Reid is NOT DLC - Schumer is NOT DLC - Brown is NOT DLC - the people

[blm]

who are pretending that the DLC maneuvered for the liberal Brown against the more centrist Hackett are selling you a LIE meant to keep the left divided.

Brown is a Kucinich style Democrat and always has been.

I liked both men and really liked Hackett for his fire, but I'm not going to lie about either man to satisfy the dividers.

Please check your FACTS before you join with the bloviators who are spinning a line of BULLSHIT.

[WilliamPitt]

1. K&R

[Cooley Hurd]

2. K&R! Thank you, blm!!!

:hi:

[Mass]

3. K & R / - and if you have nothing to do, call your senators to tell them

to vote against cloture for the PATRIOT Act.

[rockymountaindem]

4. K&R

The trolls and their schills need to be put in their place.

[MercutioATC]

5. Absolutely correct.

The DLC and DNC had nothing to do with the Hackett thing.

[endarkenment]

6. Hacket is an outsider and they aren't.

And that is the problem. Brown is a good guy. Schumer and Reid are insiders who decided they would rather deal with Brown, a known element, than Hacket, a big unknown, despite the fact that Hacket had a better chance of actually winning. Winning that senate seat didn't appear to be as important as being able to control the winner.

[seabeyond]

7. lol lol i want to know who the f* dlc is cause i am telling you

i hear so many in dlc that are the silliest....

seems like dlc is the imaginary evil in our party. whenever we dont like what a dem congressperson does we accuse dlc. hey i know, like if i put up an argumentitive post, like this dlc to do..... then being attacked as a freeper. ys. like that

[rucky]

8. The Senate is a fraternity within itself. n/t

[ClassWarrior]

9. It's a LIE that assumes that we can only win by becoming more RepubliCON.

On the contrary. The ONLY way we'll win is by being proudly Progressive - for OUR values are the BEST of American values.

K&R :kick:

NGU.

[mzmolly]

10. Hackett himself is being a grown up about this. He offered to help

Brown in any way and said "it's been a wonderful experience."

K&R! :kick:

[Cocoa]

12. glad to hear it

go get that DeWine bastard. :kick:

[seabeyond]

13. oh goodie for hackett. that is a MAN. i like

cool for him. yea

for real, i just love to see the real world actually act adult..... it is fun for me. i like the adult world. much easier to do than adolescence or the terrible two's.

[FreedomAngel82]

23. That's good to hear

I wish he didn't drop out period though. I thought he was a fighting democrat. :(

[IronLionZion]

89. Brown helped him a lot during the campaign against Mean Jean

We're all Democrats here. Same team. Mike DeWine is the bad guy. And the list of most vulnerable senators are: 1. Santorum, 2. DeWine, 3. Chafee

So DeWine is going down so bad that Diebold can't save him.

[mzmolly]

92. That's right.

:hi:

[FreedomAngel82]

103. I'm glad to hear that

And there's no hard feelings in general and they're willing to help out. I still wish Hackett would change his mind and run for the House and than in 2008 run for the other senator seat.

[stepnw1f]

105. I Read That Here on DU in the AM

I hope this is true...

Hackett may get help from Brown to run. I smell a wonderful friendship in the making.

[Kolesar]

11. I don't know if it is a LIE "meant" to keep the left divided,...

...as in being "by design", but it surely is lazy group-think. Following the herd. RRRRRRecommended!

[Cocoa]

16. I think it's both

mostly the latter, lazy group-think.

There are some, however, who should know better, and who are really being premeditated and Orwellian in the way they are trying to exploit this.

[Kolesar]

18. and it is making some news stories

Even the Cleveland Plain Dealer hinted at this in coverage today. There were a whole mess of political stories today. Filing deadline is Friday. Eric Fingerhut dropped out as gov candidate today, too.

[Mr_Spock]

14. Too bad the reactionary "bloviators" can't see the problems they cause

Drives me crazy to see all the "sky is falling" posts when there is a disagreement or friction within the Democratic party.

Perhaps we could become like Repukes and march in lockstep - no disagreements allowed.

[Generator]

15. Brown is not the point

What they did is the point. Rumor mongering about "war crimes" is the point. An average guy getting into politics now being discouraged for life is the point.

DNC DLC PDA blah blah. Who cares? Kerry DLC who cares? Kerry does the right thing. Is a good guy. That's what matters to me. Apparently Brown's a good guy too. But that's not the point! Howard Dean gets the point.

~
Democratic party chair Howard Dean says he's not happy that Iraqi war veteran Paul Hackett is dropping out of the race for U-S Senate in Ohio.

Dean told a student audience in Miami that "some skulduggery in Washington" improperly led to Hackett's decision to end his bid. And he said Democrats will have a tough time winning if similar things happen to others.

Hackett was vying with Ohio congressman Sherrod Brown for the Democratic nomination. He said that Hackett was a "great candidate," and that a primary in Ohio wouldn't have hurt the party. Hackett says he's ending his eleven-month political career.

http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=4503849&nav=8H3x

Maybe you political types want to consider us average people can figure out a thing or too. DLC DNC Be damned!

[Cocoa]

20. if anyone spread rumors about Hackett war crimes

or any other rumor like that, I would be disgusted and would protest.

I've been participating in this discussion all along, and I have never heard any such thing.

I have heard ridiculous rumors about Brown, however, from putative Hackett supporters. I say putative because I don't think they necessarily give a fuck about Hackett, they're just using him.

[FreedomAngel82]

26. That was way over the line I think

The whole thing was. Schumer and Reid aren't from Ohio and should've butted out. The only thing they should've done is just endorsed Brown.

[blm]

30. I don't disagree with that - but there are elements PUSHING this as a DLC

maneuver when the DLC had nothing to do with it. I do not trust the rumor-mongers pushing LIES at fellow Democrats.

And most everyone KNOWS how much I dislike the scum Al From and a few other DLC leaders. But when WE aren't accurate from the left about our own, how are we ever going to claim the honest road on matters outside the party?

[Catrina]

36. Schumer definitely is with the DLC agenda, certainly the foreign

policy aspects of it. He's my senator and I wish we had a choice of someone who is not for the neocon foreign policy agenda ~

[FreedomAngel82]

47. He is NOT affiliated with the group

His stances doesn't mean he's a part of the group. And look at Kerry for example. He's listed as a DLCer (even though he hasn't been affiliated with them since 2003) but he's very progressive.

[Catrina]

73. He may not be listed on their site, but he is funded by DLC fund raisers.

That's why he is for this war ~ as for Kerry, he is progressive on many issues, but on Haiti, Venezuela, even on Iran, eg, his positions have been very disappointing ~

Rep. Conyers and Kucinich, NY congressman Nadler and a few others, are what I consider to be DLC free representatives.

I don't understand why we can't expect to be listened to (and Schumer will NOT listen to any criticism of going into Iraq, the most he will do is criticize how it was handled), when it comes to major issues like going to war. I expect more than we in NY have gotten from Schumer and Hillary Clinton on many of these issues.

I'm tired of making excuses for these people. I'm also tired of them parsing words to make it seem they are 'on our side'. I want to be represented by people who are wishy washy about this war, eg. It was WRONG. 21 Democratic Senators voted against it, one Republican and one Independent. The rest were for it and remain, for the most part, supportive of the invasion, if not the handling of it. The handling wouldn't be an issue if they had taken a strong stand initially ~ and think how many people would be alive today ~ that is a VERY important issue for most NYers, and our Senators don't seem to care much about the destruction, the torture the deaths that it has caused. We BEGGED them not to support it, but they went along with the DLC agenda, and have done nothing since to make me feel they are not still doing so.

I wish we had a Senator, even one, who spoke out against this travesty, but sadly we in NY do not.

