Paul Hackett USMC Res, American, Democrat

[Ocotillo]

Salon article (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/26/hackett_schmidt/)

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/26/hackett_schmidt/story.jpg

Dogfight in Ohio

A Marine who fought in Fallujah is trying to become the first Iraq war vet to serve in Congress -- and give Democrats hope that Ohio is not permanently lost.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Bill Frogameni

July 26, 2005 | Paul Hackett remembers being in Kuwait, waiting to be shipped home after a seven-month tour of duty in Ramadi and Fallujah, watching CNN America with his fellow Marines. What he saw enraged him. "All I saw on TV was Terri Schiavo," he says. "The federal government and the Florida state government came screeching to a halt to intervene into the private lives of this family during this tragic time ... Like that scene out of 'Network,' I felt like the guy who stood in the spotlight and said, 'I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.'" Not long after he returned to Ohio, he decided to run for Congress.

Hackett, a 43-year-old personal injury lawyer and Marine Reserve major who volunteered for service in the Iraq war, has little prior political experience, only having served as a city councilman in a small town. But he's a contender in a special congressional election taking place in Ohio on Aug. 2 to fill the 2nd District seat vacated by Republican Rob Portman, who's now serving as the U.S. trade representative.


Hackett, a Democrat, is surely the underdog. The 2nd District, which includes Cincinnati, has been solidly conservative in a state that's thoroughly dominated by the GOP and that decided the 2004 election for President Bush. His better-funded opponent, Jean Schmidt, is well-connected and, as a former state representative, has a more extensive political résumé. But Hackett hopes his credentials -- Iraq war vet and plain-spoken self-described moderate -- will give him a much-needed edge.

Hackett hopes he's part of a seismic political shift happening in Ohio -- a shift driven in part by recent outrage against Ohio Republicans over a high-profile, multimillion-dollar accounting scandal that has cast a cloud over the state party and may find its first political fallout victim in Schmidt, the first major Republican candidate to face the voters since the scandal broke.

A victory for Schmidt would mean continued Republican dominance in this district that voted 65 percent in favor of Bush last November. If Hackett wins, however, it would make him the first Iraq war veteran in Congress -- and would also give Democrats hope that Ohio has not gone completely and irreversibly to the GOP.

On the issues, the candidates both describe themselves as fiscal conservatives, but on the Iraq war and the so-called moral values questions, they stand in stark relief. Hackett is a critic of Bush's Iraq war policy and believes America was led to war unnecessarily. Schmidt is a strong backer of Bush's handling of the war. Hackett is pro-choice. Schmidt is president of Cincinnati Right to Life. Schmidt voted against gay marriage in the Ohio House of Representatives, while Hackett's take is: "Gay marriage -- who the hell cares?"
Hackett, who is married, says he doesn't feel the need to defend his marriage through the national Defense of Marriage Act, or any other anti-gay marriage legislation. "If you're gay you're gay -- more power to you," he said. "What you want is to be treated fairly by the law and any American who doesn't think that should be the case is, frankly, un-American."

Hackett's left-of-center views on social issues may not go over well with conservative Ohioans, and Schmidt is so far beating him financially, but last week Hackett got a profile boost when former Democratic Sen. Max Cleland campaigned with him. By bringing in Cleland and highlighting his military service, Hackett hopes to neutralize any criticism Schmidt could levy concerning his stance on the war.

Schmidt commends Hackett for his service, but believes Hackett should "stand with the president" by "supporting the Iraqi war effort and our troops that are over there," her campaign manager Joe Braun said. (Through Braun, Schmidt declined to speak with Salon.) When asked to answer that charge, Hackett is blunt: "The only way I know how to support the troops is by going over there." He doesn't hesitate to criticize Schmidt's support of the war: "All the chicken hawks back here who said, 'Oh, Iraq is talking bad about us. They're going to threaten us' -- look, if you really believe that, you leave your wife and three kids and go sign up for the Army or Marines and go over there and fight. Otherwise, shut your mouth."

