So Hackett's the DU hero---but not because he's liberal.

[Inland]

After the threads smacking around Hillary because she's moving to the center, or "pandering" to the center, and worrying about DLC, and complaining about centrists coming to DU, suddenly Hackett's the hero.

Not because he's liberal, or progressive on all the issues, or even most of the issues.

He's right about ONE issue, the very biggest issue. The idiocy of the decision to go to war. Much the same about Dr. Dean; he ain't that left. But he was right about ONE BIG ISSUE.

In my mind, being right on ONE BIG ISSUE, and being a bright, good person, is good enough for a democrat and we don't need an inquisition for purity of heart and mind on everything. I don't need to hear the particulars about Hackett's views on gun control and parental notification of parents of minors getting abortions if he can steal away a seat from a repug congressman.

Let's apply the same test to all of our democratic officeholders and candidates.

Strong, good characters, fighters, and being right on the few issues that really, really are going to make a difference. Put them in office, and things will get better someday.

[tk2kewl]

1. He's also a hero because he has a "take-no-prisoners" approach.

Hit 'em where it hurts and kick 'em while they're down.

[Kalish]

2. Here's why

"Does candidate 'distance himself' from the party and/or its leaders, or is he proud to be a Democrat?

Does he talk like a bureaucrat or like a regular person?

Does she make it clear that she opposes Bush and the Republicans?

Does she back down when the corporate press/media or Republican pundits attack him, or does she stand by her words?

Does he sleepwalk through the campaign, or does he act like he wants to win?"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/3/9331/81055

[faithnotgreed]

6. ill take that candidate

esp the one who will speak up in a no nonsense way and call bush out with logic passion and intelligence
and wont back down from it

aka truth

[Inland]

11. But wanting to win is precisely what's criticized

taking up issue that bother regular people is precisely the sin.

the first is pandering, the second is moving to the center if not becoming a republican.

All that happens is that one is done by Hackett and one is done by Kerry.

Or that Hackett is sufficiently unknown that we can paint any characteristic in him we want.

I don't mind the criteria. I mind the implication that all those things aren't being done by almost all other democrats.

[PA Mamma]

68. YUP, "regular guy" !! n/t

[still_one]

3. no, he is liberal

1. He is for Roe V Wade, and a woman's right to choose, he doesn't mince words and try to speak out of both sides of his mouth

2. He is for gay marriage, not a particulary conservative issues

3. He believes we should NOT have gone into Iraq, something Clinton didn't share

Sorry, he is definitely progressive

[Inland]

8. You are comparing imagined Hackett with the imagined Clinton, not reality

I sure didn't see anything about gay marriage on Hackett's website. Pandering, maybe?

I didn't see Roe v. Wade on his website. Pandering, maybe?

I don't see anything about Clinton saying that Iraq invasion was a good idea, today, now that we know. Where was Hackett in 2003?

Fact is, there is any rationality for Hackett being a hero and Clinton a lying sack of shit, except for the contempt we have for democrats who win elections vs. democrats without a record.

[still_one]

26. it is NOT imaged

the words came OUT of his mouth

I see plenty with Clinton and Senator giving bush the authority to go to war

Did you ever hear about the war powers act?

How about the Constitutional responsibility that only Congress can declare war

These cowards thought they could shift the blame, will it won't work with me. I will NOT vote for President ANYONE who gave bush the authority to go into Iraq

I will vote for Feingold, Boxer, Dean, Clark, and quite a few others we were against us going into this war, but will not give the opportunity to anyone who didn't have the guts to do their job.

Incidently, I never called Clinton a liar. I will call her a political opportunist though

[Raiden]

30. I'm not sure about his stance on gay marriage

But he said several times during the campaign that he is pro-choice. He said it on several AAR interviews also.

[still_one]

33. In interviews he said he has no problem with it

and people should focus on the real problems

[One_of_8]

45. He discussed his stance on gay marriage

in a recent Salon interview. I'll see if I can find the link to add to this post. He basically said that he doesn't care if someone is gay, and he also thinks that gays should be allowed to legally marry and have the same rights and privileges as hetero couples.

