Reid answers Hackett-gate quesion

[NVMojo]

second story after scrolling down:

snip...

How big a role did Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D Nev., play in Hackett-gate?

As part of their effort to win a Senate Democratic majority, Reid and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., not long ago helped convince Iraq war veteran and Democrat Paul Hackett to run against Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, according to Hackett.

Then Reid and Schumer goaded him to pull out after Rep. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, got into the race, Hackett said. Brown's entry meant both candidates would have had to spend a lot of money and energy in the primary campaign, and Reid and Schumer believed it would be best if Brown could focus solely on DeWine, Hackett said.

Hackett dropped out of the race two weeks ago, and his supporters directed their wrath at Reid and Schumer, especially in the blogosphere.

more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/mar/06/566650507.html

[MadMaddie]

1. So I have a question if Brown loses...

what is Reid going to say then?

[FreedomAngel82]

3. Even though Hackett had low poll numbers with democrats in Ohio

[MercutioATC]

12. ...but high numbers in cross-party polls...

...and THOSE are the polls that matter. Ohio is a red state. Not by much, but Republicans still have the majority. To win, a Dem candidate must be able to convince some Repubs to vote for them.

DeWine isn't really popular, even among Repubs in Ohio. There's a segment of Ohio red voters that would cross the line if they was a Dem who appealed to them. Hackett did that. Brown doesn't.

[FreedomAngel82]

13. Not in a primary

[MercutioATC]

15. Maybe, maybe not...

Brown's numbers were better than Hackett's THREE months into the primary. Brown's a 30-year career Ohio politician. Nobody had heard of Hackett until a year ago. Who knows what another few months would have done?

My issue isn't with who would win the primary, however. It's with 1) Dem leadership showing some integrity and standing behind a candidate they ASKED to run for office and 2) Dem leadership looking ahead to the general election and backing the primary candidate that has the best chance of winning.

In both cases, the candidate to back was Hackett.

[LynneSin]

53. But Brown has already lost, but then again so would have Hackett

Ohio is corrupt with Diebold. I predict DeWine will win in a squeaker so Blackwell's win for governor doesn't look so fricking obvious

[MercutioATC]

2. After the hate mail he and Schumer got, I'm not surprised.

I'd be interested to hear Tim Ryan's recollection of the process. He was the initial go-between between Reid and Hackett.

[radio4progressives]

6. not following... what are you not surprised about?

Who is Tim Ryan? (sorry to be ignorant of names and inside colloquy. ;)

[MercutioATC]

8. Not surprised Reid is trying to downplay his involvement.

Tim Ryan is a second-term Ohio congressman who was the initial go-between for Reid and Hackett. When Hackett announced he was running for Senate, Ryan endorsed him. Three days later, Brown changed his mind an decided to run for Senate. Although Ryan and Brown have been close and the DCCC had dropped Hackett to back Brown, Ryan kept his word and continued to endorse Hackett.

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051112/EDIT/511120301/1003

[radio4progressives]

17. A ha! I see...

thanks.. that was what I thought probably occurred.

[OzarkDem]

29. In the end, it was still the right decision

Hackett was not ready for a US senate race in Ohio, period. He would have lost.

[MercutioATC]

46. Does that crystal ball give you lottery numbers, too?

The same Dem "leadership" that you say made "the right decision" RECRUITED Hackett to run. THEY didn't seem to think that he wasn't up to the challenge.

We'll never know what would have happened. Your claims to the contrary are silly, but not unexpected.

[FreedomAngel82]

49. So nobody is allowed to challenge the great god Hackett right?

[MercutioATC]

57. Where did you come up with THAT one?

I simply said that saying that Hackett "would have lost" is premature...and we'll never know, he's no longer in the race. I'm certainly not claiming that "he would have won"...there are too many variables that never had the chance to play out.

Coming from another member I might have viewed the statement differently, but OzarkDem has been a prolific anti-Hackett poster.

[AtomicKitten]

4. Hackett-gate?

It makes no sense to throw money away in the primary if one candidate is polling significantly lower.

[Savannah Progressive]

5. Perhaps we should choose our candidates based upon a focus group

After all that would be much cheaper in the long run wouldn't you think? We get 12 people together, and whichever candidate they like, we are stuck with.

Polling is a joke folks, Dean was polling much higher, and was topedoed by the press. When you allow polling to choose your candidate, you are letting the press choose our candidate for us.

