Friday, February 24, 2006

The Shouting Campaign

From Boring Made Dull I learned Instapundit’s aphorism that criticizing Maureen Dowd is the bunny slope of blogging. To brutally extend the metaphor, blogging about Paul Hackett has become the equivalent of Heliboarding – dropping from a helicopter to snowboard freshly fallen slopes. You know you will trigger and avalanche, you just hope not to get caught in it. And just as some boarders risk suffocating death to carve virgin powder, I can’t keep clear of Hackett. If you’ve had enough of the subject, surf over to the recently rechristened Ohio Happy Fun Time Blog and check out the puppy pictures. Or read on if you dare.

So Paul Hackett is not happy. A cynic might suggest that he’s unhappy about being the one chosen to wear the dunce cap, but he says it’s something else. He says he’s angry at Sherrod Brown for starting a whispering campaign that he committed war crimes in Iraq and that there are photos. Open reports that he went off on Brown at a Dem event in Cincinatti when asked if he could support Brown for Senate:

"Not in my lifetime," Hackett said. "He spread rumors about my service in Iraq that were absolutely bullshit.
Open quotes the Brown campaign’s helpful chronology of Hackett’s recent statements on the matter: that the whispers didn’t bother him, that it was all about money, that he supports Brown for Senator. I would add this from Cincinnati Enquirer:
“Whatever personal emotions I have about Sherrod, if he asks me to help in some
way, and I can help and it doesn’t interfere with my own life, I will do the
best to help him,” Hackett said.
So what happened over the last couple of weeks? I had hypothesized that Hackett was reading too many sympathetic blog posts. Two of Hackett’s self-appointed blog pit bulls have been worrying the chew toy of swiftboating allegations pretty much nonstop since he quit the race. But aside from that, no new information has come out. This feels for all the world like Hackett got goaded by his supporters into launching into Brown.

Paul Hackett cannot prove that he did not commit war crimes in Iraq. Oh sure, he can show Harry Reid the pictures he has, he can dig up After Action reports, but he can’t account for every hour of his time there. That’s why it’s vital he be given the benefit of the doubt. It’s the essence of the American principle that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. And everyone I have read has given Hackett that benefit of doubt.

Of course, he hasn’t returned the favor to Sherrod Brown. Thus far the evidence that Brown was behind the whisper campaign is one Brown loyalist allegedly saying that Hackett has stuff in his past he doesn’t want out. (The individual denies the claim.) This is a thin reed for such a serious charge.

If Hackett has real proof that Brown swiftboated him, he needs to show it. Hell, if he has proof, I’ll volunteer for the Draft Hackett as Independent movement. Until he can prove what he suddenly has decided he believes, he’s just hurting the cause of everything he says he believes in.

The Hackett Brigade loves to remind us that Hackett getting run out of the primary has alienated his supporters. True. Hackett's subsequent actions have alienated those of us on the fence about him. He better be happy that his political career is over; he’s pretty much burnt down what’s left of it.

I’ll be at Meet the Bloggers in the morning, then busy with the kids the rest of the day, so the comment avalanche will have to go on without me. I don’t know how much snow to expect, but surely there will be a few flakes.

48 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think the big thing you missed here is that Hackett gave Brown time to reach out to his supporters, and Brown chose not to. Had Brown made half an effort to reach out I really doubt Hackett would have said what he did.

The Brown timeline if anything just hurts their own case, Hackett was willing to be a good loser, but Brown's proved himself a sore winner.

joebu said...

As I have made known before, I am a Hackett sympathizer. I am a Type A person who has been crapped on by those who I thought were friends, so I completely understand how the man feels. Therefore, I probably give him the benefit of the doubt much more so than what most people will give.

I think his comments look very bad for everyone involved. Hackett is bitter (I would be too if I were in his shoes, but I probably would be duct-taping my mouth shut so even if I really wanted to say something, I couldn't) and for Brown, the story just won't go away. Further, it looks very bad on the party.

I don't know if Hackett has gotten soaked up in blog posts, but I will agree that something has happened since his dropout that has him still extremely pissed off. It had looked like the fire had died down, but something has reignited it.

I think this inevitably leads to a question of Chris Redfern's leadership as ODP chair. Where has he been in this? Well, I know for sure that he worked to force Hackett out along with the other names we've heard.

