OH-Sen: Schumer calls Hackett

Pounder thinks the Democratic machine set Paul Hackett up by first encouraging him to run for Senate, then backing his challenger Sherrod Brown.

[Hackett campaign adviser Michael] Brautigam said Hackett is considering his options this weekend while on drill duty with the Marine Reserves. He said Hackett was dismayed by a phone call Thursday from New York Sen. Charles Schumer, head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, hinting "that Paul should get out of the race." Hackett is "not interested in getting in a bloody internecine fight in a primary when the real target should be Mike DeWine," Brautigam said. But if Hackett doesn't run for the Senate, he said, he's likely to bow out of politics. [PD]

I'm as disappointed as the next netroots booster, but I'm not prepared to go that far. I don't see a motive. I see an institutional Democratic party that's risk-averse to a fault.

We all know that Charles Schumer and DSCC aren't backing Sherrod Brown because he's a true blue progressive. They're backing him because they think he's more likely to beat Mike DeWine. Whether they're right is an interesting question. You can argue both sides.

Brown's advantages seem transferrable and Hackett's don't. If Hackett had the nomination, he'd get the institutional support and guidance he needs to run a sophisticated statewide campaign. Why not? He'd be running against the third- or fourth-most vulnerable Republican in the Senate. He's got a national base of support.

Ultimately, I think Hackett has a better chance because he's a national brand. [Ed.: Bad car metaphor deleted. Feel free to suggest alternative brand comparisons.*] I'm hard-pressed to argue that Hackett is an objectively superior candidate, but he has a visceral appeal that you can't capture on a spreadsheet. The Democrats keep methodically tallying the features and benefits. That methodology keeps leading them back to the same defensible but sterile conclusions.

*We have a winner.

Comments

[Squashed Lemon]

Hey,

Can the netroot connect to Hackette ? Maybe we can give him a boost.

Majikthese.... Call hackette. Ask him what's up... Tell him the netroot still loves what he does and he should speak out to clarify his position. I hope he is fighting cause this gonna be ultra fun.

:D

please, pretty please?

[Squashed Lemon]

PS. forget that Camaro vs. prius defense. That gotta be the suckiest car metaphor somebody can up with on Sunday afternoon.

plus who the hell still think Camaro is a hot car?

:p

[Thad]

They're backing him because they think he's more likely to beat Mike DeWine.

Actually, mainly I think they're backing him because he has seniority -- he's a longtime Democratic congressman who's in a position to call in a lot of favors, whereas Hackett's a total newbie.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

You're right about the Prius thing. I'm just going to take that sentence out because I can't think of the right combination of cars. Help me out. Must...have...better car metaphor...

[StealthBadger]

I can't help wondering if the DCCC's decision to back Brown is partially because he's a known quantity. Hackett having proved he's already very, very good at challenging established authority without losing his credibility can't have endeared him much to the DLC.

[Chris Clarke]

Hackett: Lotus Elise
Brown: Pre-owned 1989 Volvo wagon with "Commit Random Acts of Kindness" bumpersticker peeling off

[Robert]

Likely, Squashed Lemon is right here. But it still pisses me off to no end. Hackett's way more than a Camaro. Having lived next to the district he almost won, I can assure you that he has the kind of appeal to, as one of our pals puts it, "make Ohio blue." I now spend most of my time in the east, but I know a successful midwestern progressive when I see one.

Simply put: Brown is a good person who will lose. Hackett can fucking win, and he's not a bad guy himself. Why this would be a question is beyond me. We really don't have the space to reward seniority now. Look at the damn numbers--Hackett won Adams county. I excuse the Amtrak corridor folks here for not understanding that, but trust me. It's bloody significant, and Sherrod Brown couldn't have done it. Nor could you, nor could I, nor could, I thought, anybody on our side. Paul Hackett proved me wrong, and underestimating the man is stupid beyond belief.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Thanks, Chris. That's what I was looking for.

[Squashed Lemon]

The way I see it. There is big jockeying right now. DSCC is still not sure who should run. It's not set in stone yet.

Now is the time to actually back the candidate we love. (Hey schumer got to back up his buddy, why not us? IF he clarify his position, then we can know how hard he is fighting and how hard we should back him up in term of spreading the word and vouch for him.)

[Squashed Lemon]

There is a thread in dkos with an interesting post.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/10/9/125632/960/90#90

Finally, the special guest got up to the podium. Love him, or, well love him (unless you're Eric Minamyer) Paul Hackett gave a fine speech- unusually sobering. His voice hoarser than usual and his demeanor decidedly more subdued, Hackett took on the War in Iraq and ineffectual Democrats, sometimes at the same time.

Hackett said that there was nothing objective to indicate that success in Iraq is possible. He said that Bush needs to withdraw the troops and disputed the "we can't cut-and-run" objections by arguing that whether we leave now or in twenty years, there will not be any progress. The audience was pretty rapt, judging by the frequent applause interruptions.

"...I'm not going to take up too much more of your time..."

"No, keep going!" one guy shouted.

