OH-Sen: The Case For Sherrod Brown

Let me begin by saying that I think that both Paul Hackett and Sherrod Brown are both men are men of truly good intentions who want the best for their state and their country. I refuse to dump on either one of them, and anyone who chooses to do so does not advance best interests of the party in the process.

A lot has been said here about the merits of Brown and Hackett. There is a lively debate over this, and I believe that it is not a bad thing. However, in my mind, the difference between Brown and Hackett, is less about ideology than focus issues.  

If Paul Hackett was our Senate candidate, the focus would be on Iraq. There's nothing wrong with that. It is a horrible situation that our leadership has led us into, and I believe that Paul Hackett would do an admirable job presenting the argument for the need for a plan of how to deal with Iraq.

However, with all that having been said, I do not believe that Iraq is the most important issue for the state of Ohio right now. That particular issue is the ecoonomy, and that's why I think Sherrod Brown is the best person we can nominate as our party's candidate for US Senate.

If the decline of our manufacturing economy within the Midwest was an earthquake, than its epicenter would be Ohio. In places like Cleveland, Cincinnati, Dayton, Canton, Akron, and Toledo hope is fading away. To understand why, you must understand that in the industrial Midwest, a job is not just a paycheck, it is also a source of dignity and pride. Pride at being able to provide for your family, pride at being able to make sure that your family has health insurance, pride in doing something worthwhile with your life. With the collapse of the manufacturing economy, that once mighty sense of pride has been stripped away, leaving instead a sense of hopelessness towards the future.

It is a future of losing their young to the prosperity of the sunbelt cities of Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston. It is a future of low paying Wal Mart jobs. It is a future that does not involve union solidarity. Within the region in general and Ohio in particular, there is a distinct sense that their best days are behind it, and all that remains is a slow, painful slide down to the bottom.

I believe that the economic policies of the GOP are largely responsible for the state of affairs in Ohio and in the Midwest. The policies which have us down this road include CAFTA and NAFTA, laws which allow for the replacement of striking union workers, laws which give tax breaks to companies like Tyco which offshore their operations, and the lack of card check laws.

In each and every one of these cases, Sherrod Brown has been on our side, the side of the average working man in Ohio. He's for card check laws, for a law banning worker replacement. He's against tax cuts for offshorers, the abomination of a bankruptcy bill that the GOP foisted upon the nation, and against trade agreements such as NAFTA which aren't in our best interests. When our leadership in the Congress decided that it somehow wasn't in our best interests to whip the CAFTA, Sherrod Brown showed leadership and issue whipped the bill out of his office.

I believe that we need leadership which will work hard to make sure that every region of America prospers. I believe that we need leadership that will fight for a level playing field for manufaturing in America. I believe that we need leaders who understand that free trade isn't any good unless its fair trade. On all of these issues, Sherrod Brown has a track record of leadership.

Now, while I do agree that Hackett might be able to do slightly better than Brown would in Southwest Ohio, that's not the only way to win in Ohio. While that is certainly a viable strategy, and possibly a winning one, it isn't the easiest. Brown's route, is to me, the shorter and easier.

Because he has kept faith with them, Sherrod Brown is going to bring all of those union members who have been trending Republican back into the fold. To union members, Brown has impeccable and unimpeachable credentials, every bit as good as Dick Gephardt's, and Gephardt is a god among the working class.

There is genuine anger in Ohio right now over the passage of CAFTA, which went over like a lead brick in the state. There is anger over the decline of the manufacturing economy. There is anger over the direction that the country is headed in right now. That anger is brewing among working class union members in Ohio, and they're eager to punish the GOPers who voted for it. Brown is the man who is in the best position to translate that sentiment into a Democratic win at the ballot box, and that's why I'm supporting Sherrod Brown to be the next United States Senator from Ohio.

•  Tip Jar

  To A Better Future for the Midwest.

  by displacedyankeedemocrat on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:44:41 PM PDT

•  labor?

  Labor in Ohio is only a small fraction of the electorate(and getting smaller every year), yet because they support dems they have an inordinate amount of influence on who gets to run in any given race.

  Yer gonna need a lot more then labor, whow ould tend to vote dem anyway.

  Brown is a good man, but loses by 6 points. Take it to the bank.

  We never learn.

  by jdw on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:48:58 PM PDT

  •  He'll lose my double digits

    He'll be painted as a flip-flopping liberal and get his ass kicked.

    My prediction?  14 points.

    by Irrelevant Prolixity on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:57:43 PM PDT

    •  Who has made Brown out to be

      a flip-flopper other than you and a handful of others here on this site?

      14 points?  Lose by 14 points?  Against DeWine?

      Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

      by bronte17 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:02:17 PM PDT

    •  Jeeze, I'm So Sick of the Flip Flop BS

      NOBODY is going to give a shit in a general election that he may or may not have reneged on a promise not to run.