In spite of her endorsement from the NRA, Hackett steals some of Schmidt's thunder when it comes to guns. Hackett says he's an NRA member and, when asked about gun control, he answers with an old saw: "Gun control is when you point your gun and hit what you aim for." Local pundits have noted Hackett's macho appeal to the crossover voter (his time in the Marines, his 6-foot-4-inch frame, his blunt talk), and Hackett acknowledges this appeal is further enhanced by his hands-on appreciation for hunting and gun culture.

With only a week to go before the election, it's hard to gauge the state of the horse race. Given his limited financial resources, Hackett says he decided not to commission any polls. Braun says the Schmidt camp has done "tracking" but declined to release any specific numbers. Braun does, however, see Hackett as a legitimate contender.


And recent ethical questions surrounding Schmidt's campaign may work in Hackett's favor. Among other things, Schmidt had to pay back $644 for a gift she took last fall from a lobbyist but failed to report as required by law. The lobbyist worked on behalf of the Chiron Corp., which was at the center of last winter's flu vaccine controversy. Schmidt enjoyed a free dinner and then a free Cincinnati Bengals game courtesy of the lobbyist, but claimed she didn't know the gift came from the lobbyist. Rather, she has said, she thought the tickets came from former Bengals quarterback "Boomer" Esiason.

Then there's the $10,000 that Schmidt's campaign accepted from one of Tom DeLay's political action committees. Hackett criticized Schmidt for taking DeLay's money. "Tom DeLay," says Hackett, "is the poster child for corruption in Washington." Braun dismisses Hackett's criticism as political opportunism and says, if the situation were reversed, Hackett would take $10,000 from the Democratic leadership.

Finally, a Cincinnati paper ran a report last week suggesting that Fritz Wenzel, Schmidt's media manager, was working for her campaign while simultaneously working as the top political reporter and columnist at the Blade, Toledo's news daily and a major Ohio paper. Wenzel's last day at the Blade was Friday, May 13. Two weeks before he left to become a political consultant, according to the report, Wenzel made scathing comments about Schmidt's Republican primary opponents on a personal blog he maintained. The blog entries have since been pulled off the Web, and reports filed with the Federal Election Commission show that Wenzel's company, Wenzel Strategies, was paid $30,000 on Monday, May 16, by the Schmidt campaign.

May 16 was also the day his last column ran in the Blade, but Wenzel made public his plans to start a consulting business weeks prior to that. Braun praises Wenzel's work and denies Wenzel was working for Schmidt inappropriately. Wenzel and Braun both claim Wenzel drummed up the work for Schmidt over the weekend after he left the Blade. "I had a busy weekend," Wenzel reportedly told the Cincinnati paper. Hackett doesn't buy this explanation. "It's more of the same," he says, lumping this alleged ethical lapse in with the others. "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."

It's unclear how damaging any of these ethical questions will be for Schmidt as the campaign hits its home stretch.

At present, both campaigns say they're going full bore. Braun feels Schmidt's chances are good, but confines himself to saying, "We're working hard." As for Hackett, he knows he's got an uphill challenge, but says he's ready. "There's nothing about this election that can faze me," he says. "After Iraq, everything seems like a walk in the park."

Gee, I guess that all military are not all kool aid drinking Republicans. Anyway, the Repubs are out in force denigrating his military service as not really involved in combat. Screw the Repulican polital operatives and Swift Boat Liars that talk a good game about supporting our troops and thanking them for their service but if they have a different political opinion, all that goes out the window and they smear their service. Remember the piece of crap republicans at their convention and their purple heart band aids? Go Paul Go!!

[SWC Bonfire]

Wow, imagine that, a conservative democrat.

Note to democrats: you used to have a lot of them. You also used to be in power. (1+1=2)

[Ocotillo]

He would not be called a conservative by the right wing noise machine (Rush, Fox, Hannity, Coulter)...... He is what I have thought of as a moderate or centrist. They have a liberal position on one issue (pro-choice) and a conservative position on another (pro-gun). That is where most of America is, they are not staunchly conservative or liberal, they are a mix of views.

