Skip to main content

Hear me out on this. Make sure you read the entire diary before flying off the handle in a rage. It is extrenmely important. While I level some criticism at Paul Hackett, my true target is none other than the master manipulator and dirty campaign artist: Karl Rove.

I believe it is Karl Rove, not Sherrod Brown, who is behind the Swift Boating of Paul Hackett. So, let me make my case.

Over the past couple of days, I have been in a simmering rage over the vengeful ego Paul Hackett is displaying.

When he first left the Ohio Senate race, I was very sympathetic to him. I had been a strong supporter of his from the beginnig.

At the outset, Hackett seemed to handle the situation with class. Then, he started lashing out. Vaguely, at first. But eventually, he started a full-scale scorched Earth campaign against Sherrod Brown.

First, he either authorized or acquiesced in dumping his opposition research on Brown to the press.

Now, he is shouting to the media that people in the Brown campaign were Swift Boating him -- claiming that Hackett mishandled body parts in Iraq, and that photos of it exist.

Whatever the truth of that charge is, Hackett is deliberately sabotaging Brown's Senatorial campaign. But, more importantly, he is jeapardizing the prospects the Democrats have for retaking the Senate!

But I have no interest in starting a netroots flame war over this. It has been hashed over, and people are sick of that.

No, the prupose of my diary today is to make people step back and think about who the real culprit in all of this is.

I know people are angry and the Washington Democrats and the Brown campaign. And tat anger is understandible. But who stands the most to gain by spreading Swift Boat rumors about Paul Hackett? And who has the MOTIVE to do it?

I submit to you that it isn't Chuck Schumer or Sherrod Brown.

As you recall, the original charge levelled by Hackett was that Democratic insiders were putting pressure on Hackett's donors to get him to quit the Senate race. The purpose of this wasn't to screw over Paul Hackett. It was to get him to run for the 2nd Ohio Congressional seat against Jean Schmitt again.

Do I endorse those tactics? Of course not! I think they should have left well-enough alone and let Paul battle it out with Brown on his own terms.

None-the-less, the motivation for pushing Hackett out of the Senate primary was to get him to run for Congress! So Swift Boating him would have been a ridiculous and stupid thing to do. Why would the Democrats, including Sherrod Brown, engage in that kind of thing when they were trying to get him to run for the House?!? It makes absolutely no sense.

But, there is somebody who benefits from the rumors and the discord it sowed among the Democratic base. That person is Mike DeWine.

Now, I don't think DeWine has the testicles to do this on his own. Somebody who is desperate to retain control of the Senate for the GOP pulled this. And the number one suspect on EVERYONE'S list should be none other than Bush's Brain: Karl Rove!

Just today there is a story in the Cleveland Plain Dealer that Rove is plannig a massive slime campaign in the State of Ohio. A prospect Brown himself has aknowledged:

Ohio Democratic Senate candidate Sherrod Brown says he's heard from "all kinds of people in Washington" that President Bush's political mastermind, Karl Rove, "is going to unleash all his attack dogs in Ohio this year."

The congressman from Avon says he's not sure what that would entail, "but I can guess it is not going to be pleasant."

Republicans don't deny it. White House spokesman Allen Abney declined comment on Rove's possible role in upcoming Ohio elections, while Republican National Committee spokesman Aaron McLear accused Brown of making accusations to distract voters from his "out-of-the-mainstream" voting record.

It wouldn't be a stretch for Rove's chief deputy, Barry Jackson, to focus on upcoming Ohio elections. Jackson, former chief of staff to newly minted House Majority Leader John Boehner, is an expert on Ohio politics, as well as an architect of the 1994 "Contract with America" that helped Republicans win control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Moreover, Rove has a history of exactly these kinds of dirty campaign tactics.

A typical instance occurred in the hard-fought 1996 race for a seat on the Alabama Supreme Court between Rove's client, Harold See, then a University of Alabama law professor, and the Democratic incumbent, Kenneth Ingram. According to someone who worked for him, Rove, dissatisfied with the campaign's progress, had flyers printed up--absent any trace of who was behind them--viciously attacking See and his family. "We were trying to craft a message to reach some of the blue-collar, lower-middle-class people," the staffer says. "You'd roll it up, put a rubber band around it, and paperboy it at houses late at night. I was told, 'Do not hand it to anybody, do not tell anybody who you're with, and if you can, borrow a car that doesn't have your tags.' So I borrowed a buddy's car [and drove] down the middle of the street ... I had Hefty bags stuffed full of these rolled-up pamphlets, and I'd cruise the designated neighborhoods, throwing these things out with both hands and literally driving with my knees." The ploy left Rove's opponent at a loss. Ingram's staff realized that it would be fruitless to try to persuade the public that the See campaign was attacking its own candidate in order "to create a backlash against the Democrat," as Joe Perkins, who worked for Ingram, put it to me. Presumably the public would believe that Democrats were spreading terrible rumors about See and his family. "They just beat you down to your knees," Ingram said of being on the receiving end of Rove's attacks. See won the race.

And, do I have to mention the whole Swift Boat Liars for Bush and the Sinclair Broadcasting attacks on John Kerry in 2004? Or the attacks on John McCain in the 2000 GOP Presidential primaries?


It would not surprise me if there are a few campaign infiltrators in the Brown camp spreading this rumor around. Or Rove operatives making the charges, and then claiming they "heard it from the Brown campaign," or from a member of Brown's staff.

I know Hackett backers will probably be skeptical of this. After all, their guy is specifically fingering Brown's campaign. But, I think there is more to it than meets the eye.

As I said, I think it made ZERO sense for the Democrats or even brown to Swift Boat Hackett. They wanted him to run for Congres? Why would they trash him under those circumstances?

But, it suits Karl Rove's purposes perfectly. It damages both Hackett AND Sherrod Brown in Ohio, enhances DeWine's chances, and makes the Democratic party look like complete shmucks.

So, every time a Hackett supporter out there withholds support for Sherrod Brown, or trashes the Democratic party, Karl Rove is throwing a party.

Therefore, re-focus your anger at the CORRECT target.

Sherrod Brown is a good progressive Democrat who believes in all the things we hold dear.

If Paul can't "hack-it," and see that he's been punked, then maybe he wasn't cut out for elective office after all? On the other hand, maybe Paul Hackett will realize that he's been punked by the GOP slime machine, and re-direct his anger at the man behind all of this: Karl Rove.

I suggest that a high-level group of Democratic veterans, such as Max Cleland and Wesley Clark approach Paul about this, be peace makers, and talk some sense to him. Get him to focus on the good of the country, which is to defeat the GOP machine, and establish true checks and balances in our Government again.

He and Sherrod Brown absolutely MUST bury the hatchet and make amends. If John McCain could do it with George W. Bush, when he was savaged even more disgustingly, then Paul Hackett can do it for the good of the country.

Remember that you are a Marine, Paul. Put your country ahead of your personal issues. You have done it before. You can do it again.

And, most importantly, are you going to let those sons of bitches, Karl Rove and George W. Bush, win?


An example of how this might have worked is the "John Kerry slept with an intern" rumor that came out during the 2004 Presidential primary.

If you recall, the rumor originated with one of the "interns" friends, who also happened to be a GOP hack. Alexandra Polier refuted the whole fiasco, eventually. But even such folks as Bush cousin John Ellis discounted the rumor.

This "friend" was going around to the press corps with the rumor, and it got picked up by Chris Lehane who was working for the Wesley Clark campaign.

Then Drudge pinned it all on Lehane as the source.

Notably, John Kerry took the high road about it, and didn't go after Clark.

The point is, it is very easy to srart rumors like this. Perhaps a Rove operative said something to a friendly member of the press? Maybe that person told someone in the Brown campaign?

Then the Brown people begin to say things like: "Holy crap! The GOP are going to kill Hackett on ths stuff." Or "Is this true? We better be careful!"

Next thing you know these discussions get back to Hackett and he thinks Sherrod Brown is Swift Boating him.

See how this goes?

And, as one commenter ponted out, Drudge tried to finger Harry Reid. When, in fact, all he did was ask Paul about the RUMORS! The Democrats are so paranoid of being attacked and Swift Boated that just getting this rumor out into the political bloodstream is enough to panic them, and cause things like this to occur.

Hackett should understand this.

Originally posted to Hesiod on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 07:09 AM 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

  •  Old vs. New (2.25)
    Most of what you say hear hinges on what Brown heard from Washington insiders. How is that more credible than what Hackett heard directly from Democrat insiders locally in Ohio?

    This is a fight that I hope will divide the party. That isn't good to say, but it is time for the old guard (those losing the house) to be challenged. Pushing Hackett out of the race cannot be forgiven, period. He was a stealth candidate representing a new hope, but he was in fact swift boated by calls to donors from Democrat leadership. How is that democracy?

    I don't think Brown deserves the post just because he wears a "D" on his chest. I honestly hope he loses. You cannot learn a lesson if there is no pain. The party needs to learn a lesson in this case and they should not be rewarded for their losing tactic.

    Dean vs. Kerry, stupid and safe choice that causes pain.  Gore giving up the court fight in 2000, stupid and safe choice tha cause pain.  Hilliary a shoe in, a stupid and safe choice that causes pain.

    Safe is a loser. New is a winner. Old is dead, new inspires hope. Brown is the old, Hackett is the new.

    I vote for the new.

    Your thoughts are welcomed at!

    by rahelio soleil on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 07:32:34 AM PST

    •  Then you are dead to me. (3.08)
      You might as well be a Bush supporting dumbass for all I care. You are just as idiotic as the 2000 Nader voters. And the Democrats did NOT Swift Boat Hackett. They put pressure on his donors because he wasn't gaining any traction in the primary so they could entice him to run for Congress instead. I don't approve of the tatic, but fucking our country up the ass over it by helping that piece of shit George W. Bush is beneath contempt.
      •  Wait (4.00)
        You can't make somebody dead to you unless you removed somebody from the list. Personally I recommend Bow Tie Pasta. It is a tasty shape.
      •  Hes, perhaps we should recommend (4.00)
        this person to the PE2004 board?

        He (She) looks like fitting in there.

        BTW, I can't help but feel that the continued focus on the Hackett thing is outliving its usefulness. The Dems may have acted in a way that we aren't happy with, but this sort of thing pales in comparison to their cowardice in the face of GOPer evil policies.

        If we have to criticize the Dems, I'd rather stick to going after the ones who voted for cloture on Alito and voted for Bush programs that "they felt they couldn't stop" in the name of congressional comity and political safety.

        That's the real problem, IMHO. The Hackett stuff just lets the SCLM come up with more "Dems are confused, weak and divided" headlines.

        The Perfect is the Enemy of the Better

        by dabize on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 07:51:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  "You are Dead to Me" (3.61)
        Is there a more juvenile response than that? Get over yourself, Hesiod. Are you using Bushian demands now that people agree with your diary or they are "dead to you?" This diary was nothing  more than a trojan horse with which to launch an attack on Paul Hackett--using all sort of spurious and specious allegations, speculations, and paranoid fantasies about Karl Rove.

        Of course, Rove will launch a smear campaign; of course, that is how he operates. Of course, he will try to recreate his pattern in Ohio this summer and fall. Did you think no one was aware of that plan? Did you think anyone needed HESIOD to inform them about it? Pulleeze.

        Here's the truth, Hesiod: Paul Hackett was stabbed in the back by Democratic forces--including Sherrod Brown--because he told it like it is and that made Democrats nervous. The Dems went to Brown, persuaded him to jump in and promptly informed Hackett--thanks, but no thanks, we appreciate you stepping in against Mean Jean, but now we want Brown instead of you.

        It was brutal--politics often is--and Hackett has every right to be outraged at the underhanded Democratic treatment of him. The Democrats treated him shabbily. He isn't whining, as he has been accused of doing--he's fighting back. Democrats like yourself don't like that either. Frankly, I prefer to see the bloodletting finish its course, so I can see where it leads. Let the truth become known about all of it. Let's see the courage of those who stabbed their own in the back. At least Hackett's got the courage to say it up front. The rest of the skulkers prefer sneaky snipes disguised as diaries about Rove, or attacks on Hackett (David Sirota).

        Your trojan horse was nothing but a thinly veiled, disingenuous attempt to further stab Hackett in the back all the while you say that isn't what you are going to do. How BUSHIAN that you fanned the flames of the fire you SAID you didn't want to see.

        •  It's easy to blame Rove for anything. (3.70)
          I think it would have been more helpful for the diarist to wait until he could talk about what he had learned.
          •  Cal45: (none)
            Care to explain your ratings abuse?
            •  Sure (none)
              As soon as you explain yours.

              Go ahead, I'am listening.

              Hypocrisy in anything may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it....

              by Cal45 on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:43:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I did in the other thread. (none)
                The namecalling over the UAE port deal was way out of hand. I gave several people 1's for their namecalling. That sort of thing needs to stop if we expect to win in the next election.
                •  Wise up (4.00)
                  "That sort of thing needs to stop if we expect to win in the next election."..

                  Haw!..dont' pretend to use a political goal as cover for your personal authority complex.

                  You don't speak for this entire community or own this site or have any 1)standing, 2)authority or 3)influence, official or otherwise with any political party. You are nothing but one of thousands who read and post on this site.

                  You insert your ones' into threads you have taken no discussion part in and give no reason for your downratings. You are totally childish and transparent in your constant "rating abuse" "game" of downrating comments and then whining "rating abuse". I rarely rate anyone with anything except a four unless they are profane or obiviously stalking me or another commenter trying to destroy a discussion. I invite you, on the other hand, to take a look at your rating comments chart and explain it to us we can settle the question of exactly who is a ratings abuser...I would be delighted to compare my ratings chart with yours...go ahead lay out yours and mine and let's see who is who.

                  You give one's for as comment as simple and inoffensive as this:


                  Evidently you roam the post looking for some way to excerise your personal life's frustrations.  I suggest if you want to try to intimidate people you join the police force, it won't work on me.


                  Hypocrisy in anything may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it....

                  by Cal45 on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:29:07 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I wish (1.50)
                    I knew what this rating thing is all about. I have no clue.

                    All that matters to me is a healthy dialogue that moves things forward, and an end to the counter-productive actions that put this country into the wrong hands.

                    As the famous and highly intelligent Rodney King once said: "can't we just get along?"

                    Your thoughts are welcomed at!

                    by rahelio soleil on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:35:55 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You are, of course, being sarcastic, (2.50)
                      since you've already handed out several ones on this thread yourself. Your behavior toward the diarist, your highjacking of this diary to insist on your shrill message
                      This is a fight that I hope will divide the party. That isn't good to say, but it is time for the old guard (those losing the house) to be challenged. Pushing Hackett out of the race cannot be forgiven, period. He was a stealth candidate representing a new hope, but he was in fact swift boated by calls to donors from Democrat leadership. How is that democracy?

                      I don't think Brown deserves the post just because he wears a "D" on his chest. I honestly hope he loses. You cannot learn a lesson if there is no pain. The party needs to learn a lesson in this case and they should not be rewarded for their losing tactic.

                      Dean vs. Kerry, stupid and safe choice that causes pain.  Gore giving up the court fight in 2000, stupid and safe choice tha cause pain.  Hilliary a shoe in, a stupid and safe choice that causes pain.

                      Safe is a loser. New is a winner. Old is dead, new inspires hope. Brown is the old, Hackett is the new.

                      and your gall in daring to be sarcastic and flippantly sarcastic about your inappropriate behavior, all put the LIE to this statement:
                      All that matters to me is a healthy dialogue that moves things forward..
                      Thoroughly UNPRODUCTIVE. Tastelessly and stupidly unproductive.
                      •  Not sarcastic (2.66)
                        I know now what the rating thing does, but I didn't before.

                        You seem awfully angry. This isn't personal. I truly do not see how responding with my opinion to the original message is hijacking it or being flippant.

                        People can disagree on the issues, but you are modeling the very spirit we need to remove from politics.

                        Your thoughts are welcomed at!

                        by rahelio soleil on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 11:52:25 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Your excuse is not believable. (4.00)
                          I know now what the rating thing does, but I didn't before.
                          Had you truly not known, you wouldn't have so neatly abused it the way you did. Don't even bother to deny it; what you might not know is that any one of us can go to your page and see the ratings you have issued on this page.
                          If by chance you are sincere about your [inexcusable, because there are posted explanations which all new kossaks are asked to read when they sign up] ignorance, you may like to know that you can amend your outrageous ratings abuse. You can change a rating up to 24 hours after posting a rating. You cannot, after rating a post, change it back to none, however.
                          If you are sincere, change the ratings you handed out, in ignorance, to others. If you do this, I will change my ratings of your posts, and will try to persuade other posters to do the same. My offer stands even if you don't change the ratings you gave ME. Changing your ratings of me wouldn't alter the fact that several of your fellow trolls newbies have also ratings-abused me.

