Yes, it was a close election in the second district of Ohio (that may or may not be questionable if DIEBOLD was there), and that brings me to a question. For those who voted in this election, why did you vote for Paul Hackett? Did you truly believe he would be good for the country and your district, or did you just vote for him because he served in Iraq and you wanted to stick it to Bush? Of course, sticking it to Bush is something we should really be working on seriously, but again, do you think that tactic is transparent and actually turns voters off? Also, does it really serve this country well? More below.
Going from a Republican rep who got 70% of the vote to one who only garnered 52% in such a strong GOP district is a victory I suppose. Although, Schmidt will still be taking the seat. However, there is an opinion I have to state regarding Paul Hackett's campaign strategy that I don't know if many others would agree with here, but I'm going to state it anyway.
I don't really like it when anyone uses the Iraq War for political expedience. It has been done so much with 9.11 by the Republican thugs, and that outrages me and turns me off. It seems to me that Paul Hackett used the deaths of so many innocents to win votes, and after one picture on his site, the caption read that he was in Iraq building a "strong democracy." In all honesty, that is crap. There is no strong democracy in Iraq. Iraq is hell. Thousands of innocent civilians have died and are dying everyday in an illegal pre-emptive war that has taken the soul of this nation.
Therefore, using this illegal war to get elected in my view may have even turned some people off. I don't mind if candidates note their credentials, but he seemed to use his service in Iraq as the only focal point to try to impress warmongers to vote for him just based on the fact that he served there. I didn't really listen to any of his speeches, but did he ever say the war needs to end? Did he ever say he was against it? This was what turned me off at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. War, war, and more war.
And the pictures on his site were all so antiseptic, clean, and happy. He was in the hellhole of the universe! Where were the pictures that told the real story? I don't know, I suppose that as far as Iraq goes it is a topic that angers me, especially when I see people using it to further themselves. I don't think that was consciously the motivation for Mr. Hackett, but I see it that way as an American who is actully sick of this war and wants it to end. Perhaps that is how others saw it as well.
Twenty marines have died there in a day and a half. The constitution that Rumsfeld thinks will stop the insurgency cold (how ignorant) is not going to happen in my view, and if it does, it will resemble nothing of a "strong democracy." I am tired of the sound bites, the talk, and people on both sides using this horrible mistake in our history as some sort of political wedge, and frankly, candidates who focus their campaigns entirely on that lose my interest. I want to know what he or she is going to do to better my life, to give me more opportunity, and to help us work for a sustainable environment. I also want a candidate who is not going to rest on their laurels of military service as if that should be the only reason I vote for them.
Real people are dying in Iraq, real lives have been forever changed (and who knows that better than one who has been there?), so to be honest, had Paul Hackett not saturated his site with so much about it the way he did it, I might not have been turned off to it. Remember, more and more Americans are against this war each and every day. I think if any other candidates who may run for office in the future served in Iraq, they would do well to remember that, as well as what kind of war this was, and the motivations behind it.
Saying "bring it on" was certainly in my view as well a traitorous thing to say (I agree with him on that), so then why are candidates running on the Democratic ticket just stopping there? Perhaps if they went even further and actually said what has to be said (That Bush is a war criminal who must be impeached) they would draw just enough to get over that hump.
I do congratulate Mr. Hackett on getting the percentage he did, but again, for me, I'm tired of this "war mentality" that has even now permeated our political campaigns. We shouldn't vote for someone just because they served in the military. For me there has to be much more to it than that.