Yet when such a candidate emerges, the right wing noise machine swings into action and "defines" the candidate for the electorate. The RWNM not only attacks Democrats of varying political stripes but also Republicans who don't toe their line of thinking (see Chafee, Snowe, Collins and the Ohio senator whose name I won't attempt to spell).

[SWC Bonfire]

Well, have you paid attention to Schwartzenegger? He's a pretty liberal repub.
FYI, none of the media people you mentioned are party officials & don't tell me that there isn't a "left wing noise machine", either. :lol

[SWC Bonfire]

And if the democrats were smart, they would parade these moderates and imitate them. That way, the Republicans would be associated only with radicals on the right much like the democrats are now with radicals on the left.

[Ocotillo]

And if the democrats were smart, they would parade these moderates and imitate them. That way, the Republicans would be associated only with radicals on the right much like the democrats are now with radicals on the left.

I don't disagree with that.

To the RWNM, yes there is an element of left wing noise out there but it does not have the sort of coverage the right does. I think I have posted this before but I was in southeastern New Mexico recently and had about 10 minutes to spare before a sales call and I parked my car and left the radio on while I went over my notes. Rush was on so I hit scan to find another station and there were five different stations carrying Rush as that time. :lol

No Air America or Stephanie Miller so it was time for a CD.

[Nbadan]

And if the democrats were smart, they would parade these moderates and imitate them. That way, the Republicans would be associated only with radicals on the right much like the democrats are now with radicals on the left.

Nobody wants a Republican-lite, just ask John Kerry and if she runs in 08 - Hillary.

To win back the WH, Progressive Democrats must offer the people a choice from Republican mismanagement of the economy and the war on terror, and stick with their core liberal values at the same time, fund social security, make medicare solvent again, set reasonable education standards with local control, and get tough on the real war on terror.

[Ocotillo]

Yeah I hear ya Dan. But a Dem should not be made a pariah if he/she supports a pro life position or is a defender of the second amendment. The Dems do need to emphasize their core economic values and live or die by them but regarding social issues, a little diversity doesn't hurt and there is room in the tent for more.

[SWC Bonfire]

and stick with their core liberal values

They aren't the core values of most voters.

[FromWayDowntown]

They aren't the core values of most voters.

I don't think that you could make a real compelling argument that the GOP embodies the core values of most voters, either. If you just look at the sheer popular vote in the last two elections, Gore won in 2000 and Bush in 2004. The major differences between those 2 campaigns (in my estimation) were the War on Terror (whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, or both) and the inherent likeability/unlikeability of the candidates.

Gore's so-called liberal values didn't drive away voters -- had he gotten 538 more votes in Florida, he would have been President. So, it's not like Bush's values or those of his party drove that election. I'd argue that the real issue with Kerry wasn't his values, but his campaign strategy and his inability to own any issue. Kerry with a real message might have beaten Bush.

[Nbadan]

Yeah I hear ya Dan. But a Dem should not be made a pariah if he/she supports a pro life position or is a defender of the second amendment. The Dems do need to emphasize their core economic values and live or die by them but regarding social issues, a little diversity doesn't hurt and there is room in the tent for more.

Pro-lifers have a hard time living under the Democratic tent because they are fanatical about one issue - the right to life. Pro-lifers support the nomination of John Roberts to SCOTUS by W, and in every instance where he had had a opportunity Roberts has voted against the rights of individuals, and for providing more governmental control over access to family planning and services. From national security, to the war on terror, to abortion rights - the Republican party has turned into the Federalist Party and consequently, the Progressives are shifting to the States-Rights Party.

[SWC Bonfire]

The Progressives? You form a new party that you haven't told somebody about? :lol

I love how the word "liberal" is now the kiss of death. No one wants to be identified with it; now you are telling me that liberal values didn't drive away voters? Democrats (not just Nbadan) won't even call themselves that.

