Skip to main content

It is very disappointing to me that a candidate as vibrant and unique as Paul Hackett has been pressured by the Democratic establishment not to run for the Ohio Senate seat.  Hackett could have spoken to the people of his state about pertinent issues, such as the war in Iraq and the corruption of insider Washington politics, from a perspective that none of the other candidates could.  And his candor is what lead him to a near victory in his quest for the conservative OH-2 House seat.

People in Ohio are probably even more sick of the corruption embroiling the GOP than the citizens of any other state, given the pathetic situation the states' republican party is finding itself in.  But that does not necessarily translate into a victory for a liberal Democrat, such as Sherrod Brown, given that the state typically leans Republican.

So why shouldn't Hackett just run as an Independent candidate?  It would not be impossible for an independent to win in Ohio, particularly considering the other candidates and the current political climate.  A lot of Republicans are obviously drawn to Hackett, as is indicated by his winning an extremely impressive 48% of the vote in conservative OH-2.  And he obviously has support among sensible Democrats who are deeply concerned about the war in Iraq.  His position on gun control makes him a centrist in OH, a consensus candidate, who could easily win support from both typically solid Republican voters and typically reliable Democratic voters.  

Hackett is a politician who defies why not defy the convention of the two party system and take a gamble as an independent?  There was no guarantee that he would have won as a Democratic candidate, but offering the Ohio voter a departure from the status quo might be exactly what he needs to do win this important race.

Originally posted to anthonyLA on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:15 AM PST.


Should Paul Hackett run for the Senate as an Independent?

40%50 votes
59%74 votes
0%1 votes

| 125 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  He'd definitely caucus with the Dems anyway (none)
    I'd take Paul Hackett (I-OH) over Mike DeWine (R-OH) anyday!
    •  of course (none)
      that wont happen, since in the real world, DeWine wins easily as Brown and Hackett split the vote.
      •  i'll repeat my comment below (none)
        It's not as if every registered Republican is an automatic vote for Mike DeWine.

        Paul Hackett won about 25% of the republican vote in  OH-2.  That was BEFORE his endorsement from the NRA.  How can we assume he wouldn't do even better among Republican voters in the statewide race?

        Also, Ohio has a very high percentage of registered Independents.  

        He could end up with much more than half of the Dem vote as well.

        •  because Mike DeWine (none)
          is not Jean Schmidt.

          Republicans aren't evil. They're just wrong.

          by AnnArborBlue on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:31:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  come on now (none)
          He is not going to receive that much of the Republican vote statewide in a Senate election.

          And considering the fundraising differential thus far, he wont be able to make significant inroads into Brown's base either.

          You'd end up having DeWine get in the low to mid 40s, Hackett picking up maye 20-25% and Brown getting somewhere in the mid to upper 30s.

          •  true (none)
            But what if Brown ends up losing to DeWine anyway?  At least this way, the voters get real choices.  If a plurality want Mike DeWine, so be it, he's there representative and that's how Democracy works.
            •  If Brown loses one on one (none)
              then Hackett wouldnt have beaten him either.

              Like I said, if Hackett wants to run, more power to him, but lets have no illusions that will result in anything other than a DeWine win.

              •  No way (none)
                Hackett is an infinitely better candidate than Brown.

                It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

                by lando on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 12:05:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  apparently (none)
                  the voters of Ohio havent recognized this "fact" yet, they still foolishly seem to be preferring Brown?
                  •  Those idiots! (none)
                    Can't they recognize from Cleveland what is so clear to me from Seattle--that Hackett is a true progressive champion!  (Forget about the NRA thing.)

                    Ohio voters are stupid!  Listen to me, even though I'm from Washington.  Hackett is better than this "Brown" guy who is a "7-term congressman" who is from "Ohio."  I know Hackett rocks because he posted on a blog that I read!

                    The mean Democratic robots used mind control to force Hackett to drop out of the race, so they SUCK!  Let's punish them by helping the Republicans retain control of the Senate!  Hell yeah!  VOTE HACKETT, especially if you live in Iowa or whatever!

                    •  Asswipe (none)
                      Brown is going to get his ass kicked because he is too progressive.  The NRA is what is going to kill him.  Being a 7-term congressman who has accomplished exactly jack shit is not worth anything.  The Democrats had something really good here, and they pissed it away.

                      Well, Congratulations.  Six more years of Mike DeWine is your prize.

                      It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

                      by lando on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 06:00:28 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

  •  if Paul Hackett runs as an independent (4.00)
    he'll split the Dem vote with Brown, and DeWine will win in a walk.

    Republicans aren't evil. They're just wrong.

    by AnnArborBlue on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:17:39 AM PST

  •  I bet you don't even live in Ohio (none)
    Hackett could run for SoS, or AG.

    How about we all vote for DeWine instead.

    SoapBlox Colorado - The Daily Kos of Colorado

    by pacified on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:18:34 AM PST

  •  WHy not go after the House seat again? (none)
  •  With what Nader did in 2000..., (none)
    how can anyone recommend such a course. I'd like to see Roy Moore run for president as an independent.

