Skip to main content

Schultz is steaming-apparently Sherrod Brown's campaign started a whisper campaign saying that Hackett committed war crimes.  Schultz has called on Brown to disavow this.  In other words, the DEMS swift boated Hackett.  He ripped Schumer and Waxman, too.

Paul will be on his show later.

If any of this is true, I'm through with the hell with them!

Originally posted to pelican on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:00 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Eddie is pissed!!!! (4.00)
    Dems for Browm were saying Hackett was involved in war crimes. Henry Waxman was the one telling big donor Dems in California not to give to Hackett. Just yelled about Schumer. Wants Brown to come out and clear things up. He thinks Schumer should resign if this is the way he operates.

    "You cannot successfully run the world on comic book slogans and third rate biblical homilies."...Digby.

    by pelican on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:02:51 PM PST

    •  The Truth Comes Out (none)
      If it was Waxman who was telling people not to give to Hackett and not Reid and Schumer, then a lot of the venom that people have directed against Reid and Schumer is misplaced.  For that matter, venom directed against Waxman is misplaced.  If Waxman supports Brown, why wouldn't he urge donors not to give money to Hackett?

      The complaint about Reid and Schumer is that they had supported Hackett but then undermined him by telling people not to give money to him.  But evidently, that isn't true, if Hackett is saying that it was Waxman and not Reid and Schumer.

    •  Henry Waxman? (none)
      If true, I think that reduces to one word.


      •  ding! ding! (4.00)
        Alright, who had "17 hours" in the betting pool for "how long would it take someone to blame The Jews" for this one?
        •  Like it or not (3.00)
          The influence of AIPAC in the Democratic Party is profound. They can and do intervene quite forcefully when they think that a candidate is insufficiently enthusiastic about their particular version of pro-Israeli policies.
        •  Well I've been blaming Kartina on the Jews. (none)
          You can't really argue the fact that it was the Levy's that failed in NOLA.
          •  heh (none)
            There's not really a number on the current ratings that adequately captures the complexity of my reaction to your comment.  Which leaves me with this:

            A rabbi walks into a bar and he's got a frog on his shoulder.

            The bartender says, "Where'd you get that?"

            And the frog says, "I picked it up in Brooklyn. They're all over the place."

          •  Wish I could laugh (none)
            I've heard the play on words of levee/Levy for a few years now, including one from a Jewish classmate that I thought was really funny.

            But I wouldn't have been quick to make a New Orleans association, just as (despite a taste for offensive humor) I haven't been known to make any 9/11 jokes. Nor any Holocaust jokes. Or Rwanda jokes. It's a long list.

            Those are all circumstances in which innocent people died for no good reason. And it just takes the fun out of the joke and leaves it flat.

        •  Yep (none)
          We may not agree on Lieberman, but this was egregious. Marquer, the door is over there.
          •  Perhaps you would be so good (none)
            As to read my reply to vome immediately below.

            And after having done so, do please feel at liberty to voice exactly what it was that you think was "egregious" about the comment in question.

      •  mah peet'om??!! (none)
        That is a totally anti-Semitic comment.  I'm appalled.

        "Never separate the words you speak from the life you live" - Paul Wellstone

        by vome minnesota on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:50:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Anti-semitic? Sheesh (4.00)
          Let me pose a rhetorical question.

          If it had been reported that Hackett had been pressured to drop out by a hypothetical Michigan Congressman who had extensive ties to the auto unions, and if I had then said, "Guess the UAW didn't like him," would that have been something that instantly raised thorny defensive instincts?

          Would I immediately get accused of being anti-rivethead? Bigoted against wrench turners?

          To me, AIPAC is just one of many interest groups which spend money to try to influence policy and elect friendly candidates. When I notice such an effort being undertaken, I may well comment upon it. Part of the process.

          As for the "anti-semitic" insult, I'll invoke an analogy. A white friend of mine, in early 2004, was in a social gathering of progressive types who were chatting about the primaries. He vocally decried the presence of Al Sharpton in the field of Democratic candidates, saying that he thought Sharpton was a dangerous con man and a bad example (an opinion which I share) and that he hoped that some more reputable and ethical African-American candidates would present themselves under the party banner to replace him.

          Someone got straight in his face and called him a racist.

          My friend replied calmly that if he could not, on highly factual and objective grounds, criticize the conduct of one specific African-American individual, without being accused by extension of hating every black person in existence, then what that indicated to him was the death of the possibility of rational and civil discourse.

          I feel much the same way about being called an anti-semite in this context.

          If Adam had found my comment questionable and had replied by asking "Hey, what did you mean by that? Would you care to amplify?" I would have been pleased to do so.

          Instead he jumped right in and, among other things, stuffed words into my mouth, accusing me of an effort to, quote, "blame The Jews", unquote. The reader may judge how fair that was.