[Jon8503]

101. You said it well Catrina. I just feel that Hackett proved himself, he

speaks well, he is not afraid to voice his opinion, not just that of the party. The guy got 48% of the vote in the most conservative district of Ohio in his congressional race. I sort of feel that the DLC has not been so hot for the past two election cycles and a fresh face would have been good and better than another party spokesman.

[FreedomAngel82]

109. SHOW THE PROOF THE DLC WAS INVOLVED OR STOP BLAMING THEM

I do think they should get the blame where they deserve it but there is NO PROOF they were involved in this. Reid and Schumer are NOT DLC.

[Catrina]

126. Here's some proof ~ he's not only a DLCer, he's been doing what he

did to Hackett to other decent Democrats, behind their backs, here on Long Island, in Pennsylvania and has even back-stabbed one of the best Democratics in NY, Elliot Spitzer who's challenging the NY Republicans for Governor. He's a petty, nasty man and he has NO business interfering in the elections of other states. He's overly ambitious, hoping to be president and his first and most important issue is war in the ME.

You can check him out on the DLC website here ~

http://www.dlc.org/search_results.cfm

And here's one opinion of him, shared by many in NY. I had the misfortune to meet him once, when he was a Congressman, through my job, and he was one of the most arrogant and nasty, egotistical individuals I ever met. An opinion shared by all of us who were working there that day. Rude, inconsiderate of others, totally involved in 'Chuck'. My job was not in politics, I worked for people who were big NYC socialites at the time, and was not involved much in politics, but him I remember ~

If you haven't studied the DLC website, you should. Get to know who their people are in congress. See for yourself how they water down strong, solid Democratic visions and ideas. You have to wonder if they are really just working for the Republicans, just another kind of dirty op, like the swift boat ads, the detectives hired to dig up dirt on strong democratic candidates, etc. It sometimes seems that the DLC is sabotaging the Democratic party.

Then we have DLC celebrity Senator Schumer from New York, deciding that he's going to help us decide who will run as Democrats in the next congressional and senatorial election cycle of 2006. He thinks he's delegated the Pennsylvania candidate to run against Rick Santorum, and he's bragging that he and his people are taking the decision making process out of the hands of the people of Pennsylvania and, I guess, out of the hands of the people in other battleground states, where he thinks his opinion of who should run is more important than THE PEOPLE's opinion.

In PA, Schumer picked a good old boy's Bob Casey, jr., son of a former democratic governor's a guy who opposes abortion, who would have voted for the Iraq war and who probably opposes stem cell research, contraception and sex education (though we don't know, since he's running a stealth campaign, probably because his handlers know that the more we in Pennsylvania see him, the less we'll like him.

But I digress. My point is that Schumer picked a candidate for the biggest, most visible election of 2006, who basically sells out the right to abortion that women have fought so hard to get. Selling out abortion is like pulling out the ground from beneath the solid footing of the women's movement. If Casey wins, the DLC will use the victory to argue that all Democratic candidates should sell out women and who knows what else. I can't imagine the Democratic women of New York state supporting Schumer after he's pulled such a treacherous, betraying move. His hubris should be his undoing and I hope he faces a strong challenger come his next election. (I hear he's a very vindictive politician, another reason to get rid of him.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_050821_real_democrats_must_.htm

This is who decided to backstab Paul Hackett ~ he isn't fit to wipe his shoes, imo ~

Notice that this was written before he played God in another state, and stabbed Paul Hackett in the back. No doubt he hates Hackett because he has spoken out strongly about Schumer's favorite issue, the War in Iraq. That is a mortal sin to him. Yes, Brown voted against it, but Brown is quiet, and isn't known nationally nor is he an Iraq war Vet. Hackett posed a real threat, as a vet, to Schumer's ambitions for the ME.

We in NY will be working hard to get rid of him in the next election ~ we weren't paying enough attention last time, obviously.

[Jon8503]

137. What proof do you have they were not involved. N/T.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

143. What an asinine question!

How do you prove something did not happen? It's impossible. Further, the burden of evidence is always on the accuser, not the accusee.

[Jon8503]

145. Who is asinine is a matter of opinion.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

152. Well, in this case, it's a matter of fact.

Thank you for removing all doubt.

[Jon8503]

153. I agree. N/T

[Telly Savalas]

147. What proof do you have that you are not involved?

[FreedomAngel82]

129. So why didn't he stand up and fight?

Why did he take his ball and go home? Why didn't he run for the House? :eyes:

[FreedomAngel82]

104. You're still wrong

Just because they share same positions on various issues does NOT make them DLC. DUH! To mean you're a DLC member is to BE A PART OF THE GROUP. Good grief!

[FreedomAngel82]

128. Please cite where they give him money

:eyes:

[Douglas Carpenter]

98. Brown is certainly not with the DLC or Neocon agenda. not at all

courtesy of vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H3141103&type=category&category=Foreign%2BAid%2Band%2BPolicy%2BIssues&go.x=12&go.y=8


2006 In 2006 Citizens for Global Solutions gave Representative Brown a rating of A.

2005 In 2005 Citizens for Global Solutions gave Representative Brown a rating of A.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Council on American-Islamic Relations 100 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004

Brown Tops DeWine in New Poll
An Opinion Consultants poll finds Ohio voters favor Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) for the U.S. Senate over incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), 43% to 38%

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/01/26/brown_tops_dewine_in_new_poll.html

Sherrod Brown is endorsed by PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) and is an outspoken member of the Progressive Caucus.

Representative Brown is at least as liberal as Sen. Kennedy or Sen. Feingold

[liberalnurse]

17. I don't dispute Brown's platform, but lets face it,

this Hackett swifboating tactic, which appears to of been correographed by the "good old boys," has hurt Brown. I for one am discouraged, others are angry. Brown is letting this happen as well.

[Cleita]

19. So if it isn't them, who is behind it?

The candidates preferred by the DLC aren't necessarily DLC'ers themselves, but they seem to be more able to favor corporations than other candidates.

My two cents.

[Mass]

22. Brown favors corporations more than Hackett???

LOL

[Cocoa]

27. it doesn't matter

when some people take the anti-corporation pose, it's just that, a pose.

[WildEyedLiberal]

24. You missed the most important part of her post

REID and SCHUMER are NOT DLC. The DLC has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. It's just DU's favorite strawman on which to blame EVERYTHING "bad" that happens.

I don't care for Al From and Will Marshall, or a number of DLC candidates including Lieberman, but the DLC has absolutely jack to do with the Hackett dustup and their entire prescence in this debate is a strawman, a false construct brought in to sow division and create a negative sentiment against Brown who is a member of the House Progressive Caucus.

[Cocoa]

31. then when confronted with Brown's unassailable record

they say this is not about Brown's record. :rofl:

Why are these self-styled leftists so afraid of Sherrod Brown?

[WildEyedLiberal]

32. It makes one wonder...

... although in numerous instances, I don't have to wonder too hard, if you catch my meaning.

[blm]

35. And when is a government official's record NOT supposed to be considered?

Geez - that's what ALL people should be judged by - their ACTIONS over their words.

[converted_democrat]

51. I don't think anyone is questioning that..

No one is saying that Brown isn't a good guy.. The problem is the people of Ohio, and what the term "liberal" means to them.. Liberal is a dirty word in Ohio.. If we were dealing with rational people the record would be the only factor and we would win by a landslide, but that's not what we're working with.. There isn't anyway that Brown can carry the state because in Ohio you need the moderates voters on your side to win because there is such a large section of people that fall under that title. Moderates would have voted for Hackett, but they won't vote for Brown.. That's where the problem lies.. There is no way that Brown can win because he has already been tagged with the "liberal" sign.. That's what the problem is. It isn't Brown, it's the mentality of the voters of Ohio.. There is no way that that hurdle can be jumped by the time the election rolls around.

