Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 49
  1. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
       #1  
    They chose Sherrod Brown over Hackett??? What losers.

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/....ap/index.html
  2. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    They chose Sherrod Brown over Hackett? What losers.

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/....ap/index.html
    There was a big story about this. I think they are going to have him run for Senate, instead of house. They felt he was rather strong and they could use him in another race.
  3. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
       #3  
    But he already annouced that he is dropping out of senate race and had promised that he not run for the house.
  4. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    But he already annouced that he is dropping out of senate race and had promised that he not run for the house.
    Maybe I have it backwards.

    From my understanding, the DNC made the decision, they felt he was too valuable to waste on this race that they could sew up with someone with lesser appeal. I will look for the article and will post here...................


    Hmmm. I guess I was wrong. Here is an email that he sent out.


    To my friends and supporters:

    Tuesday, February 14, 2006

    Today I am announcing that I am withdrawing from the race for United States Senate. 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.

    But there was no quid pro quo. I will not be running in the Second Congressional District nor for any other elective office. This decision is final, and not subject to reconsideration.

    I told the voters from the beginning that I am not a career politician and never aspired to be--that I was about leadership, service and commitment.

    Similarly, I told party officials that I had given my word to other good Democrats, who will take the fight to the Second District, that I would not run. In reliance on my word they entered the race. I said it. I meant it. I stand by it. At the end of the day, my word is my bond and I will take it to my grave.

    Thus ends my 11 month political career. Although it is an overused political cliché, I really will be spending more time with my family, something I wasn't able to do because my service to country in the political realm continued after my return from Iraq. Perhaps my wonderful wife Suzi said it best after we made this decision when she said "Honey, welcome home." I really did marry up.

    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.

    It is with my deepest respect and humility that I thank each and every one of you for the support you extended to our campaign to take back America, and personally to me and my family. Together we made a difference. We changed the debate on the Iraq War, we inspired countless veterans to continue their service by running for office as Democrats and we made people believe again. We must continue to believe.

    Remember, we must retool our party. We must do more than simply aspire to deliver greatness; we must have the commitment and will to fight for what is great about our party and our country; Peace, prosperity and the freedoms that define our democracy.

    Rock on.

    Paul Hackett
  5. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
       #5  
    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.
    They said that Brown didn't want to run before, but now wants to run and so the party leaders shoved Hackett aside. That is just wrong.

    "I will not be running in the Second Congressional District nor for any other elective office. This decision is final, and not subject to reconsideration."
    I guess that's it for his political aspirations.
  6. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    They said that Brown didn't want to run before, but now wants to run and so the party leaders shoved Hackett aside. That is just wrong.
    Yep.
  7. #7  
    The report I heard indicated that the Dems wanted to avoid a primary so that more resources could be dedicated to the campaign against the Rep's candidate. The source said they did not particularly care if it was Brown or Hackett, but that Brown's fund-raising was more significant.
  8. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #8  
    Gotta love it when one party treats their own this way. Not bad mouthing one party over the other, just a fact of politics.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  9. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
       #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The report I heard indicated that the Dems wanted to avoid a primary so that more resources could be dedicated to the campaign against the Rep's candidate. The source said they did not particularly care if it was Brown or Hackett, but that Brown's fund-raising was more significant.
    With such deceit, they might as well rollover and lay dead come this November because they'll be punished for it, well, at least I'm not voting for Brown.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    With such deceit, they might as well rollover and lay dead come this November because they'll be punished for it, well, at least I'm not voting for Brown.

    Hackett was asked to drop the Senate pursuit and to run for the House position. The strategy being, Brown can take that Senate seat and Hackett would better serve the Partu by grabbing the House seat. It would be more his speed given his lack of political experience compared to Brown.

    I believe Hackett got a bit of a swelled head after Dems wooed him to run for office after returning from Iraq and isn't being a team player, "If I can't have the Senate then I'm just not going to play!"

  11. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
       #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Gotta love it when one party treats their own this way. Not bad mouthing one party over the other, just a fact of politics.
    It's a shame.
  12. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
       #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Hackett was asked to drop the Senate pursuit and to run for the House position. The strategy being, Brown can take that Senate seat and Hackett would better serve the Partu by grabbing the House seat. It would be more his speed given his lack of political experience compared to Brown.

    I believe Hackett got a bit of a swelled head after Dems wooed him to run for office after returning from Iraq and isn't being a team player, "If I can't have the Senate then I'm just not going to play!"

    What play? He was shut out. If Brown wants to play, he should get in line.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    What play? He was shut out. If Brown wants to play, he should get in line.
    He was asked to run for the House seat and not distract from Brown's campaign. He didn't want to run for the less prestigous position so the Party said fine, no money. They started the fund raising for his Senate race when it looked like Brown would not run. Now that Brown is running, the Party is backing the more experienced politician for the Senate position.