[One_of_8]

58. here is a link to Salon interview/article

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/26/hackett_schmidt/index_np.html

Hackett is pro-choice. Schmidt is president of Cincinnati Right to Life. Schmidt voted against gay marriage in the Ohio House of Representatives, while Hackett's take is: "Gay marriage -- who the hell cares?"

Hackett, who is married, says he doesn't feel the need to defend his marriage through the national Defense of Marriage Act, or any other anti-gay marriage legislation. "If you're gay you're gay -- more power to you," he said. "What you want is to be treated fairly by the law and any American who doesn't think that should be the case is, frankly, un-American."

[Cha]

69. Yeah, I read that and

thought the world of him for saying it.

[Raiden]

78. That's great!!!

He's even more progressive than I thought!!!

[David Zephyr]

24. He is more liberal than Hillary Clinton.

I agree with you, still_one.

[FreedomAngel82]

64. Yes

Those who say he wasn't liberal didn't read his website and what he said about certain issues that he talked about and he is very liberal. He's like me on all the issues he talked about and I'm a very very left wing liberal.

[Reciprocity]

4. The test for me are the words SOB and chicken hawk.

Quote
Let's apply the same test to all of our democratic officeholders and candidates.

The litmus test for me was him calling the idiot in the White House a SOB and a chicken hawk. If more of our democratic officeholders and candidates do that, then I'll be more than happy to vote for them.

[Inland]

9. A litmus test of venting and namecalling. Well, it's an idea.

Not a good one, but it's an idea.

Can't wait to tell the independents and republicans why it is that we enthusiastically back our candidates.

Is it good enough that Hillary compared Bush to Alfred E. Neuman?

Should we nominate the first person who, regardless of any other position, calls Bush a mother fucker, and make his runningmate the guy who called Bush a dipshit?

[Reciprocity]

16. If the shoe fits wear it.

[still_one]

28. I won't call bush an SOB or a MF

I will call him a murderer

[madfloridian]

5. You missed the bigger issue.

When you referred to the DLC and Hillary....you missed the issue entirely.

You see, this all had nothing to do with the DLC. They were not even involved in this. This was about us, about the people in the party. Even the DCCC did not want to wade in until the rest of of us donated and took a chance.

You see, the issue is that Hillary, instead of standing firmly with the DNC took her stand firmly with the DLC. It was a stab in the back to the party, and she made herself clear.

Most of us are not that close-minded to some of the things you mentioned. Hackett got the right tone with saying you don't want the government controlling your right to bear arms, and you don't want them meddling in your health care.

The issue is not that Hackett was far left, most of us aren't. The far left crap is the DLC defining us, just as they did in 2003.

The issue is that Hillary took her stand with a group that does not care about us. Dean is trying to determine the party in terms of the people. She said in her actions that she will define it in terms of the corporate DLC.

[Inland]

13. That's the bigger issue?

This alphabet soup and defining, standing, inside party baseball?

No, of course it isn't. The bigger issue is winning elections. That's why I say being right on one big issue and being a democrat is enough. Nobody asked if Hackett was DLC or DNC or QED. Nobody cared, and rightly so.

[T Roosevelt]

17. "The bigger issue is winning elections"

You are partly right - and the DLC hasn't really won anything since 1993.

[Inland]

20. No, the democrats haven't won anything since '96.

That's the fact, that's the problem, that's what needs to be cured.

Winning with moderates like Hackett is a good thing. That's the lesson to be applied across the board.

[Mairead]

75. If all you care about is winning, vote GOP. (nt)

[madfloridian]

18. What has the DLC won since Clinton in 96?

Make a list.

[Inland]

19. Um. That's sorta my point. Clinton won, and that was good.

Let me ask you this: would you support Clinton, Mr. DLC, if he ran again? Of course. Winning counts, and Clinton was close enough on the issues. He sure was studiously moderate.