[rg302200]

96. You have put into words

What I have been trying to say on the message boards for weeks. You just put it all together better than I could. My county in Ohio is crawling with Republicans that are disenfranchised with their party but are not ready to vote Democrat, same goes for the moderates. All they care about is where a candidate stands on God, Guns and Gays!!! They would have voted for Hackett (several Republican voters I know have told me that) but they REALLY don't like Brown.

[converted_democrat]

46. I have no problem with Brown, none at all.. I think he has a hell of a

record that he should be proud of.. The issue for me as a person that was born and raised in Ohio is that Brown cannot carry the state.. It just isn't possible.. The numbers just aren't there.. I don't want to see the position go to DeWine, and that's what's going to happen.. The moderates of the state would have voted for Hackett, but moderates do not vote for anyone with a Liberal tag on them.. That is the issue as I see it.. Brown can't carry the state.. The numbers just are not there.. There is a big misconception in Ohio about what the term liberal means, and it will cost us the election.. I was born and raised with the people Brown wants to get votes from, and I know without a doubt that isn't going to happen.. No matter how great Brown is, moderates won't vote for anyone with a "liberal" tag.. That's just the way it is in Ohio..

[Cocoa]

50. I respect the concern about electibility

but I think it's hyperbole to speak with such certainty about whether someone can win. Obviously Brown thinks he can win and obviously the dem establishment thinks Brown can win. Of course Brown can win. You say "the numbers just aren't there" but you don't provide these numbers. Trust me, the dem establishment is looking at the numbers.

What I don't respect is the phonies that are trying to make this into a DNC thing, which is very different from the electibility argument that you are making, which, again, I respect, though I don't agree with it.

[converted_democrat]

54. Look at the southern half of Ohio, and the make-up of voters...

Look at the voting patterns in Ohio and Southern Ohio over the course of the last few years.. Even if Brown carries the north by big numbers there isn't enough there to make up what he's lacking in the South.. Look at the voter rolls.. There are many areas that pukes outnumber Dems 10-1.. There isn't anyway that he can make that difference up..

[Cocoa]

59. Hackett more electable than Brown? I'll buy that

Brown can't win? I reject that out of hand.

[converted_democrat]

65. Have you lived there?? Do you have family that lives there?

I was born and raised there and Liberal is a dirty word, and the Ohio spin machine has him branded as a liberal.. He will not be able to overcome that.. This is the reason why so many are upset about this.. Hackett had a shot, and Brown doesn't. You have to be able to pull moderates to win in Ohio, and Brown won't be able to do that.. I grew up there, I know the people.. They will not vote for Brown.. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'll bet anyone anything that they want to bet that Brown will not carry the state, and I'll even give you terms on it.. Ohio is solidly repuke, and they will not vote for anyone branded as a liberal.. It's sad, but it's the truth..

[Cocoa]

68. no, but Sherrod Brown lives in Ohio now

he has family that lives there. He thinks he can win.

[converted_democrat]

76. I was born and raised there, mark my words, Brown will not carry Ohio.

It won't even be close.. DeWine will win by a landslide.. Brown is a great guy, but he has not a snowballs chance in Southern half of Ohio.. Go look at the make up of voters in the Southern half.. Look at the reality of the situation, look at the voting patterens over the last 15 years in all of Ohio and pay special mind to the lower half of the state.. Brown can't win there..

[Douglas Carpenter]

99. Brown Tops DeWine in New Poll

An Opinion Consultants poll finds Ohio voters favor Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) for the U.S. Senate over incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), 43% to 38%

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/01/26/brown_tops_dewine_in_new_poll.html

[converted_democrat]

111. How many polls have been off in Ohio in the past??

I'm sorry, I don't believe it.. I know the voting habits of the Southern half of Ohio, and there is no way on Earth he can make up those numbers.. It just isn't going to happen.. I know Ohio, and I know once they put out the GOP spin machine and say Liberal and taxes in the same sentence it's all over for Brown.. I know these people.. It won't fly. The people of Ohio are predictable people.. They might want change, but they aren't willing to risk higher taxes to bring about that change.. Liberal= more taxes to them.. Mark my words.

[femrap]

85. Then how did Brown get elected to state office in Ohio?

He was elected by Ohioans. And he voted AGAINST all that CAFTA/NAFTA crap and anti-labor legislation.

Brown can be elected....but we need CLEAN elections...that is my worry. Blackwell is again counting the votes.

[converted_democrat]

91. That was before he had a real voting history, and was branded a Liberal..

I have no issue at all with his voting history, in fact I think it's damn impressive, but it won't be viewed that way by the people of Ohio.. People aren't going to get past the liberal label.. He's been branded a liberal, and that means damaged goods in Ohio.. No way to get around that by the time the election rolls around. Liberal is a misunderstood term by many if not most in that state.. It's a dirty word.. You have to be able to carry moderates in Ohio to win, and moderates do not vote for liberals.. Go look at the voting stats for yourself.. All the GOP has to do is scream liberal, and mention taxes in the same sentence and it's all over.

edited for my bad grammar

[femrap]

119. Ohio has experienced unbelievable corruption and

scandals this year....all due to ONE PARTY RULE. I think you are giving up before fighting (typical dem behavior sometimes). Jesus was a damn Liberal. I will take that word and embrace it. Fight...stop saying you're sorry for being a Liberal.

We are #1 in bankruptcies and foreclosures in the US. People are ready for change. My worry is that Blackwell is counting the votes.

If you aren't going to work for Brown...then I would appreciate it if you would keep your discouraging words and 'why bother' crap to yourself.

Right now I am fairly disgusted with the political neophytes and 'fair weather dems.'

I don't want another Salazar in the Senate. And I am sick to death of the dems moving more and more to the right. SICK of it.

The state of Ohio has been RUINED by one-party rule....you have no idea. We are the new West Virginia. I think people are ready to put a Dem in the Senate. And I am willing to work toward that.

[converted_democrat]

122. You aren't telling me anything I don't know.. I know what's happening in

Ohio.. I was born and raised there.. My family still lives there.. We talk often about the crap going on.. That is why I'm so sad about Hackett dropping out.. He had a real shot.. My family are all conservatives with the exception of me.. They all loved Hackett.. I'm in contact to this day with many of my high school friends that still live there, most of them liked Hackett. They would have voted for Hackett, but I know they will not vote for Brown.. Southern Ohio is a whole different breed of character.. You have to be able to play to that to some degree in order to win.. Brown isn't doing that.. As long as he has the Liberal label on his back he will not get votes from the lower half of the state.. In Ohio, Liberal is a dirty word..They think Liberal = Higher taxes.. People are unhappy, but they have such a misconception about what Liberal means that it won't do us any good... Until someone explains to them that not all liberals are "tree-hugging-commies" (I wish I were kidding)he isn't going to pull votes from the middle..


edit to make clearer

[Douglas Carpenter]

121. Howard Metzembaum was branded a liberal and he managed somehow

Senate Years of Service: 1974-1974; 1976-1995

I just think this whole strategy of running charismatic and photogenic centrist like Mr. Hackett has been done over and over again for the past 30+ years as the Democratic Party has declined and declined.

Why not try the strategy of running genuine progressives for a change?

The centrist strategy simply has not been working very well.

The polls which show Brown beating Dewine do not prove he will. But they prove it is very possible.

[converted_democrat]

125. And what has happened since 95'? A major shift to the right..

95' was 10 years ago.. Ohio, on every level has moved to the right.. Ohio isn't the same place is was 10 years ago.. There are so many fundies involved in politics in the central and southern areas of the state that it's down right scary.. Ohio has moved to the right since 95..