          For my own part, I think that the Jews, as a people, display a high degree of intellectual complexity and philosophical heterogeneity. I have met Jewish atheists, and I have met ardent Lubavitchers. I have known passionate Zionist Jews, and I know other Jews who are vocal dissenters from current Israeli policy. And I would never think of attributing a monolithic view on any subject to, again quoting Adam, "The Jews". His words, not mine, and pretty insulting, inflammatory and inaccurate words they are.

          •  OK, I apologize. (none)
            Please explain to me the connection between Waxman's views on the Ohio Senate race and where AIPAC fits in on that.  I would happily be educated on the matter.

            "Never separate the words you speak from the life you live" - Paul Wellstone

            by vome minnesota on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 02:24:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  But here's the thing (2.50)
            Waxman's not a particularly outspoken congressman when it comes to Israel, and when it comes to PAC contributions, he's getting far more than labor money than anything Israel-related.

            Indeed, if you'd ask most people who follow politics as to whether anyone had undue influence over Waxman, the only answer would be "Hollywood", certainly not AIPAC.  

            Yet you singled how his Jewishness for special attention.  Why?

            •  Thanks, Adam B (none)
              for making the point better than I just did.  Beyond Waxman being a Jew, I'm not sure that he has so much to do with AIPAC -- I guess it just didn't fit with everything else I know about Waxman's politics; most fanatically pro-Israel people I know (i.e. single-issue voters) have, of late, been R in their political persuasion.  

              "Never separate the words you speak from the life you live" - Paul Wellstone

              by vome minnesota on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 02:41:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I'll combine my replies here (none)
              All right, let me propose a thought experiment here. Imagine that this thread had never been posted, and the topic of Waxman's putative involvement in the Brown/Hackett matter had not been raised.

              Let us suppose that someone had asked me, as a reasonably informed observer of California politics and the Democratic Party here, "Hey, who has serious pull with Henry Waxman?"

              I would have said, as a first-pass response, "Uh, the entertainment industry. Because, primarily, it's his hometown business. Just as Big Ag is the hometown business for Pombo in the Central Valley and high-tech is the hometown business for Lofgren in Silicon Valley."

              If they had said, "Who else?" I would have said, "Unions. I think when he got into politics a fairly broad base of different unions from industry and government, but narrower now. Unionized aerospace employment in LA is way down from what it was, for example. Mostly now public sector unions, who are big in the LA Democratic machine, and I think also probably SEIU."

              So if they then had asked, "Why would Waxman -- a House member from Los Angeles -- be interfering with a candidate's donors, in a Senate race in the Midwest, half a continent away, on behalf of either the public sector unions or Hollywood?", that would have been a head-scratcher.

              [Note that I am positing the existence of such interference for the sake of argument here. I'm leaving open the question of whether it existed originally. In my original post, I qualified it with, "if true", and that stands. At this point we have only an allegation by Hackett and Schulz that such interference originated from Waxman.]

              I would have said, "Tell me more about this candidate who says his fundraising got jammed up. Who is he? A privatizer who is hostile to unions? No? Hmmmmm. Known to favor things like bans on explicit entertainment content? No again? Well, that rules out the obvious possibilities."

              And if they pressed me on the point and said, "So if Waxman were to have intervened on behalf of someone, who would it have been?", I would have asked more questions about the candidate who was alleging donor interference.

              Answer: a maverick, loose-cannon type who seems to relish deviating from party orthodoxies and charting an independent course. Most notably in the area of gun control, which he disfavors.

              Okay, I would have said, that's something. But the gun control lobby has more ideological sway than financial muscle (which is part of the reason they get outplayed by the NRA, which does have financial muscle).

              So if it is true that this guy's donors got leaned on to stop, I can only hypothesize that there's a prominent lobby, larger than Sarah Brady, that's afraid that this unpredictable mustang is uncomfortably wide of the party line in their particular area -- or, that is happier with his opponent, who they may find more predictable and reliable -- or both.

              And I would have listed, in no particular order, the environmental bloc, the Israel lobby, the abortion rights advocates, and the defense complex as possibilities. Any or all of whom are known to intervene early in primary cycles.

              So the candidate is a Marine with recent service in Iraq, opposed to this war but pro-military? Probably not the defense contractors (who are, I must remind the reader, solicitous to be sure that their programs have bipartisan backing).

              He's opposed to ANWR drilling and wants tougher clean water standards? Can't see the enviros being upset by that.

              He's definitely pro-choice? NARAL and company aren't likely to have been working the phones behind the scenes.

              So what does that leave us? Israel? Where is this guy on that issue? Has he expressed a strong position of favor? Uh, no. Disfavor? No. Hmmmmmmm. Wildcard.

              How about his primary opponent? Been in the House for a while. Known track record as a pro-Israel vote. Has supported legislation introduced by AIPAC stalwart Tom Lantos (and also supported by Henry Waxman).