    "Knowledge is good" Emil Faber

    by irate on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:20:28 AM PST

  •  Why not run in the Dem primary? (4.00)

    The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

    by Armando on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:20:44 AM PST

  •  If he wants the seat (none)
    he should stay in the race. The level of outrage here leads me to believe that he would get hundreds of millions of dollars from the net roots.

    As Pat said above, your idea would only ensure a DeWine win. So he should either stay in the primary, go for OH-02 or drop out of politics.

    "I was Rambo in the disco. I was shootin' to the beat. When they burned me in effigy. My vacation was complete." Neil Young. Mideast Vacation.

    by Mike S on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:22:51 AM PST

  •  Enough is enough! (none)
    Even if Hackett hands the race to the GOP, he should still run. The Democrats are simply unworthy, as they demonstrate time and time again, most recently folding on Alito.

    It may take a long time, but the Dems must be replaced by a progressive party that does not discourage its qualified candidates from running.

    Step one is to cut the purse-strings. No donations in 2006! If they want our votes, they will have to earn them.

    First Sheehan, now Hackett. It is a fucking disgrace! I will work for any qualified candidate who challenges the collaborator Feinstein, voting Green or other third party.

    I haven't been a democrat for years, but I was hoping they would win. Now I do want the GOP evicted, but won't stoop to suporting these soulless and ineffective bums.

    I'm a linguist, licensed to use words any way I want to!

    by MakeChessNotWar on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:22:55 AM PST

    •  You realize Brown is more progressive (none)
      than Hackett, right?

      SoapBlox Colorado - The Daily Kos of Colorado

      by pacified on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:27:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, but that isn't the point (none)
        I would disapprove of pushing someone out of a race even if they were representing fundamentalists! I looked forward to a primary, where I (or rather my relatives who live in Ohio) would support Brown as the more progressive, but I also anticipated many opportunities for Hackett to attack the Bush regime. There is no reason to believe the primary would have gotten personal or ugly.

        I'm a linguist, licensed to use words any way I want to!

        by MakeChessNotWar on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 12:40:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Wait a minute, I'm confused (none)
      Brown is a progressive, arguably moreso than Hackett by all accounts on the issues.

      So the Democrats favor the more progressive candiate and yet you are upset at them for doing so?

      I guess that confuses me a bit. I understand Hackett is appealing, justifiably so. But if the man can't even raise enough money to be viable in the primary, he must not be getting that much support from the left leaning populace.

      Quite frankly, i agreed with his decision to drop out and his honoring of his promise to the three dems not to run against mean Jean, but this idea that he was crucified because he was a progressive? I dont get that part.

      •  In Ohio (none)
        more progressive is not a good thing. At least if you want to win the election.  Anyway, there are (or should) be a lot of other factors to consider about a candidate besides how liberal they are.  And Brown falls short on most of them.

        It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

        by lando on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 12:03:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  yes! the best way to get dems into power is to.. (none)
      let republicans win?

      recheck your logic and come back later.

      •  Isn't that exactly what is happening though? (none)
        We ARE letting Republicans win when we decide that the only proper nominee is the one who's too liberal to win statewide office in a Republican leaning state.  
      •  Cleaning up the Democrats is the best way (none)
        The way to win is to field good candidates, not "centrists" like DiFi and her fellow collaborators who have kept the Bush regime's engine oiled and running. Pushing qualified candidates off the ballott and avoiding primaries to protect the second-rate Dems in congress is the way to assure that Republican policies dominate forever.

        Cleaning up the party in 2006 by demanding an open process may cost some seats this year, but the party would be able to mount a serious campaign in 2008, a prospect which seems very dim at the moment.

        So punish the Dems for their bad electrion policies this year and try to get them on track for the future. Or whatever is left of it.

        I'm a linguist, licensed to use words any way I want to!

        by MakeChessNotWar on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 12:45:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Did I miss the memo... (none)
    I thought we were wholly committed to ending one-party rule by the Authoritarians in this country.  I see now that we don't consider that an important enough goal to actually stick to.  When did we become an anti-DSCC political action commitee?

    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

    by Jay Elias on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:24:42 AM PST

    •  I'm sorry (none)
      But I don't see a guy who's already labeled as a "liberal" winning in OH.  I just don't.
      •  Fine (none)
        I don't see a guy who isn't running winning in Ohio either.

        Honestly, he could have said almost anything else and have been viable, as a third party candidate, or as a Congressional candidate.  After what he said yesterday, he'd have a hard time winning a race for City Council.

        The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

        by Jay Elias on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:37:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly... (none)
          Had Hackett stayed in and lost the race, he could have a political career ahead of him.  Had he dropped out with dignity, he could have had a political career ahead of him.  Instead, he's apparently going to be the Terrell Owens of politics, stomping and whining about why he's not being given the ball more.
          •  Personally (none)
            I am sick of the typical, pat, political statements given by the usual lackluster candidates at times like these.  

            There's something about honest expression of your thoughts/emotions that is fresh and appealing.