This is the problem of party leaders taking sides. Had Redfern stayed back and been neutral, he could have easily played peacemaker and gotten Hackett and Brown to make up just enough so that tirades like Hackett just unleashed would not happen.

Despite taking sides, Redfern should call both Hackett and Brown to Columbus for a closed door meeting to get this feud resolved once and for all. At least he should try. That is what a good party chair with good leadership skills would do. He's the captain of the ship and it's his job to make sure it doesn't sink. (Then again, the USS ODP has been at the bottom of the ocean for some time...)

That brings me to Brown and his leadership. Even if the whisper campaign was done totally by one staffer without Brown's authorization or knowledge, Brown is still responsible for that staffer's action. He is the ultimate CEO of his campaign. So far, Brown has shown no indication of any accountability other than just seeking reassurance that nobody did anything improper.

Even if nobody in Brown's campaign did anything wrong, he should at least come out publicly and say that he does not tolerate such behavior, that he will investigate his campaign thoroughly, and will terminate anybody found to have engaged in such behavior. Even if it was still a cover-up, it would have made Brown look a lot better.

Back in 2000, didn't Tom Sawyer turn in members of his own staff to the police for stealing the opponent's campaign signs?

Pounder said...

Pho, this is without doubt the worst post I have seen you write.

"Paul Hackett cannot prove that he did not commit war crimes in Iraq. Oh sure, he can show Harry Reid the pictures he has, he can dig up After Action reports, but he can’t account for every hour of his time there."

you can't prove your not a pedophile either, So I guess we have to give you the benefit of the doubt. See how that works ?

this is pathetic. How do you think whisper campaigns work. Jeez.

The evidence is significant it came from Brown.
1. Brown admitted that Lucas told him.
2. Dave Lane said Lucas told him.
3. Lucas has been replaced as campaign manager by John Ryan
4.Others not on the record have said it came from Lucas
5. No other evidence it came from anywhere else has materialized.

What you wrote is hackery at it's best, perhaps clouded by your dislike for BSB or the tone we take, or whatever.

You think you would help me out if i spread rumors about you and little boys while you do your school work for weeks on end, just because we are supposedly on the same team ? You wouldnt be angry as hell, your family hurt by it ?

Just where do you put decency above politics ?

Jill said...

I agree with Joebu. It reminds me of how Bush, when first elected, insisted on staying out of the Middle East (specifically, Israel and the Palestinians). The same kind of silence from the ODP bothers me. I'm sure they have a strategy about it that they think is best for everyone (whomever is clumped into their idea of everyone), but, given the mood in this state and about the Democrat's survival in this state, I fail to see how that willful ignoring of the situation, the letting it play out until all the mortal humors do direct and collateral damage, can achieve success. Chris Redfern's credibility would be immeasurably raised if he stepped forward and took charge of the situation in a style consistent with Joebu's suggestions, IMHO.

Anonymous said...

Pho,

I have to agree with Pounder. This is probably your worst post. The evidence is on the wall. The most likely whisperer is Dan Lucas. He has been fired for similar things before in other campaigns and he was the one who told Brown and other Ohio Department heads the Hackett bullshit. Now he has been replaced as Brown's campaign manager. I guess you are blind and don't want to face the truth.

This whole Senate race has been SO mismanaged from the very beginning kind of like how bad Bush's "port deal" was handled or the Iraq war. Like the Iraq war, if it had been handled much better in the very beginning, maybe we wouldn't be having this civil unrest. If Sherrod can't handle this type of PR, how the hell is he going to handle in other things?

Hackett has a right to be angry for gawd sake. If you had put your life and limb on the line for your country and you were then rat fucked by your own party, I would be belligerent too. I don't blame him one bit.

Death to bullshit politics as usual.

Anonymous said...

Pho,

Thank you for writing this blog entry. It shows that someone in the Ohio blogosphere can see past the candidates running and to the future of winning and electing democrats to office.

As many Ohio bloggers have proven, they are not in this game to elect democrats to office, that is not their ultimate goal.

Their goals are to create (or starve) a movement towards really a third party or multi-tiered party system. Some of their grassroots goals I agree with, many of their tactics, their agonizing buzz word campaigns and, as you point out, accusations without facts (as poster number 5 said "most likely" instead of absolutely 100% sure) I do not agree with.