Yes, many people respond to different issues, and no, not everyone in each party agrees on all of them. That has not changed since 1796-1800 and the formation of the two-party system.

[SWC Bonfire]

Incidentally, I would have to think that states-rights and liberal values are more in contrast to one another than they are compatible.

This guy is the exception rather than the rule. That is the democrat's problem.

[Bandit2981]

I love how the word "liberal" is now the kiss of death. No one wants to be identified with it; now you are telling me that liberal values didn't drive away voters? Democrats (not just Nbadan) won't even call themselves that.
I would have to disagree, "liberal" is a dirty word to conservatives, but I haven't encountered any people outside of their circles who think that way. Most I talk to don't like political labels anyways and won't be identified as such, either party.

[FromWayDowntown]

Incidentally, I would have to think that states-rights and liberal values are more in contrast to one another than they are compatible.

That depends on what issue you are discussing. There are a number of issues that the GOP shuns states rights to fight for. The GOP platforms on same-sex marriage and abortion are prime examples of that -- Republicans want no part of state regulation of marriage and abortion; they want the federal government to outlaw each. It's not as if either party is perfectly a states-rights party or perfectly a federalist party.

[FromWayDowntown]

He would not be called a conservative by the right wing noise machine (Rush, Fox, Hannity, Coulter)...... He is what I have thought of as a moderate or centrist. They have a liberal position on one issue (pro-choice) and a conservative position on another (pro-gun). That is where most of America is, they are not staunchly conservative or liberal, they are a mix of views.

Yet when such a candidate emerges, the right wing noise machine swings into action and "defines" the candidate for the electorate. The RWNM not only attacks Democrats of varying political stripes but also Republicans who don't toe their line of thinking (see Chafee, Snowe, Collins and the Ohio senator whose name I won't attempt to spell).

I'd agree, but I'd characterize it differently. I think there is some truth to the idea that each side has a noise machine of sorts. I do think that there are marked differences in the way those machines operate, though, and I think that leads to a perception that the right's machine is louder.

Frankly, the thing that struck me most about election 2004 was the fact that Republican noise-makers, be they hosts or guests, were all reading from the same playbook, all saying the same things, thus amplifying the points that were being made. Think about it: much of the "noise" from the right was dedicated to defining Kerry in a handful of ways, and cited the same examples again and again to make those insular points. It was a very effective strategy, because the righties who talked to the left -- the listening audience -- began to regurgitate the same ideas with the same evidence in fairly short order.

I thought one of the great undoings of the Kerry campaign was its inability to focus in on particular messages. That was true of the candidate, but I also thought it was true of those who spoke for the candidate. Part of the problem arose from having been put on the defensive about a number of issues. But part of the problem came from an inability to stay on point.

The difference, IMO, is gigantic. A crowd all yelling the same thing sounds resounding; each person in a crowd yelling something different just sounds like noise.

[Bandit2981]

I think the 2004 election analysis was simpler than that - Kerry was just a stiff doofus. Oh, and his campaign was run like crap :lol

[Ocotillo]

Iraq was a challenge for Kerry that he was unable to overcome.

Having voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq he couldn't be the anti-war candidate that Dean was. By the summer of "04, it was not enough to say it was wrong to go to war in the first place. The troops were there already, the government had been overthrown and there was an active insurgency going on (as there is today).

Iraq was (is) one of the main things that voters are upset with Bush about. Kerry did not articulate a position that much different from Bush in the campaign. Neither guy could say they would put more (American) troops there because the military was close to their limit. Kerry advocated he could convince other countries to add troops but this claim was met with skepticism. Most people likely felt the Europeans would work better with Kerry but what were the odds of them actually putting forces on the ground in Iraq?

Finally, Kerry was too timid to call for a withdrawal of American troops for fear he would look soft. So on the Iraq issue, he was neutralized.

Kerry wanted to talk about jobs and healthcare but the issues at that time were Iraq and terrorism. Throw in a dash of the standard right wing God, guns and gays and it was enough to tip the balance to Bush.

