Hackett quits US Senate Race

[euro60]

This comes from the Enqurier website a few hours ago. Why does the cynic in me think that Hackett of course will oppose Schmidt, even though right now he is saying that he won't?


Hackett leaves Senate race
Calls Democratic tactics 'second betrayal'

BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Saying he felt betrayed by his own party, Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett said he has relunctantly dropped out of the Ohio race for U.S. Senate under pressure from Democratic leaders.

Hackett, of Indian Hill, said he may quit politics rather than run again for a House seat from Ohio's Second District, as party leaders want him to do.

Hackett told The New York Times for Tuesday's editions that the same Democratic leaders who urged him to run for the Senate after his sensational political debut in last year's House race had turned on him.

"This is an extremely disappointing decision that I feel has been forced on me," Hackett said, noting that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and New York Senator Charles Schumer recently had asked him to withdraw.

"For me, this is a second betrayal," Hackett said. "First, my government misused and mismanaged the military in Iraq, and now my own party is afraid to support candidates like me."

Hackett captured Democrats' attention last summer by blasting President Bush's war policies, raising huge sums on the Internet and capturing 48 percent of the vote in a special election against Republican Jean Schmidt in one of the country's most conservative House districts. He declared his candidacy for Republican Mike DeWine's Senate seat after Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown had declined to run.

Brown changed his mind shortly after that, however, and national Democrats privately began urging Hackett to step aside. On Sunday, some national Democrats made those requests publicly.

“If he stays in the Senate race, I’m with Paul Hackett, but this is about the House race and giving us another member of the Democratic caucus,” said Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio, a Democrat who backed Hackett in the early going.

Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory joined the chorus on Monday, publicly urging Hackett to switch races. Mallory told The Enquirer that other Democrats -- he would not say whom -- left him messages on Sunday asking him to call on Hackett to withdraw from the Senate primary.


Democrats considered Schmidt vulnerable in a rematch against Hackett after Schmidt gained notoriety for attacking a fellow House member -- and a decorated Vietnam War veteran -- for calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, But Hackett steadfastly said he would not drop out of the Senate race.

Hackett said he told three Democratic candidates for Schmidt’s seat that he wouldn’t enter that race, the Times reported.

“The party keeps saying for me not to worry about those promises because in politics they are broken all the time. I don’t work that way. My word is my bond,” he said.

Hackett, an attorney, said he would return to private practice.

Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern said Hackett still has the popular support to have an impact.

“It is my hope that whatever disappointment he might feel about these circumstances, that he will seize a different moment in the future,” Redfern said in a news release.

[markalot]

The democrats need some new leaders. Every time someone stands for something the leadership gets involved and tells them that this is the party that stands for nothing and you need to get out.

Standing for something is just too darn risky in this day and age.

[the happy prole]

They found something out about him that they aren't saying. Something bad enough that if it were released he wouldn't have a chance of winning.

Otherwise why would a guy like him bow out so meekly just because a few Senators told him not to do it?

[J.D.Roni]

Guess he just couldn't
wait for it.
wait for it.




hack it.

HAAAAA :D

[sueque222]

They found something out about him that they aren't saying. Something bad enough that if it were released he wouldn't have a chance of winning.

Otherwise why would a guy like him bow out so meekly just because a few Senators told him not to do it?
I don't think that's the issue. Sherrod Brown is simply a better candidate for this particular race. Hackett is being a baby - he should just choose something else to run for and stick it out with the D's.

[euro60]

Sherrod Brown is simply a better candidate for this particular race. Hackett is being a baby - he should just choose something else to run for and stick it out with the D's.
Being a baby? After everyone in the local, state and national Democratic leadership URGED and BEGGED him to run for US Senate, and then at the slightest hint of *perhaps* a better candidate becoming available, they drop him like a hot potato.

When Sherrod Brown loses (that's right, you read correctly, not if but when), will he still look like the "better" candidate?

Just in case you are not aware, someone in the know told me that private polling numbers show Schmidt running VERY STRONG against Hackett or anyone else. Proving once again, there is no such thing as bad publicity ;)

[Seattle93]

I don't know if Hackett would've had a better/worse chance than Brown, but he definitely has more statewide recognition than Brown.


I like Brown a lot. I met him about 4 years ago and we spent 20 minutes talking baseball when he was supposed to be doing an on-set interview. Policy-wise and experience-wise, he is the better candidate. However, outside of northeast Ohio and random pockets around the state, people don't know Sherrod Brown (and the election is less than 9 months away).

Call me a pessimist, but DeWine is going to win again...by at least 10%.

[sueque222]

Being a baby? After everyone in the local, state and national Democratic leadership URGED and BEGGED him to run for US Senate, and then at the slightest hint of *perhaps* a better candidate becoming available, they drop him like a hot potato.
That's politics for ya. If he doesn't like it, then maybe he should get out while he can after all.

Call me a pessimist, but DeWine is going to win again...by at least 10%.
Gang of 14 should've helped.

