Hackett said Brown LIED to him about NOT running for senate in Ohio

[still_one]

This was just on Springer. He also said he would NOT run as a congressman because he promised another person he would NOT challenge him in that race, and a promise is a promise

Doesn't say much for Brown does it?

Or the democratic leadership for that matter

[mattclearing]

1. Are we still on this?

How much longer till this is settled?

/nap

[still_one]

5. until the democrats GET IT RIGHT

for six years they have screwed up big time, and are STILL DOING IT!

[mattclearing]

7. Please explain. That was a little light on details. n/t

[still_one]

12. Here is what I mean

For the last six years they have essentially rubber stamped everything this administration has thrown at them:

1. IWR
2. Bankrupcy bill
3. Medicare Prescription Plan
4. Patriot Act

I could go on, but primarily most of them are afraid to speak truth to power, and the only reason more are speaking now is because bush and company have gone down in the polls.

That is my view. I have been a democrat for over 30 years, and the last 6 years have been the worst representation we have had from them

[LynneSin]

18. Those 4 issues - Sherrod was against all of them

god forbid we have someone like that in the senate

:sarcasm:

[still_one]

23. Except gave his word to hackett that he wasn't going to run

the Senate race, and then when he saw the response hackett was getting had a change of heart
I have a problem not only with that, but with the democratic leaders pressuring hackett to get out of the race

Though in my view it is less about brown, and more about democratic leaders determining who should be the candidate

IT IS THE PEOPLE OF OHIO WHO SHOULD DECIDE!

but hey, I am NOT from Ohio

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. Query:

gave his word to hackett that he wasn't going to run

Is there a cite for this from anyone other than Hackett?

[LynneSin]

27. And if it's the people of Ohio who should decide then why did Paul quit?

Don't yell at me - yell at the guy who didn't get what he wanted and quit. He was the one who took the choice away

[still_one]

30. because it is about money

and that is essentially what reid, schumer, and the other democratics leaders are telling him, that democratic money will NOT be coming his way

and I am NOT yelling at you, just at the state of affairs we are in

[LynneSin]

34. Well, can you blame them?

I mean it's not like they have a cash tree that they can give to every single candidate that wants to call themselves a democrat and run for office. DSCC made a wise business choice and the DCCC really wants him to run for OH2 and would back him enthusiascially (well maybe before the snit Paul had and yes, I know what Paul promised to those running on OH2).

But if Paul's campaign was 'grassroots' like he called it then it's a moot point. Yes, Brown had 2million more than Hackett but did you see the numbers of how much each candidate raised in the last quarter - Paul was not that far behind in Brown with those numbers.

If we're to finally get control of the 'establishment' (ie DNC/DSCC/DCCC) then we're going to need candidates who will fight even if the powers-to-be aren't there. Paul clearly was not that person

[FreedomAngel82]

59. And that means what?

He can't go to the people and do like Dean and use the internet? Or how about other donors in the state?

[OzarkDem]

74. We're doing fine here in Ohio, thanks

We now have a highly qualified, well funded, experienced, popular and likeable candidate for US Senate.

He's the best candidate we've had since John Glenn and Howard Metzenbaum.

[mattclearing]

35. They were going to decide for Brown anyway. n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

58. So does that mean Hackett can't be

a man and stand up and stay in the fight? Why didn't he stay in the fight then? Why didn't he say to Reid and whomever else "let the people decide"? Why did he back down? HE'S the one who ruined his campaign.

[mattclearing]

33. I don't disagree with you there.

Brown's decision to run was likely after the DSCC urged him to, and after he promised Hackett he wouldn't.

And Brown is against each of those things you have mentioned. He's more progressive than Hackett by all accounts I have read.

[still_one]

43. For me this is less about brown and hackett

and more about the democratic leadership sticking their nose where it doesn't belong

[mattclearing]

50. Then that should be the basis of your original post.

Calling Brown a liar isn't exactly productive now that he's the de facto candidate.

I agree that the DSCC shouldn't be telling contributors who to fund.

