Failed Senate candidate Hackett's opposition research leaked to paper

[Algorem]

Monday, February 20, 2006

http://www.davidsirota.com/2006/02/who-is-really-weak-on-national.html

Who Is Really "Weak" On National Security?

Karl Rove has made no secret of his desire to try to ramrod the 2006 elections into a debate over who is "tough" on national security. And it seems more and more Democrats are frightened to actually have the debate. Oh sure, these Democrats wouldn't tell you that - in fact, many are posturing as tough guys even as they cower in fear of Rove. A few weeks back, it was Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), self-servingly reinforcing Rove's dishonest storyline of Democrats as "weak" on national security. And now today in the Toledo Blade, it's failed Ohio Senate candidate Paul Hackett.

Yes, you read that correctly. A week AFTER Hackett got out of the race, Hackett's campaign - now in the process of closing down - leaked all of its "opposition research" on Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) to the Toledo Blade - opposition research that regurgitates the same Karl-Rove-esque "weak on national security" lies that have eroded Democrats' image over the years.

Clearly, Hackett's move is disgusting on many levels. First and foremost, is the sheer pathetic, sore-loserish quality of it. A week ago, it was Hackett who appeared on Air America radio saying: "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 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." Now, this "team player" is out spreading GOP propaganda. Classy.

But let's just look at the Toledo Blade story and what it represents at a deeper level. Hackett's campaign tries to attack Brown for voting against the Patriot Act - even though polls show the public has serious reservations about the law, and want it to be changed (see question 19 of this USA Today/CNN poll from last month for reference)...


http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060220/NEWS09/602200340

Article published Monday, February 20, 2006


U.S. SENATE RACE

Hackett's research targeted Brown

Votes to cut funding for intelligence cited


By JIM TANKERSLEY
BLADE POLITICS WRITER

Congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Sherrod Brown voted to cut intelligence funding more than a dozen times before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a record that Paul Hackett's campaign advisers called proof that Mr. Brown could not win in November.

A consultant hired by Mr. Hackett, Mr. Brown's onetime Democratic opponent for Senate, estimated the funding cuts would have totaled billions of dollars if enacted. None were. The consultant called Mr. Brown's votes on those proposals and a dozen more recent national security issues "toxic in today's political environment," according to campaign research documents obtained by The Blade.

Mr. Hackett quit the race last week, leaving Mr. Brown as the near-certain Democratic nominee against incumbent Republican Sen. Mike DeWine. But not before his campaign paid more than $5,000 to comb Mr. Brown's background for political weakness.

The research concluded it was unwise to attack Mr. Brown's career voting record in a Democratic primary, because he toed the party line faithfully. It also predicts Republican attacks on Mr. Brown this fall...

[Nickster]

1. Big difference between Hackett doing it and some ticked off consultants

leaking info after they lost their paying gigs.

[MH1]

4. Yep, and they should never work for Dems again...but then

what's Donna Brazile up to these days, I wonder?

[Nickster]

5. You know and I know, they'll end up working for Dems again.

Hopefully Donna Brazile isn't warming up to any potential Dem Presidential candidates. I hope Al Gore has learned enough to stop accepting her calls.

[Lexingtonian]

11. professionals don't actually care

It's hateful partisan campaign insiders that do this kind of shit. Consultants don't get emotional about business of this kind that is very short term anyway.

[Nickster]

12. People come on board by starting as consultants. Then if the candidate

wins, they get put on as staff. Just because someone may pawn themselves off as a "professional" doesn't always mean that they act professionally. If they felt they could get on board somewhere else lucrative, why wouldn't they step on Hackett on the way out?

[OzarkDem]

27. You're right about that n/t

[Capn Sunshine]

20. I know EXACTLY who you're talking about

And while I agree there is no place for him and his cronies in Democratic politics, he keeps getting work.

I only learned after the fact of his involvement with Maj. Hackett's people ( like this morning) or I would have gotten a beware message through to him.

Anyone who wants to know more, PM me, I won't name names on a public message board.

But we've known about him in California for some time.

