Brown, Hackett, Sirota, Brigham

David Sirota is very angry at Bob Brigham of Swing State Project for calling Sherrod Brown "untrustworthy".

Excuse me, but Paul Hackett and his supporters shouldn't trust Sherrod Brown. Brown assured Hackett in a face-to-face meeting that he would not seek the Democratic nomination for Ohio Senate in 2006. He publicly bowed out. Then, three days after Hackett declared his own candidacy, Brown suddenly decided that he wanted to run after all.

Granted, politics is a tough game and we shouldn't infer that Brown is globally untrustworthy just because he ratfucked Hackett. On the contrary, Brown is an outstanding public servant with a strong progressive record who is arguably more qualified to be a Senator than Hackett is. That's why Hackett waited until Brown stepped aside to announce his own run.

The fact remains, Brown's indecision created an ugly and totally unecessary scene. If he'd declared in the first place, Hackett probably wouldn't have challenged him for the nomination. Now, there's probably going to be a nasty little primary and lasting bad blood amongst Ohio Democrats. These are very real costs that Brown chose to inflict on his party.

Declarations about one's intentions to run for office aren't necessarily solemn promises, but a candidate shouldn't reverse himself without a very good reason. So, why didn't Brown declare his candidacy in a timely manner? According to Brown's blog, he was too busy fighting CAFTA and planning his daughter's wedding to decide whether he wanted to run for Senate.

If you don't like "untrustworthy", substitute "irresponsible."

Comments

[gswift]

Sirota can be such a hysterical nancy boy. Sirota's worked on campaigns. He knows damn well what an undertaking it is. So when you enter a race after the other candidate personally assures you he's not going to run, and said candidate then reverses a month later and enters the race anyway, you just might be a tad pissed. God forbid the Hackett campaign call Brown out on this. Now Sirota's reaching for the smelling salts.

For God's sake, the phrasing of his post is ridiculous. Title, "When Bloggers Cross the Line.", followed by "I've just got to get this off my chest." Repeatedly using the phrase, "egos over the good of the Movement.", and referring to Brown as "a progressive champion in Congress...before it was cool to stand up and fight."

Give. Me. A. Break.

Another good example of this kind of nonsense was his outrage at Mark Schmitt and Yglesias. Their crime was to suggest the tactics of Norquist that work so well for Republicans might not work for Democrats.

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/08/ignoring-dcs-fixed-permanent-election.html

David Sirota. Drama Queen of the Left.

[Raf]

Lindsay, GSwift,

Maybe I'm the only one to point this out, but so far, the only indication that we have that Brown assured Hackett face-to-face that he wouldn't run is by Hackett's guy. For all we know, Hackett could have asked Brown what his intentions were, and Brown could have said something along the lines of "no, not at this time". Call me stupid, but that's an assurance, and yet it leaves the door open. If that's what happened, and I strongly suspect that that's what did happen, then the onus is on Hackett for jumping in.

Somehow, I have a hard time believing that Hackett and Brown met, and Brown gave Hackett a Sherman statement.

G--Yeah, campaigns are an undertaking. Brown was leading the fight against CAFTA--a major blogospheric bugbear, I might add--and planning his kid's wedding at the same time. You really think he should have put both or even either of those things on hold for the sake of political expediency--i.e., to announce a Senate candidacy? Okay, but that's pretty cold and mercenary. You can't blame the guy for taking things one at a time. He wanted to wrap one thing up and get his family on board--y'know, the folks that are going to have to put up with the slings and arrows of a modern statewide campaign, while we sit in the metaphoric peanut gallery. I, for one, don't blame the guy for having different priorities during the summer.

[Jedmunds]

I fail to see the mortal sin involved here. It seems to me a lot of people got excited about a Hackett run, and are now disappointed because that excitement is largely irrelevant with Brown deciding to run, and it, as a result, being Brown's nomination to lose. But I don't see how anyone has been personally affronted here. The guy changed his mind. He doesn't owe Hackett anything. It's not like blowing with the winds on Iraq for Christ's sake.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Yes, I'm assuming that Hackett's guy is telling the truth about what happened in the face-to-face meeting. I think that's a pretty reasonable assumption, considering that Brown also made the same announcement to the public. I'm not assuming that the assurance was a solemn personal promise, it may simply have been a statement of his intentions at the time.