              That seems like a pretty fair hypothesis. But does Waxman have a history with AIPAC? Yeah, he's one of their reliable 100% hitters in the House. Has had his way paid to fly in to address them as a keynote speaker.

              Any other confirmations or disconfirmations? Anyone else known to be involved in this alleged donor discouragement? Well, Harry Reid, for one. Uh, well, I can't draw any conclusions from that. Reid is pretty much in the party mainstream on Israel policy, pro-Israel but not fervently so.

              Anyone else reportedly in the loop? Yeah. Chuck Schumer. Ding! That guy is absolutely a generously supported AIPAC ally, going back to well before he was in the Senate.

              So what this really looks like is a case in which AIPAC looked at an important Senate seat, where there was a choice between a reliable friendly vote and one which was possibly less reliable and less friendly. And they opted to have their allies in the Senate (Schumer) and House (Waxman) work the phones to discourage money from going to the wildcard.

              Is that an especially conspiratorial analysis? Is it biased on the face of it? Did I leap instantly to an "anti-Semitic" conclusion with no evidence?

              Or is it just a case of being objective, and saying that particular interest groups do in fact exist, that they have pull with friendly elected representatives who champion their issues, and recognizing that those groups do try to sway intraparty contests in ways which support their specific agenda?

              I'm sure that Waxman has worked quietly behind the scenes of campaign finance on behalf of Hollywood when it comes to things like copyright extension. I'm sure he has spoken to big donors about opposing anti-union candidates, at the behest of his union backers. That's the way that politics works.

    •  how do we know this is true? (none)
      it's easy to spin some backroom-dealing as evil, but where's the evidence?

      You guys are all being so rash.

  •  While it would be in keeping... (none)
    ...with some of what has been done in Brown's name, I would really like to see evidence that he went this far. It's possible that the whispers about the disarray in Hackett's campaign, his fundraising shortfall, his past Republican registration and even his alleged temper, may have come from within Brown's organization.  But this would be going a bit too far. Did Ed cite any sources?
  •  I agree (4.00)
    if the Democrats did this I will never vote again. The Republicans eat shit and the Demorcrats are taking lessons. Paul Hackett is the type leader we need in this country I am pissed.

    Censure my ASS! but impeach Bush!

    by Yankeluh on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:03:33 PM PST

  •  That was the first time I've heard of it (4.00)
    But considering the crap we already know they did, it wouldn't suprise me.

    "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by sgilman on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:04:12 PM PST

    •  I heard rumors (none)
      of this 2 weeks ago at the candidates forum in Columbus.  "Hechuva job Brownie"

      Any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee. John Donne

      by scurrvydog on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:20:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great Guest Lineup Today (4.00)
    • Pursuing the single women's vote.
    • Swiftboaters ads & organization unmasked.
    • Hackett phone-in 3rd hour (2-3 PT, 5-6 ET)

    You're right, Schultz is very hot against the party Dems, he spent much of the first 1/2 hour ranting about the situation.

    BTW I believe his first hour is broadcast on Armed Forces radio.

    He seemed to have a written statement from someone in the party establishment and said very approximately: "For those of you who don't understand, we run a radio show here. Audio culture. I don't read statements. Anyone wants a hearing here, they know the phone number."

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:04:34 PM PST

  •  If it's true, (4.00)
    this changes things. I was kind of ambivalent about the whole thing. But if this is true, fuck Schumer and Reid and the lot of them.

    And if it is true, someone hand Kos a towel. He'll have some egg to wipe off his face.

    Conservatives love America like four-year-old kids love their mommies. -Al Franken

    by leftilicious on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:04:43 PM PST

  •  Brown's entry dryed up Hackett's funding/support (3.75)
    and Hackett was bitter about this since he waited till he felt certain that Brown wouldn't jump in keeping the field clear for him in the primary.

    I don't know anything about a whisper campaign but they didn't need to do that to keep him out of the race.  If Schmidt had knowledge of war crime stuff it would have been used in August.  All Schumer had to do was tell Hackett look Brown is beating you in the polls has ten to one funding over you and the DCCC will drop tens of thousands in your lap to take the OH-2.
    If Hackett refused to acknowledge these realities then he had more ego than Bush

  •  From CNN (4.00)
    "My donor base and host base on both coasts was contacted by elected officials and asked to stop giving," Hackett said. "The original promise to me from Schumer was that I would have no financial concerns. It went from that to Senator Schumer actually working against my ability to raise money."

  •  With all due respect to Schultz (none)
    His show is sometimes entertaining but he follows the fact-checking standards typical of talk-radio, which is no fact-checking at all.  I listened to him yesterday on the Cheney shooting and I felt like I was listening to the story after it had been whispered through the telephone game.
  •  Hackett Interview time set! (none)
    5:30PM today - damnit I'll be on the bus home then!

    Guess I'll have to podcast it then.