    Hackett is getting a big head. No reason he shouldn't run for the House position. The Party will help him raise funds in that situtation.
  14. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
       #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    He was asked to run for the House seat and not distract from Brown's campaign. He didn't want to run for the less prestigous position so the Party said fine, no money. They started the fund raising for his Senate race when it looked like Brown would not run. Now that Brown is running, the Party is backing the more experienced politician for the Senate position.

    Hackett is getting a big head. No reason he shouldn't run for the House position. The Party will help him raise funds in that situtation.
    I think Hackett's anger is justifiable. If I am Hackett, I would be angry, too. Putting all that hard work into my senate campaign for the past six months just so that someone else would take it over, and the only comforting response I get would be "you can start over elsewhere". Gee, I would be thinking: "What assurances do I have from you big shots that you would not pull that stunt on me again if I run for the House?"
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    I think Hackett's anger is justifiable. If I am Hackett, I would be angry, too. Putting all that hard work into my senate campaign for the past six months just so that someone else would take it over, and the only comforting response I get would be "you can start over elsewhere". Gee, I would be thinking: "What assurances do I have from you big shots that you would not pull that stunt on me again if I run for the House?"

    He can be pissed all he wants, but he was approached under the context of, looks like Brown may not run, we'd like you to try and win that position IN THAT CASE.

    Now that Brown is running and it's likely that he will win, Hackett has been asked to go after his House position, where prior campaining will not have been wasted. What's more important for the Party, to stroke one member'e ego or to take back as many Congressional seats as possible? Be a team player Hackett.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    What's more important for the Party, to stroke one member'e ego or to take back as many Congressional seats as possible? Be a team player Hackett.
    I don't think the Democrats will take back any seats. They don't have a clear agenda, other than "We hate Cheney and we hate Bush even more," from what I've seen.

    When the Republicans took over control of the Senate and the House, they did it by clearly defining what was wrong and what changes they would provide.

    What changes have the Democrats proposed, other than get rid of Bush and Cheney at all cost?

    They haven't provided any usefull ideas on what they would change and how they would do it. They can't even decide if they voted for the war or not.
  17. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
       #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    He can be pissed all he wants, but he was approached under the context of, looks like Brown may not run, we'd like you to try and win that position IN THAT CASE.

    Now that Brown is running and it's likely that he will win, Hackett has been asked to go after his House position, where prior campaining will not have been wasted. What's more important for the Party, to stroke one member'e ego or to take back as many Congressional seats as possible? Be a team player Hackett.
    This is from Wikipedia: "In the summer of 2005, Brown announced he would not run for the United States Senate seat held by Republican Mike DeWine. That fall, however, Brown reconsidered his decision to enter the ring. This announcement came shortly after Democrat Paul Hackett also stated that he would soon announce his candidacy."

    Hackett entered after Brown announced. Besides, what assurances do you have that they would not shove him aside again?
  18. #18  
    It's a Wiki-Off!

    Hackett on October 24, 2005, announced he would seek the Democratic nomination to challenge incumbent United States Senator Mike DeWine after rejecting a second run against Schmidt. Sherrod Brown, a congressman from northern Ohio and two-term Ohio Secretary of State, had rejected efforts by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to recruit him to the race in the summer of 2005 and had on August 17 publicly declared he would not run. But after Hackett's announcement, Brown changed his mind and declared he would run, angering Hackett who claimed Brown had promised him he would stay out of the race, a claim Brown denies.

    On February 13, 2006, Hackett announced that he was withdrawing from the race and ending his political career. Hackett told the New York Times that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and New York Senator Chuck Schumer recently had asked him to withdraw. He further contends that Schumer sabotaged his fundraising efforts and actively worked against his campaign [2]. Hackett said, "For me, this is a second betrayal...first, my government misused and mismanaged the military in Iraq, and now my own party is afraid to support candidates like me." [3]

    One issue Hackett faced in his campaign is the status of his Marine Corps Reserve unit, which may deploy back to Iraq during the campaign. Hackett had said he expected to return to Iraq in 2006. [4]

    I don't know what was said in private, but I do know that Brown will have Hackett for lunch in a primary.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by StrangeReaction
    I don't think the Democrats will take back any seats. They don't have a clear agenda, other than "We hate Cheney and we hate Bush even more," from what I've seen.

    When the Republicans took over control of the Senate and the House, they did it by clearly defining what was wrong and what changes they would provide.

    What changes have the Democrats proposed, other than get rid of Bush and Cheney at all cost?

    They haven't provided any usefull ideas on what they would change and how they would do it. They can't even decide if they voted for the war or not.

    Puleez! Republicans won on fear-mongering!
  20. #20  
    There's a well thought out answer.

    I guess you can't think of anything positive the Democrats have to say.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions