READER COMMENTS ON
"VIDEO - Daily Show: Paul Hackett's Advice for Democratic Campaigns"
(37 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
Blow Me, I'm Irish
said on 3/15/2006 @ 10:10 am PT...
This was beautifully done!
Anyone from the liberal wing of what should be an opposition party should be more than a little amused (if they can laugh at themselves just a little...)
I'd be nice to think every dem in the house and senate actually saw this piece too....
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 10:12 am PT...
That would be Ed Helms. Ed Henry is some douche on CNN.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 10:21 am PT...
Well I have been watching the talk shows, sunday and every other day.
They have the notion that politics is like a gang. You have to show your bravado.
Like you are campaigning to fight someone in the title bout.
The talk show conservatives could not quote nor talk intelligently about constitutional law, congressional rules, nor the nature of our constitutional democracy.
But they can threaten to kick someone's ass, tell them 'go fuck yourself' as Cheney does, and generally paint government in macho terms.
It is the republican way. Forget about how government and our legal system works, lets talk like street folk who can put someone down and blow them up.
Fine. But don't lie about it and make it out as if that is the way the American public wants politics and government to be.
The polls show that the people want democrats to replace republicans. And they want it in double digit numbers.
Just reality folks. Tin hats blowing in the breeze and bellys full of kool aid will not change what the public is and what they want.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 10:22 am PT...
Everyone call the whitehouse and let every democratic senator and rep that they best grow some balls and back the censure because we are sick of them kissing bush's we can't do this because we're at war ass. The war is just the reason to do all they can to stop these bastards!
Impeach now so we can fix voting, stop the war, kill the tax cuts for the rich, balance our budget, recover our economy and environment, etc...
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 10:38 am PT...
I think it's Ed Helms, not Ed Henry. Isn't that his name? They didn't skip a beat with Helms & Courdry!
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 10:40 am PT...
They have genius writers on the Daily Show.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 10:43 am PT...
By the way, I believe Hackett was a victim of one of those 51%-49% GOP/Ohio "victories" on electronic voting machines. I think the story is that it was tied, and the machines went down in the bottom of the 9th due to "moisture"...then they came up with thousands of votes for Schmidt, the witch who called Murtha a coward. Way to go, Ohio! Hacket has the charisma of JFK. He was told, though, by the Dems not to run for Senator in Ohio. Way to go, Dems!
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 10:51 am PT...
"Ed Henry" has been changed to "Ed Helms".
I've been watching too much CNN. Thanks for the correction.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 11:18 am PT...
I'm serious...this Hackett guy has that certain something...like JFK charisma...watch the video. He should be a showcase of the Dem party, along with Feingold.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 11:34 am PT...
Thats because Hackett and Feingold talk like regular folk, not like career politicians that talk in circles
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 11:37 am PT...
Perhaps we are missing something bigger here.....we can't forget the complicity of the democrats in Iraq, the connections of democrats to lobyist, and the utter spinlessness of the democrats....
then they go and take an ideal canidate out of the running and put some panty ass in his place to lose to the republican canidate...
The democrats are no better than the republicans....and thats why they keep losing.
Those that don't stand for anything, live for nothing.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 11:53 am PT...
I pray the Republicans get another Perot in '08 to run Independant
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
Paul in LA
said on 3/15/2006 @ 12:11 pm PT...
Pullease. The whole Hackett mythos is BUNK.
This guy VOTED FOR BUSH IN 2000.
As soon as he ran into the obstruction natural to a neophyte, he turned into an Independent and trashed the party leadership.
Meanwhile, he was running against the star of Ohio's progressive Democrats, Sherrod Brown, who first ran in the state government in 1972, and has served in state and US House since. He has won fifteen or so elections, working in the party for a VERY long time, with an excellent voting record.
Now, Hackett thought that Senator Reid would support his 'two years a Democrat' candidacy against a thirty-year caucus member with a long track record of winning AND loyalty to the caucuses.
HERE'S A NEWSFLASH --- NO leader in a democratic caucus anywhere in the world can shaft a caucus member in good standing for thirty years, for a dark horse who just showed up and thinks that a stint in Iraq makes him gold.
If Hackett was really devoted to the party and the progressive cause, he would start off with something less than THE TOP FEDERAL JOB IN OHIO POLITICS. Losing the House race (or having it stolen from him) is not equivalent to winning ANY race, at a lower tier, in politics.
Go check out who Hackett thought Reid and Schumer would give the shaft to for him. Go check out what is in effect a UNION MATTER. Dark horses CANNOT expect to get funding against established candidates who have EARNED their run at the top job.
Dark horses especially don't go forward by creating media myths that harm the party or its leaders by misleading registered Dems that the national leadership was somehow acting in bad faith by not supporting his unproven candidacy.