[SWC Bonfire]

That is all true, Ocotillo, but if Kerry was like Dean it would have been 88-12 for Bush. The democratic party (republican, too) needs to make a concerted effort to purge the radicals and get back towards the center. There can be such a thing as a conservative democrat. If the Democrats succede in doing this before the Repubs, they will regain power. But it can't be a facade, like Hillary suddenly moving to the center in the last few years. Old hardliners need to be pushed out <cough Ted Kennedy cough>.

Continuing to move to the left will turn the democratic party into the green or communist party. Continuting to move to the right will turn the republican party into some federalist party.

[violentkitten]

some of you act as if voters actually are actually presented with a meaningful choice in federal and state elections.

[Dos]

"Reporting for duty Sir" cheeeese not another one...

[FromWayDowntown]

some of you act as if voters actually are actually presented with a meaningful choice in federal and state elections.

The antagonistic feline makes a very cogent point.

[violentkitten]

seriously. we have one side which is the party of big government, deficit spending and having the government all up in your business and then on the other side we have the democratic party. the political situation in this country is absurd. so much about politics today is image and nothing more. there are those for whom being a liberal fits their social profle and then there are those for whom being "conservative" fits theirs. it is worth noting that the political delinations in this country are based on social issues more than anything else. that's why rednecks making $20k a year are republicans and c-class executives with millions in stock options are democrats.

[whottt]

Seems like a pretty decent Democratic candidate instead of a fucking whackjob....for a change. His service definitely gives him points in my book. And I don't really care if he was opposed to the Iraq war or not...I care about how he feels we should solve it.
If his solution is to cut and run he's a dumbass.

If his idea is to kiss the ubercorrupt asses in the UN and Europe he's also a dumbass.

The fact that he is a personal injury attorney is a huge negative me. Trust me on this people...attorney's usually are fucking scum....especially the PI ones.

Still..because this guy did something that I totally admire I am going to withold judgment on him until I hear his approach to the Iraq situation.

One thing sets my alarms off though...if he was against the Iraq war in the first place, then why did he volunteer to go over there....that sounds exactly like something a lawyer would do for public image reasons, I wonder what he did when he was over there.

Still, he went...and that counts for a lot with me, it counts more than anything with me...as long as he doesn't try to sell out America ala John Kerry then I will consider him a promising democrat and a step in the right direction for that party.

[FromWayDowntown]

The fact that he is a personal injury attorney is a huge negative me. Trust me on this people...attorney's are fucking scum....especially the PI ones.

Be sure that you paint with the broadest brush you possibly can there, whottt.

I'm just guessing, but I'd be willing to bet that the number of PI attorneys that you know is relatively small. While I'll certainly admit that there are a number of PI lawyers who have no real interest in justice for anyone, there are substantially more who honestly pursue efforts to remedy what are often tragic injuries to entirely innocent people -- injuries caused by negligence and faulty products. If that's a scummy thing to do in our society, then there really is something wrong.

If you really want to discuss your broad-based view of attorneys, I'd be perfectly willing to meet your every argument. If you'd rather just throw bombs and not substantiate anything that you say, so be it. Being a member of the profession that you are so quick to castigate, I can readily assure you that most lawyers who I encounter in my day-to-day dealings are extremely concerned about doing the right things and protecting the rule of law. Speaking for those attorneys that I know and practice alongside, we are all very proud of what we do, even if some in society refuse to see the many benefits of our work.

[FromWayDowntown]

One thing sets my alarms off though...if he was against the Iraq war in the first place, then why did he volunteer to go over there....that sounds exactly like something a lawyer would do for public image reasons, I wonder what he did when he was over there.

Maybe he went because he was a member of the military at the time that we declared war and was called up for service. If that's the case (and I suspect it is), he didn't go to Iraq for public image reasons (or because he is a lawyer). He went to Iraq because that was what he agreed to do. He may not have supported the war in Iraq, but at least he put his personal political beliefs aside long enough to do the job he had sworn to do. My goodness, do you just jump to any readily-available negative assumption available about people?