I like making my own decisions, and supporting the candidate that best represents MY beliefs and ideals. I didn't care when the polls showed 80% of Americans supported the war in Iraq, I thought it was wrong then and now. If we are all about the Polls, perhaps we should give up being Democrats and call ourselvs the Polling party? We will conduct a poll of 1005 people, and whatever the majority of them think, that is what we think.

Fuck the Polls, follow your beliefs. That is the problem with our Washington Democrats, they wait for the Polls and focus groups to tell them what they believe.

[Lerkfish]

10. better yet, let's just bend over and let the party hand pick all our

candidates. Let's not have any grass roots participation or input. Let's have beltway dems decide who runs and how.
let's just tell voters they're SOL if they don't like it.

Much less messy that way. Then, we can spend millions of dollars on campaigns that lose to republicans because we kept moving further and further away from representing the voters.

Then, we can just make the democratic party the RNC auxilliary force. We'll get such nifty little outfits to wear.

[mod mom]

36. Exactly, this issue should have been left for the OH voters to

decide, not the Party hierarchy. Every viable candidate should have the ability to make their case to their party voters. There are many people in Ohio not happy with how this was handled.

[radio4progressives]

14. you're describing what caucuses do... pretty much..

i have no problem with that.. like you i have a problem with top down party manipulation and machinations - that's what we have now, and every single one of us is sick of it. individuals who hold power, do not concede willingly. I'm very glad that Dean stuck to his guns, with Pelosi and Reid.

[Lerkfish]

7. let's turn the tables, shall we?

let's take this hypothetical:

Howard Dean calls Brown and tells him he should drop out because his poll numbers are low, based on one internal poll.
Dean wants his boy Hackett to not have to face primary opposition.

how does that make you feel?

[electropop]

9. Pretty much the same. It stinks

of smoke-filled back rooms.

[Lerkfish]

11. Agreed. Neither way is good, but the difference is,

the person I was posting to keeps telling us to bend over and take it.

I think beltway dems should get out of determining who can and cannot run in primaries. period.

[AtomicKitten]

16. it makes me feel that some of you need to grow up

and quit reading conspiracy theories into everything that doesn't go your way.

We have been treated to that attitude with the Oscars too.

The naivete toward party politics is astounding. If you don't like it, perhaps we could interest you in a third, fourth, or fifth party. I'd rather see that than the incessant slamming of the Democrats. The Dems have a bigger battle ahead with the Republicans and don't need to be continually buggered by those perpetually dissatisfied and disgruntled.

[MercutioATC]

18. So, we're either "with you or against you"?

Seems to me the same logic some use when they say that questioning the administration's actions "weakens the war effort".

Some of us have a problem with decisions our "leadership" has made. We think it's important to discuss. Why is that an issue for you?

[Lerkfish]

19. erm...yeah, you're paragon of mature discourse.

I simply reversed the tables and asked you how that felt...and you told me to grow up.

you and I disagree on the best way to battle republicans. I believe the voters should have more choice, you apparently believe they should be told who to vote for. If you can't maturely handle a simple question, then may I suggest you should avoid such questions in the future.

[AtomicKitten]

20. there are some creatures in nature that puff themselves up

to appear more formidable. Not unlike the disgruntled third party types that makes oaths and bulldoze their way in political discourse, never acquiescing to compromise, refusing to look at the big picture, and coming up short in every election, failing to qualify for matching federal funding.

All nothing more than hot air.

Paul Hackett pulled out of a primary race because he was losing. It doesn't make any sense for the Democrats to put up two candidates and spend precious resources to satisfy a clear minority of voters. And ironically the purists have yet to come to terms with the fact that Brown is an infinitely more progressive candidate and that Hackett was endorsed by the loathed DLC.

[MercutioATC]

21. Hackett endorsed by the DLC? Whose ass did you pull THAT one from?

Care to provide some substantiation for that claim?

[AtomicKitten]

23. Oh, you didn't know?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/14/13710/6755

Ask yourself this:
Who is more of a DLC'er? Hackett, with his pro-gun more conservative values or Brown with his anti-CAFTA, anti-gun, voted against the IWR positions?

[MercutioATC]

25. I don't see any DLC endorsement there...care to try again?

You claimed "Hackett was endorsed by the loathed DLC".

All I'm asking for is ANY record of that endorsement. If you're going to make false claims, you're going to have to expect to get asked for proof.

Oh, and BTW, preferring enforcement of existing laws to new gun control legislation doesn't make one a "DLC'er".

