Call the President an "SOB," Win Votes

posted by John Nichols on 08/03/2005 @ 12:15am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (75)

Subscribe Now

"Two months ago, the special election race in the 2nd Congressional District, which stretches across seven southern Ohio counties, was expected to be a low-key affair, a near-automatic win for whichever republican candidate emerged from the June 14 GOP primary," the local newspaper, the Cincinnati Enquirer, noted on Tuesday. "After all, the previous congressman, Republican Rob Portman, routinely won the district with more than 70 percent of the vote."

In fact, Portman, who was plucked from the southern-Ohio district by President Bush to serve as the US Trade Representative, won all of his seven campaigns for the seat with more than 72 percent of the vote. The district had been so radically gerrymandered by Republican governors and legislators that it was all-but-unimaginable that a Democrat could ever be competitive there.

But, in Tuesday night, Democrat Paul Hackett almost did just that. Hackett's near-win came after a remarkable campaign in which he blunted Republican efforts to exploit national security issues and provided food for thought for Democrats as they prepare for 2006 Congressional races nationwide.

Republican Jean Schmidt, a feverish foe of reproductive rights who used her links to religious right activists to beat more mainstream Republicans and secure the party's nomination for the open seat, was leading Hackett, a smart, telegenic Iraq War veteran who criticized the Bush administration for leading the country into the war and then mishandling it, by an unexpectedly thin margin of just 3,573 votes. Unofficial returns gave Schmidt 59,095 votes (51.7 percent) to 55,091 votes (48.3 percent) for Hackett.

Remarkably, in a district that favored George W. Bush over John Kerry by almost a 2-1 margin in 2004, Hackett won four of seven counties and only narrowly lost the most populous county, Hamilton. Only an overwhelming vote for Schmidt from her home county, Clermont, secured the district for the Republican.

Hackett might well have pulled the ultimate upset had he not been "swiftboated" by Republican operatives and right-wing talk radio hosts in the final days of the campaign. Even nationally-syndicated hosts such as Rush Limbaugh devoted time to attacking Hackett's military record, patriotism and sincerity.

Despite the battering from right-wing media, and despite being overwhelmingly outspent, Hackett achieved the best Democratic showing in the region since the Watergate election of 1974. Indeed, on Wednesday morning, the Enquirer referred to the Democrat's showing as "nothing short of astounding."

This was not a simple Democratic surge. Hackett, a lawyer and former local elected official who entered the race at the last minute, proved to be a masterful candidate. But that does not mean that there are no lessons to be learned from this near upset. For one thing, Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean's "50 state strategy" -- which argues that Democrats should compete hard in contests that had previously been ceded to the Democrats -- makes a lot of sense when the opposition party can find smart, edgy candidates who are willing to break political rules. Hackett was just such a candidate.

The Marine Reserve major who volunteered to serve in Iraq did not hesitate to trumpet his military, but he was also blunt about his feelings regarding the commander-in-chief. Calling the president the greatest threat to the safety and security of Americans, Hackett said of Bush during the campaign: "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."

In a sense, that's exactly what Hackett did, re-enlisting in the Marines in 2004 and then serving in the high-profile fight for the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah. In a pre-election interview with USA Today shortly before the election, Hackett rebuked Bush for his swaggering 2003 declaration regarding the Iraqi insurgents that: "There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on."

"That's the most incredibly stupid comment I've ever heard a president of the United States make," Hackett told the interviewer. "He cheered on the enemy." Hackett also referred to Republican supporters of the war who had not served in the military as "chickenhawks."

Serious Democratic candidates have rarely been so blunt regarding the president's shoot-from-the-lip management style. But Hackett's willingness to take Bush on, as well as his own compelling story, played well in the special-election contest. No, not well enough to win.

But certainly well enough to position Hackett for a run against Schmidt in 2006 -- and certainly enough to encourage other Democratic contenders to take the gloves off. It is true that not every challenger will have the military credentials that Hackett brought to the Ohio contest. It should be noted, however, that a number of veterans are expected to run for the House in 2006 as Democrats, including another Marine, David Ashe, who came close to winning an open Virginia seat in 2004.

Comments (75)

Mr. Nichols,

I am hard pressed to believe for one minute that there is a strong undercurrent by the anti-war left in this country and especially followers of the Nation, Amy Goodman, Chomsky, Zinn, Counterpunch, et al, are really looking for strong military Democrats to run for office.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is not the sentiment I read here and with the others I just mentioned. I certainly would be heartened to see a return of normal Democrats, but I don't think you really mean it in your heart of hearts; and I know that many on this site have an entirely different view. We shall see.

Posted by love liberty at 08/03/2005 @ 12:44am
I am hard-pressed to believe Americans won't start seeing through the Bush administration's pattern of lies and deception. Hackett's race only confirms this. Despite the atrocious mainstream media white-wash, people will begin to choose candidates who both vocally and demonstrably oppose the neo-conservative agenda.

The alternative: a fictitous, fantastical reality of double speak and Boltonistically pugnacious operations. This is sour milk. Once awakened, people will find out how indigestable it is. Only a movement that is truly oriented toward serving the best interests of the people will have lasting and meaningful success. Defending America Against the Bush Administration's Destructive Tendencies [rightleftwrongright.blogspot.com]

Any tips on encouraging mainstream media to give the movement for people's interest a fair shake? Or, should the MSM be by-passed? What other means do we have besides interpersonal discourse and local activism?

Posted by rob.olywa at 08/03/2005 @ 02:45am
Nichols admiration for candidates like Hackett is a perfect example of why Democrats are wandering aimlessly in the wilderness of irrelevance, trying to find a voice. Many on the anti-war left (particularly the grassroots organizers and activists who were basically shunned by the Democratic elitists) aren't going to compromise their beliefs just to vote for a man who actually volunteered to join in the wholesale destruction of Fallujah, and sadly, Nichols falls into the same trap of believing a candidate with "military credibility" is going to peel off Republican votes. So, we're supposed to cheer this guy's "take the gloves off" approach because he can boast about possibly killing innocent people? This gives him "credibility"?