                          You see, I don't really care that I've lost TU status, for the second time, because I've been brutally frank. That's because my state and my country and my grandchildrens' future mean a lot more to me than this delightful and inspiring community.
                          And that leaves me with the ability to answer this crack

                 are modeling the very spirit we need to remove from politics.
                          with a clear conscience by saying that YOUR hero-worshipping slavish devotion to a person, regardless of what he does to hurt your stated cause, is what is wrong with politics in this country.

                          I'm going to explain what I mean by that [and pick up even MORE ones from Hackett worshippers].
                          First, from all I've seen of Paul Hackett, he is a fine lawyer, an outstanding Marine, and the kind of Ohioan I'm proud to share the state with. That said, Paul Hackett has also demonstrated, both by his leaving the political arena and by the way he is leaving, that he is not the right choice for our party's senatorial nominee in 2006. Hackett has hurt Democratic party chances here in Ohio by not restraining his anger over the stupid treatment from Reid/Schumer. [They stupidly forgot that they were dealing with a Marine, not a professional politician. They didn't take the time to explain their reasoning to him and get a secrecy commitment, PRIOR to recruiting him.]
                          This isn't a schoolyard. This is politics. In politics, if you don't like the leadership, you run for office (and win) under the party aegis, so that as an elected senator you can change the leadership of your caucus.
                          That is not only how politics works, it is how ALL real-life solutions for healthy change occur in group species. The only change one can bring about from outside the system is revolution. Revolution throws out the rules; it doesn't amend them.

                          To finish, I don't presume to think that my age and experience give me a special "correctness certificate." There are many politically brilliant kossaks [including at least one frontpager] in their 20s. A few in their teens as well. But I have lived and experienced enough to tell you, and every other Hackett-cult newbie around here, that you need to get over yourselves and over Paul Hackett. The Major has left politics.
                          If you people intend to remain engaged in the political processes of ourmy Democratic party, you need to learn the principles. First principle; we are a party of ideas, not personalities. That, BTW is how one distinguishes Democrats, Greens, Libertarians and real Conservatives from the GOP Corporatocracy.
                          The first four believe in ideas so strongly that they often fail to articulate them, assuming [incorrectly] that everyone must know what they stand for. The Corporates mouth ideas constantly, ideas which they have no intention of adhering to, because they dare not reveal their true intentions. And it isn't surprising that they achieve their greatest political successes when they employ an empty suit (wearing a codpiece, or with dyed hair) to mouth their Mordor-hollow lies.

                  •  You wise up. (none)
                    Anybody can call someone a personal authority complex or childish or accuse someone of exercising their personal life frustrations when they can't answer the argument.

                    You called people who had concerns about the UAE port deal racist. That is unproductive. I made it very clear why I had concerns about this deal both there and elsewhere and made it clear why they were not racial. Obviously, you are taking out your frustrations in not being able to mount a coherent response to that.

                    If you want to show more comments from that thread that I rated down, so others can see for themselves what jerks people are making of themselves over this, you go right ahead. I own up to every rating I hand out. And if you think you can engage in retaliatory ratings and intimidate me into shutting up, then you are mistaken.

                    I make no apologies for telling people that what they are doing is damaging to the community and to the party as a whole.

                    •  You can't win this arguement can you? (none)

                      Again, ...first, I called no on that thread or any other one a racist. I said this site has it's share of racist as we all saw during the Muslim cartoon fray...and as many other posters here have said also. I stand by that comment.

                      Second, ..I have not seen, nor responded to, nor commented on any comment you may have made about the port deal....therefore it would be impossible for me to have called you a racist. If you have a link to where I did this..put it up.

                      Third...I think you can be intimidate because..1) all bullies retreat when confronted... 2)your  arguement of parroting your own faults back onto those who call you is weak and desperate.

                      The biggest threat to this community and to the political side you claim to represent is not differing opinions or the occasional troll but the irrevelent self styled little authorities who pretend they represent this community or "the party"...people looking in who aren't aware of this abberation might very well "think" you are indictive of this party and be entirely turned off and lost to the political goal.

                      You do more harm than good. If you are addicted to down rating, I suggest you stick to ferreting out the truely profane or offensive in language and stay away from other people's discussions and opinions.

                      Hypocrisy in anything may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it....

                      by Cal45 on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:22:57 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  And then you said this: (none)
                        ...some commentors have used it to inject their own racism into the issue..."

                        I am sick and tired of people claiming this is a racist issue when it is not. This is about our port security, not about who is or isn't racist. You were enflaming the war by that remark.

                        The statement you made was a broad generalization, so given the climate of people calling critics of the UAE deal racist, I assumed that my comment could fall under your umbrella.

                        It is a serious charge to accuse people of racism. So, broad generalizations like the ones you gave were uncalled for and unproductive. If you want to raise the issue, a much better way of making the point would be to be specific and show us specific instances of racism. As of right now, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you give me specific examples of this racism you are talking about, then I will take back the 1 I gave that comment. I may even get on their back as well, if it was recent enough.

                        If you choose not to, then I am sorry, but I think people who use inflammatory language to create conflict and who can't back it up when asked are as harmful to the community as anybody.

                        •  yes I said exactly that (none)
                          ..and I still stand by it. However I did not call any one "individual" or group or diarist or commenter a racist or point out any one person as a racist to anyone else...nor did I suggest that the "majority" of this site were racist. That there are some racist of one stripe or another on here is indisputable and that is exactly what my comment says.

                          If you took that to include you that is something you presumed, not anything that "I" said or implied about you. As I said before, I have not seen, read , responded to or commented on anything you may have posted on the DP deal or anything else you have posted.

                          I do not have the time at this moment, because it would very time consumming, to cull through all the diaries and remarks on the cartoon diaries where a lot of this took place. I did not save them as I did not foresee any reason to re-produce them. However as soon as I do have the time to cull through I will, and find you on the site and produce them for you. If would be even better if you went back thru those diaries and found examples for yourself, as that way there can be no accusation that I am taking comments out of context or cherry picking comments to prove the correctness of my statement.  

                          Hypocrisy in anything may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it....

                          by Cal45 on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 04:07:25 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Well: (none)
                            I have always gotten on people's cases when they say that Islam has committed special evils unlike other religions or atheism, so I was very offended by that remark. But I would do whatever I could to combat legitimate cases of racism or Islamophobia.

                            You should check out Hunter's diary; he made a very good case about why we should be concerned about the UAE deal and why it is not racist or Islamophobic to do so. He made his points better than I would have.

                            I would have had no problem with the comment if it had included specific examples. A diary on this with specific examples would be a good topic in the future.

                          •  actually (none)
                            If I read the right Hunter diary I don't think he made the point that I am making about this DP flap and racism or non racism.

                            Everyone is always going to say they aren't racist, and most aren't..but some are..BUT the larger more far reaching point in all the "you're a racist, not I'm not, you are" that I have been pissing in the wind to address is I wrote in another thread..

                            It's a "politically" expedient cause at the moment for the left to bash Bush and ALL the politicans to huff and puff on their "security concerns".

                            Yes, a few little racist pop their wee heads out under cover of patriotism and light fires about this.

                            BUT..the real danger, the big danger, is that ordinary people who think they aren't racist and probably aren't racist, can be lulled into the  trap of thinking of one entire block of countries or entire peoples as the "enemy" or the "threat" or "suspicous".

                            Let's call it "Political Racism"...ya'll know what that is dont' been seeing it for 5 years now.

                            Once you get that particular type of "Political Racism" going, instead of examining events and facts for "exactly " what they are when they occur, it becomes acceptable and patriotic and grows and infects rational thinking.
                            It's the tool of politicans and the scapegoat for the fears of the little people.

                            Just ask Hitler. The Germans were a very educated society and they fell for it."

                            This is my point..this is the slippery slope and no one on here or anywhere else is immune to it unless they are on guard against being minipulated thru their own fears or goals.

                            Hypocrisy in anything may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it....

                            by Cal45 on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 06:53:58 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I agree. (none)
                            We need to guard our minds against that sort of thinking. My objection is due to the specific nature of the country we are dealing with, not because of any objection to dealing with a whole group of countries. Egypt and Morocco, for instance, have no ties with Al-Qaeda; if Bush were to cut such a deal with them, I would not object.

                            I would not even object to a UAE deal if my concerns about the deal were addressed. But you have to consider the fact that about half the UAE royal family visited Bin Laden in 1999; I suggest there are still those in the UAE government who secretly support Bin Laden. Egypt and Morocco, say, have no such ties and I would have no objection to them.

                            I would like to see an independent, unbiased panel of experts who would review the deal and make recommendations to counter any attempt to smuggle nukes from either Pakistan or Russia into this country.

                            There is currently a deal in the works for a 45-day review of security implications. But high-level administration officials would have the final say on the deal, meaning the fox is guarding the henhouse. That is unacceptable.

                            Kristof wrote about this tonight; he had some other ideas:

                            If Democrats want to improve national security, they can tackle it in a thousand ways. The biggest vulnerabilities in our ports could be addressed by increasing customs inspections abroad, by adding radiation detectors, by examining more containers or by making containers tamper-proof. And if the aim is to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism, then how about more support for the Nunn-Lugar program to secure Russian nuclear materials?

                            If Bush were to offer this stuff as a package compromise, then I would drop my objections to such a deal, as there would then be adequate safeguards against Al-Qaeda trying to smuggle nukes into this country through the UAE.

                          •  I will support opposition (none)
                   this as long as it is based on the deal not having met review requirments as any other foreign contract of this type would have to do....and every one can find the requirements at the treasury dept's site....

                            The OBL connection or alleged connection doesn't bother me that one in this global mix-up is what they seem to be in the Arab world or this country. Quid pro quo and talking out of both sides of the mouth  and doing six of one and half a dozen of the other type deals and double faced compromises go on every day in every country and country to country.

                            That said, besides creating the pitiful, useless money pit of DHS, this country hasn't done squat about security in real ways...meaning they don't really think the terrier threat is that severe or they know full well there isn't any way to fully protect the US...I am betting it is the latter.

                            I realize most people don't know a lot about Ports, but I would say they do need to listen to the experts who don't find this all that threatening....if they want to be upset about something it should be that American industry and management talent has gone down the tiolet and not one US company even entered the bidding for this deal.

                            If you want to keep yourself awake at night about nuke smuggling, pull out a map of the coast and water ways, particulary the southeast coast where I live...there are hundreds of way to smuggle something into this country without going near a port. I lived in a high rise next door to our port facility for 5 years where I could see every ship coming and going thru the inlet and read the names off the freighters. And I have been an off-shore boater for 40 years...believe me  when I say it is so easy to smuggle anything onto shore by private boat it's laughable...the only way to get caught or intercepted is if the CG or DEA has intelligence before hand and has been survailing you or a gotten tip off..other than that you have to be very dumb or very unlucky to get caught. Any of our shrimp and fishing trawlers that spend days off shore with no other boats withing sight could easily take on any cargo from a freighter and anyone who saw them riding lower in the water would only think they were loaded with a good haul of fish. That is one of the reasons I am not in a twist over the Ports...precautions yes, but total security is a pipedream if you are talking about the sea and coastlines.

                            I would agree though that securing nuclear material overseas in countries that went thru a total sell off melt down like Russia  is probably the best way to guard against loose nukes.

                            Hypocrisy in anything may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it....

                            by Cal45 on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 09:34:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

          •  You're right (4.00)
            According to Iran, America is to blame for blowing up the shrine in Iraq. It's always easy to pin everything on the enemies we view as larger than life. It's convenient to blame Rove, and I even agree that it's within the realm of possibility that he is responsible, but it isn't probable. First of all, it would have made more sense for a swift-boating to occur after the primary. The classic Rove tactic would have been to help Hackett win, then swift-boat him and rely on Hackett's unusual bluntness (which is refreshing to me, but I'm not at all sure it gets you the win in Ohio) to be his undoing. Second, it's in Mike DeWine's interest for Brown and/or Hackett to spend all their money in the primary. Therefore the GOP undoubtedly wanted Hackett to stay in. Finally, I'm not sure the GOP even knows who the stronger Democratic candidate would have been. Why go to all the trouble if there's less than a 60% chance that you're making the right choice?

            Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass. - Barry Goldwater, 1981

            by Doug in SF on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:45:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I disagree. (none)
              If Rove thought Hackett was the tougher opponent, he might want to knowck him out in the primary. Remember, Rove hjas pubcly said the GOP will be running on national secuirty again. Hackett would be immune to such attacks.
              •  But like I said.... (none)
                ....I'm not sure that the GOP knows who the stronger candidate is, and since they're so close anyway, I think the most cost-effective solution for the GOP is to let the Dems waste all their money in the primary.

                Getting on to another of your points about Hackett's behavior, I think that it's mostly bitterness combined with inexperience. The man certainly wears his emotions on his sleeve. I think he needs to sit down and reason with himself why this all happened, who really is responsible, let it blow over for awhile, THEN start talking about it.

                Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass. - Barry Goldwater, 1981

                by Doug in SF on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 11:21:14 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  whenever i hear dems worry about rove (none)
              i'm reminded of a shelby foote cutaway in ken burns's civil war film.  it went like:

              "when grant took over command in the east, he was confronted by his staff officers' worried speculations regarding lee's next moves.  'bobby lee...bobby lee,' said grant depreciatingly, 'you're alway talking about what he's gonna do to you, like he's gonna do a double-sommersault and land in your rear.  i wanna hear you tell me what you're gonna do to him; so bring some guns up here!'  oh yeah, grant was wonderful."

              i'm tired of hearing about rove.  are you telling me that ohio dems don't have enough ammunition to say that the state and national gop are a conspiracy of thieves and liars?  and that most ohio voters don't already know that the rethugs always accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of.  the tactic is to frequently remind people that we assume they understand that the rove/dobson alliance is the font of all decay and dishonesty.  

              we gotta move past those scummy gasbags (gassy scumbags?) and move this country forward.

              we'll stand him up against a wall and pop goes the weasel /rufus t. firefly

              by 2nd balcony on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 11:37:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  The diary certainly is tin foilish (none)
          yet another "argument" based upon nothing more than paranoia. Could be true, therefore must be true. And like so many other junk diaries in recent days, shooting straight onto the Recommended List. What the heck is going on at this site? Cedwyn is right, we really need a 'Smite-this-diary' function.
        •  Was it Brown or someone else? (none)
          Signal Suzie,
          While not one to seek out conspiracies, I would be willing to bet that the 'swift boating' of Hackett did not originate from Cong. Brown's office--and no, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised that this was the work of a Republican political operative.  

          Look at what is currently happening in the Brown-DeWine Senate race.  If Rove or one of his whiz kids did not plant this story (it would certainly not be the first time he's done this without leaving his fingerprints), he may as well have.  Think about it.  How much sense does it make for the Democrats to 'swift boat' and ultimately alienate someone whose credentials are invaluable for them?  Especially after the DCCC was practically begging Paul Hackett to run for the House Race again?  Especially seeing that Paul Hackett is regarded as one of the leaders of this year's Fighting Dems?  Can you answer me that?

          •  Ummm... (none)
            How much sense does it make for the Democrats to 'swift boat' and ultimately alienate someone whose credentials are invaluable for them?  Especially after the DCCC was practically begging Paul Hackett to run for the House Race again?  Especially seeing that Paul Hackett is regarded as one of the leaders of this year's Fighting Dems?  Can you answer me that?

            If the DCCC was so worried about alienating someone whose credentials are invaluable to them, then why would they call that person's supporters and ask them to stop donating?  Can you answer me that?

            I do have an answer for you.  It is because Paul had put his hat into the Senate ring, after having been assured the Brown would not run, and he is not a quitter.  Once he was in, he was in.

            Maybe Paul didn't like the way that the DCCC was trying to push him around, and so didn't want to switch to the House Race after declaring his intent for the Senate race.  Maybe Paul, like a man of principle, stood his ground and refused to play the game by their rules?

            So when it became obvious that Paul wasn't going to step aside easily, the DCCC stepped up the pressure.  Who knows how far they would take it.  We know that they took it at leas as far as strangling his funding base.

            In the end I think that the DCCC miscalculated Paul's integrity and the whole thing just blew up in their faces.

            •  Fair Enough, But... (none)
              ...calling a person's supporters to ask them to stop donating (I didn't like that either) is not the same thing as 'swift boating' the person with stories about Paul Hackett's service in Iraq.  I simply have a hard time believing that Brown's office would have been so stupid as to originate a smear that was sure to backfire on him.  You can be sure that even if this would have won the primary for Brown (and that's debatable), DeWine would have spent the entire campaign clubbing Brown over the head with this.  Brown's biggest crime is that he decided to enter the Senate race after giving Hackett his blessing to run.  