[OzarkDem]

31. Its not in dispute

Hacketts views on public policy are much more in alignment than Sherrod Brown's. Sherrod is a progressive Dem, with a very long history of voting for progressive issues.

[MercutioATC]

39. That doesn't equate to a DLC endorsement.

Stating that the DLC endorsed Hackett is a falsehood.

Show me ONE "DLC endorsed" candidate that had the guts to say this:

"Hackett also said the practice of denying homosexuals equal rights is un-American. The newspaper asked Hackett if that meant the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted to ban gay marriage were un-American.

“If what they believe is that we’re going to have a scale on judging which Americans have equal rights, yeah, that’s un-American,” Hackett said."

[AtomicKitten]

44. that's the problem, they endorsed him and retracted it

They saw the polling and went with the projected winner. But the bottom line is that Brown is a truly progressive candidate which makes the disappointment regarding Hackett easier to digest; I believe he will think things over and enter the House race and all will be well (for about five minutes) in the world of left-of-center politics.

[MercutioATC]

45. Yes, they pulled their support to "endorse" Brown.

Either neither candidate was endorsed by the DLC or they both were...you can't have it both ways.

Nobody's suggesting that Hackett is more progressive than Brown. For a lot of us, though, Hackett was progressive enough and had the cross-party appeal to beat DeWine. Hackett's only major non-progressive views were on gun control and immigration and I agreed with him on both issues.

[FreedomAngel82]

51. Where did that happen?

I don't recall that happening. Are you going to show your source for your claims?

[MercutioATC]

55. The DLC "endorsed" Hackett by asking him to run...there was no actual

endorsement.

Likewise, they "endorsed" Brown by polling support from Hackett and asking him to step down in favor of Brown, with no formal endorsement of Brown.

Neither candidate received a DLC endorsement...or both did...depending on what you consider an "endorsement".

[FreedomAngel82]

50. But yet you can claim Brown is though right?

"Oh the DLC did Hackett in because they're supporting Brown!" Even though they were not involved in any way. Sure, blame them when necessary, but they weren't involved with this.

[MercutioATC]

56. No, I claim that neither candidate got a DLC endorsement.,

contrary to AtomicKitten's claim.

If she's going to claim that Schumer and Reid recruiting hackett to run constitutes a "DLC endorsement", then Schumer and Reid asking Hackett to drop out in favor of Brown would conststite an equal "DLC endorsement" for Brown.

[benEzra]

59. The DLC is way more anti-gun than the party at large...

they are anything but "centrist" on the gun issue. It was primarily the DLC that made the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch de facto the party's top legislative priority.

The DLC leans authoritarian/communitarian, if anything, and banning as many guns as possible is a communitarian mantra (which is why right-wing communitarian Bill Bennett is also an avid supporter of gun bans).

[Lerkfish]

22. awful lot of name calling there, bud.

how about just answering my question?

[AtomicKitten]

24. This question?

"let's take this hypothetical: Howard Dean calls Brown and tells him he should drop out because his poll numbers are low, based on one internal poll. Dean wants his boy Hackett to not have to face primary opposition. how does that make you feel?"


It makes me feel that Howard Dean does know his ass from a hole in the ground, and that Hackett, whom I worked for in his race against Schmidt, would have all kinds of support should he decide to pull up his socks and run in the House race again against Schmidt, where he most assuredly would wipe the floor with her this time around.

Ps: It wasn't just one internet poll, although that does make your story better, not true, but better.

[Lerkfish]

27. "internal" not "internet"....read much?

thanks for answering the question, though. It was a good answer, not truthful, but a good answer.

[AtomicKitten]

33. the answer is still the same regardless,

one internet or one internal poll wasn't the catalyst. That's just BS to augment your story in your quest to get people to go along with your rage about this. If you have to exaggerate to punctuate your point, that's a clue that your point is without merit.

And you have no knowledge of MY feelings but, as usual, there are always those more than happy to presume to speak for others. Don't presume to speak for anyone other than yourself.

You're just cranky because things didn't go as you would have liked.

What's amusing about this is that it's over and you don't even know when to stick a fork in it.

[Lerkfish]

40. no, what's amusing is I'm just parroting your own snarkiness back to you

and you don't even recognize it as your own behaviour.

[AtomicKitten]

42. now I do.

sorry.

[Lerkfish]

47. no problem, my apologies as well.,

things are hitting me the wrong way today, sorry about that.

[OzarkDem]

30. Its getting monotonous

please folks, get over it.

There was no grand conspiracy, no one forced Hackett out, he wasn't ready for a race this big and expensive, period.

