Paul Hackett - Murtha reckless, foaming at mouth, irresponsible, stupid,

wrong.Also says he's not sure he'll support Ohio Senate candidate Sherrod Brown,though he has claimed that he would.He says Sherrod Brown is "just puking out the same old garbage". -



Posted on Tue, Jun. 06

Outspoken ex-candidate resurfaces on veterans, Marine issues

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/14755060.htm

Tuesday June 6, '06

DAN SEWELL
Associated Press

...Hackett also is irritated at Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a decorated Marine veteran who has been briefed by military officials on the Haditha deaths and has said that U.S. troops "overreacted because of the pressure on them." Hackett said Murtha is feeding an image of traumatized, out-of-control soldiers like characters in the movies "Rambo" and "The Deer Hunter."

"With one broad stroke, he's recklessly indicted all those Marines ... I don't know if he's gotten addicted to the microphones and the cameras. For him to continue to foam at the mouth, it's irresponsible, it's stupid, it's wrong."...

He also said he's not sure how much of his support Brown will attract in November.

"He's going to have to say something that inspires their support. Thus far, I have not heard that. If you're just puking out the same old garbage ... it's not going to inspire the independents in Ohio in a statewide race."...

Our expertise seems to be in organizing circular firing squads. christ, this sucks hard.

He obviously thinks that Murtha's "they overreacted because of the pressure" characterization is unfair or, at least, premature. Rather that stay in lockstep with anybody, he expressed his view.

People always claim they want someone who speaks his/her mind, until they get someone who does.

We want a Democrat who will speak the truch. With each passing day, Hackett sounds more like an emotionally unstable demagogue (or however the hell you spell it). Dems are better off with him far, far out of the picture -- can you imagine how his campaign would have imploded if he were actually running for the Senate? We'd have our very own Katherine Harris on our hands.

Paul Hackett -- your fifteen minutes are over.

was just angry at bush for the moment but is in reality a repub.

:applause:

running as democrats

I don't give a damn if a candidate "speaks his own mind" or "fights for what he believes in" or "stands up" to his opponents, or "has strong principles". Lots of people whose influence on the world have been negative have done that; most people who have improved it through Democratic means have done so by compromise and deliberate misrepresentation, even if not outright dishonesty.

I want a candidate who will support *my* views, whether or nor he or she holds them.

but he spoke of foaming at the mouth - which steps over a line.

I think the problem is that people lionized him because he was an Iraq vet and hated Bush. What was premature is that many thought that alone meant he should be Senator.

He is in defense attorney mode, and is vigorously defending his client by doing everything in his power to distance his client from the Haditha actions. From what little I've read, it would seem his client is involved not in the crime, but maybe the cover-up. And he doesn't want his client to do heavy time for that. Thus, he's trying to create doubt in the minds of any potential jury pool/courts-martial panel. The old "court of public opinion" trick. It generally does NOT work in military trials, but he's a reservist, so he might not be well aware of that.

I think he is making a MASSIVE mistake going after Jack Murtha. Jack spends more time at the Pentagon in any given year than this guy spent at Officer Training School. He knows all the brass; he's not talking out his ass--the brass GAVE HIM the info that he put out. Jack Murtha is the General's Conduit over the head of the SECDEF, the JCS, and the Dunce...because they can't get to Rummy, because Rummy won't hear them.

But, at the end of the day, only he knows his motivations. He needs to tone it down, if he wants to keep a place in the public eye, though. He's starting to look a bit flaky.

May be playing to the Bush base in Ohio? If not then why attack Murtha or Brown?

The LAST thing our Dems should be doing is taking potshots at each other. Now is the time we HAVE to put nit-picking aside and stand together. United we stand, divided, we fall - which is what kkkarl rove is counting on. I'd kinda like to see our guys NOT play by rove's playbook - FOR A CHANGE!!!!

He voted for Bush and only switched to the Dem party when he decided to run for office in Cincinnati.

Oh, never mind...it's you.

B

S

His registration may say D, but he's behaving as anything but. He's done an incredible amount of damage to the party and some of its more respected elected officials. You may be able to justify that in your own mind, but its not likely you'll get many Dems to agree with you.

A lot of people felt uneasy about this guy from the start and many put up with an inordinate amount of abuse and criticism. We all should learn a lesson from this. Look before you leap.

But before I was Jeff in Milwaukee, I was Jeff in Cincinnati and very active in the Hamilton County Democratic Party. I moved from Cincinnat a year ago, right before Hackett began his challenge in the Ohio 2nd CD. My first reaction upon hearing that we was running was, "Who in the hell is Paul Hackett?" Of all the Democratic meetings I've attended and all the campaigns I've worked on, I had never heard of Paul Hackett before he came out of the woodwork a year ago.

If he's a Democrat, he's never been an active one -- and the idea that he should get to shove his way to the front of the line and run for Senate is more than a little annoying to people who have been working in the trenches for year.

Jeff in Ohio, but do you have a link? See, here in the DU, we require proof; we don't just take someone's word for it.