              The 'Hackett or Brown' debate is moot at this point.  Fact of the matter is, most of us probably wanted BOTH to be elected.  I know I did.  I suspect the DCCC and DSCC did as well, which would probably explain why the former put as much pressure on Hackett as they did.

              As for Hackett, he kept his word to the Democrat that was running for District Two that he would not run again.  It's his loss and ours.  But let's please not destroy ourselves over this...  

      •  That's a bit antagonistic.. (none)
        ...however your mention of Nader is valid and I would like to know if this person would be willing to say who he/ she voted for...

        A better approach (be like me!) would be to agree that many if not most DC Dem insiders are a contemptuous lot and should be ridden out on a rail...

        ...and to ask:  how do we know Brown would become one of those insiders if he's never been to DC?  

        ...and to propose that Brown clarify his views on said Dem DC lobbyist-milking mofos.

        THEN we can make a judgement on Brown.

        Why did Jesus overturn the Church money exchange and say to "Destroy This Temple?"

        by a gnostic on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:21:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Traction (none)
        Hackett had traction, "money" before Brown entered the primary and started crying to the old dogs to cut off the support and money to Hackett, so he could win.  

        What has Brown done with the 10 years he has been in government?  Increase veteran reimbursment for mileage while on visits to the doctor and thats great, but the fact they just get less doctor visits is lost.  Ok, what else has this established democrat done in 10 years?  What is he gonna do? When?

    •  There's nothing wrong with your sentiments (4.00)
      except that you posted them on a partisan blog.

      But I think a lot of non-partisan types, people who just want some sort of sanity and reasonability (yes that's a real word) back in the media and government probably share your feelings, even if we wouldn't have stated just as you have.

      Just remember where you are, and pay the low ratings no heed.

      I'm always wary of those who know what to say but not what to do.

      by NeoconSemanticist on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 08:18:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Non partisan types (3.00)
        don't typically lurk around partisan blogs pointing out how partisan they are.

        Personally the "I vote for the new..." angle is about the most vapid thing I've heard in a long time. To say nothing of the fact that Hackett bowed HIMSELF out and therefore it's pretty fucking hard to "vote for the new" when the "new" guy isn't ON THE FUCKING BALLOT. In fact it would qualify along the lines of the stupidest fucking thing I ever heard. So I don't agree with your assessment that there is "nothing wrong with the sentiment." Sentiment minus coherent logic is pretty useless.

        I'm personally suspicious whenever I read "voice of reason" posts like yours on this blog regarding Ohio politics. Leave a follow up post sometime after the hour of 5 PM or before 9 AM EST in order to convince me that you're not an astroturfer, as I also suspect the parent to your post to be.

        •  Losers preach a losing strategy, winners move on (1.50)
          Describe for me the coherent logic used that lost the presidency in 2000 and 2004. When you're done with that, please describe for me what brilliant Democrat conventional wisdom gave America a total government monopoly?

          If you consider the suggestion of taking a new strategy to be "vapid," then I take it you are pleased with the outcome of the old strategy.

          I am not.

          I take it from you aggressive use of the F-bomb that these issues make you emotional, however, your anger and your call for business-as-usual strike me as yesterday's blueprint. I advocate for tomorrow's method, something that is not obvious to the current clueless old boy's club in the Democratic party.

          I've never seen an organization more in need of an infusion of new blood. Every election the Dems trot out the same, tired looking white haired guys - or their wives, without grooming the youth properly or tapping into the frustration of those leaving out the left door of the party.

          Fear. Pragmatism. Republican-lite. Centrist obsession. Middle-class pandering. Suburban-philia. Bloggers so spiteful of Bush the F-bomb others who think less emotionally.

          This is the schematic for continued losses for the Democrats.

          If you like it that way, continue to vote for the old and see how that works out for you.

          I don't like it that way, so I will support the new.

          Your thoughts are welcomed at!

          by rahelio soleil on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:26:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Awfully strong response (none)
          I don't know what to say. I've gladly stayed out of the Hacket fiasco because it doesn't concern me. The only reason I wrote to who I did is because rahelio soliel was getting troll-rated for something I felt was pretty benign, and wanted said poster to understand that this is an unpopular place for those sentiments.

          That's it. There's nothing malicous in my comment, I'm not trying to take a stand on the Hacket issue. I don't care for your vapid comment, nor do I care for your tone. But... it doesn't matter what I care for. You don't care what I care for about what anyone may or may not care for about anything or anyone who cares about whatever they may care about. Got it? Just understand that not everyone here is partisan. Yet everyone still has opinions.

          I'm always wary of those who know what to say but not what to do.

          by NeoconSemanticist on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:35:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  He was hardly "troll rated" (2.50)
            He got mostly 2s. For good reason. You wrote approvingly about a comment that was inherently idiotic, regarding "voting for the new" when the "new" guy is off the ballot. Brilliant.

            Don't care for my tone? I don't care for your approval of illogic and sententiousness. So, nyah!

            •  This is EXACTLY where the Right meets Left (4.00)
              If you disagree in a neo-con forum the words "idiotic" and "illogical" spill forth quickly.

              This tired and negative way of examining ideas is counterproductive.

              I see that you misrepresent my call for people to "vote" for the new. I was talking about voting for new methods, new kinds of candidates, and new blood for the party.

              Your aggressive and dismissive way of responding is the old that I would like to vote out of all politics.

              Politics that move the nation in the direction of civility and principle rather than cynicism and hostility is the "new" that I strive for.

              Your thoughts are welcomed at!

              by rahelio soleil on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 11:41:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree a kajillion percent (none)
                I think I spelled kajillion correctly.

                There seem to be two very broad types of readers/commentators here at DKos. Those who are staunch democrats, and those looking for a reprieve from Bush.

                That said, I think Hackett revealed a nerve in the democratic primary akin to the social vs. corporate conservative. There are many readers here who feel betrayed by the party's handling of the Hackett, Alito and Roberts issues. I would liken it to Bush's Harriet Meirs, Shiavo and UAE deals. Sure, these ideas by Bush are ultimately unsubstantial, that doesn't change the fact that they're just bad politics. It's never good to divide the various factions that make one's base, but that's exactly what the democrats seem to have done with Hackett.

                So this "establishment vs. progressive" meme has merit. Between Alito and Hacket especially, the democrats haven't shown themselves as able opposition. Thus the whole "democrats look out for the little guy" big (T) Truth is exposed as a fallacy. In these two cases, it's the people vs. an entrenched establishment. This is what you would like to see change, right? This is what you mean by "new" politics?

                I'm always wary of those who know what to say but not what to do.

                by NeoconSemanticist on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 03:12:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Progress, not process (none)
                  That was an awesome articulation of what I am "for." I would like to see progress and an end to stasis.  The anti-Bush, establishment OVER progressive leadership is not productive. They are, in fact, and obstacle to progress. I have no criticism of them that goes beyond the fact that I think their time has passed.

                  I want to see progress, not process. But, I guess the Kos is not the place to articulate radical ideas  - and by radical ideas I mean those that dare challenge the elite conventional wisdom.

                  Your thoughts are welcomed at!

                  by rahelio soleil on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 06:04:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Progress, not process (none)
                  That was an awesome articulation of what I am "for." I would like to see progress and an end to stasis.  The anti-Bush, establishment OVER progressive leadership is not productive. They are, in fact, and obstacle to progress. I have no criticism of them that goes beyond the fact that I think their time has passed.

                  I want to see progress, not process. But, I guess the Kos is not the place to articulate radical ideas  - and by radical ideas I mean those that dare challenge the elite conventional wisdom.

                  Your thoughts are welcomed at!

                  by rahelio soleil on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 06:05:37 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I think (none)
                    I don't know but I think the large part of Kos readership is done by people who just want reasonable government. It may be the partisan folks who comment, by and large, but your "radical" notions resonate profoundly and immensley.

                    It's too bad such wonderfull expressionists fall to pieces over politics as we see in this thread. It makes me wonder if I'll be posting these same sentiments on in 2009.

                    I'm always wary of those who know what to say but not what to do.

                    by NeoconSemanticist on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:25:46 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Ridiculous. (4.00)
      While you presented your case with some class, you are just feeding into Rove's tactics.  If I had to choose between Rove, who is evil along with the rest of the fascist Bush cabal, and Brown, who doesn't seem like the type to swiftboat someone, I choose Brown hands down.

      I am completely, utterly contemptuous of the DC Dem insiders whose 3 letter symbol is the infamous DLC...

      Hackett didn't need to leave the race.  He could have appealed to the netroots for money and would have been able to make it through the primary.  

      If he is behind the oppo research dump, then he was never a democrat to begin with.

      Why did Jesus overturn the Church money exchange and say to "Destroy This Temple?"

      by a gnostic on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:14:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  and Brown? (none)
        If Brown is behind the swiftboating, was he never a Democrat to begin with? What about if he was behind the DSCC/DCCC money throttling? Is that kosher? Does he lose his membership card then?

        I agree Hackett should just let it die. But he's hardly worse than Brown, who was, by Hackett's account, the first to attack. He should expect to be treated in the same way.

    •  Repeat after me: Dem-o-cratic!!! (4.00)
      Whatever your opinion on Hackett v. Brown, please DO NOT EVER employ the right-wing slimeball usage of "Democrat" as an adjective (e.g. "Democrat insiders", "Democrat leadership"), the ONLY correct adjective for the DemoCRATIC party is "Democratic". Democrat as an adjective is an underhanded, focus-group tested insult used by right-wingers to provoke negative feelings when referring to Democratic policies or actions.

      Don't play into their hands, my friend!!!  

      •  was this really focus grouped? (none)

        Why did Jesus overturn the Church money exchange and say to "Destroy This Temple?"

        by a gnostic on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:23:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What difference does it make? (4.00)
          The word was trotted out because some wingnut marketing guru concluded that "democratic" sounded too good, too pure, too positive, too American, too founding-father-ish to be applied to those worthless Democrats...and everyone on the right got the memo.

          The poster is right...we have to take the pledge never to use the word "Democrat" just before the word "Party".

        •  Not sure... (none)
          I admit w/r/t focus groups I'm just repeating as cw what I've read before on dkos and other blogs. And yes, that's intellectually lazy. I can't say with any certainty that it's true (and my brief googling didn't turn up any links), so I'll withdraw the "focus grouped" claim. But the fact remains that usages like "Democrat policies", etc are flat-out wrong, and are usually employed by the right when disparaging Democratic achievements.
      •  I am democratic without being a Democrat (1.80)
        I use Democrat not as a perjurative, but to be specific. Democratic to me is a process that is not being respected by the Democrats.

        When Howard Dean said he respresented the "democratic" wing of the party, I knew exactly what he meant and thought it was hopeful. Had his passionate fight continued we might have seen a democratic take over; unfortunately, Kerry was the Democrats answer to the democratic wing.

        The answer was, we don't like that sound you made, now shut up.

        That for me is not democratic. That is a republican-lite, focus-grouped, marketing-based, elitist technique.

        I am democratic and unrepresented by the current state of affairs.

        Your thoughts are welcomed at!

        by rahelio soleil on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:39:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  But Hackett has quit. (3.00)
      You can't vote for him. It was Hackett's decision. He could have stuck it out, and I was leaning towards him. But I respect his decision to quit and clear the field.

      So, how do we expect to take back the Senate and get to the bottom of Bush's scandals if we don't get behind Brown and support him?

      •  but.. (none)
        ..did he clear the field or leave for lack of money or because he wanted revenge on Brown?  did Brown have anything to do with the swiftboating?  Important questions need to be answered before Brown can be endorsed IMO.

        If he can clarify those questions and tell America if he is going to take lobbyists money or not, then I am behind Brown.

        Why did Jesus overturn the Church money exchange and say to "Destroy This Temple?"

        by a gnostic on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:25:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know. (none)
          There is not enough evidence for either one of those assertions that I can tell.

          But wouldn't it be nice to have 51 Democrats in the Senate so we can control the chairs and investigate whether Rove was behind all this?

        •  do you know anything about Brown? (4.00)
          I contributed to Hackett's campaign against Schmidt and was staying out of the OH Senate primary because truthfully, I didn't know whether Hackett or Brown would have been the best candidate against DeWine.

          But I do know this: Brown is a much more progressive Democrat than Hackett on the issues. He's got a long track record of standing up on many, many fronts. I have to laugh when I see angry supporters of Hackett--who was, after all, a total political novice--say that Brown has to prove this or that before we progressives can endorse him. Brown has been proving his strong Democratic credentials for years.

      •  What is a vote worth (1.66)
        A vote is only worth the honor in which it is given. If it is a token strike "against" a hated enemy, there is a great chance it delivers a temporary satisfaction.

        Voting "for" the betterment of our nation requires us to vote "against" even those who claim to wear our letter - if their in the slime business like everyone else.

        Hackett bowed out under pressure and for realistic reasons - a dem money embargo.

        That strategy should not be allowed to work. It should be punished. In the short term it will be painful, but in the long term sticking to principle pays off.

        Those who do not believe this, and those with hate driving their politics, deserve the current state of affairs because their relativism is what creates this mess.

        Your thoughts are welcomed at!

        by rahelio soleil on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:50:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Faulty premise: (none)
          You are starting with the faulty premise that the Democrats are just as crooked as the Republicans over the last six years. So, let me ask you what I have asked someone else -- name some of the scandals that you think cause the Democrats to match the Republicans in the scandal department.

          I think people are free to decide for themselves who they can send their money to. They have access to the same resources on the candidates that we do.

          •  Scandal? (4.00)
            You have not properly stated the premise of my comment. However, I will answer your question anyway.

            I imagine you're looking for a discussion about impropriety?

            That isn't as interesting as these scandals:

            Voting for war.

            Not blocking a lifetime Alito appointment. In fact, Scalia, Thomas, AND Alito are scandals we'll pay for a long time.

            How about the hijacking of language, tilting rightward, that's a scandal. Dems didn't start it, the just didn't have the courage to fight it.

            I'm sure a questioner like yours is looking for a focus on the sexy scandals; On those I could argue that Washington Dems and Repubs are closer to each other than to me.

            But the real scandals that concern me all involve Dems rolling over as bad things happen.

            For an opposition party, that is a scandal.

            Your thoughts are welcomed at!

            by rahelio soleil on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 11:24:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Big difference. (none)
              Those instances involve a lack of spine, not moral scandals. I share your concern about those issues and think spineless Democrats should be primaried. If we take back the House and Senate and see spineless Democrats refuse to stand up for what is right, then I will be the first to name names.
              •  Moral Failure (none)
                But don't you see the moral failure of not fighting tooth and nail for what is moral?

                As and example, I offer this:

                You are at a party and several guys start physically harassing a woman. You are a guy who against rape and harrassment of women. But, you do not act in any forceful way to help the woman, out of fear, and because you don't want the other guys to call you a wimp.

                Isn't your inaction an actual endorsement of what is happening; And, isn't this a moral failure on your part?

                Your thoughts are welcomed at!

                by rahelio soleil on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 11:34:33 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Straw man: (none)
                  I never said it was wrong to air these things out. All I am saying is that we still need to recognize that Brown is much better than DeWine and that getting Democrats elected is essential to stop the erosion of freedoms that are occuring and to get to the bottom of what happened in Iraq, Plamegate, and other such scandals.
                  •  Please answer the question (none)
                    Do you think the things I've mentioned are actual moral failures. I'm not asking if you think it is a straw man or if they are things that should be "aired out." The actual question is if you would elevate those issues to the level of moral failure?

                    Your thoughts are welcomed at!

                    by rahelio soleil on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 11:47:12 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Of course I do. (none)
                      I have already said it was fine to air this stuff out, which was what your whole point was. But that should not stop people from supporting Brown. And if you are somehow trying to equate Brown with rapists, then that is a bunch of nonsense.

                      Now, let me see you answer mine, since you haven't done so. How is what Brown did an equivalent to lying for the reasons for war under false pretenses, smearing the wife of a man who debunked a key part of Bush's propaganda, or illegal wiretapping?

                    •  How much is the GOP paying you? (none)
                      Do you make more than minimum wage? Any benefits?
    •  Every one of you Hackett supporters (3.40)
      needs to make up your mind about which party you want to be affiliated with. Trashing Dems without proof is as Liebermanesque as it comes.
      Although Major Paul Hackett may be a right and righteous man, your cult-of-personality about him is beyond sickening. Grow up, or go back to worshiping entertainers, or rejoin the GOP, or the Greens, or the Libertarians, but please get out of my party, WHICH YOU ARE CRIPPLING.
      The thing we need LEAST, here in Ohio, is idiots calling themselves Democrats while they do Karl Rove's work FOR him.