If you try to distance yourself from your own ideals, you're basically telling the other side they are right. This is what the Democrats have been doing since the DLC took over, and we've been left with spineless do-nothings obsessed with winning back a constituency ("red" America) that won't return (and these Democrats don't want to face the true reasons these "reds" won't ever vote Democratic). Far from "taking the gloves off", Hackett appears to be just another pro-war candidate (along with Kerry, Clark, and others) promising to kill people in far away lands the Democratic way, not the Bush/Republican way. And a writer from the Nation is supporting this strategy? Perhaps it's appropriate that I let my subscription lapse...

Posted by southpaw at 08/03/2005 @ 04:57am
Again, I'm "Mr Wet Blanket"...but...

Isn't the KEY phrase in this piece "ALMOST did that"?

I mean, John Kerry "almost" became President...but so what?

Posted by Mask at 08/03/2005 @ 06:37am
It makes you wonder what would have happened if Hackett had gone in with a little more money and a little more support from the DCC.

Posted by hhemwm at 08/03/2005 @ 08:38am
But then again it reminds me of something Prime Minister Harry Perkins said in the movie/novel A Very British Coup: "If we play by their rules, we lose. But if we make our own rules, then we have a chance."

Posted by hhemwm at 08/03/2005 @ 08:40am
Okay, I live on the east side of Cincinnati. Half my neighborhood is in District 2 though I am not. Do not believe Hackett's numbers are in any way meaningful or a referendum on Bush's policies. First, Portman was a popular guy and the Dems ran mostly losers against him with not a lot of funding behind them. That's why Portman's numbers were so good. Hackett, on the other hand, had lots and lots of funding behind him with money coming in from all over the country not to mention his own deep pockets. Also, in the lead up to the election, Schimdt faced an uphill battle against a couple of other big name Republicans. I can tell you she got her share of negative campaign ads which I'm sure had some effect on the electorate. But the biggest joke here is Hackett didn't exactly run against Bush. In fact, if I hadn't known better, I might have thought he was a Republican himself. He had this one commercial which starts out with George Bush giving a speech on how military service is one of the highest callings of all. Then Hackett comes on and talks about how much he agrees with George and that's why he served in Iraq. At no point does he mention his belief the war was completely wrong nor does he mention all the mean things he's said about Bush elsewhere. The guy was in no way upfront about who he really was. Sure he occasionally spoke out in the national press, but locally he called a different tune. He was flying low, doing his best to keep under the radar. His hard core support knew who he was about, but the rank and file mostly didn't have a clue. And his service in Iraq? Like Kerry, he tried to make himself seems like a war hero, emphasizing how he took part in the Fallujah campaign. Excuse me, are we talking about the born rich trial lawyer who lives on one of the most expensive pieces of property in the most expensive part of town (Indian Hill) who military job was civil affairs officer with the 4th Civil Affairs Group? The guy was just a paper pusher, not a combat veteran. No, I'm sorry Nichols, don't try to make this close election look like some kind of harbringer for the resurgence of the Democratic party. It's not that by a long shot. There are lots of reasons this election was close, but a referendum on Bush it was not. If the Dems want to get serious about getting back into power, they had better stop grasping at straws and start coming to grips with the reality of exactly who they are. You can't run phoney campaigns everywhere and expect to get away with it. If there is anything to be learned here it should be that even with money and exaggerated credentials, you still can't always fool enough people to get elected.

Posted by jeck at 08/03/2005 @ 08:41am
Sorry, I think I maight have been wrong about the born rich part. He might have merely been born "well off."

Posted by jeck at 08/03/2005 @ 09:04am
Southpaw is right--the democrats are spineless and completely irrelevant. On the morning after the election, I woke up in utter disbelief that this country could have re-elected this president. But after further review, what did Kerry offer? And what is he, and others in his party offering? Increase the number of troops in Iraq? Stay the course? They are so afraid of looking weak on national security that they are going to completely miss the boat on taking advantage of the strong anti-Bush sentiment of the American public. Bush will pull out of Iraq and declare victory even as Hillary and Kerry and their aimless co-blunderers are calling for increased troop levels.

Posted by rain man at 08/03/2005 @ 09:11am
This election is no more a harbinger or bellweather of the 2006 election as is a local race for dog-catcher. Both sides are reading too much into this election. Had Hackett won, the press would be labeling Bush a "lame duck". Had Schmitt trounced him, it would have been written off as a well organized GOP juggernaut overrunning a novice candidate.

That said, in the absence of some significant improvements in the Iraq situation (i.e., reasonable stability and US forces rotating home [with security being handled by Iraqis), continued economic improvement, lower gasoline prices and no terrorist attacks, the GOP will lose seats in the 2006 elections. The losses will probably not be enough to lose either house, but the margin of its majority will be significantly reduced.

Posted by scronin at 08/03/2005 @ 09:53am
I think the point of Mr. Nichols' article wasn't really just to praise Paul Hacket. I thing its intent was more about encouraging democrats to run their campaigns directly against Bush's biggest and most obvious weakness - the Iraq war.

Showing a clear opposition to Bush hawkish agenda and addressing his responsibility as commander in cheif to the problems with rebuilding Iraq may be more effective than just hedging a semi pro-war anti-Bush agenda.

Posted by BSF at 08/03/2005 @ 10:03am
First off, needs paragraph breaks!