But not Hillary?

[FightinNewDem]

73. As you wish

For starters, New Dems have won the governor's office in a number of states, including several that are historically Republican:

Gov. Janet Napolitano
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius
Gov. Mark Warner
Gov. Ed Rendell
Gov. Tom Vilsack
Gov. John Lynch
Gov. Kathleen Blanco
Gov. Phil Bredesen
Gov. Christine Gregoire
Gov. Jim Doyle

[Guaranteed]

44. Speaking of winning elections,

here are the numbers in Ohio's second district for the past couple of decades:

No Democrat has won this seat since 1980. You have to go back to 1984 to find a Democrat polling more than 30% of the vote.

(Winners in red)

(R) (D)
72% 28% 2004
74% 26% 2002
76% 24% 2000
76% 24% 1998
76% 24% 1996
77% 23% 1994
70% 30% 1992
no data 1990
72% 28% 1988
71% 29% 1986
69% 31% 1984
65% 35% 1982
41% 59% 1980

'92 on is hardcore DLC leadership. Where it drops way below 30% for years.

Fast forward to 2005- Paul Hackett, 48%. What on EARTH happened?

[Inland]

47. Great question. What's that got to do with my OP?

Maybe, just maybe, what happened is democrats willing to vote for a democratic candidate. That's usually a good start: the democrats want the democrat to win.

Maybe, just maybe, that in Ohio like here on DU a guy who's right on one or two big issues is close enough.

And if Hackett is good enough to become the DU poster boy when running against a republican, then the whipping that Kerry and Hillary and Gore and everyone else gets for, what, being politicians and moderates is wrong.

So if you want to see improvement like the Hackett showing, all I'm saying is: let's vote for people, not abstract notions of ideological purity. Let's give democrats our votes, and encourage all other democrats to be as reasonable. Then we can go for the other 20 percent.

I'd like to know how democrats are supposed to win without the democratic vote, and for people who are withholding votes to tell me why. The answer tends to show me that the democrats aren't meant to win elections. I don't share that goal.

[Reciprocity]

48. Baggage they have it he doesn't.. n/t

[Inland]

54. It's the sad advantage.

Everyone imagines the traits of the person they don't know well.

But then, halfway through the campaign, the candidate becomes known, either rightly or wrongly.

I think the fact is that if we used less imagination of the evil sort about every other dem candidate, we'd see less baggage and more good.

[Guaranteed]

50. I thought I was responding to your post #13. nt

[Inland]

52. Which said the alphabet soup didn't matter.

And it shouldn't. As far as DU was concerned, Hackett is good enough without the inside baseball.

My OP and no 13 are about democrats voting for democrats, as opposed to some purity assay.

[napi21]

7. You are only party right. Paul Hackett had another BIG

attribute that attracted all the Dems. He isw not afraid to say what he thinks, and sure is NOT politically correct!

He called Shrub a Chicken hawk and an SOB, and when interviewers called him on it, he said YES I DID, and I'll say it again!

The same thing people liked about Galloway(?), the Brit who ripped the senators apart, is what they loved about Hackett. He wasn't afraid to say what he thought and stick with it!

Lots of Dems are looking for blood, and Paul gave them a little.

[sunnystarr]

61. His killer smile didn't hurt either. (nt)

[stray cat]

10. An honest outspoken moderate is sure fine with me.

I value candidates that are straight forward, have integrity and speak truths others are afraid to say. I like a person who has conviction as long as they are not the convictions of a radical republican or neocon.

[Inland]

12. That's all I'm saying. nt

[FreedomAngel82]

66. Paul Hackett isn't a moderate

He's pro-choice, progun rights and against the Iraq war from the very beginning. He also is against privitizing Social Security or changing it. On a local show he said he thought they should raise the gap I believe.

[woodleydem]

71. Pro-gun rights isn't a liberal position. Gun control is traditionally a

liberal position.

[madfloridian]

14. You are twisting issues all over the place here.

You seem to think that you can compare Hackett and Clinton. No, you can't.

The issue with Clinton is her taking a stand, not with the DNC, but with the DLC.

That has nothing to do with Hackett.

[Inland]

21. I can compare them, in what counts.

Strong characters, right on a few big issues.

Who the fuck knows about Hackett and the DNC or DLC, or cares? Why would it be different with him than any of the candidates regularly flogged on DU?

[rniel]

15. He called Bush a son of a bitch!!

I don't care if he's liberal or not he's a hero for that alone.

[union_maid]

22. If Hillary would say this

From Hackett's site:

http://hackettforcongress.com/index.php?page=display&id=67

America gives us all the opportunity to be successful and small businesses are the lifeblood of American ingenuity. More than half of our work force is employed by companies of five hundred or fewer workers. That's why I believe we should redirect the tax break and financial incentives going to big corporations to our small businesses.

Giving a boost to small businesses is denounced as “big government.” But when a huge oil company receives a taxpayer subsidy, it’s hailed as “good government” and “growing the economy.” That’s Un-American. That’s wrong.

I’m a small-business owner. I have five employees. When Hackett Law Offices has a bad month, we don’t fire half the staff and then get a handout from the government for doing it.

Yet that’s exactly what’s happening with American corporations. The government is offering financial incentives to corporations for outsourcing our jobs overseas.

Those are our tax dollars. They should benefit us, the American taxpayers. They shouldn’t be funneled to some large corporation with an American name and an offshore bank account that is relocating thousands of jobs a hemisphere away.

Outsourcing our country’s intellectual and technological wealth not only puts our economy at risk, but also our national security. An example of this dangerous practice is the partnership the United States has with Egypt to build M1A1 battle tanks. It’s bad for jobs. It’s bad for national security. It’s bad for the economy.

What’s more, government funding for scientific research is declining for the first time in years. So while big business is enjoying bigger and bigger tax breaks, we’re stunting the growth of American innovation. That’s also bad government, and bad leadership.

It’s time to re-examine our priorities and remember just what it is that makes America great.

If she said something like that, I might support her. As it is, she's still talking up free trade and pretending that the problems Americans are facing is all about a skills gap or something. I want to hear her honestly acknowlege that the global economy has caused huge problems for American employees and that we can't compete with the kind of wages they're getting overseas. As long as she's pretending that having a few companies send their crumbs our way is going to work, as far as I'm concerned she might as well be a Republican. Not Bush or his crowd, because they're a special kind of bad, but a normal, moderate Republican. That's not someone who's going to get my support.

[Inland]

23. Shit, that's lifted right from Kerry.

He too noted the tax breaks and rewards given directly by our government for investing overseas, and he too didn't say anything about curtailing free trade.

Hackett doesn't say the global economy is causing problems, or sying a single bad thing about Nafta or Cafta or the WTO or whatever.

[union_maid]

32. It's a lot better than what Hillary said

His statement acknowleges the problem. Hillary doesn't appear to be doing that. Kerry did, although Clark was ahead of him on understanding the scope of it. I just want to hear someone say that yes, our jobs are being sent offshore and no, that's not good. I can't get a response from Hillary's office on some recent statements of hers on the subject and she's my senator.

[karynnj]

70. Why was Clark on to this earlier

Kerry's Senate speech on NAFTA which he called "What's NAFTA got to do with it" is one of the best statements on the shifts of jobs overseas. Kerry was and is very knowlegable on this and I doubt he was following Clark - who was still in the millitary on this.

[sunnystarr]

65. He kept it simple and that works ...

Most people don't know the fancy words or follow CAFTA ... they all have heard of outsourcing.

The average US citizen doesn't pay attention, read the paper or even watch much more than the local news to see the weather report.

People know what they see and experience and once it hits home they get it. They've seen the loss of jobs and they talk about outsourcing.

I heard one commentator say that if those poor 14 Ohio soldiers had lost their lives a day earlier that Hackett probably would have gone over the top.