    Lincoln Chafee is NO John Chafee - Sheldon Whitehouse for Senate 2006!

    by Scoopster on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:06:01 PM PST

  •  I agree (none)
    If this turns out to be true I will never vote for a Democrat again.
  •  please (4.00)
    lets see some proof instead  of making wild charges.why would brown do something like that and piss off all the democrats. sounds like a rumor planted by rove & company.
  •  Ugh... (none)
    The Democrats need to stop taking lessons from the Republicans, if this is the lesson they pick up. :(

    Hope the Dems clean up their act.

  •  If this is true (none)
    I can't wait to see what sort of spinning instructions Kos receives from his handlers.
  •  Ed Schultz is on FIRE today about this thing (4.00)
    He is mad and agitated today about the way the dem establishment pushed Hackett out. He mentioned the rumors about swift boating of Hackett. Ed is also blasting Henry Waxman for calling people and telling them not to donate to Hackett.

    Paul Hackett is going to be on the show during the last hour i.e. between 5pm and 6pm. You can listen live to his show at:

  •  Schultz Swiftboars Henry Waxman (4.00)
    What a fucking outrage!

    Fuck Ed Schultz for repeating sucn a slander without proof.

    Do you people know who Henry Waxman is? I do not believe that charge for one second.

    This is one of the nastiest things I have ever heard and if it came from Hackett then FUCK HIM!

    Good riddance.  

    The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

    by Armando on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:09:21 PM PST

    •  All Schultz... (4.00)
      All Schultz accused Waxman of, was telling people to  give money to Brown instead of Hackett..honestly there is anything wrong with that.

      My displeasure with this whole affair, is that Dems encouraged Hackett to run, and then turned on Hackett after Brown changed his mind about running.

      •  Hold up (none)
        This diary says otherwise.

        So the big accusation against Waxman is that he supported Brown?

        What a fucking tool Ed Schultz is.

        The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

        by Armando on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:15:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No.. (none)
          the big charge is that some on the Brown campaign started a whisper campaign that Hackett was a war criminal using, picture of Hackett handling dead bodies in Iraq.  Hackett claims that part of his job was the handling of dead bodies in falluja.  
        •  Wrong (none)
          All it says about Waxman is

          Henry Waxman was the one telling big donor Dems in California not to give to Hackett.

          "You cannot successfully run the world on comic book slogans and third rate biblical homilies."...Digby.

          by pelican on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:19:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dude (none)
            Thats the same thing......if you support Brown you would want donors to give to the guy that you support...not the guy running against him.
          •  Your diary? (none)
            The line you wrote is not in it.

            You wrote this:

            Schultz is steaming-apparently Sherrod Brown's campaign started a whisper campaign saying that Hackett committed war crimes.  Schultz has called on Brown to disavow this.  In other words, the DEMS swift boated Hackett.  He ripped Schumer and Waxman, too.

            Excuse me, you wrote a crap diary.

            And Henry Waxman has every fucking rigfht to support Sherrod Brown.

            You think Henry Waxman went out and badmouthed Hackett?

            I don't believe it.

            Do you know who Henry Waxman is? The things he has done?

            The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

            by Armando on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:23:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes (none)
              Does that mean he is a saint.  There are only two politicians in modern times I would not believe it of,  one is President Carter and the other was Senator Wellstone.  
              •  You need to add #3 (none)
                to your list - Henry Waxman.

                The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

                by Armando on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:28:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  please (none)
                  NO ONE gets to power in this country without getting dirty. That's the problem.

                  I am sorry no politician in this country is a saint.

                  "Fuck Voting, why bother, I have no choice. The rich give us two of their pissboys to choose from- you call that choice?" - me WE NEED ELECTION REFORM NOW!!

                  by threecents on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:32:41 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Waxman or not......... (none)
                  ....Brown isn't the winner in this race...........the November vote will bear this out. Brown used his inside leverage to muscle Hackett out of the primary. I am mostly upset that when a politician makes such moves we all get cheated. I would expect an honorable man to stay out of the contest.
                •  I don't agree (none)
                  Now I could see an argument for possibly Rep. Kucinich, you might be able to convince me of Sen. Harkin.  I'm not saying that Waxman is a bad politician.  But in my opinion he is a politician, and politicians do such things as request that their supporters not donote to specific candidates.
            •  oops.. (none)
              He ripped Schumer and Waxman, too.

              Yea Ed ripped on Schumer and Waxman, but Ed didnt implicate Schumer and Waxman in the swiftboating campaign of Hackett.  

              •  Memory lane (none)
                The swiftboating didn't actually SAY John Kerry faked his purple hearts. They just implied it. Bush had nothing to do with the Swiffies, except by insinuation. It is the juxtaposition and the implication that defines shadow campaigns and swiftboating. The whole idea that you call back on what you technically did or did not say despite the clear indications of your speech is the very characteristic that is so vile.