[Douglas Carpenter]

127. well these things go cycles...following the centrist approach has not

worked very well, so far.

[converted_democrat]

132. I understand that, but Ohio is full of fence riders, and liberal is a

dirty word there..

on edit- Until people in Ohio understand the word liberal we are fighting a losing battle.. All the pukes have to do is get a sound bite with liberal and taxes in the same sentance and it's over..

[Buck Rabbit]

63. So do you think Hackett should have been handpicked?

There could have been a primary, but Hackett dropped out.

Also, how well will 25 million dollars of spin aimed at Hackett being Anti-Christian play in South Ohio?

How many moderate to slightly conservative thinkers would have a problem with electing a Senator with zero experience?

Frankly, I don't think either one of them has a great chance. Though Hackett might have faired well against Mean Jean, no?

[converted_democrat]

66. No, I don't for a second think that Hackett should've been hand picked..

Leave it to the people in the primaries.. That's what democracy is all about..

[Catrina]

61. Both Brown's and Hackett's records are very similar, on the war,

on gay rights, on choice ~ so no, it is not about Brown's record, it is about back-stabbing a perfectly good, Democratic candidate. The more you try to defend that, the more attention is drawn to it. If it can't be excused, then let's just say that, try to correct it for the future and move on to winning in 2006.

But slamming those who have legitimate concerns is divisive, and only strenghtens the fear that unless we are willing to refrain from asking questions, or express concerns, we will be referred to demeaningly as 'trolls' or 'self-styled leftests' etc. Many people who were taken by surprise by this situation are life-long Democrats. They don't need to prove that to anyone. This is a very bad strategy, alienating not only good candidates, but good Democrats also.

That is what the right does when it cannot answer legitimate questions. I thought we found this to be one of the more reprehensible tactics of the right.

There's no reason why this had to become so divisiive, but before I knew what had happened, I was basically being bullied into accepting that 'this was taken care of' and 'let's just get on board, and please stop asking questions'.

Worst of all for me, were the smears against Paul Hackett which started immediately and which caused me to be very angry, since I had not even had a chance to find out why he was leaving the race. Posts and threads appeared here, 'telling' us what to think about him. He was a 'quitter' ~ he 'cut and ran' ~ 'didn't have what it takes to accept the dirty politics that are inevitable, etc. Reminiscent of the right's attacks on Murtha. Imo, it was appalling and that is was coming from the 'left', made it even more so.

These characterisations were not my experience with him, and telling me to shut up and accept it, was never going to work. Naturally, those of us who supported him, wanted to know the truth.

It seems to me now, that many of those threads were started with the knowledge of what went on, and were an attempt to pre-empt any defense of Paul Hackett or any questions being asked. If so, they had the exact opposite effect. That kind of thing never works. The truth works. I could have accepted an acknowledgement that the tactics used against him were regrettable, and that they wouldn't happen again. Instead the whole thing devolved into attacks on the questioners, name-calling etc.

To be honest, I think those involved, Reid and Schumer (and Brown if he was involved) need to get together and make a statement, an apology if necessary ~ an acknowledgement that what they did was harmful and that it won't happen with other candidates. Because whether you agree with me or not, doesn't matter. The general consensus now is, this was bad and it has caused a huge rift among Democrats. To deny this would be futile since it is a fact and no, we won't 'get over it', it will remain, like a bad taste until it is addressed, civilly.

Better to start being truthful from now on, and maybe it can be fixed before it's too late.

[madfloridian]

81. Nice post. Let's fix it.

And start being truthful. Well said.

[Cleita]

38. So my question still is,

"Who is behind this?"

The news said that certain Democrats had asked his contributors not to contribute to him and for him to step down in favor of Brown. Howard Dean, who is the chairman of the DNC, dennounced this. So if it wasn't the DNC, who did this?

[Mass]

39. Waxman is one of those who is supposed to have called Ohio donors

to tell them to hold on money. Waxman is certainly not a DLCer, he is a very progressive Democrat. I dont know who is behind, but it seems difficult to say that Brown was pushed because he is pro-corporation.

[WildEyedLiberal]

41. Well, it wasn't the DLC.

Why does it need to be a conspiracy? The facts are out there. Reid and Schumer asked Hackett to run for the House instead of the Senate since Brown had more money and was more popular. It happens all the time. The DSCC (Democratic Senate Campaign Committee) headed by Schumer has to make decisions regarding funding for Senate campaigns. They only have a limited amount of money, so they try to influence the strongest candidate to run in each race. That's how politics works; it's not new, it's not unique to Hackett, and it's not particularly shady to anyone who has a basic understanding of the party system. It takes money to run, and the DSCC obviously wants to make sure the candidate with the most support runs. Brown has more money and built-in support, so the DSCC won't have to give him as much money, freeing up cash for other races across the country. Also, a primary uses up LOTS of money and resources, and if it gets nasty, it can weaken the candidate for the general election. Reid and Schumer may be ham-fisted and controlling, and I have my own complaints with each of them, but I don't think it's a bad thing to want to avoid a devastating primary in a race that can easily be won by the Democrat.

That's just how it works. It's really not a big dark conspiracy and it's misleading for people to suggest that it is. You can be UNHAPPY about it, and I'm not saying I support what they did - I am not a big Reid or Schumer fan - but it's not really anything byzantine or tinfoil hat.

[femrap]

86. Very well said...

There's only so much $ to go around....and the Dems want to win as many races as possible. I wish Hackett had stayed/returned to the 2nd District....but he chose not to.

[blm]

45. My guess is that the Dem congressmen from Ohio were being pulled apart

on this as Brown is a much respected person in that group. I suppose that it was causing great discomfort within their coaliton.

[SOS]

144. In the words of Paul Hackett

"I wouldn't give Chuck Schumer's word the value of more than half a cent".

Schumer is not listed as a DLC member. Perhaps he prefers the company at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies?

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm

[Iowa]

102. Yep, that's the way I read it...

As one who believes that the DLC has helped to run the party into a ditch - and as one who tends to view them as appeasers, collaborators, and traitors to progressive ideals - I don't see their fingerprints on this at all.

[blm]

25. Brown is a Kucinich Dem - Hackett was more moderate than Brown on

corporate related issues. Hackett was not a corporatist even though he was to Brown's right and Brown is nowhere near a corporatist so the whole idea that DLC maneuvered for a corporatist in the race is just a bucket of hogwash.

I think what was really happening in Ohio is that alot of the Dem congressmen in Ohio really LIKE Brown and were reluctant to support a primary opponent.

[insane_cratic_gal]

37. Hackett doesn't have a record to support

whether he was a corporatist or not considering he hasn't held office

Isn't that a bit unfair to suggest otherwise?

[blm]

40. Only his own position (which I believe) that he is a moderate.

.

[insane_cratic_gal]

42. I wouldn't say that at all

I would stand by the fact that he called bigots bigots.. he supported gay marriage! what moderate do you know that does that?

He also called republicans a bunch of bullies.

The only issue he seemed to cross lines on is his stance on Guns. That won him a lot of republican voters.

People judge people based on how they relate to them, republicans included.

here are some examples

That’s low politics, punk!” a heavy-set man sneers as he marches toward the poll.
Hackett wheels around. “Pardon me?”
“You know, that radio ad that says, ‘You don’t know Schmidt.’” He’s talking about one of Hackett’s attack ads against Republican Jean Schmidt. The man spews a stream of epithets, and Hackett lets out a crybaby whimper: “Waaaaaaa!”
“What’s that, punk?” the big man growls.

A TV crew is setting up nearby, but Hackett doesn't’t seem to care. “What’s your fuckin’ problem?” the candidate snaps. “You got something to say to me? Bring it on!” Hackett, all 6 feet 2 inches of him, is nose to nose with the heckler. “Problem?” he taunts. The man turns around and storms away.

“These guys in the Republican Party adopted this tough-guy language,” Hackett tells me, still steamed, an hour later. “They’re bullies. They’re offended when somebody takes a swing back at them.”


Paul Hackett relished taking swings. His rhetoric was scorched-earth: “I don’t like the sonofabitch that lives in the White House,” he told USA Today, “but I’d put my life on the line for him.” He declared in a debate that the biggest threat to America is “the man living in the White House,” and he slammed President Bush and Vice President Cheney as “chicken hawks.

Does that sound like a moderate to you? HELL NO he sounds like a natural Born Du'er!

Have you read this article? It makes me cry to think this is what has been given up! That people we not allowed a choice in the primaries to decide who they wanted to represent them. I have nothing against Brown but Hackett was someone who stole my heart. He was the whole package for me. Was he a risk? sure he was, but I was willing to take it. If he meant only half of what he said, I was willing to take it. Call me an idealist but I feel in love with a Candidate, we all want that don't we? To have our hero stand up there and fight the bad guys? To be everything he claims to be! To never sell us out, to believe in, so we can finally feel hope.

Hackett was that guy for some of us. To have people say get over it, it's all the same. It's not the same, my guy, my ideal, my dream just got busted! Had it happened in the primaries .. ok the people have spoken, but for it to happen before it even makes it there because he got talked down off the ledge by "some democratic leadership" pisses me right the f off, and I'm still mourning it, you have to give us time to do so.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/11/paul_hackett.html

[blm]

43. This was in reference to his economic policy positions where he claims to

be a moderate.

Listen, I don't disagree with the welcome fire that Hackett brings, but I just WILL NOT LIE about Brown or pretend that Brown is a corporate-chosen lackey. And THAT is what this thread is about.

[WildEyedLiberal]

44. Okay this is the major complaint I have with DU

Getting into a pissing match with a Repuke says NOTHING about issues. Saying "you got a fucking problem with me"? says NOTHING about whether he's a moderate or a liberal. Calling Bush a son of a bitch says NOTHING about anything other than he's willing to talk big. It says NOTHING relating to ideology, NOTHING relating to moderate/centrist/liberal/progressive viewpoints. The BIGGEST MISTAKE people on DU make is assuming that trash talking is the epitome of what it means to be a "progressive." I could give a shit what Hackett calls Bush - what's he going to VOTE FOR? Did you know Hackett's views on immigration are to the RIGHT of George Bush's? Okay, so he's willing to talk tough and fight - for what?

I'm not saying you shouldn't like Hackett - obviously he speaks to you, and that's something you can't deny. All I'm saying is that this glamorization of "tough talk" worries me, because talk is just that - words. Paul Hackett calling Bush a "son of a bitch" accomplishes nothing, means nothing, besides making some Bush-haters feel good and cheer. Tough talk is just red meat for the angry base, and nothing more.

[FreedomAngel82]

48. Right

I was just expecting a bit more I think. He's supposed to be the orignial fight democratic vet and he rolled over. He could've told them "hell no" and stayed in. If he was so worried about money he could've come to the regular folks and the internet.

[insane_cratic_gal]

52. So because you disagreed with him

On the issue of immigration he should be discarded.

It's ok to deny the state of Ohio the right to choose their candidate in the primaries?

You have no idea how he would voted on such issues so he was deemed a threat because of that?

How is that democratic?

Your beef is: I like him because he talks tough.. and talk is talk

but you don't like him because you don't know how he'll vote on x issue? Isn't that a bit ironic?

Since he hasn't voted on it, or has a record neither of us can claim "actions"


Now, lets get back to this issue of tough talk. It's exactly what this party needs, its being show as being weak. What people liked about Hackett was his refusal to sugar coat it. He called it like he saw it. 2 issues Guns and immigration, that was enough to land him nearly 48 percent of the vote in a section that hasn't seen a democrat pick up that many votes.. well since anyone can remember. He lost by 3,500 votes. Are you not willing to compromise on illegal immigration and guns? If it won us the seat, I would be okay with it.

Do you think Brown is going to pick up those republican votes in 2006? He was forced out of a race, republicans who would voted Hackett .. are going to seek retribution upon Brown for it. They won't see it has a "Leadership decision" they'll see it has a bullshit career politician yet again denying them their candidate.

Either way I think it was bad move, I've read it was a smart move. I don't think it was, I think it was the nail in the coffin but we shall see.

[WildEyedLiberal]

55. I'm saying it doesn't make him "liberal"

Hackett's willingness to talk tough doesn't make him a liberal, which is what you argued. I pointed out his immigration stance because it's a demonstrably NON-LIBERAL position he holds. I wouldn't have supported him over Brown, no. Whether or not Reid and Schumer were right to butt in is a completely different issue than whether Hackett is a liberal, which is what you argued and what I responded to. I said nothing in respect to a primary. I don't think Reid and Schumer should have butted in, but that doesn't mean I prefer Hackett or think he was a very good candidate. I also find it interesting that most pro-Hackett arguments seem to be centered around the "he is conservative on guns and immigration, so he can win in a red state" meme. Isn't this the very so-called "DLC" logic that most of Hackett's supporters would reject in any other race? The same people, largely, who support Hackett are also those who loudly crusade against "centrists" and "DINOs." I find the cognitive dissonance curious and amusing.

[insane_cratic_gal]

58. No it's not

a DLC "thang"

I happen to agree with him on Guns and Immigration, tar and feather me! I think those are two issues that have wiggle room.

The DLC is a position of supporting candidates that support corporations, nothing suggests that Hackett was a corporatist.

DLC will not make waves, Hackett did with his bolstering talks.

Tell me when was the last time you head any Democratic in senate or running for office call Bush a sonofabitch?

Yes to my mind he's a liberal, what demonstrates a liberal anyway? is his record 100 percent(cuz we have none of those)? 90? 80? what is it so I'm prepared to argue it?

For that matter since we are heading there, what republican has called W a sonofabitch?

Perhaps Hackett was whole new breed.

[WildEyedLiberal]

62. So trash talk is all that makes a "liberal" to you?

If Chuck Hagel called Bush an asshole tomorrow, would he be a liberal, assuming his issue positions remained what they are?

Paul Hackett would deport every undocumented immigrant from the United States, which is just plain old fearmongering, race-baiting, and xenophobia at its finest. I find it disgusting when advocated on Free Republic and disgusting when advocated by a politician, regardless of what he calls Bush.

And where did the DLC come from? The DLC has NADA to do with Hackett, Brown, Reid, Schumer, or any of this. If you think Brown is "pro-corporate," then you are woefully ignorant of even the most basic facts about him, and indeed, don't care about the facts if they contradict what you want to believe.

[insane_cratic_gal]

69. I never said he was

You said the irony of it all was People like myself were willing to elect Hackett because he won over republican voters and how DLC (like) it was of us. I merely set you straight on what the DLC is

If Chuck Hagel called Bush an asshole tomorrow on the floor, I'd sure appreciate it, but of course it wouldn't make him a liberal. But even if he renounced all ties the republican party it wouldn't make him a liberal. However, it would sure put him on the path to redemption.

Your dancing around the facts that Hackett had no record to support that he wasn't a liberal. His words must therefor be enough, his ideas therefor should be enough. Having no voting record to support neither my claim nor yours (that he was moderate). We are left sitting across from one another "check mate."

However, I do have it on record that he openly supported liberal Ideals. Gay marriage, Woman's right to choose. those are two very big backbone liberal ideas are they not?

