Was Paul Hackett a fluke?

[Wetzelbill]

Honestly. Here we have a guy who comes in and almost wins in a heavy Republican district. Against all odds. And, he does it by calling the President an SOB - best Dem moment all year in my opinion- and basically firing away no holds barred.

But, could it work for everybody?

I've been wondering it myself. This morning George Will talked about it a little bit too, on ABC.

Here we have Hackett, a charismatic soldier, coming into this race with a lot of support on the Left, some media attention and a gigantic pair of stones. He was facing a pretty, um, uncharismatic woman to say the least.

Was he able to get away with some stuff most Dems couldn't? Probably.

But, I don't think he was a fluke. I think he just goes to show that when you go out and fight and speak like a passionate person, good things happen.

Dennis Kucinich carries his district which was always a Republican district before he came along. Because people trust him, that's why, they believe DK is fighting for their best interests.

Bernie Sanders is a socialist who has converted many of Vermont's Republicans into diehard supporters, by speaking passionately about economic issues that people care about. Year in and year out. People have been known to put up both Bush and Sanders signs in their yards.

In Montana, blunt-speaking Governor Brian Schweitzer won his race in a state in which Bush hammered Kerry by twenty points in the same election. He did it by advocating a common-sense populist approach to his campaign. Now he's getting a reputation as a guy who gets things done, fighting for the people and earning their respect.

Sure, you could say lots of stuff about them. Hackett came at the right time, gave a good showing, but still lost against a weak candidate. It took both DK and Bernie years of toiling to get where they are. Schweitzer ran against a weak candidate and followed the most embarrassing governor in MT history.

Those all may be valid.

But, there is something to be said for what they do. How they fight, and what they stand for. Democrats will forever be a minority party if we continue to stand around and let others define the issues. If we appear like we have no conviction. If we fight each other more than the other side. Because we are right. And, we damn well know we are.

We just can't win elections.

And, we won't if we continue to sell out on garbage like CAFTA or the Bankruptcy bill and continue to be in on the wishy-washy foreign policy status quo.

This Beltway Democrat shit isn't cutting it. It hasn't for years.

When I used to ride bulls we had this saying about people who would get all dressed up, make a big show about being a cowboy, but who rarely even entered a rodeo or if they did they wussed out and never tried that hard to make a ride.

We used to say that these people were "All Show and No Go."

Right now our party leadership is just that. Plenty of show but not any fucking go, whatsoever.

It's time to take heed of the people who get the job done. People that I mentioned earlier on. Who stand up, fight and win.

It's time to go.

[LaurenG]

1. Absolutely (the end of your post)

Great post!:bounce: :bounce: :hi:

clarification

[ldf]

2. he was either a last gasp

or a harbinger of the future democratic party.

i sure hope it is the latter.

[coloradodem2005]

4. Me too.

[Janice325]

3. Great post. Thanks!

[brook]

5. Good job!

Nail meet Head. I couldn't agree with you more.

Wish we could clone Hackett. In the meantime, I hope there are potential candidates out there who will take heed and learn from him.

[FightinNewDem]

6. Was it a fluke?

That remains to be seen.

Hackett ran about as strong a race as any Democrat could in that district. He struck a resonant chord with his personal style, the fire, passion and obvious sense of conviction.

In my home state of NH, too many of our partisan bretheren can be described as Path of least Resistance Democrats, Contrary to what some think, it isn't a DLC vs. DFA or moderate vs. progressive affair. It's a matter of showing a willingness to stand by ones convictions. it's a matter of putting the long-term public good ahead of that $50 contribution from a gambling lobbyist. It's a matter of looking to the next generation, not just the next negative editorial in the Manchester Union-Leader.

As a lot of you know, I'm running for higher office (Congress) in 2006. Frankly, I am not a favorite of a lot of the local party old guard characters. I have run and won on environmental issues in a district where the conventional wisdom says you can't do that. I have opposed casino gambling despite the fact that the local Dem crowd is heavily into that ill-advised approach. As a result, I have been tagged as a troublemaker and a malcontent by the usual suspects. Yet I have been elected by the people of my district three times in a row.

As I have travelled around NH this summer, one thing I find is a hunger for straight talk and toughness. The wet noodle criticism isn't getting it done. I am willing to play hardball, even on issues where Dems are supposed to just shut up, such as defense, terrorism and veterans issues. I won't concede a single issue, a single precinct or a single vote to the Republicans. That's not how the game has been played up here, but that's how it's going to be played in 2006. And we just might win back a seat we haven't held for twenty years.

