Remains of the Week

Trims and ends from an eventful week. [Edited to add some omitted links]

Hacked Off

Naturally the big story has been Hackett’s withdrawl from the race. Bloggers upset on behalf of Hackett are easy enough to find. A few contrary opinions float out there, most notably Bill Callahan and Kyle Kutuchief. Political writers in the papers have been scratching their heads over the brouhaha.

I’m most upset at the Dem leadership’s tone-deafness. I don’t need to repeat my feelings about Hackett’s actual chances, but DSCC needs to understand that sometimes you have to suck it up and let the primary happen. And oh, by the way, it’s the DSCC, not ODP, with fingerprints on this one.

Yesterday's PD carries a story about the “internal pressures” that may have helped scuttle his campaign. Pounder is not amused. Please read the article; there’s an awful lot of information there. I had been wondering to myself why a Marine had such a problem with rules and hierarchy. I don't know the Marine culture. But I do know the legal culture and Paul Hackett is a solo practitioner trial attorney in spades.

Finally, Mother Jones ran a by-now famous story about the controversy. That made me think; wasn’t there an earlier MoJo story? And didn’t Hackett come up with the bizarre theory that the Democrats should emulate the Republicans’ party discipline and take Sherrod Brown out of the race? And wasn’t there a blogger who suggested that if the Democrats were to force someone out of the primary it wouldn’t be the untested novice. Oh yeah, that was me. Hackett needs to be more careful what he wishes for. He may not like the look of the Democrats’ discipline, but ORP chair Bob Bennet is envious.

Racing Form.

Thursday was petition day, so our fields are now set. You can find ABJ's various candidate summaries in this search and a revised list here. A few notes

-William Green is out in House 44. He explains why in his blog. He promises to keep blogging. I hope so. Blog world could use the diversity.

-Jeff Seeman is in, despite alleged money problems.

-I’m at a certain age – an age when contemporaries are running for office. I personally know three people in the legislative races.

--Tom Mason, a friend from college, running for Congress in the 16th.
--Christine Croce, who worked at the Sheriff’s Office when I was a prosecutor, running for Representative in House
--Tom Cousineau (not actually a contemporary) running for Rep. in the 41st.

Getting their Bok up.

With all the blog drama, few have noted the controversy over this cartoon by ABJ’s Chip Bok. MedPundit, doesn’t see the big deal. The big deal, if you haven’t been paying attention, is showing any disrespect to the Prophet Mohammed. Bok was clumsily satirizing CNN pixilating Mohammed’s face in the infamous Dutch cartoons. Which CNN did to show respect. So Bok is satirizing an attempt to show respect, but means no disrespect. Gotcha.

If Bok was going to do something this insensitive, pity he couldn’t at least be funny.

The context with Bok’s many cartoons about Muslims doesn’t help his cause. I’m sure Bok would say that he doesn’t equate Islam with jihadism, but his word is the only evidence we have.
My point is not to justify the rioting that the Dutch cartoons touched off. Nothing justifies that. But as Slactivist notes, the overreaction to the offense doesn’t negate or justify the offense. The fact that we don’t understand the degree of the offense doesn’t justify it either.

Meanwhile, stepping away from Medpundit and Bok, I’m amused that many of the people who are appalled by Muslims’ intolerance for free expression, who cheer on all those who continue to publish the cartoons, are the same people who organized boycott’s to kill off The Book of Daniel and who criticize the media for publishing Abu Graib photos. In some contexts, apparently, they understand to difference between “can say” and “should say.”