                "If Kaine...can win by 6 points, then it's safe to say this is no longer a red state. Virginia is now a purple state" - Chuck Todd

                by VirginiaBelle on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:30:34 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  to (none)
              this far out from an election, to send out letters to your constitutents and donors to support one guy over another BEFORE the issue was settled and discussed with both men by leadership is BUSHleague.

              "Fuck Voting, why bother, I have no choice. The rich give us two of their pissboys to choose from- you call that choice?" - me WE NEED ELECTION REFORM NOW!!

              by threecents on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:29:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Letters? (none)
                If this is true, surely they exist, because surely Waxman sent one to at least one person who preferred Hackett.
              •  What?!?!? (none)
                That's nuts.

                The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

                by Armando on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:51:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  are we being naive? (none)
                Do politicians do this all the time?  

                In Minnesota, Rod Grams, former Senator who lost after one term in 2000, wanted to run for Senate in 2006, but was muscled out quickly byt TPTB in favor of Mark Kennedy (R-MN06) on the Republican side.

                Kennedy just won re-election by smearing Patty Wetterling, who is a children's advocate after her son Jacob was kidnapped and disappeared in 1989.  She went in for the DFL ticket for the same US Senate seat, and just dropped out.  She's not as outspoken as Hackett, so it's hard to know what machinations went on behind the scene, besides possibly anemic fundraising, that caused her to drop out.

                I'm just saying, we can't ignore that, dysfunctional though at times it is, we can't ignore the realities (read also: shortcomings) of a system that is not built in our favor.  Unfortunately, money and political relationships mean a lot in this system.  Public financing, of course, would diminish some of the political structures' powers.

                Just a thought.

                "Never separate the words you speak from the life you live" - Paul Wellstone

                by vome minnesota on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 02:06:10 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  War Criminal (none)
      Who is claiming that Waxman or others used that charge......

      What is this bullshit.

    •  I just called Waxman's office (4.00)
      The staffer said he's been a long time supporter of Brown, and sent a message out recently to his constituents indicating his support for Brown, in this race.

      Nothing about strong arming Hackett's donors.

      Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

      by bumblebums on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:14:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then WTF (none)
        is Ed Schultz talking about? OF course Waxman supports Brown. They are both quite liberal.

        Supporting Hackett would have been a shocker.

        The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

        by Armando on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:16:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Waxman wouldn't engage is such behavior (none)
          His support for Brown is a non-story, as you say.

          Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

          by bumblebums on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:21:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Aren't we supposed to stay out of primaries?? (none)
          Why is an elected Democrat making calls in a contested primary?
          •  Are you kidding? (none)
            Elected officials pick sides all the time.

            Did you miss the Presidential primaries?

            The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

            by Armando on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:26:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Doesn't make it right. (none)
              It was wrong when Gore did it.  I think we should stay out of contested primaries.  Just my opinion.
              •  So Henry Cuellar (none)
                has a beef?

                The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

                by Armando on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 02:00:33 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  I don't agree. (none)
                Everyone who wants to speak should, and can/should take advantage of whatever platform given.  Otherwise you are making the same complaint p.o.'ed Pfizer drug reps made when they were mad The Boss didn't support their choice of fuhrer.

                This is politics, really.

                My brother in law is Chief of Staff to one of the Massachusetts state house leaders (not sure if house or senate).  He talked about the realities of a political vote for leadership, and how his former boss, another congresswoman, supported the party that lost.  She, in turn, lost some power as she politically "lost face."  Doesn't mean she's bad or wrong, but clearly there's a lot more about positioning in politics than we'd like there to be.  It'd be better if they would just do what's right, but unfortunately there's a fairly large number of pissing contests that go into all sorts of decision-making.

                "Never separate the words you speak from the life you live" - Paul Wellstone

                by vome minnesota on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 02:13:19 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  He said something about Henry Waxman (none)
    of all people, supposedly encouraging Hackett's donors to withdraw support. I have difficulty believing this.

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:10:09 PM PST

  •  Beware of Dirty Tricks!! (none)
    Hackett could be dead right about the whisper campaign but it could easily have been a dirty trick. Those of us over 50 you've lived what I mean.

    Even if it came from one of the Dem offices it could  be from a poser.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:11:57 PM PST

  •  This is a swiftboat diary (3.00)
    Saying nasty things about Brown without an ounce of proof as well as of WAXMAN? Has everyone lost their minds? WAXMAN? And you accept it without question?


    "If Kaine...can win by 6 points, then it's safe to say this is no longer a red state. Virginia is now a purple state" - Chuck Todd

    by VirginiaBelle on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:13:00 PM PST

    •  But too typical (none)
      of dKos these days.

      "I was Rambo in the disco. I was shootin' to the beat. When they burned me in effigy. My vacation was complete." Neil Young. Mideast Vacation.

      by Mike S on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:24:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, it's reporting what Ed Shulz said (none)
      I don't see anyone here accepting it without question. I myself am not a big Ed fan for this reason.