But it is absolutely refreshing that you finally took this argument to "them" with style, class and very strong opinions.

To you, I say, "Take a day off and enjoy the beautiful weather!"

To them, I say, "Democratic Unity will lead to winning in 2006"

Anonymous said...

Pho-

Don't let Russell get you down. You are right on the money here

Anonymous said...

This is Dr.Dem.

Poetic Justice:

Dean was royally screwed in the presidential primary by Kerry and the Dem establishment so...poetic justice resulted in Kerry being swiftboated in the end.

Now if indeed Brown did do backroom machinations against Hackett including a whisper campaign...expect there WILL be some kind of poetic justice in the end for Brown. There is something to be said about charma.

"What goes around, comes around..."

I wouldn't be surprised if Brown lost in the end ruining his political career for a higher office forever. This loss will result in people forever saying two things: 1. We would have won with Hackett. 2. Brown can't win in a state wide race because he is "too liberal for red state Ohio".

We shall see if indeed in this case there is poetic justice.

Anonymous said...

I think what a lot of people are forgetting here is that unity is a two way street. After Hackett bowed out he acted like a good democrat, and got a deafening silence from the Brown campaign. A week later there's still no word from the Brown campaign other than vague platitudes that everyone will get behind him, then all of a sudden when Hackett gets angry Brown has the 20 minute response team in place.

We'd be looking at a radically different situation if 20 minutes after Hackett dropped out Brown had called him and issued a statement about what a great guy he was. Instead Brown went on acting like he was entitled to it and everyone who didn't just get behind him was out to destroy the democratic party or create some third party (which is complete crazy talk).

Hackett's definitly committed a sin of commission here, but its well after Brown commited a larger sin of ommission. Apparently he took a page from Kohlstrand and the ODP and decided when your opponent (and fellow D) is down and out of the race, that's when you kick them to prove just how powerful you are.

Really its like the Godfather only we have Fredo in charge...

Domino said...

Great Post Pho. Thanks for giving some clarity to the moment. You are a great writer and I value what you say. I think you will find that the majority of people feel the same as you do even if they are not as loud as the others.

Anonymous said...

The bottom line is that Hackett got royally fucked by Brown.

If you want to continue to support such an insincere candidate then by all means do.

I personally could NEVER support such a person. I prefer quality and Brown is NOT that.

I hope he loses.

Anonymous said...

What Good candidates do:

After both Coleman and later Fingerhut dropped out of the governor's race, Ted Strickland sent press releases PRAISING Coleman and Fingerhut. He not only wrote accolades about those candidates but reached out to their supporters...Class act by Strickland.


What Arrogant candidates do:

Brown has yet to release a press release or make a statement praising Hackett for all he did for the party and his country, etc. Instead he continues to spread lies such as Hackett dropped out because of a poll numbers, etc. This alone makes him appear very guilty.

Something is up...deep down inside many of us know it.

Anonymous said...

What I find interesting is that NOT one southern Ohio Democrat came to Brown's defense. That alone says something.

You say that Hackett has burned bridges since he got mad for something he should be mad about. Well based upon Hackett's reception, I suspect that Brown has burnt a lot of bridges by his actions in southern Ohio.

I suspest that the "Hillbilly Dems" of Southern Ohio will not vote for Brown. My prediction: DeWine will win re-election.

Anonymous said...

I just read Sutton's MTB interview...Did Sherrod Brown ever do "Meet the Bloggers"? I don't think he ever did.

How can support someone who doesn't even have the guts to do "Meet the blogger"? Aren't you are part of MTB?

Jill said...

Pho - I think this blog post is hitting new highs with the number of Anonymous commenters it draws!

Anonymous said...

I'd like to see an example of something Brown's said or done to reach out to Hackett and his supporters.

Pounder said...

Jill,

it is amazing how Brown supports NEVER put their name to anything. amazing. Can hardly be a coincidence.

Domino said...

Just to point out - 8 of these anonymous comments were anti-Brown, so the accusation cuts both ways.

Blue Dog Rising said...

Geez... Pho... I think your post uncovered more than two pit bulls for Hackett as well as a lotta Anons for both of them..

As a NON-pit-bull and semi-anonymous canine (Jill uncovered me in about 3 clicks), let me wade into this avalanche with a different take...

