"New" Ohio Daily Blog breaks Hackett seal
If this is the kind of posting we expect from the "new" Ohio Daily Blog, then it's become no less of a farce than when it went practically defunct after Jeff Coryell left. (Did I mention I really miss Jeff Coryell's posting?)
I'll answer the post's rhetorical question. No, Paul Hackett isn't back. Why should Paul Hackett be considered a viable candidate for the U.S. Senate? He's only ran in one campaign ... and lost. If the closeness of his defeat is a qualifier for higher office, then Victoria Wulsin (who lost TWICE to Schmidt) is double qualified as both of her general election races were tighter than Hackett's special election. Wulsin's achievement was even more noteworthy given the public bashing of her candidacy Hackett did in national political publications like Roll Call.
Hackett is right to say its a $20 million race. He can't raise that kind of cash and he knows it. He also knows that as a factor in Democratic politics, he isn't one. Hackett has lent his name to several campaigns, such as Rosemary Palmer, and not only did those candidates lose, candidates like Rosemary Palmer finished at the rear of the pack.
Hackett says Strickland's support is key, and he knows what he speaks of. For all the DailyKos fauning over Hackett, he wasn't entirely a grassroots phenom. Then Congressman Ted Strickland represented the neighboring district. Most of the eastern counties of the Second Congressional District used to be in Strickland's. Strickland quickly signed up to support Hackett and plugged him into Strickland's still existing campaign operations there. Hackett, and Wulsin, coincidentially have always won the eastern counties that used to be called Strickland Country. Without Strickland's support, Hackett knows he can't pull off the same thing twice. Hackett's support in places like Warren County? Yeah, there's a strong Strickland connection there, too. Hackett at the time very publicly appreciated Strickland's support because he knew it was a large part of his success.
Hackett also knows to the extent he has any base, it's in Southwestern Ohio. Hackett also knows that being competitive against Jean Schmidt in the region is not the same thing as taking on Rob Portman in the region. Before Schmidt, Portman regularly got 70% of the vote in the region. Without Southwestern Ohio, where is Hackett more competitive? Hackett was against the Iraq War? So was probably Lee Fisher, Jennifer Brunner, and Tim Ryan. Calling the President of the United States, even if it is "W.," an S.O.B. publicly hardly makes me think a candidate is a noteworthy standout from the rest of the bench-- who has at leasst won an election.
Lastly, Hackett knows that most people outside the star-struck liberal blogsphere doesn't know who he is, and his claim to fame--losing to Jean Schmidt in a "narrow" special election five years ago-- isn't going to get him far with voters in 2010. He also knows his star has lost a lil' luster even with the netroots, especially after he falsely accused the Obama campaign of "ignoring" Southern Ohio and gave what even armchair DailyKos political consultants said was the worst advice imagineable. Hackett has proven himself to be, well, a hack.
I hate that I've even had to expend the bandwidth to knock this nonsense down. We might as well be talking about Joe the Plumber running... as a Democrat.
Hackett didn't really want it then - other people wanted him to want it more than he did and why would I trust that he wants it, let alone deserves it, now? He wanted to abolish the Dept. of Education - said so in our Meet the Bloggers interview with him (editing in: he did later clarify but honestly, this was just a huge faux pas for a person running as a Democrat to make - even Republican Ralph Regula was against eliminating the DOE when Gingrich was trying in the 1990s and while Obama wants reform, no one is talking about eliminating it).
He has done some powerful stuff, motivated people and so on, but I just don't see this - people made fun of Caroline Kennedy for wanting to be appointed and so at least Hackett wants to run and ran and lost to Schmidt in a primary. But other than that, what bumps him up the ladder of being desired to be a candidate or ability to be an elected officer anymore than any of the other names being mentioned?
I don't see it. But I didn't back then either. (And I wrote the same thing about Fred Thompson early on too (5/6/07), AND I think Barack Obama started out with some of the same more people wanted him to run than he was sure he wanted to run.)
When Hackett first ran, he was a newly returned Iraq vet- among the first to wear that label. That war was the main issue at that time.
That time has passed, many have run as Iraq vets nationwide. Some won, some lost. People have moved on to other issues, mainly domestic.
There's no reason to believe that Hackett has any more expertise on today's problems than the next guy or gal. He sure talks a lot when given the chance, but his talk is not especially enlightening. Some talk shows liked having him on because he's something of a loose cannon and kept the conversation lively.
