Recovering from the Sherrod Brown / Paul Hackett Trainwreck to Defeat DeWine

I wish this whole thing went down differently, but this trainwreck was coming for a long time. See this effort at Divvying Up Ohio - Skip the primary: Send Brown to the Senate and Hackett to the House by David J. Sirota at the online version of the American Prospect: 10.07.05 alongside the acrimony about "[T]he pandemonium over Congressman Sherrod Brown's decision to enter the 2006 U.S. Senate race after having originally said he would not run...." from When Bloggers Cross the Line - both published the same day! Without pointing fingers - I like and respect both Brown and Hackett - I ask: What should we do now? After much discussion about this firestorm with smart people I trust and like, I understand and recognize that good people are angry for two reasons - one good, one misplaced. Some assume Sherrod Brown is a corporate GOP-lite wimp. I believe they will change their minds about this and support Brown once they know his record. That anger is misplaced. But people also resent the heavy-handed tactics employed to push Hackett out of the race. So do I, and for the same reasons our friends have mentioned. We can and should endorse Brown for US Senate while denouncing the indefensible tactics. I suggest we stand up for Paul and demand an apology and a full accounting from the campaign "masterminds" responsible for this mess and a pledge that they will stop their meddling and manipulation. If this is what they consider helping, then this uproar and backlash clearly proves them wrong. We should urge Rep. Brown to reach out to Major Hackett and hold a joint appearance as soon as possible to put this to rest. We should ask Paul to join with Sherrod to remember and rebuild their powerful partnership which nearly put Paul in the House last year. I hope they will combine efforts to defeat right winger DeWine in November. Maybe Paul can win a House seat. Maybe he will beat Voinovich in a few years. Either way, we should show the strong leadership our "leaders" too often lack and help Rep. Brown beat Sen. Mike DeWine. Sherrod Brown is one of the most progressive members of Congress, a stalwart of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who leads to the left of Paul Hackett on many issues. Brown has already lined up support all over Ohio to run a winning campaign, and he's won state-wide in Ohio twice. Not that Paul Hackett is a bad guy or a poor candidate. He's articulate and outspoken - a true leader who can still run and win for Congress while Brown wins for Senate - both taking seats from incumbent right wing Republicans. That's the best outcome for progressives and it can still happen if key people put our national interest above emotions and ego. Please check Rep. Brown's record and positions, and Brown's voting ratings vs. DeWine's, and also note these highlighted ratings from key progressive and liberal groups: Brown favored U.S. Public Interest Research Group priorities 90 percent of the time in 2005 and in 2004, 95 percent in 2003 and 100 percent in 2002. He supported Americans for Democratic Action priorities 95 percent in 2004, 2002 and 2001, and 100 percent in 2003. Brown voted for State PIRGs Working Together's positions 90 percent of the time in 2004 and 95 percent in 2003. He supported the National Committee for an Effective Congress 95 percent of the time in 2002 and 99 percent in 2001. He supported People for the American Way 94 percent from 2001-2002. That's a stellar progressive voting record which we need in the Senate. Mike DeWine? Not so much. DeWine opposed the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association's most important positions every time from1995-2004, earning a 0 percent rating. Same for NARAL Pro-Choice America: 0 percent rating from 2000 to 2005. He never supported Planned Parenthood positions from 1996-2003, yet another 0 percent. He always supported the interests of the National Right to Life [sic] Committee - a 100 percent rating from 1999-2004. DeWine is astonishingly regressive on issues of war and peace and a sustainable environment. He opposed the priorities of the Friends Committee on National Legislation in every 2004 vote for a 0 percent rating. Same for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation - 0 percent. The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) also rated DeWine at 0 percent, and so did Peace Action. From 2001 to 2004, DeWine opposed every priority listed by the Council for a Livable World - another 0 percent rating. Paul Hackett and his many supporters have every right to feel wronged and outraged in this incident, but Sherrod Brown is the most qualified, most progressive candidate. He has the support needed to beat DeWine state-wide. Hopefully Hackett will discuss what's best for Ohio and the nation and work out some way to run and win in his Cincinnati-area congressional district. We can use his strong, clear voice in Congress. Sherrod Brown should win his race and help lead the Senate on a progressive path. Let it be so.

I only watched the Brown

I only watched the Brown Hackett contest from afar. Like most folks in the progressive blogosphere, I was drawn into the dramatic story of Paul Hackett's earlier congressional race. And when Paul first announced for the Senate seat, my sympathies were with him.