It's not surprising the Daily Show doesn't show the other side of the story. DS regularly savages the Dem leadership, because of that lingering 'it's all a joke' quality one expects from a COMEDY PROGRAM.
It's not surprising that Hackett continues to spread harmful rumors about his own candidacy. He may regret his 2000 vote, but he has barely put his toe into these shark-infested waters, before announcing that he was wronged.
Sherrod Brown for US Senate. Proven service, and PROVEN progressivism.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
Paul in LA
said on 3/15/2006 @ 12:15 pm PT...
"The democrats are no better than the republicans....and thats why they keep losing."
Charlie, you are on the PREMIER blog dedicated to the TRUTH that Democrats are winning their elections --- it is the VOTE-FRAUD that is defrauding us of our victories.
Do some reading. People who spread Dem=Rep LIES instead might as well get in your time machine, go back to 2000, vote for Nader AGAIN, and watch the whole debacle a few more times until you understand what that rhetoric accomplishes.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 12:20 pm PT...
Paul in LA #14
You are correct, sir
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 12:31 pm PT...
And #13 too for that matter
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
Truth and Justice for All
said on 3/15/2006 @ 12:32 pm PT...
I believe we need a 3rd and /or 4th party to pick from.
The basic Republican Party and possibly the Democrats seem to have have been taken over by members of AIPAC.
The key Bush leadership positions have been taken over by Zionists.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 1:26 pm PT...
I have doubts about several bloggers here being undercover trolls, but you are certainly not one of them.
I agree with Paul in LA #13, #14 on this matter and with you.
It is clueless to do otherwise. A new poll shows Bush in the low thirties, and that democrats are favored over republicans in the UAE deal (link here).
If we say elections were stolen, and we have scientific and other types of proof that is the case, where the hell do we get off saying "democrats are no better than the republicans ... and thats why they keep losing" as troll charlie does in post #11.
That is exactly what some long time bloggers here are maintaining ... TODAY!!!
It is suicidal politics they are advancing, like some tin hat wearing kool aid drinkers who want to grow up to be chronic complainers instead of remedial campaigners.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 2:16 pm PT...
I don't think Dems = Reps...I have thought that in the past to some degree, but I will admit that there are stark differences. Unfortunately, Dems submit to corporate lobbying in the same way Reps do. And unless Dems do grow a spine and join leaders like Feingold, McDermott, Boxer...these are REAL Democrats who understand the purpose of having an opposition party...well, then as a whole they are fairly useless. I just have an incredibly hard time with party leadership that doesn't thake the fight to Bush whenever and wherever possible. Hit the fucker while he's down...and then hit him harder. Why won't they do this? What kind of panderers are they.
So no, Dems do not equal Reps, but they sure as shit had better pull it together. What will it take to get the party leadership to realize that? I'm with Dredd on 99.9% of all posts - but the Dems need to get the message "quit fucking up your opportunities." Which they have done PLENTY.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 2:23 pm PT...
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 2:28 pm PT...
But didn't they first ask Hackett to run, before they then asked him not to? Seriously, I'm not trying to be funny here.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 2:44 pm PT...
Hi Joan, We would have to sort through the Reich Wing spin machine and/or talk to the party leaders directly before we could know that for sure
Nothing is what it seems in the land of politics sometimes
but Paul in LA and Dredd do hit it right on the nuts, so to speak
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
Paul in LA
said on 3/15/2006 @ 5:15 pm PT...
"But didn't they first ask Hackett to run, before they then asked him not to?"
I think it is possible that the leadership (Dean?) asked him to run for the House seat. It is entirely unlikely that Reid would bite Sherrod Brown in order to chase Hackett's skirts.
Sherrod Brown has progressive credentials like these:
"A leader on childrenís health issues, Brown was the chief Democratic sponsor of the bipartisan Childrenís Health Act of 2000, which established a new Pediatric Research Initiative within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and expanded research projects on autism, birth defects, and other child-related illnesses and diseases...
"In addition to health-related achievements, Brown has fought trade agreements that threaten American jobs, undermine environmental safeguards, and eliminate workplace safety protections. He believes international trade agreements should include protections for workers in America and across the globe, including fair wages, decent working conditions, and the right to unionize. As a fierce critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement, he played a key role in efforts to defeat "fast track" trade negotiating authority in Congress. Brown also spoke against granting China increased trade privileges until its leaders adhere to internationally accepted human rights practices.
"A member of the House International Relations Committee, Brown has brought the global tuberculosis threat to the policy forefront. He led a five-year effort that increased funding for international anti-TB programs from zero to the current $75 million. In addition to TB, Brown worked against the pharmaceutical industryís efforts to restrict African countriesí access to life-saving prescription drugs for HIV/AIDS. He is also a founding member of the Congressional Caucuses for Taiwan and India."