[george]

I think Hackett has every right to be pissed. The New York Times said that DNC leaders had been calling Hackett's donors and asking them to stop giving him money. So it isn't simply about asking him to exit the race, it's also about the party going behind his back to undermine his efforts.

[sueque222]

I think Hackett has every right to be pissed. The New York Times said that DNC leaders had been calling Hackett's donors and asking them to stop giving him money. So it isn't simply about asking him to exit the race, it's also about the party going behind his back to undermine his efforts.
I agree he has the right to be pissed. Again, though, that's politics. It certainly isn't below the RNC to do something comparable.

[euro60]

I agree he has the right to be pissed. Again, though, that's politics. It certainly isn't below the RNC to do something comparable.
But.. but... I thought that the Democrats stood for change... and moral leadership... and all those good things? I guess not, when it comes down to winning a race, by any means available.

[george]

I agree he has the right to be pissed. Again, though, that's politics. It certainly isn't below the RNC to do something comparable.

I agree with the "that's politics" sentiment, but most would agree that politics sucks.

Look at things from Hackett's perspective. He is urged to run for the Senate, so he does. Then the same people who urged him to run ask him to stop running and, further, go behind his back to sabotage his run. They tell Hackett that he should switch to the House race. But Hackett had already assured three other democrats that he wouldn't run for that seat. Should he go back on his word just because "that's politics"?

I don't think he is being a baby at all for speaking out. in fact, I admire him more for pointing out the hypocrisy in the system.

You're right that the RNC would do similar things. Just look at how they treated McCain in 2000.

[sueque222]

But.. but... I thought that the Democrats stood for change... and moral leadership... and all those good things? I guess not, when it comes down to winning a race, by any means available.
Personally, I still consider voting Democrat to be voting for change and voting my morals. The mechanics of politics are simply sheisty, and I've come to accept that.

[jneale]

I'll have to read this tonight when I have more time - but I don't get it - he was the one hope I thought existed.

[CablinasianRam]

Hackett was asked to run for Senate after Sherrod Brown said he wasn't interested. A week after Hackett said yes, Sherrod decided to change his mind and enter the race. The party leadership sided with Sherrod, the party insider with a war chest of 2.37 million dollars.

Hackett was simply sick of party politics and it came to a climax when Rahm Emmanuel, head of DCCC said he should run again in OH-02. However, he wouldn't receive the funding to win, he'd just bleed the RNCC in a district they're going to win anyway.

There is no way Hackett is running for the House this year, he's a man of his word. He may run in '08, but we'll see.
I've had the pleasure of working for him, a man of character and sacrifice. I'm pissed at Reid and Schumer for killing the candidacy of the only guy in the race who could beat DeWine. Sherrod's politics don't play in any part of Ohio other than Cleveland. The last time Brown ran for office, he lost to DeWine . Let's hear it for the Ohio and national Democratic Party: decisions by the few, made for the many.

[euro60]

Personally, I still consider voting Democrat to be voting for change and voting my morals. The mechanics of politics are simply sheisty, and I've come to accept that.
You are fooling yourself, which is fine it it makes you feel better. But the reality is that the Democrats are just as greedy and lusting for power as the Republicans. 2006 is 1994, the tables have turned, is all.

[sueque222]

You are fooling yourself, which is fine it it makes you feel better. But the reality is that the Democrats are just as greedy and lusting for power as the Republicans. 2006 is 1994, the tables have turned, is all.
Rather than list all the reasons that the Democratic platform more closely fits my personal morals than the Republican platform, I'll simply say this: no, I'm not fooling myself. I side with the Democrats regardless of the ugly side of politics and I'll continue to fight against the Republicans.

[jneale]

Hackett was asked to run for Senate after Sherrod Brown said he wasn't interested. A week after Hackett said yes, Sherrod decided to change his mind and enter the race. The party leadership sided with Sherrod, the party insider with a war chest of 2.37 million dollars.

Hackett was simply sick of party politics and it came to a climax when Rahm Emmanuel, head of DCCC said he should run again in OH-02. However, he wouldn't receive the funding to win, he'd just bleed the RNCC in a district they're going to win anyway.

There is no way Hackett is running for the House this year, he's a man of his word. He may run in '08, but we'll see.
I've had the pleasure of working for him, a man of character and sacrifice. I'm pissed at Reid and Schumer for killing the candidacy of the only guy in the race who could beat DeWine. Sherrod's politics don't play in any part of Ohio other than Cleveland. The last time Brown ran for office, he lost to DeWine . Let's hear it for the Ohio and national Democratic Party: decisions by the few, made for the many.

Thanks for the short version - crap, it is all a big steaming pile of crap. I really liked the man.

[euro60]

Rather than list all the reasons that the Democratic platform more closely fits my personal morals than the Republican platform, I'll simply say this: no, I'm not fooling myself. I side with the Democrats regardless of the ugly side of politics and I'll continue to fight against the Republicans.
That's fine. Just don't bring up any "moral leadership" and "change" issues and the like, cuz both sides are the same ON THAT POINT. They all wanna be in power.

[sueque222]

I regret calling Hackett a baby, but I stand by everything else I've said.