Second, seems to me that Jeck's post exposes how Nichols was writing a headline in search of a story. Maybe the Nation would like to believe that namecalling is the magic elixer for beating Republicans -- sure beats re-examining the platform! -- but, in the end, local politics is about quite a bit more than that. It seems the real headline here is: "Call Prez an SOB, Still Lose."

Posted by NaG at 08/03/2005 @ 10:06am
Or he was being ironic.

Posted by BSF at 08/03/2005 @ 10:11am
The results of last night's election leave Democrats with something to cheer about. In a congressional district where about seven in ten voters have a tendency to vote Republican, the Democrat ran close to even.

There are reasons that the Republicans can use to explain away this result as unique to the district or to Ohio rather than as a national trend.

* Paul Hackett, a war critic who served with the Marines in Iraq, was an exceptionally good candidate for the Democrats.

* Jean Schmidt, who couldn't do much more than repeat GOP talking points, was a particularly uninspiring candidate for the Republicans.

* A campaign finance scandal in Ohio has tarnished the image of the state's Republicans.

However, there can be no getting around the fact that Hackett took aim at Bush for his botched war predicated on falsehoods and his waging class warfare on behalf of the wealthy. He was rewarded by doing far better than any Democrat in the district in twenty years. The fading star of Bush was a factor in Hackett's fine showing.

Under normal circumstances, even Schmidt should have won in that district by twenty-five points. If this had been a Republican-held swing district instead of a brick red one, Hackett would have won.

Next year, the Democrats will have an opportunity to exploit public weariness with Bush to retake the House. They need to start planning now to pick the best candidates for marginal districts now held by Republicans which they can win. Not every Republican candidate will be as flat as Jean Schmidt and not every Democrat will be as attractive as Paul Hackett; but no Democrat will have anything to lose by taking on Bush and his corrupt, incompetent regime.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/03/2005 @ 10:24am
"but no Democrat will have anything to lose by taking on Bush and his corrupt, incompetent regime"

You were pretty much on the mark until this last point. While such "red meat" rhetoric may sell well in some "safe" districts, that will not necessarily be the case in districts where you are trying to unseat the GOP. While you may well believe that the Bush Administration is "incompetent" and "corrupt", you are not going to win those races tossing out such charges.

Challenge policies, offer better alternatives, point to failures, but do it in a respectful and civil manner. It can be done.

Posted by scronin at 08/03/2005 @ 10:33am
Challenge policies, offer better alternatives, point to failures, but do it in a respectful and civil manner. It can be done.

It definitely can be done. As Tip O'Neill said, all politics is local. The message needs to be directed at the district. In the end, the Democrats will have to run somebody who's going to represent the voters of that district, not the DNC.

I live in California, a state that is as blue as the Pacific Ocean. You're not going to get much of an argument out here calling Bush corrpupt and incompetent.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/03/2005 @ 11:01am
It's about time that someone...anyone...had the balls to "call it as he sees it." So, Hackett didn't win. It would've been nice, but at least this shows that if the Dems can regrow some backbones before 2006, then maybe there can be a little change in power.

I've never understood the problem with speaking against the pres. (at least publically) about the Iraq War. It's about time. Hallelujah! Many people oppose the war and the Dems aren't doing themselves any favors by blending into the Republican mass of warmongerers.

Posted by Daniel Rubin at 08/03/2005 @ 11:02am
JACK RABBIT: re "However, there can be no getting around the fact that Hackett took aim at Bush for his botched war predicated on falsehoods and his waging class warfare on behalf of the wealthy." No, no, no. This is precisely my point. Hackett did not do this. Not exactly. He tried playing both sides. He knew that most people, being uniformed, wouldn't know anything or not much about his anti-Bush rhetoric. But in his commercials he did everything he could do to pretend he was a Republican. This was enough here to get just enough votes to pull close to a badly damaged real Republican candidate. And again, don't forget the backing he had from the national committee. This is not something you can do everywhere all at the same time. The "excuses" you pooh-pooh are real and must be taken into consideration if you are trying to apply what happened here in some global fashion. Relentless Bush bashing will get you some votes, but at the end of the day, you'd better have more than this. Hackett had his service in Iraq and was pro-gun. How many Dems are going to have either?

Posted by jeck at 08/03/2005 @ 11:14am
I think it's probably true that Hacket played footsie with the war, but is it at all a sham for him to have trumpeted his answering the call (admittedly from a President and a country that is waging a war in a foreign land at little or no community cost)? Although I believe that Mr. Nichols may be coloring the "near - win" a bit much, I don't believe I've ever heard even the most anti-war congresspersons use such biting language. I'd find it hard to believe that the Republican Party didn't have a field day with his statements, yet Mr. Hackett performed very well in a district that, candidate aside, has been a republican stronghold.

While the trend from 2000 to 2004 in the presidential elections was not favorable (a popular vote victory to a 3Mn plus popular vote defeat, albeit during wartime), Democrats can make gains by challenging the war (the sad day of 2,0000 dead (for what?!)Americans there is not far off) and giving clear answers to questions of whether Americans are safer, more secure and live in a society that has its priorities right.

Unfortunately, I agree that our party has to find the proper message -- one that does not pander to the right like the DLC, but is sophisticated enough to know that we are in a brawl for power. Those guys on the other side are smart, rich, ruthless and ethically challenged. They, along with help from Democrats, performed the biggest con job in the last hundred years in invading Iraq and haven't paid a price for it yet.

Hacket shows opportunity but whether the Democratic Party can take even one branch of government back is an open question.

Posted by bluedot at 08/03/2005 @ 11:15am
Let me be clear, I would be perfectly happy to see the Democrat party in a minority status forever (while I do not care all that much for the GOP on many issues, I consider them the lesser of the two "evils"). However, while many on the left decry the lack of a "backbone" in the Democrat Party, I think there is a reward to be given to the party than can return the political discourse to a more civil level (especially when you are trying to turn "red" districts "blue").