Now, you have to ask yourself, HOW MANY 'failures' of the Dem leadership have been just this spurious? It is very difficult to backseat drive the Congressional leadership decisions. Partly that is because THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE CAUCUSES. It's not optional.
Reid and Pelosi have done excellent jobs keeping the caucuses together in spite of clearcut abuses of power by the majority.
That doesn't mean that they aren't wrong in many cases. For instance, it is a political fact that most of the Dems in Congress are hoping to retake the House this year. They are less likely to support impeachment (or censure) efforts because there is a strong possibility of that (even possibly with the vote-fraud).
Do I think they should wait? Absolutely not. But it is understandable that Pelosi wants to be Speaker before she takes a run at this mob of rightwing violators. I don't fault her for wanting a majority first. I support her. But I will do everything I can to support Conyers and the heroes who are making Pelosi's job harder by forcing this issue forward.
The ability to handle contradictions and ambiguities is basic to liberal human being. And it is OUR JOB to fix our state's voting so that Pelosi's dream can come true. The first female minority leader in the history of the Congress deserves the Speaker's seat.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 6:06 pm PT...
I have some sympathy for Dredd's point-of-view and I think valid points are being made (but points that should be analyzed further). Nevertheless, it's starting to bother me a bit that there appears to be a confusion about criticism where it is justified and necessary and whatever valid points have been put forth.
We are all victims of the crony gangsterism of the neocons, but one of the main efforts of political action and strength is to avoid being a victim. What bothers so many people is the feeble and bland reaction of Democrats to victimhood (and, in fact urges some folks to look deeper into the matter). Enabling is not too strong a word. Here we are getting angry, fighting for our liberties, telling the truth - and (for example) the Senate votes 95-1 to extend the "PATRIOT" Act, despite the excellent points brought up by Feingold - and, of course, all the rest of us. No matter how this is spun, there is no excuse for it. It's a fear of being labeled soft on terrorism - playing right into the victimizer's hand, being part of the spin. (Need I point out that being part of the spin in not good?) How about a counter-spin? Don't Dems have a sense of adventure, of proaction, of place in history? Apparently not.
A lot of this talk has been as if the Dems to run have already been chosen. There are good Dems in the progressive wing with very little difference between their views and those of the Greens (who espouse many widely-held American viewpoints). That's a fact, largely obscured by media and debate blackout of populist (as opposed to corporatist) viewpoints.
Ignore the corporatist Republicrat club talking point that progressivism is a ticket to defeat. It's self-serving propaganda. But the big money and party support makes it look like it's true and makes it more likely to be true. What a miserable, self-fulfilling, phony situation. How can people break out unless they break out? Think creatively.
From an historical perspective, I find the current inert Democratic response to Republican outrages to be disheartening and suspect. You'll just have to take my word that my higher education is in history and it has always been my passion, and I have never run across quite this wait-until-the-time-is-right, year-after-year political strategy that amounted to a re-orientation of political life on a scale such as what is needed now. Especially in time of (at least) mini-revolutions (e.g. Jacksonian, early Republican, progressive-era) the opposition to the status quo and conventional wisdom was vociferous and passionate --- and fed on and encourged public passion. The current situation is strange from an historical perspective. Although it is nothing new for grassroots party members to be at odds with much of the party leadership, the communication gap particularly is huge now and there is palpable sense of unreality, which in my opinion, arise from the existence of two cultures one of which, corporatism, is profoundly undemocratic and anti-populist and can't be honest in its intentions or purposes because few would support it in a "real" world. (It gets plenty of support in a made-up world - even "populist" support!)
Dredd is a one-step-at-a-time person, I think, and has a valid point that it is imperative to remove the Republican Party from Congressional leadership which it has used for authoritarian and dishonest purposes - and I should add profoudly unAmerican purposes. (I have always been uncomfortable with that term, but I think it is time to call a spade a spade.)
But to expect much from those who are part of the problem - and will be as long as they eschew populism and democracy in favor of corporatism and political expediency - is unrealistic and we have to hammer in the necessary systemic changes and support those who support those changes.
So, let's be honest each step of the way and don't muddy our conversations by talking at cross-purposes.
(Please excuse the long post - didn't expect it!) BTW, I can't speak to the video as my computer freezes up every time I try to view it. Am I running out of memory?)
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 7:00 pm PT...
Though I can't watch videos on the web because of ultra-slow dial-up, I saw that segment on TV, and it was BRILLIANT. Just WHAT is so wrong with allowing your convictions to show, DNC?
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 7:01 pm PT...