The message has finally trickled down through over-the-fence neighbor to neighbor or around the water cooler chats and Jay Leno jokes. So they know about Iraq and no WMDs and the massive deficit.

They know they don't have health care. Tens of thousands have just been kicked off TennCare in TN and other states are having probs too. Local taxes are going up and local news lets them know that the states have a bigger burden because of Washington cuts.

The ones that don't know need to hear it in plain talk. The ones that do know need to be reminded.

The border issue is big due to the increased cost of providing medicaid, education, etc. and this is resulting in cuts or higher taxes. Construction trade jobs are lost to illegal aliens and nothing is done. And of course the fear that terrorists can cross the borders - which comes in second tho but it's a politically correct focal point to vent the anger at the issues that are hitting the pocket book.

Personally I don't think it's the Republican message that's hitting home with their base. Their base is listening to the messenger at the pulpit who's telling them who to vote for. We'll never reach those who would vote against their own interests in the name of religion. But their numbers aren't large enough to win an election.

As far as Hackett's calling Bush an SOB etc., I think a Marine can get away with it but I wouldn't recommend it for others.

We just have to appeal to their hearts and minds... oh yeah that was the Iraqi's.

[Catrina]

35. Yes but Hillary

cares more about her own career than she does about taking a stand, like on the war eg.

I lost respect for Hillary Clinton on the night of the IWR. I watched her sell her party down the river and try to excuse herself for doing so. She spoke right after Sen. Byrd, who made an impassioned plea to his party not to vote for that resolution. She seemed phony and apologetic, like a lover trying to get out of a relationship, while trying to get the one s/he is leaving behind to keep on loving them, saying all the things she thought were proper to say to those of us she was saying goodbye to, in the end she said 'but, sorry, I have to leave you ~ someone is offering me a better deal, but stick around, this might not work out'.

Hackett called Bush an SOB and a chickenhawk, along with his entire administration. That was the truth. Hillary sucks up to the rightwing, and they hate her anyone, with a passion. I have no respect for that kind of pandering.

Hackett did mention gay marriage, actually. His response to the question 'what do you think about gay marriage' was 'I don't give a damn about it. It's not my business what other people do in their privat lives' and then he went on to the next topic. That's the attitude I want to see. Not to allow the right to make big issues of things that should not be issues in the first place.

On the environment, he drives a hybrid and is very concerned about it. All in all, to may way of thinking, he was a almost a perfect candidate. We need more like him ~ then maybe we'll start winning.

[Reciprocity]

38. Thanks for the info Catrina. Hackett for president. n/t

[Cha]

72. I have the same feelings about

hillary since the Speech..that's a good analogy. I hadn't thought of it like that but I will now!

[LittleClarkie]

25. Rather how folks responded to Byrd

He's anti-war, so people overlook that he also voted for the Bankruptcy bill.

[Inland]

27. So, we should let Byrd's seat go to a republican? Of course not.

That's all I'm saying. I care a whole lot more about the war, and all the evils that go into justifying it (the lies, the secrecy, gitmo, faux patriotism) than I do about the bankruptcy bill. I won't risk that seat going to a republican warmonger tax cut for the rich guy who will also vote for the bankruptcy bill AND MORE.

[LittleClarkie]

31. That's what I say when people want to go after this person or that

There better be a Dem butt in their seat after they're done. Doesn't have to be the SAME Dem butt. But it better be A Dem butt, or I'm personally gonna be peeved. Leiberman is an example. Try for a different Dem, but damn it, don't lose the seat to a Repub.

[brentspeak]

29. The biggest different between Hillary and Hackett

is that Paul Hackett knows how to talk about the issues with clarity. He speaks about things, and he makes it crystal clear where he stands.

But listen to Hillary (or read the DLC website): you have to get past a whole laundry-list of qualifiers before even getting an inkling of where Hillary is coming from. "While it is important to protect jobs from competing interests abroad, we feel that America must consider the other options, and come to an understanding of the various factors that influence the issue, while, at the same time, realizing that free trade laws can enable...blah,blah,blah."

