A lot of people are playing up this article in the Toledo Blade. But, they are playing it up for the wrong reasons. No one should be surprised that Paul Hackett did opposition research on Sherrod Brown. Nor should anyone be surprised that his consultants told him to attack Brown for being weak on terrorism. Brown is one of the most progressive congresspeople that we have. Of course he has voted to slash defense spending and money for our intelligence services.
Sherrod Brown was always the more progressive candidate. That Hackett was going to try to turn opposition to a bloated military-industrial complex into a love affair with terrorism should have been obvious to anyone.
What people should be getting out of this article is a sense of what’s at stake.
In August, 1993, his first year in Congress, Mr. Brown supported an amendment to reduce funding for intelligence agencies by 10 percent of what they’d received in the 1993 fiscal year. It failed by a 3-1 margin. Democrat Louis Stokes was the only Ohioan to vote with Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown voted for similar attempts to cut intelligence budgets, most of them sponsored by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) or Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), at least once a year through 1999.
More Ohio congressmen sided with Mr. Brown on the cuts at decade’s end, including, on three occasions, U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland – now a Democratic candidate for Ohio governor.
The Hackett researchers also noted Mr. Brown voted against the entire intelligence appropriations bill in 1998 and voted twice to declassify Congress’ intelligence spending levels, which are secret. He opposed creating the Department of Homeland Security, along with establishing and reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act.
Mr. Brown also voted against amendments to a 2004 intelligence overhaul that aimed to increase the government’s power to detain and deport suspected terrorists.
So, Sherrod Brown is unafraid to cast votes that are supposed to be the kiss of death in an era of Global War. He not only has not dipped into the punch bowl, he’s willing to go on the record and oppose the plundering of our treasury for a lifelong battle with a phantom menace.
The Democratic Bigwigs just shoved aside a popular, charismatic, fighting Dem in favor of an actual left-wing naysayer. And if Brown gets beaten down with the standard attacks on anyone that opposes unending bloodshed, the cause of truth and sanity will take a terrible blow.
You can see the attacks coming:
flip
Republican Party leaders including Karl Rove, President Bush’s deputy chief of staff, have pushed candidates to focus this year on fighting terrorism, a strategy widely credited for GOP victories in 2002 and 2004.
“The United States faces a ruthless enemy – and we need a commander in chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity that American finds itself in,” Mr. Rove told a GOP gathering last month, the Associated Press reported. “President Bush and the Republican Party do. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats.”
Republicans haven’t attacked Mr. Brown’s national security record yet. But they’ve already called him too liberal for Ohio.
Shortly after Mr. Hackett’s withdrawal last week, the National Republican Senatorial Committee issued a news release calling Mr. Brown “fundamentally out of touch with the mainstream values of Ohioans” and more liberal than Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Cleveland), based on rankings from a national liberal advocacy group.
I know it is a painful time for Paul Hackett’s biggest supporters, but if Sherrod Brown loses, the party’s conviction that liberals can’t win statewide races will be further cemented. And if he wins, we may see less of this Bob Casey bullshit.
I’m psyched to have solid liberal running in Ohio. Bring it on.