Unfortunately the Dem. bench in SW Ohio is fairly thin. Ohio is likely to lose a congressioanl seat in the next reapportionment.
I sincerely hope Hamilton county will be united in the First District at that time, where Dem. victories are likely for the near future, and that the rest of the second District is divvied up among adjoining districts, eliminating Jean Schmisdt.
When I plead for Hamilton Co. to be all in the First District, that's a personal desire, not necessarily strategic. - I just hate being represented by Jean Schmidt, and don't see a Dem. win in the Second in the near future. Assuming all Ohio Congressional District will encompass a larger area - where else is the First District going to go? -Going north to part of Butler, as it is now, gave votes to Chabot for many years, and only the tidal change that was the 2008 election brought the First to Dem. hands.
As for the Dem. bench being stronger - that's all relative, I guess. Yes, Hamilton is now a Dem. County, but not where judgeships are concerned, and several county offices as well. Dems didn't even run opposition for some Hamilton county offices in 2008. And no way could you consider any of the surrounding Counties Dem - not Butler, not Warren, not Clermont.
Aside from Todd Portune and possibly David Pepper, maybe Tyrone Yates - not many Hamilton Co. Dems could advance very far in state or national government. Certainly not most of those now on Cincinnati Council.
If you want to know about my beef about Hackett, I linked all the posts that explains why in this post. Apparently, I need to spell it out to you: he's done nothing for the party except public bash Victoria Wulsin's candidacy nationally and unjustly criticized the Obama campaign's efforts in Ohio.
Did I say Hackett was like Joe the Plumber? Not unless you read this post after a traumatic brain injury. What I said is the likelihood of Hackett running is as likely as Joe the Plumber running on the Democratic ticket. Read it again before you fly off the handle.
Hackett would have voted against the MCA? Really? Do you have anything to support that other than you don't support the MCA and you support Hackett? Can you point to any blog post by Hackett, news article about Hackett, speech by Hackett, ANYTHING to actually support that? I've looked and except for netroots folks who take it as an article of faith that Hackett wouldn't have voted the same way as Brown, I've found no emperical evidence from Hackett himself how he would have voted. It's an entirely academic exercise regardless because it's a lot easier to say how you would vote when your a politician running in circles where the ideology is less muddled than the public at large. Hackett wasn't nearly as progressive as the progressive blogsphere thought he was. Hackett would be the first to admit as such. Once he attacked Bush on Iraq, he became a progressive ideologue's overnight sensation, but in all that hysteria, progressives began projecting positions on Hackett that he didn't ever necessary say he supports. Hackett became the progressives dream candidate.
Hackett's background would bring people into the party? Fine, what's he done to do that, exactly?
How am I "smearing" him? I'm just pointing out what he's done. He won a close race, but that achievement is not as impressive as it appeared at the time since other Democrats have come even closer. He supported a primary challenger to Dennis Kucinich who came in almost dead last. The reality is, as Hackett himself acknowledged in the post I was writing about, there are plenty of other Democratic candidates who are better suited to run than Hackett.
Where was Hackett in 2006? Where was he in 2008 except on DailyKos taking potshots based on faulty information about Obama's campaign operation in Ohio.
And before you go attacking this site, you perhaps need to be reminded that the genesis of this site was the prospect of Hackett's Senate candidacy and was one of the primary vehicles of public outrage over how he was shoved aside. I wanted Hackett to run for AG and urged him personally as such.
Hackett could have taken his celebrity and lifted a finger to help Victoria Wulsin run against Schmidt this last cycle. Instead he just tightened his grip on the knife he planted publicly and firmly in Wulsin's back.
If the closeness of his defeat is a qualifier for higher office, then Victoria Wulsin (who lost TWICE to Schmidt) is double qualified as both of her general election races were tighter than Hackett's special election.
Not exactly:
- Hackett lost 51.6% to 48.4% in 2005.
- Wulsin lost in 2008 by 44.8% - 37.5% with a third candidate getting almost all of the rest.
- Last time I checked, a 7.3% difference is bigger than a 3.2% difference.
Wulsin outperformed Hackett in 2006, and underperformed him in 2008.
Lastly, Hackett knows that most people outside the star-struck liberal blogsphere doesn't know who he is, and his claim to fame--losing to Jean Schmidt in a "narrow" special election five years ago-- isn't going to get him far with voters in 2010.
Uh, the election was in August 2005, which according to my calendar is 3 years and 5 months ago.
