What strategy can they possibly be pursuing that would lead to helping the Democratic Party as a whole? It's not hard to understand why they'd prefer no primary, but what is inexplicable is the shameful way they have mangled the shepherding of Hackett's career. The most charitable explanation is that a tradeoff was deemed necessary in which Hackett was broken so that Brown and Ohio could better prosper. Perhaps, but other explanations seem more likely. It may have been the result of incompetence in not seeing the value of Hackett, or of malicious intent in which the good of the party of the whole is a lesser priority than personal ambition. I wouldn't fault Brown for this but party leaders who stepped in to boss the primary are most certainly culpable. Regardless of blame, the fact remains that Hackett as a Democratic politician has been diminished if not entirely destroyed.
Still, this indictment of the party bigwigs notwithstanding, we've got to move forward and cannot let this incident result in the re-election of the Republican DeWine. To me it seems clear that Paul Hackett owes it to the citizens of Ohio to endorse Sherrod Brown and furthermore to talk to his Ohio supporters about the importance of unseating Mike DeWine. Hackett shouldn't have trouble making the case against DeWine on principal alone. DeWine is enabling all that Hackett is fighting against. Pragmatically, Hackett shouldn't have trouble seeing that Sherrod Brown is a much better man for the job of Senator from Ohio than is DeWine. Unfortunately, there are no guarantees Brown can win in Ohio and Hackett needs to help win that election for the Democratic and progressive candidate.
Perhaps all the bad-mouthing and character attacks that have been thrown against Sherrod Brown are all true. I doubt this but grant it for the sake of argument. Given that, Mike DeWine still is not the better choice as he is a product of the festering disease that is the Ohio Republican Party. Yes, the Democratic Party has it's own bossing and it's own anti-democratic systemic problems. But do any of us doubt the greater evil here?
Some will say now is the time to throw aside the Democrats for 2006. There is a vision out there of a united progressive left that does not depend upon the Democratic Party. In an thought-provoking diary at MyDD, Cernig lays down an intriguing strategy for progressives going forward. As a way for progressives to realize their goals and not just the goals of Democratic politicians, Cernig writes the following:
There is a way in which the "insurgent" left can pressure the establishment of the Democratic party and still walk separately from that establishment when it feels the need. That way is by something akin to the old Polish Solidarity movement. .... The objective, then, is not to convince the left to join the Democratic Party but to convince the Democratic Party to wholeheartedly join the left.
By invoking Solidarity my interest was immediately heightened because Lech Walesa is a personal hero. I watched, astonished, in the 1970s and 80s as he managed to transform Soviet-bloc Poland into a much freer place. Solidarity is a case study in people power and the coalition described by Cernig and others he quotes is something that should be pursued. We do need to bring the Democratic Party to us by moving the center left.
Matt Stoller had concrete suggestions along similar lines:
4) We need to put pressure on the establishment in systematic, effective ways. If you are angry at Schumer or Reid, and I have had issues with both at various times, it doesn't matter unless you can figure out a way to make them feel it. We haven't figured out how to make them feel it yet, because their political survival and success is based on factors that we haven't impacted yet (local media and big dollar donors)5) Finally, this is the most important piece. Don't follow Paul Hackett's example. Be smart, be strategic, and put pressure where it works. Don't bite off more than you can chew, and do not drop out of politics. Fight professionally, fight aggressively, and fight like it matters, because it does. But don't pretend, as Hackett did, like you don't have responsibility for your own actions and that it's some big evil system out there putting you down. Yes, that system exists, and yes, it sucks, but that means that you have to go into politics with an understanding that you are facing entrenched people who are going to fight you tooth and nail. Hackett is pretending somehow that he shouldn't have had to fight for power. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not, but it's fundamentally a naive worldview that you should not emulate.
That is right on point. We can't abdicate in February when November is so important. This year it's clear to me what we must do to realize progressive goals. For 2006 progressives must be Democrats. If we had divided government now and if we also had a well-founded confidence we'd have divided government going forward then I'd say the time was ripe. But that isn't our situation. For this election it's clear that the primary goal must be that the Republicans are turned out. In my estimation that certainly must be the focus through the end of 2006 and the way to do that is with Democratic candidates. For some candidates we'll be forced to hold our nose but those Democratic candidates must be elected too.
Paul Hackett has harmed this effort. He made news when he bitterly left the race:
I made this decision reluctantly, only after repeated requests by party leaders, as well as behind the scenes machinations, that were intended to hurt my campaign.
On Fox News website it played out this way:
Hackett told The New York Times for Tuesday's editions that the same party leaders who urged him to run for Senate after his political debut in a House race last year had turned on him. "This is an extremely disappointing decision that I feel has been forced on me," Hackett said.
FoxNews is reality to many voters we need. That's not the message we want to send to Ohio or to the nation. Corruption is the message we want to pound Ohio Republicans with. Airing our dirty laundry hurts that effort and makes both parties seem equally corrupt.
