What’s Wrong With the Democrats
First, go watch this Daily Show bit with Paul Hackett, then come back.
*Time elapses, Brad makes himself a sandwich*
OK, are you guys back yet? Good.
I thought that video was the perfect send-up of the current Democratic Party and their seemingly suicidal drive to lose elections. I remember being incredibly pissed off when I learned that Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer had pressured Hackett to drop his Ohio senate bid. You’re talking about a candidate who:
a.) Is very smart, charismatic and articulate.
b.) Has strong military experience.
c.) Has real convictions.
d.) Came very close to winning a congressional race in a heavily Republican district.
-AND-
e.) Is against the war but isn’t a kook like Ramsey Clark or a flake like Barbara Streisand.
In other words, he is precisely what the Democrats need right now. But because today’s Dems seem driven to lose, they decided to push him out in favor of a supposedly safer establishment candidate.
Similarly, most of the establishment Dems were too timid to back up Russ Feingold when he called for censuring a president with a goddamn 36% approval rating. Christ, guys, how low can Bush’s poll numbers get before you realize that he’s a liability for the GOP? Even if the censure motion failed (and it likely would have), it would have been a nice show of solidarity that further highlighted Bush’s political weakness.
Think back to the ’90s when the GOP impeached Clinton for lying about his affair with Monica. Did the GOP get scared when polls showed that a strong majority of Americans opposed impeachment? Hell no. The crazy bastards had the courage to rip a nasty fart in reality’s face and state flat-out that the polls were wrong. While their unpopular impeachment campaign certainly cost the GOP seats in the 1998 midterm elections, their long-term electoral prospects remained undamaged, because the public felt that they were at least standing for their convictions. And yeah, believing that a president should be impeached for lying stuff he did with his pee-pee is sorta weird, but that just underscores my main point: if you hold true to your beliefs and show some conviction, people will respect you, even if they don’t agree with you.
Now, centrist folks like Kevin Drum will likely point out that Clinton was a popular and successful president despite being a slippery triangulator. That’s certainly true, but I think Clinton’s success is more of a testament to his superhuman political skills than to the virtues of middle-of-the-road centrism. Let’s face it: Bill Clinton was an uncommonly talented politician, the kind that comes around once every generation. Saying that Clinton’s slick triangulation should be a model for future Democratic hopefuls is like arguing that aspiring ball players can become super-stars by following Babe Ruth’s all-beer-and-hot-dog diet. In other words, strategies that work for unusually gifted people generally don’t work for us mere mortals. And just like most ballplayers have to eat healthy and practice constantly, most politicians have to be principled in order to be appealing.
Oh, go shove it with your “politcal strategery”. EVIL TWINS are teh hotness right now. More Gavin!
…heh, he said “pee-pee”.
Oh, go shove it with your “politcal strategery”. EVIL TWINS are teh hotness right now. More Gavin!
I put it below the fold so people who didn’t want to read a semi-thoughtful (for me, anyway) piece could skip it.
“Now, centrist folks like Kevin Drum will likely point out that Clinton was a popular and successful president despite being a slippery triangulator.”
Yeah, well Drum is afraid of his own shadow. That dude’s still drawing up flow charts to determine if it would be prudent to take the plunge and cop a feel on his wife of 10 years.
Oh Brad! You’re still out little cobage!
Whatever that is!
Let’s be clear: the choice for Senate candidate was an underfunded, unknown candidate (Hackett) or a veteran political who was known statewide and whose people were mentoring Hackett (but were loyal to their candidate, which would leave him understaffed as well).
It’s an easy choice. Had Hackett run for OH-02 in the regular election against Jean “I make Kathryn Harris look good” Schmidt, the full weight of the party would have backed him.
Wimpiness is a malaise all social democratic/left-liberal politicians seem to be exhibiting right now…I think the fascists on the Right have embarrassing pictures of all them or have all their mothers tied up in the basement.
Think back to the ’90s when the GOP impeached Clinton for lying about his affair with Monica. Did the GOP get scared when polls showed that a strong majority of Americans opposed impeachment? Hell no.
fair enough. but the republicans then had two things the democrats now lack: the senate and the house. not so with the current minority dems. you can push through whatever dumb shit thing you want regardless of popular opinion if enough nutcases will vote for it. having said that, what exactly do the democrats have to lose at this point? they should have supported censure because it’s a commonsense way of saying what everyone already knows. namely, this president isn’t doing very well at his job and maybe we should start taking his incompetence seriously.
oh, and paul hackett is the man. not letting him run is a travesty.