      I don't care what the editorial page of some right-wing paper says, voters just don't give a shit about that stuff.  Candidates renege on promise to honor term limits all the time, they get in and out of races all the time, and that stuff is just so insider baseball that almost nobody give a shit about it.

      I can be convinced that Brown isn't the best candidate, but not on the supposed negative effect of him deciding to run.  

      Voters. Don't. Give. A. Shit.

      by DHinMI on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:12:45 PM PDT

      •  I live in Ohio

        and I can tell you

        That yes
        They DO give a shit

        by Irrelevant Prolixity on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:13:49 PM PDT

        •  Prove It

          Tell my why Ohio is so different than just about every other place in the country.  And the fact that you don't like Brown doesn't count.

          by DHinMI on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:16:06 PM PDT

          •  Live in Ohio too

            And its BS.

            Jobs Jobs Jobs.  Why do you think Taft and his cronies are pushing Issue 1 so hard?  The job climate in this state stinks, and its having a brain drain as well as a youth drain.  People who think that economic issues don't matter either live in the Columbus, Cleveland and Cincinnati horsecollar suburbs or still have jobs.

            by marcvstraianvs on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:17:17 PM PDT

•  Disagree

  However, with all that having been said, I do not believe that Iraq is the most important issue for the state of Ohio right now. That particular issue is the ecoonomy,

  They said that in 2002 and 2004 too.
  They were wrong then, and I humbly suggest that you are wrong now.

  That, and I can't get past the fact that Brown is a dick for having promised Hackett TO-HIS-FACE that he was not going to run.

  by Irrelevant Prolixity on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:56:14 PM PDT

  •  people's feelings about Brown entering late

    have been expressed clearly.

    But he's in now. And I doubt being angry at him for it is going to change anything.

    Can we please move on and get to a substantive debate about the merits of each candidate? That's something this diary seems to be trying to do.

    by AnnArborBlue on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:02:22 PM PDT

    •  yes...

      The merrit is that he acted like a Dick and DeWine is going to make sure Ohioans know it

      by Irrelevant Prolixity on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:08:06 PM PDT

      •  ok honest question:

        outside of people on blogs, do you think anyone knows that Brown originally passed on the race before changing his mind? Do you really think anyone is gonna care?

        by AnnArborBlue on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:09:37 PM PDT

        •  To answer your question

          No one outside of the blogs knows (right now)

          yes, everyone will care because the GOP will make it their centerpiece issue.

          by Irrelevant Prolixity on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:13:10 PM PDT

          •  god I hope you're right

            if Mike DeWine really runs on "the guy changed his mind about running 13 months out", if he makes that the centerpiece of his campaign...well I gotta think that's a pretty ineffective campaign.

            Oh, and one more hypothetical for you; say the roles were reversed. Say Hackett were courted first, then said no. Then say Brown got in after Hackett passed and told him to his face he wasn't going to run. Then say Hackett changed his mind. Would you be as angry at Hackett as you are at Brown?

            by AnnArborBlue on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:15:20 PM PDT

            •  Exactly

              And he'll crush Hackett in a primary if Hackett runs against him on the basis of him supposedly running after first saying he wouldn't.

              What a non-fucking-issue.  I really hope these people can convince the Repubs to run that campaign.

              by DHinMI on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:17:31 PM PDT

        •  yes

          and the media has already been playing it up as division in the party, indecision by brown and the usual ohio dem clusterfuck...they are having a ball with it, because ohio media hates dems to begin with...

          I take it back, dewine by 8 points...bank on it.

          by jdw on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:13:47 PM PDT

          •  Why Do I Get the Impression...

            ...some of the people running around telling us to bank on Brown losing by X points would be more satisfied being right than seeing Brown elected?

            by DHinMI on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:56:14 PM PDT

            •  because it's always like that

              my (pointless) read of the situation is that people have become (understandably) very enamored with Hackett after what happened in OH-02. He was everything people around here have been clamoring for. He talked tough, called limbaugh a fat ass, called Bush names, and didn't back down.

              I think he won people's hearts, and I think it's leading to a visceral reaction towards Brown. I don't think it's that people actually hate Brown. How could you? He's a great progressive. I think people just feel like Brown wronged "their guy", and have some antipathy towards him because of it.

              People have put so much hope into Hackett as their model for everything they want the party to be that I think if Brown took him out in a primary after promising not to run, people really would want to see him go down in flames, because he'd be a sign of "the establishment" triumphing over "fighting Dems".

              Not saying I agree with any of that logic, and I'll gladly admit to being wrong on all of it, but it's my pop-psychology take.

              by AnnArborBlue on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:03:26 PM PDT

              •  I Think You're Right

                I don't like the implications about what that says about people's priorities, but I think you're right.

                by DHinMI on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:17:03 PM PDT

                •  Throughout the kos community...

                  there seems to be a general frustration with what appears to be weakness on the part of the current crop of politicians. There are a few exceptions including Reid, Obama <?>, Boxer, and a smattering of others.

                  I've been getting this sense that folks aren't happy with the state of the country's affiars. And they are looking for a 50 state Clean Sweep campaign wherein we can dust out some of the corruption from the closets.

                  Not sure that's a bad thing re: priorities.

                  by kredwyn on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:33:35 PM PDT

                  •  But I Have To Ask...

                    ...what that has to do with Brown, who's a strong, principled progressive.  Other than first deciding to let Hackett have the primary to himself, and then deciding (presumably, because nothing is official) that he's going to take on the fight against DeWine himself, even if that means having to first defeat Hackett to get to DeWine, how is Brown weak?

                    by DHinMI on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:06:15 PM PDT

                    •  Did not say that it had anything to do

                      with Brown.

                      Was simply pointing out my observations of the ebb and flow of opinion here on dKos. Kossacks want folks with spine.

                      I don't know Brown. What I've heard has been commendable...but the promise thing gets to me on the credibility front. Maybe it's part of the way I was brought up...no means no.

                      But I've also noticed that there is a tendency in the media to not believe a potential candidate really means no when he or she says no. Instead, no is being interpreted as a coy maybe, which bugs me when I have to send a young student to the crisis center because she's fallen apart after having been assaulted in the dorm while saying "No." Yes, I know that they are two different situations...but...grrrr dammit.

                      I guess I thought that when you shake hands and wish someone luck on the campaign trail...that seems kinda final/official to me.

                      by kredwyn on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:28:33 PM PDT

              •  Close

                I think you are missing one thing about it though.  Brown is out of the Cleveland area.  The party appartus in the Cleveland area has an inordinate power in the selection of statewide candidates.  The state party is a shambles and the head of the state party is considered at best a joke and at worst an albatross you want to keep away from your campaign.
                We have a long list of party chosen candidates for statewide office that have gone down the tubes everytime.

                If you ask the average politically active democrat (not the power brokers, but the guys and gals who man the phonebanks and walk the precincts) anywhere south of the turnpike, you will find that they have an innate distrust of the compentency of any candidate the party chooses for us.

                Doubly unfortunately for us, the powers that be around the Brown camp have already started floating the idea that they can never win in rural counties and they have to win the cities big.  They can't read maps or have no recollection of what happened last fall.

                You see people yelling?  Complaining?  Thowing a sh*t storm?  Yes, because the party just selected another winner for us.

                by DanD on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:42:57 PM PDT

                •  All of that is probably true

                  I have no allegiance to either candidate, and I have no idea who is the better candidate. I think there are strong arguments for and against each.

                  But I have to ask; if Hackett had been the one offered the slot first, had passed, told Brown he wasn't running, and then changed his mind, would people consider Hackett a traitor for backstabbing Brown?

                  by AnnArborBlue on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:45:59 PM PDT

                  •  I for one...

                    would've been very disappointed to see that. And I drove from MD to OH to volunteer for him during the special election.

                    If he'd done the scenario you posit, I would be focusing my attention elsewhere.

                    As it is, I'm starting to LD help with a candidate in North Texas. I used to live down there...and still have contacts with the area. And sometimes I miss the bluebonnets.

                    by kredwyn on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:00:49 PM PDT

                  •  I doubt it

                    I haven't been making that comment.

                    The reason I say that I doubt that people would complain about a Hackett run like you outlined, is the institutional backing for Brown.   Brown has alot more chips that he can call in compared to Hackett.  County party heads are already falling in line for him.  So a Hackett announcement as you described would not have had the same effect.

                    Once the county party head backs a candidate in a primary, if you are a supporter for someone else you are shut out of the process.  I think I still get snubbed from events since I was an active caucus coordinator for someone other than Kerry.  There is a suspiciously substantial drop in the correspondence to my home that isn't for a fundraiser or asking for a donation.

                    by DanD on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:11:40 PM PDT

        •  People outside the blogs know it

          There were major articles in the Cleveland Dealer, Cincinatti Post, Cincinatti Enquirer, Dayton Daily News, Toledo Blade, etc. basically saying that Brown pulled a John Kerry move "I was not running for senate before I was running for senate".  Indecisiveness and "Hamlet" actions does not connote a strong leader.

          Ohioans do give a shit.

          "Lead or get the hell out of the way".

          by Drdemocrat on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 04:35:36 AM PDT

          •  Yes

            It's not about being seen as a flip-flopper on this one issue, it's the fact that this could easily be painted in a way that shows Brown as an indecisive leader.

            The reason people don't care all that much yet is that they haven't been told to care.

            by someone else on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 07:34:06 PM PDT

      •  Thanks for the Sober, Unbiased Analysis

        "Acted like a dick" shows that you're really trying to give unbiased analysis.

        I'm interested in this race, but I don't have a strong feeling about one candidate over the other.  But some of you anti-Brown people are acting so much like what you accuse Brown of being that I'm tempted to just give him some money.  

        by DHinMI on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:15:14 PM PDT

        •  DH you're much more an expert than I am

          say DeWine really tried to make this a campaign issue. Do you see it working? Or is it a non-story outside of the blogs?

          by AnnArborBlue on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:16:33 PM PDT

  •  a DICK?

    Did you just read this friggin' diary?  Or any others on the subject of CAFTA?  Are you aware that SHERROD BROWN was down there in the FRIGGIN' TRENCHES FIGHTING FOR OHIO WORKERS?  His attention was FOCUSED LIKE A LASERBEAM ON STOPPING THIS LEGISLATION.

    And all he gets for the heroic effort is a bunch of filthy slime poured all over him by DEMOCRATS.  Whining because he DIDN'T MAKE HIS MIND UP IN TIME. Because he was rather BUSY REPRESENTING THE REGULAR JOES IN THIS COUNTRY.

    Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

    by bronte17 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:08:06 PM PDT

    •  Oh come on now

      It isn't that he didn't make up his mind IN TIME

      It is that HE DID MAKE UP HIS GODDAMN MIND AND told Hackett FACE-TO-FACE that he was not going to run so Hackett could jump in.

      Hackett relied on Brown's assertion, and then Brown pulled out a knife and stabbed him in the back.

      Is Brown a dick?  Probably not.  Did he ACT like a Dick?  Absolutely.

      If you (and others) think that the Democrats are being harsh - you haven't seen ANYTHING yet!

      The GOP will destroy him.  (Without needing our help)

      by Irrelevant Prolixity on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:11:26 PM PDT

      •  Are you an undercover troll?

        Only two diaries and this is in one of them:
        I have little doubt that a group of poor, uneducated and desperate white "refugees" would have faced a similar response from the well-to-do suburbs. [in NOLA]

        "if you think this is harsh -- you haven't seen anything yet?"  and "The GOP will destroy Brown?"  Sounds like the workings of a troll to me Irrelevant Prolixity.

        Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

        by bronte17 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:24:46 PM PDT

    •  Ino wait a minute...

      the last time I brought up Braown's FAILURE to stop cafta, people said I should blame pelosi or the minority whip...but you make it sound like this was brown's fight...

      So I again raise the question, is the best thing he can claim is fighting for a fight he lost? he couldn't even keep dem votes together...?? haha

      failure really is an orphan...

      by jdw on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:17:02 PM PDT

      •  I won't pretend to argue the minutiae

        of the CAFTA legislation nor Congressman Brown's specific role.  I didn't follow it, but you have to know that he made an honest effort to negotiate a fair piece of legislation for the people of Ohio. 11 Democrats crossed over. Not sure why you would want to cast the blame on Sherrod for that one.

        My point wasn't the success or failure of that particular piece of legislation, but that it was an intense and time-consuming endeavor. Investment of time does not always correlate to success.

        Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

        by bronte17 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:04:26 PM PDT

•  2004

  If 2004 proves anything it's that security and Iraq trumps domestic policy. Everywhere, even in Ohio. If union members have been "trending republican" it's not because of economics, obviously.

  Ohio's economy was screwed last year as well, and a lot of good that did Kerry. What's important is getting elected. Even you admit that Hackett will do better in Southweast Ohio, and that may be key in a close race. I think if Brown had run in OH-2 he would never have come within 2 points of a victory as Hackett did. That says it all.

  Union members aren't going to go all Rethug on us if Hackett runs, so what do we gain there with Brown? Besides, unions are a small slice of the pie.  It's a new day. Get with it.

  by mjshep on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:00:41 PM PDT

  •  exactly

    "Ohio's economy was screwed last year as well, and a lot of good that did Kerry. What's important is getting elected. Even you admit that Hackett will do better in Southweast Ohio, and that may be key in a close race."

    In the last 4 years before the 2004 election, Ohio had lost 300,000(!) fucking jobs. And they still voted gooper due to religious nuts, terra and gays. And brown is gonna do better then Kerry?

    It's to laugh...

    by jdw on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:20:15 PM PDT

•  Please defend this point

  If Paul Hackett was our Senate candidate, the focus would be on Iraq.

  I'm not in Ohio, but that seems dubious to me.

  Iraq will be the focus if two conditions occur:

  • The public is focused on Iraq
    
  • The GOP and Dem candidates disagree, significantly, on Iraq

  Anyhoo, thanks for a positive posting on the Ohio Senate race.

  by Elwood Dowd on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:04:36 PM PDT

  •  I Second Elwood's Compliment...

    ...for keeping it positive.  

    by DHinMI on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:21:13 PM PDT

  •  Simple

    By fact of simply being an Iraq war verteran, it tends to overtake everything else as it did in the OH-2 race.

    by displacedyankeedemocrat on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:00:18 PM PDT

  •  Well there was a report last week

    that Rove was in OH announcing that DeWine is with the president on the issues. I think that report also noted that the GOP was thrilled by this. We'll see how thrilled the voters are. But I'm assuming that "with the president" theme extends to Iraq.

    Somehow I suspect that Iraq will be an issue for quite a while.