      I don't believe Waxman is involved in any of this; that seems out of character.

      But if it turns out to be true - any of it - it would suck.

  •  The Rumor (4.00)
    I've been hearing about this rumor for months now. The story is that there's a picture circulating around of Hackett playing soccer in Iraq with a human head. (The story is a lie, BTW) Apparently it was being whispered around to Democrat county leaders around the state.

    This puts anything that the Republicans did to shame.

    Republican Swiftboating: He wasn't a combat vet. He wasn't the first Iraqi vet running for Congress.
    Democrat Swiftboating: He was a war criminal. There are pics of him playing soccer with a human head.

    Who knows who was spreading it. Since it was so well targetted I doubt that it was a Republican dirty trick.

    Welcome to Ohio! So much to discover.

  •  Snap! (none)
    He's not having any of it from "win at all costs" Brown supporters.
    •  Do you know Sherrod Brown's record???? (none)
      And that means nothing?

      "If Kaine...can win by 6 points, then it's safe to say this is no longer a red state. Virginia is now a purple state" - Chuck Todd

      by VirginiaBelle on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:18:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (none)
        he makes a great Representative for the 13 district.  Where he has been fine for a looooong time until Hackett got in.
        •  Well, that's respectful (none)
          I fail to see how being consistently disrespectful and rumor-mongering without evidence a truly progressive candidate whose main fault is in being a better fundraiser makes your cause worthy of respect.

          "If Kaine...can win by 6 points, then it's safe to say this is no longer a red state. Virginia is now a purple state" - Chuck Todd

          by VirginiaBelle on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:24:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  hmmm (none)
        i fail to see how Brown's record has anything to do with this. as far as i can tell this is about backroom wheeling and dealing, good-ol-boy club politics.

        Brown is probably a great guy and a great candidate but that isn't really the issue.

        •  however (none)
          that being said, i do consider my frustration with this event to be a bit naive. the old adage about seeing sausage made comes to mind.
        •  No, this is fucking pragmatic (none)
          Brown's fundraising was well ahead, and his house seat will stay blue.

          Hackett had a chance at a House seat pick-up and hadn't impressed with his ability to raise the necessary money to run a statewide campaign in a must win year. (And this was prior to the alleged strongarming of donors in the last quarter of 2005).

          It's a no-brainer. You try and increase your Democratic representation. Hackett should run for the House seat.

          "If Kaine...can win by 6 points, then it's safe to say this is no longer a red state. Virginia is now a purple state" - Chuck Todd

          by VirginiaBelle on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:35:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Huh? (none)
            The last quarter in 05 was the only quarter. The power plays on cutting off donors was going on from the beginning. The Hill was the first to break that story.
            •  Where? (none)
              Please tell me where because I have read every article that turned up in a search of Hackett's name, and I see no such story.

              "If Kaine...can win by 6 points, then it's safe to say this is no longer a red state. Virginia is now a purple state" - Chuck Todd

              by VirginiaBelle on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:45:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sorry, Roll Call (none)
                Dec 15: Outsider Hackett Faces Insider Tactic

                Meanwhile, rumors have been swirling around Washington that Brown and his surrogates are employing hard-nose tactics with donors and consultants in an effort to make the race more difficult for Hackett - charges that Brown loyalists vehemently deny.

                Elmendorf said that Brown had too much else to focus on to begin engaging Hackett now.

                "Sherrod has to raise a lot of money and show that he can put together the best campaign to beat Mike DeWine and that's what he's doing." Elmendorf said. "They're not really sitting around worrying about Paul Hackett."

                He added that the best way to neutralize a primary opponent isn't through bullying tactics, but by tending to the campaign fundamentals.

                "I think the way to avoid a primary is to put together the strongest campaign possible and you may not be able to avoid a primary, but if you can it's by showing political strength and financial strength and message strength," he said. "That's what you got to do and that's what we're working on."

                Since I know the name of at least one big time donar, I can confirm the story.

                •  But that's a different charge (none)
                  For BROWN to discourage people from donating to Hackett is understandable and above board, and if hard-nosed, is expected.

                  For the DSCC to do so is not okay.

                  To conflate the two as the same thing is not cool.

                  "If Kaine...can win by 6 points, then it's safe to say this is no longer a red state. Virginia is now a purple state" - Chuck Todd

                  by VirginiaBelle on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:58:16 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Actually (none)
            The fundraising was tied last quarter, which was hurting Brown in the news (Inside playa can't beat newcomer). He was ahead in cash on hand, because he lad larded up for years cowering in his safe district, rather than risk a statewide campaign. It wasn't until Noe made the Reps vulernable that Sherrod suddenly discovered a statewide race he wanted, and even then he dithered.
  •  DAMN (none)
    Eddie went off on that Brown woman.


  •  this (none)
    this is what happens when the old guard becomes a little frightened of the new blood and makes a small power grab back. Party begins to infight and implode. The status quo really doesn't want change, they just want their cushy fucking jobs.

     well fuck them.