[WildEyedLiberal]

75. Bingo.

He has no voting record, so it's an inherently unresolvable argument. I perceive him as moderate, you perceive him as liberal. To each his own. Hackett is hard to pin down - his views on guns don't bother me, but they're far more moderate than most liberals'. His views on immigration bother me extremely, but he is also pro-choice and pro-gay rights. So what's the final arbiter of liberalness? Is there one? We'll never know, unless he runs for office and wins at a future date.

I don't have a problem with Hackett, and I respect that he inspires you. I prefer Brown, but I don't see why there can't be room in the Democratic party for both of them, and indeed for all those who support a broad liberal agenda.

[insane_cratic_gal]

78. Agreed however

Do you not also agree that the choice should of been made in the primaries by the people of OH? Our "leadership" who ever "leadership" is should of stepped aside and let democracy flourish!

I know the founding fathers were terrified of the idea of democracy has are republicans, but the move exhibited by our leadership is nothing short of disgusting and an infiltration of elitist ideals "I know what's better for you,.. trust me."

The primaries and those who cast votes should of had a voice and right to chose their own candidates. I expect this bully tactics from republicans and the GOP.. I do NOT accept this behavior from the democratic party, it feels like yet again another betrayal.

Why encourage him to leave? Because they knew what they were getting with Brown?

The anti Career politician platform that was so instrumental in Hackett's campaign just go proved to ever single one of those voters who voted for Hackett in 2004.

I hope it was a wise decision but I can't help feeling a huge amount of dread Brown's ship as sunk before it's even hit the water. I'm not blaming Brown. I know next to nothing about him, but I do hold "leadership" accountable.

[WildEyedLiberal]

79. Right, I said I think Reid and Schumer handled this totally wrong

It seems arrogant, yes, but on the other hand, that's what the DSCC does in every state: support the candidate with the most money and influence, which in this case was Brown. IMO, Hackett should have stuck to his guns and remained in the primary. The DSCC is supporting Bob Casey in PA, but progressive Chuck Pennachio is determined to stay in the race. He'll probably lose, but I give him credit for sticking it out 'till the primary. Hackett should have said "screw you" to Reid and Schumer and stayed in the race; then Ohio could have decided. It was at the end of the day Hackett's decision to make.

I think the most important thing for everyone to do now, however, is get behind Brown. Brown is a great liberal and will make a great senator, and beating DeWine, the do-nothing Bush rubber stamp, is imperative. I sincerely hope no one decides to hold this unpleasant incident against Brown because he needs all the help he can get.

[FreedomAngel82]

107. But isn't (or was) Hackett running to become a "career politician"?

Or would he have just stayed one term? Or would he have lasted as long as John Kerry and Dennis Kuicinch? This "career politican" stuff is pure crap.

[benEzra]

157. The DLC is more anti-gun than the party at large...

I also find it interesting that most pro-Hackett arguments seem to be centered around the "he is conservative on guns and immigration, so he can win in a red state" meme. Isn't this the very so-called "DLC" logic that most of Hackett's supporters would reject in any other race? The same people, largely, who support Hackett are also those who loudly crusade against "centrists" and "DINOs." I find the cognitive dissonance curious and amusing.

The DLC has been dragging the rest of the party toward the ban-more-civilian-guns position, not the other way around. IMHO, it comes from the strong Communitarian influence originally a strong presence in the DLC. That is not a liberal value, it is an authoritarian/communitarian one. The DLC seems to have the philosophy that they will compromise on every position except their "ban more guns" mantra.

When I first heard that the DLC types were after Hackett, I assumed it was because he was pro-gun, and the DLC wishes to create and maintain anti-gun hegemony at the national level, hence any Dem candidate like Hackett who vocally opposed the DLC's "assault weapon" bait-and-switch had to be defeated. That's probably not the real reason (it's probably more an insider/outsider thing), but that was the first thought that went through my mind.

[femrap]

90. I live in Ohio...am I going to support someone who used to be

republican and has never voted publicly on Abortion? Especially when I have a true Progressive who time and time again has shown what he'll do for working people and women's freedom?

There were way too many questions about Hackett's views. And how many times have we elected people into office based on what they SAID, and then when he/she is elected, votes just the opposite.

I didn't trust him.

[insane_cratic_gal]

139. Yup and here is why

“Since the Republican Party has been utterly unable to stand for something positive, they have created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, and have pandered to religious fanatics not to vote for something they believe in, but to vote against their fellow Americans with whom they disagree. Those among us who would use religion and politics to divide rather than unite Americans should be ashamed.”


Hackett was staunchly opposed to the invasion of Iraq: “We set a precedent after 227 years that we were going to invade a country that had not attacked us first,” he told me. Yet when the war began, he found it hard to sit on the sidelines. He recalled a biblical line his father often quoted: “To whom much is given, much is expected.” And so, in the summer of 2004, Hackett volunteered to return to the Marines for a new tour of duty


. In a debate with Schmidt, he said, concerning gay marriage: “I don’t want the government in the bedroom any more than I want it in my gun safe or telling me how to worship.” And, on abortion: “If you don’t want government in your personal life when it comes to choice, you have to be consistent about that with guns.”


You guys keep telling me to know my canidiate. I'm pretty sure I do.


http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/11/paul_hackett.html

http://www.hackettforohio.com/newsroom/88/hackett-responds-to-gop-attacks

[femrap]

88. Sing it, Wild Eyed Liberal!!!!

Hackett rarely talked ISSUES....a couple of weeks ago when asked about specifics he said, "Well, in my 10-month political career, I haven't gotten around to that.' This made me nervous...especially combined with his republican background.

I liked it when he cussed at the President....but hell, I do that everyday...hell every hour of every day.

I don't want to see anymore 'dems' like say a, Salazar in the Senate...who vote DINO.

I know Brown's record...he fights for working people and votes for a women's right to freedom.

[insane_cratic_gal]

140. Again assumptions

Someone show me where it's listed that Paul said he was a republican.


That's twice I've seen it stated he has a republican background. I'd like to see this tidbit of information.

Or are we just assuming because he was a former Marine?

BTW Navy here and as you might of guessed I never voted Republican but people always assume it.

[FreedomAngel82]

106. So because he talks tough means he's a liberal?

I know people who are more moderate who are for gay rights. Does that mean they're now liberal? Do people even know what a liberal is anymore? Just because you go around and call Bush name's and talk tough and loudly doesn't mean that you're a liberal. GOOD GRIEF. I get tired of it when the republicans do it and now democrats are doing it too. As a liberal please stop it.

[druidity33]

112. psst, hush, hush...

I think they're going to put him up as VP in '08... call it a premonition. Don't worry, he won't go away just yet...



photo taken in April of 2001...

[Armstead]

49. FOR CHRIST SAKE READ BROWN's POSITIONS AND RECORD!

Brown is as anti-corporate as one can get without falling off the cliff.

He is one of a handful of politicians (like Kucinich, Bernie Sanders and some others) who have been in full-frontal battle against Corporatist Globalization policies for YEARS!

Here Let me make it easy for you:

Brown is very much a progressive. He is one of the House Progressives who have fought the good fight, along with people like Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, John Conyers etc. The fact that the Democratic leadership is supporting someone as liberal as Brown, is a good sign, and NOT a symptom of DLC centrism. In fact it is the opposite of centrism.

Visit his website.

http://www.house.gov/sherrodbrown/issues.htm

Here's Brown's position on trade, for example:

----

"In 1999, thousands gathered to protest the World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial meeting in Seattle. In September 2003, thousands more will gather in Cancun, Mexico, as international leaders meet for the fifth WTO ministerial.

These demonstrators will be demanding comprehensive reforms to an international trade system that has failed to improve the social and economic conditions for millions around the globe. The WTO model - forcing poor countries to open markets to wealthy nations - is not working. The failures of the WTO are nowhere clearer than in agriculture policy. In the United States and across the globe, rural economies and farmers have been devastated by artificially low prices in almost every major commodity. Large, multinational corporations now control trade in major commodities by selling below the cost of production on the global market.

