You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Antiwar candidate Hackett driven out of politics by Dem leaders
2006-02-14
New York Times EFL & LRR*

Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran and popular Democratic candidate in Ohio's closely watched Senate contest, said yesterday that he was dropping out of the race and leaving politics altogether as a result of pressure from party leaders.
We're more likely to have a civil war within the Dhimmicratic party than we are in southern Iraq. And it's much more likely to be a quagmire.
Mr. Hackett said Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Harry Reid of Nevada, the same party leaders who he said persuaded him last August to enter the Senate race, had pushed him to step aside so that Representative Sherrod Brown, a longtime member of the party machine Congress, could take on Senator Mike DeWine, the Republican incumbent.

Mr. Hackett staged a surprisingly strong yet ultimately futile Congressional run last year in an overwhelmingly Republican district and gained national prominence for his potty mouth scathing criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War. It was his performance in the Congressional race that led party leaders to recruit him for the Senate race.

But for the last two weeks, he said, state and national Democratic Party leaders have urged him to drop his Senate campaign and again run for Congress. "This is an extremely disappointing decision that I feel has been forced on me," said Mr. Hackett, whose announcement comes two days before the state's filing deadline for candidates. He said he was outraged to learn that party leaders were calling his donors and asking them to stop giving
That, kids, is a dirty trick!
and said he would not enter the Second District Congressional race.

"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." . . .

This is the real battle for the soul of the Democratic Party: the old-line left-of-center, but not fanatically so, party machine against the upstart, fanatical, terminal BDS moonbat fringe led by DU, Kos, and Soros. In 2004, the machine candidate (Kerry) smacked down the fringe guy (Dean), and the fringe dutifully fell in line behind the haughty, French-looking etc. out of a shared sense of Bush-hatred. In 2005, the moonbats took control of the party chairmanship and much of the fundraising. Now, we see the machine pushing back, shoving people like Hackett out of the way, and not even being subtle about it. It's interesting to see the rage emerging on some of the comment threads at DU and Kos--in particular, moonbat-in-chief Markos "screw 'em" Zuniga sided with the machine to screw Hackett, to the dismay of many of his syncophants.

*If you don't have an NYT logon, use mine:
name: nytisfishwrap
password: dowdsucks
Posted by:Mike

#24  Microsoft Power Point, and they are work.
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-02-14 22:59  

#23  A PPT chart? That sounds like real work, Besoeker, whatever it is. I leave that to the rest of you, knowing that it will be well done, and y'all can pop by later to tell me all about it over tea and a piece of cake. ;-)
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-02-14 22:56  

#22  TW, would you be kind enough to e-mail me a PPT process chart on that one please?
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-02-14 22:31  

#21  Thanks TW. I think I get it.
Posted by: Grunter   2006-02-14 22:00  

#20  Grunter, I understand triangulation to mean defining the two main postions on a subject, then making for oneself a new position in between. Thus for Bill Clinton, the Democrats were for increasing welfare, the Republicans were for decreasing welfare, and Clinton campaigned on making welfare more effective by making everyone get a job (decreasing welfare), but increasing payments to the working poor(increasing... well you get the point).
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-02-14 21:41  

#19  Hackett was making idiot remarks about the war even before the election. His position was pretty clear, and as far as I recall, the Kossacks were claiming it was a referendum on the war.

If I recall correctly, Hackett ("I hate that liar Bush, and I'm a veteran (and a lawyer from the expensive part of town)") was beaten in an off year, in what was touted to the Party faithful as a critical election, by a suburban housewife.

By a suburban housewife who won the primary ONLY because her opponent's father did a really dumb thing dealing with one of Bush's nominations. I think it was Bolton, but it may have been a Supreme Court nominee. The party loyalists punished the son for the sins of the father, and the result was a candidate that excited no one.

So the Democrats nominated a flake aligned with the Kossacks, drove up Republican turn-out during a special election, and lost.

And as for him being a lawyer from a rich part of town... During the election, the local meejuh kept mentioning that he served in some elected office in Milford, a relatively working-class suburb.

Now that the Donks have turned on him, he's suddenly become a resident of Indian Hill, a neighborhood occupied by the likes of Marge Schott and Peter Frampton.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-02-14 20:03  

#18  Could somebody please define "triangulation" for a simple furriner. I presume it's more than just talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Posted by: Grunter   2006-02-14 19:27  

#17  According to Kos (and I won't dignify him with a link) this is much ado about ego and personality, nothing more. Apparently the thought amongst the Dems was that Hackett simply wasn't ready to run for Senate, whereas Brown was (the Dems think they can beat DeWine, and that drives this). Apparently they wanted Hackett to run for the House, but Hackett, having done that once, didn't want to do it again. Then he dragged his feet on his Senate announcement until after Brown jumped in. That's a no-no, apparently.

So there may be little more to the story than the Dems trying to get their fluffy baby ducks in a row.
Posted by: Steve White   2006-02-14 19:24  

#16  Remember, even Mao had to turn on his Red Guard to retain the power of the Party. Purges are always fun to watch, from the outside.

