Ohio 2nd Blog

Michael Crowley @ TPM has more on the Hackett Senate buzz. Much of it dwells on the eternal to Bush bash or not to Bush bash debate:

Many Democrats feel Hackett was too anti-Bush for his own good, that his blazing rhetoric may have scared off some war-weary Republicans who nevertheless respect the president. Needless to say, Hackett’s liberal champions don’t buy that. So if party consultants convince Hackett to hold back on the Bush-bashing in a Senate race, his liberal-blog-fueled fundraising could dry up fast.

Crowley misses a big point in the race. Hackett didn’t raise lots of money from Bush bashing. He raised it by being plain spoken and by having his service in Iraq questioned. So called Bush bashing didn’t enter the picture until the very end, and it was mainly an issue played up by the national media.

BTW, the whole Bush bashing thread started when reporters asked Hackett about Chickenhawks and Bush, and he told them. (Politician speaks his mind! news at 11) This then got echoed all through the media and blogosphere. At the point where this because a major topic of conversation, Hackett had already raised around $350,000 online.

(via DKos)

I guess I should name drop and let everyone know that I was at a party yesterday where Paul Hackett was the guest of honor. Couldn’t get out of him if he was running or not, BUT, I did hear that he was talking to Chuck Schumer, and he was flying to Washington this week.

At this point I will reiterate my reason for why Democrats should never attack Bush:

Bush is a lightning rod sucking up all intelligent discussion. It draws all thought away from issues of meaning into personal nonsense. If you want to talk about issues and get them reported on, don’t get drawn into talking about Bush personally. Since Democrats have so many winning issues they have no reason to want to draw away from them. Obsess about Bush and you will. Call Bush a name and that is ALL that the media will report on.

Hackett had so many good things to say and the only thing that the national media reported on was his name calling of Bush. It is starting to brand Hackett and if he’s not careful it will be impossible for him to escape from it. He will be known as the Bush bashing veteran politician. Not a winning label. The media loves to brand people. The Dean Scream. Wacko Jacko. Fat-assed drug addict. So much easier than talking about things of substance. It becomes a thick film that covers all of a person’s coverage. Eventually if you aren’t careful it becomes a cocoon.

Attack the White House, attack Rumsfeld, attack Congress, attack Rush, attack anyone but Bush, because if you do you will win the attack and in the process it will suck up all of your mojo.

Here’s a crazy idea: OFFER SOLUTIONS! No one in Washington is doing it right now. Politicians who offer solutions will be seen as heros. Right now America could use some heros.

onegoodmove has video of Paul Hackett on Bill Maher’s show Real Time. (Requires Quicktime) Crooks & Liars has the same video in WMF format and an interesting discussion in the comments.

Some initial reactions from the blogs:

• Jungle Kat territory: I would like to declare a new love: Paul Hackett. I just saw him on “Real Time and with Bill Maher,” and it was love at first Bush-mocking joke. In the five minutes (if that) Mr. Hackett was on the show, he stood up for his beliefs! He actually stood by what he said about President Bush!! I kept pinching myself, thinking, “Is this guy a Democrat???”
• silentkid: There was a first, Paul Hackett actually put Bill Maher on edge during their interview. That was the first time I’ve seen Bill made speechless. But what do you expect from a former Marine who has a national audience to strike back at someone who slandered his name on national radio for weeks leading up to the special election in Ohio.

More reactions:

• DED Space: Did anyone else find him shallow and phony? This was the first time I’d seen him, and I couldn’t wait for the interview to be over.
• Hammer Of The Blogs: Last night’s return of Real Time With Bill Maher was certainly welcome. I found myself very impressed with Paul Hackett. Hackett was a last-minute substitution for Cindy Sheehan, as Sheehan had to hustle back home to care for her ailing mother. As it turns out, Hackett will prove to have been the better choice anyway. Eventually Sheehan has to go back home for good and try to get on with her life, and the people who are currently so outraged about her will forget her name by Christmas.
  
  Hackett, on the other hand, has a real political future ahead of him — he’s funny, smart, engaged, and unafraid to speak his mind. I found myself wishing he’d run for something out here. I’d love to replace a treacherous, servile enabler like Dianne Feinstein with a pit bull like Hackett. If the Democratic Party is going to survive and thrive and return to its lost glories, it needs more Paul Hacketts, pure and simple. This is the future of the party, folks.

ALSO: Eric Minamyer and BizzyBlog were not impressed.

Tonight @ 11PM.

(via Wild Democracy Ride)

One of us liberals biggest character flaws is that we are playa haters. We love to be negative. Heck… one of my favorite sites, Counterpunch, is just about nothing but. The problem is that being against someone else doesn’t translate in voter’s minds into being for you.