WTO policies have led to economic insecurity, instability and an increase in illegal crops and crime throughout the developing world. Increased migration from rural to urban centers has exacerbated poverty and joblessness. In the 10 years since NAFTA was signed, 1.7 million jobs have been lost in the Mexican countryside. Not only do WTO practices destroy lives, they destroy cultures....Etc."

---

Now tell me, would a DLCer say that? Not even Kerry or most liberal Democratic Senators are willing to call the bluff of the globalization con job.

Here's his take on Wal Mart. Heard any DLCers talking like this or doing this lately?

----

Are Americans Shopping Themselves Out of a Job?
A Closer Look at the Wal-Mart Business Model

Wal-Mart has a knack for inspiring strong opinions.

A leading business publication called the retail giant "a champion of global supply-chain management." And a multinational supplier said "they have raised the bar, and raised the bar for everybody." But a domestic clothing manufacturer said "Wal-Mart chewed us up and spit us out." And a university researcher said "Wal-Mart is one of the key forces that propelled global outsourcing – off-shoring of U.S. jobs."

And the consequences of Wal-Mart's business model for taxpayers and communities have also proven controversial. As the Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin) wrote, Wal-Mart "continues to raid the state treasury by steering thousands of its uninsured employees into the state's taxpayer-funded BadgerCare program, which provides access to health care for low-income workers and their families."

Congressman Sherrod Brown sponsored a field hearing to examine these issues. National experts and Ohio citizens joined Congressman Brown in exploring the consequences of the Wal-Mart business model American workers, small businesses and communities.

Like traditional congressional hearings, this hearing offered expert testimony. Unlike traditional hearings, this hearing offered American workers and small businesses a chance to participate, by using this Website to share their stories and suggest questions for witnesses.

[NoPasaran]

56. Obviously Brown has only been pretending

Obviously Brown has only been pretending to be a liberal so he could be elected to the Senate and betray us! Kind of makes you wonder what sort of sinister game Kucinich and Sanders are playing, doesn't it?
:sarcasm:
Honestly, on some days the paranoia level on DU exceeds that of Stalin!

[Cleita]

60. This has nothing to do with Brown. It has everything to do

with the behind the scenes manipulators who orchestrate these things. Hackett had every right to go up against Brown in the primaries. If Brown was the guy the voters wanted he would win. If they preferred Hackett he would win. That's true democracy.

[Cocoa]

64. only because Brown's record is too good

you can't attack it, so you say it's not the issue.

[Cleita]

67. Yes, I say it's not the issue.

If our own party hadn't fallen into appointing our politicians along with the dark ones, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today with *. This is a corrupt system and has to stop. I have no dog in this fight, but if I were an Ohioan, I would want to be able to make my choice at the ballot box and it would probably be Brown because I don't care for military guys running my country. I got a bad taste in my mouth about that when I lived in South America. If you make a mistake, then you vote them out in the next election. Remember when things used to work that way?

[Armstead]

70. I was responding to Two Points

1)Brown is not a DLC style Democrat or a centrist. He is the opposite of that. His positions on issues very close to the kind of candidates DUers say they want. And he's no shrinking vioilet either. He'll also run a tough campaign, regardless of wehether he alls Bush an SOB or not.

2)Hackett still has the right to run. No one is prohibiting him from running. If he wanted to, he could still run, fight back and see if he persuades enough voters to make him the candidate, regardless of what the Washington Dems might want. It was his decision not to fight to the end.

[Buck Rabbit]

74. So why did Hackett pull out?

In the end Hackett is the one that denied the voters a choice.

Schumer couldn't pull Hackett's name off the ballot. Waxman could never get a true Hackett supporter to not contribute to him just 'cause he said so. True grassroots fund raising isnt vulnerable to back room manipulation.

My theory supported by Hackett's own statements on the Ed Schultz show is he thought he couldn't beat Brown, who had a $2,000,000 head start in fund raising. If he thought he could win, he would have just laughed at Schumer like the Republicans do.

[Cleita]

84. Yeah, when they ask contributors not to contribute,

it would dry up campaign funds.

[Buck Rabbit]

87. That would make an interesting poll, something like ...

For Paul Hackett supporters, If you got an email from say Henry Waxman asking you not to contribute to Paul Hackett. Would you:

a) Not contribute
b) Contribute anyway
c) Double my original contribution
d) Triple my contribution and post a copy of the email on DU.

I just don't understand the concept that people would sheepishly obey the requests of their candidates opponents.

[Cleita]

93. Do you want me to put that poll up?

eom

[FreedomAngel82]

108. Speaking of which

last night on Malloy he read an interview with Hackett from a local Ohio paper and he said I'm in the race and I'm not going anywhere back in October. Now he pulls out? HE is the one who ruined his career. He should've either said "hell no!" to Schumer and Reid and fought or run for the House and in the next midterm run for the other senatoral seat. I'm really disappointed in Hackett too because I thought he was a fighting democrat.

[Cleita]

118. Did you hear him on Randi this afternoon?

He explained his position better. First he said that he had asked Brown if he was going to run. At that time Brown said no. But evidently party operatives got to Brown, so he changed his mind and said that maybe he should have a shot at senator since he had more experience as a congressman.

Paul said he looked at the money situation and decided he was definitely behind what Brown could bring to the race and then decided not to fight it. He was very conciliatory about keeping the party together and fighting for our country as Democrats.

This is what I could remember anyway.

[FreedomAngel82]

131. I've heard the same story before

I know it by heart now and can recite it. If he was so worried about money why not do like Dean and use the internet?

[Hippo_Tron]

123. That's like John Edwards saying that he wouldn't accept the VP nod

A lot changes between October and February.

[FreedomAngel82]

21. Thank you!!

And of course people seem to forget that Dean was DLC until 2003 when he was no longer a governor they took him off their list since only elected officials are apart of the group.

[DemonGoddess]

28. k&r

[WildEyedLiberal]

29. Excellent post, K&R

The usual suspects are about with their DLC strawman nonsense, trying to break the Democratic party into warring factions. They get away with their trolling because they pose as ultra "progressive" and appear to be far to the left on issues such as the war and economics, but it is obvious to anyone who notices the signs that their prescence on DU is solely for the purpose of bashing Democrats and making countless inflammatory flamebait "DLC vs. progressives" threads in a devious attempt to stir distrust among DUers.

In fact, there is one poster who comes vividly to mind.

[Jon8503]

156. Ya right, who do you sound like. They don't agree with you so that

makes them a troll, a freeper, you even know one it seems. It was my understanding that it was ok to express your thoughts and opinions but it seems if your opinion is different than some, that makes you a "freeper". As I said, reminds me of how the RWers are, not much difference in the actions.

[jsamuel]

33. Absolutely!

[mattclearing]

34. Word. n/t

[ronnykmarshall]

53. Right on! There are really part of GLC.

The Gamera Leadership Council !!

[Coastie for Truth]

57. I heard Hackett on Big Ed

---and I have worked in campaigns - on the money side (my Dad pulled out of a race for Assemblyman in Pennsylvania - with United Mine Workers and United Steel Workers backing because the money wasn't there) -- the issue with Hackett was the Big Green

$MONEY$

It's all about CLEAN MONEY. And Brown had 10X more money in the bank then Hackett.

[iconoclastNYC]

71. I'm viciously anti- DLC

In fact I think fighting and beating back the DLC influence is as important as fighting the Republicans.

That said, I don't think anybody conspired to get Hackett to bow out.

Brown is a proven progressive and he has my support.