[still_one]

51. You are right about one thing

I should NOT have used the word lie, but used promise, because that is what hackett said. Unfortunately it will NOT let me edit my original post to change that distinction, though personally I think it is equivalent, many don't

[mattclearing]

52. Most politicians, especially in Congress, never accuse anyone of lying.

It's considered out of bounds, because EVERYBODY in Congress lies.

It's unfortunate the way this went down, and I know a lot of people like Hackett, but he clearly was not going to win this primary, much less the Senate race.

I don't like the interference, but if he thought he could win the primary, he would have stayed in it.

[still_one]

53. I will use better judgement next time, thanks

[OzarkDem]

73. Why are you smearing Sherrod?

He opposed all of those? Why would you even bring them up unless it was to intimate that Sherrod supported them?

Sorry, you also lose your crediblity on Hackett arguments with this sort of thing.

[HereSince1628]

9. The good old boys in the smoke filled rooms have been at it longer

than 6 years.

I've never known it to be any different. Are they anywhere near the same distribution in gender, ethnicity, job history, socio-economic status as the rest of the nation? Just how does that happen?

[still_one]

13. I think it is much worse in the last 50 years

and it is because the lobbyists are more powerful than they have ever been

[HereSince1628]

25. Maybe. But then I've only had a little more than 50 years to witness it.

[still_one]

31. good reponse, we just view it from different perspectives or experiences

[Kukesa]

10. Until we win an election in Ohio? nt

[still_one]

15. I remember when Ohio was a blue state

WHAT HAPPENED???

[LynneSin]

19. DIEBOLD

any questions?

[still_one]

24. I know, but where was the Kerry promise that they had everything

under control?

In fact very little has still been done

[nolies32fouettes]

38. that's too much like just blaming kerry when

NOBODY at all new the extemes that Blackwell and Diebold would go through to make sure kerry would not get Ohio.

What you said was just 'flame bait' and frankly it's been gone over in D.U. way too many times. The same points over and over again.

1. Blackwell hid suppression of the votes.

2. Purged voter regs

3. Machine distribution

4. Long lines

5. No paper trail.

yada yada yada!

Kerry is NOT a God who can rectify all these things that Blackwell did. and it's totally unrealistic to think that!

He had lawyers there, he had people there doing what they were told to do by the Democratic party. When someone cheats, they don't show their hands before hand--and Blackwell certainly gave NO previous information that he would suppress the vote in college towns and democratic areas and that he would put the broke machines there. Nobody realized the extent of their corruption.

[still_one]

45. I disagree with that one. That is pure victim mentality

are we really that abused that we cannot defend ourseleves?

[nolies32fouettes]

54. you don't want to be a victim, then don't blame the other victims!

Your response is like the Eichman legal response. I won't discuss it any longer.

You want to fight and not be the victim--then don't say, "Where was Kerry" Instead say, "LET'S get rid of blackwell....where do I donate? Where do I canvass?" But your comment is the same yada yada yada flame bait...

[still_one]

55. bye

[nolies32fouettes]

62. Do you know the Eichmann defence?

In his trial he blamed the jews for not fighting back. But he was wrong.

http://hatikvah-center.org/v-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=9&

And that is why I made that response to you. You are saying that Kerry didn't fight back, but that's not true.

He did.


(And though Eichmann was what came to my mind because it was a societal blame, another way that this is blaming the victim is like in a rape or robbery--people have to stop blaming the victim when bad things happen. Evil doesn't care how good of a person you are--they just attack and do what they want. And that's what the Republicans did.)

bye

[still_one]

63. I am a Jew, and with a few exceptions such as the warsaw ghetto

and most of the Jews didn't fight back they were led to the gas chambers like sheep, which is why you have the expression "NEVER AGAIN"


Peace

[nolies32fouettes]

68. ...

It is sad that so many went to the gas chambers like sheep. It's also sad that many people died over this.

I actually posted that to you, because I didn't want you to take offense at my example. I probably should not have brought up that exact example. However, I had a friend who told me one time, 'The jews were responsible for what happened." And I remember someone telling me that that was the Eichmann defence. I don't think that the Eichmann defence is accurate in that instance. Somehow it seems appropriate when thinking about the torture policy Bush has instigated. And yet, we are not suppose to make comparisons to Nazi's because it offends so many.