      Claiming that Reid's and Shumer's calls to Dem funders was swiftboating Hackett is an infamous and transparent lie. Swiftboaters LIE about people they oppose. None of you have offered any evidence that those two senators lied about Hackett. Telling lies like that is working for DeWine; are you his volunteers, or is his campaign paying you?

      Last, and by no means least, I've known Sherrod Brown, and some of the people whose opinions he values, for over 20 years. Circulating stupid, easily disprovable lies about a primary opponent is absolutely NOT his style. Don't make the mistake of assuming that I say this out of friendship; I don't HAVE friends in politics, only close acquaintainces and colleagues.
      I have no more proof of Brown's innocence to offer than does Hesiod's excellent diary, but I do have something which all you clueless and proofless accusers don't have: knowledge about the candidate and his people, their style, their modus operandi, their smarts. None of you Hackett idolators can say the same about Brown, or you wouldn't be making such fools of yourselves.

      •  Winners or Cult of Personality (1.66)
        First, I is in very bad taste for you to call it your party. In fact, it is exactly the elitist strain of nonsense that has average and blue-collar people turned off.

        Your party?

        How about the people's party? What about non-career politicians actually having a shot at office. We are "democratic" after all.

        You ask that those who support new blood get out of your party.

        Unfortunately, many folks are taking your advice. You and those like you will get your wish sooner than you think.

        How is that working for you?

        Your thoughts are welcomed at!

        by rahelio soleil on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:07:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  your "new blood" quit (3.00)
          He couldn't raise enough money and saw he wasn't going to win the primary, and he quit. Only two people now have the chance to be the next elected senator from Ohio: Sherrod Brown or Mike DeWine.

          I am old enough to have supported many losing candidates in Democratic primaries. In fact, John Kerry was the only presidential nominee I ever supported during the primaries. I still haven't ever seen my favorite Democrat nominated for governor of my own state. Every time I support someone who doesn't win (and since I'm backing Ed Fallon this year, looks like my streak will remain unbroken).

          Some of these primaries were rough. In 1998 in particular, Tom Vilsack's supporters played some bad, misleading cards late in the game against the gubernatorial candidate I preferred. Did I get pissy and storm off? No, because I am a Democrat. After the primary, you get behind the nominee to prevent a far worse Republican from prevailing.

          Calling Sherrod Brown "old blood" doesn't change the fact that he's 1,000 times better than DeWine ever could be. If you can't see that, I feel sorry for you.

          •  You're with the Old (1.25)
            It sounds to me like your version of being a Democrat is characterized by a tolerance for losing. That is fine. If those who eventually become the lead candidate suit your needs, then it isn't so bad.

            However, what do you think of the situation a Democrat might have if they truly are at the left end of the party and a candidate at the right end wins the primary? What do you do if you see no difference in the Clinton side of the party and the Republicans?

            I don't see party affiliation as being a blind lifelong proposition. Maybe it used to be, in the same way that people didn't switch jobs, churches, or politics - even when their values were at stake.

            I'm not sure the Dems are big enough to hold their various groups in one tent. Corporatist dems run things and there is validity to the idea that corporatist values are at odds enough with the left wing to cause a split.

            You say voters should get behind whatever candidate takes the primary, because this is the lesser of two evils.

            That does not work for those who see the two evils as more alike than different.

            Your thoughts are welcomed at!

            by rahelio soleil on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 11:01:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm Karl Rove and I (3.25)
              approved this comment.

              "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 Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 11:05:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Frankly... (3.00)
              ...anyone who can't see the difference between the Clintonian wing of the Democratic party and the Republicans is so staggeringly, mind-bendingly stupid that trying to have any kind of dialouge with them is pointless. If the last five years haven't been enough to make these people wake up, then nothing ever will be.
              •  Old = Anger, New = Strategy (none)
                Calling it stupid and heaping derision does nothing to stop flow of the left wing out of the party.

                Again, this angry, bitter, vitriolic behavior is old.

                Let the new ring true.

                Your thoughts are welcomed at!

                by rahelio soleil on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:07:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Get out of our Party and go to your GOP pals (none)
          You ask that those who support new blood get out of your party.

          No, he's asking that Karl Rove Stooges like you get out of the party.  Of course, you're leaving it of your own accord, so it doesn't make much sense for you to have a hissy fit over DavidinCleveland's reference to the Democrats as "his party."  He's voting Democratic, you aren't -- obviously, that makes it his party and not yours.

          And this blathering about "new blood" is childish crap (and implicitly bigoted against older Americans).  All that matters to me is how a senator votes -- I couldn't care less if his or her blood is new or old or polkadotted.  On this score, Senator Brown will likely have a more progressive voting record than Senator Hackett would have had(although I supported Hackett right up to his egotistical exit).

          Equally assinine is your pointless yammering about non-politicians.  William Frist never held any elective office before he was elected to the Senate.  Is that what you want in Washington?

          This idea on the part of some alleged leftists that sitting out an election somehow teaches something to the Democratic Party is correct, but not in the way you intend.  What it teaches the Democrats is that progressives as petulent, unreliable jackasses.  The Nader campaign didn't "teach" Democrats to be more leftist -- in 2004, Kerry was actually somewhat more conservative than Gore.  Meanwhile, four years of Bush drove most Nader supporters to back the Democrats.  In other words, it was folks like you that got taught a lesson... well, most of you.  

          At this point, anyone who doesn't understand that to not support the Democrats is to support the GOP isn't capable of understanding anything.  So yes, get the hell out of my party and give your chair to someone with a brain.

          Fox News - We Distort, You Imbibe.

          by richter on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 12:50:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wow, that was intense (2.00)
            You prove the inability of the old guard to reason. Anger is no replacement for rational behavior.

            Do you think the party is improved by name-calling people who come to Kos for a legitimate exchange of ideas? Must everyone have your exact political belief system in order to get a respectful discourse?

            The party that once was supposed to be diverse, inclusive, and welcoming to all kinds of people, now overrun by hateful, scared, safe, compromised individuals who have few ideas that don't begin and end with Bush being the devil.

            What do you expect to win by calling me names, exclude me (and those like me who dare to have an independent thought patter)from consideration of "your" party, and give poor ratings to people who are merely expressing themselves?

            The truth of the matter is that it is independents who flux and tip elections. You would think that dems would be the most hospitable toward them, but your behavior is not a great entrance to your cause.

            There are 55 Iraqi war vets running for office as dems. I hope they do not meet many people like you, and I hope the party does not squeeze them out in favor of more tired old white guys who look weak and have nothing new to offer. You know the party has lost its way when the Republican candidates are starting to look more diverse than "your" party.

            Your thoughts are welcomed at!

            by rahelio soleil on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:19:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wow. (none)
              Since when does calling all so-called old guard democrats followers of a losing strategy constitute civil discourse around here?

              You have lost the argument. I asked you a simple question about what scandals the Democrats were involved in over the last six years. You did not mention any. I asked you since when did Sherrod Brown lower himself to the level of George Bush that we should not vote for him. You did not answer that question either.

              I recognize, of course, that the Democratic party is not perfect. I don't like a lot of the stuff that goes on in this party either. But for all their faults, they did not lie to the public and Congress over false pretenses, kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq, mismanage the Katrina disaster, or illegally wiretap people.

              Our solution is very simple. We would work for a peaceful solution for all the parties in Iraq so that we can pull out. Then, we would pay down the debt and put the money into our system so that people can have better lives.

              The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is simple -- we're the ones who put the money in; they're the ones who would take the money out.

              •  Make your point, but don't lie (1.00)
                To say that I "lost" anything because I didn't answer your question is a life.

                Moral failures for Democrats have been their scandals.

                Your thoughts are welcomed at!

                by rahelio soleil on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 05:54:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's a bunch of animal noises: (none)
                  I consider lying about a possible security threat, forging documents to back that lie, killing 100,000 civilians, and smearing people who call them on their BS to be moral failures. If these aren't moral failures, then I want to know what is.

                  Why is it OK to complain about moral failures of the Democrats and not the Republicans?

                  And besides, you have given me nothing which could reasonably construed as a moral failure. So, you haven't answered the question and you have lost the argument.

      •  Meh (4.00)
        Easy, David.

        I took offense to the way Hackett was treated not because I think he's cute or messianic.  I took offense because they treated him poorly, and if the grassroots does not hold the party leadership accountable for the way we treat our own, no one will.

        It should not be that the DSCC, DCCC, DLC, or any other acronym gets to anoint candidates.  Primaries are not needless, rote protocol.  They are a means by which to elevate debate.

        Some things are not for sale. Send the Republicans home in 2006.

        by The Termite on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:13:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Termite, I completely agree that we (4.00)
          need primaries, not only as a general rule but especially in a state like Ohio, where the party is on [at best] life support.
          Not only that, I was furious at Reid and Shumer for interfering, twice. As mad as I was over their recruitment of a man whom I admire[d] but who could well have lost to DeWine, I was even angrier over their interference with the moneybags. Honest moneybags should have the chance to decide, without pressure, who they prefer to support in a party primary. I'll bet no one tells George Soros who to back.
          Beside those two reasons, I'm a true Ohioan; I absolutely DETEST outsiders telling people in my state who to vote for. The only acceptable exception to that, for me, was MLK here for Carl Stokes.
          When Markos, himself, came out with what I considered a very convoluted and not-believable-by-me explanation about which candidate had really filed first, I came damned close to calling him out, on his own blog. I logged off the internet, left my apartment, and went to sit in the Fine Arts Garden [a park which is my "front yard"] until the winter chill had cooled my rage and my hypertension. It took three hours.

          But this diary, and Paul Hackett's accusations against Sherrod Brown, aren't about money or influence; the issue is where did the lie about Hackett and pictures in Iraq come from? And every time a Hackett supporter, Hackett himself, or one of the Rovebots gleefully trolling this diary conflates these two separate things, my blood boils, my keyboard fulminates, and I collect ones.
          If anyone at all, from Pounder to the Pope, will show me PROOF that the original swiftboating pictures-from-Iraq sliming began with Sherrod Brown's campaign, I will apologize to all Hackettistas, via a sign in Public Square, long enough to make the news. I am NOT joking.
          Absent such proof, I consider that I am looking at a particularly egregious circular firing squad, which will [once again] pop us Ohio Dems into the history books. So, to every kossak and to every troll touched by my typewriter:
          (1) About the beltway interference in our primary process; tell Reid/Schumer to take it to Yucca Mountain, flush it into the East River, or shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
          (2) About an unproven allegation that Brown's team originated the picture-from-Iraq smear; offer court-certifiable proof, or SHUT THE FUCK UP, M*TH*RF*CK*R. I will attack anyone who keeps offering proofless lies about it.

      •  Well, Mr. "It's my Party ..." (none)
        I have no more proof of Brown's innocence to offer than does Hesiod's excellent diary...

        And that is exactly the point.  Why do you think that it is OK to use speculation and innuendo to defend Brown and give him cover?

        Those of us who are trying to stand up for ethics here may not have your chummy relationship with Brown, but we have something that you don't have on Rove and that is the undisputed knowledge that Brown and the Dems stabbed Hackett in the back by putting a strangle hold on his donations.  Funny, sort of brings new meaning to "we've got your back", doesn't it?

        Given the current set of circumstances w.r.t. Paul Hackett, how do you feel about "your party" continuing to put him forth as a "leader of the Fighting Dems" after they booted him out?  Should "your party" continue to "use Hackett's service record" as an example of how the party is tough on defense when they won't even support him in his Senate bid?

        •  da42, you are a troll. You aren't even a (none)
          clever troll.
          When you underline a clear lie
          undisputed knowledge that Brown and the Dems stabbed Hackett in the back
          with a debatable exaggeration,
          by putting a stranglehold on his donations
          you give your game away. Next time/issue/trolling assignment, when you show up with a new handle [may I suggest you use "Rove's Gannon," to give you the right librul look] try avoiding the obvious, blatant, single compound lie. Try three or four exaggerations, spaced out, so they become a big lie by accretion. Another tip: placing special emphasis in a direct quote of another person's post, without stating that it is your own addition, is another well-known troll spoor.
          And your second paragraph? Stay away from trying to use veterans in your little fishing-for-reaction hate screeds. You'll incite me, and every other kossak veteran, to bitchslap you for the fun of it. 'Cause there aint no way YOU ever put yourself in harm's way for your country.
    •  Hackett has been a Democrat for what?? (none)
      2 years? 4 years? And he is the new face of the party?

      Fuck you man. You Hackett supporters are getting on my nerves.

      Why don't you go independent for Christ's sakes instead of bum rushing the whole party.

      You want me to support that? Get over your fucking selves.

      ... we now know a lot of things, most of which, we already knew... (-dash888)

      by Tirge Caps on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 11:27:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Another GOP stooge (none)
      I don't think Brown deserves the post just because he wears a "D" on his chest. I honestly hope he loses.

      In other words, you are a Republican.

      Fox News - We Distort, You Imbibe.

      by richter on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 12:15:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Right, screw Brown (none)
      Does the blogger mean to tell me that a decorated Marine and feisty political novice should sacrifice his own peace of mind to help support some asshole who slimed him?

      If Sherrod Brown had any hand at all in spreading gossip and lies about Hackett, he should be defeated because he's unworthy to sit in the US Senate.  

      I don't buy all that "blame it on Rove" crap until proven, and even then, Brown carried his water in Ohio, so should be defeated.  This is one race the Democrats deserve to lose.  

  •  Very interesting (4.00)
    A considerate and open-minded approach to a thoroughly reviewed situation.

    Kudos, and recommended.

    And if Rove wants to fight in my homestate, I can only say...bring it on.

  •  I'm glad (4.00)
    you posted this diary.
    It's exactly the way I felt after the initial disapointment settled in.
    Rove needs to be knee-capped, or hopefully his rotting, useless carcass will give out on him before he can completely destroy any future for this countries politics. I can't imagine the political gurus will ever go back 6 or 7 years, or even 15 years and let the system have any civility again.
    The scorched earth, win no matter what you have to do, or what law you have to shred mentality of Rove has forever layed this democracy in the ditch.
    He is a criminal sociopath given huge power by the complete loser with a great name, GWB.
    By the way, do we equate the Bush family with the Kennedy family politically in this country ?
    The Kennedy's have put service before self for generations.
    The Bush's sneak in and out of the government at will, profitting from whatever disaster they can, and then go back into the family business and wait for the next opportunity.
    They are truly vultures and robbers of this once great country.

    lead, follow, or get out of the way.

    by cabinetman1 on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 07:36:01 AM PST

    •  The damage is done (none)
      Even if Rove dropped dead tomorrow, his methodology is now well understood and will be continued with or without him.  If all you care about is gaining power and not about running an effective government, then Rovian politics is the way.  If you're a Republican who doesn't like government but sees it as a tool of self agrandizement and power, Rovism has your answer.

      --- If trickle down economics worked, Marie Antoinette wouldn't have lost her head

      by sterno on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:04:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Support Civility (none)
      If we really want a civil government back, we need to win and when we win we need to govern for all of America not just the 51% live the Rove-Bush administration has done.  We need to make sure that the nice guys win if we want nice guys in charge of our government. the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent
      -G.W. Bush
      -7.00 -7.74

      by Luam on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:46:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The problem is (3.50)
    that there's no evidence that Karl Rove had anything to do with it and LOTS of evidence that Democrats did. If you talk to Democratic Party Chairs you will discover exactly who was spreading the rumor. So far only one that I know of has gone on the record, but others have said so off the record and provided many more details.

    Nice try, but it doesn't hold up to the facts, UNLESS Karl Rove is such a mastermind that he's placed agents into senior levels of the Ohio Democratic Party.

    One question: What does it say about us fighting the "culture of corruption" if when we discover corruption within out own house we say and do nothing so that we don't risk losing elections. As I like to say, the easiest way to defeat your enemy is to become your enemy. I'm not interested in the easy path.

    •  Talk to me privately about this. (2.50)
      Send me an e-mail, I want to discuss this with you. I happen to have some good info on this, that I can't share publicly.
      •  Doesn't cut it (4.00)
        This is not a reply.  It amounts to Nixon announcing he had a plan to end thewar, but he couldn't tell anyone what it was.  If you have evidence linking Rove, it has to be part of this diary.  If you don't, or for some bizarre reason feel you have to keep it secret, then your diary shouldn't be up.
      •  do you have the proof (none)
        You said
        It would not surprise me if there are a few campaign infiltrators in the Brown camp spreading this rumor around.
        Since the rumor is being sourced back to the *highest* level in the Brown campaign, are you suggesting that Karl Rove has full control of Brown's campaign? Because that would make a lot of sense, in fact everything that has happened since October could finally be reconciled with Brown's past actions as a progressive.
        •  You too Bob. (3.00)
          E-mail me about this issue. I need to discuss it with you privately.
          •  I got an email (none)
            I think this diary should be deleted.
            •  Okay, so what the hell are the rest of us (none)
              suppose to think here?