[AtomicKitten]

34. yahtzee!!!!

[JNelson6563]

54. Amen!

Brown was outpolling and outfundraising Hackett. Hackett's hissy fits after withdrawing have proven clearly he wasn't ready for the big show.

But DUers who aren't very involved in Real World politics only know their hero isn't going to win the white horse to ride into town on.

Ugh! My kingdom for a clue to be given to the keyboard commandos!

Julie

[Savannah Progressive]

58. Sounds like you are speaking for the Beltway Dems

Shut Up, Sit Down, and Contribute. You call it Naivete, we call it dirty politics, and among other things we want changed, that is it.

Later, you will probably complain when many of us support a third party politician instead of the corporate approved dems. You act like WE are the problem because we like the idea of supporting a candidate that represents OUR views. Not only are we supposed to like the DINO's that are tossed our way, we are supposed to work two jobs to contribute even more to the DINO's. When they vote to ban Abortion, well, be happy about that, because they are Democrats voting to ban abortion.

Fuck THAT. We have watched our ideals get sold down the river time and time again. We watched our progress on Gun Control get fucked over when the Brady Law became history instead of Progress. We were told deal with it, when Roberts became Chief Justice. We were told to shut up get to the polls when told, and vote how told when we objected to the Corporate Whores in Washington. We watched our Party defer to the "experts" and throw another election away over the issue of "electability".

Well I have one of the few Democratic Congressmen in my area of Georgia, how much did I have to do with it? I know of at least a dozen votes that I worked on to get for that Congressman. Perhaps more, perhaps less, it's hard to say isn't it? Yet the Repugniks don't have THIS seat, and John Barrow is supposedly better than a Repugnik right?

Well he voted to require interstate parental notification in Abortions. He voted to PROTECT the Gun Manufacturers from lawsuits, a protection NONE of US enjoy. He Voted against Bankruptcy Reform, which I might add is one of a handful of votes in which he voted against the DINO's and Repugniks who control Washington.

How is he different than a Repugnik? That one vote? http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=MGA54156 Look up your Representative, see how often they voted with the Repugniks, and on what. Look up your Senators and remember them voting for Alito and Roberts and telling us The Repugniks would never ban abortion. The experts just lost us womens rights in South Dakota, and will lose us those rights in five other states very soon. How long will we support Democrats who are really Repugniks except at campaign time when they want our money?

[tsuki]

26. Ya know, an old time politician once told me that if you're gonna

run, stay out of everybody else's race. You make enemies where you don't need to.

After this incident, it makes sense to me.

[NCarolinawoman]

28. I remember hearing Hackett say in interviews that he still had good

feelings toward Harry Reid, but his feelings toward Schumer were a different story. Most of his anger in subsequent interviews seemed to be directed at Schumer.

[bloodyohio]

32. What are you going to do?

Reid is a moderate at best from a red state, and he and Schumer are absolutely right that Brown has a much better chance in Ohio with Hackett out of the way. Hackett doesn't have the political savvy to win a Senate race. He's already said some things that are, while I don't necessarily disagree with them, extremely questionable in taste and potentially alienating to voters. While I don't like the way it happened, I think it was the right move for the party. The last thing we need in Ohio is a mudslinging Democratic primary that gives DeWine extra fuel for his smear ads.

[skipos]

35. I hope Ohio folks focus on defeating DeWine instead of

all this coulda/woulda/shoulda he said/ she said stuff.

[AtomicKitten]

37. My friends in Ohio assure me that is so.

It's just the internet faux radicals with their knickers in a twist.

I have complete faith that Hackett will regroup and reappear in another race.

My friends are thrilled to vote for Brown, a truly progressive candidate.

[Lerkfish]

41. then that makes me your friend, oddly enough.

I'm thrilled to vote for Brown, and will do so.

[AtomicKitten]

43. not odd at all

it's one of the miracles/hazards of message boards - snarkiness is so easy when it's anonymous - and seems particularly lame in retrospect when we find ourselves really on the same side of an issue.

[IndianaGreen]

38. Reid: "But I certainly never said, 'You should get out of the race.' "

Right, Harry, whatever you say!

:eyes:

[NVMojo]

48. FINALLY! A POST THAT MADE ME LAUGH!!!

[FreedomAngel82]

52. Where's your proof?

Only people who know this for sure are Reid and Hackett. Unless you were a fly on the wall and have some proof. So why has Hackett said he has no ill over Reid but does Schumer?