I was neutral in the pre-filing Hackett-Brown dance... but I now think Hackett should have stayed in against Brown. He should have launched a hero-bucks the bosses and D establishment campaign like John Glenn did in 74 when he took out sitting Sen. Metzenbaum in a D primary.

First, I seriously doubt Brown would have swiftboated him with alleged war crimes. That has a way of backfiring with MSM as well as the netroots. Heck, Hackett and backers have done more to swift boat himself after dropping out with the public accusations... It's almost like Jerry Springer in 1982 when he put out his own TV ads grabbing attention by confessing the Kentucky prostitute thing.

If Hackett would have stayed in, he might have seen traditional $$ sources dry up...but tough luck. That's politics and he needed to get used to it in the big leagues rather than running in Mean Jean's minor league wingnut district. Two very different things.

The MSM would have loved these two dogs in the fight and loved the fight in the dog (Hackett)... the netroots too. It would have energized the D party by getting more folks involved and fired up for the fall when the real stakes are on the line Gov and statewide... It's not that the Senate seat isn't important... but 06 is a statehouse turnaround year .. perhaps the Dems best chance in... and for a long time.

Maybe the winner of a Hackett-Brown primary would have been damaged a bit. But it didn't hurt Glenn in 74. He won while the incumbent D Gov. Gilligan lost (a wholly different story.)

For a while I thought Hackett should have gone back after Mean Jean... but I've changed my mind. He should have stayed in so that the avalanche of Posts from Pit Bulls and Anons would be twice as large today... and they'd stay involved for the fall .. for the good of the Ohio and themselves...and maybe the party.

Brown and his allies should not have shoved so hard.... but Hackett should have remained a blue dog rising instead of jumping overboard .. in the manner he did -- possibly killing a promising career.

Anonymous said...

Pho,

I think that this is really sad that you are feeding into the Hackett/Brown mutually destructive frenzy. I think it is time to close this extremely sad chapter in Ohio Democratic politics.

Let it go...This whole thing is extremely disparaging to all involved.

Anonymous said...

I think it is time for Hackett to take a vacation and just be with his family.

It sounds like he is going through the 5 stages of grief: Shock, Anger, Denial, Bargaining, and finally Acceptance.

During the first week he went through the Shock phase and now he is clearly in the second stage of Anger.

By going away on vacation, he can progress through all those stages without outside interference.

I disagree that Hackett has burned too many bridges for him to be able to come back to politics. Hackett is still extremely popular in Southern Ohio, the grassroots, and the blogosphere. If he came back in a few years after everyone has healed, I feel that everyone would want him back into politics with open arms.

P.S. If you think the Brown/Hackett docudrama was heated, you really need to check out the GOP primary for the Governor's race. Now that is a SLUGFEST. Unlike you, I suspect that no one in the GOP is saying that neither one of the candidates can't be in politics in the future.

Anonymous said...

I have to disagree with the anonymous person above me.

From what I've heard, Republicans are lining up to dance (and pee) on Ken Blackwell's political grave if he loses the primary. No one loves him but the fundies.

Anonymous said...

Pho, stop whining about Hackett. It is really getting annoying.

I like what Ohio O2 is doing...they are forgetting about Ohio politics by drinking martinis.

redhorse said...

You might be approaching blizzard conditions here, Pho. Had you posted this on a weekday with heavy traffic, you'd find yourself in need of boots.

Anyway, I wish this crap would go away. Just as I'd like Brown to show some graciousness in his victory by issuing a press release and talking Paul up, a la Strickland, I'd also like Hackett to step away with more graciousness.

None of this right now is productive. And while I was not pleased that Hackett left the contest nor in the manner that percipitated his leaving, it's over. Time to figure out how Sherrod beats Dewine.

Pho said...

Oh Pounder.

I knew someone would walk into the trap and take those two sentences at face value, when I was just setting up the argument that Hackett shouldn't level such a serious charge without solid proof. I figured it would be one of the anonymice. I figured you were too smart for that. Apparently your knee jerked so violently you didn't think it through.

The proof you supply makes a halfway decent case that the guy Brown fired repeated some rumors. That's far short of proving the charge Hackett leveled -- that
Sherrod lied about his record.

I like Joebu and Jill's point about ODP leadership, though I wonder if Hackett is returning calls from ODP these days.