[Wetzelbill]

11. Yeah! This is what I'm talking about..

Fighting for your convictions. I was going to PM you but your profile is disabled. Keep us appraised on your candidacy. Do you have any links?

BTW, I'm moving back to my home state of Montana to run for State Senate.

Good luck!

[frictionlessO]

14. I can see why you win, when you speak truth to power as such.

Your convictions are indeed worth fighting for and people will elect a candidate that stands up and by for those who elected them.

"Straight talk and toughness" is exactly what millions of people all over this country are looking for and if the Dems provide it, they will flock to it.

[niallmac]

7. A 'FLUKE' Absoutely!

New definition of Fluke: 'A Democrat evolved from the primordial ooze of the DLC who has developed a calcium based columnal structure on the dorsum of the trunk that supports the human frame and allows the creature to have the courage of his or her parties original convicions. See; Kuicinich, Dean, Hackett et al.

[Raiden]

8. Exellent post

Fortunantly, I think Howard Dean recognizes this pattern as well. Also don't forget about Dan Mongiardo in Kentucky. He ran as a pretty progressive Democrat against the senile incumbant senator, Jim Bunning, and very nearly won.

[Wetzelbill]

13. right on

Good points. I was thinking of a few more to add, but I just waited a because I didn't want to make it too long. So, what's Mongiardo's future? He planning on running for anything else or what?

Dean is an interesting man. I think you'll see a big populist movement in our ranks and Howard Dean will get a lot of credit for it. What I like about Dean is that he'd rather take a crack at something and go down in flames rather than not really trying to win at all. The man is on to some big things for our party. I think so anyway. He's got the right idea for a long term strategy anyway.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Said another way ..... true tough guys win

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1990900&mesg_id=1990900

[Wetzelbill]

12. I like that

that was great.

:patriot:

[cloud75]

10. i'm with you stand up and fight...i think people are so worried about

being targeted by right winged radio and fox new that they are so careful with what they sayi think that is what happened to John Kerry. When he made that statement about voting for the war despite what we know now it was a calculated statement and it hurt him.

[CTyankee]

15. tipping point

The war reached a critical mass and Hackett's credentials and straight talk came together.

[blue neen]

16. Yes, she is an uncharismatic person.

However, I don't think that's why he did so well.

Look at Bill Frist. He has the personality of a doorknob. Rick Santorum? Gag me with a spoon. Saxby Chamabliss from GA? He looks and sounds like Foghorn Leghorn. How about Sensenbrenner; he has the charisma of a big old bullfrog.

Some of those seats were won because the Democrats were smeared, and we sat back and took it.

You're right. This Beltway Democrat shit isn't cutting it. It's time to take this fight to Middle America and show them what we really stand for--their best interests!

[napi21]

17. I HOPE NOT! I think there are a lot of qualified people out there

who are just as attractive a candidate as Hackett. Many of them are people who never entered politics before, but are just getting really pi**ed off at what they've seen happen over the last 5 years. I know Dean has been traveling across the Country trying to recruit people like Paul, and I sure hope he finds a lot of them!

[Wetzelbill]

18. I'd say so....

This last presidential election convinced me to run for office and I never have been in politics before, other than I wrote a policy paper for a candidate and gave her some advice etc. I did some columnist stuff too, but I'm no politician. I think we can get a movement going if smart, passionate people stand up and take a chance at running for office.

[sandnsea]

19. They all know their constituency

And they all target the issues that their constituency cares about. They don't have half their constituency standing around taking potshots because some wording wasn't quite right or they didn't talk about every single pet issue. If the people who are supposed to be behind you are actually sitting back there with arrows pointed at you, well things just aren't going to turn out very well.

No, none of them are flukes. But calling Bush a chickenhawk didn't have shit to do with why Paul Hackett nearly won. Well, except for raising money, that raised alot of netroots money for him to run warm and fuzzy ads like this:

http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/7/18/62411/9376

I mean really, what would be said about Hackett if he were already in Congress and said this:

"I had been in Iraq for two months I volunteered again—this time to go to Fallujah. Religious fanatics and insurgents had seized the city. They had to be stopped."