As clear as mud.

[Raiden]

34. Exactly right! That and the fact that he knows how to fight

Hackett is a fighter, and Hillary is a corporate hack... rather ironic


We need more Dems like Paul Hackett.

[Inland]

36. That's the imagined Hackett.

Here's his statement on "Guns" from his website. Tell me his positions on registration:

"I grew up with guns. I’ve been a hunter since I was kid.

"I understand that guns in the wrong hands are deadly. They must be kept out of the hands of criminals. And we must demand that law-abiding citizens who do own guns, like me, use them safely, responsibly and in compliance with the law.

"I have safety locks on my firearms. At home, they’re locked in a safe. When I go hunting outside of Ohio, I make sure I comply with the local gun laws.

"All my friends who share my interest in hunting share my sense of responsibility toward the safe use and storage of their firearms."

Not exactly clear WHERE he stands, except that he has guns himself. So did Kerry. So WHAT.

Of course, it's just a website. But let's grow up: the guy is in a red, red, gunnie area.

But for most candidates, DU would demand the hari-kiri of taking an explicit position against guns.

[Raiden]

41. I agree with him on gun issues

sue me! I think it could be tied in with environmental issues (preserving forests for hunting, conservation - issues which hunters typically support) and puts our foot in the door with people who would benefit from our economic policies - people who vote Republican because of that one issue.

I personally wish the Dems would drop gun control as an issue. Federally anyway.

[FreedomAngel82]

67. I'm with Hackett as well on guns

I used to be very pro-gun control but now my views have changed that I'm getting older. It's in the Constiution that people can have their guns and that's what I stand for (and the Bill of Rights). All I ask is for the person to be responsible and if something happens for them to take responsibility since the gun is in their name and to have background checks and not make it easy for people to get guns who will do bad things for them.

[Raiden]

79. Same here

I used to be very pro-gun control, but the more I thought about it, I realized that position made me a hypocrite. The wording of the 2nd amendment is very, very ambiguous. The comma really makes it hard to decipher the original intent. I believe that it doesn't matter whether or not the founding fathers were referring to a militia or comprehensive gun rights, in my opinion, there is as much a constitutional right to *responsible* gun ownership as there is to abortion, freedom of expression, and a separation of church and state. Though none of those things are explicitly mentioned, I believe that they are protected by the document nonetheless. All those rights are fundamental.

[Guaranteed]

42. What he's saying is that people

need to be responsible with guns and their gun rights.

I totally agree with him. I don't think he was screwing around, there.

[Inland]

46. It was kept nice and vague and bland so you would agree with it.

Who could disagree? That's kinda the point.

If DU were in its usual mode, there would be a hue and cry for an explicitly liberal statement on that and everything else.

Sensibly, for Hackett, there isn't a demand for political suicide for an attractive, articulate candidate.

I'm just wondering why him and not all the other dems.

[ChiciB1]

37. I Think He's More Liberal Than Hillary & More

honest in his approach to what he wanted. Economics is another BIG issue that the Democrats need to take a real hard look at.

I know quite of few struggling families these days, some I've given my hard earned money to and KNOW I'll never see it back.

I don't care what "the corrupt ones" say about the economy... it has cracks in so many many places.

Hillary HAS not embraced either issue to any real extent.

[welshTerrier2]

39. Hackett is wrong on the war ...

whine all you want to about litmus tests or any other criticisms you might choose to offer ... i was sorry Hackett lost but i will not put my campaign energies or my campaign dollars into anyone who preaches the "we're stuck there" meme ...

had a progressive Democrat or a progressive from another party been running against Hackett, they, not he, would have had my support ...

that's the PDA position and that's my position as well ...

[Inland]

43. Not according to DU.

On DU, he's the bomb because he has the exact same positions on Iraq plus calling Bush a chickenhawk.

