Thow Him In Front of a Train?
Ohio Democrats are clueless, evidently. They want (badly) to win Mike DeWine's Senate seat, so they took the obvious tact in a generally red state. They tossed the more conservative candidate to the dogs.
A lot of folks remember Paul Hackett, the democrat who nearly beat Jean Schmidt (of Murtha vote fame) for her congressional seat last year in a very Republican district.
Hackett was campaigning for the Democratic nomination against DeWine. He has good name recognition, and is more conservative than the guy the Democrats want in the race, Rep. Sherrod Brown (the Kos candidate), and is seen as more of a straight talker, which sells well these days.
There is an article in today's NY Times that quotes Hackett as saying
If we go back to my post yesterday, Howard Dean tells us part of the DNC platform for 2006 is to become stronger on defense, and better treat the troops.
The obvious way to do this is to alienate guys like Hackett, who would be seen as a pro-defense candidate, with street credentials to flaunt, without the baggage of the Kerry and Murtha end of the party.
Others in the party, who are trying to get more veterans to run as Democrats also aren't happy about this:
Hackett has made some silly comments, and is unapologetic about them. But the fact is, he's the kind of guy the Democrats need to try and get elected to the Senate. Pushing him in front of a train does nothing for the party image.
Hackett has said he won't run against Schmidt again this year, because he's promised the three other democrats in that race that he wouldn't, and his word is his bond. Maybe the rest of the folks in his parties leadership should start working on that issue.
Technorati Tags: Iraq, politics and Paul Hackett Harry Reid Charles Schumer Ohio, Democrats and veterans
A lot of folks remember Paul Hackett, the democrat who nearly beat Jean Schmidt (of Murtha vote fame) for her congressional seat last year in a very Republican district.
Hackett was campaigning for the Democratic nomination against DeWine. He has good name recognition, and is more conservative than the guy the Democrats want in the race, Rep. Sherrod Brown (the Kos candidate), and is seen as more of a straight talker, which sells well these days.
There is an article in today's NY Times that quotes Hackett as saying
"For me, this is a second betrayal," Mr. Hackett said. "First, my government misused and mismanaged the military in Iraq, and now my own party is afraid to support candidates like me."He made comments after finding out Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer were calling donors asking them NOT to give to him.
If we go back to my post yesterday, Howard Dean tells us part of the DNC platform for 2006 is to become stronger on defense, and better treat the troops.
The obvious way to do this is to alienate guys like Hackett, who would be seen as a pro-defense candidate, with street credentials to flaunt, without the baggage of the Kerry and Murtha end of the party.
Others in the party, who are trying to get more veterans to run as Democrats also aren't happy about this:
"Alienating Hackett is not just a bad idea for the party, but it also sends a chill through the rest of the 56 or so veterans that we've worked to run for Congress," said Mike Lyon, executive director for the Band of Brothers, a group dedicated to electing Democratic veterans to national office. "Now is a time for Democrats to be courting, not blocking, veterans who want to run."
Hackett has made some silly comments, and is unapologetic about them. But the fact is, he's the kind of guy the Democrats need to try and get elected to the Senate. Pushing him in front of a train does nothing for the party image.
Hackett has said he won't run against Schmidt again this year, because he's promised the three other democrats in that race that he wouldn't, and his word is his bond. Maybe the rest of the folks in his parties leadership should start working on that issue.
Technorati Tags: Iraq, politics and Paul Hackett Harry Reid Charles Schumer Ohio, Democrats and veterans
posted by Crazy Politico at 6:41 PM
9Comments:
I think the Kos wing of the Democratic Party would rather keep the party under their thumb and lose, then have someone else calling the shots and win. While, electorally, this is good news for the GOP, it is bad news for America.
"I think the Kos wing of the Democratic Party would rather keep the party under their thumb and lose, then have someone else calling the shots and win."
Finally there's a possible answer as to why they keep shooting themselves in the foot. Best I've heard yet anyhow...
Can't help but yell a warning to them even when we dislike their politics (as I see you so often do CP). Not that it does any good. Whaddyado?
Shoprat, you are correct, and it's kind of sad.
Uber, The reason I yell is I'd rather have a government with two viable parties, it keeps them both honest. We saw what happened with the Dem's when they were in power for many years. Unfortunately, it's taking many less for the GOP to become as bad.
If they each have to worry about the other, they both end up working for us.
I listened to Rush's take on this yesterday. The Dems have no conscience and no sense of direction. And. I might add, no honor.
We agree on this one. Hackett and Democrats like him are the best hope for the party, and the party just threw him off the train. I was really saddened when I read this story today, because it seems to me Democrats just don't get it: they need to stand for something, damn it. If it's liberalism they want to represent, they need to stand up and be honest about it. Give the American people a choice and accept the decision they make, but give them a true choice in the first place.
My fear is that Hackett will now leave the party, further alienating those of us who want an alternative to Republicans. On the other hand, if he did start a third-party insurgency, I'd be there to support him. The Democratic party can go to hell, for all I care; I don't identify with parties, but with ideas. If a viable third party springs up to oppose the GOP, I'd get behind that.
Griz, they have a sense of direction, it just seems to be stuck with a hard left rudder.
Matthew, I agree they need to just come out and say what they stand for, and let the cards fall.
I think Hackett and some others may end up at some point in a 3rd party. I posted a few weeks ago that I think the Dem's are closer to a split than people think.
I'd like a choice too. Even if I ended up staying with the GOP, I think they'd end up changing to avoid either the same thing happening, or to deal with an actual moderate party.
I don't understand why, but Democrats don't seem to want good candidates. They seem to throw their weight behind either guys like Kerry, who literally argue against themselves, or Yahoos like Howard Dean.
It is funny that it has reached the point where we are concerned about the viability of the opposition party.
I could see an eventual shifting from the traditional parties. Sort of how the GOP replaced the Whigs in the late 1850's. Problem is parties are more entrenched today than 150 some years ago. The demise of the Dems may actually help the process. 3 separate parties could stop one party from controlling the legislature and force various coalitions based on the issue at hand.
Rebekah, It's not "the democrats" but the Democratic Leadership that has the issue. They need money, and certain large donors don't like folks like Hackett who are generally conservative folks. Unfortunately, the party needs guys like him, who would attract Republicans who aren't happy about the war, or who don't like Mike DeWine.
Bill, unfortunately the two parties have made the rules so screwy it's hard to get a third party in races period. And then to get one that can get any number of seats is even tougher.
Post a Comment
<< Home