So I hope I've explained why that phrase came to my mind.

Shalom to you too.

[still_one]

72. I do understand your point, and there was no offense taken

that is what DU is all about the free exchange of ideas

[bvar22]

60. At DU we KNEW what was up in Ohio over a year before the election.

WE warned the Democratic Party about Ohio.

We have been warning the Democratic Party about BBV for over 3 years.
The SILENCE from the Democratic Party on the issue of BBV is very telling.

The Excuse: "We didn't Know how CROOKED the Republicans are" is NOT valid.

Check the archives.

[cmd]

36. Diebold doesn't take over until next fall

Almost all the counties in our state used punch cards. We still do not have Diebold machines in our county. They will be here next month. Yes, there has been election fraud, but instead of yelling Diebold, yell Blackwell. He has been the root cause of election problems. I'm not saying Diebold is innocent, but they are not guilty of the election problems that Ohio has had. Blackwell and Ney are the reasons we will have Diebold in the future.

[DancingBear]

65. NO - it is NOT Diebold

They stole the last one, and they'll steal them from this point forward, but Ohio moved right because of Republican organization and Democratic ineptitude.

PLEASE do some research on the candidates the Dems have put forward over the last 10 years - Fingerhut, etc. They are "my time to run" candidates -just like Brown.

Go into the Ohio forums, and you will see why long-time Ohio activists are so upset Brown was chosen. It had NOTHING to do with who can win, but EVERYTHING to do with cash on hand an paying ones dues. You also may want to check out WillyT's "Mother Jones" thread.

Better yet, go to southern Ohio - THEN you'll see first hand.

[Kukesa]

80. Be still my heart! nt

[mattclearing]

21. My money's on the guy who was winning the primary.

If Hackett can't compete in the primary, then maybe he shouldn't be running for Senate. I'm sure this is what he thought when he withdrew.

[still_one]

28. I think it is just the opposite

when reid, schumer, and the other wonderful democratic leaders told him that he should pull out, what they are saying is that he will NOT get the financial support from the DNC. It is all about money

[mattclearing]

37. The DNC doesn't pick sides in primaries.

You are likely referring to the DSCC.

But yes, Hackett's failure to raise funds surely was a big reason why he decided to bow out.

[still_one]

48. you are right, the DSCC is what I should have said

peace

[MrBenchley]

2. When does Paul confront the guy who's sleeping with his wife?

Jerry SPRINGER?

[mzmolly]

3. Did he say "lied?"

:shrug:

[still_one]

6. HE SAID BROWN PROMISED

and as far as I am concerned a person who breaks a promise it is the same thing as a LIE

[mzmolly]

8. That's what I thought.

So if Hackett decides to enter the congressional race, we will call him a liar?

I think people can and do change their minds. For example Gore said he's not running in 08, but I hope like hell he does.

[still_one]

14. Hackett was very firm about it, he said HE WOULD NOT

BREAK HIS PROMISE

I hold a promise as a contract. Maybe my ethics are just not good enough for the Democratic party as a whole

[mzmolly]

56. "Promise" is a word being used here to elicit emotion.

"Mom, you PROMISED!"

Hackett was about to be swiftboated, he had trouble raising money, Brown is really not the issue.

[OzarkDem]

75. His interpretation of the events

not necessarily the truth and he knows it. He needs to make up his mind, he keeps saying different things.

[atreides1]

4. It's very simple

Brown has the support and Hackett doesn't. The Democratic "leadership" has put all of its money on Brown, let's hope they do better with this then they've done in Congress lately!!!

[ProudToBeLiberal]

40. I see how it goes.

So we can say the same thing for Kucinich when he ran for the nomination? I wondered why you went and became his spokesperson when you knew he didn't have the backing of the Democratic "Leadership." If you knew Kucinich had no chance from the beginning then why did you fervently campaign for him? Hypocritca I'd say.

[WilliamPitt]

11. Keep grinding the grist

[still_one]

49. if he wasn't interviewed on springer this morning I wouldn't have brought

it up

[WI_DEM]

16. Good Grief, they should have just had a primary and let the best

man win. As it is now Hackett and his supporters will probably be less inclined to support Brown in November--throwing away a perfectly good chance that either man could have had to win a Senate seat.

[seabeyond]

20. to cut off nose to spite face? why in the world would a hackett support

NOT vote for brown. shame on them if they were t do something like that. that is unconceivable.

[madaboutharry]

17. The manner in which Hackett is dealing with this

demonstrates that Hackett is very unsophisticated when it comes to understanding politics.

[seabeyond]

29. or is it being misrepresented. yesterday haskett said he supports

brown and will help if asked. pat him on the back. he did not say lie,...... like the op stated so she/he misrepresented what haskett said.

????????????

[still_one]

32. that is the point. He said he was NEVER a career politician

and that is just what we need

[onenote]

41. yeah, those non-career politicians are SO successful

Jesse Ventura -- flake, wash out
AH-Nold -- dufus, wash out


Look at the Democrats who voted against the Iraq War Resolution -- reliable progressives like Kennedy, Feingold, Mikulski, etc. All of them "career politicians".

So explain to me why simply being a non-career politician is "just what we need".

onenote

[still_one]

42. the democrats you mention were NOT in the majority

look at biden, liberman, feinstein, etc.

I understand your point though, and I agree I overstated it

[DancingBear]

66. Look at the ones who voted FOR it

I believe they are "career politicians" as well.

Your point????????

[FreedomAngel82]

61. But wait a minute

if Hackett was getting into politics and running a campaign wouldn't that make him a career politician? Or is he going to just stay for one term or is he going to stay in the Senate forever like Kennedy, Kerry, Specter etc? He was turning his career into politics and thus a career politician.

[MrBenchley]

44. Reminds me a LOT of Nixon in 1962

"You won't have Paul Hackett to kick around any more."

[Catrina]

46. That's why we like him. He still clings to the unbelievable notion that

we could have truth and honor in politics ~

[SOS]

69. Ssssshhhh!

Never mention words like honesty or integrity.

We need to get with the program. Poli-tricks is dirty business. Setting up Hackett only to deliver the KO is just standard operating procedure.

Schumer can now hang his very own "mission accomplished" banner.

[seabeyond]

22. please check out the events of hackett brown deciding to run

way back then. i believe neither of them did it perfectly, and both will admit to a mess in that whole thing. both could have done that beeter. but neither being perfect people.... did not do it perfectly

[Wind Dancer]

39. Hackett feels betrayed.

If he is being honest, why are people on this board angry with him for speaking out? The man feels betrayed by the administration's lies re: Iraq and the Democratic Party for supporting Brown.

It may be called "just politics" but it leaves a bitter taste.

[still_one]

47. I feel the same way

[FreedomAngel82]

57. So why did Hackett give up his run?

Why didn't he stay in the race then? Does Brown's words and life revolve around him?

[rucky]

71. Maybe he felt the Democratic party has nothing to offer.

If he gets back into politics, you can bet he'll run as an Independent.

[JNelson6563]

64. Yes, I think I'll slit my wrists

Because the guy with more money and higher approval in likely Dem voter polls is the guy still in the race.

Hacket was wrong to run for the Senate, he could've swept that House race.

Good thing there are folks who will drag a cross about for his (lost) cause here on DU for many moths to come. :eyes:

[DancingBear]

67. So, you'll drag it for me if DeWine and Schmitt win in November?

"Brown fails to gain traction south of Columbus; DeWine pulls out victory."

THAT is why I drag it.

[SOS]

76. They'll blame the Hackett supporters

If Dewine wins, the Schumer fan club will blame the "whiny brats" who supported Hackett for not turning out 100%.
Doesn't matter if it's true or not. All the bases are covered.

[DancingBear]

77. True, dat n/t

[JNelson6563]

78. Then by all means

Let's run the guy with less money and fewer votes in the polls, who has never won an election. Surely the guy who has more money, voter approval and experience winning elections is more likely to lose. :eyes:

[Kukesa]

79. Good headline, DB, and probably accurate. Sigh. nt

[rucky]

70. Did Hackett say this, or did Springer? n/t