I have no doubt that the level of vitriol coming from some on the left during the last election cycle was the recent that GWB was reelected and actually GAINED seats in Congress (despite his terrible poll numbers). If the Dems do not want to waste what likely is a good opportunity in 2006, they had best try to elevate the dialogue.

Posted by scronin at 08/03/2005 @ 11:16am
recent = reason

Posted by scronin at 08/03/2005 @ 11:27am
To Daniel Rubin:

I agree. The Democrats never had anything to gain supporting Bush's war policies. There were valid reasons to say prior to the invasion that case had not been made, as we who marched against Bush in the weeks beforehand said. And we have been proved right: Saddam was not a threat and war was unnecessary.

The purpose of an opposition party is to oppose. Too often in the last four years, the Democrats have collaborated with or capitulated to Bush. I can say I voted for Kerry, but not because I agreed with he said about Iraq; however, I deemed Kerry to be a pragmatist who would have tried two or three different ways of salvaging the situation in Iraq before determining that there is nothing that can be done and withdrawing.

We've heard the Bushies tell us about having turned the corner so often that we must conclude that either this is a very windy road or they just don't have a very good map. Even if there were good reasons for invading Iraq, those who planned the war should have known it was not going to be a cakewalk, that Iraqis would resist foreign occupation for a variety of reasons and should have planned accordingly.

The points and degrees of opposition to the regime's policy in Iraq were from the beginning and continue to be myriad; attempts by the DLC and the Democratic leadership in Congress to stress solidarity with Mr. Bush was wrongheaded. That both that policy and the opposition strategy have turned out so badly have been disastrous for America.

Hopefully, the Democrats will now feel more emboldened to speak out against Bush, as they should have been doing all along.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/03/2005 @ 11:50am
Perhaps this election was tight because, thinking this was essentially an uncontested race, the Republican election plumbers decided it wasn't necessary to befoul the voting process...again.

Posted by Idlewatcher at 08/03/2005 @ 12:20pm
Daniel Rubin posted: "It's about time that someone...anyone...had the balls to "call it as he sees it." So, Hackett didn't win. It would've been nice, but at least this shows that if the Dems can regrow some backbones before 2006, then maybe there can be a little change in power."

Is that the same backbone required to punish the so-called "CAFTA 15", the 15 Democrats in the House who voted for CAFTA? It doesn't take backbone to stand up to the opposition party. That's expected, it's easy. It takes backbone to vote on an issue with the opposition, even though you know your party will be up in arms because you voted with your brain instead of being a party doctrinaire.

Republicans are the new free-traders. Democrats are the new protectionists and isolationists. The Republicans were the protectionist party from their founding in the 1850s. They tried to make protectionists tariffs law after WWI, but Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, vetoed them. In the 1928 Presidential campaign, Republican Herbert Hoover was elected on a platform calling for high tariffs. A GOP Congress then enacted the Smoot-Hawley bill, which is widely blamed for making the Great Depression the most horrific economic event in U.S. history. The political result of the Great Depression was the rise of FDR adn his Democratic ruling political coalition that dominated American politics through 1968. CAFTA will be good for the U.S., reducing illegal immigration here, propping up emerging democracies in Central America and leading to increased sales of U.S. goods overseas.

The Democrats will ensure they remian the minority party if they contintue to embrace isolationism and protectionism.

Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2005 @ 12:35pm
Jeck,

I lived on the east side of Cincinnati for ten years, and moved to another part of the state a few years ago. Cincinnati is a definitely a conservative town -- I still remember the T-shirts they sold downtown, defining "lonely" as "a liberal in Cincinnati."

I don't share your assessment of this election. The suburban Cincinnati I knew would not elect a pro-choice Democrat, no matter how much he pretended to be a Republican. I think Hackett's performance does suggest that there has been a change in the reddest part of Ohio.

The 2006 elections will be very interesting..

Posted by 9patch at 08/03/2005 @ 12:43pm
"The results of last night's election leave Democrats with something to cheer about."

I know NOW you LIBS are completely coming UN-HINGED. Only a nutty liberal leftist can think LOSING is WINNING.

WHAT A PATHETIC BUNCH OF FOOLS!!!!!!!!!

Posted by aludra at 08/03/2005 @ 12:44pm
Are there any psychiatrists/psychologists out there willing to volunteer the time and intense effort to help Aludra with her problems? It seems the only charitable thing to do, assisting someone in such obvious dire mental straits. There are many fine medicines and therapeutic courses of action that may help you with your problems, Aludra; I'll pray that you somehow encounter someone who can help you.

Posted by Bill Arnett at 08/03/2005 @ 1:03pm
So, Mr. Bush has taken another vacation. It seems to me, being the Commander-In-Chief and all, he should set an example and stay on the front lines (well, in Washington at least). How many of our soldiers get to go home and relax as often as the President does. How many of them get to shed their bullet proof vests and boots while he sheds his suit and tie? While he is home, dressed up like a cowboy, participating in photo-ops for braindead journalists, driving around in a pickup truck with his dog and pretending to be a rancher (like he pretends to be the President), more Marines who answered the call are dead. It makes me sick.

Posted by Orwell1984 at 08/03/2005 @ 1:05pm
"he should set an example and stay on the front lines (well, in Washington at least"

WHAT A COMPLETELY IDIOTIC STATEMENT. ARE YOU LIVING IN THE 19TH CENTURY??? THE PRESIDENT CAN DO EVERYTHING HE NEEDS TO DO AS PRESIDENT FROM ANY POINT ON THE GLOBE...NOW YOU LIBS ARE WHINING ABOUT HIM TAKING TIME AWAY FROM WASHINGTON....PATHETIC ATTEMPTS AT GRASPING FOR STRAWS

Posted by aludra at 08/03/2005 @ 1:12pm
It's about setting an example for soldiers he has placed in harms way. Soldiers he uses as backdrops for macho speeches announcing mission accomplished or telling them we need to stay the course.