[whottt]

Be sure that you paint with the broadest brush you possibly can there, whottt.

I'm just guessing, but I'd be willing to bet that the number of PI attorneys that you know is relatively small. While I'll certainly admit that there are a number of PI lawyers who have no real interest in justice for anyone, there are substantially more who honestly pursue efforts to remedy what are often tragic injuries to entirely innocent people -- injuries caused by negligence and faulty products. If that's a scummy thing to do in our society, then there really is something wrong.

If you really want to discuss your broad-based view of attorneys, I'd be perfectly willing to meet your every argument. If you'd rather just throw bombs and not substantiate anything that you say, so be it. Being a member of the profession that you are so quick to castigate, I can readily assure you that most lawyers who I encounter in my day-to-day dealings are extremely concerned about doing the right things and protecting the rule of law. Speaking for those attorneys that I know and practice alongside, we are all very proud of what we do, even if some in society refuse to see the many benefits of our work.

And you'd be wrong about that.

I worked for one for the past 4 years up until about 2 months ago, actually I worked for about 4 of them....But the main one...I rain bail bonds for him, I chased bondjumpers for him...I served supponeas. I was court aide at times, tech support on the office computers at others, 24 hour answering service for the entire time...and since he also had political aspirations...I helped run his election campaign when he was running for judge. I helped his preferred judges with their election campaigns(I know). I know a lot of attorneys, PI and otherwise, I also know a lot of politicians that were attorneys. I also know a lot of judges too.


We can debate it all we want but I spent 4 years up to my elbows in lawyers, politicians, and judges...and I had my fill of it. I did not meet one fucking person I respected in that entire time.

Matter of fact...I was pretty much a Democrat for most of my life until I worked for this Democrat attorney...

Not only did it forever alter my opinion on attorneys...it forever altered my opinon on Democratic politicans as well. I mean I know all politicans are corrupt to an extent...but the Republicans are a hell of a lot more transparent and prinicpled in their corruption. That doesn't mean I am a Republican...but I am very wary of Democratic politicians now...especially the lawyers. Trotting Michael Moore out there and nominating John Kerry as your candidate add quite a bit to my anxiety and distrust of this party.

[SWC Bonfire]

but the Republicans are a hell of a lot more transparent and prinicpled in their corruption.

:lol

[FromWayDowntown]

And you'd be wrong about that.

I worked for one for the past 4 years up until about 2 months ago, actually I worked for about 4 of them....But the main one...I rain bail bonds for him, I chased bondjumpers for him...I served supponeas. I was court aide at times, tech support on the office computers at others, 24 hour answering service for the entire time...and since he also had political aspirations...I helped run his election campaign when he was running for judge. I helped his preferred judges with their election campaigns(I know). I know a lot of attorneys, PI and otherwise, I also know a lot of politicians that were attorneys. I also know a lot of judges too.


We can debate it all we want but I spent 4 years up to my elbows in lawyers, politicians, and judges...and I had my fill of it. I did not meet one fucking person I respected in that entire time.

That's really too bad. You missed out on meeting a great number of wonderfully-intentioned, morally-rich, altruistic people. It's too bad for you that you can assume that everyone you met in a single practice that was dominated by politics more than law is representative of every lawyer everywhere. If it would make any difference, I'd invite you to spend a day with me and see the people that I see, but since you've become entrenched in your position based on those limited experiences, I can't imagine you'd be interested.

[whottt]

The guy I worked for thinks he's altruistic too. That's what really scared me about him.

Look...I don't know you personally, and this is not a personal attack. If you are a good one then I congratulate you...But I didn't start out being cynical about the profession, I became that way, and I have a lot of reasons why.

[FromWayDowntown]

The guy I worked for thinks he's altruistic too. That's what really scared me about him.

Look...I don't know you personally, and this is not a personal attack. If you are a good one then I congratulate you...But I didn't start out being cynical about the profession, I became that way, and I have a lot of reasons for being so.

