Reply #19: I like Hackett a lot, but he isn't nearly the "no-holds-barred" liberal as [View All]

[woodleydem]

some around here make him out to be. First off, he DOESN'T SUPPORT unilateral pullout of Iraq, which most liberals demand. Secondly, he is pretty clear in his support for gun's rights, (read:anti-gun control) which is, again, not a liberal position. His website says little of anything about gay marriage, although there are interviews where he seems not to have a problem with it. Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that this guy was almost able to win a Congressional seat in a heavy Republican district. But his real campaign strategy to begin with was to link Schmidt to Governor Taft and the corrupt Ohio Republicans, which was a great strategy. (an aside: Schmidt has several skeletons in her closet relating to lobbying for gambling interests to Taft; she will surely get challenged in the 2006 Republican primary) Now, I keep reading posts from people at DU saying something to the effect of "if Kerry had used this strategy then he would have won." But the problem with Kerry is that he had a 20-year liberal Senate voting record to defend, while Hackett had the luxury of having no record but instead running on his Iraq war experience, which gave him instant credibility, and exploiting the weaknesses of Schmidt. If the Ohio Republican scandal had broken last year, (and by some accounts, it was kept quiet until after the election) Kerry would be President right now.

I do think that Hackett should challenge DeWine in 2006, as DeWine will be vulnerable. This is a prime opportunity to pick up a Senate seat in a key swing state.