They won because they knew their constituents and didn't get caught up in ANY traditional Democratic special interest groups.

[Dr Fate]

21. I wont downplay the REAL straight talk express...

...look at the polls- most folks are turning their backs on the war based on lies.

I dont think we should downplay Paul's REAL "Straight Talk Express."

I think his blunt, truthful comments did light a few fires in Ohio.

[sandnsea]

22. Yes

But they were also blunt comments targeted at the issues that matter to his constituency. Just like Brian Schweitzer's were.

You just can't do that on a national level, not with the Democratic Party being what it is today. Too much sniping from all corners, and I do mean ALL corners. How does Paul Hackett get a netroots pass on supporting the disaster in Fallujah and winning in Iraq just because he called Bush a chickenhawk? And what would Landrieu and Lincoln do with his totally libertarian attitude on gay marriage?

We can win locally if we understand you can't support the national platform to do it. But we still won't win nationally. Not unless the country is completely in the toilet and I am so tired of Democrats only being able to win that way.

[Dr Fate]

20. Not if we can get more Vet/gun-owning candidates. n/t

n/t

[sandnsea]

23. Great

So it's okay to prove we're tough and strut around with a gun in our hand to win votes, but it's not okay to be tough on terrorists. :crazy:

[Dr Fate]

24. Who in the world said that?

I'm a gun owner- and I think we need to be tough on the REAL terrorists.

When did Hackett or any DEM "strut" with a gun in his hand?

I agree with Hackett on both of those issues- so did nearly half of Ohio voters.

[sandnsea]

25. The irony

It's horrible for the DLC Dems to talk about the party needing to be tough on defense and tough on terrorism. But a war vet with a gun in his hand... hooya!! (That's just the way it sounds)

It's ironic to me.

But you did make my previous point, know your constituents.

[Dr Fate]

26. I'm not part of the DLC vs. Anti-War Left pissing contest.

That is whay I had trouble understanding your posts at first- now its all clear.

I'd prefer taking this issue by issue and candidate by candidate.

I agree with a good bit of what you say-"know your constituents."

But I also think we could do a better job of informing them rather than going along with and letting Bush/media define what is "safe" to bring to the table.

More and more voters of all stripes are turning against the war based on lies- its not last year anymore- and DEM candidates like Hackett are starting to pick that up.

[sandnsea]

27. Makes no sense

First, you can't take it issue by issue, candidate by candidate. Because that's how you miss the big picture of what's really going on with the country as a whole.

It has something to do with your last sentence, that makes no sense. Turning against a war based on lies? Hackett "picked up on that" by supporting Fallujah and winning in Iraq? Makes no sense. And just what does "picked up on that" mean, he just threw out "chickenhawk" to score points?

You can't say we've got a blue print from a local candidate who supports winning in Iraq, when that same candidate would be blown all to hell by the DEMS in a national campaign.

There's some answers in Hackett's win, but chickenhawk isn't one of them. He did get away with it because he's a vet, and has such a boyish face, and was a local with a middle of the road reputation.

[Dr Fate]

29. Folks are frustrated with the lying and the hypocrisy that started this

And Hackett picked up on that- I see a difference between playing on the disgust Americans have about being lied to by "chickenhawks" about how we got into this mess and a technical starategy on "winning" in Iraq.

A lot of people in Red states are aware that we were lied to by "Chickenhawks"- but still think we can "win."

We will have to agree to disagree- I think we need to look at this issue by issue and candidate by candidate- depending on the region/constituents, as I thought you were suggesting.

Issue by issue, candidate by candidate as opposed to a blanket platform written by either the DLC or Lefties should be our roadmap- in my humble opinion.

[sandnsea]

31. A President can't win that way

That's what smart candidates have been doing for a while, running to their district and AWAY from the national party. That's how we end up with people like Mary Landrieu, they run to their district and side-step issues that are of importance to the nation as a whole. They don't go home and tell their people the truth, they don't fight the stupidity of creationism or "partial birth". If we keep doing this, we're just going to end up with more people with D after their name who vote like the Republicans in their district. Somewhere along the line, we've got to figure out what parts of our national platform are hurting us and how to change the message or change the platform.

[Dr Fate]

33. You are right about Presidential elections- a different ball game.

But I am confused- I thought "know your constituents" was your winning strategy. I agree with that notion-and perhaps we can agree that combining this with "educate your constituents" is not a bad idea either.