Posted by Orwell1984 at 08/03/2005 @ 1:25pm
Aludra, you're a perfect example of why America is headed for another Civil War. Remember Sheridan. This time around, his exploits will look like a kindergarden class. Think about that while you're bloviating in your million-dollar house in your gated community. Those walls will need to be a LOT higher to stop mortar rounds.

Posted by doog at 08/03/2005 @ 1:27pm
Jimmy Carter tried the same idea during the hostage crisis. Did the hostages and Jimmy a lot of good didnt it

Posted by aludra at 08/03/2005 @ 1:29pm
"Aludra, you're a perfect example of why America is headed for another Civil War"

Really?? Is that some kind of threat??? SoTotally UN-HINGED

Posted by aludra at 08/03/2005 @ 1:30pm
not to make light of it...but if it comes down to a civil war between the "reds" and the "blues"...just remember who has all the guns...

Posted by scronin at 08/03/2005 @ 1:32pm
I swear I cant believe what I am reading.....

Posted by aludra at 08/03/2005 @ 1:33pm
Calling names won't change the facts. Civil War is coming.

Posted by doog at 08/03/2005 @ 1:34pm
Scronin - bring it on.

Posted by doog at 08/03/2005 @ 1:35pm
Zero - when the tanks start rolling, you won't catch me near a city. LOL.

Posted by doog at 08/03/2005 @ 1:40pm
You know.... I knew you people hated Bush and were bitter about being out of power, but this thread reveals my worst nightmares about you ANTI-AMERICAN FREAKS. I am so ashamed that you people could even entertain thoughts like Civil War that it is so shocking and scarry. If you people hate America so much why do you live here?? Why don't you just move to Syria or Iran. It would be easier for you to help your terrorists friends. I feel like throwing up right now.

Posted by aludra at 08/03/2005 @ 1:45pm
Aludra - sad.

Posted by doog at 08/03/2005 @ 1:49pm
Zero...I am sure somewhere, someone has run a computer simulation as to the possible outcome of such a conflict. That said, I was being totally facetious and would hate to think that this country would come to such an end, for an end it would be.

Posted by scronin at 08/03/2005 @ 1:52pm
Scronin - exactly. It would shred the USA.

Posted by doog at 08/03/2005 @ 1:54pm
Well, I got the first post in on this thread and now let me hopefully shake things up for Dems who are posting here.

Hacket appeared this morning on Democracy Now; Amy Goodman thought she had a strong anti-Bush, anti-war Marine..what she got instead wash Hackett telling her that he's not against the war and in fact will probably go back. He just thinks Bush is mismanaging the war. He didn't have any sympathy for a soldier who refused to go back to Iraq.

So, my first posting was even more apropo than I thought. Any Dems, and especially the anti-war libs who think this was something to get excited about, have been totally mislead about the real facts;

Like most of news that comes out daily, I am once more encouraged about my support of our President!

Posted by love liberty at 08/03/2005 @ 1:59pm
Aludra, you need to cut back on the meth.

Posted by proudlib at 08/03/2005 @ 2:00pm
God Have Mercy On Us All.

Posted by doog at 08/03/2005 @ 2:00pm
President Carter was a better president and is a better man than Bush I & II combined. And he might have had better luck gaining the hostages' freedom in Iran if Republican spooks hadn't made sure the hostages stayed captive until after the election. Read up on history, since we seem doomed to repeat it.

Posted by Orwell1984 at 08/03/2005 @ 2:05pm
"President Carter was a better president and is a better man than Bush I & II combined. And he might have had better luck gaining the hostages' freedom in Iran if Republican spooks hadn't made sure the hostages stayed captive until after the election. Read up on history, since we seem doomed to repeat it."

orwell1984, your userid is entirely appropriate. JC was an absolute disaster. He was a decent, honest man, and a terrible president. The Iran hostage crisis, and his mismanagement of it, was only one of many areas in which he was "subpar".

Posted by scronin at 08/03/2005 @ 2:11pm
Readers- Please stop responding to Alundra (whatever that may be).

There are a lot of very intelligent responses on this board, getting into an argument with a right-wing whacko doesn't serve the best needs to the readers and is waste of time.

Seriously, just ignore him/her/whatever it is.

Posted by adardashti at 08/03/2005 @ 2:31pm
Adardashti - lol. Yer right. Sorry, it's just something about allcaps that makes me cwazy.

Posted by doog at 08/03/2005 @ 2:33pm
"...what she got instead wash Hackett telling her that he's not against the war and in fact will probably go back. He just thinks Bush is mismanaging the war. He didn't have any sympathy for a soldier who refused to go back to Iraq... I am once more encouraged about my support of our President!"

Unfortunately, you are drawing erroneous conclusions, "Liberty Love." Hackett does not encourage support for the President. He called Bush a "chicken hawk S.O.B." It's one thing to support a war which is already in progress and entirely different thing to support a President's irrational basis for that war. Hackett seems to do the former, but not the latter. No WMDs were found in Iraq, the sanctions and low-key military strikes were effective (I'll retract that statement if you can tell us where those "missing" WMDs went), and the resources now mired in Iraq should have been focused on catching Osama. Hackett never agreed with Bush's decisions, only the fact that the mission in Iraq now needs to be _actually_ completed (as opposed to just flying banners which read "Mission Accomplished")..

Posted by txindependent at 08/03/2005 @ 2:46pm
In a nutshell: one doesn't have to be anti-war to be anti-Bush! I supported the military strikes against Iraq led by both Bush Sr. and Clinton, but an invasion was clearly unnecessary.