I agree Brown's silence has been baffling. He might be thinking that anything he could say would just stir up the hornets again -- and he would be right as far as the Hackett brigade. But he would have looked more statesmanlike to the rest of us. The benind the scenes question I have is whether Brown gave Hackett a call when Hackett conceded. If not, it was an egregious breech of election protocol.

Everyone is right that we need to move on, though I'm not the only one who can't walk away.

I confess it's a weakness. Kind of like those new GTI commercials. [DEMON VOICE] My BlogFast has a problem with Hackett running his mouth.[/demon voice]

I'll try again to keep my BlogFast under control.

Sooz said...

Sherrod DOESN'T beat DeWine. Some of us who were BORN Democrats and active in Democratic politics since the 1960's will STILL not vote for just any jackass who has a D after his name. Anyone talking "Dem unity" is tone deaf to the nature of the problem IN OUR OWN PARTY. There will be NO unity as long as we have pols infected with the Rovian mentality abusing our trust. Winning without honor will solve nothing. Some of us still value our souls and realize that "red" and "blue" is a false dichotomy. Reform starts at home.

John Ettorre said...

Pho,
As always, your acute writing draws comments, though this time more than most. I think the deal with Hackett was pretty simply, really: he simply wasn't and isn't ready for prime time. Like many of his supporters, he's naive about the process of running for office and what that entails, and doesn't seem to understand the larger picture: that the national Democratic party will of course try do what it takes to win enough seats in the Senate to try to win back the majority and thus put a roadblock in the way of the most dangerous presidential administration in modern history. In that larger context, which I think is the proper context, the whining of Paul Hackett and his brigades don't really rise to the level of a hill of beans.

sooz said...

Acute this, John. You make it sound like "Hackett's brigade" are a few mutants from Mars who just discovered politics yesterday. You'd better open your eyes and take a look at just who has been alienated and why.It's not your father's Democratic Party anymore.

Anonymous said...

Russell's comment is misleading.

David Lane, the Clermont County Chair, never said that Dan Lucas told him about war crimes, he said Lucas told him "Hackett has things he doesn't want made public," back in september. This timing is important, for a very simple reason. Brown hadn't even speculated about reentering the race at that point, and Lucas never said what it was that Hackett didn't want made public. It would have made no sense for Dan Lucas to be sabotaging Hackett at that point in time, when it looked like he'd be the only one to run.

He also ignores the fact that Brian Rothenberg and others have said (on the record) that the rumors have been around since the OH-02 special election.

Additionally, for Russell to claim that anonymous, off the record people claim Dan Lucas told them reeks of hypocrisy. Russell and Tim Russo make a habit of attacking anonymous blogger & commenters, and today, he posted a rather long rant about Elizabeth Auster's reliance on anonymous sources in her story on Hackett's dropout. Why the double standard?

Anonymous said...

The truth is that Hackett is the most EXCITING candidate to happen to Ohio in a long time. People like you Pho are STILL writing about him when he left the Senate race TWO WEEKS AGO.

To me, that says something about Hackett.

In terms of what John said. The reality was that Hackett was a newbie and just started politics less than a year ago. Then he was asked by Reid and Schumer to run for Senate when he had NO real experience. That is really asking A LOT of someone. When the rug was pulled out from under him, his newness showed. He didn't realize all the bullshit politics that goes on. He is just too honest.

Hackett will ALWAYS BE SPECIAL in Democrats' eyes.

Anonymous said...

I think there is something to think about in regards to Pho's most recent comment above this comment - and that is that Paul Hackett didn't call Sherrod Brown to let him know he was quitting the U.S. Senate Race.

I mean, Paul Hackett let his staff find out about the decision from the New York Times. Paul Hackett obviously wanted to surprise his supporters and his campaign staff to rally them up in arms, following whatever nonesense came flowing from his lips to the ears of the MSM.

I'm pretty sure that someone like Sherrod Brown was not going to make a phone call to his opponent in the primary if he didn't know FOR SURE that Paul Hackett was getting out of the race (sometimes the MSM, aka the NYT, is not reliable)

And then Paul Hackett puts a message up on his website saying he's dropping out, but in the end - doesn't the Concession Call come from the one who is quitting or who has lost the race.

I think placing the blame of this on Congressman Brown is ridiculous. Throughout Brown's entire campaign he had been preparing for a battle, touring Ohio, raising money, etc etc. I'm sure he was just as shocked as we were - and probably even more shocked to hear Hackett's rhetoric for why he was leaving.