I can assure you that there are many, many more reasons for you to not be so jaded. There are far more good lawyers than bad ones. I will say this, though: lawyers who are in practice with the goal of using that practice to step into a political career are generally going to be bad lawyers -- generally speaking, they care more about themselves than their clients and thus, their clients suffer. I dislike lawyers who make the legal profession a political battle; those lawyers should make people cynical.

But those lawyers are few and far between.

[whottt]

Maybe he went because he was a member of the military at the time that we declared war and was called up for service. If that's the case (and I suspect it is), he didn't go to Iraq for public image reasons (or because he is a lawyer). He went to Iraq because that was what he agreed to do. He may not have supported the war in Iraq, but at least he put his personal political beliefs aside long enough to do the job he had sworn to do. My goodness, do you just jump to any readily-available negative assumption available about people?


And you might be right...which I why I said this in my original post:



Still..because this guy did something that I totally admire I am going to withold judgment on him until I hear his approach to the Iraq situation.

One thing sets my alarms off though...if he was against the Iraq war in the first place, then why did he volunteer to go over there....that sounds exactly like something a lawyer would do for public image reasons, I wonder what he did when he was over there.

Still, he went...and that counts for a lot with me, it counts more than anything with me...as long as he doesn't try to sell out America ala John Kerry then I will consider him a promising democrat and a step in the right direction for that party.


I also never said that all attorney's are scum..just IMO most of them usually are.


Methinks you are seing what you want to see...I haven't judged this guy yet.

[FromWayDowntown]

I also never said that all attorney's are scum..just IMO most of them usually are.

Fair enough. I'll admit that I misread your initial post, whottt, and for that, you have my apology.

I disagree with your opinion, but I respect where it comes from.

[Vashner]

You don't join the Marines if your lazy or a whimp.. the basic is 12 weeks.. compared to 6 in AF and 8 in Army... Good luck to the dude.

[Nbadan]

Do you guys all remember the Warren County Ohio LOCKDOWN of the BoE on November 2nd 2004? How about a little refresher...

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00000917.htm

Guess what? Warren County is IN OH CD-2!!!!!

YIKES!!!!

Lookie here:

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/maps/congress0...

Turns out ole Hackett could be a Democrats wet-dream if Ohio can count its votes this time around.

[Nbadan]

Paul Hackett has become an honorary Texan:

Dear Friends and Supporters:

I'm emailing you today to ask you to support a very exciting candidate, Marine Major and Democrat Paul Hackett who could be the first veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom to be elected to Congress. He fought in the Fallujah campaign, took part in reconstruction efforts and worked side-by-side with Iraqi military and civil personnel.

Yesterday several Texas bloggers declared Major Hackett an honorary Texan and launched a joint fund-raising effort. I've been busy with my law practice and didn't get a chance to join their call until today. However, it's not too late to contribute to the campaign -- there will be many bills coming due after the election and your money will be well spent. Please click here to contribute to Paul's campaign: http://actblue.com/list/honorarytexan?refcode=morrison

Paul Hackett knows what's really happening in Iraq. And, he's ready to take his experience to Washington. He's running in the August 2nd special election in Ohio's 2nd Congressional District stretching from just outside Cincinnati eastward along the Ohio River.

Paul's campaign has a tough fight against some of the most entrenched special interests in Ohio. His opponent, Jean Schmidt, is a favorite of the corrupt and ever-present Republican establishment -- one that never misses an opportunity to smear and cheat.

Fight on!

--

Most polls still have Hackett trailing his Republican counter-part by 5 points, but hey, this is Ohio and as Diebold E-voting machines showed in Georgia, not even a 12 point lead going into the election is safe, unless your Republican.

:hat

[Ocotillo]

The district is extremely Republican and has been the scene of many a Repug landslide in recent years. That Hackett is within 5 points is a moral victory of sorts but screw moral victories, we need the genuine article.

Also, I don't believe Hackett fought in Fallujah as he is a civil affairs officer.....I could be wrong though.