He pointed out the relative futility of bashing Bush given the weak leadership in the Democratic Party over Iraq. "Look Mrs. Clinton, it (Iraq) ain't workin. If it is, send Chelsea over there."

He continued to lambaste weak leadership. "Lead or get the hell out of the way," he said. "Stand up and call a spade a spade." "If you cant punch back hard, then youre in the wrong business." "Fight for our concerns, don't just cast your vote." Paul Hackett wanted to deliver a very clear message- that he wants to be a new kind of Democrat, an alternative to the Beltway.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

SL, I agree. I'm way to left of Hackett, but I feel comfortable supporting him because I know he's a loyal guy and I know he has a lot of very progressive backers.

I don't care what some pissed off campaign advisor says about Hackett quitting politics. Hackett's going places and he's not going to forget who his friends are.

No matter how good progressives get at fundraising, we're never going to rival big corporations. So, we've got to buy in at the bottom of the market, so to speak.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Hillary Clinton reminds me why Chuck Schumer is my second-least favorite New York senator.

[Squashed Lemon]

~~~No matter how good progressives get at fundraising, we're never going to rival big corporations. So, we've got to buy in at the bottom of the market, so to speak.
Posted by: Lindsay Beyerstein | October 09, 2005 at 06:22 PM ~~~

I am strickly from the school of. We gonna take over the universe with this two paper clips and broken matchbox. It's an interesting challange. :D

It may take slightly longer but, on the whole progressive side is more dynamic and has bigger collective creativity. And we gonna take over the universe starting with that two paper clips.

If we have to hook up novel and strange fund raising mechanism and extremely unorthodox political campaign. We'll do it. We will create something that nobody has think of before.

We are crazier and more out of control than bunch of boring corporations. Somebody somewhere on the net must have figured out some novel approach to advance progressive politics. It's only a matter to wilier than the other guy.

[J. Ascher]

It looks like this to me:

Ohio Senate race 2006 will get major national coverage, for a host of reasons. Hackett sometimes says things like Bush is a bigger threat to America than bin Laden. This throws the whole party on the defensive. Therefore, back the professional politician, Brown. Hackett is being told by Schumer, et al., that he needs more experience. Hackett, rightly, takes this to mean he needs to become a spineless bore (cf. Schumer, et al.), and therefore says he's done with politics.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Paul Hackett's a rock star, and he loves it. He's not going to drop out of politics.

Who knows whether he'll stay in this race? But if he thinks he's really done with politics after this race, he might as well stay and fight out the primary. The only reason to drop out would be if he wanted a future in Democratic politics. If he won the nomination, even the institutional Dems would have to hold their noses and support him.

[Robert]

Wait a friggin' minute Mr/s Ascher. Throws which party on the defensive? I can tell you that in a district that regularly elected Rob Portman with at least 70%, he almost won by saying those things that you rip out of context. Of course, I don't need to, since it's the public record. Your drift, unless I get you wrong, is that "radical" statements hurt Democrats in elections, even though such statements are the truth (& I don't accuse you of denying the latter). But the miracle of southwest Ohio last year argues rather well for the opposite.

Ohio is not New York, & Sen. Schumer doesn't get that. Look, I live in MA & love NY, but the rebellion we're looking for doesn't happen in our parts. I think you're missing the point, which is to say you're missing how we win. It's not going to be with caution.

[Robert]

And Lindsay? Hackett has the nomination if he wants it. He will win it if he fights it.

[J. Ascher]

Robert,

I think you're right. I did not make this clear, but I meant to explain why Schumer (the spineless bore) and other top Democrats won't support Hackett. My drift was only that party leaders do not think Hackett should represent the party on the national stage because he is not polished enough.

I live in SW Ohio, just north of OH-2, in Butler County. Nobody here has heard of Sherrod Brown. I want Hackett to run and I agree that caution will win nothing for us.

[Squashed Lemon]

omfg, this brown guy is a loser!

"Brown lost his last statewide race in 1990 to a man (Bob Taft) who now enjoys approval ratings below 20%. There is no question that Brown is NOT the choice for a statewide run. Paul "Bush is a son of a bitch" Hackett is a far more exciting candidate. Hackett would get my vote; Brown would have me voting independent or sitting on my hands."

http://jerome-armstrong.mydd.com/comments/2005/10/4/9557/85379/38#38

via

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/9/204315/963

[KC]

I've read some entries on Dailykos and Mydd that pretty clearly count up the favorables and unfaborables of Brown v Hackett and from what they've tallied, it looks like Brown's the better candidate. To sum things up: basically, Brown has high favorability ratings in Ohio, solid name recognition, is a long time progressive organizer, and has a large chunk of campaign cash on hand. On the other hand, though he has the name recognition, Hackett doesn't have nearly enough money on hand and is a political novice. Moreover, while the netroots could come in for him, he'd still be competing with other 2006 candidates for cash. Compared to Brown, Hackett would have a difficult time competing monetarily with the Dewine machine.

[Squashed Lemon]

Well at least Sherrod Brown has very solid progressive record.

(his war vote record)

http://www.issues2000.org/OH/Sherrod_Brown_War_+_Peace.htm

[Dadahead]

I am mystified by the liberal blogosphere's infatuation with Hackett. He cannot reasonably be described as anti-war - he views Iraq as a strategic mistake, not a war crime, and he supported the slaugther in Afghanistan - he is not a proud Democrat (his campaign website didn't even mention his party affiliation), and he wasn't nearly as hard on Bush as everyone seems to believe. He is a wealthy white male whose sole qualification seems to be that he is an Iraq war veteran - more of the same thinking that brought us the Kerry candidacy.

This bit from Counterpunch says it well:

"The latest Congressional candidate to be peddled by the pro-war Democratic establishment, including Howard Dean, James Carville, the Daily Kos, Democracy for America, Al Franken on Air America Radio, etc., is Paul Hackett in southern Ohio ...

"...his claim to fame is that he is a marine who fought in Iraq and will be the only Iraqi veteran in Congress! The truth beneath this silly gloss is a lot uglier. Among his other "achievements," Hack is a proud veteran of the campaign which leveled Fallujah, killing untold numbers of innocent Iraqis and turning hundreds of thousands into refugees.

"Here is how he characterizes, on his web site, what he did in Iraq: "I was against the war. It was a misuse of our military that damaged our credibility throughout the world and squandered our political capital. Still, I volunteered to serve, and I have no regrets." Translation "I will mindlessly do what I am told no matter what my brain says." And he has "no regrets" about the slaughter of innocents in Fallujah. On Fallujah, he says: "Religious fanatics and insurgents had seized the city. They had to be stopped."

"So what does Hack propose now? Again in his own words, "The good news is we can successfully exit Iraq once the roughly 140,000 Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) are adequately trained. The bad news is they are nowhere near the level of skill to accomplish that mission and are likely years away from that goal. No matter what your position on the war, if we pull out now the entire region will spiral into chaos. We must not withdraw our troops before the Iraqis are ready to stand on their own." Translation: "Stay the course." And he also takes a swipe at those who are against the war, saying that "too many liberals who opposed the war want to see the president's Iraq policy fail." Translation: "Those who oppose the war do so only out of personal hatred for Bush." Both these themes parrot the line of the war parties."

[Chris O.]

"The latest Congressional candidate to be peddled by the pro-war Democratic establishment, including Howard Dean, James Carville, the Daily Kos..."

I'm sorry, I had to stop reading there. Counterpunch has proven itself pretty silly in the past, but calling dKos part of a pro-war establishment has to take the take.

[Robert]

Did any of us claim that Paul Hackett was a perfect left-wing gentleman? Gosh, I don't recall that. I think we were just saying that he could win, and that he'd be a better senator than DeWine. To those who think that's worth nothing, Cockburn & Co. included, I throw up my hands.

I won't join the Alterman project of red-baiting Counterpunch, but neither will I look at it as a valuable election guide. After all, their advice in 1998 was the same as that of Hitchens.

J. Ascher, thanks for clarifying your views. That's what I hoped you were saying. Forgive, if you will, my harshing. It was hasty and, as it turns out, unjustified. My point is that Hackett can turn Ohio. We can't afford to lose that for the sake of purity.

Paul Hackett would be a damn good senator: better than Schumer, better than Clinton. We can get him, and should turn our energies toward doing so.

Brown will lose. Why would we want that? A marginal (that's what it'd be, in the end) difference in money won't help. So for god's sake, Paul Hackett. Please.

[Rafael Noboa]

See, I don't see where people say that Hackett will win and Brown will lose. I know, I know, the NRA; but that assumes that everything else will be equal.

Which I won't assume. Mike DeWine's been described as the most underestimated Buckeye pol in modern times. Time and again, people expect him to come up short, and time and again, he goes way beyond expectations.

The man's a seasoned campaigner. Why we'd put up a relatively unseasoned guy up against him, I'm not entirely sure, and I'm sorry, but I have to be convinced.

Everyone likes bringing up Wellstone, but the fact is, Wellstone had a lifetime of activism to draw upon to counteract the institutional opposition that he faced as a fairly untested statewide candidate (with only one other race--for state auditor--under his belt). For better or for worse, Hackett isn't in that position.

Frankly, I think that we're becoming way enamored with posturing as opposed to policy, and it's that love affair that's informing, in part, this debate.

We don't have much evidence to indicate that Hackett will be a good Senator, let alone a great one. Yet, on the basis of a couple of inflammatory remarks, we're ready to crown him the next great hope.

Prior to this year, we don't know what involvement he had (aside from being a Milford, OH, City Councilman) in politics. We don't know where he stands on a myriad of issues.

Is it so wrong for me to want some proof of life as a Democrat before we fall all over ourselves in our haste to anoint him? Is it so wrong for me to want to see some kind of dedication to the cause that *doesn't* involve the spotlight, but instead involves the hard, slow, but ultimately triumphant building of a victorious movement? Is it so wrong for me to, maybe, want a guy to pay his dues and roll with the punches if he's going to aim for one of the two top elected positions in the state?