Dem Senate Candidate Accuses Own Party Of Sabotage (moved from ATSNN)

Major Paul Hackett (USMC, ret.) has abondoned his campaign to become the next Democratic Senator from the state of Ohio. In an interview with David Goodman of Mother Jones magazine, Hackett describes pressure and tactics from within his own party that he says ultimately led him to drop out of the race.



I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Politics in the US is in a sad state of affairs. Dirty tricks are not the limited to members and staffers within the Republican Party (as their opponents, the Democrats, would have you believe). Nor are they limited to GOP vs. DNC (or vice versa).

With 'friends' like those, who needs enemies?

[edit on 2/17/2006 by ChemicalLaser]

Remember when Hackett was going to be the "Golden Boy" of the Democrat Party. He narrowly lost in a congressional race in a majority Republican district. Even though he lost, the Democrats were trying to play it off as a victory.

I guess it just ate at the Democratic leadership to have an Iraq War veteran in a position of power. Send in the "Swift Boats"!

I'm not sure what the issue is here. The Democratic Party pressured a guy who was unlikely to win against the Repbulican challenger to step aside and let the Party's favoured candidate stand on a solid Democratic base. This isn't anything unusual or even that bad of an idea. The major apparently doesn't have much of a stomach for politics.

ITs not like the best people become politicians, for either party. Looks like the major just learned that in a personal way.

I'm not sure what the issue is here. The Democratic Party pressured a guy who was unlikely to win against the Repbulican challenger to step aside and let the Party's favoured candidate stand on a solid Democratic base.

From the orignal article:

Hackett wanted to fight to the finish. He raised nearly a half-million dollars in the last quarter of 2005, matching Brown’s fundraising. But Brown entered the Senate race with $2 million in the bank, a strategic cushion. Early polls show both Brown and Hackett running in a dead heat against DeWine. An internal poll done in February for the Hackett campaign that was obtained by the Cleveland Plain Dealer showed Brown leading Hackett by 20 points, but Hackett took the lead if voters simply heard both candidates' bios. The analysis concluded, “If Paul Hackett can raise the funds necessary to communicate his message to the voters of Ohio, he will present Sherrod Brown with a formidable challenge in May.”

Your first point that he is unlikely to win is debateable. Do you have data that supports that?

As to the related point about the standing on "a solid Democratic base", I thought attacking the President in vitriolic terms and with hyperbole strongly appealed to the democratic base. (Otherwise, why would they have hired Dean as the DNC chair?)

I think I'm beginning to see the picture. Spiteful, mean-spirited, foaming-at-the-mouth attacks of the President and the GOP is fine for Dem activists, spokespersons, and current office-holders, but NOT for candidates - they have to appear to be calm, reasonable, thoughtful moderates. That way, the party can continue to talk out of both sides of their mouth.

Maybe I'm just too naive, but I sure wish there was a party that was more about leadership & sound government than political games.

Your first point that he is unlikely to win is debateable. Do you have data that supports that?

I'm assuming that that is what the Democratic Party is figuring.

As to the related point about the standing on "a solid Democratic base", I thought attacking the President in vitriolic terms and with hyperbole strongly appealed to the democratic base.

I'm talking about not having the Democratic vote lessened by people sore over Hackett not winning the party slate; about not having the democratic voters fight it out over their own candidate and loosing steam in that.

Maybe I'm just too naive, but I sure wish there was a party that was more about leadership & sound government than political games.

Yes, you're too naive. Leadership and sound governance have little to do with winning elections; largely because the voting public is stupid. A seven term incumbent has a lot of backing behind him, a 'shoots from the hip' relative newcomer prone to wild statements is dangerous, even if he looses to democrat Brown, he might've said enough crazy stuff to give some serious cannon-fodder to the republicans and wreck Brown's chance of winning against Dewine. Also, lets face it, the democrats can't play the 'tough on security angle'. They can't get full use out of veteran status, other than to 'legitimatize' their general platform. A democrat candidate with veteran status doesn't get to use it like a republican candidate, because of the party platform. So the one thing that makes Hackett special here, the fact that he's a Major, doesn't help him that much, and, again, he's obviously going to use that against Brown in the run-up, and that would delegitimatize Brown versus Dewine. It also represents a problem of polarizing their own base, with Hackett supports being more ready for the 'fight fight fight' aspect (ala him being a major), who might then defect to the republican side in the actual election.
But by eliminating hackett, they can still pull him out to be able to say that the Democratic Party itself isn't soft on terror, and can give Brown a unified democratic voting base.