Conason on Hackett's no-holds-barred approach and the Democrats' future

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/08/05/hackett_ohio/index.html

"I don't like the son of a bitch that lives in the White House"

Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett's narrow loss in Ohio is good news for Democrats, but only if they take his no-holds-barred criticism of the White House to heart.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason

Aug. 5, 2005  | 

Paul Hackett's narrow defeat in a special election on Tuesday night represented a victory for the politics of conviction and a rebuke to the tactics of trimming. A tough, articulate, outspoken Democrat who refused to apologize for his harsh criticism of President Bush, Hackett came so close to winning Ohio's safest Republican congressional district that Newt Gingrich called the outcome "a wake-up call" for the ruling party.

Was Hackett's powerful showing the harbinger of Democratic renewal in the midterm elections next year? Or was he merely a singular beneficiary of low turnout and Republican disarray? And what should the Democrats learn from his near victory?

<>But the most important lesson of the 2nd District race is the candidate's own unapologetic attitude, both as a Democrat and as a critic of the president and the war. "I've said that I don't like the son of a bitch that lives in the White House, but I'd put my life on the line for him," Hackett said of Bush -- an offhand and incautious comment that would make most political consultants suicidal. Worse yet, from the conventional point of view, he refused to back off. "I said it. I meant it. I stand by it," he replied when outraged Republicans demanded an apology.

Somehow it didn't seem to hurt him much.

[papau]

1. I totally TOTALLY agree - please Dem Party leaders - hear what Hackett

has shown to be true - please!

And thanks to Joe Conason for pointing out what should be obvious.

[Old Vet]

3. Hackett wasnt a seasoned pol$, Didnt owe anyone shit.........

That in itself is un-heard of in politics. We need NEW people and IDEAS. Hackett was a breath of freah air in the sewer of politics, The sooner the democrats get it the better. Thats why big time career democrats dont like Dean, He doesnt go with the program.

[Cha]

6. YEaaaah! Welcome

to DU, Old Vet! :toast:

[Ian David]

2. As opposed to just issuing the "Standard Republican Apology"

Basically, "I am sorry if my words have upset anyone."

Example 1:

Republican: "You're an asshole."
Member of a Minority: "I am upset that you called me an asshole."
Republican: "I am sorry you are upset that I called you an asshole."


Example 2:

Republican: "You people should be exterminated."
Member of a Minority: "That is a terrible thing to say."
Republican: "I apologize for my unfortunate choice of words."

[madrchsod]

4. don`t get excited

the national democratic party will never follow his lead. they`ll deep six anyone who speaks like real people. i watched them at work here and it wasn`t pretty.

[welshTerrier2]

5. DLC strategy - right goal; wrong implementation ...

the DLC has long been a proponent of proving to America that Democrats are tough ... they would just love to kick the anti-war left out of the Party completely ... they believe all those "peacenik lefties" have allowed republicans to paint the Party as "weak on defense" ...

it is indeed important to let Americans know about the strength that Democrats have ... but the DLC is wrong to believe that this means we cannot oppose an ill-advised war and occupation that has no hope of succeeding ... they're not being tough; they're being stupid ...

the difference with Hackett's unapologetic style (and Hackett's view of the war and occupation is also wrong) is that it really does show America that Democrats have the "strength of their convictions and we're not afraid to tell it like it is" ... the mealy-mouthed equivocation most DLC'ers prefer sends the exact opposite message than what the DLC preaches ...

it portrays a Party so eager to find common ground in the middle that we don't have the courage to fight for the ground we believe in ... strength is not conveyed by selling out your beliefs to fight for voters in the political center; it comes from fighting for your deepest beliefs and showing voters that you have the courage of your convictions ...

[BQueen]

7. Couldn't agree more

that's exactly how Hackett won the respect of my fellow Ohioans. And it's the key to that elusive "heartland" vote.

btw - adorable doggie

peace
BQ

[welshTerrier2]

8. thanks ...

that was my pup's puppy picture ... she's really a great dog ...

i think standing up for yourself and for your beliefs is exactly what the Party needs, not just in the "heartland" but everywhere ...

there's nothing wrong with not turning every single issue into a partisan war and working together for the good of the country ... but it seems like Democrats have moved to the middle allowing the republicans to move further and further to the right ...

if we don't fight like warriors we will be portrayed, and seen, as weak ...