No Arry I think your keyboard is wearing out (just kidding)
You are also correct, one step at a time is the way to go
But, we cannot gain any ground without the majority of the American people on our side, that is pretty hard to come by right now with the Corporate media hammering on them day and night
We here, all want progressive change. its just how to go about it that keeps us in disagreement
Form another party ? not the way I see it
Take back the Democratic Party, one step at a time
attend the caucases, let your voice be heard, you may not get all of your ideas heard, but pick one thing and keep on it like a broken record
You would be suprised how fast we could change the party if all would stick with it and not keep voting them out, so they could stay in power long enough to feel comfortable passing progressive laws again
(or just enforcing the ones that are already on the books)
This process won't happen overnight, but I'll tell you one thing, if their was instant runoff I would be jumping around all over the place to try and get the most pro-labor, anti free trade, progressive candidates in that I could vote for
I wouldn't rest until Taft-Hartley was repealed
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 7:09 pm PT...
Paul in LA #13-14 -
You're right about Brown and you're correct about the fraud. But I still enjoyed Ed Helms' sarcasm, because it was a little too close to the truth.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 7:12 pm PT...
Oh and I almost forgot, the Republicans just love the Green Party
Doesn't most of their donations come from the RNC and their little Corporate affiliates ?
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 7:46 pm PT...
Now, Floridiot --- Don't confuse Ralph Nader with the Green Party. There is no question he did get some help from the Repugs (although I don't think it was most of his donations.)
Remember Nader wasn't running as a Green in 2004 and has never been a registered Green! It bugs me, sorry, that he is equated with the Green Party.
As I have stated before, my conception of the Greens is that of a reform party - at this point. (This is anathema to many Greens.)And I think they have actually had some influence in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
I am not interested in parties beyond their use as tools to create a society that is democratic and can sustain itself on the earth and in a way that promotes dignity and community. That is my interest.
I do believe it is vital to take control of Congress from the Busheviks. It is equally vital to stop the corporatization of our legal and political system (which will require some discrimination of Democratic political views and a widening of the field of acceptable subjects). How we can do both is the big question.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 8:05 pm PT...
Nader received somewhere around $10,000 from registered Republicans, many of them people he has worked with in the past. The same donors that gave him $10k also gave around $100k to Democrats. Petition gathering on his behalf was rejected and did not get him on any ballots. This canard is often used to further divide the left. And it works.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
Paul in LA
said on 3/16/2006 @ 1:20 am PT...
"From an historical perspective, I find the current inert Democratic response to Republican outrages to be disheartening and suspect."
The view that such appearances are 'suspect' is a the same as saying you have some kind of doubt. So what?
"You'll just have to take my word that my higher education is in history and it has always been my passion, and I have never run across quite this wait-until-the-time-is-right, year-after-year political strategy"
Well, gee, how did you, for instance, MISS THE COMPLETE FAILURE TO ARM FOR WAR BY THE U.S. SENATE WHILE HITLER WAS BUILDING HIS ARMIES, and the Japanese were turning the Pacific into their bathtub?
There have been MANY cases where the U.S. Senate has failed the country. It's the sort of body, by design, that can be the disgrace of democracy, over and over, for years. For instance, not a SINGLE black rights bill out of the Senate from the 1870s until the 1950s --- EIGHTY YEARS of inaction and blockage.
One might also recall the U.S. Senate's refusal to sign Wilson's treaties, and so in part setting up the Second World War. That was some GREAT Senate work, eh?
"Oh and I almost forgot, the Republicans just love the Green Party." --- Floridiot
That's a considerable generalization. They didn't love the Greens' contest of the 2004 election in Ohio, lemme tell you. It was a task to get Dems to donate to that effort, but they did, and eventually Kerry signed onto it as well.
There is a roll for the Greens and other third parties. But it ISN'T interfering with retaking the House. Any Green who does that is going to be hated down the ages just like Nader will be, rightly or wrongly.
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 3/16/2006 @ 2:10 am PT...
Don't get me wrong Arry, I love Cobb and the things the Greens stand for, he is a man of real morals, if he ran as a Dem, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat
I voted for Kucinich in the primaries and I believe that Kerry vs Bush ticket was rigged by media manipulation (this election rigging goes far deeper in my mind (psy-ops ?) than even Brad thinks, thats why I want the machines gone, along with corporate cash, and we get equal air time for all candidates) to be put there, Kerry never got a vote from me until the last option
But for now, I hold my nose and go with what the majority wants (and I mean the real majority, not the fake one that was installed the last two elections)
And we'll leave my stuff in parentheses for the Matrix movie writers for now
I write like shit, hope you get the drift of it
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 3/16/2006 @ 2:22 am PT...
Paul, I was "in the bag" at the time and I was trying to get a rise out of someone, thats why the generalization
Its all good
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
said on 3/16/2006 @ 5:55 am PT...
I am proud of the bloggers posting here ... all of you and especially those who disagree with me.
Hey, we are not lock-steppers and we need to feel free to step out and share our views.
I change my views from time to time when bloggers show me I missed something. