer his opinion on local races.
Second, they did the smart thing. They took two attractive candidates and found two races for them to run in.
This is a lot different from the situation with Casey or Hackett.
Rendell advised against picking Casey. Schumer overruled him. And it was Casey that demanded the field be cleared for him.
Hackett was treated like a toy on a string. And then he was pressured to take a position he had given his word not to pursue.
We need to distinguish between these things. How’s Paul Scoles doing?
Didn’t Scoles drop out a little while ago?
did he?
i love that man.
but not everyone is cut out to run the race.
although he would have made a fine rep.
rendell advised against casey?
my impression was rendell suggested casey, with the warning that it was going to be a very hard sell, but very quickly signed on and supported the decision to push him down our throats, using his influence to pressure others who were thinking of running to back off in favor of casey.
im not sure i would characterize that as “advising against”.
ive been privy to some of the behind the scenes arm twisting rendell has done with prominent democratic community leaders particularly in the gay community and im horrified.
im horrified because of how easy it seemed to me certain people decided which issues (abortion specifically and womens health and reproductive issues in general) were ok to sacrifice…people whom i thought would always stand in solidarity with those of us whom those issues mean a lot (meant life) have basically abandoned us…thats really the feeling i get…abandonment.
Paul dropped out in favor of Joe Sestak a couple of weeks ago– surprising everyone. Sestak was set up for a primary against Lentz. Then, Rendell got involved and Lentz dropped out and cleared the field for Sestak.
Fine– my point had to do with the treatment of the ‘outsider’ candidates by party leaders.
But– Boo– why do you think Rendell recommended against Casey? That’s news to me.
Paul Scoles is doing fine– hopefully will remain as chairman of Haverford Township Democratic Committee.
because that is what Schumer said in his speech in Georgia that revealed their machinations.
Little did I know yesterday when I aksed during your interview how to stop circular firing squads, what was really coming.
…but do any of those CafePress “People Before Profits” items have union bugs on ’em?
The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.
As it is now I think that Schumer and Reid are doing a power play, one that doesn’t serve politics well. Oh, they probably justify it to themselves – cut out a contentious primary, etc. But they’ve cost us an effective civil servant going forward. Fuck them.
This whole thing stinks.
We ask people like Hackett to get involved and then we chew him up and spit him out. Hackett proved he is too good for present day politics because he insists on being an honest politician.
Sherrod Brown may win the Senate seat but will always have a black mark next to his name where progressives are concerned. He had his chance to run and turned it down which made Hackett to decide to throw his hat into the ring. Then Brown undercuts Hackett and in doing so forces a great guy right out of politics.
We need more liberals and progressives in politics and Brown made sure that we have one less. One step forward, one step back. No wonder we never fucking get anywhere.
If name recognition and netroots are the reason, why in IL-06 come out against Cegeilis for a vet with no name recognition? If it were the case why come out for a candidate in IL-14 with less name recognition and grass roots support?
Never mind the techniques used (in ALL these cases) to disparage the unfavorable candidates. There is a pattern in at least OH and IL.
It’s not the candidate that will cause a fall off in grassroots support, it’s how they removed the candidate, and how they tried to remove other candidates.
no problems with Brown, but the party leadership has a lot to answer for in this and other instances of their attacking grassroots candidates. They seem to forget that under their leadership we lost the white house and both majorities.
Do we have a candidate for Schmidt? She still seems to be someone to target.
If you have not noticed, I have not commented on this issue for as I see it, it is a moral and ethical issue. These are things lacking in the DLC and in someways is missing inthe DNC. Until such time as I see these attributes comeforth, I shall always remain Independent. I think it was a very raw deal that the powers that be, made behind closed doors. This will futher, this and money, is the evil of which we all are facing. Until such time we root out this evil in our politics, we will never gain much. I have heard everyones voice here, and on other diaries. It is a very real concern of mine anyhow, that we must step up to the plate and let it be known to the powers that be just how unhappy we all are with their decision making. We must start now, or we will never have a route to do this. I do care about Brown and Hackett, I care about their policies and what they are all about. I will not vote in that election in the state of which I am in. We have our hands full with what we have here. I think it is time to let it be known to Shumer and Reid that we are very unhappy and we do make up a very large voting block for them..Either they do things for us, at least sometimes, then we will not stand with them in the future. That, if we do not stand with them, does present a very real problem for them..If it werent for us out here voting for their ppl, they would not have gotten as far as they have gotten so far. I think if they looked at the equation in this manner, they might just stop this shit. YOu see, we are taking ourselves out of the equation here. We have to multiply our voices in the democratic party to get a say in it. Lets get busy with this now. Lets se if we can make a difference in the future of the party.
Today, as I see the party for which I vote, doesn’t have any morals or ethics or mandate, IMHO.
improve Brown’s chances, exactly? Seems to me like whistling in the dark.
Brown is helped financially. He doesn’t have to spend money on the primary and he will get at least a portion of the money that would have gone to Hackett. Also, as pissed off and alientated as Hackett’s supporters are today, they would have been much more pissed off and alienated after they lost a tough and bruising campaign against Brown. And Hackett would have had a lot more supporters at the end than he has now.
Brown is still hurt by this, too. But it is a net plus for him.
Now, on the other hand, it’s possible that Hackett would have won the primary. And it is hard to say whether he would have had a better chance a beating DeWine than Brown. I cannot predict that. But, from Brown’s perpective, the chance just improved that he can beat DeWine.
It would have made sense for Hackett to run in the 2nd from an overall Dem strategic point of view. But, this whole thing was mismanaged from the beginning. I’m not sure who to place the blame for that on. I hear so many conflicting timelines.