    "Fuck Voting, why bother, I have no choice. The rich give us two of their pissboys to choose from- you call that choice?" - me WE NEED ELECTION REFORM NOW!!

    by threecents on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:24:36 PM PST

  •  That said, (none)
    I won't believe a word of this until it is proven.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

  •  Third Party (none)
    Dems are pissed and repubs are pissed.  A third party would catch on like fire right about now.
  •  I live in OH-1 (none)
    First, I haven't heard any rumors about Hackett and war crimes. I've been attending the local Democratic club meeting with my wife for the past couple of months and I've heard absolutely zilch in the way of negativism about Hackett except for the oft-repeated opinion that he tends to be a loose canon.

    Second, Hackett does have a pretty good temper. I've witnessed it in the comments he's posted here and I've heard it in interviews. He says what's on his mind and damn the torpedos. His campaign, in my mind, comes off as a pissed off ex-marine version of Mr. Smith goes to Washington.

    Consequently, I'm not really surprised to see Hackett drop out. I've been wondering how long he would manage to keep taking the politics that surrounds political offices without his head exploding. If he can't deal with power brokers putting pressure on large spenders not to donate, I can't imagine how he'd be able to handle the pressure that would certainly be brought to bear in a senate campaign.

    IMO, I think what he ought to have done is to have made good on his implied promise to go back to Iraq for another tour of duty and then come back and run for office again.

    •  The problem (none)
      From what I understand talking to him it wasn't the hardball tactics but the fact that the people doing the hardball tactics were the very people who begged him to get into the race and promised to support him financially.
      •  Dude, that's politics (none)
        Like I said, I can see why it may have pissed off Hackett, but that's the way the game is run. Plus, from what I understand those same people are still encouraging Hackett to run, for OH-2 again.

        I think that this whole scenario highlights a certain amount of inflexibility on Hackett's part. This inflexibility was hinted at during his OH-2 run, but I think it's coming out far stronger here.

        What the party is doing to Hackett is no different than what Hackett is doing to the Marines. He said numerous times that he was running for OH-2 because he thought his country needed him and that if he lost, he'd probably re-up for another tour. He lost. He didn't re-up. Granted, he didn't say definitively that he'd re-up, only that he'd probably re-up. I don't think that this is any different in kind than what some of the behind-the-scenes types are doing with Hackett.

        I do really wish Hackett would have re-upped. When he came back, I think he would have been almost unstoppable in another bid for OH-2. As it is, I don't think that there are any strong Democratic contenders for the district and Mean Jean is likely to get another two years. Hackett could have come back from a second tour in Iraq and positively dominated a rematch.

    •  Exactly (none)
      WHO has been spreading these rumors? I take Hackett at his word that the rumors are out there. But it sure as hell ain't no Democrats spreading it. I guarantee you it's the fucking Republicans.
      •  Having listened to Hackett on the radio ... (none)
        ... I'm softening my view a bit.

        First, he isn't the one making a big deal out of the rumors. He hasn't heard any of these rumors being passed, but he has heard  from other people who have heard the rumors.

        Second, the real money he's bowing out is that he hasn't been able to raise enough cash to see the campaign is through. While he may be upset that party establishment is leaning on some donors, he's being realistic and bowing up with class. He spent his whole time on the Ed Schultz show being very pragmatic. I was pretty impressed. He sounded very unlike the Hackett I heard last year in some respects.

        I do hope he runs again. It almost certainly won't be in 06 if it does happen.

  •  Falluja (none)
    Sadly, I wondered how long it would take someone to start questioning Hackett's involvement in Iraq, especially Falluja.  It makes me fear for the other Fighting Democrats.