[Guaranteed]

25. Bingo. nt

[Fly by night]

9. Can we -- for once -- count the votes somewhere in OH and not celebrate...

... another "moral victory"? Politics ain't beanbag and it's also ain't horse-shoes. Coming close might feel good to political parties (like ours) that are becoming accustomed to losing everywhere. But it smells like a cluster-fuck to me.

Don't get me wrong. I admire Hackett and agree totally that his aggressive campaigning is a long-needed breath of fresh air for our Party that is becoming too accustomed to playing "nicey-nice" with pederasts and horse thieves. But folks, Ohio-2 voters ALL voted on paper ballots (either punch-cards or optical scan ballots) and there were some last-minute shenanigans in Clermont (a-f'in'-gain) involving computer "glitches", delayed vote counts, humid ballots and contradictory stories on election night and the day after about what happened -- ALL OF WHICH DESERVE TO BE INVESTIGATED. For once, just for once, I would like to see a brave, articulate and serious Democratic candidate show some staying power, pursuing every nook and cranny until the fat lady doesn't just sing but until she passes out from multiple orgasms, with her eyes rolled back in her head. Come on, Paul, let's make our overweight Lady Liberty REALLY happy for once.

As I understand it, any candidate can request a hand recount of ballots in any Ohio race if they are willing to pay $10/precinct for the privilege. I'm poor as a church mouse right now, but I'll sure as hell find $10 somewhere to contribute AND I will drive to Clermont county (about five hours north of here) to participate in a recount. If you're waiting on me, you're backing up.

Why are our most promising candidates so damned anxious to get out of Dodge the morning after a questionable vote-count? What is it about the phrase "if we NEVER quit fighting, we cannot lose" don't our leaders understand these days?

Today, in the heat and humidity of Atlanta, speaker after speaker at the voting rights rally (many of them Congresspeople) stood up in front of 100,000+ marchers and said, "THE 2004 ELECTION WAS STOLEN." Goddamn it, if we really believe that, when on earth are we going to start acting like it? Once a thief, always a thief -- until we start chopping off hands, locking election thieves up or giving them a taste of "real" religion, not the kind that their money-changing brethren dole out these days to the sheeple in their sway.

Come on, Paul, there's already enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a recount in at least some OH-2 precincts. I can't imagine you're afraid of anything, so please start acting like it. You have my respect for what you tried to accomplish -- you will have my undying admiration and life-long support if you will be one of the first Democrats to start walking the talk. We are fighting for the future of our country with torturers, traitors, liars and election thieves. There are no rules in a knife fight ... but you seem to be the sort of candidate who would be smart enough to show up with a gun (metaphorically speaking, of course) to a knife fight. And in Ohio, in 2005, with Katherine Blackwell and Daffy Taft at the helm, demanding a public recount is coming well-armed into that lawless border town called the "Buckeye State". It's not like we weren't forewarned.

Contest Clermont County -- count the ballots. The elephant piss that made them "too humid" to count on Election Night should have dried by now.

[flpoljunkie]

10. If elections, both 2004 and Hackett's were fixed, no way to prove it!

It is hidden in the proprietary software code of the tabulating computers--which are used by all voting systems-from punch card to opti-scan to touchscreen.

That is our dilemma. And it cannot be solved until the code is open source and there are mandatory random recounts for every election.

http://www.avirubin.com/vote/op-ed.html

An Election Day clouded by doubt
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.voting27oct27,1,595879.story

By Avi Rubin
Originally published October 27, 2004

ABOUT 50 MILLION Americans will cast their ballots for president on touch-screen terminals Tuesday. If my experience as an election judge is any guide, voters will love these machines, which are generally easy to use and which easily accommodate voters who have disabilities or do not speak English.