Thanks for your insight, but the fact that you've "posted this several time (sic) previously" and the topic keeps reappearing means we need a link, not an opinion, to put this issue to bed once and for all.

I think you've been online a little too long. But I think you could try Googling "Paul Hackett" and "Democrat" and see how many references you find that pre-date April of 2005. I think you'll find none.

Being a darling of the blogosphere is one thing. Having a cadre of 200 hardcore supporters (the type who will go canvassing in the sweltering heat) is another thing entirely.

Sherrod Brown has spent two decades building bridges to Democratic Party organizations across the state -- he has chits he can call in. Friends in every county. Paul Hackett has nothing except hype and an exceptionally chiseled profile -- long story short, he wasn't ready to run a statewide campaign. It takes an unholy amount of organization.

It helps to keep reminding folks. While no one wants to discourage newcomers who are passionate about making a difference, you make a good point about knowing more about them before letting them go to the head of the line and run for an important office like the US Senate.

when it was the Ohio Democratic party, along with Harry Reid and other Democratic leaders who approached Hackett with the offer to run for the Senate??? Didn't you know that?

Link, please.

Hackett met several times with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Chuck Schumer, chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), both of whom encouraged him to run for the seat of Ohio’s senior senator, Republican Mike DeWine, in ’06. Hackett said he would—after been told by Ohio Congressman Sherrod Brown that he wasn’t planning to run—and on October 3 he publicly threw his hat in the ring.

Link:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2005/10/hackett.html

I didn't know you personally in Cincy...but I know your replacement as Ward Chair....who is doing a great job last I spoke with her. I, too, have moved north but not as far as you....just to Central Ohio.

I remember as you did....Hackett came out of nowhere. I wish he would not hurt the Democrat candidates, but I still have the funny feeling that that is what someone is paying him to do.

When it was time for me to go, she was my first and only choice for a replacement. I'm very proud of my association with the Springfield Township Democrats, and it's something that I'm trying to replicate here in Milwaukee (hint: follow the URL in my sig line)

Yes...she does rock!

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the OP regarding Paul Hackett - it doesn't matter to me as I'm in Tennessee, but this holier-than-thou attitude of having to "work in the trenches" (code, for, "I want payback") is exactly why so many of our Democratic officials don't REALLY represent us. They represent the insiders.

I want someone to ascend from outside the power structure, including outside of the corporate world, who can respresent the little guy.

I want a LEADER, not a political hack.

You build a grassroots organization by building a grassroots organization, not by just showing up and expecting everyone to swoon at your feet.

My God, that's an ignorant opinion you've got there!

The Republicans have thousands of people out there phone calling and door knocking (i.e., "working the trenches") and you toddle in here and mock the whole notion that people should work their way up through the ranks. You know why so many Democrats don't represent us? Maybe it's because they haven't spend months on end canvassing neighborhoods and talking to real voters about real problems.

"Someone to ascend from outside the power structure?" Are you looking for a candidate or the second coming?! I swear to God, sometimes it amazes me that we ever win any elections at all...

He's been a leader for the Dems in Congress and in Ohio for over a dozen years, rising to a position as the second most influential leader on health care and trade.

He's had the guts to stick around, even in a GOP monopoly, to keep advancing a progressive health care agenda in Congress. He led the fight against CAFTA. He's protected jobs and fought against the GOP's policies.

He even tried to help Hackett run for Congress and helped get him allies in Dem leadership. But once they spent some time around Hackett, they realized he wasn't ready and, maybe, he wasn't even a real Democrat.

Sherrod has tolerated Hackett's attempts to help get Mike DeWine re-elected with dignity and grace, saving his attacks for Republicans, not fellow Dems.

That is a leader. Not some braying jackass who kicks sand in everybody's face when he loses.

And I'm glad to say that I have Russ Feingold and you don't!

Sorry -- just a little giddy from finally living in a Blue State...

As do all of us here in Ohiobama.

You are wrong as always.......

Why not do something positive and participate in the discussion or just go find something constructive to do? I'm sure you must have some good qualities and have something to offer of value.

It sounds more like a repuke. I've never heard Paul being that mean spirited.

saying very much the same thing on the Ed Schultz Show a week or so ago. He's a lawyer representing some of the Marines involved in the Haditha business, and is wearing several conflicting hats.

I think it's pure bullshit.

Geez..... :eyes:

nothing less than that?

WTF is the matter with you people in here today? Every fucking time I voice an opinion I get jumped and then the person wants to ARGUE. I don't have time for this bullshit. If you want to argue look up someone else. Quite frankly I have had my fill for the day.

you call it an argument. i call it trying to understand what it would take for someone to accept the fact that Hackett might not be the cat's meow...

I have been biding my time hoping that Hackett would be happy with his new found career in radio and entertainment.

But this does it.....attacking Murtha? WTF? And still undermining Brown? Sure seems to me that Hackett wants to see DeWhine in the Senate for another 6.

This makes me think that my original assessment was right after all. He's a mole...bought and paid for by Carl Lindner and Mercer Reynolds.