Hackett, in my mind "ran away" from many in the the national party- in that he is more in touch with the sentiment that voters dont trust the liars/hypocrites in the executive branch anymore- he knows it is not last year, unlike many DEMs who still think we need to be kissy-face with Bush.

I'm not sure where you stand, but I think voters are picking up on the fact that we were lied to by chickenhawks- almost 50% of voters in Ohio seem to feel that way- and I'll bet voters nationwide would not mind a blunt speaking DEM who feels the same-and says so.

[sandnsea]

36. For 2006

Know your constituents is asolutely right. But it's not a long term strategy if local Dems have to keep finding ways over and around national issues. So, yes, I think the combination of knowing and educating has to happen.

I don't think the From/Hillary people are right. Bill's remarks today just made me sick, "hang around for a while". WTF?? At the same time, for most candidates, engaging in a screaming "chickenhawk" match isn't going to be enough either. Put Hackett out there with the national media twisting his words around, "you support the massacre in Fallujah, but don't support the war?" and pretty soon you'd have some label hung around his neck. And a chorus of "He supported the massacre" as well. Hackett ran a short race in a state with Republican corruption running rampant against a woman who was the worst kind of Republian parrot I've seen. Let's keep it all in perspective, that's all I'm saying.

But that race is still a blue print. Support your candidate, loud and proud. And the candidate should just say what's on his mind.

[Dr Fate]

39. Repubs would never say: "He supported the massacre"

He has them on that one- he was in a unique position to have it both ways- right or wrong. I see what you are saying- but Ohio voters did not seem to mind that "nuance" of his position.

I moslty agree with you- we probably dont need hard DLC or hard anti-war/pacifist left sentiments for a Prez. candidate.

[sandnsea]

41. It isn't easy

Do the Beltway Dems not understand that if "partial birth" were explained accurately to rural America, they'd all go "ooooohhhh". Do they not understand that people who live with animals get nature and birth better than most Americans? Or do they just look at polls and not understand how the polls got to be that way? I don't know. It's all very frustrating. Local candidates know their constituents. Maybe when people like Hackett and Schweitzer get together, they'll figure out the things in common and explain it to the "experts".

[WCGreen]

28. Dennis's district was only won by a republican twice....

The whole west side of Cleveland and the suburbian areas are pretty much 55 -60 percent dems. Just a few out lying suburbs that are overwelhmingly republican....

So, yes.. DK is more liberal than most but he also provides such a wonderful consitiuent service that everyone appreciates him being there....

Seriously I know. I live here. I also ran for congress in this district..... Lost in the primary while DK was running and losing in a congressional district on the east side of the city....

That district is now republican thanks to eric fungerhutt, but I digress

[Wetzelbill]

30. I thought that DK's district

was historically Republican? I remember reading it on some of his campaign literature and his website. It was one of the reasons his campaign was saying he was electable, because he was able to get Republicans to vote for him.

But, you know how campaigns play to strengths, BS a little and so on, so I'm sure you're right.

What year did you run for Congress? I knew you ran for office before I didn't know it was Congress though.

[WCGreen]

32. 1992, after the redistricting....

I ran against one of the Check kiting dems....

I was endorsed by the Cleveland Plain Dealer and raised a little money but came in 4th out of 7...

[Wetzelbill]

34. yeah, but you've had...

a lot of success helping to get candidates elected haven't you? I kind of got the impression that was your forte'.

[WCGreen]

37. Oh yea.....

From 1994 on, I had about a 70% success rate.....

The dems litteraly took every elected office in the county, almost lal the judges and I was right in the middle of getting the job done....

[Wetzelbill]

38. and still, you didn't warn that drunk about the buck :) nt

[WCGreen]

40. He was more than likely a republican....

I live in one of the three cities that are predominalty GOP in DK's district...

Remember, over half of his district is in Cleveland, about 70% dem

[Wetzelbill]

42. well too bad the buck didn't charge him then

:)

[erpowers]

35. No

I do not think he was a fluke. However, I think Democrats should consider what roll his military experience helped him get this close to a victory. It may not have played that much or any roll at all in that it seems that Kerry's military experience did not seem to help him in that area. It seems to me that he came so close because he was willing to give an alternative to the Republican Party and he was willing to put forward his own ideas and search for his own base.