And if my experience as a computer scientist is any guide, those voters will not realize just how dangerous it is to rely on these machines to conduct a free and fair election with a reliable result.

Voting on a direct recording electronic voting machine, or DRE, is in many ways similar to transferring money from one account to another at an automated teller machine. But there is one critically important difference: no receipt. There will be no physical record produced that could later be used by your local election board to prove how you intended to vote.

After you cast your ballot on a DRE, the only official record of your choices will be the electronic record within the system itself. You will not be asked to look at a piece of paper that confirms your candidate selections. You will not leave that piece of paper behind for use in case of a recount.

Why is this a problem?

Without paper ballots that can be physically examined, the only recount possible is a review of the votes recorded by the DRE system itself. And if those votes were recorded incorrectly, no recount will fix the error. The incorrect result could never be detected, much less corrected.

[Fly by night]

11. Wrong. OH-2 voters voted on paper ballots that can be recounted by hand.

A manual recount of paper ballots (both punch-card and optical scan ballots) would not involve electronic equipment using proprietary software. BUT it would tell us whether the companies we have out-sourced our democracy to count those ballots the first time did what we suspect them of doing.

OH-2 is a very rare bird these days -- a Congressional district that has not been infected with non-verifiable DREs. Contest Clermont -- count the PAPER BALLOTS by hand. I'm certainly willing to volunteer my calloused mitts to assist in saving our democracy by hand-counting ballots -- in OH-2, in Ohio and in the rest of the country.

The revelation that new Diebold DREs tested in California had a failure rate upwards of 33% (not 10% as previously reported) has already secured a decision by California's new (Republican) Secretary of State to de-certify Diebold for the second time AND it has gotten the Salt Lake City newspaper editorializing against that state's decision to go with Diebold statewide. Imagine the tidal waves that would result if a real recount of paper ballots in OH-2 uncovered election fraud? I don't care how big Turd Blossom's mouth is -- he couldn't choke down that "hot military stud" of a revelation.

Count Clermont (and other suspect OH-2) ballots by hand -- the elephant piss should be dry by now.

[flpoljunkie]

13. But you can't get to a recount of the paper ballots, if the count is fixed

so that the winning margin does not meet the threshold for a recount--don't know what it is in Ohio, but the winning margin must be less than one-half percent for a recount.

[Fly by night]

18. Wrong. A recount is triggered automatically with a margin < 0.5%.

But I believe that a candidate can request a recount above that margin if they pay for it. Remember, the faux recount in Ohio last fall was paid for by the Greens and Libertarians who received very few votes in the Presidential race and the recount (bullshit that it was) occurred even though Bush's manufactured margin of victory over Kerry was greater than sour Shitface's manufactured margin was over Hackett.

I do believe that Ohio law allows a recount under the current circumstances in the OH-2 race, if Hackett calls for one and pays $10/precinct to have it done. This has also been confirmed for me last week by DemoDonkey, who participated in last December's faux recount in Ohio. But more knowledgable Ohioans may want to chime in on this discussion also.

[flpoljunkie]

21. The winning margin is fixed so that it is >0.5%. Am not talking about

Hackett paying for a recount, am talking about automatic recount, paid for by the government.

[Fly by night]

22. Your previous post (13) said no recount if margin is >0.5. Still wrong.

You can get a recount if a candidate calls for it and is willing to pay $10/precinct for it. That paid-for recount would be just as real (as much as anything regarding fair elections is "real" in Ohio these days) as a recount paid for by the government.

Your initial point was that a recount is not possible outside the 0.5% margin and my response was (and is) that it is possible, if a candidate asks for the recount and the recount fee is paid. Over on the 2004 ERD, we already have people ready to help with and donate for an OH-2 recount, so it seems to me you are splitting unnecessary hairs.

A recount is possible and it should be pursued. We are communicating with Hackett to encourage him to call for one. If he does, the funds will flow to pay for it to be done in short order.