[SWC Bonfire]

Yesterday several Texas bloggers declared Major Hackett an honorary Texan

Well, Lord knows how much power several bloggers hold over the entire State of Texas.

[Ocotillo]

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/duncanblack/phackett.jpg

Paul Hackett

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/duncanblack/race6.jpg

Jean Schmidt

Err Jean, let's not do a bunch of television in this campaign

[Ocotillo]

Today is election day. The repugs are evidently running scared on this one. Clearly given the history of the district Hackett is the underdog. The last election went 70 to 28 for the repug.

The reason I said the repugs are running scared is the Schmidt campaign released the press release that said Hackett would not be the first OIF vet to serve in the congress but that was proven to be wrong by the republican congressman whom Schmidt was saying served in Iraq. Secondly, Rush Limbaugh was trashing Hackett today on his show saying he went to Iraq "to pad his resume." I heard that myself listening to the radio today. I have also read Rush referred to Hackett as a "staff puke"

Limbaugh is a sorry excuse for an American. He himself is a chicken hawk who avoided military service back when he was of age and now he disparages people who have served in the Iraqi theater if they have the audacity to have a different political viewpoint. He puts the repug elephant above the American eagle in his personal pecking order. Scumbag.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Election Results
Last Updated: 8/02/2005 10:46pm

US HOUSE Ohio 2nd Dist
662 precincts of 753 reporting
JEAN SCHMIDT 49,681 50%
PAUL HACKETT 48,811 50%

[Ocotillo]

Final results Hackett loses by a margin of 4%. Hate to see him come so close but this bodes well for '06. Ohio is showing some serious buyers remorse from this past November.

[Ocotillo]

Maybe Hackett will run for senate next year against the unpopular DeWinne. Go Paul Go.

[gtownspur]

maybe this time he will run as a liberal.

[Ocotillo]

Hackett update:

Hackett was on the Ed Schultz Show and had this to say about Rush Limbaugh's "staff puke" comment:

That's typical for that fatass drug addict to come up with something like that. There's a guy ... I didn't hear this, but actually when I was on drill this weekend, I've got to tell you, he lost a lot of Republican supporters with his comments. Because they were coming up to me, telling me, "I can't believe he said that! Besides that, he called you a soldier. He doesn't know the difference between a soldier and a marine!"

So generally, the consensus is Rush doesn't know squat about patriotism. He's typical of the new Republican. He's got a lot of lip and he doesn't walk the walk. The fact of the matter is, I went to Iraq to serve my country. I left my nice house, my nice wife by my choice because I thought it was the right thing to do. And man, if I was good enough to be able to see into the future that Rob Portman was going to step down from Congress, I mean I should actually be running for something a lot more than Congress. I went to Iraq because I wanted to serve my country and be with my Marines.

I think it probably says more about Rush Limbaugh than it does anybody else that he comes up with those thought processes. And I think it's indicative of today's Republican party, which is patriotic lite translated to anybody who serves their country who truly who truly serves their country and demonstrates it by their actions as opposed to their flapping gums.


They want to attack us. But the fact of the matter is they can attack me, but I punch back just as hard as I get. Ask Rush how come he wasn't taking phone calls for the two days when he was on the attack with me. Ask him why his phone lines were clogged up. That's because he was getting thousands of calls from veterans from this war and other wars who were clogging up his phone lines, giving him an earful.

transcript (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/9/112636/2468)

[Bandit2981]

Ed Schultz has a damn good show!

[whottt]

He'd have won the election if he hadn't been critical of the man 65% of the district supported in the last political election.

Being critical of the President and toeing the Crat "mislead" bullshit line made him a Democrat instead of a promising Democrat.

I think the Ohioans wanted to reward him for his service...but on the seminal issue he turned out to be "just another Democrat".

While I applaud him for his honestly...his political saavy was poor, and that's why he didn't beat that hag out. If you are running as a Democrat in a heavily Republican district...you better just shut up about the President...that was his kiss of death, it made him a respected, yet hostile, candidate.