Posted by txindependent at 08/03/2005 @ 2:51pm
Unfortunately, you are drawing erroneous conclusions, "Liberty Love."

Not at all; you misread or misunderstood. What I was stressing is that Hackett stated he is not against the Iraq war, he disagrees with Bush on how to manage the war. He is also against pulling out until we have established a stable Iraqi government that can defend itself.

That is the point that seemed to surprise Amy Goodman.

Posted by love liberty at 08/03/2005 @ 2:52pm
Sorry, what *does* S.O.B. stand for again?

Posted by doog at 08/03/2005 @ 2:52pm
SORRY OBSTRUCTIONIST BAST*RDS

Posted by aludra at 08/03/2005 @ 3:03pm
Nichols' column seems overstated today. This would have been worth writing about, but not with that headline! "Win Votes" meaning "not lose by such a big margin." Cheers.

Never think that conservatives actually respect military records or proof of military valor, any more than they care about whether people in the military are taken good care of. They are strictly concerned with everybody staying in lockstep politically. Therefore, Democrats should never expect that picking veterans to run for office will give improved results. Pick candidates by their messages. This guy's message wasn't actually that exciting - Bush is mismanaging the war, but the war is good. That's not enough. I agree with the comments by Southpaw and Rain Man above.

Please enough with the stupid red state blue state nonsense. There are blue counties in red states and red counties in blue states. I live in a "red state;" Kerry won my county 75-25. There's no easy divisions, we are all neighbors and relatives. The "electoral college" nonsense (winner takes all of a state's electoral votes, whether it's 75-25 or 51-49) turns what should be a nationwide race into a few states getting all the attention. Most people in most states know that their votes are just contributing to a result that is well known in advance. That is just not how it should work. Here is the literal truth: all votes beyond those that decide in favor of one or another presidential candidate in each state do not count.

Posted by Vic Perry at 08/03/2005 @ 3:06pm
oooh.... again with the all caps... ooohhh...

Posted by doog at 08/03/2005 @ 3:07pm
From Democracy Now! broadcast August 3

Victory in Defeat? Anti-Bush Iraq War Vet Nearly Wins Republican District [democracynow.org]

Amy Goodman interviews Paul Hackett

AMY GOODMAN: Paul Hackett, you have been very critical of President Bush and of the reasons for going to war. And yet, you say that if your unit is called back, you're headed back to Iraq. Why?

PAUL HACKETT: Right. Well, look, I'm an American first. Those are my marines over there who are fighting and dying. And I feel a bond with them, and I feel I need to be there with them. And I set my politics aside when I put the uniform on to be with – you know, I really mean this – to be with my brothers and sisters in the Marine Corps. I mean, they are my second family that I have been with many years. So, that's it. I mean, they need good leadership. I think I certainly try my best to provide that good leadership when I'm in uniform.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you would return to fight a war that you think is unjust?

PAUL HACKETT: Well, I've not said it's unjust. I have said that it's been mismanaged by the administration. I have said it was a poor use of our military. I'm not quite sure the implication of the label of unjust, so I'm uncomfortable using that. I have been critical of it up and down, but to me, that's not inconsistent with my desire to want to serve and my desire to want to lead marines and be with them in the field.

AMY GOODMAN: How do you feel about people like Camilo Mejia? He is a Florida Army National Guardsman. He went to Iraq, like you, returned. He was supposed to return to his unit but felt he just couldn't go back, that the war was unjust, and he didn't want to be a part of it. He also said he didn't want to be a part of the abuse at one of the detention facilities in Iraq. He was court-martialed, and he only recently came out of the brig, out of jail, after almost a year in detention. How do you feel about those who are saying no to war and are refusing to return?

PAUL HACKETT: Well, look, let me parse that out. If you're in the military, and you wear the uniform, that's a choice that you have made. And if, while in uniform, you make a choice not to go back, you've made the choice to be court-martialed. So -- we're big boys and girls. Accept the consequences of your choices. So, how I do feel about it? Hey, he's an American. Those are his choices. He makes those choices. He lives with the choices that he has made. So I have no empathy, and I have no sympathy, but I have no criticism of that. I don't know his case, so I take it on the facts that you presented to me, but, you know, hey, those are his choices and, you know, more power to him. I mean, I'm assuming when he makes those choices, he knows the consequences.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that the U.S. should get out of Iraq?

PAUL HACKETT: I'm not there yet. I think that -- let me step back and say, when you say, ‘Should the U.S. get out of Iraq?' Yes. Eventually, yes. The question is, are we going to do it tomorrow, or are we going to accomplish the bare minimum and allow the Iraqis to survive within their defined government and social structure? And right now, I don't think that any form of security force in Iraq is capable of providing that for the people. And, while it may seem difficult to comprehend on this side of the world, at this point, I believe that Iraq will spiral out of control. And even though it's in a terrible condition today as a result of the insurgency phasing into civil war, perhaps, I don't think it's currently today as bad as it will be if we were to pull out tomorrow. I think that the administration has got to permit the American military over there to fight that fight and train the I.S.F., the Iraqi Security Forces, in a manner acceptable to our military, which I argue they're not -- the administration is not allowing that, so that the I.S.F. can be up to speed and we can get out of there. I think that, as a citizen of the United States, setting aside, you know, my uniform and so forth, I think we need to turn up the heat on the administration and demand some sort of oversight, as citizens, as to what successes the administration is having in training the Iraqi Security Forces.

Read more, watch or listen

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/03/2005 @ 3:11pm
CAN SOMEONE OF THE NATIONS WEBSITE ADMINISTRATOR DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE ABOVE USELESS SPAM???