Well the part of the segment where Helms interviewed the consultant, who said Hackett failed to fit “the Matrix,” which has three aspects.
The only one he failed to fit was that he didn’t consult the consultants.
How much of a stranglehold do these overfed, overpayed, overrated wankers have on the Democratic party anyway?
I put it below the fold so people who didn’t want to read a semi-thoughtful (for me, anyway) piece could skip it.
So, BradKos, where can I get an advance copy of Trashing The Kaye: Tigerprint, Grammarspent, and the Rise of the Death Kittens?
Didn’t Rush say that Brown was some sort of Negro or something? Why would you have Hackett run against a Negro? Or whatever.
I could watch that piece about a hundred times and never get tired of it. Hackett said “balls” on t.v…heh, heh.
I was a hard-core Hackett supporter (yes, from OH) and it was incredible the tactics they used to get him out of the race (at the national and local level- with Brown using swift boat tactics). And I’ll have you know that he could’ve had a damned good chance against DeWine, but Brown is sinking hard. We’ll never know, of course, because Ohioans were denied the chance to pick our own candidate
Gratis- where in Ohio are you from? I went to undergrad at Denison…
Tuscarawas County- about 25 miles south of Canton
Gotcha. One of my good friends grew up in Youngstown.
Man, what a shithole 😉
Ha, you should visit southeastern Tusc. County if you think Y-town is shitty, but I’ll leave that alone for now.:)
Remember the old cartoons about Butch the bulldog that used to be shown with Tom and Jerry? And there was the little dog that used to hang around with Butch and yap at him “what are we going to do today, boss? We sure are tough, aren’t we?”
That’s the Democratic party in a nutshell. And Butch the bulldog is the Republican party. But toughness isn’t what they’re after – in this story, “toughness” is “corporate dollars”.
The Repubs get more of them because they have more of what business wants. The Democrats seem to think that by aping the Republicans, money will trickle down to them in equal amounts. But the only “trickle down” they’re getting from it is the sort you see in a very specialized subgenre of pornographic films.
What can we conclude from this?
1.) Elected Democrats are all into either bukake or Roman showers.
2.) This will not change until we change how our political elections are financed.
3.) Big business is in for a terrible, terrible shock if the nascent fascist elements in the Republican party manage to rise to preeminence, and it will provide us all with endless amounts of schadenfreude as we are all marched off to the workcamps.
4.) I watched too many cartoons as a kid.
5.) Moving to Miami was a great decision on my part, because I get to bitch and moan about the stupid Democrats from a spot that’s at least warm and sunny now. And with a coconut palm on the front lawn.
I’ve missed you guys.
I like Hackett, or want to like him, but something about him always seemed a little weird. Maybe/Probably it was that he seemed to be trying too hard to be likeable in front of the camera during “serious” interviews, such as when I’ve seen him on Hardball & Bill Maher. Maybe he never got quite comfortable.
And I’m not saying I agree with Schumer/Reid, who apparently did backstab him.
But still, it does seem like he’s being whiney about the whole thing, and especially in dissing Brown. If he wanted to fight, he should have stayed in and made his case to the voters. Screw the party establishment.
The Ed Helms interview was pretty funny and well done, though.
Screw you, dave. Hackett is teh s3xXxy!!!
I don’t know much about Paul Hackett, but I admire anyone who cooperates with comedians in bits.
I never liked Bob Dole–still don’t, but his appearances on the Daily Show at least made me see him as a person instead of a stuffed asshole.
hey, you guys should know that you guys are of no practical use
that’s all
It’s bits of genius like this that make me seriously consider getting cable again just for the Daily Show.
If he wanted to fight, he should have stayed in and made his case to the voters. Screw the party establishment.
That is a good point. He was selling himself as this populist muckraking tough guy, but a call from Harry Reid and he backs out of the race? He should have stayed in the race. He could have very well have shoved it in their face by beating Brown, and maybe the Democratic party would have learned a lesson. The way it happened, Hackett let the bullies bully him. I’m disappointed that he dropped out.