[FreedomAngel82]

44. But Hackett was going to use this wasn't he?

[Nickster]

67. I think that only Paul Hackett can answer that one. My opinion, I think he

did what any person running for office would have. You need to know the strengths and weaknesses of every other candidate n the field. The situations dictate what you pull out and use and how you use that info. My opinion again, I don't think he would have used it like people are trying to claim. But I can't speak for Paul Hackett and I don't think we'll ever truly know the answer. I can't condemn him for having that information gathered for him, most likely, he didn't even ask for it directly. I think smart staffers have to have ever single angle covered. Do you really think that Sherrod Brown doesn't have very similar information on other candidates?

[OzarkDem]

78. No one can speak for Hackett but himself

and we know very little about the man we allowed to have a shot at a senate seat and who is now trying to trash a good Dem candidate who stands a very good chance of winning this race.

All we know about him is that he used to be a Republican. We put a lot of trust in him, far more than he deserved.

[Nickster]

79. I think you're reading way too much into the story. I'll agree with you on

one point, only Hackett can speak for himself. But to say he's actively trying to poleax Sherrod Brown is too far of a stretch for me.

[Eric J in MN]

2. The CIA was doing such a wonderful job before September 11,

if only they had more money, they would have stopped it.

Except since the appropriation bills Sherrod Brown voted against went through, the CIA did have the money and still didn't stop September 11.

[Capn Sunshine]

22. Don't blame the CIA

They sent everything they had up the chain; including reports IDing six of the hijackers and their plans, possibly even with dates.

That it was not acted on AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS is what allowed the 9-11 attacks to succeed.

No, the CIA did it's job.
but that's not the BFEE spin ,is it.

[phillinweird247]

3. Wasn't Hackett a registered repug in the not so distant past?

I thought I read that here somewhere.

[mdmc]

6. welcome to DU

We need more GOP members to join the Dems... peace.

[phillinweird247]

7. I agree, What I was meant was he was bringing GOP tactics

To the Democratic party.

Thanks for the welcome

[mdmc]

17. hard ball tactics are not purely republican

This was a case of poor / shitty politics / politicking... A better way would have been to have Hackett happy running for congress... Chuck Schumer is the king of hardball... but he did a shitty job in this race... hopefully we will win both the senate and the house seat.

If Jean Schmidt is re-elected, it will be a blow to all that oppose the gulf war (hey, Chuck Schumer 'supports' the gulf war far more then NYS Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno does. bruno has called for an iraqi withdrawal).

Anyway, I don't have a horse in this battle, I just want Dems to win. I always take anti war dems over rat-worm, bush enabling, Dems. But I would rather take a rat worm dem over the best of the GOP.

Again, welcome to DU. This place is pretty cool, especially if you are willing to toe the dlc rat, worm line. But even progressives are welcome here, if toeing the dem line doesn't enthuse you.

Peace! GOD!

[pocket]

8. sincere ones, sure

but not opportunists.

Note that I am not saying the Hackett is one of those.

[mdmc]

18. follow the money, pocket.

most rat worm dems take the same money from the same corporations as the GOP does. I really appreciate you not calling Hackett "an opportunist". I don't know anything about this problem (brown v. hackett) except for what I read at DU and PI. That being said, I can certainly call this scene "shitty politics". The GOP didn't need to do a damn thing to sabotage the rise of a new, progressive, left.

[OzarkDem]

31. He's responsible for his own failure

It was too big of a race for a novice. He couldn't raise the money he needed on such short notice and wasn't well versed in issues other than Iraq.

He also wasn't accustomed to the rigors of campaigning and fundraising, as his own staff said. He refused to make calls to raise money and often refused to attend political events and meetings, especially those in the African American community.

When he was out on the campaign trail he was often stiff and wooden, didn't mix with people or talk.

All these things add up to a candidate not ready for prime time. To play the sore loser and lash out at good, progressive Dems like Sherrod Brown is incredibly bad form.

Hackett needs to take responsibility for his own failures instead of blaming them on others.

[mdmc]

41. sounds like he was in over his head

why was he running? why is he sore now? why didn't our smokey back room lead him to victory? where were our party leaders to assist "this novice" to become a future leader of this party.

Sounds like shitty politics. I blame experienced pols for letting this novice get into this position.