Posted by aludra at 08/03/2005 @ 3:14pm
Can someone please show Aludra how to use the Shift key? :-D

Posted by doog at 08/03/2005 @ 3:17pm
To Aludra:

Please read the above "useless spam" in the context of this thread. It is posted for reference to a point being made by LL. Ironically, it tends to support his point.

I hope that the site administrators will do something about obnoxious, antagonistic posts with no redeeming discursive value.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/03/2005 @ 3:21pm
I agree with Jack Rabbit. I'd censor me in a heartbeat.

Posted by doog at 08/03/2005 @ 3:26pm
Good keep talking about Aludra and Aludra keep talking too and making absurd calls to the imaginary moderator and why don't you call on Thor while you are at it.

Posted by Vic Perry at 08/03/2005 @ 3:32pm
Love:

First of all, I don't see your basis for believing that Goodman (and as you say, the Democrats) was expecting a war veteran to be anti-war or were "misled" in this respect... and I also don't understand how Hackett's interview with Amy Goodman encourages you in your "support for our President," whatever that means. While I am on that topic, I am going to digress for a moment: if you support our President, are you fighting his war? If not, what's your reasoning for not doing so?

Back to the topic at hand, I take this away from the Goodman interview: Hackett does not wish to criticize the troops involved in an ongoing war, although he does openly criticize the President's management and "use of the military," which seems to imply he feels there would have been a better use of the military than Iraq (e.g. Afghanistan, OBL, etc.). This is not just a critique of the President's current management of Iraq, but also his decision to involve the troops in an invasion. So while he may not be anti-war, he does seem to have been anti-invasion (at least of Iraq). If you can explain to me how anyone was misled, please do...

Posted by txindependent at 08/03/2005 @ 3:47pm
TXINDEPENDENT:

First of all, thank you for your comments and questions. we haven't dialogued before as others who are more regular know about me; I am a veteran who is now disabled. Combine that with being almost 60 and I am not a good candidate for combat (2 of my sons have been over as marines).

Secondly, I took my conclusions from years of listening to Amy Goodman. I believe after this extended period, I have a fair ability to judge her responses to people. So you are correct that I don't know that with absolute certainty, but I feel pretty confident about my conclusion.

Third, in the transcript shown above, Hackett clearly states he doesn't believe this is an unjust war in Iraq. That would seem to me to indicate that he doesn't believe the president was wrong to invade.

Posted by love liberty at 08/03/2005 @ 3:59pm
I have to go, but I'm sure if Love responds he/she is going to ask the same question I asked of him/her, and rightly so (even though I don't support the President's decision to go to Iraq, I do support the troops, and the Afghan war). Instead of having my integrity questioned since I will not be available to respond later, I will answer the question before it is returned: unless the military changes some of its policies, as some speculate it may, I am not qualified to join the ranks.

Posted by txindependent at 08/03/2005 @ 4:03pm
oh jeez freiheit, the right trys to legislate and pull the judiciary into elections and you say the left is eroding the system? (oh they do neither side wants it fair that is the game of life) lordy lordy a hack'll always ignore the obvious. for both side whining that one sides cheating and rootin for their boys to do the same hopin the public dont notice

now i m a pretty left wing kinda guy but the sheer blind partisanship bickering here is giving me a lil reason just to be a nihilist

Posted by la volte at 08/03/2005 @ 4:07pm
To TxIndependent:

First, thank you for getting this back on topic.

To your points:

You correctly point out that there is nothing in Ms. Goodman's interview with Mr. Hackett that should cause anyone to support Mr. Bush any more than to whatever extent one already does. LL's mind isn't going to be changed by anything, so it is no surprise that he didn't change it.

The errors of policy by the Bush regime are myriad. The two main criticisms against Bush are that he and his lieutenants misled the nation into a war by falsely asserting that Iraq was a threat and that there was inadequate pre-war planning for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq. These are severable criticisms. One may accept one without necessarily accepting the other. In addition, each criticism is broad enough that one may agree with either premise in principle and disagree on details with others who also accept it. For example, I believe that Mr. Bush misled the nation into war based on a series of falsehoods; furthermore, I believe these falsehoods to have been deliberate lies. However, others may agree that the statements were false but that Mr. Bush did not know they were false; perhaps he should have known and did not take proper care to ascertain the facts or that all the information was just wrong and couldn't be verified in any reliable way.

Mr. Hackett clearly embraces the second point: the pre-war planning for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq was inadequate. In fact, far from endorsing Mr. Bush's policies, he expresses a fear that Iraq will spin out of control as a result of this kind of incompetence.

Also, you point out that Hackett has no desire to criticize the troops. No one should make a blanket criticism of the troops. Their job is to take direction from their superiors without question and they have done so. Those, like Mr. Mejia, who choose to disobey orders know what the consequences of their action are and should be willing to accept it. They may be misused by Mr. Bush for nefarious purposes or poorly used in a poorly planned mission, but they are willing to defend us, and for that we express our appreciation.

Your points are well taken.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/03/2005 @ 4:24pm
JACK RABBIT: Thanks for posting the Hackett interview. Regardless of what he might think about the decision to go to war (and I am not clear what that position was) his position on what to do now seems totally at odds with the editors of The Nation and the "anti-war" crowd. I agree with him that there was poor post-war planning, and that we need to allow our military to get the job done.

Posted by RonS at 08/03/2005 @ 5:14pm
"If the Dems do not want to waste what likely is a good opportunity in 2006, they had best try to elevate the dialogue."

Sorry - can't be done. If one gets into the public-discourse trenches with the Republicans, as Hackett partially did with the SOB remark, the Rep's cry foul, nasty tactics, partisan politics, etc etc etc. But if one attempts to elevate the discussion to issues and ideas for solving the nation's problems only, not personal smears, the Reps run over the candidate's face, then when called for their hideous tactics, claim they're only telling it like it is. Let's face it - we saw this happen to John Kerry in spades, and not just by the SwiftBoat thugs.