Sherrod Brown is my congressman and I like him a lot. He’s not perfect, but he is a good representative. God knows I would love to see him replace DeWine(r).
The sad thing about the whole Hackett thing is how emblematic it is of the whole Democratic party in the State. They have been decimated in the past 10 years and show no sign of recovery. For cripes sake, half the State House is swimming in indictments and the Dems in Ohio can’t make a positive move. Duh.
I do think that Hackett got dicked around somewhat. On the other hand, as JK47 said, if your whole act is that you don’t take shit from nobody, why cave and complain instead of, you know, standing and fighting? A lot of people get pressure from The Establishment (whoever the hell they are) and shrug it off, including slimeballs like Pat Toomey and Katherine Harris. Dropping out and then complaining about it is the worst choice on the run/don’t run X-axis and the speak/don’t speak Y-axis. It would’ve been better all around if Hackett had re-run against Jean Schmidt and cut a national profile in the process.
this would certainly be the year for crazy ass fockers like hackett to carry the democratic banner in the senatorial elections. think 1980; think denton, hawkins, d’amato, gorton. crazy ass fockers are just what you want when the public has had enough with an establishment that looks like its teeth hurt while it praises the administration.
A few points, some of which have already been made:
1. Hackett wasn’t “forced out” – despite the GOP’s best efforts, this isn’t a Third World country – he could have stayed (and prolly lost, but that’s the risk you take).
2. U.S. Senate isn’t exactly an entry-level position. I like Hackett a lot, but he should have run again against Schmidt.
3. Brown is (from what I’ve read, and admittedly I’m from Virginia) a seasoned politician with liberal bona fides – not some “insider party hack.”
4. Speaking of “insider party hacks,” as much as you may want to disagree with them, they were just doing their job. It’s their decision to make, and you’re free to disagree with it, but it’s unfair to label them all-powerful dictators. They’ve gotta choose someone, and Brown has more experience (and is ostensibly a real liberal, something in short supply these days).
5. None of this should be construed as an endorsement of the Democratic Party’s timidity.
6. The Daily Show’s bit was, as usual, right on the money.
this would certainly be the year for crazy ass fockers like hackett to carry the democratic banner in the senatorial elections. think 1980; think denton, hawkins, d’amato, gorton. crazy ass fockers are just what you want when the public has had enough with an establishment that looks like its teeth hurt while it praises the administration.
A few points, some of which have already been made:
1. Hackett wasn’t “forced out” – despite the GOP’s best efforts, this isn’t a Third World country – he could have stayed (and prolly lost, but that’s the risk you take).
2. U.S. Senate isn’t exactly an entry-level position. I like Hackett a lot, but he should have run again against Schmidt.
3. Brown is (from what I’ve read, and admittedly I’m from Virginia) a seasoned politician with liberal bona fides – not some “insider party hack.”
4. Speaking of “insider party hacks,” as much as you may want to disagree with them, they were just doing their job. It’s their decision to make, and you’re free to disagree with it, but it’s unfair to label them all-powerful dictators. They’ve gotta choose someone, and Brown has more experience (and is ostensibly a real liberal, something in short supply these days). Hackett can’t just expect national party support as automatic with all of one campaign, that, while impressive, fell a bit short.
5. None of this should be construed as an endorsement of the Democratic Party’s timidity.
6. The Daily Show’s bit was, as usual, right on the money.
A few points, some of which have already been made:
1. Hackett wasn’t “forced out” – despite the GOP’s best efforts, this isn’t a Third World country – he could have stayed (and prolly lost, but that’s the risk you take).
2. U.S. Senate isn’t exactly an entry-level position. I like Hackett a lot, but he should have run again against Schmidt.
3. Brown is (from what I’ve read, and admittedly I’m from Virginia) a seasoned politician with liberal bona fides – not some “insider party hack.”
4. Speaking of “insider party hacks,” as much as you may want to disagree with them, they were just doing their job. It’s their decision to make, and you’re free to disagree with it, but it’s unfair to label them all-powerful dictators. They’ve gotta choose someone, and Brown has more experience (and is ostensibly a real liberal, something in short supply these days). Hackett can’t just expect national party support as automatic with all of one campaign, that, while impressive, fell a bit short.