Again, I dont have a horse in this race. I do know that there is a great candidate in NYSCD that could beat Sue Kelly. All it would take is Chuck not being a rat worm, and leading the dems to victory (in NYSCD, 5 dems are running, but none can win. NYS Assemblyman Richard Brodsky could easily beat Sue Kelly, but Brodsky is running for NYSAG. Chuck should get Brodsky to run against Kelly).

Sounds like shitty politics.

[FreedomAngel82]

47. Or how about this?

How about Sue Kelly fights back and stands up for herself? STOP BLAMING OTHER PEOPLE!

[mdmc]

58. Sue Kelly will stand up for herself, no problem. She will be re-elected.

Only the voters should be blamed. All I am saying, is that NYSCD is winnable. We have a strong state race (all statewide dems will win, BIG!), we have strong candidates locally, and we have a strong grassroots, and we have a weak GOP (Bush is weak across NYSCD 19).
It will be a shame to lose to Sue Kelly. There is no reason that Sue Kelly should be reelected. I will rate Eliot Spitzer and Hillary Clinton on how large their coattails are.

I am not sure who you think I am blaming. Peace.

[FreedomAngel82]

63. And I hope she does

I'm tired of rolling over democrats who are supposed to be fighters but they aren't.

[FreedomAngel82]

46. Thank you!!

That is what I have been saying all along. While I like Hackett and agreed with him on a lot of issues HE IN THE END IS IN CONTROL OVER HIS OWN CAMPAIGN. He was NOT in control over his own campaign it looks like from the inside. He claims his staff would put him up for events to go to and than at the last minute, after being scheduled for these events, he would back down. Tough shit. He still should have gone because it was on the schedule and it would be seen as rude to not show up. And in the end he CAN NOT handle peer pressure. If he can't handle pussycats like Reid and Schumer how the hell is he going to handle republicans and other bigname democrats? Hackett just couldn't handle it and now they're trying to destroy Brown and there's no proof he personally was involved in anything. Reid and Schumer don't speak for his campaign since they are not on his staff. I'm sick and tired of this "oh Hackett's the victim!" crap but he isn't. He's a big boy and can handle himself and this proves he has no bite.

[mdmc]

62. sounds like this guy really needed some help

did we (the Dems) do all we could to make this vet an asset?

Sounds like shitty politics to me.

[OzarkDem]

81. He had plenty

His problem was he didn't bother to do any campaigning or try to raise funds. You can't force someone to do the job of running for office.

He wouldn't make fundraising calls, he wouldn't go out to political events. He apparently wanted to be interviewed on television and have the Dem party raise money for him. Sorry, fella. In a primary you have to run your own race. Dems have about 40 or 50 candidates on the ballot in major races in Ohio this year, they can't raise money for him.

On the upside, Dems already had a candidate that was experienced, an excellent campaigner and good at raising money for himself and other candidates. He tried to help Hackett and Hackett stuck a knife in his back.

Good riddance to Hackett, he's a sore loser.

[OzarkDem]

28. Yes he was n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

45. Same here

And this shows he was going to use this against Brown. The campaigners just leaked about it.

[Pithy Cherub]

9. Even Kos says this was NOT Hackett's doing on the front page.

It was staffers.

[OzarkDem]

32. He hired them

It doesn't seem right for him to dodge responsibility for the people on his own staff.

[Pithy Cherub]

43. So what. Hackett was smart enough

to hire political operatives. He didn't hire political ettiquette princes and princesses. Everybody hires these operative folks - and once the campaign is over they are free agents. Anybody can say anything about their boss, ex-wives, ex-husbands, ex-anything. That's on them. They no longer worked for Hackett or the campaign.

[FreedomAngel82]

49. HE'S the boss!

IT'S HIS CAMPAIGN AND HE'S THE BOSS. I'm sick and tired of this crap that Hackett is a god and nothing is his fault. If I had a job and was the head of a project and I fucked up on it it would be MY fault since I was the boss.

[Pithy Cherub]

53. WAS. They did this AFTER.

You are confusing is and was. Tough cookies, they did it AFTER Hackett resigned.

on edit: you may want to review what some of kerry's ex-staffers did too after he changed operatives.