              Is there a thug mole or not in the Brown camp? Your reply leads me to presume there are none.

              <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

              by bronte17 on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:07:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Rove had nothing to do with this (none)
                "If you can't make it, fake it" is an interesting strategy, it has kept Bush in power, but it isn't the solution to the current problem. Acting like the Rove isn't an answer to the charge of acting like Rove. Instead of digging to get out of the hole, progressive ideals like the truth, transparency, accountability, and cooperation instead of selfishness might be more appropriate.
                •  If we all play along, nobody will notice (2.40)
                  Text of email:

                  Bob. This is what I wrote to Chris baker:

                  I am trying to do damage control here. I know all about the evidence regarding the Brown campaign. But we Democrats have to get on the same page an turn this disaster around and in our favor.

                  Do we all agree that DeWine Must go down? If so, then Hackett and Brown have to kiss and make up.

                  I realize that many people are pissed off about what happened to Paul. And are sympatehtic to him. But Hackett should have handled it with class. Anmd he's not. He should be above this. Alll he's doing is hurting the Democrats chances for taking back the Senate and preventing Bush from screwing us for another two years.

                  So, he will have to swallow his pride and do a John McCain.

                  What I am trying to do in my diary is create a way for Hackett  to SAVE FACE and help the party out. He can rail all he wants against Rove, and stop undermining the Brown campaign.

                  Brown, privately, can offer a full apology to Hackett and even offer up whoever it was who was spreading the rumor as a sacrifice, if necessary. Come up with some excuse for it.

                  But the bottom lilne is that we MUST win this race. And Hackett's scorched Earth campaign is a disaster.

                  The biggest irony here is that Brown isn't even a DLCer or a Lieberman type. He's a full-blooded progressive Dem who is right on all the issues that matter.

                  So, I am pleading with you. No BEGING you to go along with this. The GOP does this all the time. Put aside your personal issues and promote this meme. Instead of undercutting it, you should be helping me.

                  That's all I have to say. Either you agree or you don't.


                  Just go along with this, the GOP does it all the time.

                  •  What Hesiod was wrong - although I feel he (none)
                    has/had good intentions.  

                    What you did is wrong, and your intentions are based upon what I am sure you feel are good, also.

                    Meanwhile, there is a third party that is standing off the side, high fiving his pals .. his name?

                    Karl Rove.


                    "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

                    by shpilk on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:34:35 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  we need to get past this (none)
                      The tactics that put us in this situation aren't going to get us out of this situation. Even if everyone here decided to play along, it wouldn't help anything on the ground in Ohio. But yes, we need to move on. Attacking Hackett (and supporters) and denying what went on aren't the way, it has only made things worse over the last 11 days.
                  •  what (none)
                    Great...try to make shit up and spread rumors. THat's what separates us from the repugs. We do it half assed. Now even if there is legit info that KR and co. were involved, it could be discounted on behalf of this BS. PLEASE DELETE!!!!
                    •  Nobody's making shit up. (none)
                      My theory has not been debunked. And the more I learn about what really happened, the more convincved I am that something fishy is going on.
                      •  The tone (none)
                        from the Email that was posted (Though it maybe shouldn't have) made it seem that way. If that's not the tone meant then sorry. Yes there are elements that are unknown,from sherrod coming in late, to who was spreading rumors. I personally think the latter reeks of KR. but running a whisper campaign like this will hurt if it comes out he was involved.
                      •  That's your proof? (none)
                        That no one has disproved your theory?

                        My penis is a yard long.  Disprove.

                        Some things are not for sale. Send the Republicans home in 2006.

                        by The Termite on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:31:25 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  How silly. (none)
                          Have you provided a ozen links to sources showing how your pants bulg, women love you, porn producers are beating down your door and testimony from the drugstore cleark about what size condom you purchase? Beacsue that's the equivalent of what I did with Rove.
                  •  Typical Bob. (3.25)
                    And the reason that I have less than zero respect for him.

                    "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 Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:45:03 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  What about my follow up e-mails, Bob? (none)
                    Where I keep asking people to explain where Dan Lucas got this rumor from. And that unless I got a good answer I was sticking to my Rove theory. As I poiinted out, Dan Lucas could verfy well be warning people about a rumor he heard on Hackett. Where did that rumor come from? That's the big mystery. I keep asking "insiders" about it and nobody will say jack shit.
                    •  if you want to seek the truth (none)
                      try an attempt at seeking the truth

                      A diary headlining, "Karl Rove Punked Paul Hackett and his Followers" is an attempt to mislead.

                      •  It should probably read... (4.00)
                        Karl Rove punked Sherrod Brown. Because that's how it's srarting to look. I have been getting a LOT of interesting e-mails on this topic from various sources. Not just you Bob. And even the links you sent me raised some questions. WHERE did Lucas get this from? I address the isse in the comments and in my update, Bob. Namely, the rumor gets started outside of the Brown campaign and it gets picked up by the campaign. I cited the Kerry intern affair issue as a classic example. Everyone was ready to pin that all on Chris Lehane, remember? But it turned out to be a Kerry-hating GOPer who was an "acquiantence" of Polier's.
                  •  Ack! Bob (none)
                    The first answer was fine. Posting personal emails is a major No.

                    We are all too stressed about Ohio and it's a dirty shame because the state should be ripe to turn to Democrats.

                    <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

                    by bronte17 on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:30:35 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Kudos. (none)
                    Agree with your point 100%.  I congratulate you on elevating the level of discourse and standing up for ethics.  That's all we should have to do.
              •  Consider the source (none)
                and take that into account.

                "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 Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:16:46 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  I have to agree... (4.00)
        ...with pkjnew.

        Secrecy is poison.  If you know a relevant truth, tell it.

        "The American people will trust the Democratic Party to defend America when they believe that Democrats will defend other Democrats." Wesley Clark

        by The Termite on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 08:10:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  why enter a public dialogue (4.00)
        if you're going to [publicly, no less] assert a need for secrecy?

        You totally undermined your argument, and played right into the hands of those who disagree with you on the grounds, in part, of behind the scenes secret manipulation.

        Dumb in the extreme, no?

      •  Hesiod, You've Got Mail! (none)
        No promises.

        6/24/05: Charlie the Tuna Creator Dies En lieu of flowers, please bring mayonnaise, chopped celery and paprika.

        by LunkHead on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:25:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why write diary (none)
        and then downrate anyone who disagrees with you?

        "If you don't want to fight for the future and you can't figure out how to beat these people then find something else to do." BILL CLINTON, Sat Oct 29, 2005

        by DriftawayNH on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:27:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hesiod, I saw the e-mail, obviously (none)
        since it has been posted here in thread

        Why be coy about it ?

        There was no reason to hide the contents of the e-mail, it should have been part of the diary.

        I did not expect you to have some secret inside information about Rove; the implication that that you did has now been blown out of porportion.

        I still agree with the meme of your diary - but your tactics are faulty.

        Transparency is always preferable in politics.


        "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

        by shpilk on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:49:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hmmmh... (none)
      "UNLESS Karl Rove is such a mastermind that he's placed agents into senior levels of the Ohio Democratic Party."

      Now that would explain a lot. The ODP isn't a bunch of incompetent fuckups, they are really being led by a group of secret stealth republican political ninjas.


    •  I gave you a "4" to balance (4.00)
      the low rating that I feel was inappropriate.

      I don't think there is any clear evidence of who started the alleged 'whispering campaign' against Hackett, but he did not help himself much afterward either, with the manner he/his campaign staff seems (I say 'seems' because almost everything we see about this matter is being filtered and molded by the political media, and Hackett could also be getting the 'Dean Scream' treatment here) to have behaved afterward.

    •  You doubt Rove treats this as espionage? (4.00)
      Cuz I sure don't. It makes sense. It makes WAY more sense than anything else.

      It's classic, in every sense of the word. Have you never read Othello?

    •  Rove Suspicions (4.00)
      Oh boy, what you said
      UNLESS Karl Rove is such a mastermind that he's placed agents into senior levels of the Ohio Democratic Party.

      What if Rove has influence on the senior national levels of the Democratic Party?  The crap about Kerry being "electable" and Dean "unelectable" always seemed like a pure Rovian plant to me.

      Burnet O (-8.31,-6.31)
      Impeach Cheney First

      by BurnetO on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 08:23:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There never is any evidence when Rove is involved, (none)
      at least not until after the damage is done. Its worth looking at this angle of thought IMO.

      "...there's no evidence that Karl Rove had anything to do with it and LOTS of evidence that Democrats did"

    •  If you are going to make statements (none)
      about what Ohio Democratic County Chairs have said to you, you need to name names and offer proof, or be branded a LIAR until proven otherwise. You have just libelled "anonymous chairs." Nice, Vichy, real nice.
    •  hmmmm (none)
      "So far only one that I know of has gone on the record, but others have said so off the record and provided many more details."

      Broad brush statement, without any links.

      How about letting the rest of us see your 'proof'?

      "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

      by shpilk on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:23:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good Dairy; recommended. (none)
    I don't necessarily agree with all your points but this diary broaches some important subjects.
  •  Excellent point, Hesiod (4.00)
    Hackett could have easily been unknowingly manipulated by a Rove operative in his campaign.
  •  I wonder.. (none)
    Is it possible that Browns campaign was spreading rumors, but not as a whisper campaign?

    I mean it is human nature to gossip.  So maybe these rumors were not being spread intentionally?

  •  valuable diary (4.00)
    Ouch!  I have only two questions. 1a) why aren't Rove's tactics illegal & 1b)why isn't he in jail?
    2) Why do we (anybody who isn't on Rove's side) always fall into the trap?

    Please, somebody, clue Paul Hackett in. (actually, I assume that is being done)

    Oh Hesiod, you do my hometown proud.

  •  The Rove... (none)
    The Rove explanation makes no sense, insiders know who is spreading these rumors, so even if it were a Rove technique Brown should still have fired the "Rove agents" spreading these rumors.

    But I do think its possible, that these rumors were spread by gossip as opposed to an intential whisper campaign.

    •  That's essentially my point. (none)
      Rove starts the rumors, and they get picked up as gossip by Brown's campaign people. Who then say "The GOP is going to go after Paul on this -- you better wtach out." Or: "Is this stuff true? I sure hope not."
  •  Thank you (4.00)
    I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one thinking these things.  Recommended.

    "Semper fi, motherfucker!" -The Rock in the worst movie ever made

    by Sean C on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 08:00:46 AM PST

    •  And another thing (4.00)
      On the Drudge Report, Drudge linked to the Mother Jones article on Hackett leaving because of insider pressure and guess what the headline was? "MAG: Iraqi Vet Forced Out Of Senate Race By Harry Reid; Reid Questioned Photos Of Vet Doing Job In Iraq..."  When you read the article, however, it is quite clear that it wasn't Harry Reid who pushed Hackett out. Furthermore, the most Harry Reid did in questioning the photos is to personally call Hackett and ask point-blank if the rumors are true.  He didn't engage in any accusations, he didn't swift-boat him, he simply was upfront and asked him a direct question so as to dispel any rumors about Hackett. So why is that important? Because the misleading headline that Drudge put up is going to be the gist of the talking points for Republicans in the coming months to counter the "Fighting Dems" theme.  Talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh have already been spouting 'I though Democrats liked veterans' and stuff like that and Republicans will adopt that meme at a national level. Linking as many Democrats to this business as possible is going to be one of the Republicans' major tasks as election season winds up and we have to be ready for it.

      "Semper fi, motherfucker!" -The Rock in the worst movie ever made

      by Sean C on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 08:16:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And a whole bunch of Hackett worshipers (none)
        who CLAIM to be Democrats, seem prepared to help Rove do exactly that.
        Linking as many Democrats to this business as possible is going to be one of the Republicans' major tasks as election season winds up..
        •  nah (none)
          nah, we are just non kool aid drinkers who vote anyway we feel like.

          What the Senate Dems did to Hackett was dead wrong, if you can't see that then by all means have another glass of kool aid.

          Some of us want real fighters, want new blood, for some of us ,the status quo just isn't good enough.

          •  If real fighters are what you want, (none)
            Some of us want real fighters, want new blood..
            then why are you whining after Paul Hackett? He left you. At the alter. Are you all going to keep bleating "Shane, come back!" from now till the fifth of July?
            You don't know new blood when it is offered, or you'd know who and what Sherrod Brown is. He is a progressive, not a DLC type. His House vote creds are solid. He has been a Rep long enough not to be intimidated by Senate dinosaurs. He knows he has to respond to his conbstituents; in Ohio, Democrats are elected (when they are) by progressives AND conservatives. Even in Cleveland. Had you done your homework, you would know that the last thing Brown could be called is a beltway hack.
            But some of you aren't interested in an honest argument. If you were all sincere about righteously conducted campaigns, we wouldn't have seen dirty tricks played against Brown, here at Daily Kos. At the time those shenanigans were occuring, I stated (as did other kossaks) that the supporters of Hackett were hurting him with such methods and I stated that I was SURE Paul Hackett, himself, had nothing to do with such dirt and would NOT be pleased by it going on in his name.
            Of course, even we fossils can be naive about strangers; when I made those pronouncements about Major Hackett's integrity, I did not know that his staffers were actively seeking dirt on Brown. Talk about Ohio politics as usual..

            So we can add another category of Democrats to our sad Democratic Party Lexicon: Demospoilers.
            demospoiler n. A member of the Democratic Party who prefers defeat for his party at the polls, if his candidate choice is not the nominee. slang demoschm*ck

            And about that koolaid? You are 19,000 uids more experienced as a kossak than me, so I'm disinclined to show you the forebearance I granted the probable troll who may only be a newbie:
            If you really think I'm full of koolaid, be a pal and come suck it out of me. If one drop of my vital body fluids turns out to be koolaid, I'll pay you for the service. If no koolaid, it's on the house.

  •  Recommended? (4.00)
    This diary doesn't offer a shred of evidence for its assertion.  It just says something we'd all like to think true as an alternative to the unpleasant things for which there is evidence.  What's happened to the "reality-based" mindset with which the left has consistently challenged Bush and his supporters?
    •  Life is more complicated than you think. (none)
      Remember the whole Alexandra Polier rumors about kerry and an intern? That was started by Republicans, and then got PICKED UP by (supposedly) Chris Lehane and the Clark campaign.
      •  When shown evidence (4.00)
        When shown evidence, I'll believe it.  How complicated is that?
        •  Fine (3.00)
          People like Hesiod will connect the dots between Karl Rove's planned work for Ohio, what is currently unfolding, and Rove's history. People like you are perfectly free to sit around and wait for some Nixon-like White House tapes saying as much before believing it, but there's no reason for you to grumble when others make a logical induction about what's happening.

          "Semper fi, motherfucker!" -The Rock in the worst movie ever made

          by Sean C on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 08:24:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  HEY PKJNEW WE HEARD YOU ALREADY!!! (none)
          Now can you let it rest???  Jeez.  How many times do you have to publish the same goddamn comment???  Publish a counterdiary if it's that important to you....

          "Now if people got problems and they got problems with people oh yeah I know what it is to be there." - DW

          by ScantronPresident on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 08:44:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  to clarify (none)
            Yes, pkjnew, you are right that more hard evidence is needed.  Obviously, by Hesiod's willingness to discuss on the side, there's more to this story.  Rather than hear him out, it seems like you want to start a flame war, which is not productive.

            The reason that people are standing up for this diary is that Hesiod has a reputation that goes way back.  If his past record is any indication, be patient - the best is yet to come.  Sorry for jumping down your throat.  STP.

            "Now if people got problems and they got problems with people oh yeah I know what it is to be there." - DW

            by ScantronPresident on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 08:58:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  no apology needed (none)
            As you asked, I shut up and let others question wht Hesiod was doing.  My shutting up didn't help Hesiod or those who supported his diary, however, as you probably noticed.  
    •  You are right .. no evidence is offered (none)
      but, to everyone on this thread that is posting - everyone who is caling this tin-foil I'll offer up this perspective.


      .. if I tell you that I hold a ball in my hand and let it go, it will fall to the ground.

      I don't need to offer evidence of gravity, either.


      It's not a question of whether or not Rove and his network were involved, it's only a question of how much they were involved, and what the details are.

      I think we all agree that Hackett had the visibility by his surprising challenge that Schmidt thing - Rove would have had to have been dead not to see it. There is little doubt in my mind Karl Rove and his operatives on the ground in Ohio are still looking for ways to shove a wedge into the works.

      Yes, there is no doubt mistakes were made by both the Hackett and Brown campaigns. But the worst, most unethical of the actions taken are a direct result Karl Rove and his magic slime machine.

      Just like gravity. It's there, and we deal with it everyday.