Right now I’m in a heated exchange over @ Tim Russo’s Democracy Guy Blog on what I would describe as typical playa hating concerning the Hackett campaign. Current topics that I’m trying to refute: That the Hackett campaign wasn’t local but instead something force-fed upon voters by the blogosphere and that Hackett’s tie to the Iraq war is a negative. My responses are in the thread to each post.

Interesting how you don’t hear Republicans complaining about all the K Street money that the NRCC spent to push Schmidt into office. Also interesting how when Barry Goldwater got his ass kicked by the biggest margins in a Presidential race ever the Conservatives didn’t cry about it, but instead learned from their mistakes and then proceded to take over the country. There’s a reason why the Republicans control much of America: they think and act like winners. We need to do the same.

Dean Barnett provides an interesting testament to his work ethic as a columnist:

Do you know how many practically unendurable and unreadable blog postings I slogged through to write that story, just to find out that the best insights were hiding in the relatively prominent New Republic?

Silly reporters… why actually talk to a candidate when you can relax in the comfort of your own home in your underwear and read the blogs?

The worm eats itself.

BTW, he’s all flummuxed because Hackett went to see Bruce the day before the election day. If you ask me that’s one of the coolest things I’ve heard about Hackett. I wonder if he knows that voters go to rock concerts?

Now that he brings it all up, that reminds me to ask Hackett what happened at the concert. There was talk of Bruce actually saying something. Might have even turned into a good media event.

(more on Mr. Barnett here)

Google : fat-assed drug addict

Have to do this right… only works if I link to Rush’s site.

(via Who-Dey Hotel and others)

THIS TURNED OUT TO BE A BUST.

(more…)

Tom Curry @ MSNBC has an article on the continuing saga of the political blogosphere post Paul Hackett. Swing State Project‘s Bob Brigham has already formed a PAC and recruited members of Hackett’s ground staff to work on the special election to replace Rep. Chris Cox of California. Got to give him credit for hustle.

I do have a problem with what NDN‘s Simon Rosenberg has to say in the article:

The blogosphere’s most profound impact in Ohio was its ability to raise money and to give Hackett the tools to get his voice heard, when traditionally a candidate like that would never have had that kind of money and simply wouldn’t have been competitive.

Blogosphere or no blogosphere the race was always very competitive. Money is very nice but it isn’t a magic bullet. The reason why the campaign was so competative was because of Paul Hackett, Jean Schmidt and the state of the state of Ohio.

(via Wonkette)

You can’t hide from Paul Hackett these days… he’s even made into an article by my favorite New York Times columnist, Frank Rich.

There’s a game that the mainstream media plays. You take a high profile person… follow them around… wait for them to say something controversial… and them hammer them to death for saying it.

You can see the method at work in Dean Barnett’s article on the Ohio 2nd special in the Weekly Standard. To Dean Barnett Paul Hackett never had anything to say during the entire campaign besides calling the President a son of a bitch… it wasn’t his positions that attracted the blogs to him, but his foul mouth.

It’s real easy for people to pontificate about people they’ve never met and situations that they’ve never experienced, but all they are doing is helping to perpetuate the myths that the media helped create. Since it’s obvious that Mr. Barnett didn’t bother to follow the race until after it was already over and the coverage was primarily about people jockeying for credit, it’s easy to see why his perspective has little relationship to reality.

For those of you who missed it, here’s the real reason that Paul Hackett became the darling of the blogosphere:

I’m for limited government, I’m for fiscal responsibility, I’m for a strong national defense, and I’m for fair trade. What do these concepts stand for? That means I don’t need Washington to tell me how to live my personal live, or how to pray to my God. And I don’t need Washington to dictate to my wife the decisions that she makes with her doctor, any more than I need Washington to tell me which guns I can keep in my gun safe.

That statement that Paul Hackett made in the first debate against Jean Schmidt was what first got the blogosphere excited. It wasn’t till the very end of the race that USA Today and the New York Times started harping on Hackett’s slams against the President, long after Hackett had gained the support of the liberal blogs. (NOTE TO SELF: email links to the audio from the debates so that Mr. Barnett can have a clue as to what actually happened during the race.)

The reason was Hackett’s fusion of Democrat and Libertarian principals. The computer geek types that are prime movers in the blogosphere have a very strong libertarian streak. Tap into that and you’ve got a lot of friends. Start talking about censoring video games or regulating political speech online and you’ve got a lot of enemies that could care less what political party you belong to.

Paul Hackett hit on a real nerve with his failed campaign. The media, the DCCC, the DNC and other politicians would be smart to take the time to figure out why instead of parroting each other.

BTW, if you asked me Paul Hackett could never mention the President again and it would do nothing but help him. His real target is Congress and the sooner he focuses on that the better. As for calling Rush a fat assed drug addict, more power to him. Nothing more pathetic than Democrats trying to look dignified as Republican shills piss all over them. Anyone who tells you different is an idiot.

(via Swing State Project)