5. None of this should be construed as an endorsement of the Democratic Party’s timidity.
6. The Daily Show’s bit was, as usual, right on the money.
Sorry!
I agree with Ben. Hackett is prime for a rematch against Mean Jean, but Senator Hackett may be a bit premature. Jean has shot herself in the foot a few times in the past months, just a few more % points and we are one more person closer to a majority in the House (where impeachment proceedings begin, BTW).
The Senate may be sexier, but a lot can get done in the House, and there seems to be a lot of Republicans in trouble over there.
Speaking from lovely Cleveland, Ohio, I gotta say I also agree with Ben. Sherrod Brown’s a solid progressive and a seasoned politician. Hackett’s not quite ready for a statewide race — if he had been, he couldn’t have been “forced” out by either the national or local party. Bottom line is Hackett wasn’t able to raise the money. Period.
I agree with Ben’s first post, but his second post just seemed to be blowing the same old crap up our skirt. I’m tired of his Rovian “keep repeating things and people will believe them” bullshit.
fair enough. but the republicans then had two things the democrats now lack:
Guts and brains?
Strategy and political will?
I could go on and on, but those two things ARE NOT the house and the senate.
Actually, I added a line or two to the second and third posts, just for added flavor.
And what’s with this obsession with skirts? It sounds like you’re the one with the problem. Springtime…short skirts flouncing in the breeze…
Ahem! As I said, you’re the one with the problem.
Republicans – Shoot, move, communicate.
Democrats – Shoot self in foot, stab Hackett in back, communicate to Hackett he’ll get no support from the party.
Works like a charm, suckers.
Let’s be clear: the choice for Senate candidate was an underfunded, unknown candidate (Hackett) or a veteran political who was known statewide and whose people were mentoring Hackett (but were loyal to their candidate, which would leave him understaffed as well).
Isn’t this somewhat analogous to saying that some students just won’t succeed, so we shouldn’t waste resources trying to teach them?
Little Heroes:
Guts and brains?
Strategy and political will?
I could go on and on, but those two things ARE NOT the house and the senate.
are you saying that if the democrats had control of one of houses of congress during the monica scandel, they would have voted with the republican minority to impeach clinton?
Not exactly. Whether you’re a lowly staff ass wondering which candidate to support, or Chuck Schumer up in his “ivory tower,” at some point you’ve gotta come down on someone’s side. That necessarily means leaving someone else (or a lot of someones) out. Allocating resources is the DCCC’s job. That’s politics. I didn’t like the decision to ignore Virginia in 2004, but I understood the thinking. Focusing on swing states is more important. (I think that Virginia’s close to being blue, but that’s another story.)
I think Ken was trying to explain the thinking behind Brown’s endorsement. Which, by the way, makes sense to me.
I thought the whole purpose of a primary was to give people a choice between candidates. Hackett wasn’t running for the seat yet, he was just running for a chance to run for the seat. If he’d lost, the Democrats wouldn’t have been out a seat in the Senate; Brown or Hackett would be running in the general election in either case.
What’s wrong with the picture is that, instead of letting the primary process go through, Hackett was asked to leave a race entirely between Democrats. After being asked to run in the race in the first place. He’s got a legitimate gripe there, in being asked to shut down what organization he’d put together to run for Senate.
There was never an issue of a Democrat losing the race for Senate if Hackett had stayed in. If he’d managed to pull out a win against Brown in the primary, he’d probably have had as good a chance as anyone to win the general election. This was strictly an issue of the Democratic leadership wanting to pick their candidate for the general election and not wanting any challenger in the primary race.
melior: It’s bits of genius like this that make me seriously consider getting cable again just for the Daily Show.
Not to be a shill for Apple, but you can now buy 16 episodes of TDS for $10 from iTunes — that’s cheaper than cable, and you can spend your saved dinars for more goat porn a subscription to The Economist.
Mooooommmmm!!!!! The strikethrough tags aren’t working!!!!!!
mmmm, goat porn…
Many thanks for the heads up on iTunes TDS – $10 a pop beats the hell out of cable, and keeps my $ out of Comcast’s evil corporate pockets. Employs many barely legal goats as well!