      "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

      by shpilk on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:20:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  tin foil hat (4.00)
    I try to keep mine in the hat box, but I wouldn't put anything--anything--past those people. I don't believe that Rove was behind the whole Rathergate thing, planting phony documents, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if some evidence came along to that effect. Likewise the video tape that was sent to Al Gore in 2000: anybody think Rove wasn't behind that?

    These people know they can pull crazy shit cause the media will always say, O tut tut. Those Democrats are being shrill again. I think on some level they just do it for fun.

    I remember in the Watergate hearings when one of the drones said that he would do anything for Nixon; a Senator said, "Even murder?" and the drone (Butterfield?) replied after about thirty seconds "I'd have to think about that". I think that's what went down. I was four. Anyway: My point is that Rove has figured out that he doesn't have to assassinate anyone; he has the media puppets to assassinate their character for him.

  •  I'll believe it right away... (none)
    If you show me the press release from Brown condemning the whisper campaign tactics against Hackett. He has said nothing to condemn these tactices at all because, well, he's benefitted from them.

    It's not about burying the hatchet, it's about these scummy tactics which undermine our party and make us lose elections. And, assuming Brown WAS involved in this effort, which I truly believe is true, that means he resorted to really slimy tactics to get elected. So what makes you think he won't really turn and go very right if he's elected to stay there?

  •  KKKarl Rove (4.00)

    Good diary, Hesiod.  I've felt the same twinge of suspicion over this Hackett-rackett.  It truly is reminiscent of KKKarl Rove in every single political campaign he's "run".

    I'm amazed that he has so much time to do this political bullshit but can't find a second of time to work on Katrina cleanup!  He WAS put "in charge" of that, right?  Well, why the hell is he in DC, on Fox News, and playing political football instead of WORKING???  (whatta mo-fo)

    Anyway, I recall reading here on Kos when the uproar over Hackett's pull-out, that Donna Brazile was seen having a "meal" with KKKarl Rove himself in DC.  Now, I'm curious about this....first of all, is it true? and secondly, what the HELL would she have to discuss with such a political pirate?  

    It all stinks to high hell.  

    Oh, and by the way, WHY DOES KKKARL STILL HAVE SECURITY CLEARANCE?  WHY?  And, how is it that he can still be walking freely amongst us and continuously wreaking havoc on our country?  ugh....!

  •  Occam's Razor (4.00)
    The simplest explanation is usually correct.

    There's no reason to believe that this is anything but what it appears -- that the DNC was pushing for Brown (something we know to have truth to it) and that Hackett became fed up with it and quit. And it makes more sense that Rove would have wanted Hackett to win the primary because he had financial trouble and was inexperienced and untested on a stage that large. He was prone to frequent Dean-like mouth-offs, which is exactly the kind of candidate Rove likes to run against.

    But it should also be noted that Rove is not the Emperor of the RNC, and is not necessarily all that involved in every congressional election around the country. He has enough to worry about these days.

    And also, as a side note, I take issue with characterizing this as "Swiftboating." Swiftboating is when Republicans appear on television and lie, lie, lie, about their opponent, to such an unconscionable degree, the practice would be blatantly illegal in any other democracy around the world. I don't believe what happened in Ohio is anything like that. One can certainly have the opinion that what happened was malicious (an opinion I do not share), but just something is malicious, that does not make it Swiftboating. I just take issue with this because I don't want the term to become a generic expression for anything we don't like in politics. Swiftboating is a very unique tactic that people need to be made aware of, and it's something that needs to be outlawed.

    "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." - Salvor Hardin

    by Zackpunk on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 08:38:53 AM PST

    •  While Rove himself can't be (4.00)
      responsible for every single dirty trick the Rethugs have put into play over the past umpty years, both he and his mentor Lee Atwater, when that greasy little dirtbag was alive, taught a hell of a lot of seminars and groomed a hell of a lot of little pig bastards to follow in their hoofsteps.

      "Kneecapping" Karl won't make Rovian politicking go away.  It's like the Hydra, cut one head off and two more sprout in its place.  We just have to keep whacking and hope we can get ahead of the curve until, somehow, the culture matures enough so that Rovian political strategies no longer appeal to a large section of the electorate.

    •  Is this a misapplication of the razor? (4.00)
      Isn't the principle that you shouldn't make any assumptions that aren't necessary to explain the situation?

      In this case, the use of similar tactics by Karl Rove and other Republican operatives is a known fact that warrants inclusion in any thorough consideration of the events.

      The question at hand is that of the origin of the rumors. Wouldn't a clearer application of Occam's razor ask whether it was simpler to believe that the  rumors originated with Democrats, who allegedly wanted to maintain Hackett's viability in OH-02, or with Republicans, who wanted both men destroyed?

      Regardless of where you stand on the issue of the primary, it might be time to apply Occam's razor to the question of where to apply Occam's razor.

      •  I don't think so (none)
        You're confusing the issue. The source_of the rumor is not the question. The question is the _viability of the rumor. In this case, the simpler explanation is that the situation is exactly as it appears.

        In this case the unnecessary assumption is that Rove had anything to do with this. There is no reason to introduce that element in order to explain the situation.

        "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." - Salvor Hardin

        by Zackpunk on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:30:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  is there any scientific (4.00)
      proof that this razor theory is actually anything more than a clever cocktail party remark Occam once made?
  •  Hackett knows where his duty is. (none)
    It IS to the country, not the party.  He has no duty to support or help a party that has pulled such dirty tricks on him.

    It is so easy to try to blame it all on Karl Rove.  Karl Rove wasn't the one that asked him to run.  Karl Rove is not the one that asked him to quit.
    Karl Rove isn't the one that told people inside the party not to send Hackett's campaign money.

    Quit trying to make a cover-up for mistreatment of Hackett by Democrats.  Karl Rove isn't the one that stabbed Hackett in the back.  He wasn't supposed to be behind him.

    •  Think about what you wrote. (2.50)
      The Democrats encouraged him to run in the fiorst place, And they wanted him to run for Conmgress when they put pressure on his donors. As I have said ad nauseum, I didn't like it when they did that. I thought and think it was wrong. But that kind of thing happens all the time, and MOST people understand that's part of politics. But Hackett is taking this way beyond rationality now. And, Hackett is NOT serving his country well by helping re-elect Mike DeWine and giving the GOP another opportunity to keep the fucking Senate! If that's what you want, you might as well be a dumbass 2000 Nader voter.
      •  Hackett isn't helping DeWine. (3.25)
        The people that treated Hackett badly helped DeWine.  You say you don't like what they did, then you turn around and excuse it.  The only real reason you have to do that is that they are Democrats.  It is all about party.

        For me, it is about what is good for the country.  Dirty tricks like those used against Hackett aren't good for the country.  In the end, they aren't good for the party, either.  When the party acts as it did, there are consequences, or there should be.  Making excuses just allows things like this to happen again.

        •  right, slamming Brown is good for the country? (none)
          Must be a nice alternative universe you live in there. Hesiod is right--this kind of thing happens in politics. What about Nita Lowey, who was kept hanging for a long time while Hillary debated about whether to run for Senate as a carpetbagger in NY? Did Nita Lowey get all pissy and storm off? No, she sucked it up because SHE IS A DEMOCRAT.

          We need every last Democrat we can get in the Senate. That includes Ben Nelson and even Joe Lieberman IF HE WINS THE PRIMARY AGAINST LAMONT (I have donated money to Lamont, by the way). We need to get to 51 Democrats.

          •  If by this ... (none)
            ... Did Nita Lowey get all pissy and storm off? No, she sucked it up because SHE IS A DEMOCRAT.

            Do you mean to imply that Paul is NOT a Democrat?  If that is the case, should he now be removed from the list of "Fighting Dems?"

        •  Take your consequences out of OUR party (2.50)
          Anderson Nader. Some of us are heartily sick of Vichy Democrats like Lieberman, and even sicker of other cretins who are willing to see the Democrats defeated UNLESS they come up to some level of ideological purity defined by them.
          My party has a big tent. There is room in it for all sorts of different views. The only view which is totally UNacceptable is the idea that it is your party to DESTROY.
          •  Soo... your "big tent" (none)
            includes acting unethically?  It includes pulling dirty tricks on people who are working in the same direction?  Don't think I want to be in your big tent.

            Of course, I'm not anymore.  I don't have anything to do with any Anderson or Nader, by the way.  I'm just sick of both major parties, and wish they'd clean up their acts.  I don't belong to an alternative one.  I haven't voted for third party candidates, except in one or two extreme cases where neither major party had a candidate I could stand to plug my nose and vote for.  Last presidential election wasn't one of them.

            I still hate to have to plug my nose when I vote, sorry.

    •  I know. (4.00)
      But Brown still is a much better candidate than DeWine; I still want him to win. If we get back the Senate, then we can pressure the Senate to open investigations on this if Hesoid's sources are reliable.
      •  The whole "lesser of two evils" (2.50)
        thing is pretty old, and leaves us with evils, whether lesser than they might be or not.

        I got tired of the dirty tricks and nastiness a long time ago.  I don't think much of either major party.  I'm not going to support the idea that Hackett should just sit back and take the backstabbing.  It isn't right.

        •  I didn't say that. (4.00)
          It is healthy for Hackett to get out and address these issues if he thinks he was not being treated fairly. Maybe it will lead to a case where both sides will sit down and clear the air. That is what is needed.

          My question is, do we support Brown and get 51 Senators so we can control all the chairmanships so we can open investigations into the widespread nature of the Bush corruption? Wouldn't you want to get to the bottom of all this? If Rove is behind this stuff like the diarist thinks, wouldn't it be nice to have a Democratic committee chair who will investigate if we give him sufficent proof?

          •  Rove is just being used as a cover. (none)
            Yes, the Bush administration needs to go.  The Democratic party doesn't seem to have anybody all that great to replace them, though.

            Both parties need to be cleaned up.  They are full of unethical hacks that have no greater qualification for getting elected than that they are money magnets for special interest funds.

            •  Really? (none)
              Name some of the scandals the Democrats have been involved within the last six years that would make them just as bad as the Republicans.
              •  So you want to pretend that (none)
                Democrats have done nothing wrong in the last six years?  I notice you don't go back to the Clinton years.  Too easy for examples to pop up there, I guess.

                The administration and Congress are Republican right now, so naturally the emphasis of those watching for scandals is on them.  You are kidding yourself if you believe that no Democrat is doing anything wrong.  

                •  P.S. I didn't see you proposing any Democrats (none)
                  that would actually be a good replacement for the present administration.
                •  So, you don't know of any. (none)
                  I asked you to name some scandals that the Democrats have been guilty of in the last six years, and you didn't name any. I take it that means you don't know.

                  And the only thing they ever got Clinton on was a blowjob. There was not enough evidence that Clinton did anything else even though they threw the kitchen sink at him.

                  I'll tell you a few Democrats who would be tons better than this administration in 2008:

                  Feingold: The only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act; he actively fights to reform the same things you are complaining about in this thread.

                  Clark: He gives this party credibility on national security issues.

                  Edwards: One of the few people I know of who is calling attention to poverty issues.

                  But in order for these people to get through their agendas, we need Democrats to control the House and Senate.

                  •  First, (none)
                    The Monica thing wasn't the only scandal of Clinton's years.  Scandal was attached to pardons he gave as he left office, Whitewater, and there were others.

                    Feingold's "reforms" don't go far enough.  None of the proposed reforms at any level of government do.  Complete public funding of election campaigns isn't what they are talking about.  Even people in the groups advocating "clean money" don't think they could get that passed.  Anything less is just a different bunch of loopholes.  When you try to talk about getting rid of all the non-public funds, politicians start pretending that money is speech.  Money isn't speech, no matter what anyone says.  It is money.

                    Saying that money is speech makes a rich person have more speech rights than one who isn't rich.  Is that the intention of the Constitution in establishing the right to free speech?  I don't think so.  All citizens are to be equal under the law.  Speech of one single individual person should be the same as speech of any other single individual person.  The size of the wallet isn't part of the calculation.

                    Feingold doesn't really change the money problem with his proposals.

                    Clark, while not a bad guy, doesn't even seem to have credibility with some Democrats as a Democrat.

                    I like Edwards, but I'm not sure even he isn't too much a part of the machine.  His wife is brilliant, too.

                    What I am trying to say here is that we have some huge problems and neither party is prepared to solve them.  This administration has exacerbated them to an unprecedented degree, but the Democratic party is also highly steeped in going after money and cheap political tricks.

                    Hackett is a case in point.  Why did the party people say he should quit?  Ideas?  No.  Qualifications?  No.  Just MONEY.  Money which they in some cases kept him from getting.  Some rumors got thrown in just to make it a little harder for him to keep trying.  

                    •  Not nearly as bad as the GOP. (none)
                      There was never enough evidence for them to impeach Clinton over Whitewater. And it was stupid of him to pardon the people he did, although not illegal. And nobody died as a result of Clinton's scandals.

                      On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of people died as the result of Bush conspiring with Blair to fix the facts around the case for war with Iraq. Thousands died because of the non-response of Bush to Katrina. People's lives are on the line. So, you cannot reasonably claim that the Democratic scandals are somehow the equivalent of the Bush administration's over the last six years.

                      And you give no examples whatsoever of any kind of Democratic scandal even though you keep alluding to one.

                      But given your point that the Democratic establishment was throwing difficulties in Hackett's way, he could always raise money the way Howard Dean did -- bypass the establishment and set up a community similar to the way Dean did as well as post here on a regular basis. I don't like what they did, but there were ways around that problem. Setting up a community could have enabled something else -- rapid response to any such rumors.

                      But Hackett chose to quit. That was his decision, and I respect it. Nobody made him quit.

                      And I fail to see how the Democratic establishment getting behind Brown qualifies as a scandal equivalent to anything the Bush administration did such as the stuff I have mentioned.

                      The only people who are making any meaningful campaign finance reform proposals are coming from the Democrats. Feingold supports the expansion of his bill to limit big money, while Dean has tapped into smaller donors much more than any of his predecessors have done.

                      •  Actually... (none)
                        ...the fact that the Republicans spend seven years and tens of millions of dollars trying to find something ANYTHING on Clinton (and Whitewater was a big nothing or they would have used it) and ultimately had to go after him for a blowjob probably proves that the Clinton administration was one of the cleanest and most scandal-free in our countries history. I can think of about 100 things the Bush administration has done that they would have leaped on in a second, making the saving of the blue dress irrelevant. But it wasn't there so they couldn't. Bill Clinton is pure. Most of those Republicans just wish they were getting blowjobs incuding Ken Starr whose wife once said that a romantic evening at home for them consisted of gathering around the piano to sing hymns. Can you say sexual frustration?
                        •  No. Clinton's was not a scandal free, clean (none)

                          I realize that this is hard for some Clinton fans to accept, but Clinton was not perfect. He wasn't as dangerous as Bush has turned out to be, but he was no angel.  He doesn't have a spotless ethical record.

                          His administration did have scandals.  As far as whether anyone at all died because of them, that is not completely clear, though there were definitely less deaths than during Bush's administation.

                          Saying that the Clinton administration was better than the Bush administration is like saying that a poison that kills you in small doses over ten years is better than one that kills you quickly.  They are both still poisons.  I'd rather have a vitamin.

                          •  You are ignoring a fact of life: (none)
                            Nobody is perfect. I accept that. Of course we should try to elect the best people that we can. But if we sit around looking for the perfect man to lead us, we could be sitting here until judgement day. And he could always refuse to lead us. So we do the best we can. That is the basic flaw in your position -- you ignore reality.

                            You name me one politician that you like, and I can tell you something wrong with them. It happens all the time.

                            So, by your logic, we should never vote, because it would be the equivalent of taking poison. And then, everybody would stay home and George Bush would get elected to a third term or Jeb would get elected President -- one of the two. Dobson and his army would have no qualms getting out and voting. And they would win landslides and you wouldn't, because they would vote and you wouldn't. Is that what you want?

                            You have lost the argument. I asked you to give me a single example of a legitimate scandal from the Democrats over the last six years -- not the Clinton years; many people here do not like the Clintons. You have twice failed to do so. Therefore, since you don't know of any scandals, you don't know what you are talking about.

                            Furthermore, you have failed to answer my point that Democrats would put in more money for schools, more money for health care, more money for Katrina relief, and more money for Social Security. Not only that, we would wipe out the debt so that maybe we could set up public financing of campaigns like you want so much.

                            So, no matter how much you try to squirm around and argue, nobody will listen to you because you cannot defend your position.