Is it that, or is Hackett suffering from some sort of Post Traumatic Stress? Seriously, he is starting to sound like Anne Coulter and the other rabid pug talking heads. This type of behavior is not rational.

I think it's just ego, and a basic belief that good looks and a military record trump long-term organization building.

continuing to put Brown down in public? He pulled out of the race in Feb...it's June. How long will this behavior of his continue? It seems to be getting worse.

Many Dems thinks it's time for him to act like an adult and support the Dem candidate. If his ego won't allow him to do that, is it too much to ask for him to STFU? Or does he think DeWhine is the better candidate...a man who just voted to give more tax cuts to the wealthiest of our nation.

We need that Senate seat. And Hackett's ego isn't important in the scheme of things. Our Democracy is hanging by a thread...our Constitution is being shredded. Hackett needs to get a grip...see a shrink....take a vacation....get some valium...whatever. He's behaving like a spoiled child.

Me thinks paul protests too much. If anyone foams at the mouth and pukes out stuff it is paul hackett. I disagree with his take on Murtha. Murtha is not condemming all Marines with sweeping generalities. This veteran strongly believes that it is hackett who has become addicted to the microphone.

In an incredibly related matter, hackett is a lawyer and is defending one of the Marines charged in one of those alleged incidents.

steroids maybe.

of those accusations hit home for him. Wasn't he at Fallujah? His reaction seems so over-the-top & self-destructive that it almost seems personal for him. And yes, I know he's representing an accused soldier, but tearing down a war veteran doesn't really help his client, either. This seems more like his own beef w/Murtha.

You don't go on the warpath against respected members of your own party. Murtha has lots of support for what he said and if you don't agree with it, then say so - respectfully.

And NO future candidate for public office should EVER use the phrase "puking out... garbage" when referring to his party's chosen candidate.

That bullshit about KKKarl Rove's "indictment" proves that.

And if it's just a Paul Hacket smear job, he'd better come out right away and deny it.

And if the AP, who wrote this and the Akron Beacon Journal, who published this are in error there should be an immediate retraction and apology.

This is damaging, IMHO.

But I recall one time when he was on hardball and Tweety was reading something that he had supposedly said,and Paul had to correct him on it. I can't remember what it was that he was supposed to have said.......but it turns out he didn't say it. I can't believe he would talk about Murtha like that,and say all the rest of those things. I think it's another smear,though. Anyone who comes out with the truth gets smeared,we all know that. It's sad,but true.

I missed that.

It's sad to see...but I think Hackett is facing some of his own demons.

I am old enough to remember the vets coming home from Vietnam....it was awful. So many were damaged mentally and physically. War does awful things to people....and people do awful things in times of war.

but it still really hit me the wrong way. The quotes in the OP sound really, really bad.

I like what a previous poster asked "Is he going all Perot on us?" - LOL

Funny, but terribly sad, if true.

Paul, please re-think your rhetoric, if not your positions.

But he just lost me. Really too bad. Maybe this is why the party intervened, though I still think it was wrong.

I still think the DLC was wrong-it's just conincidence their decision worked out right

Sherrod Brown is not DLC, so it's safe to say the DLC was wrong on this one. Brown was backed because he was the better candidate and the senate Dem leaders who knew more about Hackett's ability as a candidate were correct.

was a loose cannon. Who knows? But I do sympathize with you....and I think everyone does who has lost respect for someone who they've truly admired. One feels a sense of betrayal....or maybe a sense of being duped when that person displays his/her warts and imperfections.

I have come to realize how dangerous it is to have heros and heroines....they're just human after all. I try to remember that no one is going to save the day for me....it's all about 'We the People' and it's nice if a leader comes along to offer guidance and inspiration for justice and liberty.

Use this simple formula, Paul: 1)engage brain 2) then talk.

It was quite some time ago, in an interview with Ed Shultz, I think.

There is no fucking mission, and he should know that as well as anyone.

I think he needs to calm down a little.

I hate to say it, Hackett once inspired me and now he's nothing more like a spoiled brat in the democratic sandbox who didn't get what he wanted and now is packing up his toys and going home.

Sherrod Brown is just as liberal if not more so that Hackett ever was. Anyone one of us would be proud to have him as our Senator!

The calculation he was not the best available candidate for Senator from Ohio on the Democratic ticket would seem to have been quite sound....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

he said something "politically incorrect" and is quite enjoying his freedom.

Unless we get a report that these quotes were taken out of context or somesuch, I would tend to agree with you.

...speaking his mind.

The fact is that Murtha made a statement that, while plausible, isn't backed by any actual proof. We have no idea why the soldiers involved did what they did.

If Hackett chooses to call him on it, I don't have a problem with that.

Hackett didn't say that Murtha was wrong ...he took issue with Murtha making the statement without any proof.

...and wits to match.

:eyes:

Attacking Murtha?

Calling him stupid?

Have we forgotten the lessons of history? Just go back a few years to the Vietnam War...the atrocities. That's what happens in wars....all wars.