Hackett's viability is open to question. Your lack of accuracy with basic facts isn't.
Tom at BizzyBlog
By the time the 2010 election is held, it will have been five years. Jeez.
The fact still remains that Wulsin's general election performance has demonstrated that Hackett's one-time special election performance was not unique to Hackett alone.
Second, you are the absolutely the worst person in the world to give me lectures on factual accuracy. Voter fraud, you overhyped the evidence. Polls? 'Nuff said.
Blaming Obama for the economy before he was even ELECTED President? Just tin foil hat-wearing nuttiness.
Your twenty posts about Strickland's residency? All leglly inaccurate and debunked. (which is why you've made but one passing reference to former House Speaker Husted's residency challenge. Either that or your just a flaming partisan hypocrite.)
Hackett is not a viable candidate, and the fact that you say otherwise just proves my point. You missed one of the biggest economic meltdown in our global economy's history, all the time blaming the media for not reporting just how ducky everything was.
But yes, quibble with me about the preciseness of calculating dates and whether Wulsin could say that her two general election performances could be considered to equal or surpass Hackett's special election performance.
By focusing on splitting hairs, you're not going to see the tree, let alone the forest.
ME challenged your use of facts and your interpretation of them in a fairly lengthy post.
Whatever. End the flames.
I know it's hard to stay awake after reading your PJ Media columns, or having to endure your own self-promotion. But if you had actually READ my response, you would have realized that I conceded that I was technically incorrect because I didn't specificy that I meant it will be five years since the Hackett special election by the time Ohio voters vote on the U.S. Senate race next year.
So I was wrong about Wulsin in the last cycle, but those errors do not take away from my point. Wulsin's general election performance in 2006 shows that the Hackett result wasn't unique to him as a candidate, and Hackett's special election results are becoming a faded memory. You're chewing around the margins, Tommy Boy.
But if you want to talk about people who make substance-free responses without admitting you were wrong, pal, look in a mirror.
When have you publicly acknowledged you have been wrong about what you wrote about the polls showing Obama, Strickland, and others ahead in Ohio?
When have you admitted you were wrong to attack Ted Strickland over a frivilous attack on his voting rights when you've been virtually silent about Jon Husted?
When have you admitted you were wrong to criticize the media for "talking down" the economy on the eve of the perhaps biggest economic and financial meltdown since the Great Depression? (And yet, when you do concede that the economy is in a recession, you blame Obama for it for reasons that the nuttiest conspiracy nut couldn't find plausible.)
When have you ever admitted you were wrong for that matter?
Bizzy, you come to a credibility fight totally unarmed.
ME says he was wrong. That's one for Guinness.
I said I was wrong about something just a few days ago. :--> Peace out for good.
I actually admit I wrong quite often. I'll update a post with a correction, do a strikethru, or acknowledge it in the comments kind of like, I dunno, I just did with you.
You've failed to address any of the issues when you were faceplant wrong and instead cite a self-serving, tongue-in-cheek example of one conjecture being "proven" by another's "conjecture." You aren't right or wrong until there's actually a stimulus plan and you're still off by a $1.7 trillion of the current plan that's actually going through Congress.
You are such a coward. So willing to "call people out" but then retreat when they don't respond as you expect. I'm willing to be held accountable. You called me on it and I said, ok, fine. But those errors aside do not take away from the larger point. You: Silence.
Second, when have you admitted you were wrong on this, this, and this? Silence.
Instead I get: Why don't you ever admit you were wrong? When I point out that a trained monkey could have read my comment and seen that I had already done so, then you act surprised like it's never happened before.
I think you're projecting yourself on me. You're the one who never admits they're wrong. Even when on one hand you write about how great the economy really is doing while on the other hand blaming the Democrats for the recession you just claimed doesn't exist.
Then again, maybe it's not hypocritically inconsistent if its a result of a schitzo personality to you. Who knows with you? I've given up trying to deterimine whether you have any standards at all, let alone what they might be.
Your last comment, chuckles, had nothing to do with Hackett at all. It had to do with your false sense that I'm not big enough to admit when I'm wrong. You've also not addressed my response on the Hackett issue, either, which is your technical corrections aside, the larger points still remain. Hackett's achievement isn't much when you consider Wulsin was able to do even better in general election once Schmidt was the incumbent. And the rest of the State doesn't know who Hackett is and his claim to fame is fading.
I have asked these questions on your blog and your response on your own hypocracy about Husted has been that I don't dictate what you write and other dodges.