A rant about what is wrong with the Democratic Party

Overview

I was rather stunned two days ago by a headline I saw on the New York Times site, and as I read the article, I got madder and madder. The headline:

Popular Ohio Democrat Drops Out of Race, and Perhaps Politics

I was stunned because I knew that probably referred to Paul Hackett, who was running for Senate. The article was about Hackett, and after reading it, two words came to mind to describe the Democratic Party.

Gutless and stupid.

The Democrats apparently have learned absolutely nothing from the 2004 Presidential election.

This really pisses me off.

Who is Paul Hackett?

The short answer is that Hackett is the Iraq veteran who ran in a special election in August 2005 in an overwhelmingly Republican district in Ohio (District 2), campaigned with "scathing criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War," and almost won.

Hackett's website (and who knows how long it will stay up?) provides a detailed bio, parts of which say the following:

As an undergraduate at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Paul volunteered for the Marine Corps reserves. His father had served in the armed forces and taught Paul that, if able, military service was his patriotic duty.

After graduation Paul attended Cleveland State University’s Marshall College of Law and upon receiving his degree went on to fulfill his commitment to the Marine Corps serving on active duty in destinations such as Quantico, Virginia; Okinawa, Japan; and the Philippines to name just a few. It was during this time that Paul married his college sweetheart, Suzi.

Paul was honorably discharged from the Marine Corps in 1999. His absence from the Corps would be short-lived however. In the summer of 2004, with the war in Iraq spinning out of control, Paul again answered the call to serve.

Following a serious discussion with his wife, Suzi, Paul volunteered to serve in Iraq as a Major with the 4th Civil Affairs Group, 1st Marine Division. Despite his strong opposition to the war from the very beginning, Paul’s sense of responsibility and commitment to his brothers and sisters in the Corps outweighed his personal political views. Paul was assigned to Ramadi and took part in the Fallujah campaign and subsequent reconstruction efforts. Leaving his politics at America’s shores, Paul fought alongside his fellow Marines seeking to restore order to a country in constant chaos.

Having completed his tour of duty in Iraq, Paul returned to Ohio in early 2005. Shortly after his homecoming, Paul declared his candidacy for Congress in the overwhelmingly Republican Second District of southwestern Ohio, a seat vacated just days before Paul’s return from Iraq.

Written off as a long shot by the media, Paul’s campaign was fueled by the power of the internet and grassroots activists who were impressed with his outspoken defense of the Democratic Party’s core principles. On Election Day, Paul stunned the political universe, winning more than 48 percent of the vote in a District where George Bush received nearly two-thirds of the vote just ten months earlier. No Second District Democrat had done so well in more than 30 years.

Paul’s direct, independent voice won him national attention. USA Today called him a “dream candidate for Democrats” and Newt Gingrich warned his fellow Republicans that Hackett’s performance should serve as a “wake-up call.” Perhaps Mother Jones Magazine said it best when they called him “the rarest of political animals – a fighting Democrat.”

Indeed, a Democrat willing to actually take a strong stand on the Iraq war has been a rare creature. What is so dismaying is that on the national stage any Democrat who has taken such a stand has been screwed over by the Democratic Party. One of them was the guy I supported in the 2004 campaign, Wes Clark.

In any event, Hackett was just the kind of candidate many Democrats--myself included--had been hoping for, and even though most of us had no chance to vote for him, his candidacy gave us some hope that maybe the Democratic Party would find a spine and some common sense (more on what I mean by that later).

Another part of Hackett's official bio provides a clue as to why I am so pissed off:

In the days and weeks following the Congressional election, Democratic leaders in Washington along with countless Ohioans and Americans throughout the country, encouraged Paul to enter the upcoming race for United States Senate in Ohio. Answering their call, Paul announced his candidacy, surrounded by his family and friends, on October 24th at his home in Cincinnati.

(emphasis added).

Talk about your flip flops

As the lead paragraph of the New York Times article described,

Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran and popular Democratic candidate in Ohio's closely watched Senate contest, said yesterday that he was dropping out of the race and leaving politics altogether as a result of pressure from party leaders.

Hackett himself had this to say in a letter to his supporters:

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.

The opening of the Times article (which I read before Hackett's letter) immediately started angering me, but the second paragraph really set me off. It identified two of the "Democratic leaders in Washington" who openly persuaded him to run for Senator as Harry Reid and Charles Schumer, and these two men are also among the Democratic leaders who "pushed (Hackett) to step aside so that Representative Sherrod Brown, a longtime member of Congress, could take on Senator Mike DeWine, the Republican incumbent."

Now that's real classy, ain't it? Of course, Reid and Schumer deny that they ever pressured Hackett to withdraw. I might believe them but for the fact that I have seen this sort of thing happen before to Wes Clark and Howard Dean (more on that later). See, this is how the Democratic Party does business--the upper muckity-mucks decide what they want, and then they force those choices on the rest of us. The views and ideas of others do not matter. What might actually be best for the country does not matter. What matters are their desires and decisions. Sorry about that little tangent. I will definitely get back to that subject, but first, a word about Sherrod Brown.

Hackett was not considering a Senate run, but the Democratic "leaders" started working on him in part because in the summer of 2005, Sherrod Brown told the Party he would not run for Senate. Then, once Hackett entered the race, Brown changed his mind. What's up with that, Sherrod Brown? Now there's the kind of candidate that shows real commitment...

Now, back to what happened to Hackett...

Hackett told the New York Times that "for the last two weeks...state and national Democratic Party leaders have urged him to drop his Senate campaign" and instead run for the House seat he sought before.

But wait, there's more...

Hackett further told the Times that "he was outraged to learn that party leaders were calling his donors and asking them to stop giving" to his Senate campaign. Once again, the "leaders denied this charge. The Cleveland Plain Dealer quoted Hackett as saying “I can only repeat to you what my donors told me in California and New York, and it was a recurring theme that they had been contacted . . . by leaders in Congress and the Senate.”

Wow. First they love him and urge him to run for the Senate, and then 3.5 months later, they kick him to the curb.

But wait, there's still more...

As noted above, the Democratic "leaders" now want Hackett to run for the House seat he almost won before. So why didn't Hackett do that in the first place? Well, the "leaders" urged him not to do that but rather run for the Senate. Okay, but why doesn't Hackett just be a good little boy and now run for the House? Well, it turns out that several Democrats were interested in running for the District 2 seat, and they went to Hackett to ask if he would again seek the seat. They told him they would not run if did, and Hackett promised them he would not. From the Times article:

"The party keeps saying for me not to worry about those promises because in politics they are broken all the time," said Mr. Hackett, who plans to return to his practice as a lawyer in the Cincinnati area. "I don't work that way. My word is my bond."

Boy, who wouldn't want a candidate that keeps his word? Apparently, the Democratic Party. Who wants a candidate that breaks promises or changes his mind over short periods of time? Apparently, the Democratic Party.

So, part of my anger due to the leaders of the Democratic Party practically begging Hackett to run for the Senate and then utterly turning on him and forcing him out. That just ain't right. Certainly others will claim this is all just part of politics, but I don't care. This is no way to treat people. This is no way to attract candidates in the future that are willing to stand up and treat people properly. This is however, a way to continue the same old Party--the one that has lost both Houses of Congress and the White House.

So why did the Party decide to back Brown and get rid of Hackett?

There are some good, practical reasons why the Party "leaders" wanted Hackett out. However, that does not justify what was done to Hackett or how it was done.

There are also some bullshit reasons for forcing Hackett out.

Let's go over the practical reasons. The Party wanted to avoid a primary race between Brown and Hackett. No primary would give the Party more time to galvanize support and campaign. Also, no primary would mean that Brown and the Party would have more money to spend in the general election.

Also, it is possible that Hackett was more popular outside of Ohio than within. Hackett got national attention and support during his previous campaign. Brown, on the other hand, has served multiple terms in the House and is very well known among Ohio voters. As Chris Redfern, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, told the New York Times, "It boils down to who we think can pull the most votes in November against DeWine, and in Ohio, Brown's name is golden. It's just that simple." O.K., there's a good reason for going with Brown over Hackett. But why, then, did you convince Hackett to run in the first place? What was the rush? These "leaders" knew all along that Brown was their top choice. Brown officially entered the race approximately one month after Hackett. Someone explain why the "leaders" did not wait just a little bit longer to get Brown officially in the race without going to Hackett and saying "You're our man. We want you and we will back you all the way."

Now let's look at the bullshit reasons. Hackett is outspoken. Hackett is unapologetically openly critical of Bush and the Republican Party. He has said some really harsh things, such as saying that the GOP has been taken over by religious extremists who are not much different from Osama bin Laden. When Republican officials demanded an apology, Hackett responded by saying "I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it." Gee, the Democrats have been accused repeatedly of being wishy-washy, soft, and constantly changing position. Yet here is Hackett, who takes a position, admits his own words, and stands behind them.

Also, Hackett was not seen as being genteel enough for the Senate. As Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races for the Cook Political Report, told the New York Times,

Hackett is seen by many as a straight talker, and he became an icon to the liberal bloggers because he says exactly what they have wished they would hear from a politician. On the other hand, the Senate is still an exclusive club, and the party expects a certain level of decorum that Hackett has not always shown.

Yeah, that's a good reason for forcing out a guy you previously asked to run.

So why is Hackett's outspoken nature a bullshit reason for forcing him out? Well, the biggest reason is that the "leaders" knew damn well that Hackett was outspoken when they asked him run for Senate. Moreover, the problem for the Party is not so much the content of Hackett's statements as the fact that 1) he has deviated from the "Party line" and 2) cannot be controlled by the Party. Not only does this show that the Democratic Party is about preserving the establishment within the Party, it reflects a huge flaw in the Party's strategy, which will be discussed later.

Another bullshit reason for forcing Hackett out is money. As explained by the Cleveland Plain Dealer article cited above, Hackett has about 1/10 the amount of money as Brown, even though records show they each raised approximately the same amount in the last quarter of 2005. The difference is that Brown has been continuously raising campaign money since he has been in the House. As a result, he has about $2.3 million in the bank already. Hackett told the Cleveland paper, “Here’s my take on it. I’ve got six weeks to raise 3 million bucks. And the hard-core reality is I’m probably not going to do that. That was my analysis.”

So surely this is a reason with which I cannot find fault, right? Wrong. If Brown had stayed out of the race, the fundraising task for Hackett would have been much easier. Also, the Party would have been able to devote all of its efforts to helping raise money for Hackett. However, as it turns out, Brown was the guy the Party wanted all along, and once he entered the race, not only did the Party not help Hackett, it actively worked against him. And again, the Party first begged Hackett to run, then it stabbed him in the back. That just ain't right. Period.

This incident shows that the Democratic Party is screwed up and stupid.

Man, where do I start?

I guess I will start with the fact that the "leaders" continue to alienate many members of the Party. This goes back to the 2004 election. During the campaign, I posted something to my blog on the Clark Community Network entitled "The DNC does not speak for me." Therein I described how it appeared that the primaries had been rigged to make sure Kerry would win and why. There is no question that Kerry was anointed as the preference early on by the DNC. Then along came Howard Dean, and later came Wes Clark. Dean came out talking strong about how the Iraq war was a mistake, and his message resonated with many Democrats. Wes Clark was basically drafted, meaning he had grass roots--as opposed to Party--support from the beginning. Clark also spoke out against the war, and he appealed to many moderate Democrats, independents, and Republicans who were not happy with Bush. However, both Dean and Clark were outsiders who were beyond the control of the party elite. Granted, they both made mistakes (the big ones being the "Dean scream" and Clark's decision not to go to Iowa), but the DNC did everything possible to undermine them. The best example I can give is what happened to Clark when Michael Moore endorsed him. At a rally, Moore said the election was "the general vs. the deserter." Clark was crucified in the media--for something he did not even say. Indeed, Clark said he did not consider Bush a deserter and that he felt the question of Bush's service was not even an issue. Still, Clark continued to be pilloried, and no one from the Party leadership came to his defense. Two weeks later, Kerry made a comment similiar to Moore's. And then, lo and behold, Terry McAuliffe--the DNC chair--made appearance after appearance saying that Kerry was right to make the comment.

The point I am trying to make is that during the 2004 campaign, the Democratic leadership was not at all interested in allowing the people to speak and determine the candidate. As I said in "The DNC does not speak for me," being a Democrat in Texas I get enough of being told by Republicans that my views do not matter, but now I apparently have to hear that from my own party. By forcing Hackett out, the Party is still saying to Democrats everywhere "your opinions don't matter." If this continues, the Democratic Party is destined to have lots of its members simply stop voting for its candidates. When people are part of an organization and feel like they are being disregarded and told they have no worth by that organization, many of them will get out, and unless the Democratic leadership changes its ways, they are going to see this manifest in a big way.

The "leaders" of the Democratic Party are not interested in democracy within their own party. I cannot adequately describe how disgusted many of us Clark supporters were by what happened in the 2004 primaries. Still, in spite of that, we all decided to vote for Kerry, although we did so--as someone put it--holding our noses. I am not doing that again, and I know I am not alone. If the primaries had been truly fair and Kerry won, we all would have felt much better because at least everyone would have had a chance to participate and the nominee would have been a fair reflection of the will of the party. Accepting a result and getting behind the winner is much easier and more likely if everyone feels like they at least got to speak their minds. However, having a preordained decision forced upon you often leaves a sense of bitterness.