Look, Brown's supposed to be a pro. That's why so many of the older, wiser Dems are urging us to support him over Hackett. But he really handled this entire episode badly. Deciding to run for the US Senate isn't a decision you take lightly. Remember, we're just talking about the decision to run, not actually campaigning. Putting off the decision because you're busy opposing CAFTA and planning a wedding is ridiculous.

I can see why Brown might not have wanted to run if it meant he had to start campaigning under those circumstances--but he didn't--both of those things were already ancient history when he said "no."

My position is this: The Hackett people are entitled to be majorly pissed off at Brown. He burned them really badly. Now, that doesn't mean that all rational beings as such should necessarily share their (our) personal sense of outrage. But all Democrats and progressives should be at least mildly pissed at Brown for pulling this shit. It was totally forseeable and totally unecessary.

The best situation would have been for Brown to make a timely declaration, preempting Hackett. Second-best, IMO, would have been to give Hackett a straight shot at the Senate. (I'm agnostic about who's the better candidate in the abstract. I like them both a lot.) By far the worst situation is what we're looking at now: probably a primary, and certainly a lot of ill will on all sides.

Even the most hardcore Brown supporters would have preferred a timely declaration from Brown to the present situation.

So, even Brown supporters should be looking at their guy and demanding to know what the fuck he was thinking. His indecision took us all from the optimal situation to the worst-case scenario--for no good reason at all.

[gswift]

From the Plain Dealer article.

"Hackett decided to run after Brown announced in August that he would stay in the U.S. House..."

"Sherrod Brown told the candidate three weeks ago that he was not entering the race,"

" - a decision that, Brown said two weeks ago, he didn't regret."

"Brown said he began reconsidering his decision after wrapping up the campaign in the House against the Central American Free Trade Agreement."

Assuming the article is accurate, we have Brown announcing in August he's not going to run for the Senate spot. The we have the Hackett campaign subsequently approaching him on their own "three weeks ago" and were told again Brown wasn't going to run. Brown according to the article reiterated he didn't regret the decision not to run "two weeks ago", or a week after the Hackett campaign approached them. It sounds like Brown has been declaring privately and publicly that he wasn't going to run, and that this was a major factor in Hackett deciding to challenge DeWine.

So Hackett gets into the race, and three days later Brown declares his candidacy.

As Lindsay said, declarations aren't necessarily solemn promises, but no wonder the Hackett campaign is ticked.

[Jedmunds]

Hackett's campaign can be ticked about it all they want, though it's a feeling they should be accustomed to at this point. Nevertheless they can have my pity if they want it. But thats a far cry from listening to bloggers spew a bunch of nonsense blowing this out of proportion in a fit of personal pique. Brown deciding to change his mind on the issue, is his prerogative, and frankly beneath comment. The rest of you are, I suspect, just bummed about your man's chances now.

[gswift]

Oh please. It's not beneath comment. No one is disputing it's Brown's prerogative to change his mind. The point is that now Sirota is bitching about the nastiness of the primary. Well, Brown fucked around and waited until the last bloody second to change his mind, and that's why there IS a primary. It seems pretty clear that Hackett didn't intend to run against Brown.

Admittedly, I'm not sure Hackett can take Brown in a primary. But, Ohio is a closed primary. Ohio is a Republican run state, and we're trying to take a seat from an incumbent Republican. The guy who can get the most votes from the Democrats in the primary isn't necessarily the guy whose going to take the seat from a Republican.

What's encouraging about Hackett is that he did so well in a district that's been heavily Republican for decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Results,_U.S._Representative_from_Ohio,_2nd_District

Brown might be more known, better funded, and has been easily taking his district since 1992. But Ohio's 13th has been voting overwhelmingly Democrat since 1976. I wonder if Brown's got the same ability to take the conservative independant votes that Hackett does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Results,_U.S._Representative_from_Ohio,_13th_District

[Raf]

Don't get me wrong. I'm annoyed with Sherrod--there's so many ways he could have sent up a flag telling everyone that he was still considering a Senate run.