    I agree you on the positive light in the diary.

    by kredwyn on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:09:09 PM PDT

•  Hackett all the way...

  Democratics and labor are becoming a joke.  Labor households, because of abortion, gun rights, gay marriage, etc....had increasingly voted for Republicans over the past two election cycles.  Can we try a different route this time?  Time to broaden our horizon...

  by RealisticDem on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:23:29 PM PDT

  •  Um, Are You Smoking Crack?????????

    Labor households, because of abortion, gun rights, gay marriage, etc....had increasingly voted for Republicans over the past two election cycles.

    Google is your friend; nationally 59% of voters from union households have voted Democratic for President in each of the last three elections, which is more Democratic than they did in the previous three elections.  And in Ohio in 2004 Kerry won union household by 16 points, and voters from union households made up 34% of the electorate.

    by DHinMI on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:36:38 PM PDT

    •  My line of thinking is

      Brown will be able to pull down 70-75% of the union vote for two reasons:

      1)By putting a candidate on the ballot like Sherrod Brown, it will get the unions excited and get a higher turnout. Give unions a guy they trust and they'll pull him over the line, just like they're gonna pull Bob Casey over in PA.

      2)The backlash to CAFTA. DeWine sold out his state's interest. Its that simple. You're from Michigan, so you understand the sheer anger over it don't you?

      In this election we have to be able to play hammer and anvil. In Ohio the hammer will be corruption. The stench eminating from the Ohio GOP is so bad you can smell it in California. Brown will then be able to use CAFTA/the economy as the anvil. CAFTA is a great two by four to hit DeWine with.

      by displacedyankeedemocrat on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:06:18 PM PDT

•  sherrod brown cannot win.

  sorry, thats just the fact of the matter. now matter how much people disapprove of bush and the repubs, that alone is not enough to have them vote in a bleeding heart liberal. and to be honest, hackett shares my values as well as having the far better shot and getting the swing voters.

  and dems in ohio(and all over) need not forget about the 'Ohio Restoration Project", do we? lets not try to sneak a leftist in and risk causing the ORP to garner even more success by posting a victory.

  by zeke in oh on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:45:36 PM PDT

  •  "bleeding heart liberal"?

    why do we keep using the terminology that our opponents use to disparage us?  Call Brown a "proud liberal" if you want to use the liberal label.  

    If you asked me, I'd call him a "populist" in the mold of Wellstone or Harkin.  

    I might get flamed for this, but I'm a heck of a lot more comfortable with Brown because I know where he stands.  And while I don't doubt that Hackett shares your values more than DeWine, Zeke, I don't know how he'd vote in the Senate.  I also don't know how well he'd hold up against a relentless GOP attack over a very long election campaign.  Remember, he's been at this non-stop for months now.  It takes a lot of stamina - and I mean politically, not physically (everyone knows he can take the physical grind) - to run for the U.S. Senate.  Brown has the political experience for this race.  So too might Hackett, but I'm less sure of it.    
    

    by hurricane earl on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:01:24 PM PDT

    •  As for comparisons

      Populist, yes. Not quite as fiery as Paul, but close. More progressive than Dorgan and very similar to Harkin.

      by displacedyankeedemocrat on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:14:01 PM PDT

•  This is a fair analysis of Brown but...

  Whether we like it or not, the public's focus is on Iraq.  Hackett has the credibility to speak on Iraq and other military issues.  As far as economic concerns, I understand that Brown may have more knowledge on the issue of outsourcing.  But let's face it, outsourcing has been going on since the early 1970's and has been crippling the Ohio economy since that time and there have been members of both parties in positions of power during that time.  How is Brown going to be able to convince voters that he will bring back manufacturing jobs to Ohio?  Frankly, the unions turned out a great deal of voters in the last election and it just wasn't enough.  If Brown gets the nomination, I will hope that he wins but I think Hackett is the much better candidate.

  by SoCalLiberal on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:50:25 PM PDT

•  No to Brown...in a civil manner

  OK, I live in BFE southern Ohio. Brown has little name recognition down here...none. Please spare me the ...he won the state-wide AG race in 1986 crap. 80% of the electorate now can't name the current AG. Things have changed from the Glenn/Metzenbaum era.