Let the Picadors work the old bull over for a while, before we send in the Matador to finish the work.
Posted by: Whiter Thrack5714   2006-02-14 17:58  

#15  'Hawk, i bet you've got some stories to tell. One of these days, I'll have to buy you a beer or three.
Posted by: Mike   2006-02-14 17:20  

#14  Just the other day I was lamenting that the GOP was not recruiting Iraq vets hard enough, and that the first vet to run for office was a Dem. Now I see the Progressive Committee for the Prevention of Vice and the Promotion of Virtue has taken their sticks to his ankles. Way to go Dems. You deserve to lose every election 'til the end of time.
Posted by: Seafarious   2006-02-14 17:07  

#13  Dad never did anything to be investigated for, which made him almost unique in that county.
Posted by: Mike   2006-02-14 17:02  

#12  hey mike Im from Brooklyn. When I was in college i joined the local reformers and ran for the County Committee against the very dominant Kings County machine. They sent subpeonas out to us about our nominating petitions, which they claimed were forged. Apparently this was standard practice to scare people off. The Reform groups lawyers, said dont worry, we'll deal with it. Nothing came of it.

BTW, if you think Rove et al wouldnt go to donors and talk to them about who would or wouldnt make a good candidate in a state race, I think you would be mistaken. Hell, those people go around trying to get lobbyists to only hire Republicans.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-02-14 16:28  

#11  my dad was one of the few elected officials in our county who was never indicted, or even investigated!).

Not indicted or investigated? Did he just get lucky or was there no reason to? ;-)
Posted by: 2b   2006-02-14 16:10  

#10  I thought the shark feeding frenzy was off the coast of Australia?
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-02-14 15:24  

#9  Not sure if "Anti-War" candidate is a fair characterization of Hackett. Guess it depends on which prisim you look through. Clearly he is Anti-Bush. And indeed he is critical of the current Iraq war but mostly on operational issues. (Iraqi soldier training, Exit Strategy, Nation Building, etc.) IIRC, he was slammed pretty heavily by the far left for being ex-military and a gun enthusiest.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2006-02-14 15:15  

#8  If I recall correctly, Hackett ("I hate that liar Bush, and I'm a veteran (and a lawyer from the expensive part of town)") was beaten in an off year, in what was touted to the Party faithful as a critical election, by a suburban housewife. That isn't the kind of thing that would make him look electable to pragmatic Party Machine bosses.

Robert Crawford, you know more about such things -- am I right?
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-02-14 14:33  

#7  Veteran Hackett driven out of Democrat politics by integrity.

Let's not forget that Mr. Hackett didn't turn anti-war until after the election. During the election he ran as a moderate veteran. Nobody is really sure what Paul Hackett stands for.
Posted by: DoDo   2006-02-14 14:21  

#6  Good analysis, 'Hawk. You've raised some points, and pointed out some wrinkles, I wasn't considering.

I grew up around urban Democrat machine politics (my dad was one of the few elected officials in our county who was never indicted, or even investigated!). As reptillian as it got in my old hometown, I never heard of having the arm-twisters call somebody's donors and ask them to stop giving. That's sticking the knife in deep.
Posted by: Mike   2006-02-14 14:15  

#5  that should be "reaching to at least part of the left"
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-02-14 14:10  

#4  good analysis mike, except id like to disavow Kerry on behalf of the machine. Or maybe to introduce some wrinkles. Theres a pragmatic more or less ideological centrist pole, around the DLC, PPI, etc. Theres a different pragmatic, but less ideological pole, around the congressional leadership. And then there are activists you mention. And then theres the Clinton machine - Clinton (bill) started off with the DLC as a base, but has attempted to be "larger" than the DLC, and of course was able to triangulate within the party, reaching to at least part of the center. In 2004, with the Clintons effectively on the sidelines, the party had a more difficult time reaching across the divide. Kerry was, paradoxically, less appealing to both sides (IMO) than Clinton had been. Though hed flirted with DLC in the past, hardcore DLC folks didnt like him, in large part over foreign policy. In fact another new dem org was founded, the New Democrat Network, to be less hostile to the left than DLC has been. The congressional establishment rallied around Kerry, and the Clintons did when it was clear he was the only alternative to Dean. And its not impossible that Kerrys weakness as a candidate was in fact a selling point for the Clintons, looking to 2008.

So the battle is more complex than simply left vs right. As I would add, is the battle for the GOP.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-02-14 14:08  

#3  Lets hope the other Dem anti-war candidates fare as well.
Posted by: Iblis   2006-02-14 13:36  

#2  Alternateheadline:

Veteran Hackett driven out of Democrat politics by integrity.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-02-14 13:30  

#1  Alternate headline:

"Democrats Leftwing Blogosphere: Screw You"
Posted by: eLarson   2006-02-14 13:14  

00:00