[flpoljunkie]

23. I also said I do not know Ohio's election law regarding recounts, when

they are triggered, who pays, etc. Florida has or had a winning margin of less than .05% required automatic recount, paid for by the government, of course.

My concern in all these posts is that is is very difficult politically to get a recount when you do not meet the threshold for an automatic recount. You are met with charges of "sore loser", "sour grapes" charges, etc.

Our voting processes are not transparent. We must trust in central tabulating computers--even in the case of punch card voting, I understand. Is this not so in Ohio?

If we cannot trust in the accuracy of our elections, what kind of democracy is this?

I am, by the way, all for a recount in Ohio, is Paul Hackett feels it is warranted.

Edited to add this link overview of voting technologies--has nice chart--which shows all voting systems use central tabulating computers.

http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=5135&printsafe=1

[Fly by night]

24. Rather be called a "sore loser" than have a "non-winner" take office.

There were so many shenanigans in Clermont county and perhaps in other OH-2 precincts that a call for a recount is sensible, IMHO. Particularly since we have more than ample documentation that Clermont also tampered with ballots in November, 2004 -- an issue that got a lot of attention on the DU 2004 ERD back when the affidavits surfaced that ballots recounted in Clermont had stickers affixed to ballots covering legitimate Kerry/Edwards votes so that the ballot could be re-marked for Bush. No legal ballot would have such stickers on it -- someone who mistakenly voted for Kerry/Edwards and wanted to re-vote would have their first ballot voided and be issued a second ballot. (You can do a search for "Clermont stickers" on the 2004 ERD archives and find the threads. They appeared in the early part of this year.)

The Ohio recount law makes a recount easy to request, as I have indicated. But until we stop worrying about being called names and start worrying about the Rethugs stealing elections without any concern that we will call them on this behavior, we might as well stop contesting elections and just surrender the government to them. Before we start fighting in the streets, I would like to start fighting for recounts and for felony convictions for traitors and election thieves.

[flpoljunkie]

27. What does Hackett think of the Clermont County results?

I have read about the 2004 irregularities in Clermont County, but again, what does Hackett think?

[Fly by night]

29. he has been "out of pocket" since election, first with his outfit ...

... and then on vacation with his family, I believe. However, folks are communicating with his office to ask him to consider a challenge.

BTW, I just posted a new thread on DU's 2004 ERD showing that even Republicans are beginning to question the propriety of Clermont's results, at least on right-wing blogs. You might want to visit and follow the links.

[NightOwwl]

12. If Kerry had campaigned like this...

he'd have won in a landslide.

[sendero]

15. If Kerry had not.

.... campaigned the exact opposite of this - if he hadn't let the IDIOTS who run our party talk him into a gutless convention, yeah he would have won.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. My problem is if he ran again I have no confidence he'd do anything really different.

This lesson is as plain as the nose on our faces. Many of us have been BEGGING to our leaders to speak with passion and conviction, because that is what is working for the repugs.

People have given up voting on the issues, because everyone spins them so much and politicians ignore what they promised as soon as they are elected. So now, they vote on sound bites, zingers, one-lines, and simple digestible ideas. We have just over a year to get serious about it.

[NightOwwl]

16. I have no doubt he would campaign just like he did in 2004....

which is why I will not support him if he runs again in 2008.

[karynnj]

30. You can't really know

Hackett was running for the House, Kerry for President. It was also 7 or 8 months earlier. Polls show people thought Kerry did more negative campaigning that Bush. There were people Kerry won, who rejected Michael Moore.

Running for President, as someone not well known to most of the country, he had to show himself as Presidential and likeable enough that people could see him as President. Attacking Bush as bluntly as Hackett did would make him more liked by people who already detest Bush - people who already were going to vote against Bush. A large number of the persuadables would be less likely to vote for Kerry.

Kerry had a major problem getting the media to actually cover him at rallies. He did very strongly critisize Bush - but as part of explaing things that had to be done. When people actually saw him he gined votes - such as in the debates. Also, Kerry needed to be himself - he is courageous, has taken tough stands, but he is a polite, well- mannered gentleman.