Which brings me back to Hackett. It is possible that Brown is the better choice, but to not give voters the chance to make that decision for themselves is not what I consider democratic. Hackett's voice--and the voices of his supporters--have now been removed from the process. What I mean is that you will likely not hear Brown take any of the positions that Hackett had. Anyone in Ohio who liked what Hackett had to say will not hear any of that in the Senate campaign.

Still, if the "leaders" made good choices, I might not be so bitter, and that brings me to another huge problem with the Democratic Party. Again, Kerry is the perfect example. Kerry thought that people were so fed up with Bush that he (Kerry) really did not have to do anything to win. There was a group of us at the Clark Community Network saying over and over that that was not good enough, that Kerry had to give people a reason to vote FOR him, not just AGAINST Bush. He never did that, and as a result, the Democrats handed the 2004 election to Bush. And now it looks like the same thing is happening in regard to the 2006 mid-term election. It is not enough that the GOP is caught in so many ethical scandals. The Democrats still have to offer a reason for people to vote FOR them.

For a detailed discussion of why Kerry was such a sorry candidate, read A few post-election thoughts. The one issue that Kerry and the Democrats absolutely should have hammered Bush and Cheney with was Iraq. During the campaign, there was already a boatload of facts and evidence showing that there was no need to go to war, that the Bush administration had royally screwed up everything following the fall of Baghdad, that the war had not helped in the war on terror, etc., but Kerry and Edwards never went after Bush on Iraq. Why not? Because of all the Democratic candidates, those two were the absolute worst to do so. Edwards was an unapolgetic supporter of the war, and Kerry's votes in Congress and positions he took in the campaign matched up with Bush! (See A few post-election thoughts for more details). And yet these two guys were the preordained choices of the DNC for the ticket and were in no position to refute the very issue that the Bush campaign said in 2003 would be the basis for the entire campaign.

So the Democratic leadership has a tendency to pick poor candidates, but they also show a serious lack of backbone. These people are afraid to take a strong adverserial stand on almost any issue--and they are afraid of any Democratic candidate who does so. Moving toward and appealing to the center is a good thing in my opinion. However, that is not accomplished by being passive and meek. It is not accomplished by refusing to aggressively counter Republican arguments and tactics. The "center" will not move to the Democratic Party automatically without the Democratic Party doing something. And yet, the Democratic Party seems to be doing nothing--other than screwing over candidates and potential candidates like Hackett. Instead, the Democratic Party seems to think that picking candidates and running campaigns that are bland and not offensive to anyone is the way to go. It is not the way to go, and unless the leadership gets that through their thick-concrete-excuse for skulls, the Democrats are in big trouble.

One potential long-term result of these mistaken strategic moves by the Democratic Party is exemplified by how Hackett has been treated. What has been one of the biggest claims Republicans have successfully exploited about Democrats? Answer: Democrats are soft on defense and national security. In the 2004 campaign, when presented a 4-star general who not only spoke out against the Iraq war, not only explained in detail what was wrong about the Iraq war, but also offered actual proposals about what to do, did the Democratic Party welcome him? No. In fact, the biggest attack on Wes Clark from Democrats was that really he was a Republican and therefore he shouldn't have been in the race. Things have now gotten even worse. Now, don't you think that military veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan would make good candidates to directly counter the claim of softness by the GOP? If you answered "no," go have some very strong coffee and then guess again. Hackett, as shown in his bio above, was a Marine whose service was finished before the Iraq war, but he voluntarily re-enlisted to serve his country. That sounds like a good candidate to have. He has first-hand military experience which gives him credibility, and no one could challenge his patriotism and dedication to America. And yet, when presented with a candidate who could directly counter the GOP charge of being soft, the Democratic Party instead screws the guy over. The following excerpt from the New York Times article sums things up:

Mr. Hackett was the first Iraq war veteran to seek national office, and the decision to steer him away from the Senate race has surprised those who see him as a symbol for Democrats who oppose the war but want to appear strong on national security.

"Alienating Hackett is not just a bad idea for the party, but it also sends a chill through the rest of the 56 or so veterans that we've worked to run for Congress," said Mike Lyon, executive director for the Band of Brothers, a group dedicated to electing Democratic veterans to national office. "Now is a time for Democrats to be courting, not blocking, veterans who want to run."

Yeah, but see, the Democratic Party establishment has as its primary (so to speak) goal to remain the Democratic establishment (in my opinion). Because of that and the other factors discussed above, the Democratic Party is not PC--it is PS, as in "Politically Stupid."