You are going to justify what happened in Haditha? That was a slaughter and it was covered up. Sure these soldiers deserve a defense. But there's something about Hackett's defense that seems very, very personal.

I hate war....and I hate more what war does to people.

you PM'd me a while back stating you put me on "ignore" and now you're commenting on something I wrote?

I will correct that.

No wonder Ohio loses.

Does not improve his suuitability as a candidate for high office....

I believe that's exactly what makes him an excellent candidate for the House or Senate.

One of the requirements for success in it is the ability to control the tongue. Loose cannons go nowhere fast....

Hackett's statements have been spun here as an attack on Murtha's position. That's not the case.

Hackett took issue with Murtha making the statement before all of the facts were in. He sees such statements (without knowing all of the facts) as irresponsible, as do I. It's particularly frustrating, because politicians do that sort of thing with annoying regularity and, so, Hackett acted like Hackett. Rather than issue some carefully phrased statement like "While I have great respect for the esteemed Congressman, I believe it would be more constructive to wait for the facts and not rush to judgment" he clearly and plainly said how he viewed the remarks.

That's a quality I want in an elected official.

Again, many see it differently...and I believe that's why we keep electing eunuchs to Congress.

That Rep. Murtha's statements are quite sound enough, and Hackett's comments mere assistance to the present regime.

Persons who cannot restrain their tongue are unfit for office in a legislature.

my fault.

I'll contain my responses to the posts downstream. My reply is at Post #89.

He's just a private citizen and a lawyer who is speaking his mind. Does this make him a bad guy?

Is an idiot shilling for the other side. This suggests he would have been a damned poor candidate for our Party in a statewide election....

"...an idiot shilling for the other side" ?

"Shilling" supposes that one is being dishonest in order to gain support for something. Do you feel that Hackett has misrepresented his true feelings about Murtha's statements? More specifically, do you feel he's done it for the purpose of garnering support for "the other side"?

If you do, you shouldn't characterize Hackett as a "loose cannon", but as a manipulator.

If not, suggesting that Hackett is "shilling" is grossly misrepresentative.

My attitudes are quite ruthless.

Rep. Murtha is a leading and excellent spokesman for the Party on Iraq, and on the matter of misconduct there by our soldiery. His role in this is so essential and of such great benefit that it does not trouble me at all that on many matters of importance to me domestically he is practically an opponent.

Attacks on him assist the enemy. Whether they are sincere and honest expressions or calculated dishonesties uttered for effect makes no difference at all: they assist the enemy.

Whoever assists the enemy is a reprehensible scoundrel, unfit for decent company, and worthy of no more respect than the sort of thing one scrapes off a shoe after an unfortunate mis-step in the park.

...is that what I hear you saying?

Gee, I was just taking issue of your choice of the word "shilling" because it was a gross mischaracterization of what he's doing (and uncharacteristically sloppy, I might add).

Now I hear a demand that we march in lockstep. If you disagree with a Democratic icon, you're "assisting the enemy" (not quite "providing aid and comfort to the enemy", but close).

You've gone beyond taking issue with what Hackett said, you're now suggesting that there's something wrong with one speaking out when one doesn't agree with a position.

That's creepy.

Do you take a political conflict seriously, or not?

If the answer is yes, my attitudes will seem not strange, but familiar.

If the answer is no, my attitudes will seem harsh, even reprehensible, but that will not incline me to alter them.

"Sportsmanship is a spectator's virtue."

When you reach the point where you've sacrificed your principles to win the conflict, you've lost.

If, in fact, one of our principles is to encourage open dialog and criticism when one's views run counter to establishment views it seems terribly irresponsible to attack one who tangibly exercises that principle. Expressing objection to Hackett's VIEW (if one does object) is not only one's right, but their responsibility. Objecting to his EXPRESSION of that view, however, is unconscionable.

If you value strategy and blind loyalty above truth (even subjective truth), that is the sort of governance you'll be subject to...the governance of blindly loyal strategists.

...does that type of "leadership" sound remotely familiar?

Useful tools in certain circumstances, useless encumberances in others: worth nothing in and of themselves.

Political action is an exercise in building and maintaining and expanding group identity, Sir. Hackett has made his choice; he is not part of the group, but one of those ranged against it. Whether he has a right to so position himself is immaterial; that is the position he has adopted.

"Revolution is not a tea party."

It'll just be a pack of blindly loyal strategist Democrats instead of blindly loyal strategist Republicans. We'll have all of our current problems and will accomplish nothing other than perpetuating the counterproductive left-right pendulum swing that is a result of choosing partisanship over principle.

That's certainly not the end I choose to work towards.

"Blind' and "loyalty", however often some habitually link the two items, are hardly concepts joined at the hip. Loyalty is at times emotional, at other times the product of close calculation conducted with wide-open eyes, but very seldom is it blind and wholly without consideration of alternatives and consequences. A phrase like "blind loyalty" is a mere emotional appeal, aimed at stampeding a listener into a visceral and thoughtless reaction, without examination of the matter. Loyalty has long been prized among the personal virtues, and there is good reason for it to be so regarded.