Wanna know what Kerry's major flaw was as a presidential candidate? He was too damned polite. It's not that he had no ideas (he had so many of them that he came off looking like an eggheaded wonk), or that he was soft on defense (he has a lot better idea what it means to face combat than Bush ever will), or any of that other conventional "wisdom" on why he lost - he just wasn't constitutionally equipped to stand in front of the American people and fight the constant filth of the Bush campaign. I don't think anyone could do it - John McCain and Al Gore couldn't do it in 2000, and Kerry couldn't do it in '04. And the hits just keep on coming, and the stupid barely-a-majority simply do not pay enough attention to see how badly they're being screwed, and keep waving their pathetic little flags and voting for Bush and his cronies.

So elevating the dialogue is not the answer - elevated dialogue is, according to Rove and the other evil geniuses, for weenies and losers of elections.

Sadly, I have no idea what the answer is. Perhaps it's something as simple as just standing away and letting the Bushies screw enough of us that even the densest among us can no longer justify a vote for a criminal. But taking the high ground against Bush and his ilk is just standing on top of a hill so you're an easier target.

Posted by RichMiles at 08/03/2005 @ 6:13pm
Aludra, you give me the impression of a bug-eyed person frothing at the mouth, pounding the keyboard in paroxysms of fury. You should take it easy or you'll work yourself into a heart-attack or stroke. Be careful. We would miss your amusing presence.

Posted by awd-s at 08/03/2005 @ 8:38pm
hmmm

A few observations:

While there are a lot of folks who have a negative opinion of President George Bush, it is generally foolish to speak evil of him. Because he is the president, and by virtue of his office, many people, probably a majority, feel that he should be treated with respect. So those who say bad things about him appear vulgar, boorish, and obnoxious.

This is not to say that the opinions expressed are incorrect. Some things should not be said.

A better approach is that of Candidate Ronald Reagan, who never ridiculed President Jimmy Carter. Never called him names. Didn't comment on his handling of the hostage crisis.

If John Kerry had taken that approach, he might well have won.

The ad hominem approach can be effective against a candidate who is not in office. Rarely if ever works against an incumbent.

I also find it amusing how the left makes such a virtue out of intelligence. Especially since, as a general rule, they aren't the smartest people. Now being smart is like being tall, not something to be proud of. It is an attribute, not a virtue.

I suppose this is because there are no virtues which are universally recognized by the left, other than "competence" and "intelligence".

The republicans will look at the results of this election, and make adjustments. The democrats will look at the results of this election and conclude that people are finally beginning to "get it".

The result will be after the 2006 elections, another 4 (dare I say 5) senators on the republican side of the aisle.

Posted by jonb at 08/03/2005 @ 9:12pm
This reminds me of an episode of "The West Wing" where the character Leo, was hyped up about the missile intercept system. As I recall, there were ten criteria for success. The last of which was that the interceptor missile missed its target by some one hundred thirty seven miles. The system had been successful in nine areas, and Leo was delighted by all these. It just missed the target.

Paul Hackett LOST. Further he states if called back to Iraq, he'll go. Right or Wrong. Now, I know people are desperate for anything closely resembles success, but they need to get ahold of themselves. Success, certainly in this case, is a yes or no choice. Hackett lost, the margin is absolutely irrelevant. While people are celebrating such "successes" the crimes flowing from the Bush Regime continue unabated. Because Hackett is a recent returnee from an international crime where American's are LOSING, hardly impresses me. When I came back from the Nam, I was finished with the military, and was fully aware of the ass kicking we took. Some fifty eight thousand men died in the Nam, but some two or so MILLION Vietnamese were killed. Did we win because of exaggerated body counts? I suppose there are halfwits that think that way, but the reality is, as usual since the second world war, the US took a beating. Nothing was accomplished other than tens of thousands of families burying fathers, sons, husbands and brothers. No democracy prevailed, and none will in Iraq. First, the foisting of "democracy" on Iraq is one in a long list of pathetic excuses for Bush's efforts to grab Iraqi oil. Anyone ANYWHERE that thinks there is anything good coming out of Iraq except, perhaps, US troops, is an idiot. The deaths?, all for nothing. Success Paul?, not in any way.

tedbohne

Posted by tedbohne at 08/04/2005 @ 08:17am
Paul Hackett's near success is meaningless. As the first post notes, your average democrat is not looking for a pro-war red-stater dressed (for a moment) in blue overalls. A case in point is the upcoming '06 senatorial race in Washington. The RNC has already identified Sen. Cantwell as a prime target because of her weak numbers. They will pour millions of dollars into the race to defeat her, but in the end what will defeat her is her unwavering support of the war and her contempt for working people. (she voted for the Credit Industry Protection Bill, CAFTA) I simply will not show up at the polls in '06, because she refuses to be anything other than a right wing republican in "centrist" democrat clothes.

Posted by carpenters at 08/04/2005 @ 12:48pm
I just love the way you describe the MSM. You would think they are all close and comfy with the Right. You don't fool me, you don't fool anyone...with a brain. You are part of the MSM; lost, confused, searching for a reason to go on. You can only bash that which you dispise and suggest that the Right lies and misleads.

I do so enjoy watching you kind flounder in your own swill.

Posted by cappy at 08/04/2005 @ 1:51pm
If the democrats expect to win in 2006, looking like republicans, walking like republicans, and quacking like republican... guess what, they are republicans in the eyes of everyone... so why shouldn't people for republican again... My point is, in order for the democrats to win in 2006, they have to be diametrically opposed to EVEYTHING republican... If the republicans say "north", the democrats MUST say "south"... figure out a way to justify it but DO IT... or you lose...

Posted by mediaman at 08/05/2005 @ 1:43pm