[FreedomAngel82]

61. He was still their boss

He should have done a better job at running his own campaign. Same thing with Kerry. If you can't trust your own staffers to not do such things than why hire them? Hopefully Kerry has learned his lesson too.

[Pithy Cherub]

66. Nope. Not AFTER they parted ways. Does your boss tell you

what to do AFTER you finished working for him? :rofl:

[OzarkDem]

82. In some ways it was good

They revealed what a dirty trickster Hackett was. I have a feeling that was their original intent - to expose the guy for what he is - someone who has no loyalty to the Democratic party and never did.

[OzarkDem]

77. You're wrong

and they exposed Hackett for the mean spirited Republican that he is.

[Pithy Cherub]

91. strictly only your opinion.

[FreedomAngel82]

48. And why didn't he take the information with him?

And tell them not to leak it? He can't even control his own staffers! :eyes:

[safi0]

10. First of all

David Sirota needs to get his info straight. This was some consultants and staffers, Hackett himself had nothing to do with this. Kos lays it out pretty well. These were some inexperienced staffers who looked at Hackett as their ticket to DC and are now pissed that their opportunity is gone.

[The Magistrate]

13. Even So, Sir, The Fish Rots From The Head Down

He hired them, and clearly exercised damned poor judgement in doing so.

Further, this illustrates the sort of campaign he intended to run, had he continued in the primary. It shows quite clearly he would have attempte to damage Rep. Brown, and would probably have succeeded in doing harm that would have effected the general election. The wisdom of the Party leadership in quashing this becomes quite evident.

[Adelante]

14. I'm not so sure of that

It's a memo of possibilities, and precious few of those, but there is nothing to say Hackett would have gone along. In fact, the end summation is there is little to hurt Brown in a primary. So I would disagree that it illustrates the sort of campaign he would have run, as you say. I do agree that there has been poor judgment in other respects, but this particular thing is no indication of anything but a waste of money.

[1932]

15. I doubt Hackett paid for work he didn't intend on using.

Which might explain why it was leaked.

[Adelante]

21. All politicians pay for oppo research

It doesn't mean they intend to use it. It means they wanted to know what the weaknesses and strengths are. It could have sat in a file the entire campaign. But the point is, unless Hackett has already used it, we have no way of knowing if he would or not have used it. You pay for it whether you use or don't.

[The Magistrate]

23. Of Course It Would Have Been Used, Ma'am

In the party primary, he was down twenty points at the start, and matters would not have improved. In such a circumstance, the magazines are emptied and the kitchen sink is thrown, invariably. Worse, it would not have helped him mich in a Party primary, but would have helped Republican efforts in the general electon considerably: the Republicans are sure to make such charges, and they would have much greater effect if people had both heard them before from primary coverage, and heard them from a Democrat. tyhese things would give them a patina of non-partisanship, and of an already established fact....

[Adelante]

24. It would not have helped Hackett in the primary, yes

It would have helped the Repugs, yes. It will help them, anyway, just by it's being now known that it might have been used. Not that the Repugs would have needed any help getting this information itself, I'm sure they already have it, but they now have the Dems for cover. But we do not know if it would have been used by Hackett. We might say it probably would have been used and it wouldn't have surprised me if it were. But the act of having the report in hand does not indicate anything at all except this was a political campaign.

[FreedomAngel82]

52. Oh give me a break!

How the hell does this help the republicans? :eyes: We do know what would be used by this post. If you have a report on your hands you will use it eventually. Whether in the beginning or later on.

[Adelante]

64. How does it help the Republicans

for DeWine to be able to say even Democrats think Brown is weak on national security? Count the ways.

[Aaaargh]

87. The 20 points was in a "LIKELY VOTERS" poll for the primary election, not

the general election.

Swing voters, by definition, are not "likely voters" in a partisan primary. A lot of recent Dem nominees in Ohio, such as Eric Fingerhut in his Senate race against Voinovich, did really well with "likely voters" on the Democrat side, but they got stomped in the general election. Ohio Democrats who supported Hackett hoped that he would win swing voters.

Neither you nor I have any idea what the Hackett campaign would have used down the road in their fight for the nomination. We do know this: Hackett had been campaigning since October, and HADN'T used the figures in question.

Besides, your real advocacy here is against open primaries, a sentiment most Democrats would identify with the other major party.