But I'm also not going to go and slam him as an "untrustworthy Washington insider" for what is at best a sin of omission.

I like Paul Hackett. I'm a vet and I usually side with other vets, particularly Iraq vets, since I'm one too. But I know what Brown's record is going to be. I don't know what Hackett's record is going to be, and for all we know, he could be just as conservative as Holy Joe. I'd rather not take that risk at this point in time.

[gswift]

Brown's got a great record, and people are harping on the fact that DeWine's approval ratings are in the 40's.

But I seem to remember last fall that Bush went into election day with approval in the 40's. We sent in a candidate with a solid liberal record, and he lost.

We didn't lose in Ohio by much, but lose we did. Now I don't know Ohio politics very well, and maybe Brown is perfect to take down DeWine.

But I REALLY want control of the Senate back. And if risking another Holy Joe is what it takes, so be it.

[Raf]

But what do you intend the Senate to do, should we gain control of it back?

At this point in time, we're looking at, at most, a seven seat gain. That flips the numbers from 55 R-44 D-1 I to 50 D-48 R-1 I; in other words, a majority of two.

If you have one or two "Holy Joe" type senators, then you might as well not have control of the Senate, because they'll frustrate every one of our attempts at promulgating progressive policy.

Now, I don't know that Hackett's a DINO; for all I know, he may well be a fire-breathing progressive. But I have no evidence of that, either.

On the other hand, I've got a guy running who's got a progressive record that's well-nigh beyond assailing. It seems to me that if I'm going to run the risk of defeat, then I should run it by being true to my principles, rather than by chimerically trusting a rather unknown quantity.

I really want control of the Senate, as well. But if it means that I have to sacrifice my principles, then that's something that I'm not going to compromise.

For me, the Iraq war (as an Iraq vet) stands as a particularly salient issue. I know that Brown opposed it, and that if a vote to implement a withdrawal timetable came, he would vote to implement it.

I don't know the same about Hackett. The last time I paid attention to his statements (during the Congressional campaign), he mentioned that we shouldn't have been there, but since we were there, we had to make the best of the situation. That tells me that, at best, he'd be lukewarm about any withdrawal scenario.

I can see where he's coming from, but I can't agree with it, for any one of a number of reasons. Yet, I'm supposed to swallow hard so that Joe Bubba--who, incidentally, probably never served a day in his life--can feel "comfortable" about voting for someone?

I'm sorry, but that's just a step too far for me. And it should be a step too far for everyone else. Hackett needs to show me where he stands, across the board. Until he does, I've got to go with the proven progressive.

[Lis Riba]

Putting off the decision because you're busy opposing CAFTA and planning a wedding is ridiculous.

Actually, putting off the decision makes sense. You just tell people that you haven't decided yet because you're devoting your attention to these other matters.

[Steve]

Swing State Project might be more credible on this if it weren't relentlessly attacking Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, over and over again, for being the less progressive of two declared candidates.

[Pug]

Let me make a little prediction here:

Hackett beats DeWine.

DeWine beats Brown.

This looks like another opportunity for "progressives", losers in other words, to make a statement and stand by their (losing) ideals. It will be noble, though, sort of like voting for Nader.

I've seen it too many times.

[Bob]

I don't know much about Ohio politics beyond a little grazing in the blogosphere, but I think the Demos there should consider the two candidates and maybe make a decision early and avoid a primary fight so that the guy who doesn't run for senator can throw his hat into another race.

The more elected officials with "(D)" after their names the better.

[Thad]

I don't know much about Ohio politics beyond a little grazing in the blogosphere, but I think the Demos there should consider the two candidates and maybe make a decision early and avoid a primary fight so that the guy who doesn't run for senator can throw his hat into another race.