Frankly, if we didn't have an idiot in office in the first place---even most republicans wouldn't have gone for the Iraq invasion, much less go through all the trouble of lying about it---pull out now vs. pull out later wouldn't be an issue.

It's a tough question, and I'm not surprised that people are all over the map. How do you fix what's so fucked up from its inception? My guess is that nobody knows until a bright person gets into office and tells the DOD and State to try. That's why winning counts. I'll take Hackett's or Hillary's or Kerry's instincts and values, no matter what their "position" on withdrawal. I'd guess they would all end up in the same place.

I'm for making fewer issues later on. When we had to worry about was whether Kosovo's five thousand troops is a drain, what to do with the surplus, that was great. It can only be done with dems in office. That's the priority.

[welshTerrier2]

49. was DU polled on whether they agreed with Hackett's Iraq position?

i can't speak for DU; i can only speak for myself ...

i will not be supporting anyone who buys into the "we're stuck there" foolishness as Hackett apparently does ...

as i said, i'm sorry Hackett lost ... but i wish the Party would have run someone who opposes the occupation ...

[Inland]

53. I can't speak for DU, but it speaks for itself, and I read.

Hackett's the darling who told Bush off about the war, but in reality, he's got the same position as Kerry or Clinton.

I'd vote for them, but then again, I'd vote for you too. I believe that they'd do right by us, more or less, on the Iraq thing.

[welshTerrier2]

55. well that's great ...

if i have your vote and my own, i'm off to a running start ...

i agree with your points about the inconsistency some have displayed ... i doubt any of us hardcore anti-war types would have voted for Hackett though ...

and i wonder how many DU'ers were clear on his exact position on the war ... supporting a candidate just because he called bush an SOB doesn't make for much of a platform ...

[Reciprocity]

56. "I believe that they'd do right by us, more or less, on the Iraq thing."

No I strongly disagree. They voted to grant Bush authority to use military force against Iraq at his discretion.

[eridani]

60. Reasonable people can disagree about HOW to leave Iraq

The way that would cause the least further damage is far from obvious. The key thing here is that he forthrightly states that the war was a mistake, and he is against a permanent military presence there.

[welshTerrier2]

77. "The key thing here"

i appreciate your statement that reasonable people can disagree about HOW to leave Iraq ... i would not argue that those who disagree with immediate or near-term withdrawal are necessarily unreasonable ...

but i don't agree with your statement that "The key thing here is that he forthrightly states that the war was a mistake, and he is against a permanent military presence there." ... i agree with both of those positions but do not agree they are the "key thing" ...

i believe the "key thing" is to stop the killing and end the occupation ... people are dying today ... they died yesterday and they will die tomorrow ... life in Iraq has become a cauldron of hell for millions of innocent Iraqis ... with each day that passes with American occupation, i believe things become LESS STABLE, not more stable ...

the "key thing" obey what is commonly stated as the first rule of medicine: "do no harm" ... i don't know what will happen if Americans withdraw now but i've seen enough of what has happened when we did not ... i will only support candidates who call for withdrawal because i believe doing otherwise will put our country at much greater risk, perpetuate the terrible relationship we have with the Muslim world, lose the respect of the rest of the world, cost billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives, and, in the end, will not achieve anything ...

[Guaranteed]

40. Not that familiar with him, but from what I've heard,

and referencing EarlG's post from a few days back, Hackett is pushing "true blue" Democratic values. I'm not sure what you don't think is liberal about him.

[1932]

51. On what issue ISN'T Hacket liberal?

[Armstead]

57. Healthcare

Not a specific plan here, but at least unlike the DLC, he is willing to address the mess of our reliance on private market healthcare.

This -- instead of being apologists for corporate interests, is what the democrats need more of. basic Liberalism 101.


http://hackettforcongress.com/index.php?page=display&id=68

Healthcare

America has the finest healthcare in the world. Unfortunately, far too few people have access to it. In fact, America ranks an embarrassing 17th of the 33 developed nations in life expectancy.