        •  Sherrod Brown is not a lesser evil! (none)
          He is one of the most progressive Dems in our House caucus! What is wrong with people who are losing sight of that?
        •  Lesser evil does not apply (4.00)
          Brown has been a strong progressive in Congress and will be the most progressive Democrat in the Senate if he wins in Ohio.  There were two good candidates for that Ohio Senate seat and now, sadly,  there is only one.  It is sad that Brown is being tarred by the brush of being a DNC hack (it does argue against the DNC being run by the DLC BTW) because he has a good record that any of us would be proud of.

 the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent
          -G.W. Bush
          -7.00 -7.74

          by Luam on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:59:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  If Rove is the slammer... (none)
    ...and the attacks stop, would that satisfy the doubters?
    •  Putting Rove in the slammer (4.00)
      would be a bright, shining moment for democracy and civilization, but it wouldn't stop the Rovian style of politicking.  Too many Rove disciples befouling the Republican Party.
    •  The attacks have already stopped. (none)
      They achieved their objective.  Hackett is no longer in the race.
      •  NO. The attacks have NOT stopped. (4.00)
        The actual attack was against Democratic hopes of retaking my state. The objective was to destroy BOTH of DeWine's potential opponents.
        That is why you will see a drumbeat of accusation about the lie against Hackett, and you will see it presented as a Brown tactic. And Rove is such a clever dirtbag that all he will have his Repub shills point to is posters such as YOU.
        •  it's so painfully obvious (none)
          Hackett called Bush a "chickenhawk" and a "sonofabitch."  Do Bush and Rove have a history of ignoring this kind of thing?  

          If the Republican party looses control of Ohio, what rocks might get turned over?  What truths might come to light?

          Cui bono?

          I used to live in the United States of America. Now I live in a homeland.

          by homeland observer on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 12:55:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It wasn't Karl Rove that did (none)
          what was done to Hackett.  It was Democrats.  Rove may exploit the weaknesses that the dirty tricks inside the party created, and he probably will.  That doesn't mean he did the things that went on inside the party.

          If the Democratic party is going to do any good, it has to fix its own problems first, including things like what was done to Hackett.  If having failed to fix their own problems makes them vulnerable to attack from unscrupulous characters from outside the party, it is not the fault of the victim of what went on INSIDE the party.

          Having nastiness go on inside the party does create vulnerability to attack.  The only thing to be done is to make sure it doesn't go on in the first place.  You can't just pretend nothing happened inside the party.

  •  More Senate Campaign Slime (none)
    I refer readers to my diary from a couple of days ago regarding another slimy move by the GOP to try and retain control of the Senate by trashing a Democrat who's running against a Republican incumbent. Maybe not directly traceable back to Rove, but still, I think this deserves more attention than it has received.

    Dirty Politics: The Pederson Arrest

  •  Pssst... (none)
    Rove and Bush have slept together... heard it from a friend who knows a friend of Laura.  It was in the early days when Bush was still doing coke...Rove swears he's going to let the world know and that's why he'll never lose his job or go to jail.

    Channeling for Miss Emily Litella since 1999!

    by rosabw on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:04:54 AM PST

  •  I think Rove is (4.00)
    going to succeed on this one. There are some who want to believe that this is from Brown because they want to believe everything bad about Democrats as they can. They spend so much time attacking Democrats and their institutions and this fits nicely into their beliefs.

    Then there are others that are trolling in hopes to divide us even further. They see their party, the GOP, looking at a complete meltdown and will do anything they can to lessen the damage. Most of them have high uid's but some have been around for a long time waiting for this kind of opportunity.

    "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 Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:05:32 AM PST

  •  Whether Rove was behind this or not... (4.00)
    You can bet he relishes the thought of all the Hackett junkies screaming nasties about Brown.
    & personally - I think Rove (or his clones) have a lot more to gain by stirring dissension among Ohio Dems than Brown or the DNC does.
    THINK about it. What good does bad-mouthing Brown do to the Democrats?
    •  Isn't this a little like asking... (none)
      What good does holding Brown up to a high standard of ethics do to the Democrats?

      That's the point, after all.  Nobody is bad mouthing Brown, merely preventing him from brushing things under the rug.  Should he be allowed to get away with the kind of dirty tactics that the Republicans use just because he is a Democrat?

      Keep the truth out there.  Take the high road.

  •  Well... (4.00)
    I don't want to see another flame war here...but I suggested the day that article came out in Mother Jones suggesting Brown sabotaged Hackett...that it was probably Republicans all along...trying to get Hackett out of the race because Brown would be easier to beat and more predictable.

    I wish Hackett had stayed strong and made an appeal to bloggers for help with donations...but he didn't...

    we've got Brown now...and he's a great candidate let's work our asses off to get him elected and make Ohio Bluer...

  •  This is a good theory. (none)
    But you are basing your case on info that you cannot reveal yet. Some people have a hard time believing this diary because of that. You might want to wait a month or two until you can talk about it. I want to know the truth behind this; if Rove was behind the swift-boating of Hackett, I want to know about it. But if you cannot reveal all the info, then I personally can wait until you can.
  •  bron punked himself (none)
    If brown had gone directly to hackett, the instant there was the hint of swiftboating and told him face to face that he (brown) had nothing to do with it then there would have been an alliance and a friendship between to men of honor and substance.  did brown reach out to hackett?
  •  I've suspected the same thing (4.00)
    all along and, quite frankly, don't need 'proof' to continue to feel that way.  I'm quite comfortable thinking the absolute worst of Karl Rove, as he's proven himself to be a scumbag over and over again.

    I know Hackett and Brown each wanted to win that senate seat, but I know for a fact that Karl Rove NEEDS to keep Ohio 'red', and I know for a FACT that Karl Rove would do anything towards that end.

    If I'm wrong?  BFD.  Even in their worst behavior, Hackett and Brown are better men than Karl Rove can ever hope to be.

    "The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law." --George W. Bush, Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000

    by littlesky on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:32:23 AM PST

  •  not sure (none)
    Yeah, Dewine has the most to gain from that, definitely. And it would be insane for a Democrat to be the one behind it. But that doesn't mean it wasn't Democrats behind it. Most likely, it was Rove, but Brown was definitely making calls to Hackett's potential campaign contributors, hurting his candidacy, and hasn't come clean.

    Quite frankly, I'd like to see Brown explain what occurred a bit better. I'm definitely not sold on the idea he's behind this whisper campaign, but I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't part, either.

    I'd especially like to hear where Harry Reid heard about it. I wouldn't imagine he would even ask Hackett about it unless he heard from a source he believed at least potentially credible. I'm not accusing Reid of doing anything wrong here, I'd just like to know a little more of the story behind it.

  •  Blaming (none)
    Blaming Rove for the Old Boy Democrat club coming in and tossing out the new guy and putting in one of their own is laughable.

    Brown wanted nothing to do with this race, until internal polls showed Hackett making real inroads against Dewine. Once polls showed Dewine to be vunerable, the old boys club tossed the new kid out on his ass and put in their own since Brown all of a sudden had a change of heart ( surprise surprise)  

    Rove had fucking nothing to do with this, this is just how washington works and its fucking disgusting.

  •  <eyebrow raised> (none)

    Classic Rove, aye. But also not a tactic that is singularly the right and proerty of one Karl Rove.

    For cryin' out loud...

    The whisper campaign tactic is older than the hills when it comes to actual use.

    The smear and innuendo assault isn't exactly new to the Democratic party. Nor is it new to Brown's campaign manager...if it is the same guy.

    Here's a hint...were I to pull a similar stunt:

    First, I'd mention it to the precinct captains...perhaps ask a question or two: "Have you heard anything about X?"

    Then, I'd float it past my boss as a "rumor" that's being discussed. This works for me because my boss can then tell me not to spread it around...yet it's already out there. If my boss discovers that I'm the one who started it...all I was doing was trying to track down the origins of the rumor that I'd heard.

    Yes, Rove's great at this. But he's not yet cornered the market on dirty pool tactics.

    "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

    by kredwyn on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:50:33 AM PST

    •  Didn't you leave out a typical political tactic (none)
      in your litany?
      I'm referring to the one you, yourself, just used:
      The smear and innuendo assault isn't exactly new to the Democratic party. Nor is it new to Brown's campaign manager...if it is the same guy.
      in which one makes an accusation, appears to source it by using a very duboius newspaper article, and distances oneself by saying you don't even know if the same person is being referred to.
      That's a really old political trick. Did you learn it from Pisistratos, or from Cicero?
      •  Hmmm... (none)
        You might have a point. Except for the fact that the Washington Post covered the same issue here and here (you'll have to read through the whole interview in order to find the references).

        I picked that particular cite to underscore my point. But there is a serious discussion that went on with regards to that campaign manager's tactics which are "hard hitting" to say the least.

        Thanks for pointing out what I wanted you to see.

        "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

        by kredwyn on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:58:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Forgot to add... (none)
          This link from where it seems that BuckeyeSenate had already begun to wonder about the campaign manager's past acts.


          The only way we came to realize that Rove had an MO was to establish one in the first place. How did we do that?

          "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

          by kredwyn on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 02:33:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Oh... (none)
        I believe I read it in Cicero during my dissertation research.

        "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

        by kredwyn on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 02:02:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And... (none)
        to add to the whole VA-8 kerfuffle..."VA-8: Debate stirs up ugly charges" from The Hill.

        "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

        by kredwyn on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 02:16:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I had the same feeling about this. (4.00)
    But I don't have any proof, either.

    Regardless of whether Rove had a direct hand in it, I wouldn't be surprised if some of his disciples were responsible. Whoever this points to ultimately has some serious explaining to do, but I suspect we won't ever know whom this points to ultimately.

    As others have pointed out: it makes no sense for Sherrod Brown to have done this. For that alone I've been suspicious about whether the Brown campaign was responsible. I'm not going to lay the blame directly at Rove's feet without proof, but I will say that Rove's fondness for scummy political tactics has encouraged this kind of thing, so I'd say he's indirectly responsible for all of it--him and everyone else who employs scummy tactics.

    Another thing that's occurred to me is that in light of how Kerry was swiftboated, I think there's a tendency to expect it, and perhaps talk about it when it might not be happening. Ever see the Maple Street episode of The Twilight Zone? A planted idea can lead to all kinds of outlandish conclusions. Maybe that's not it, but I'll confess that these Rovian tactics have made me more paranoid in general.

    Of course Oceania has WMDs. It's always had them. That's why we're at war.

    by Kurt Kaletka on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:53:12 AM PST

  •  my question is: (none)
    if hackett decided to drop out because he could not get the 3 million he needed, why did he not go to the netroots and plead his case?? he could have raised the money that way. why did he cave so soon??? ther had to be another reason. someone threatened him with something else.
    •  I've listened to Hacket (none)
      talk about this, and really it just seems like he finally saw the ugliness of political campaiging and realized he didn't want to be a part of it.  

      " you smell something" -ghostbusters

      by David in Burbank on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:17:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Brown has responsibility too. (none)
        It may be that Brown feels just as screwed by hackett as Hackett feels he was screwed by Brown. Brown says he heard the rumors and told people to stay away from it. Maybe he feels unfairly trashed by hackett for what happened? Who knows. They have to find a way to bury the Hatchett.
    •  what is brown hiding? (none)
      brown could have nipped this problem in the bud by going directly to hackett in the very begining. he didn't. I wonder what brown is hiding.
      •  and Schumer and Waxman and Emmanuel (none)
        Let them come out and say they weren't involved. Or let them come out and say they were and explain why they thought it best to betray one candidate in favor of another. I'm not saying it's not a smart thing to do at times. I wish someone had prevented candidates like Dukakis. Or that someone had stepped in with some political gamesmanship to help Gary Hart, Mondale, Gore, Kerry.

        Just in this case I would like to know what they thought they were going to win. Maybe they have their eyes on a different prize.

  •  To those Hacket supporters flaming Brown and (4.00)
    expressing significant doubt regarding this diary I want to make two points.  First, however, I agree that Brown and DLC Dems have handled this situation poorly (A primary would have served the Dems better).  

    Regardless, swift boating is a Republican tactic. Hesiod makes a compelling argument that Rove might be involved and the type of attack employed has Rove's fingerprints all over it.   The fact that you refuse to even entertain the possiblity that the GOPers might be manipulating this situation does Brown and the entire party a disservice.

    Second, as things are currently evolving, the infighting will leave nothing behind but self-flagelating Democrats with bitter feelings about how their favorite candidate was treated badly.  Ultimately, an opportunity will be lost and DeWine and the Republicans in Ohio will emerge laughing at us triumphantly.

    Hesiod's recommendation that everyone should take a step back and look at this situation objectively is a good one.  I've read enough about Rove's past campaign tactics, streching back to his days in the Young Republicans, to know that this sounds eerily familiar.  What better way to destroy an opponent than to get them to eat their own family.

  •  It doesn't matter... (none)
    ...if its true or not, what matters is that there is going to be an big, ugly fight in Ohio and we need to be ready for it.  So if we assume that Rove is this capable (which seems pretty unlikely, but I conceed that's because I don't WANT to believe it) WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    What defense is there against a campaign of rumors and inuendo?  How do we get the public to ignore or disregard these things when they first come out?  Because once you start defending yourself agasint the the actual rumor, you give the rumor life...and as we all know, it's the breaking news eveyone hears, never the retraction.

    So what will work people?

    Hiding nothing is a start.  If Browns voting record can be twisted, maybe it needs to be publicly vetted now, so there will be no last minute surprises in Novemeber.  

    But what else?  If Hacket had stayed in the race and won, he'd be facing the same thing.
    So What is the ANSWER to LIES? (and don't tell me truth.)
    How do you stop dirty politics without playing dirty politics?
    How do you prevent Rumors from having Power?

    A lot it depends on the Candidates themselves -- how they actually respond.  Hacket gets Pissed and I liked that, that is the right response -- to immediately call the rummor bullshit and the people spreading it despicable--

    I don't know about Brown except that as a total outsider, I seem to hear more about his "people" than about him.  At the very least he needs to seems to be the guy in charge.

    " you smell something" -ghostbusters

    by David in Burbank on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:09:44 AM PST

  •  This was my first thought (none)
    When I heard of the smear I immediately thought of the GOP not Brown.

    Someone in Ohio needs to track this down to vector #1 or #2. Find out who started the whisper campaign definitively.

    •  Dan Lucas (none)
      End of story.

      but i did enjoy this diary, funniest I heard in a long while.

      •  Where is your proof? (none)
        Nothing worse than definitive answers, with no backup to the claims.

        Sold in then sold out

        by Citizen80203 on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 11:32:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Present your proof. (none)
        Dan Lucas
        End of story.
        but i did enjoy this diary, funniest I heard in a long while.
        You are Pounder. I have HUGE respect for your opinion, and for your work in and for the Democratic Party here in Ohio. I even admire you enough to amuse you further, with this post.
        That said, I reiterate: Present your PROOF. I had great respect for the opinions of my mother, and when I was still a believer I had great respect for God. But I never took the unsubstantiated word/opinion of my mother as Immutable Truth, and I stopped believing in God over the same issue.
        You don't get a free pass from me either. You have just publicly accused Dan Lucas of being a Rovian-style slimeball. You have no responsible or productive business making such an assertion unless you are able and willing to back it up with court-credible evidence; something which would withstand a charge of libel.
        So PLEASE present your proof. Or STFU.
  •  Pure B.S. (none)
    Admit it! The Democrats really F'd up on this. As Morris Udall used to say, "When Democrats having a firing squad they form a circle."

    Shumer, Brown and the others should be ashamed. What they did to Hackett is a great example of why they Dems are screwed again.

    Keep your eyes on the prize.

    by Better Days on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:19:27 AM PST

  •  Likely a Brown hack... (1.16)
    This is most likely written by a Sherrod Brown operative who is trying to redirect the heat Brown is getting for torpedoing Hackett.  It is just damage control by the Brown campaign.

    Over the past couple of days, I have been in a simmering rage over the vengeful ego Paul Hackett is displaying.

    There's the real motive behind this post.  The poster doesn't give a wit about what happened to Hackett, heck they may have even had something to do with it.

    Would someone who cared about what happened to Hackett be "simmering with rage" because Hackett was venting over being swift boated?

    And if all of this is even close to being true, why wouldn't the Brown campaign and the National Democrats who pushed Hackett out of the race by strangling his source of funds not simply come out and deny their participation?  Have they done so?  If so, where?

    This post just doesn't wash on its face.  If Rove thought that he had such damaging information that he could actually swift boat Hackett why wouldn't he save that for the actual election?  Why waste it now and then have to face a solid Democrat with a "real chance" of winning?

    Now, if you believe that Rove would have done this just because he felt that he could somehow setup a situation where the Democrats would be eating their own, something that seems to be suggested here, then you also have to believe that the Democrats involved would be pretty stupid to fall for such a ploy, right?  Seems like a pretty big long shot on Rove's part to me compared to holding his ammo to swift boat Hackett in the actual election.