That's exactly what Hackett tried to do, by holding off until Brown assured him he wasn't running. Who knows, Hackett might even have been amenable to running for the House seat Brown is vacating, if Brown had actually been up-front about his plans.

[Iron Lungfish]

Let me make a little prediction here:

Hackett beats DeWine.
DeWine beats Brown.

I like how we've crowned ourselves the prophecy pundits supreme on the basis of one narrowly-lost election in one congressional district. Any consideration on just how electable a relative political neophyte like Hackett actually is in a statewide race is thrown out the window; instead, it's just a pouty appeal to his status as a darling of the blogosphere.

And let's be reasonable: Brown is not the first politician to change his mind about running in a political race. This is hardly a "ratfucking" by any sane measure.

[gswift]

"But what do you intend the Senate to do, should we gain control of it back?... in other words, a majority of two."

We're obviously not going to be passing legislation only controlling the Senate. But what's key is to control the comittees. Without any committe control, we're helpless. Once we control committees, we can actually block legislation coming to the floor, open hearings, etc. We'll have a tool to mount an opposition.

As it is, we have nothing. All we can do is sit back and watch. Even with a couple Holy Joe's in there, that committe control would be a huge step.

I want as much as anyone to have the most progressive candidate possible. What worries me is that we're not being realistic. In some areas, the only kind of Democrat we're going to see elected are moderate to conservative ones. There's just not much we can do about it.

I don't know if Ohio is this kind of scenario or not. But they voted Bush back in, and have two Republican senators. We should at least examine the possibility that in Ohio a moderate is as good as we're going to do.

[Lisa Renee]

I also think the fact that Sherrod Brown as a senior House member cannot be replaced should count in this discussion. If he beats DeWine, he will be a freshman senator and whoever replaces him in the House will be a freshman house member. All the seniority? Gone.

If Sherrod Brown loses? Not only is his position in the House gone but the Senate as well. Seems to me the logical conclusion is better to be safe than sorry. Especially since there is a very good chance that Hackett can win this.

[Iron Lungfish]

Especially since there is a very good chance that Hackett can win this.

Really? Based on what evidence? Where are the numbers saying Hackett would do better in a statewide campaign a year from now than he did in a special election a couple months ago?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Hackett's a competitive candidate. A recent WSJ poll gave Hackett a 9-point lead over DeWine. It's a very encouraging sign.

[John]

Just noting - long-time House members going to the Senate often rise quickly in the ranks. Note Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer.

As to Ohio's supposed Conservatism, their senator used to be Howard Metzenbaum. The Democrats have done terribly in Ohio for the last 10 years or so (the last major statewide election won was John Glenn's reelection in 1992, I think), but my understanding is that this has more to do with the crappy organization of the state party than with any kind of natural conservatism on Ohio's part.

DeWine isn't popular, and Ohio isn't Mississippi. I see no reason to assume that Brown can't win this. Furthermore, Brown is a veteran politician who's won his share of elections - including two statewide elections for Secretary of State back in the 80s (also one lost campaign for Secretary of State). Hackett has run one campaign in his life, and it lost.

It seems pretty clear that Brown is the stronger candidate on paper. Anything beyond that can only be ironed out later.

Another issue - is a primary race really the worst case scenario? The Republicans frequently have primary races in Senate races, and nevertheless win over relatively well known Democrats who didn't have primary contests (this often happens in very conservative southern states, but is nevertheless true...).

[steve gilliard]

I like the word gutless, because if you can't make up your mind if you want to be a senator, and then wait until someone gets into the race, bravery is not a virtue.

Brown should have stepped up earlier, for him to wait until Hackett declared is contemptible.

It's not about politics, but desire. If you can't decide to run, don't freaking run.

[cali dem]

But meanwhile...self-absorbed "it's all about me, me, me" bloggers like Sirota manage to make a bad situation worse.

[jello]

that bastard brown, how dare he not put personal ambition first. what will we tell the children?

[jello]

i thought the name of the game was to get rid of capitulating bush enablers. how many of them are running unchallenged?

meanwhile one of the best progressive fighters we have gets targeted for abuse.

how is this smart strategy?