  Nowadays, people in my neck of the woods consider Cleveland etc on par with Massachusetts and Brown on par with Ted Kennedy. Now, I like Ted, but most  folks around here do not. Meanwhile, Hackett sounds sensible to these people. When he frames the abortion issue, it's the "get gov off your back" frame...and it works. Brown will defeat Hackett in the primary. He has the infrastructure etc. But he WILL LOSE to DeWine. Forget the flip-flopper meme, it will be a Fungerhut redo. Local Repugs do not like DeWine. They hate his guns and Gang of 14 stance. Hackett offers a difference, Brown offers the same...plus, he is a librel on all the other issues. So might as well stick with the Repug you don't like as oppsed to the Dem you hate. "This northerner wants raise your taxes and take your guns, and is a pussy to boot." Hackett stems all those criticisms. Question is, will northerners vote for Hackett...vs DeWine...YES. He has enormous appeal nationwide. I think the Libertarian/Democrat framing will work in all parts of the state. But I don't think he has a chance in a primary. Hackett knew this, that is why he waited for the field to clear. My sense if is the Dem overlords shit on Hackett now...forget him in the future. He will tell them to fuck themselves.

  by bemclau on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:57:32 PM PDT

  •  OK OK OK

    Brown was Sec of State..proves my point even more!

    by bemclau on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:01:47 PM PDT

    •  Name Recognition

      Its basically the flip up here in Ashland County, people know who Sherrod Brown is, have no clue who Paul Hackett is.  I think that gives Brown the advantage considering the northern part of Ohio is typically considered the Democratic Engine in the state.

      by marcvstraianvs on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:22:01 PM PDT

      •  Really?

        I would have thought that the interviews with Tweety, NPR, CNN features, NYT, WaPo write-ups would have up'ed Hackett's exposure. Iraq vet works everywhere.

        I think Hackett would fly in Ashland county tons better than Kerry. Kerry took only 34% there. Look at this map: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OH/P/00/map.html

        I think if Brown runs...the map looks about the same after the Senate election. Hackett on the other hand flips some of the white, pink, and red areas blue, and maintains all the blue areas. The more populous counties...Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton, then Montgomery, Summit, Lucas, and Stark all go blue...yes, even Hamilton. The we nick them to death by picking off red counties. The ones like Brown and Adams that Hackett took in the OH-02. I am a little surprised that the state is as much East vs West as it is North vs South...interesting.

        by bemclau on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:22:09 PM PDT

        •  Average voter

          The average voter doesn't watch CNN, listen to NPR or read the NYT. They might read the local paper and watch the local TV stations (up here that means WKYC, WEWS, WOIO, WJW), none of these stations really gave Hackett or the Oh-2nd alot of coverage.

          by baskerville on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:33:18 PM PDT

          •  That's funny

            I'm about 30 miles south of you and our local junk radio station (which was clear channel at the time) carried info on the OH 2 race.  I'm not doubting you, but I'm getting the impression that the southern boundary for brown must be just north of me.  That's not odd though, I used to live 5 miles north of my current house and on a clear day I could get some of the Cleveland TV stations as well as I could the Columbus stations.

            by DanD on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:57:20 PM PDT

          •  I realize

            the avg voter does not listen to NPR and read the NYT. But the filter effect. AP covers it, local rags pick it up. But I say they do watch to CNN and Faux News(ugh).

            Dang...gotta go to work.

            by bemclau on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 04:27:42 AM PDT

  •  Very well said

    You almost MUST be competitive in Southwest Ohio (at least in Hamilton, Montgomery and Clark counties) to win a statewide election...the road to the GOP's success has gone through there (and to a lesser extent, steamrolling the Findlay/Lima/Defiance area, although that 'Bible Belt' contains mostly voters we'll never win anyway, so that's not the point.)

    Hackett has lived in both northern and southern Ohio and I think he can connect to both, and I say that as a northeasterner who loves Brown (even though Steve friggin' LaTourette is my rep.)

    I think Hackett can do fine on the job issue, and as much effort as Brown puts into preserving unionized/blue-collar jobs I also want to see a good presentation from either candidate on preserving white-collar jobs so all our college graduates don't leave.

    by BlueEngineerInOhio on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:50:48 PM PDT

•  Guys, we need to be more discerning

  Two people (at least) in this thread are outright trolls. Can you guess which two? Please consider checking post history before deciding to engage right-wing talking points spouters as if they have something worth actual debate. And please consider the use of troll ratings for people who parrot RWTP.

  I know it's smart to use knowledge and discourse to handle most disagreements, but when someone's an obvious troll, my feeling is "why bother?"

  The GOP sends their minions out to disrupt and undermine progressive forums and blogs all over the Internet. Kos is no exception; if anything, the popularity and size of this arena is a big draw for some of them.

  Resume bickering over Hackett (an unproven entity who is maybe a Democrat, and Brown, a man who fights daily for his constituents and progressive beliefs.

  by MissAnneThrope on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:48:12 PM PDT

  •  confused...

    Not wanting to raise any hackles here...lest I be accidentally called out for a troll.

    But I really am confused...

    Maybe a Democrat? Could you explain that a little bit?

    I was in that Batavia Democratic Office...and that sure looked like a Democratic campaign to me. I was even out canvassing with some guys from the DNC one day. And he took quite a lot of flack from the GOP for his positions...

    by kredwyn on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:14:05 PM PDT

    •  I thought the same

      Not being a diarist though I didn't want to get slammed. ;)

      There is always this sort of reaction around here.  If you attack my guy then you are a troll, but don't mind me while I slime the opponent to my choice.
      It's the subtle digs that always get people worked up the most.

      by DanD on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:24:22 PM PDT

      •  No, no, no...

        The troll issue is separate from Hackett v. Brown. It's rampant all over this board, not limited to this issue. Last H v Brown thread, though, someone suggested voting for DeWine if you weren't happy about a Brown/Hackett primary. Now that's a troll.

        As to Hackett being maybe a Democrat: we have no idea how he'd vote as a Senator, or any record to compare. I've asked this in a few Hackett threads without an answer: what exactly is a Libertarian Democrat? How do the two ideologies square, exactly? They seem quite opposite.

        My concern is that Hackett only ran as a Democrat because he knew he couldn't get enough support as a Libertarian.

        by MissAnneThrope on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 03:52:07 AM PDT

        •  Libertarian Democrat

          From the 2nd Special 1st debate:

          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.

          by ignatz on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 04:09:40 AM PDT

          •  That sounds

            like quite a number of people in the dKos community.

            by kredwyn on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 06:12:37 AM PDT

        •  Maybe a little research

          would help you determine whether or not he is a Democrat. Wiki has some stuff on him and a list of articles (link to one) about him.

          But as a Libertarian Dem (independent thinker) myself, I don't really have an issue with other Libertarian Dems running...especially when they speak out against the war in Iraq, support a pro-choice position, and drive hybrids.

          by kredwyn on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 06:25:25 AM PDT

          •  Not what we need

            What you are describing is an upper-class liberal. We need someone's who concentrates on economic issues that appeals to working class and lower middle class voters, particularly in a state like Ohio, which is getting poorer.  Thomas Frank had it right. Sherrod Brown is that guy.

            by jschiffer3 on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 07:21:45 AM PDT

            •  Uh...

              Brown went to Yale. Here's his background: Brown was born in Mansfield, Ohio. He received a bachelor of arts degree in Russian studies from Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut) in 1974 and a master of arts degree in education and public administration from Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio) in 1981. He taught at the Mansfield branch campus of Ohio State University from 1979 to 1981.

              If you're going strictly on "upper class liberal," it doesn't exactly sound "pulled himself up by his bootstraps".

              Remember that this "upper class liberal" came within a whiskers breadth of taking a district that Kerry, another "upper class liberal" never had a shot in...

              by kredwyn on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 12:31:35 PM PDT

              •  not the point

                Yes, Brown did come from an upper middle class family. I was not talking about class background. FDR was rich as hell. I was talking about the focus of politics and political philosophy and policy and rhetorical concern. If we are just concerned about nominating someone who is "hybrid driving pro-choicer," then that ignores the economic concerns of the working class. Building a huge working class base is the only way Dems can win.  Brown is not from the working class, but he has a huge working class base, because these voters knows he fights for them all the time. His and Hackett's class background matter not at all. Their out look and concern do to. And I have not heard Hackett speak to economic issues at all. That is most of what Brown does.

                by jschiffer3 on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 12:43:32 PM PDT

                •  Well...if I recall...

                  he did speak on economic issues back during the campaign. That southern OH region, which OH-2 covers is industry, urban, and rural. IIRC he had labor support for his run.

                  I'd say do the research before making judgements based on one encyclopedia link offered as a "starting off point."

                  I didn't see anything wrong with his interaction with folks...indeed, he was personable rather than condescending, which is something that gets many candidates into trouble. The identification was real rather than a put up job...

                  by kredwyn on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 02:18:56 PM PDT

          •  Thanks for all the responses and info

            But I don't see the Democrat part in the above description, so much, other than the seemingly pro-choice line. And that's just a guess, because another interpretation of "I don't need the government telling my wife what to do with her body" could also imply (in wingnut land, anyway) a vote against Roe.

            Be that all as it may, and with appreciation for you guys explaining that such a strange political hybrid actually exists, I don't find myself comfortable with Hackett because he's not a proven entity.

            All we really know about him is that he can run a race, by all accounts, a decent one.

            What was he before he ran as a Democrat? After reviewing the wiki you provided (thanks) I'm a bit uncomfortable with his family background in terms of Ohio, and his dad's work. Definitely more of a privileged rich type, which concerns me.

             

            by MissAnneThrope on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 07:47:25 AM PDT

            •  Priviledged?

              "Notice: National Defense Premises," announced the signs as we pulled into the sprawling plant. GE Evendale makes jet engines for Boeings, as well as engines for military jets. Hackett knows the place well: His dad once worked there as an engineer, though the candidate never mentioned that connection as he shook hands with the rank and file. A small group of representatives from the UAW and the International Association of Machinists greeted him on the scorching hot pavement.

              (link)

              Hackett is successful as a trial attorney, as was John Edwards. It seems a little crazy to exclude successful people from the Democratic Party.

              by ignatz on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 08:55:56 AM PDT

            •  So now we need to

              be poor to be a candidate for a Democratic seat? Is that test the same for say Hillary, who wasn't exactly a poor child? Or presidential candidates? Or voters?