I'm certainly not characterizing all loyalty as blind. I'm charactering the type of loyalty you seem to be advocating as blind.

If loyalty requires that I refrain from expressing my political views then I'm decidedly "disloyal", both to the current administration and the Democratic Party. When speaking of governance, I believe that expressing one's views is much more than a right, it's a responsibility. To do less (or to encourage others to less) is to shirk one's duties and to harm the long-term success of the process.

It is often adviseable, particularly in a coallition, to emphasize some elements and mute others at particular points in a campaign to gain office and exercise power. My inclination to defend Rep. Murtha here is, in some ways, a small illustration of the principle. He is far from my idea of an ideal Democratic Representative, and in other circumstances than the present one, my inclination would be to hope for his overthrow in a primary, and countenance denigration of him as a Democrat in name only. But his elevation just now serves the whole interest of the Party, and so it does not trouble me to put those items aside, and regard him as a champion among comrades in a campaign against the worst elements of reaction that we must not lose. That is hardly an exercise in blindness, Sir: it is a taking into account of all present factors, deciding what is the best course for my largest goals, and sticking to it once the decision is made.

You seem to take issue with criticism of Democratic politicians because you feel it harms the Party as a whole.

Is that a fair characterization?

People are not attracted to squabbling groups; they read that as uncertainty and lack of purpose, and these are not qualities people want to identify themselves with. One of the great attractions of a group is that it lends you fellows who will support you, who you can count on to be on your side, and a group that squabbles and feuds within itself cannot offer this inducement. Again, political action is about building, welding together, and wielding, group identity. The biggest group, so cemented, wins. Certainly it is not an edifying or uplifting business, but a thing must be taken on its own terme; it does no good to wish it were something else, and does harm to act as if it was.

"When an Angel punches a non-Angel, all other Angels will join in."

Being the "biggest group, so cemented" is worthless if that cementing is only accomplished by squelching dissent. I'd also argue that the long-term prognosis for a tightly-knit group based on discouraging criticism is, historically, very poor (or, at the least, not a group we would care to emulate).

In short, the end does not justify the means.

between informed dissent from group opinion or policy and being a destructive force, one that only wishes to tear the group apart if it doesn't meet every whim or demand.

One must necessarily desire use of the ends necessary to achieve it, otherwise the proclaimed desire for the end is mere pious noise.

Further, there is a signifigant difference between understanding what a thing requires if success is to be achieved, and acting in accordance with that udnerstanding, and "squelching dissent", or whatever other emotive term you wish to employ. Self-discipline is the first pre-requisite for political success, whether as a main-line pol or as a radical or revolutionist.

Any victory is worth what is made of it in the exploitation phase, no more and no less; how the enemy is routed is immaterial, providing it is routed.

...and I concede that, managed effectively, it has great potential for short-term success.

I still believe that actively discouraging dissent is an unsound practice in the long term.

I think we understand each other's positions and it appears they're positions with which we're comfortable. Spice of life, and all that...

Thanks, though, for the dialog. It's been enjoyable.

Always a pleasure to come across you in the forums. Like our past exchanges, this has been quite enjoyable: it is always good to have to stretch a bit....

Certainly a line must be periodically re-examined, and tested for whether it remains the best available course, and that examination must be conducted openly and from all angles.

ugh!!! Pretty fugly stuff Paul.

:hurts:hasta la vista baby.

I mean, he was crazy & all, but at least he didn't attack other Democrats.

Traficant voted like a repuke and is a criminal serving time. I don't see Paul Hackett in the same light. That said I have been disappointed in Hackett of late and he did not take the dirty politics of Sharrod Brown, et el, very well.

It was a frame-up, I tell you. If you mean Hackett & Traficant are from the same nutty wing of the party, I'd have to agree. Traficant was as corrupt as they come, but even he didn't personally attack other Dems. It's just self-destructive for any politician to do that, which is why I can't quite figure Hackett's motives here. I'm not sure if Hackett's statements are a reaction to the Brown campaign, or just him revealing who he really is. Even before the Brown issue, Hackett seemed like a loose cannon. I recall he complained about being stifled by his handlers during the campaign - which might've ended up being a good thing.

the Brown campaign. As far as I can tell he is a sore loser. He is politically dead within the ranks of the Democratic Party in Ohio.

As far as the two being in the same wing of the Democratic Party I don't think so. They are two different beasts. I agree with your assessment that Hackett is lose cannon. That was originally the appeal of Hackett here in SW Ohio. For too many years we on the left and center have been ostracized in this part of the state by the political leadership in the area (that being the repukes) but we have also been ignored by our own political party. We have also not been taken seriously by the NE Democrats, including some on DU. It was refreshing to see a Democrat with backbone who stood up to the repuke thugs but there seems to be a high price for Hackett's "lose cannonness" (pun intended).