[LittleClarkie]

30. I've heard the same arguement applied to Dean and Kerry

The thing is, at the least, Hackett was a political newbie. I'm not sure this report indicates what kind of campaign he was going to run, since I'm not sure how adept he was at hiring the right people in the first place.

Don't forget that his original staff in the Congressional campaign mostly belonged to Brown. When Brown decided to run, alot of Hackett's staff went with him.

But you're right. That could be a recipe for pettiness. Even so, all it takes is one unscrupulous staffer to leak something.

I keep thinking about the off-hand comment Sen. Kerry made at a party, after which one of his staffers ran to Wonkette to spill their guts to her. Another of his staffers was a DUer and said that the thought that one of her co-workers would do such a thing was rather sickening to her.

I repeat, all it takes is one staffer.

I've not been happy with the automatic condemnation of Brown I've seen, the automatic assumptions that the DLC were involved (ludicrous considering Brown's a progressive), or the mildly whiney "dramatic exit" that Hackett treated us to last week. However, Sirota is jumping to some pretty hefty assumptions. I'm not ready to go there.

[OzarkDem]

34. Candidates should always take responsibility for their staffers

Brown was generous to loan some staffers to Hackett during his run against Schmidt. If Hackett wanted to run for senate, he needed to be capable of hiring his own people, once they returned to Brown.

[LittleClarkie]

36. Indeed. He's responsible if he was too inexperienced to hire

decent staffers. However, that is completely different from saying that Hackett approved this leaking of info.

Do you see what I mean? Responsible for the hiring of these people, but perhaps not responsible for the decision to leak.

I must say, though, that if this move was done with his approval then he needs to be a stand up guy and say that out loud. He needs to take responsibility for his staff, esp. if he means it when he says that he's a team player who wants to see Dems get elected.

[FreedomAngel82]

54. That's what I would have done

Start fresh and new with different people and different outlooks.

[OzarkDem]

33. You're absolutely right

He wasn't ready to run a good competitive race and when he lost he was going to drag the party down with him.

There's a process for bringing new people into the political system and training them to run for higher office. This is an example of how badly things can go wrong when someone tries to take a shortcut.

[LittleClarkie]

35. At the least, it might show his inexperience as to hiring staff

I think we need more info before we decide what's going on here. I don't like anonymous reports. I don't see any names here.

[Adelante]

42. That's what I keep saying, too

We need more info. It's been true throughout this drama that judgments are called based on very little of it.

[1932]

16. I thought it was interesting that when Hackett came out as anti-illegal

immigration, his supporters said that he was the law an order candidate. But two days later when he crticized anti-gay legislation (the law) he was courageous and taking a stand.

Is it also a contradiction to say that this guy was a leader, but to now say he has no control over his employees?

[FreedomAngel82]

55. Do you have any information about that?

I remember the immigration policy and I'm halfway there with him (just not how to handle it) but I didn't hear about the anti-gay legislation.

[FreedomAngel82]

50. They were going to use this information

If this didn't happen to Hackett and he was still in the race he would have used this information. So how would that have made Hackett look?

[FreedomAngel82]

51. First of all Sirota does have his facts straight

He's reliable and you to say he isn't is very very wrong.

[Algorem]

19. Hackett sposed to be on Ed Schultz in next half hour(3:30+P.M. Eastern)

http://www.edschultzshow.com/

[LittleClarkie]

26. He was, and he talked about a PAC that's been formed

to help veteran candidates so what happened to him won't happen to them.

Also, he reiterated that he's committed to getting Dems elected, and he'd help Brown if he could, but wasn't committing to anything in particular.

[OzarkDem]

38. Nice to support veterans

but he'll be supporting R's as well as Dems.

I'm glad his PAC is advocating for help for vets, they've been badly shortchanged by the Bush administration and they need someone on their side.

Something tells me his next job will be on FAUX trashing Dems every night. I hope I'm wrong.

[LittleClarkie]

40. Why do you say that? Do you doubt his word and his

Dem-ness? It seems to me that you're being awfully pessimistic about the man, beyond what he deserves from what we've seen. While I was annoyed at the reaction to Brown as being an "insider" for merely having experience, as if that were somehow a bad thing, and having no experience was a good thing. But aside from some annoyance at Hackett's "dramatic exit", I have no reason to assume he's a closet freeper. People can and do change their minds. Ed Schultz used to be a Republican too. If we can't accept these people into our party when they've had a change of heart, then how can we get voters on our side?

[FreedomAngel82]

57. The person has every right

Look at how this was handled. He doesn't have any fight in him and now he's going around trashing every other democrat involved in this except himself and taking personal responsibility. He needs to grow up. I could care less if he's been in battle but he doesn't know politics. And if he's going to be campaigning for republicans my respect for him will be gone. I don't trust Schultz either. Remember when he bashed Dean? Remember when he bashed Kerry? Now he has Kerry on his show because Kerry is still popular with democrats. :eyes:

[OzarkDem]

59. Sherrod Brown is our candidate

I prefer to talk about him instead of Paul Hackett. We've heard enough about Hackett, its time to start supporting Brown.

[Jai4WKC08]

90. Not true -- IAVA won't be supporting Repubs

They're technically non-partisan. I suspect that has to do with their tax classification.

But if you read their criteria for endorsement, there are not gonna be any Repubs who qualify.

IAVA used to be Operation Truth. It is not a right-wing, or even particularly centrist organization.

[FreedomAngel82]

56. What happened to him is

he didn't fight back. He was being a true wuss.

[LittleClarkie]

25. Are we sure that Hackett had any knowledge of what his staffer

planned to do? I'm not sure you can say specifically that Hackett approved of this. First of all, I don't trust the anonymous nature of the leak. Second, does Hackett strike people as being THIS hypocritical? Third, I still we've all seen the anonymous staffer stories who undercut their bosses with leaks. At the least, maybe it was the staffer who was being petty and immature, and not Hackett.

I'll have to go back now and read more of Mr. Sirota's work. My short term memory is lousy, but I get the odd feeling I've read, and not liked, his reporting in the past.

I wonder if Sirota is annoyed at Hackett because he likes the more progressive Brown. Even so, this is a bit of a hatchet job.

[Capn Sunshine]

37. I'm sure he DIDN'T

That's not these staffers MO, to keep the boss in the loop of their own selfish machinations.

[Algorem]

39. amazing,it's all always a plot against the great hackett.

[Nickster]

68. Seems like someone sure has an agenda against someone. I wonder why that

is?

[Algorem]

72. If you mean me,yes i do.why?because hackett's very disappointing

[Nickster]

76. Ok, you think he's disappointing. He's out of the race now, so why do

you seem so darn motivated to keep stomping on the man's grave? He had a pretty good base, it would seem to make sense to try and bring that base over to Brown now, don't you? It would also make sense to keep someone like Hackett involved in the process, doesn't make sense to throw away all the votes someone like him could bring in. I think you have another agenda besides just being "disappointed" in him, but you won't just come right out and say it.

[Algorem]

80. You haven't noticed what he's been doing lately?Yeah we should all just

pretend Hackett's our bestest buddy.Slurring the Democratic Party,slurring the Democratic Senatorial candidate,spreading Rovian lies,joining a PAC that plans to help Republicans get elected.Keep Hackett in the process?Hackett needs to just go away.No doubt within the next few days so much more to disprove Hackett and his pathetic accusations will come out that even the people in that PAC will be saying "Paul Who?".Zogby poll says Bush is losing his base,Hackett should also.

[Nickster]

83. So far all I've seen is your article posted about twelve million times

stating that some people working on the campaign leaked some opp research. Just a tad bit of a stretch from Hackett actively "slurring" Sherrod Brown, but yet you keep trying to make that connection. You keep trying to link tactics to Paul Hackett that you have no facts to back up. Your accusations make me question your motives more and more. So more information is coming out, or are you just stating that to further smear Hackett? Seems like you've got some Rovian tactics of your own.

He joined the Veteran's PAC AFTER he got the shiv slipped into his back by the DSCC. It's an independent PAC, they can support any party they want. He's not a polished politician, so maybe he's just a bit hurt and is acting that way? Why should Hackett still pledge a loyalty oath to the Democratic Party anyways?