There is no reason why all Americans should not have affordable access to quality healthcare.

Health insurance premiums are rising at 4 times the rate of inflation. These outrageous premiums are not only too costly for individuals and small businesses, they’ve grown too burdensome for large employers. GM recently laid off 8% of its work force because it was paying more per car produced on healthcare premiums than on steel.

The health insurance industry is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, inappropriate care, waste, and fraud. That’s not just hurting healthcare consumers and companies that offer healthcare benefits. It’s also driving good doctors out of business.

Other developed countries pay between 9% and 11% of their G.D.P. on healthcare. America spends 15.3%, and the costs are rising every year at a rate much higher than inflation. The situation is dire.

I don’t have a standard health insurance policy but a Medical Savings Account with a catastrophic health insurance component with a $5,000 deductible. With three small children, some years that gets a little hard to swallow, even though I make a very good living. I pay taxes to see that my neighbors and I get the things we need. Is it too much to expect that some of our tax dollars be allocated towards a fair system that provides affordable healthcare coverage to all Americans?

I’m not suggesting we pay more taxes, just that they get spent on what’s really important. Our government should be more concerned about preserving the health of our people than protecting the profits of the health insurance industry and other powerful interests.

[Wizard777]

59. Liberals can be extremists too.

I am a centrist. I believe in ballanced government. I also understand that in a true democracy. I am entitled to what I need to survive. But I'm not getting everything I wan't also. There must be compromize. But when the conservatives decide that they are going to war with the liberals to enact political genocide. If I am forced to chose a flank or be destroyed in the crossfire. I'm going liberal. After all who's a afraid of a conservative ass kicking? Now who wants a liberal ass kicking? My Momma didn't raise no fool! Too bad for America that Bush can't honestly say the samething.

As for Hillary. If she thinks reesyablishing the center is more important than prosecuting Bush and Cheny for their Crimes against America. I do not support her even thinking about running. In fact I would be more infavor of charging her as a coconspirator and accessory after the fact for even suggesting it. Then upon conviction doubling her sentance because she is a Democrat and should know better! The prosecution of Bush and Cheney is a must. We need to firmly establish to that certain faction in the republican party that their treasonous continuing criminal enterprizes will not be tollerated for any reason. If we do not prosecute Bush & Cheney. That faction will declare The US Constitution a dead letter. No if's, and's, or but's about it. This is the Era that America must defend the US Constitution from it's domestic enemies that have infiltrated our Government. Let both parties be equally damned! This is about preserving the US Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less, and most definately nothing else!

[FreedomAngel82]

62. One reason why I like Hackett

is because he and I agree on the issues discussed on his website. I also love how he talks and how he doesn't take back anything he said. Even on "Hardball" Matthews asked him about his chickenhawk statement and he stud by it. We need more people like that.

[radio4progressives]

63. I just heard Hackett on today's edition of Democracy Now!

Paul Hackett didn't have a "platform" per se - but the one thing that he said in today's interview said it all for me in terms of what he is about -and it resonated LOUD and CLEAR like no other politician (except for a few members of the Black Caucus, Kucinich, and others of the PROGRESSIVE caucus) were his passionate comments regarding CIVIL LIBERTIES - PRIVACY rights, making it very clear that he ain't no CORPORATE WHORE - (like the DLC) and I didn't hear code speech favoring "globalization" and my sense is that he is against PRIVITIZATION of natural resources etc.

And I don't see him as a stooge for the phony propaganda on the so called "war on terror" .

The DLC FAVORS the propagandizing of creating the bogey men behind every bush (no pun intended)- and I don't get that sense from Paul Hackett.

Huge distinction in my mind.

[Mairead]

74. He's only a "hero" to a few. (nt)

[sendero]

76. Here we go...

... I'm an admirer of Hacketts' for several reasons. Dems better pay attention if they ever want to win an effing election again, ever.

You seem to be implying that we have a lot of Hacketts. If that is what you are saying, I could not disagree more.