Remember that NYT Article accused Sherrod Brown of many a bad thing - so while some may think Sherrod Brown should have just put out a "Paul was a great guy" statement - how could Sherrod Brown when he was being attacked by a vicious Paul Hackett?

Just some things to think about...

Anonymous said...

Pho,

After all this talking about Hackett, I hope Sherrod wins not only for the Democrats but for his OWN SAKE. If he doesn't, two things will happen:

1. People will ALWAYS say we would have won with Hackett.

2. Sherrod's political career for a higher office will be OVER. People will always say Brown is "too liberal for Red State Ohio".

Anonymous said...

I suppose there's one thing in the Sherrod didn't know argument whether he was really out, why would Sherrod think people tell the truth when they say they're in or out of a race? Maybe he still doesn't believe Hacketts out because those words don't mean much to him.

Anonymous said...

To the anonymous above me,

Why would Sherrod put out a press release thanking a guy who's spent the last two weeks smearing him? Who's actively encouraging people to vote against him?

The difference between Strickland/Fingerhut and Brown/Hackett is that when Fingerhut got out, he did it the right way. He didn't go on a media tour to try and keep himself in the spotlight, and he didn't attack Strickland. Hackett did go on a media tour, and did attack Sherrod repeatedly.
How can you expect Sherrod to thank him for that sort of behavior? Would you?

Anonymous said...

And to the anonymous who thinks caps help make you more convincing:

I had dinner with a couple friends of mine in Dayton. Both of them follow Ohio politics pretty closely, and neither of them cared about Hackett. My aunt, who teaches HS government and current events in Zanesville, didn't even know Hackett was in the primary until he dropped out.

Hackett was special to the netroots, but most non-bloggers don't care.

As for why people are still writing about Hackett-he's still hanging around. You know those long, drawn out death scenes in elementary school plays? Hackett's exit makes those look taut and well directed.

Anonymous said...

According to Sherrod's own response to the PD Hackett said a lot of decent things about uniting behind Sherrod to beat Dewine.

This is actually from a Sherrod release quoting Hackett

"HACKETT: I may not like the fact that it unrolled this way with me.
That’s life. Given the choice, I’d rather see Sherrod Brown as my
next Senator…Why do I want to hurt him if we can get him elected.
I’m not suggesting that I want to go hunting with him or fishing with
him…I don’t have to like him personally. I have to like his politics…
I’m proud to say that I’m a team player…Everybody who is upset about this, get over it now and let’s work hard to get Democrats on the ticket elected. They may not be perfect, but they are better in most cases than the alternative. Certainly in Ohio that’s the case. So, all that are spun about it, let’s make sure all the Democrats that make in on the ticket this Fall get elected in Ohio. And that’s improvement. And they will ultimately improve the process and make America better for all of us."

I don't blame Hackett for being pissed because of the complete non response from Sherrod. The record is clear that Hackett reached out first and is the only candidate to do so.

Eric said...

Gosh. Since I'm named as one of the pit bulls, I reckon I better reply to this hear post.

I think you miss the point on what a whisper campaign is. It doesn't matter who gives anyone the benefit of the doubt. The point is the whisper is out there and it is highly damaging. For this to happen from one Dem to another is egregious. For someone to then say there is no proof that the Brown campaign did it is a case of not using your head. Who else would? You might - might - be able to make the case the Republicans did because they were more scared of Paul than Sherrod, but the only circumstantial evidence we have points to the Brown folks.

In terms of alienation, I would say it more important to worry about who the candidate IN the race has alienated rather than the candidate who is OUT of the race. Who cares if Hackett fence sitters don't like his post-dropout comments...he's no longer in the race.

In my view Dems screwed up again and picked the safer guy - no matter what The Nation says. I would rather see Brown in the Senate as well, I just don't think it will happen. If it does, that is GREAT news for us because Ohio will then turn blue completely - it is the only way.

Eric said...

Also Pho,

I think you put too much into the netroots affects on Hackett. We goaded him into launching into Brown? I really do doubt that. What Paul has said needed to be said, if only for the rebuilding that will have to occur at some point in the near future.

Locutus said...