Other pundits such as the moderate Ken Bode also are putting out the word that the incident with Hackett has a larger meaning about the Democratic Party. In "Democrats Boot Candidate Who Doesn't Fit Mold", Bode is harsh towards the party:If there was any candidate in the country who earned the right to run for public office this year, it is Hackett. He served his country in Iraq, a war he opposed, leaving his political views at America's shoreline. He served his party in last year's special election, proving that his biography, his character, his straight talk and anti-war message could pull votes the Democrats had never won in Ohio's 2nd district. Most important, he told a credible truth about the war in which he served. The message from Washington is that with Hackett there is too much straight talk. Jennifer Duffy of The Cook Political Report said, "The Senate is still an exclusive club, and the party expects a certain level of decorum that Hackett has not always shown." The disgraceful actions of Reid, Schumer and the Ohio Democratic establishment indicate their commitment to politics as usual and their belief that 2006 will be an insider's year. What they owed Hackett in return for his courage and his service was, at least, their neutrality. They owed it to him to keep their grubby hands off and let him run a fair race.
I can't argue with that criticism of our party leadership so how can I ask anything of Paul Hackett? Because Hackett has said he will continue the fight:
To my friends and supporters, I pledge that I will continue to fight and to speak out on the issues I believe in. As long as I have the microphone, I will serve as your voice.
(Microphone? Is he destined to work a studio for a career? Like Wesley Clark, it benefits us to have leaders like Hackett gain a wider audience so if that's his destination I wish him the best of luck.)
Without question, Paul Hackett had powerful forces line up against him who pressured him to withdraw. Elsewhere I wrote that the circumstances of Hackett's withdrawal reflects very poorly on the Democratic leadership and I still believe that to be true. But along with raising doubts about leadership performance is the even more important question about whether Sherrod Brown will make a better candidate than Paul Hackett. Although I'd have preferred the confrontation had never materialized, after it was clear that Hackett and Brown were both running I hoped that at least the competition would show who had the better shot at unseating DeWine. I suspected it was Hackett but now that test will not be run. So, just as with most of the netroots, I agree that what happened is a step backward for the Democratic Party in Ohio and nationally.
What will be especially missed is that Hackett did (does?) speak for alot of us in his frank criticisms of Republicans and President Bush. Criticisms that are still true. That's one less voice on Air America and Hardline giving Bush hell if he drops out of the picture.
Nevertheless, with Hackett or without him we still need to elect Democrats in 2006. Sherrod Brown is one of ours whether we like the way the party powerful came down on his side or not. If we are a Party and not a herd of cats we've got to come together to win in Ohio regardless of bad feelings from the primary fight. If Paul Hackett still believes he is a Democrat then I hope he realizes he is needed badly in Ohio through November 2006 at the least.
Hackett has some atoning to do in my estimation. I'm very disappointed in how he handled his exit from his senatorial candidacy. His words have provoked many into denouncing the party and announcing their intention to sit on their butts in Ohio and either not vote or not help. Great strategy that. If Paul Hackett truly believes what he says (and I do believe he is sincere) then he has a duty to be involved in the upcoming elections in Ohio.
To that end I've got to ask, would it kill Paul Hackett to actually help Sherrod Brown get elected? At the least, Hackett needs to show leadership and say something conciliatory so that his diehard supporters will quit treating Sherrod Brown like he is Joe Lieberman. If he can't bring himself to do more than call off the dogs on Brown in the Senate race then perhaps he can help the Democrats in OH-02 or other Congressional races. But he must help. The stakes are too high.
I'd like to think he wasn't just paying lip service when he wrote in "Bring Them Home" just what the problem is:
Lets get real about the War on Terror. It was never in Iraq until we allowed it to be there, by not securing the borders. Saddam was a secular dictator, a horrible man, but not a religious fanatic and not a friend of Osama Bin Laden. In fact they were bitter enemies. Bin Laden even offered the service of his mujahedeen army in the removal of Iraq from occupied Kuwait in 1990, before the U.S. stepped in. The Iraq conflict had nothing to do with the War on Terror. It was a diversion from pursuing the real enemy, Al-Qaeda. We need to stop wasting the valuable resources of our military and reengage in a full-scale pursuit of Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. I personally have looked terrorism in the eye and vanquished it. If the President and Karl Rove want to question my patriotism, I say "bring it on."President Bush claims that Al-Qaeda hates us for our democracy, while he is trying to limit our democracy by systematically impeding on our civil rights. He is not fooling this Ma rine, and he is not fooling the American people. Lets get real President Bush. Stop using the War on Terror to promote your own agenda. The war does not have to be without an end in sight. We need to use the full capacity of our military strength as well as strong, but cooperative, foreign policy initiatives that once again unite the world behind us in the pursuit of peace and the end of terrorism.
Believing that, Paul Hackett must know that to right those wrongs the current incarnation of the Republican Party must be removed from power. It's not just President Bush. It's Senators like Mike DeWine and Representatives such as Jean Schmidt who are the enablers of our dysfunctional and dangerous presidency. Paul Hackett can be a strong voice to help end their reign. I hope he speaks loudly in the coming months and doesn't retreat from politics or from public life.
We need you Paul. Help us win Ohio.