But as I read more, it became obvious that Sherrod Brown has a very progressive voting record and that this race was a mistake from the get go. Paul doesn't have to "ask for permission" to run for whatever office he wanted. But neither do networks within the Democratic Party have to remain on the sidelines when they see problems in how races are going.

In Hawaii, there are about 10 candidates who have announced, or are likely to announce for the Second Congressional seat, which is opening because "Blue Dog" Democrat Ed Case has decided to challenge Daniel Akaka for the Senate seat. With ten candidates, each of them has a "natural" base of support that overlaps with at least one other candidate. As a progressive activist, I have an interest in trying to prevent the more progressive candidates from splitting the progressive vote and ensuring the victory of a more corporate Democrat.

Some folks will say, "Leave the decision to the voters." Ultimately, the voters WILL decide. But BEFORE that moment arrives, party clubs, campaign donors, unions, issue-oriented organizations, and ethnic civic groups will all weigh in to decide which candidate to support and which to discourage. To be effective, progressive Democrats have to be able to play a role in that process as well.

I don't know what pressures were applied to Paul Hackett to convince him to drop out. I expect that money people and other party insiders turned the screws to dry up funding and to get key players to stick with Brown. From the distance, I have no idea if anything truly inappropriate was done. From his statement, it is obvious that Hackett is bitter about how he was dealt with. I certainly hope he overcomes his disappointment and runs again, against a less progressive Democrat.

Despite theeir disappointment, I recommend that Hackett supporters, and other Ohio voters, DO decide to support Sherrod Brown for the Senate seat.

You can find an in-depth comparison of Sherrod Brown's voting record with that of Mike DeWine on the Progressive Punch website:
http://progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?state=OH&district=13

(I find the Vote Smart site useful, but think the ProgressivePunch site to be more user-friendly and comprehensive. Folks from other states should check out the votes of their own congressional delegation.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I may not be able to say all I think, but I am not going to say anything I do not think."
--Eugene Debs

Democratic Party tarnished by insider power politics

Despite the better progressive record of Brown, that is not the point. The point is the tactics involved. When these underhanded tactics get associated with the democratic party that is bad for the party. We either will stand as a symbol of what is just and fair or be tarnished with the same brush as the republicans. Right now the trust of both the democrats and the republican parties is very low. Stunts like this remind people of past democratic disappointments. Stunts like this do terrible damage to our chances of making tremendous gains on the Republicans when we have a great opportunity of defeating them. Think about how close we came to winning last time. We can't afford mistakes like this one. Show the people that the democratic party is everything we believe it is by reinstating Paul Hackett now.

Again, it is the DLC,

Again, it is the DLC, Republican-Lite wing of the Democratic Party that needs to be replaced. Howard Dean and the DNC are working to restore power to the grass roots Democrats like you and me, and we need to help him.

Painting ALL Democrats with the same brush as the DLC turncoats does nothing to help our re-building, and only plays into the hands of the neocons AND the DLC. When you condem the entire Democratic Party for the actions of a few so-called DLC "leaders," you are actually supporting their goals.

The "centrist" DLC (Al From, Hillary, Lieberman, Bayh, Reid, et al) should be viewed as a part of the neocon, war-mongoring, corporate-pandering enemy. They need to be replaced before we can move forward as a unified Party of Liberal Democrats.

I proudly support Howard Dean and the DNC both monetarily, and through activisim.

Actually, the Hackett/Browne conflict is Browne's own fault...

Hackett checked with Browne, according to a very long thread a few days ago on a DU board. Browne had decided not to run for the senate seat. Since that was the case, Hackett decided to make the run and started campaigning and gathering funds.

Browne changed his mind and decided to run. Instant conflict. It was at this point that Harry Reid and the DLC jumped in and upon Hackett's refusal to quit the race, contacted Hackett's large donors and turned off the cash flow to Hackett.

This is party politics...straight from our rather lame Harry Reid and from the DLC. Gawd knows that the DLC does not want to tarnish the Dems reputation for being Repugnant lite.

That is the gist of the story. Considering how tarnished the Repugs are at this point, I think it matters not one damn bit for the Dems to carry some tarnish.

Hackett should have been allowed to make his run...he earned that by giving the lady from Nascar so much trouble in her primary.

I never understood that -

I never understood that - Brown changing his mind when he did.
Because he didn't announce until after Hackett already had, it created, as you say, instant conflict, where there was none before. My thinking at the time was, the Dems don't need this kind of problem! And it seemed like it was something that could have been avoided.
But it's done now.