    In fact, having swift boat caliber evidence against Hackett would kind of give Rove incentive to try and torpedo Brown, not Hackett, right?  That way he would be insuring that he could actually use that swift boat evidence in the election.

    Personally, I think that we give Rove far too much credit for being devious.  Some people around here must think that he is an absolute genious given some of the things that they accuse him of pulling off.

    Nope, this post smells a lot more like Sherrod Brown damage control to me.

    •  You're wrong imo (none)
      This diarist was defending Hackett in a reply to me, and more or less trashing Brown supporters over this dust-up a couple weeks back.

      I think he/she is sincere.

      •  I was pissed off about what happened to Hackett (none)
        And said that teh Democrats are tehir own worst enemies. I did not know about the Swift Boating rumors, though. I thought it was the old school calling the donors and trying to fix the primary. That's what upset me.
        •  that's what upset me too (none)
          ...and still pisses me off and in fact is IMO the real reason Hackett had to pull out (oh yeah, he could have stayed in and wasted a year of his life and deplete his savings etc. fighting a guy who had inherited a $2 million war chest from previous runs etc. - yeah, anyone who argues this can do it first and then recommend it). The war photos swiftboating wouldn't have done it - as I'm sure most folks would agree, this would only work if you have the media on your side covering your non-credibility; that is, it wouldn't work in a Democratic primary because there's no GOP candidate to save.

          (In the actual Senate race, I think it would have backfired badly. OH is still very aware of the sacrifices of its native sons in Iraq.)

          Sorry, that may be Rove's contribution to this debacle, if in fact he thought he needed to get involved. But it wasn't the nail in the coffin by a long shot.

          Hesiod, I know you're making a great effort to restore the focus where it belongs - the fascist fucks ruining our country - but I think you're uncharacteristically off base here.

    •  You are obviously a GOP troll. (none)
      Everyone here knows who I am. And they know I am not a Brown hack.
    •  79,175 nt (4.00)

      "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 Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:57:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This type of diary is sad (none)
    Democrats in Ohio are angry, upset and brutally divided. Hesiod, you have been relentlessly posting smears and attacks on Hackett supporters in other peoples' diaries. Posting this groundless theory (because these are Rove tactics, it must be Rove now? That's pretty specious) in order to make Brown look blameless and Hackett look evil contributes nothing but more division. Finally, yesterday, Hackett came out and struck back at Brown, saying what I think a lot of his followers have been feeling, but the tragedy is that Brown could have defused all of this a week and a half ago by addressing it directly, something he seems unable to do. Why are you making a sad situation worse? I don't understand your motivation in this.
  •  Santayana (4.00)
    George Santayana's comment about history repeating actually meant that if you do not go back and study and understood what happened in history you are going to make the same mistakes again and again.  So Hesiod is right, we should really keep Rove in mind when it comes to the swiftboating.  First, because he has done similar things before, and second because Brown hasn't done similar things before and logically it really wasn't in his interests.  I am no fan of Brown, but I am certain he knows that what he needs to do right now is reach out to Hackett and bring Ohio together.  But I think the most important point Hesiod raises and one that we MUST take seriously is that Rove had infiltrated both the Brown and Hackett campaigns.  For those of you who do not live in Ohio let me tell you there are some very weird things going on here, and I think Rove is going to use it as a laboratory to take his dark arts to the next level.  We need to be talking about what we do about this - right now.  Dean has to come to Ohio to make peace and we need Brown's campaign workers vetted.
  •  Delete this speculative piece of crap (none)
    If you have proof, fine, post it. Otherwise stop wasting my time.

    I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. -Voltaire

    by baracon on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:42:18 AM PST

  •  the fallacy in your argument (none)
    None-the-less, the motivation for pushing Hackett out of the Senate primary was to get him to run for Congress!

    1. Hackett had made it very clear he was not going to go back on his word and run in OH-02.

    2. OH-02 was a no-win situation. Been there, done that. Almost won. No, he was running in the Senate because the 02 race showed that he could win the state.

    I have no doubt that the Rovians or local ratfuckers could have been involved in the Iraq pictures swiftboating. But the real shiv in the back was the Schumer/Waxman/Emmanuel attempt to cut off the money.

    Hackett should lay off. If he's really getting out of politics, he should get out and stay out. But trying to make this all Rovian... that's giving Karl a little too much credit. We really do eat our own and if Karl was the culprit then Brown and Schumer et al were negligent in not pointing it out immediately.

    •  Missing the point. (none)
      Hesiod makes it clear that he did not like what Shumer did. That isn't the swift boat charge though.

      The swift boating involves the "whisper campaign" accusing Hackett of war crimes. That is pure Rovian tactics to the core. And that is what is being used to destroy Brown.

      "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 Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 11:22:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. (none)
        Hackett didn't care about the Schumer and Waxman stuff. He cares about the Swiftboating, however. That's a personal afront to him, and he's taking it out with a vengeance on Sherrod Brown. I don't blame him for being angry. I do blame him for losing sight of what is most important. Nobody believes the rumors, Paul. And you are not running anymore. So...find it within yourself to be the bigger man and walk everyone back down from the precipice.
        •  Not according to the Hackett interview I heard (none)
          His reason for dropping out was the money and he cared big time about the interference from the Senators.

          I agree that Hackett should just walk away. If you're out of politics, get out of politics. Can't have it both ways.

          But neither can Brown and crew. They mishandled the whole affair and continue to do so, from the very beginning. And by that I mean Brown getting in the race after Hackett.

        •  Yes, but... (none)
          Are you Hesiod willing to consider the ramifications if Brown's campaign was behind it?

          As for myself, I will no longer give to the DSCC just due to the way Hackett was pushed out via fund raising desiccation. I will give that money to individual candidates.

          The reason I recommended your diary is this has to be discussed. More importantly, we have to get answers.

          Sold in then sold out

          by Citizen80203 on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:22:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  No I got that (none)
        My point was that the swift boat campaign was not the important thing at all - the money wrangling was. (Isn't it always?) So Rove's involvement - or not - is not important. We did it to ourselves this time. Besides, many Hackett detractors have argued in the last two weeks, "it's just politics - happens all the time - get over it." So that must make it okay with them regardless of whether it was Rove or not.

        Personally, I am glad to put the focus on Rove. Lord knows he has much to answer for. But unless someone has some evidence and in the absence of some word from Brown or his alleged buddies this is going to seem to Hackett supporters like a roundabout way of making him the bad guy for unfairly taking out his anger at Brown.

        •  But Hackett's mad about the Swift Boating. (none)
          He got over the other stuff. That's my point. That's what's driving the acrimony. Hackett is not still attacking Schumer, et al. He's attackng Sherrod Brown! And he's not attacking him ver the money issues and donor tampering. It's all about Swift Boating.
    •   Here's the rub... (none)
      I have no doubt that the Rovians or local ratfuckers could have been involved in the Iraq pictures swiftboating. But the real shiv in the back was the Schumer/Waxman/Emmanuel attempt to cut off the money.

      The only person's word we have for that is Paul Hackett's.  He made an allegation.  Everyone pretty much accepted it as true.  But have any of the donors in question publicly said that Schumer strong-armed them?

      Personally, I think that Hackett dropped because, as the Nation magazine pointed out, his internal polling numbers showed that he was losing 2-1 in the primary, and he didn't want to lose by 60-65% in the primary.  It would have been a humiliating way to end his political career.

      I think that he's pulling the scorched earth policy on Brown because he has a genuine dislike for Sherrod, and feels that he was screwed by "insiders" such as the labor unions, the anti-war movement, and the grassroots base in the state of Ohio.

      In my view, Hackett's largest base of support came from the blogosphere outside of Ohio, and from the people who helped him with his congressional campaign.  That simply was not enough to persuade Democratic voters statewide who have voted for Brown as Secretary of State.  Particularly since Brown is a poster child for what most progressives want a Democrat to look like:  Opposed the war with Iraq; opposed the Patriot Act; Opposed the Defense of Marriage Act; Opposed NAFTA and WTO.

  •  The point is our party is a bunch of pussies. (none)
    There was no reason for the party to dissuade Hackett from doing what he wanted to do in any way.  It was also stupid for the party not to defend Hackett against any swift boat like attacks from Rove, Dewine or anywhere else.  As a cardinal rule, our party should never let the target of such an attack stand alone.  We allowed that to happent to Kerry and also to Murtha (although Murtha is still firing away like a tough old dog and is scoring a lot of points at the grassroots level).  We should never allow any Republican to attack a fellow Democrat period!

    We are pussies plain and simple.  The only way you'll convince the country otherwise is by winning elections.

  •  Paul Hackett should call turdblossom on it ! (none)

    I think it's very important ( in this age of ignorant and clueless Americans ) to point out the truth * and fight the Fascist loving Bushbot media !

    Has anyone noticed how obssessed the media is with Hillary Clinton ?! 24/7 it's " Is Hillary running for President " Can she win ? and every word she speaks the media whores jump on it !

    If it's not Hillary Clinton ! it's Jessica Simpson and her life after Nick !

    The dumbing down here in America > shaking head <

    Mark Warner / Wesley Clark 2008 **

    by Susan Easley on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 12:03:40 PM PST

  •  Still waiting (none)
    I'm still waiting to see any kind of explanation as to why the Hackett campaign was using the alleged "smear campaign by my rival" as a point to solicit immediate campaign contributions in late December, long before I could find any public acknowledgement that the swiftboating was happening.

    I was called by Hackett's Minnesota based fundraiser on December 29th and asked for a contribution.  I was told that Mr. Hackett's opponent in the primary was conducting a smear campaign and money was needed right away.  I hadn't heard any such thing and it made no sense to me at the time.  It still doesn't.  So why was his campaign using this as a prod to get money?  The fundraisers in Minnesota obviously knew about it.  Why didn't the public in Ohio know?  Seems to me that Hackett's campaign was using a reverse smear to solicit money.  It's one thing to cite public statements made by your rival in your fundraising attempts and quite another to claim that your rival is "smearing" you when there's no public acknowledgment of any such thing.  I had no way to verify that claim, but it was clear to me that they were trying to make Brown out to be as nasty as Republicans.

    Anyone have any clue why they were using this tactic??


    by Morrigan on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 12:04:19 PM PST

    •  The Minnesota fundraiser (none)
      I  too was called by a Minnesota fundraiser for Hackett.  However, I know he didn't say anything about a "smear" campaign in the primary.  He did mention something about Republican smear tactics--as Hackett himself did, in an e-mail I got about the same time (this was in December; he needed $4 for the TV ad he ran over the holidays; good ad, by the way).

      So, I'm wondering why someone is posting that a "Minnesota fundraiser" said something about a smear campaign in the primary,  that Brown was going to smear Hackett.  Perhaps you had a different Minnesota fundraiser; that's a reasonable possibility.  The guy who talked to me said he was in Minnesota and was fundraising for Hackett.  He never said one word about Brown.  Moreover, all the e-mails I got from Hackett were focused on Republicans.  

      My point:  in my experience, everything  I got from the Hackett campaign was focused on Rethuglicans.  I thought he ran a good, clean campaign.  The idea that Hackett fundraisers were talking about a "smear campaign" from Brown doesn't square with my experience at all.

  •  More on that Ingram-See race (none)
    Ingram is not a large man. Like, 5.5", 125, something like that. A rather gentle soul who strongly sympathized with the children of Alabama. So what did Rove do with this knowledge?

    He started a whisper campaign at the University of Alabama law school that Ingram was a pedophile. The whispering would be carried back to the small towns when the law students went back home. That's a bigger contributor to how See won that judgeship.

  •  Focus here (none)
    needs to be on Rove.  

    After reading this I called Republican campaign HQ in Columbus.  I encourage you all to do the same, especially those in Ohio.


    They were clearly unprepared for a call like mine.  I asked them what Karl Rove's role would be in Ohio and they simply said, "I don't know" (after the phone got passed around a bit).  I told them Karl Rove was a traitor and that Ohio doesn't need his kind of politics.  

    EVERYONE CALL!!!!  Make the Ohio GOP state publicly whether Rove will be involved in their campaign.

    The Republican Party: Redefining Oppression for the 21st Century

    by daveriegel on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 12:20:19 PM PST

    This is from Brown's campaign.  If it is from Rove then he REALLY FUCKED UP.  It was better for the GOP to have a bloody primary where Hackett and Brown continued to bash each other and spend MILLIONS OF DOLLARS that would have been spend in the general.

    This was from Brown. Particularly from Brown's campaign manager, Dan Lucas.  He was the one who told Brown himself about the Hackett rumores.  And he is the one who the various Ohio Department chairs said told them.


    •  I agree with... (none)
      I might like to add Schumer et all.

      However, we MUST look at all possibilities. Wouldn't you feel like a total fucking tool if the GOP turns out to be behind it?

      Sold in then sold out

      by Citizen80203 on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 12:39:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Critical thinking 101. (none)
      Do you even acknowlege the possibility that what is happening is exactly what he wanted?

      Let's stipulate that Hackett was the guy with the best shot at beating DeWine. He is now out of the race. And now there is a viceral hatred of Brown as eveidanced in this thread and the hundreds f others like it. Not to mention the hatred toward the party which is causing chaos.

      The GOP is looking at getting an ass kicking like we did in 94. What better way to lessen the dammage then to start a civil war in the party?

      "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 Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 12:49:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Are you fucking serious? (none)
      IT IS A BLOODY PRIMARY, and hackett isn't even running any longer! You people are delusional.
      •  Agreed (none)
        Whoever started it, the damage is done. If the Brown campaign did it they really fucked up. If the Ohio GOP did it then we must have proof to put their heads upon.

        So far it seems to be a perfect whisper campaign. No definitive proof either way, just a stench that hangs around.

        Sold in then sold out

        by Citizen80203 on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:07:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Nobody has mentioned what the GOP gains (none)
    The only focus so far is how would the GOP know which canadate is stronger, thus which is to be "punked".

    Look at the disarry this has caused within the blogs. If anything this is what the GOP could have been after.

    Now I'm not saying that it was a GOP whisper campaign, but sure has all the hallmarks of one. That said, it is critical that we find out the prime vector of the smear. Let the chips fall where they may, but someone has got to track down this fucking thing.

  •  Angry White Democrat sez... (none)
    All I can say is this. We have a chance to get a genuine progressive elected to a Senate seat in Ohio for the first time in years. If you and your buddies are willing to throw that away purely out of spite, then you're every bit as stupid as the righties claim you are.

    You got that right!  Rove's role may be as posited by Hesiod, but let's move on to Electing Brown - who has a proven record of progressive values.

  •  Principle is not relative (none)
    "How is what Brown did an equivalent to lying for the reasons for war under false pretenses, smearing the wife of a man who debunked a key part of Bush's propaganda, or illegal wiretapping?"

    All of these things are ruinous of democracy. False reasons for going to war, but the dems voted for a morally failed policy.

    Smearing Plame and smearing Hackett for political purposes is moral failure.

    Illegal wire tapping abridges my rights.

    Sidelining common Americans [hackett] from the political process impacts my democracy by keeping power firmly in the hands of the elite. The wizards chose for us, because they know better.

    I will not argue for moral failure on Bush's behalf; However, principle requires me to apply the same criticism of moral failure to those I'd be more inclined to give a free pass.

    In my opinion, principle is all we have. It is above party affiliation and personal politics. And it can't be tested until you have to apply it harshly to your own camp.

    Your thoughts are welcomed at!

    by rahelio soleil on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:00:57 PM PST

  •  The loudest whisperer was Hackett himself (none)
    What gets me about the so-called whisper campaign against Hackett is that I was following the Ohio race pretty closely and the first time I heard about this was from Hackett himself after he withdrew.  In other words, whoever spread the rumors among the Democrats (assuming this actually happened), the Democrats didn't pass it on.  Harry Reid asked Hackett about it, he denied it, and that was that.  In other words, even if the rumor originated with a specific Democrat, the Democrats who heard of it apparently contained it.  Hackett supporters ought to consider that.  

    Fox News - We Distort, You Imbibe.

    by richter on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:06:25 PM PST

  •  I want to make sure I understand (none)
    1.  Hesiod posts diary implicating Rove in the kneecapping of Hackett.

    2.  Commenters take note of lack of factual support.

    3.  Hesiod cryptically suggests skeptics email him.

    4.  Hesiod replies to skeptics' emails by saying "I know it's not true but it's a great rumor so let's start it because it's good for Brown and good for Democrats."

    5.  Hesiod is outed by a skeptic.

    6.  Hesiod defends actions by saying that his original theory cannot be disproved.

    Does this succinctly summarize this diary?

    Some things are not for sale. Send the Republicans home in 2006.

    by The Termite on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:20:04 PM PST

  •  this diary is crap (2.00)
    Yes, Bob, yes it is.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site