            •  Fine... (none)
              ...look, it is appealing to me too.

              You know what really appeals to me?  Not living under Republican rule.  And at this point, I'm completely confounded as to what all this Hackett back-and-forth is doing to bring about that goal.

              The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

              by Jay Elias on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:49:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Because this may have been a MAJOR mistake (none)
                We might have just guaranteed continued Republican rule (at least in this seat) by forcing out a possible consensus candidate.
                •  We didn't do anything... (none)
                  ...weren't we Hackett's base?

                  You and I can agree that the party structure and status quo sucks.  Perhaps you would even agree with my great desire to see nearly every Congressman and Senator defeated and replaced.  But that isn't going to happen, and more importantly, I care a lot more about defeating Republicans than I do about defeating incumbents.

                  Some people in power didn't support Hackett.  But instead of explaining to them, or to the people of Ohio, or of this country, who those people were and why he wasn't going to be disuaded, he made it clear that he's interested in helping the Democratic Party only to the extent that the party serves his needs.  He made it clear that he's only concerned about the people of Ohio to the extent that it serves his needs.  So now he is a potential consensus candidate.  The consensus is that almost no one will want him to be their representative, certainly not for a six-year term.  There is no crying in baseball.

                  The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                  by Jay Elias on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:59:02 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  More people are supporting Hackett (none)
            than you are.

            They don't think that at all.

            People have got Hackett's back especially Ohioans'.

  •  anthonyLA should (none)
    be getting a more progressive person than Feinstein in California, rather than telling fly-over purple state country what to do from the west coast.

    That's what I think.

    Clean your own house first, state with Arnold has a Governor.

    SoapBlox Colorado - The Daily Kos of Colorado

    by pacified on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:29:20 AM PST

  •  This is so stupid (none)
    if Hackett were to run as an Independent, he would simply split the Dem vote. No way he'd pull a Ventura.

    Just stupid.

  •  No (none)
    As pissed off as I am, with Brown, with Markos, with the party (and read my comments the last 24 hours if you don't believe I'm pissed) this is a terrible idea.  Brown has little chance of winning, but this idea will destroy any chance at all.

    Suck it up and vote for Brown.  

    It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

    by lando on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 12:01:21 PM PST

  •  This makes zero sense. (none)
    I won't address the vote-splitting idea. That's been covered.

    But think about it: Hackett dropped out because the big donors were supposedly warned off by DC Democrats.

    So who would he be collecting the necessary money from if he were to run as an independent? The Democratic donors in Ohio who decided to listen to Schumer? Why would they turn around and give money to Hackett now, when they've already decided to listen to Schumer? Especially after he splits with their party.

    The people who were inclined to give Hackett the money he needed to run have changed their minds. I don't understand why you think the fact that he'd be running as an independent would change their minds back. Do you think they'd figure it was OK to disregard Schumer, because Schumer was only talking about funding him if he were a Democrat?

    To return to the vote-splitting theme, though, they were surely sold by Schumer on the notion that their money was better used in other ways, rather than helping Hackett fight a hopeless (in his opinion) primary battle against Brown that could possibly result in a DeWine victory. WHy would they suddenly disregard that logic and fund a race even more likely to do that?

  •  why we don't encourage independants (none)
    Nader > Bush > Iraq > 30, 000 American casualties, 7000 wounded too badly to return to combat, 2,500 dead> a couple of trillion dollars wasted, Katrina, the end of demiocracy > the beginning of Tyranny > King George> kidnapping > torture > murder > warrantless spying > the loss of our human rights > death squads > civil war > genocide > the sale of our wilderness > $50 billion cut from Medicaid to give tax breaks to the wealthy > ...
  •  Great Diary (none)
  •  Republican Lites...? (none)
    The thing is...most of us are a little disturbed about the pitiful performance of some Dem's...Harry Reid comes to mind when I think of the "new" bankruptcy bill...we are not Republicans and we seem to be pretty much betrayed at every turn, by Dem's. It bothers me to see these spineless, unconcerned, back-biting Democrats consistently turn their backs on the will of the people, and support legislation that many of us are so opposed to. And now to watch them "swift boat" Paul Hackett, as the Republican cut throats do, is more than I can bear. If this is what we will recieve from Democratic leadership...more of the same dirty tricks, the same malfeance, the same old love of corporation money..sell the working man and woman into poverty, while they become wealthier than God, then its time for a complete "shake-up" in our own Democratic more DLC more politicians who stand for nothing except privileges for themselves, family and "close friends" (on K street) I for one am extremely fed up with "government as usual", from either party...perhaps its time to support the candidate of OUR choice...not the candidate of choice by the DLC...I am also not sold on Hillary Clinton as a Presidential nominee, not because of her gender, but because she is chomping at the bit to get involved in this "Iraq War" does the DLC see an opportunity for their own war profittering..? I am also not to fond of Bill Clintons NAFTA idea...are not these, Republican Lite ideas?
    Of Course I do not know where Paul Hackett stands on these issues..but I certainly would have like the opportunity to find out.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site