What I worry about now is Brown's campaign. From the "independent" voters I know in SW Ohio Brown does not appeal to them. They vote more like repukians than independents down here. I think the repukes will bring out the storm troops like they did in '02 and '04 and lie, cheat and steal their way to victory. Then we will be stuck with the likes of DeWine and the rest of the criminal repukes for another 2-6 years.

Whatever it is, I don't want any of it.

Bake

was something about him that I just didn't quite trust. I thought I would get flamed, but oddly enough the response was that other DUers felt the same way. Appears that we have pretty good instincts.

Ohio...and has caused many of us here trying to get DeWine ousted and Brown elected headaches.

I hope folks in Ohio see what you see. Our state Forum is in shambles because of Hackett....very sad.

I don't recall Hackett doing any of the posting (on either side).

That falls into the "we have met the enemy and it is us" category.

and was jumped on because some were not hearing it and I suspect there are others.

Wasn't this guy going to be the savior of the Dem party or something like that?

What an ass.

He didn't go through .001% of what Murtha's been through.

Talking like that about an honorable man like Murtha is inexcuseable.

Buh-bye Hackett.

Ya you're one to talk Paul.

What an asshole Hackett has turned into. We dodged a bullet with this guy.

And isn't afraid to speak his mind. Big deal, we already knew that. And since he's a Marine, too, he's got some credibility in criticizing Murtha (I'm not saying who's right or who's wrong here).

As for Sherrod Brown: Everybody and his/her mother could have told you it was a STUPID idea to use and discard Hackett the way Brown and some of the Democratic power brokers did. You expect him to act with total loyalty to the Democrats when he got stabbed in the back the way he did? I'm still pi$$ed off at the whole sordid affair myself. Just be glad Hackett's not campaigning on behalf of the Republicans.

pugs....looks like Hackett is pretty good at 'divide and conquer' of the Dems.

--trashed Cegelis in Illinois, running an out of district candidate against her who could have successfully run in a couple of other districts. PDA is firmly supporting Duckworth now, though, and doing its level best to get all the Cegelis campaigners on board also. Very different from the way Hackett is behaving.

I thought I had tuned in to a right-wing nutjob who was trashing Murtha. Couldn't listen...thought Air America was attempting "fair and balanced".

Learned my lesson right then and there....

Can't hack Hackett....is a nutjob all right...don't know the wing and don't care.

i liked paul, but he's starting to sound a tad asshole-ish. sherrod brown is looking like the better candidate after all

only cared that he criticized Bush. But there's a lot more to a political philosophy than not liking Bush, and some people never cared to know any more about him, or looked the other way when he said things like he'd like to round up all illegal immigrants and kick them out and that we needed to stay the course in Iraq now that we're there.

He was a registered Republican before he was a registered Democrat, but he's obvioulsy never been a philosophical Democrat.

Also: What's a "philosophical Democrat"?

and Democratic political philosophy.

And, oops, hackett says he was a registered independent before 2004, but he voted on the Republican primary ballot in two elections prior to 2004 and wasn't a registered Dem until 2004.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/7/183233/0290

something?

Hackett said he was an independent before registering Dem for 2004 primary.

So he must have been a registered Republican but a self-described "Independent"?

(in the primary)

...and you can choose a different ballot every primary election if you choose. There's no "registration".

I'm a poll worker and the following excerpt is from the "Montgomery County (Ohio) Pollworker Procedures Manual:"

In a Partisan Primary Election, each voter must be asked to declare a party affiliation. If the voter does not want to declare a party affiliation, the voter can vote a non-partisan (issues only) ballot.

If a voter requests the same party ballot as listed in the Signature Book, process the voter as usual. No challenge form (Form 10X) is necessary. The only voter who must complete and sign a Statement of Persons Challenged as to Party Affiliation (Form 10-X) is the voter who is changing from Republican to Democrat, or changing from Democrat to Republican.

During training we were told to expect a large number of changes (think Republican to Democrat); no one in my precinct requested a Form 10X -- nary a one!

the two are ex-marines, know the military. they could have talked this over, rather than getting into this nonsensical sniping

When he was on "Hardball" he mentioned something about talking to John Murtha and then let it drop. No, I don't have a link.

His argument with Murtha was that Murtha condemned the Marines who are innocent until proven guilty (lawyer mode) before he has all the facts.

These are two Marines we're dealing with. I think they can take care of themselves and that "sticks and stones" don't bother them one bit.

I believe Murtha was just stating the facts or is it possible marines weren't responsible in those deaths? What's your angle Hackett? What's the purpose of attacking Murtha?

rather than narrowly lost the general election.

Hackett's not running for office and he's still in the lime light.

Actually, Brown does get a lot of media coverage out there in the real world.

http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official_s&q=sherrod+brown&ie=ISO-8859-1

Hackett is pretty much an unknown these days as far as the general public is concerned. He may get a lot of attention in the online political community, but if you were to ask the average person on the street (outside of Cincinnati) no one would know who he is.

last week so I don't think he's "pretty much an unknown these days." Oh yeah, I forgot the national radio shows he hosted.

I'll bet the "average person on the street (outside of Cincinnati)" WOULD recognize his name before Brown's. I thought it was funny that someone on DU referred to him as "Sheldon" Brown.

aren't exactly quality media coverage.

They are suitable for someone like Hackett, but not for someone who wants to be taken seriously as a candidate for the US Senate.

they were Larry King's guests last night. I'm sure they'll be interested in knowing they shouldn't be taken seriously.

I'm not certain the characterization that the coverage is worthless because Larry King and Hardball aren't what some consider to be "serious shows" holds water.

In case you hadn't noticed, DeWine doesn't appear on any of those shows, either.

Plenty of Ohio voters watch them.

Does DeWine appear on them?

"Hardball and Larry King aren't exactly quality media coverage.

They are suitable for someone like Hackett, but not for someone who wants to be taken seriously as a candidate for the US Senate."

...and that's the statement with which I was taking issue.

but we have to really think about whether we want our candidates going on these circus side-show type of programs. At some point in the campaign it will be helpful to go on Larry King, probably later on, closer to the election.

Better to have the Dems leaders who aren't up for election or re-election to go on some of these slugfests to duke it out with GOP shills. You won't see DeWine going on Hardball, but you'll see GOP surrogates going on these shoutfests and Dems should do the same.

I heard a rumor once that Sherrod doesn't like going on Hardball because of the yelling and spitting. Its not his style.

is that what you want....a divisive Dem Party? We must oust DeWine and elect Brown. Can we agree on that? I have asked this question many times and have never gotten a response.

What are your intentions regarding the Ohio Senate race?

Of course I'll vote for Brown.

You mean I'm not on your "Ignore" list any more? Poor Mongo.

.... I have to admit I was wrong about Hackett. It's one thing to speak your mind, and another to vent bullshit like a left wing Ann Coultergeist.

Murtha EARNED his right to speak his mind with years of service. Anyone disagreeing with him should at least have the decency to do so with respect.

on Hackett. He just keeps on turning up the cold water. Sherrod Brown is so much the better candidate.

Spewing this kind of garbage as the Senate candidate would have killed any chance of unseating DeWine...

nonstory...or should I say nonissue IMHO

Murtha like this is not going to help his case.

Murtha is a pro-military Democrat of long standing.

I like what he's said this year about Iraq. A lot.

I stand with Murtha on this one, definitely.

Hackett's wrong.

marine. He doesn't like what Murtha has been saying about the slaughter of innocents.

...but in the same unit.

Of filing a false report relating to the matter, that he knew or ought to have known was false.

I just felt the distinction was relevant.

Are culpable, and the latter bear a great responsibility that deserves serious punishment.

The man Hackett represents is wholly univol;ved in the Hditha killings or their cover-up, being merely an officer in the same battalion who ws relived of command over indiscipline in his company. It does certainly sound like a poorly officered unit over-all.

This also, of course, removes from Hackett even the slender justification of speaking on behalf of a client, and makes his attack on Rep. Murtha a wholly gratitutous exercise in spouting rightist slanders, and mindless apologetics for the massacre of civilians.

Here's a link to the story about Capt. James Kimber who is being represented by Paul Hackett ("Hardball" transcript):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13106755/

key word.

I was simply commenting on the motive for Hackett to smear Murtha.

I haven't seen a statement from the military, so I'm not stating it as fact yet.

I thought he was "falsely accused" according to Hackett.

...nor of even being in Haditha.

I gathered that the marine he's defending was accused of being involved in Haditha or "Haditha" like activity, thus the venom from Hackett on Murhta.

Makes me wonder if the stories of Hackett smiling/standing around dead bodies had some truth to it? Not saying it did, but his rancor toward Murtha is - curious.

I have always seen something sneaky about him especially when I have watched him on talk shows or listened to him on the radio. He never really commits to anything that the dems believe in or he never gives a firm answer, I can't explain it but every since he began running for the ohio seat, I began to notice something about him look in his eyes.

What about:

"Asked to define being pro-gay-rights, Hackett said anybody who tries to deny homosexuals the same rights, including marriage, as every other citizen is un-American. Are you saying, he was asked, that the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted in November 2004 to constitutionally deny same-sex marriages are un-American?

"If what they believe is that we're going to have a scale on judging which Americans have equal rights, yeah, that's un-American. They've got to accept that. It's absolutely un-American."

http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/gov/2006/01/hackett-said-what.asp


or:

"The Democrats are going to miss an opportunity in 2006 if they don't stand up and stand for something and quit being fearful," Hackett says. " is an equal rights issue. It's a constitutional issue. But the Democrats don't want to take the effort to explain that or take the effort to fight for that. I think it's weak and emblematic of a greater problem, of not being able to stand for anything. What is more basic than equal rights?"

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2006_April_25/ai_n16130515/pg_4

I thought that equal rights for ALL people was something "that the dems believe in". Find me another Democrat with the balls to call the Fundies "Un-American".

nt

...which is contrary to what Butterfly77 would have us believe.

when you won't go away? Jeez. I don't know if Hackett's gotten addicted to the microphones and the cameras. For him to continue to foam at the mouth, it's irresponsible, it's stupid, it's wrong ... Projection much?