              If you actually do the reading, you can learn a great deal about him...including the cases that he took, one of which was an investigation against the prison system for the alleged rape of a female prisoner, and who he is.

              He went into the Marines after college. Then he got a law degree while in the Marines. He continues to serve as a Marine in the Reserves.

              Define being a Democrat...cause I've been registered one all of my adult life...my grandfather (farmer-mom's side) was one all his life. But you've got me confused. Maybe I'm not your kind of Democrat.

              by kredwyn on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 12:40:30 PM PDT

•  Labor in OH-Sen

  Why should we assume that Brown's labor advantage wouldn't transfer to Hackett, should Hackett win the Democratic nomination?

  Brown and Hackett are both honorable guys. Whatever the outcome, I am confident that the loser will do his best to ensure that the victor has the best possible shot at beating DeWine.

  Brown has a lot of allies organized labor, but why wouldn't those guys go on to back Hackett? Sure, Brown's friends in the unions would be a major asset in the primary. But if Hackett wins the primary, he'll probably pick up the union vote.

  I don't know what Hackett's views on trade and labor policy are yet, but they're probably similiar to Brown's. At any rate, Hackett's stance on trade and jobs is pretty much guaranteed to be more attractive to union members than DeWine's.

  Add Hackett's proven ability to connect with blue collar and rural voters on a personal level, his military background, his credibility on the war and national security, and his popular pro-gun position, and you start to see a very attractive package.

  by Lindsay Beyerstein on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 09:35:42 AM PDT

  •  Better isn't good enough

    Assuming Union voters will come out in force for Paul Hackett in the general because his positions are probably better than Mike DeWine's is the kind of problematic thinking that helped the Democrats lose the 94 congressional races (particularly in places like Ohio) and the 2004 presidential race. When the Dems were identified with the hated free-trade agreement Nafta, even though the GOP was for NAFTA to, and the Dems were better on other Union issues, they got creamed. Similarly, in 2004, Kerry had almost no economic message. What he had was light years better than Bush if course, but that was not good enough.

    For a Democrat to win, particularly in blue collar place like Ohio, they need to be screaming about jobs at the top of their lungs every minute of every day. This is what Sherrod Brown has done his whole career, which is how he carries socially conservative voters (they know he fights for their jobs, so their kids can have decent lives). I have heard nothing about Paul Hackett's positions on economic issues. Even if they are better than DeWine's, which they probably are (but the whole libertarian thing does not fill me with confidence), that still isn't good enough. Being critical on Iraq is good (Brown is too). But jobs and trade will be where this is won and lost. Brown has a proven track record on these issues and a proven record of converting socially conservative swing voters too his side on this issue. I'm not talking resume, I am talking results. Labor voters often stay home when confronted with "better than the other guy." They know Sherrod Brown will go to the mat for them. That's why they will turn out in huge numbers for him, while they probably would not for Paul Hackett in the general.

    by jschiffer3 on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 12:28:52 PM PDT

    •  Better's a start

      Jschiffer, do you think that Brown might help Hackett deliver the labor vote?

      Brown spoke very highly of Hackett before this whole unfortunate nomination episode. I seem to recall that Brown helped fund some of the netroots consultants who made Hackett's OH-2 campaign so memorable.

      Admittedly, Hackett supporters can't bank on Brown's help, or his ability to deliver labor votes for a third party even if he wanted to.

      However, I think that a lot of analyses of the relative advantages of the two candidates are completely discounting a lot of potentially transferrable advantages.

      (Aside: I don't understand why the Hackett people are already fuming about what a negative campaign primary it's going to be. Hackett's own campaign advisors have been telling the press how vicious they expect a primary to be:

      "I would guarantee it's going to get nasty," said David Woodruff, Hackett's campaign manager in the House race. "We are going to have an aggressive campaign." [LAT]

      Likewise, I don't understand why Hackett's advisors were fuming about Brown as if it were a deliberate strategy. Is all this preemptive backbiting supposed to serve a strategic purpose?)

      by Lindsay Beyerstein on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 01:20:00 PM PDT

      •  I think not enough, though

        Lindsay. First of all, I think there is zero chance Paul Hackett will beat Brown. But theoretically, if that happened, I don't know what Brown would do. Brown has a record of turning voters out for other Democrats, but he has never lost a primary (and has only lost one general election) so I do not know how he wold react. I think he would want to help, but with all the mud being slung at him, I can only imagine it would dampen his enthusiasm.

        Also, I think your caveat about his ability to transfer support to a third party, particularly one who just got through sliming him, is definitely an open question. It is especially an open question because we really do not know where Hackett is on the economic issues.  Brown worked like crazy to sell Kerry in Ohio, and it helped. But Kerry's economic message was so anaemic that there was only so much that could be done. If Hackett is not that good on these issues, it would be a really hard sell.

        The fact is that labor voters know who is really on their side. They know Brown is. No one seems to know where Hackett is.

        by jschiffer3 on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 07:23:54 PM PDT