This is the reason I support the Democrats, sheistiness or not:
http://woxy.com/boards/showthread.php?t=35680

[markalot]

I regret calling Hackett a baby, but I stand by everything else I've said.

This is the reason I support the Democrats, sheistiness or not:
http://woxy.com/boards/showthread.php?t=35680

Pretty poor reason, but if you MUST say you support a party I guess I can understand. Frist is the reason I no longer think of myself as a republican, but that doesn't make me a democrat. :)

[sueque222]

Pretty poor reason, but if you MUST say you support a party I guess I can understand. Frist is the reason I no longer think of myself as a republican, but that doesn't make me a democrat. :)
To be clear, I didn't mean that it's the only reason. It is a big reason, though. (Gay marriage, that is. Not Frist specifically.)

Glad to hear Frist has turned you off, though.

[wombat18]

Pressuring Paul Hackett To Abandon Campaign is Old Politics at its Worst
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/pressuring-paul-hackett-t_b_15637.html

Gary Hart Tue Feb 14, 10:50 AM ET

"Based on news reports alone and knowing nothing (thank goodness) about behind-the-scenes politics, the pressure brought on Paul Hackett, the bold Iraqi veteran, to abandon his campaign for the U.S. Senate from Ohio is deplorable.

This is simply old politics at its worst. There is a party which hand-picks its candidates, decides who can and cannot run, directs money to the favorite candidate, and dictate terms. Up till now, that party has been the Republican party.

Now, it seems, my Democratic party is once again imitating the Republican party in a desperate effort to regain power. With the McGovern democratic reforms in the early 1970s, political bosses were diminished and grassroots voters were elevated. The theme was, Let the people decide.

Telling Paul Hackett that he cannot run for the Senate, and purportedly calling contributers to dry up his funds, is the worse kind of old politics. It will drive voters away from the supposedly "open" party, the Democrats, and further add to public cynicism about how politics in America is played in the early 21st century.

Shame on us".

[markalot]

This is simply old politics at its worst. There is a party which hand-picks its candidates, decides who can and cannot run, directs money to the favorite candidate, and dictate terms. Up till now, that party has been the Republican party.

Now, it seems, my Democratic party is once again imitating the Republican party

The democrats are the ones known for 'the machine'. Daley in Chicago to name just one. I grew up in a burb of Chicago when the honorable Richard J Daley (say it like Dan Akroyd) was crime bo ... I mean mayor. The democrats have a long and storied history of hand picking people to run and rigging districts to their favor.

It's wrong and I'm glad you dislike it.

[twentyshots]

not knowing much about Hackett I must say he certainly seemed appealing and I hope the Democats bullshit posturing blows up in their faces.

He should run as an Independent.

[tobedawg]

ya know i've come to the point where I Hope that come November the Republicans get their 60 Senate Seats!

So that I can laugh in these asinine Democrats faces!

[sueque222]

ya know i've come to the point where I Hope that come November the Republicans get their 60 Senate Seats!

So that I can laugh in these asinine Democrats faces!
Do you truly mean that? What would that prove? Could you imagine what would happen if Republicans get a supermajority? Is that what you want?

I, for one, am sticking with the D's. How many Republicans do you see abandoning their party on account of recent scandals? Not too many.

[euro60]

I, for one, am sticking with the D's.
Can you give me any plausible, not some science-fiction, scenario under which you would not vote Democrat anymore? 'M just saying..

[tobedawg]

Do you truly mean that? What would that prove? Could you imagine what would happen if Republicans get a supermajority? Is that what you want?


ya know it's come to the point where IF our only two options are Republicans and Corporate Democrats, at least with the Republicans in charge we will have a party that sometimes exhibits strong leadership and posesses many leaders who are willing to stand behind their principles..

The Democrats are a dead party.. they're done..

[markalot]

ya know it's come to the point where IF our only two options are Republicans and Corporate Democrats, at least with the Republicans in charge we will have a party that sometimes exhibits strong leadership and posesses many leaders who are willing to stand behind their principles..

The Democrats are a dead party.. they're done..

I used the force ... it worked.

All you want is someone who is a liberal, like the dems used to be, and stands up for what they believe instead of being a bunch of whining fraidy cats. This is either a good opportunity for a third party, or prime time for a decent democrat to finally step forward. Dean was almost it, but's he's just too odd.

[tobedawg]

All you want is someone who is a liberal, like the dems used to be, and stands up for what they believe instead of being a bunch of whining fraidy cats. This is either a good opportunity for a third party, or prime time for a decent democrat to finally step forward. Dean was almost it, but's he's just too odd

I say a Third Party should step up to the plate..

If a Democrat has that fighting spirit and energy, all of the limosuine liberals will silence them..

I say the Democrats, as they are now, should just pack up and move on..

[sueque222]

Can you give me any plausible, not some science-fiction, scenario under which you would not vote Democrat anymore? 'M just saying..
If my views were to shift as much over the next, say, seven years as they have since seven years ago, then it's conceivable I might not vote Democrat anymore. I can't think of another plausible scenario.