    This isn't rocket surgery

  •  excellent point by caller (none)
    public campaign financing is the only solution.
  •  Sounds like a Karl Rove blacl ops special to me. (none)
    Remember when Pat Buchanan sent out letters on stationery stolen from the Democratic campaign of Edmund Muskie accusing Muskie's Democratic rivals Hubert Humphrey and Henry Jackson of sexual improprieties? I'd like to see some goddamn iron-clad proof that any Democrat was spreading this around before I believe it. Ths sounds like the perfect Karl Rove maneuver to me. Spread nasty rumors about Paul Hackett, a veteran, and make it look like the Brown campaign was doing it. That's the best of both worlds for Rove! Now you have not only Paul Hackett going apeshit about it, but Ed Schulz too. Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Liddy Dole, and Karl Rove must be having multiple orgasms right now.
    •  Agreed, but (none)
      The Rovians are good at getting the ball rolling only to see fellow Dems keep it going. Saw a LOT of this directed against Dean and then Clark in 2003-04.
      •  This is like the Kerry intern affair smear. (none)
        It stinks. And until the people here wise up, thjey are going to get taken again and again on this shit. Somebody needs to reach out to Paul hackett and make amends with him. He's been played for a fool, and that ought to piss him off more than anything.
  •  Thisnk about this, folks. (none)
    Why would the Democrats, let a,lone a high level Brown operative like Dan Lucas, go around spreading rumors about Paul hackett and war crimes? It makes no Goddamn sense. By all accounts, they all wanted Hackett to merely drop out of the Senate race, and then run against Jean Schmidt again. Swift Boating the guy is the last thing a savvy political operative would do under these circumstances. As I said earlier, this stinks like a Karl Rove turd bomb to me. The man is reknowned for dirty tricks like this. So, somebody better goddamn produce solid proof that a Democrat was spreading this around. Or I am going to chalk it all up to a dirty tricks operation by Rove. Jesus, people. Hasn't the past 5 years taught you anything? How fucking gullible are you?
  •  Hacket was never involved in combat. (none)
    Not directly. He was under fire in convoys, yes. But he never particpated in any direct combat operations. He was a Civil Affairs officer! So when could he have fucking committed a war crime?
    •  Abu Ghrab (none)
      The MPs that committed war crimes at Abu Ghrab weren't in combat.   I do not think Paul Hackett committed war crimes - I'm just responding to your question.

      This isn't rocket surgery

      •  Yes. But they were prison guards. (none)
        Paul Hackett was a Marine Civil Affairs officer. The absolute LAST person in Iraq who would committ any kind of war crime. This story is bullshit. And the claim that Brown's people were the ones spreading it, absent good solid evidence is bullshit too. This has Karl Rove/Ken Mehlman written all over it.
        •  You're Right - And... (none)
          The broader point is that anyone in a combat zone can commit a war crime.  Add that Hackett was involved in the Falluja and this will certainly raise someone's eyebrow.  Again - I do not believe Hackett did anything wrong.  I am simply pointing out that the opportunity is there for someone that wants to make an issue out of a non-issue.

          My knowledge on this subject comes from 22 years active duty (1981-2004).  

          This isn't rocket surgery

    •  Hackett was a military spokesperson during (none)
      Fallujah Nov 2004 , and he was filmed in a number of contemporaneous independent/european documentaries giving the official US military spin regarding the US tactics (white phosphorus use, leveling of large portions of the city, hidden civilian casualties, kill zones, denial of medical personnel  access, etc), to  journalists.

      Those films are out there. I have seen at least one where Hackett was id'ed by name and rank as he was telling journalist on video why doctors and humanitarian workers were refused admittance to FAllujah after the city had been 'passivated'.  

      •  This isn't a Democaric insider hit, then. (none)
        This is a leftwing anti-Iraq war fucktard hit. Hackett was a spokesperson. He wasn't the guy dropping the white phosperous. And how did you "see" these?
        •  It was a legitimate foreign video documentary (none)
          (British or Dutch produced iirc, and in english) on the aftermath and civilian toll of the  Fallujah operation lasting perhaps 45 minutes in length,  that was pretty widely shown on the internet several months back. The segment with Hackett in it lasted perhaps a minute or so, and he was clearly acting in an official capacity at the time as a civil affairs/media liason officer running interference with journalists and locals to keep them from reentering the city following the destruction of most of the city.

          Has Hackett ever publically addressed the issue of Fallujah? If not, he should clearly state his view of the matter so that others, will not frame/mis-frame it for him.


          •  I read about that. (none)
            Hackett's only appearance in that video is to explain why people going into Fallujah had to be fingerprinted and ID'd to seperate insurgents from non-combatants. That's all it was. If that's the video people are referring to, I stand by my "this is all bullshit" claim emphatically.
  •  This is Absurd (none)
    The assertion that Brown's people started this rumor is beyond ridiculous.  Why would he ever do such a thing?  Brown was at all times in a position of total strength while Hackett's campaign was floundering badly.  Brown would have to be deranged or lacking sensibilities altogether to do such a horribly stupid thing.

    To the extent this rumor exists, it is Republican shenanigans and it appears that Schultz along with many here are taking the bait.

  •  Hackett on right now n/t (none)
  •  Hackett (none)
    on now

    Fight. Just Fight. Fight until you feel you have nothing left. Then fight some more.

    by EMKennedyLucio on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 02:33:53 PM PST

  •  Hackett says.... (none)
    ...."Yes on Waxman"
    ....."Yes on Schumer"
  •  Rumors (none)
    are just that--rumors.  To put my two cents in, it sounds more like a Rovian ploy than anything else.  But that's not the issue.

    Senate Dems. set Hackett up and then knocked him down.  Why?  Fearful of change.  Hackett's poll numbers were ahead of DeWine despite Paul's small war chest.

    This was an inside power grab and it's shameful.

  •  thanks to those that gave this a 4 (none)
    let's hope Hackett re-enters the congressional race and Schumer gets his head examined about the clearing the primary field stupidity

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site