In my opinion, Hackett and Brown are both such promising candidates that they never should have wound up running against each other in a primary. That they did shows the dysfunction of the party recruiters.
Lastly, the recruiter’s job is to find appealing candidates that can raise money and win. But it is not their job to put pressure on other people that might want to run to drop out in favor of their preference.
And if they have multiple great candidates they need to find appropriate offices for them to run for, not get them into a mess like this.
a load of crap promulgated by the gatekeepers of power. I’ve looked, at least superficially, for evidence that a hard-fought primary foretells electoral doom for its winner. I’ve found exactly none. I think of Obama, who came from nowhere to US senator precisely because of a bruising primary. That’s where he made his name and got his recognition.
Unless you have real evidence to the contrary, I suggest you think again about this lame excuse the engineers of perpetual loss try to sell. Hackett or Brown would have gotten early attention in a dramatic primary. They could have laid out their ideas in more then 10 second soundbites. They could have established their characters ahead of time and built on them, and had a powerful second-placer allying with the winner in the general. Instead, Brown will have to spend capital trying to win back some disgusted Hackett supporters, and won’t have his erstwhile opponent fighting for his election. The GOP wins again with the help of that oxymoron (and plain ol’ moron) known as the Democratic Party strategist.
If Dem party “leaders” had the slightest allegiance to the idea their party is named for, they’d be gung ho advocates of the battle of idea and personality that happen in primaries. But they, like the Bushies, will give up everything, including their constituencies, to remain in tight control. I try to find another answer but always come back the to one staring me in the face: unless we can destroy the two-party system, we might as well just quit deluding ourselves that politics has anything to do with us.
I believe Hackett was polling better against DeWine than Brown was.
On the broader issue of those of us looking for an ethical, principled and honorable party to support, Reid and Schumer just informed us that if they have anything to say about it, we’re no closer to that than we were 5 years ago.
and Hackett may not have had a chance against him BUT why shouldn’t Democratic voters have a choice in a primary? Party leaders should not be making these decisions; voting members should.
Man alive! I just called Shumers office and put my voice on the line for you folks. I infomed the little man who answered the phone that as an Ind. I will no longer vote democrat and support them, if they continue to do thing things that has been mentioned here today. What a sham these ppl are. I infomred them the voting block of which I belong are getting unhappy with the dem.s. He as much as pushed me off the phone. I suppose they do not like being infomred like this. I really do mean it, folks, I will not vote for dems if they do not stand for what I believe in, any longer. This goes for any party I think about. If they do not stand for what I believe in, I will not vote for them at all. I voted for Kerry cuz I was a ABB person. NOt any more….I sold my vote for whom I really did not have any conviction in and look at where it got me and millions of others.
I also called Reids office with the same speech. At least they lat me talk. I want them to know that the voting block out here that is not happy with them, will make a very big difference with them int he future. I hope you all can understand this. It is ppl like me that want the best for ppl like you. It is ppl like me that want to stay with ppl like you because you represent what I believe in and feel like. If we can not make a difference in the over all party then we really must leave… This saddens me but so be it. I see how hurt and angry ppl like Boston Joe and othres are and how he and others feel so betrayed/angry/frustrated/helpless/putoff/ by this party. Everytime I try to do something like this, I get the distinct feeling that my voice does not count with them in DC or the State government. and sometimes ever locally. What a very sad day for the dem. party and America over all. They think the money is what it takes to win..Are they right? I always thought it was a single vote that made the difference….Am I wrong? YOu know folks, the dems have not won a battle that I can remember in going on 5 years. What is it going to take to start to win again??!!
This story can be spun any way you like — and it has been spun in so furiously on so many leftist blogs that it is coming to resemble a gyroscope — but the heart of the story isn’t going away, and that is that the Washington Dem establishment is still calling the shots and manipulating local politics to serve the purposes of the national party at the expense of local constituents.
Pardon me for asking a question that has probably occurred to a lot of people, but what the fuck business do Harry Reid of Nevada and Charles Schumer of New York have meddling in the affairs of the state of Ohio? Reid and Schumer may have forgotten, but the job of Senators and Representatives from Ohio is to represent Ohio, not serve the goals of the extragovernmental national party apparatus.
For Ohioans, even if you prefer Brown over Hackett, you ought to be pissed off and on the phone to Reid and Schumer to remind them to spend more time serving their states and less time screwing with yours. And while you’re at it, remind them that Congress is an national assembly of local representatives, not an autonomous body dictating to the states.
this is where i beleive howard dean is failing
he is the head fo the fucking party and he is allowing these people to get away with this behavior.
if he cant get them in line he is going to fail in the end….because if you cant get people to the polls in overwhelming numbers to vote dem, enough to overcome the machine cheating thats going to take place, the dems wont win much of anything….esp seeing that the dems themselves are dragging their feet on election reforms (i wonder why?)_
Live stream of Hartmann via Cable Radio Networks. Click on link, then look through now playing list on right of page. It’s on now, 1:30 pm eastern until 3:00pm. I can’t readily find archives, and if someone knows where to find them, I’d appreciate that link.
Since Air America went subscription, I’m having talk radio withdrawl. I like Hartmann. He’s intelligent and seems well informed and can rant with the best of them.
Well, Randi Rhodes is still the queen of ranting, but Thom’s fun to listen to.
Never mind, he’s already on to Cheney. I guess the guy who Cheney shot is having a heart attack. Got to go check it out.
they fucked with hackett’s funding. and that is FUCKED UP.