Today, Paul Hackett pulled out of the race for U.S. Senate in Ohio, under pressure from Senators Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. Congressman Rahm Emanuel wanted him to run for the Congressional seat (OH-2) that he barely lost in 2005. He was pretty bitter about pulling out; "This is an extremely disappointing decision that I feel has been forced on me...[F]or me, this is a second betrayal. First, my government misused and mismanaged the military in Iraq, and now my own party is afraid to support candidates like me."
Here's what I think. I think Paul Hackett is an American hero. All our troops are. They're out there getting shot at for no apparent reason, and I'm sure many of them don't really like the idea of it. I also think Paul Hackett would be a good Congressman. But, what my problem is, this guy basically walked in off the street, ran for Congress (a really great campaign, by the way), and lost. So, what is the next logical step? Run for the United States Senate! Wait, run for the United States Senate?
If you lose a race, you try a similar race. That's why people like Tom Daschle will never be President, and why people like John Edwards and Al Gore would never be content serving as a U.S. Senator (Gore) or Governor (Edwards). But, back on subject, I think that he should have never announced for the Senate, and just began campaigning full-throttle against Jean Schmidt for 2006.
Now, because the Democratic party wants to win back the Senate, and believes Sherrod Brown is the more viable candidate, Hackett is put off. I say, if I were Hackett, I would "take one for the team", and run for Congress, and then, in 2010, run for either Voinovich's (probably open) seat, or maybe for Governor.
Does Hackett believe because he generated a whole lot of excitement in the NetRoots during a special election that he can convey that into a statewide win? Did he consider himself the "annointed" candidate?
Now, folks will say, "well, Schumer told Hackett's donors to quit giving", and if that's true, that is a very bad thing to do. That's not part of the Democratic process. I would say that is deplorable. But that's not the big question here.
I've been talking for a long time that Sherrod Brown is the guy to beat Mike DeWine, and I still believe that 100%. He is more Progressive than Hackett, much more experienced, and a really nice guy (I met him in the summer of 2004 when we went to Northeast Ohio on vacation). We (we, meaning Progressive bloggers) can't turn our backs on Brown. Brown can beat DeWine, and with our help, and a concerted effort by the national party, Sherrod Brown will defeat Mike DeWine.
So, in closing, Sherrod Brown for Senate!(Note: I anticipate some negative feedback, so leave it in the comments, and I'll do my best to respond to everybody)
-Neal
7 comments:
I like Sherrod Brown a lot, one of my favorite candidates running this year. If he wins, he'll be a great sentor.
oh and about Hackett running for Voinovich's seat in 2010, Tim Ryan would be a lot better. He's probably my favorite congressman.so maybe Hackett can run for guv if Blackwell gets it or in 2014 (im not sure if ohio has term limitsm if not then of course Ted Strickland shoudl run)
Ohio has some great congresspeople, some of my faovrites, Brown and Strickland are close to the top of my list oof my favorite candidates this year. Tim Ryan is awesome, and then theres still Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich
I'm pretty sure Ohio has a two-term limit, so 2014 would be in his future (as Ted Strickland will win in 2006), but, only if he had run for Congress this year. As it is now, if he does nothing else political, his name will fade away in about a year or two.
I have relatives in Youngstown, and they all love Tim Ryan (not as much as they did Jim Traficant). He would be a great Senator, and would have been my 2nd choice had Brown not ran.
I also have relatives in Cleveland, and, when my dad lived there, he lived like 3 or 4 blocks from Kucinich. Kucinich is a great guy. Minus President, I would support him for just about anything he ran for.
I coule not disagree with you more, but that was a well reasoned argument.
Tim Ryan is probably one of my five favorite politicians. I love watching the 30-Somethings on CSPAN at night
I think Hackett drank too deeply from the blogger kool aide. He had it in the bag for the congressional seat.
But Schumer's tactics were ham handed. The days of the big boys deciding these things ended decades ago.
Kinsey:
100% agree with you. I think Brown would have beat him in a primary, and, in general, primaries are a good thing. But, I do believe it would have been for the good of the party if he had just ran again for Congress.
Alice:
I'll go ahead and admit I've never been a huge Schumer fan. But, besides this one thing which doesn't make him look very good, he's been an excellent DSCC Chairman, by recruiting, or at least throwing support to, very strong candidates. We have a shot at regaining the Senate at least in part due to him.
If Hackett would run for Congress, we could be one seat closer to making Nancy Pelosi Speaker...
experience is great there is nothing like a dc insider to keep fucking our country over
Post a Comment