Fact, Sherrod Brown is the uncontested Dem candidate now.
Fact, Paul Hackett is a private citizen and a non-politician now.

Question, why are you so intent to alienate a base of voters who could be brought over to Sherrod Brown now that their guy is out of the race? Basically calling people who supported Hackett "stupid" doesn't automatically mean they are going to come running to your side.

[Algorem]

85. It's not my article,it's a Toledo Blade article.It doesn't say who leaked

that research.And you say that's all you've seen?That explains a lot.You're right,Hackett isn't a Democrat.I'm not trying to alienate anyone.Everyone should stay on Earth instead of fucking up outerspace too.I didn't call anyone "stupid".

[Nickster]

88. The article doesn't state who did the leaking, but you sure are. You're

not trying to alienate anyone? Funny, sure looks that way to me. You didn't call anyone stupid directly, but you certainly jump on top of anyone who has a different opinion of Hackett than you do.

The way you are helping to spread the smear around and not directly answering any questions makes me more than certain you 1) have an axe to grind with Mr. Hackett or 2)you yourself have a different agenda than what you're stating.

[Jai4WKC08]

94. Please see my #90

IAVA will not be supporting Repubs.

[FreedomAngel82]

60. Did you read the rest of the post?

Reporting on it doesn't mean they're a supporter of Brown. Isn't Siorta a journalist? Here's what else Sirota says the Hackett campaign was going to do:

Hackett's campaign tries to attack Brown for voting against the Patriot Act - even though polls show the public has serious reservations about the law, and want it to be changed (see question 19 of this USA Today/CNN poll from last month for reference).

But beyond the hyperbole on the Patriot Act - which lawmakers in both parties have now raised objections to - is the more pressing attack on Brown's votes to slightly reduce spending for intelligence in the 1990s. Like an obedient appendage of Rove's smear machine, Hackett's campaign says the votes essentially mean Brown is "weak" on national security. But let's just think about how truly ridiculous that line of reasoning is. The intelligence bills passed, the funding went through, and we still got hit on 9/11, even though we had overt warnings.

That makes something very clear: our intelligence apparatus in the 1990s was focused on outdated Cold War priorities - not on the new threats to America. Brown's votes were a courageous attempt to force reform - instead of simply throwing more money at an outdated apparatus that ultimately failed us on 9/11 because it hadn't been reformed earlier. If anyone is "weak" on national security, it is the people who blindly voted for these bills - not those who tried to force a debate that may have sharpened our intelligence system's focus on the real threats to America BEFORE they materialized.

Go and read the rest of his blog.

[LittleClarkie]

75. Sirota is a journalist the way Miller is a "journalist" i reckon

as in self-proclaimed.

I'd place them in the columnist section, myself.

Now I rememeber Sirota. There was an article of his that annoyed me greatly. Here it is:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2354/

{b}Partisan War Syndrome{/b}
The left falls victim to a debilitating affliction

By David Sirota
Is the left really as ideological and principle-driven as it seems?

A disease is running rampant through the American left these days. Its symptoms are intense and increasingly pervasive in every corner of the self-proclaimed “progressive” coalition. A good name for the disease could be “Partisan War Syndrome” - and it is eating away at what remains of progressives’ ideological underpinnings and the Democratic Party’s ability to win elections over the long haul.

The disease is simple to understand: It leads the supposedly “ideological” grassroots left to increasingly subvert its overarching ideology on issues in favor of pure partisan concerns. That may sound great at first glance. Democratic Party officials always talk about a need for “big tent unity” and subsequently try to downplay ideology. But as a trait of the grassroots and not just the party, Partisan War Syndrome could be positively devastating not just for issue advocacy, but also for Democrats’ political aspirations as well.

The main symptoms of Partisan War Syndrome are hallucination, delirium and obsessive compulsive behavior, with those afflicted losing almost all perspective about what winning politics really is all about. Washington, D.C., of course, could be declared a Hot Zone outbreak area, with this disease afflicting virtually every self-described strategist, operative, and lawmaker that operates in the progressive name. But it is starting to seep out everywhere-even on the Internet blogs that the mainstream media reflexively defines as the “left,” “liberal” or “progressive” base.

Certainly, this disease can be difficult to detect. The mainstream media regularly portrays the so-called Democratic base as a highly ideological, “liberal” or “progressive” monolith, supposedly pressing an insulated, spineless D.C. Democratic establishment to move to the “left.” This portrayal creates the image that there really is a cohesive, powerful ideological force on the left, one that is committed to convictions and issues before party-much like there is on the right. This image is reinforced by the mainstream media’s constant characterization of Internet blogs and the “netroots” as an extension of this monolith-as if a medium automatically equals an ideology.

His article wouldn't have annoyed me near as much except that he has us collapsing at Hillary's feet, which I don't see as happening.

It's almost like he took a few perceptions and stitched together his own version of the truth from them. I'd like to hear about Hackett and Brown from a different source, I think.

[thatsrightimirish]

29. This move

Was not good on Hackett's consultant's part. i hope he had nothing to do with it. However, this information would have come out sooner or later and it's better not than in october.:thumbsup:

[Radical Activist]

65. How shameful

This makes Hackett look petty, childish and vindictive. Maybe we're better off without him.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OzarkDem]

70. Better question

Why do so called progressive Dems want to beat up on one of the most progressive Dems in the House in favor of some guy you hardly know?

[DemonGoddess]

71. and....why this insistence on

"cult of personality" as opposed to real substance and a proven record? That's something I don't understand at all. Shouldn't SUBSTANCE be the criteria? Shouldn't a proven progressive record COUNT for something?

[seabeyond]

73. i am confused too. we do it with sheehan too. and moore

and stewart. none of them are democrats. they will take out a democrat in a flash. and we want them instead of the ones that are really progressives. a phenomenon. all good people. all have their place and role in all this. none are democrats

[Algorem]

74. that's clever.not.not funny either.seems to me they're all news stories.

why not write letters to the editor.tell them you hate the truth coming out about hackett.then call them trolls.

[Aaaargh]

84. and the DeWine camp would NEVER HAVE SAID THIS if it wasn't for Hackett!

What nonsense. Of course campaigns put together data like this, to anticipate what the other side is going to use against them or their primary opponents.

The DeWine camp would have used those stats against Sherrod Brown if Paul Hackett and his staffers had never been born. They've also counted up the times Brown "voted to increase your taxes!" including renewals of course, and will pitch those numbers in their airwave-saturation TV commercials, beginning this summer, or maybe spring, even. They'll also emphasize Brown's ties to "Labor Bosses." "TOO LIBERAL FOR OHIO! CALL SHERROD BROWN AND ASK WHY HE VOTED AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY! ASK SHERROD BROWN ABOUT HIS LINKS TO SO-AND-SO THE OHIO LABOR LEADER WHO GOT INDICTED ONCE!" Etc.

Let the Beltway folks seek Ohio Democrats' forgiveness for interfering with the primary by ponying up a whole lot of money for Sherrod Brown's campaign, so they can run a comparable barrage of attack commercials, because that's what it's going to take to win this election. Quit wailing on Hackett, he's out of the race. This is now a contest between Brown and DeWine.

[OzarkDem]

89. Welcome to DU!

glad you've decided to get involved in Democratic politics.

[Algorem]

86. transcript of Hackett on Hardball-

http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/gov/

[Virginian]

93. I wasn't too comfortable with him.

We all "know" intuitively that Dubya was a cokehead but we have no proof. It is all based on rumor and what he won't deny and other non-documented basis.
For Hackett to come out and actually say it publicly is inviting a lawsuit for slander.

Here on DU, when we make an accusation, we usually have a source we can quote or we state that it is hearsay or rumor. Hackett stated it as fact and unfortunately, he did not have a source. I appreciate his getting air time for the "cokehead" statement, but that is not what Senators do, that is what they hire someone to do for them.

I liked him, but I think he is still too green and needs to learn the art of the finesse; he needs to learn to smile when he says "Bullshit".

[CarlSheeler4U]

92. Let's focus on the here and now so future is clearer - don't dwell

Leaders move on and adjust. No complacency. No second guessing.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/19/1730/42036

Carl
Sheeler for US Senate
www.carlsheeler.com

Be a patriot and pass the bulletin board link to every person you know and every blog you can and ask the same from them, too.