Hackett dropped out because he knew he couldn't win in the primary. He was fighting against a guy who had spent 20 years building contacts and support.

[applegrove]

72. Yup. The Freepers are out and trying hard to divide us. Don't follow

the leader. Think. Is it normal for the party to have some say in how messy the nomination process is? Is Paul Hackett in your district? If the Dems are trying to rebuild for the long term - is it not better to go with someone who has demonstrated they will put up with all the indignities of being a politician over the long haul?

[Greyhound]

77. Semantics make poor arguments.

Don't piss down my neck and tell me it's raining, especially if you want my vote.

[WildEyedLiberal]

80. Calling someone DLC isn't a matter of semantics, it's a matter of fact

None of those people are DLC. Brown is demonstrably progressive. Those are the facts.

[Greyhound]

83. Some one making a mistake in the anagram in no way diminishes

the validity of their point.
Brown getting his ass handed to him by the Re:puke: smear machine will be a fact too.

[derby378]

82. I know, but still...

Take a look at what I had to say on the whole Brown/Hackett matter:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x419855

[Spiffarino]

94. You are, of course, absolutely correct

...but I'm still pissed. Democrats aren't Republicans. We like to choose our own leaders, not have them pre-digested for "electability" like the 'pubes.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

95. This seems like a scenario that only Rove could think of to divide Dems.

K&R!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

97. I'm Still Not Convinced Hackett Truly Could've Won.

In the end, that's all I really care about. I did like him though and it was nice to have someone speak out for a change. Course, that alone doesn't make one ready for the Senate or to take on the seat.

Fact is though, I'll never know right now if my inklink was right or not. No biggie though, I think Brown has a hell of a shot.

[Guaranteed]

100. Nobody said they were DLC. *I* did say that it was STUPID, though.

And it is very much something the DLC would do, and I'm sure they had their hand in it. The fact is that Schumer- NY's OTHER Senator- and Harry Reid- no stranger to centrist policy- at the very least were at the root of this.

But this has nothing to do with left or right, or Kucinich. BTW, I'm not sure I would ever vote for Kucinich. In any case, this is about Paul Hackett, and what we had with him, which is now effectively destroyed.

So, basically, your post has missed the point entirely.

I remember when it was you and Will Pitt making these same points about Kerry, defending the political crap that our leaders did to Dean. It's Kerry's turn, Kerry's not DLC, yadda yadda.

You missed the point then, too.

[FreedomAngel82]

110. Your theory is flawed

Brown is WAY more progressive/liberal than Hackett. Hackett is a former republican turned democrat after he went to Iraq which was just recently remember. He is more of a moderate than Brown. So if what you're saying is true (which it isn't) than why wouldn't Reid and Schumer support Hackett? He's a military guy and a moderate former republican. Wouldn't that be more impressive than a true blue progressive liberal like Brown?

Secondly about Kerry. He is the progressive liberal and Dean is a centrist democrat who was DLC himself until 2003 when he was no longer a governor. He wanted to turn the party more centrist during his presidential campaign.
So please get over Dean losing. He lost pure and simple and HE WAS DLC TOO!

[Guaranteed]

148. Are you saying that Reid and Schumer didn't do this?

Cuz they did. That's a fact.

However, the reason they did it is because Brown is an insider. It's the same as what happened with Kerry. "It's his turn." Which, of course, is horrible justification. And they're scared of how Hackett might change the party.

Whatever happened to electability? If Brown is so much farther "left" than Hackett, do you honestly think he has a chance of WINNING?

[Dr Fate]

113. Which means you dont have to be DLC to support poor strategy.

I'm sure many of the "strategists" who lost the last 3 elections were not card-carrying "DLC" members either.

Hackett was going to be our McCain- except without the dishonesty. He was going to be a credible voice for DEMS on military issues.

The fact that no DLC was involved (and I doubt that) changes nothing- we blew it.

[KoKo]

149. No...but it would seem to me that they are the "likely suspects." They

are like the Bushies, though.. They rough you up..but try hard not to leave bloody prints or broken bones. They just "kill you slowly."

[wakeme2008]

114. First who knows who are DLC today

1) The link to it's members stopped working a week or so ago. I looked over their site and can not find it now.

2) Brown will lose Ohio, he is too liberal for Ohio, especially southern Ohio.

3) If the Repug polls show him beating Dewine, Dewine will pull out of the race to "spend more time with his family" and they would bring in a Ringer, maybe a movie star or football coach but somebody with Ohio VALUES not Ted Kennedy values.

4) Could Hacket win. IMHO maybe but there is the vote counting machine problem in Ohio. BUT the Repugs could not Ted Kennedy him.

[FreedomAngel82]

133. You're a DLCer if you're a member of the group

[KoKo]

150. ummmmm Kerry? Didn't he just vote for Cloture on Patriot II...giving away

our Freedoms just one mo' time? Wasn't it only Feingold, Byrd and Jeffords who stood up? :shrug:

[Stand and Fight]

115. Thank you for saying that!

I like the courage it took to post that. I had the same thoughts, but I know how DU can be with unpopular opinions. Thanks, blm. As usual, you rock! :yourock:

[we can do it]

116. K&R - Get Together People - We Are A Team- Act Like One

[bpilgrim]

117. and they are still fucked up... that's the problem

we got a party that can't mount an effective defense against the most corrupt and immoral regime in our history.

thats why people are PISSED, not to mention the DLC...

fyi

peace

[Mythsaje]

120. I don't know why anyone would've pointed to the DLC

on this one... My problem with it was the fact that the insiders got together and forced an outsider onto the fringe, and finally out of the race.

The average non-political American doesn't necessarily know the DLC from the FCC, but what they do understand is the difference between career politicians and a war hero willing to take the administration to task in a public manner without apology.

But it seems to behoove many DUers to create unnecessary friction by suggestion that anyone who has a problem with the way this was done is a "troll" or a "shill," which, in my opinion, is as reprehensible as some of the stuff trolls actually do.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

124. Rahm Emanuel is, though.

:shrug:

[JI7]

130. Rahm is the one who wants Hackett

in the House of Rep with him.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

134. Which works

if he isn't running for the Senate.

Here's my point: The people of Ohio should decide. Not Rahm Emanuel.

[FreedomAngel82]

135. So no blame on Hackett himself right?

He's the one who has control over his own life. He could've stud up and said "hell no" and stayed and fight a primary but he didn't. He went home and took his ball. I'm disappointed in someone I thought was a fighting democrat.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

136. Lots of blame for Hackett.

I'm not a big Hackett supporter. But that's not the point.

It's the "We'll decide who gets to play in the sandbox" mentality that's in question.

[OzarkDem]

138. And most of that is unfounded rumor

The more I hear from Hackett the less I believe the ridiculous stories about arm twisting. He fell back on that excuse because he was embarrassed about running a losing campaign. I've heard other candidates make the same excuse to save face.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

142. Definately a possibility.

But why was Emanuel calling for the switch in public?

[Jon8503]

154. I don't think Hackett is afraid of much of anything. He has proven

that before much less be embarrassed about anything. He probably did'nt want to have to fight the GOP Lites like Dean has had to. However, we are probably better to leave it to the DLC group. After all they have been doing a great job of winning elections the past few years so we will see how they do with this one won't we.

[KoKo]

151. Rahm is DLC through and through. Made 17 Mil as Venture Capitalist after

Clinton was gone....He's a shill...in charge of recruiting new baby DLC commmited's ...

[Jon8503]

155. Rahm is definitly on the list. The Daily Kos has a list of DLC members.

I noticed his on there along with Fienstein and Hillary.

[Kevin Spidel]

141. amen!

[KoKo]

146. They are "DLC LIGHT." Mostly COWARDS.....

just had to throw that across your bow blm...and you know I do love ya...really..