Skip to main content

View Diary: OH-02: Grassroots-Produced Commercial Running (88 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fair points (none)
    And I'd be lumped in the same ideological category as you, I'd gather. But in all honesty, I didn't take offense to the comment because (here come the lashings) I think it may be true.

    Hang on. Let me explain.

    There are a number of liberals out there -- I don't know what that number is, but I know it's greater than one -- who would like to see Bush's policies (or mind-blowingly lack thereof) continue to fail in Iraq for political purposes. If Iraq is a disaster zone in late October 2006, that's bad mojo for Repugs come midterms. For some liberals, that's more important than our troops succeeding over there.

    Hey, I don't like it either. But I know it's true. I spend enough time on this site to know there are community members in this very forum who feel this way. Fortunately for all of us, those people are in the distinct and extreme minority.

    When Hackett says "too many liberals" think this way, I agree. In my opinion, if one liberal wants to see Iraq worsen in order for Dems to reap political gain, that's one too many. The lives of our soldiers are worth more than that, as you clearly agree.

    He's not saying all liberals or the majority of liberals. I'd take issue with those comments. But too many liberals doesn't bug me that much.

    But hey, maybe I'm just a slut for semantics.

    Spare the poor people of Crawford, Texas. Send Bush a one-way ticket to the moon instead.

    by JacksonBlogs on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 07:14:19 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I believe there is only a very small (none)
      minority who wants to see iraq fail  mostly because I think most liberals who disagree with the war don't think we should be over there in the first place. It's not they enjoy the misery. I think they just think it's vindication for their position. It's like having discussions about how can one simultaneously support the troops and not support the war. I think a lot of moderates fall into the trap of assuming that the "I told you so" element of this is about wanting things to go badly as  much as it is frustration at this was all predictable from the start. I personally believe it was predictable, but not just because the war is wrong, but because of the way the neocons executed it with their theory of the number of troop deployment on down to not stabilizing the country immediately after the inniatial fall of bagdad.
      •  I agree (none)
        I too think it's a small minority. But I still think those people exist. They're out there, and they think anything that blows up in Bush's face is good for their political desires. And they're right about that, too.

        I just think reasonable people realize that the lives of soldiers are more important than political gain. That's why, thank goodness, it's a small minority.

        Hackett could have probably stated it better, and he definitely could have made the same statement without throwing in the word "liberals" -- what, you can't say "some people" or "some radicals"? -- but I don't take much issue with it. He's running in an area where, if I'm not mistaken, they shoot liberals, stuff them, mount them in natural positions, and display them prominently in game rooms across the district.

        Spare the poor people of Crawford, Texas. Send Bush a one-way ticket to the moon instead.

        by JacksonBlogs on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 07:33:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well i am less forgiving of the statement (none)
          because as you said there were other approaches. If for no other reasons, Democrats need to learn how to not play into the Republican triangulation game, and learn how to become better at political messaging. I can already see his opponent calling him a liberal, and then him, Hackett trying to run from that, and then getting off the topic of what he is running for because people will be making all sorts of judgements about him. He will be placed in a defensive position merely because he didn't think about the messaging. I frankly think there should be a 6 month boot camp for any one wanting to run on the Democratic ticket, or think tanks like their are for Republican talking heads and politicans so that these sorts of strategic mistakes can be avoided.
    •  you're absolutely right...partly (none)
      by the same logic, I could say that

      too many Marines commit war crimes.
      too many Marines kill innocent children.
      too many Marines torture their prisoners.
      too many Marines shoot unarmed civilians.
      too many Marines hate their country.
      too many Marines want to see the war in Iraq fail.
      too many Marines want to kill every Iraqi.
      too many Marines think Iraqis are the scum of the Earth.
      too many Marines support al Qaeda.

      As long as there is ONE person in the Marines who does or believes in any of these things (and there are), I would consider the corresponding statements above to be true. But I wouldn't use them, because a statement like that unfairly generalizes people.

      •  So say it (none)
        Like you said, it wouldn't be false. And like you said, it does unfairly generalize people.

        However, there are certainly more accurate and appropriate ways of phrasing it, and you'll sound a bit like an oddball for saying it that way (just like Hackett probably does for making his point the way he did).

        Look, I wish he didn't use the word "liberal." But I'd also like to win a fucking election from time to time so our side can positively change the world instead of wandering around the wilderness asking for apologies every time some Republican says something that hurts our feelings. (Are you reading this, Sen. Durbin?) And if using that sort of language energizes his district, I'm fine with it.

        I'm lucky. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. Our Democratic candidates don't talk like that. They don't need to.

        Spare the poor people of Crawford, Texas. Send Bush a one-way ticket to the moon instead.

        by JacksonBlogs on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 07:41:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Logically speaking (none)
          the way the person just set up the phrasing perfectly illustrate the problem with what Hackett said. Look, I support this dude and his efforts. Don't get me wrong. But, this knee jerk support that's not asking him to think about his messagine, and let Paul be Paul is how Democrats lose against Republicans all the time. Politics is as much about discipline as it is anything else. The reason Bush kicked Kerry's ass a lot last year was that Bush was very disciplined. He controlled precisely his rhectoric. The result was a lousy debate, but in terms of framing the issues the way bush wanted' it was perfect. You have a very limited amoutn of time. You don't want to be pissing off your base, and telling them or explainging to them what you meant. You need to be focusing in on the opponent and zeroing in on her. You also don't want to be explaining that you meant one thing when you said anohter. It's just bad in terms of perception because of the reasons that this person stated.
          •  Well stated (none)
            I still don't take offense to what Hackett said, but I agree with your argument. Turning off one's base -- even if, as I would suspect, it's a teeny little base there in Ohio -- certainly is not the key to electoral success.

            Spare the poor people of Crawford, Texas. Send Bush a one-way ticket to the moon instead.

            by JacksonBlogs on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 07:51:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  60/40 (none)
              That's what I heard it went Bush. He needs to gain 10 plus 1. That 10 plus 1 ain't going to help if he pisses off the 40 in an off election year where the turn out will almost certainly be low. especially, where there is zero reason to have put it the way he did. that's why discipline is needed- it comes down to the numerical fundamentals in a closely divided country.
        •  Democrats The Other War Party (none)
          If you would like to win a fucking election from time to time maybe you should consider supporting a candidate that has a fucking message that would inspire people instead of one who parrots Bush, Lieberman, Clinton and now DFA...namely, stay in Iraq until we get the job done.  

          This guy volunteered to go help destroy Fallujah.  
          Am I missing something here?

          Disgusted in Bucks County, Pa.

          Jeanne Doyle

          •  No, he volunteered to serve in (none)
            the US Military and his unit was ordered to assault Falujah.

            We should never put the blame for Iraq on the soldiers but instead where it belongs - the neocons and the Bushies.  

            ownership society - you are on your own

            by Sam I Am on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 11:49:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site