Also, any negative canpaigning is much more affective coming from the VP or other surrogates leaving the candidate to project a positive image. Other than a very few surrogates (Clark, Cleland and Kerrey - off the top of my head), the Democratic surrogates were awful.

[Eloriel]

14. I hope he can convince Craig Crawford

who was heard on MSNBC on Wednesday last week saying badmouthing Bush and esp. in the language he used was why he LOST. I could have slugged him. What a dunce Crawford is sometimes. Or DLC lackie, not sure which (or both?).

[snowbear]

17. Yeah really.. Craig Crawford said he should've toned it down..

I disagree.. Major Hackett rocked! :headbang:

:patriot: ~~ Hackett for U.S. Senate! ~~ :patriot:

[woodleydem]

19. I like Hackett a lot, but he isn't nearly the "no-holds-barred" liberal as

some around here make him out to be. First off, he DOESN'T SUPPORT unilateral pullout of Iraq, which most liberals demand. Secondly, he is pretty clear in his support for gun's rights, (read:anti-gun control) which is, again, not a liberal position. His website says little of anything about gay marriage, although there are interviews where he seems not to have a problem with it. Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that this guy was almost able to win a Congressional seat in a heavy Republican district. But his real campaign strategy to begin with was to link Schmidt to Governor Taft and the corrupt Ohio Republicans, which was a great strategy. (an aside: Schmidt has several skeletons in her closet relating to lobbying for gambling interests to Taft; she will surely get challenged in the 2006 Republican primary) Now, I keep reading posts from people at DU saying something to the effect of "if Kerry had used this strategy then he would have won." But the problem with Kerry is that he had a 20-year liberal Senate voting record to defend, while Hackett had the luxury of having no record but instead running on his Iraq war experience, which gave him instant credibility, and exploiting the weaknesses of Schmidt. If the Ohio Republican scandal had broken last year, (and by some accounts, it was kept quiet until after the election) Kerry would be President right now.

I do think that Hackett should challenge DeWine in 2006, as DeWine will be vulnerable. This is a prime opportunity to pick up a Senate seat in a key swing state.

[Guaranteed]

26. Just to note- being pro-gun-control is arguably not the liberal

position. Just MHO.

As far as Iraq, as it goes on the pull-out movement will get stronger. I don't think it's time yet, though. We might possibly be able to pull that off for '06.

As far as I'm concerned, that guy ran as perfect a campaign as I've ever seen.

I actually think he won.

[AtomicKitten]

20. Hackett Kicked Ass

It was so delightful to hear him say out loud the stuff he said and especially NOT RETRACT IT when confronted by the Media Heathers that tsk-tsk.

[Algorem]

28. Just noticed Hackett's on NPR now,almost over

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/

10:00 Military Service and the War in Iraq
Diane talks about military service and the war in Iraq with Iraq veterans, a military spouse and the producer of a recent radio documentary about military families.

Guests
John Biewen, producer of the radio documentary "Married to the Military"

Maj. Paul Hackett, U.S. Marine and Iraq veteran; ran for U.S. House seat from Ohio in a special election

Jeanette Mulligan, wife of Army Sgt. Clinton Mulligan, Fort Bragg, NC

Lt. Col. David Poirier, Retired, former active duty commander of the 720th Military Police Battalion

Bill Carr, Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy

Listen to this show
Show archives will be available approximately one hour after the program ends.

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/

Order a copy
CD | Cassette

Related Links
Vicki Croke's website
Related items

The Lady and the Panda : The True Adventures of the First American Explorer to Bring Back China's Most Exotic Animal
11:00 Vicki Constantine Croke: "The Lady and the Panda" (Random House)
In 1936, a widowed young socialite took on her late husband's planned expedition to China in search of a live panda. Diane and her guest talk about the panda-monium set off when she returned with a baby panda cradled in her arms.

Guests
Vicki Constantine Croke, "Animal Beat" columnist for the Boston Globe, contributing reporter for NPR's "Living on Earth," and author of "The Modern Ark: The Story of Zoos - Past Present, and Future."