This has got to be at least the third thread about Hackett in the past few weeks.

It's interesting how just the mention of his name elicits such response.

if he stopped giving interviews & saying inflammatory things, people would stop talking about him, wouldn't they? That's a bit like Ann Coulter wanting people to stop talking about the inflammatory things she says in national TV interviews, while she keeps booking interviews & saying the same thing - of course they want people to talk about it. He'd started to drop off the radar till this Murtha thing. IMO, this is all about the publicity.

Hackett appears in threads because of all the negative, nasty things he's saying.

We should probably spend more time talking about candidates like Sherrod Brown who actually represent what's good about the Democratic Party and who offer hope for the future.

He doesn't need to shut up. I wish he'd pick his shots a little better (something I wish the Marines in Haditha had done as well), but if we're gonna be a big tent party, we're gonna have to live with some in-fighting amoung our diverse fellow Democrats from time to time.

Better now than in October.

when he starts showing the represents the values of Democrats. So far, he isn't doing that. You can't blame people for not supporting him when he has so little in common with Dem values.

...mostly because I didn't know him all that well, and he seemed too 'slick' on Bill Maher, and I loathed the underhanded campaign tactics that got him out of the race, but this makes me like him even less.

If anyone's going to know about the likelihood of soldiers murdering civilians, Murtha will. Hackett's coming off as an apologist here.

Because it is obvious that the millionaire lawyer from Indian Hills, Ohio is a loose cannon.

From the "Cincinnati Enquirer:"

Former congressional candidate Paul Hackett sued the U.S. government Tuesday on behalf of the 26.5 million veterans whose personal information was stolen this month.

snip

The federal lawsuit asks a court to order Veterans Affairs to pay damages of about $1,000 per veteran and to cover the cost of credit monitoring services.


Link:

http://tinyurl.com/o44ka

According to the suit, if they win, each veteran gets $1,000 bucks and Hackett walks away with 30% of the pot. That's about $70 million bucks. Not bad pay for going on tv and shooting your mouth off about Democrats.

not the attorney; Cincinnati lawyer Chris Jenkins filed the suit (read the article I referenced).

I'm no lawyer, but I do believe that in a class action suit an attorney cannot be a class representative and cannot collect attorney fees awarded to the class. Paul Hackett is representing this class.

Where's the link to your post?

Hackett files lawsuit on behalf of veterans....

http://www.wcpo.com/news/2006/local/05/31/vets_idtheft.html

Yep, he's cashing in and whoever wrote the article downplaying his role is trying to spin it.

As a veteran and who's data was on the computer that was stolen I see no problem with Hackett filing the suit. To file the suit he would have had to have "clients" come to him and request legal representation. He can't file the thing on his own. Try getting your facts straight before typing your opinions.

You should also put a disclaimer in these threads that you, as well as Algorem, are extremely biased when it comes to Paul Hackett and are corybantic supporters of Sherrod Brown.

We're being completely fair with Hackett. He's the one who has opened himself up for criticism, as you can see from most of the posters in this thread. He's been given the benefit of the doubt too many times and keeps violating our trust.

Its perfectly logical and reasonable for people in this forum to be offended at Hackett's actions when he regularly criticizes courageous Dem leaders who we support and who are taking the lead in standing up against the Bush administration. Hackett is not winning friends here, he's not helping anyone but himself.

I don't think talking about Hackett really does much good at this point in time. He has completely burned his bridges with the Democratic Party and he is history. I do agree that the VA should be sued over this mess. My SS number, DOB, etc was on that frigging computer that was stolen. I would just as ignore him at this point for his political views. As far as the VA situation, that is an entirely different scenario.

He's suing on behalf of the Vietnam Veterans of America and four other veterans groups for compensation of $1,000 and federally-funded credit monitoring.

The attorney who is representing Hackett and the vets is Chris Jenkins of Mezibov & Jenkins, a Cincinnati law firm.

Here's the entire class-action complaint which was filed in district court:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/05/31/complaint.new.pdf


Where did you get the idea he'd be compensated as the attorney? Where did your figures come from? Do you have a link stating Hackett will make $7 million?

I can "Google" as well as you can and you really should stop expressing your opinion as though it's fact.

Stating that Hackett is going to make millions on this case is untrue.

Why is he intentionally creating all the unecessary division?

It just verified my opinion of Hackett as a right-wing DINO...

It was a despicable performance -- even Ed Schultz couldn't handle it.

not sure if he will support Brown ? what a prick.

This place is a friggin' riot.

...they were rooting for a guy who wasn't really a progressive and was going to damage the chances of a lot of progressive Democrats as he drew the party to the right.

Not supporting the Democratic candidate will only help the Republicans!

What a sore sport,,,

I really would like Hackett to face down Murtha and get his ass handed back to him. It sounds like Hackett wants a gig with Faux Snooze.