Skip to main content

View Diary: DCCC post-mortem ignores Hackett war stance (312 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Where did I say I wanted to ... (none)
    "limit discussion?"I didn't say anything about "discussions" at all. Nor did I say anything about veterans of other wars. All I am saying is that Hackett had more credibility to accuse Bush on the Iraq war since he had just returned from fighting it. You apprear to have read my comment carelessly.
    •  No, I didn't (none)
      I merely am reading it logically. If I make a broad statement that veterans of war on the Democratic side have lost in Republican districts before, and your response back that Hackett is different as a veteran running in a Republican district- then it must be something special about the type of veteran that Hackett represents because you have claimed his status as a veteran as the basis for your argument. What's special about him as a veteran that would make him more likely to win as a veteran? There is only one conclusion that would make sense- that is that you were arguing from the position that he's a veteran of the Iraqi war. That's really the only distinction you could make. Otherwise, your argument about veterans falls a part.  
      •  Dude, YOU responded to my post (none)
        .... not the other way around. All I can say is WTF -- can't you read? I don't HAVE an argument about veterans in general, so it can't "fall apart"

        Read slowly: I said he has more credibility regarding criticizing Bush about Iraq than the average dem candidate because he just got back from fighting in Iraq.

        This isn't rocket science, dude.

        •  whether i responded to your post or not (none)
          is irrelevant to whether or not your argument is logical. You and several others have stated that it was Hacketts veteran status that changed voting patterns of the REpublicans. I am challenging your assumption by bringing up the electoral landscape of voters in the US, and specifcally Republicans for the last few decades, especially in places like OH2. Hence my challenge to the idea of Hacket's veteran status when we know from people who have served in other wars, that it has not mattered. Why here? Why now? Your question doesn't answer these questions. It just makes assumptions.

          Rather than proving your assumptions, you want to restate the conclusion when challenged to offer up proof (where are your poll numbers?). Neither you nor anyone else offering up Iraqi veteran status has those numbers. As the last sentence of your own post states- you think its because he's a veteran of Iraq which is why I asked you whether you think there is something special about his Iraqi veteran status. Not a veteran in general. Because if it were being a veteran in general Kerry would be President now, not Bush.

          Why would people changed their voting pattern over veteran status alone? You seem to be claiming that because they took specifically his Iraqi veteran status into consideration. My point to you was that generally veteran status has not mattered to Republicans in the past when choosing up someone unless they were already on the Republican team. They choose a draft dodging Bush over a veteran Kerry. They defeated a veteran in Cleland. They have put down, including the rank and file, veterans who have come back from the Iraqi war who attacked what the administration was doing, which is why I referenced Op Truth.  Again, you came back offering up his Iraqi veteran status as the reasoning for why Hackett was innoculated from the same criticism as any other Democrat. I believe you are wrong. I've logically followed whether your statements fits the voting patterns of Republicans in the past. They didn't care about veteran status in the past so why would they care now? I am repeating myself to emphasize this last question.

          My point to you is that OH2 voting patterns changed for something more than Hackett's veteran status. That their psychology for looking at the situation must have become open to Hackett had to say. He was attacking the very person that they just go through electing 9 months ago. People, especially idealogues and strong partisans such as you might find in OH2, don't change life long voting habits based on one thing such as veteran status, even if it is the war in which are currently engaged. Especially, when those same people confirmed their voting patterns only 9 months ago.  

          The veteran status made it easier, but it certainly doesn't explain why hardcore Republicans would change prior pattern and vote for a veteran who is Demcratic. They didn't do it inthe past. Which is why I wanted you to think through whether your point made logical sense in the full context. Again, just following the logic of your post. A lot of your response back, feels like I said a conventional wisdom type analysis. Not backed up with anything other than what people have been saying here and else where. What's the backup for the position other than you thought it up?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site