We agree with Sooz, we will not merely vote for any jackass with a D after his name. Brown's campaign has behaved atrociously from the very beginning. His late entrance after telling the world (and Hackett) that he wouldn't run amounts to little more than political sabotage. His use of "internet outreach" people to slam Hackett, the swiftboating incident with Dan Lucas as well as the meltdown at the ODP Christmas Party make this candidate more than a little vulnerable. Brown will lose...we will laugh.

Anonymous said...

Stop Flaming. Where's your proof?

Yeah, no proof just silly accusations.

Thanks for such "wonderful" insight. (being incredibly sarcastic, I thought your post was crap)

Anonymous said...

Locutus, yeah, you'll be laughing all right...all the way to Gitmo. Hope you enjoy the results. The rest of us won't.

Locutus said...

Flaming? Nothing but the truth dear boys. Flaming might be construed as telling untruths but there's none here. Do your research, you'll see. All of our assertions have been backed up elsewhere so deny it all you wish, it doesn't change the fact that Sherrod is toast. He could have reached out to Hackett supporters but chose not to hence that nine point deficit. Must be a bitch.

Anonymous said...

Yes, your baseless assertions have been backed up by other people's baseless assertions. Just because 4 or 5 or even 20 people write it on the internet does not make it true.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure Sherrod Brown could reach out to Hackett supporters right after he announced, to the NYT (his own staff didn't even know, what a wussy), that he was dropping out of the race b/c Sherrod Brown was mean.

And by mean, I mean that Hackett's internal polling showed him down 22 points and out-fundraised, that his own staff said that he was not willing to meet and greet with certain factions of the democratic party or do hours of call time to raise money...

Yeah, that Sherrod Brown, going around making Paul Hackett's poll numbers drop and convincing big major donors to support the winner of this contest (Sherrod Brown) over he loser (Paul Hackett).

I'm sorry, but Paul Hackett went out, crucified Sherrod Brown w/ unsubstantiated accusations (which to this day have not been backed up by one solid source, so stop "producing your own scenarios for how this went down and calling it fact") and then Hackett supporters spread the lies and falicies and that brings us to today.

Sherrod Brown has said time in and time out that he needs the support of every democrat and independent in this state, welcoming the Paul Hackett supporters in to his campaign and asking for their help.

What did Paul Hackett do to help this situation disolve? That's right, diddly shit. He did nothing but throw flames on the fire.

Tired of the Hackett supporters feeling as though somehow Hackett was wronged here. Because of Paul Hackett what may have been a whisper campaign by Karl Rove or Mike DeWine was put front and center when HE HIMSELF spread the rumor over national radio.

If there is anyone to blame in this scenario it is Paul Hackett. He quit.

But if there is someone to say, wow, he's a big boy, that'd be Sherrod Brown, who has asked for us all to come together to defeat the republicans and their horrid policy this fall to restore faith in our government for the American People.

Eric said...

please...can we stop using the misleading poll numbers?

http://www.plunderbund.com/?p=344

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure that the poll numbers are that misleading. The positive Hackett paragraph was much more positive than the positive Brown paragraph. So the change isn't necessarily "what would happen if they both had equal money." I'm not saying that it’s bad that the Hackett people did it that way. You write an internal poll to make your candidate look as good as possible. I just think that there is a reason people are not addressing the "after the paragraph" numbers. The paragraphs were slanted to make it come out that way. That’s fine; just don't count it as Gospel.

Anonymous said...

The key here is the word "if"

You hackett folks like say it's misleading "if" hackett's message had gotten out he'd be ahead of brown or something like that.

That's bullshit. Hackett didn't have the money. That's the reality of the situation. It's not misleading b/c hackett didn't have the frickin money to get his message out at that moment that hte poll was taken.

Now, you hackett folks stop being so misleading. Maybe you should also call Paul Hackett and tell him to stop bashing democrats on the frickin' radio in Cincinnati.

He makes democrats look like shit. Fuck, he's the most pro-dewine supporter I know w/ all of his anti-democrat comments on the radio. Just fueling the right wing.

What a wus.

Anonymous said...

To the anonymous above me-

I was the one who posted the comment before yours. Maybe I wasn't clear (when I write fast I often am not) but I was agreeing with your position on the poll. The relevant poll numbers are the one that show Brown way ahead of Hackett, not the fictional "after the paragraph" numbers.

And just to be clear, I am for Brown all the way.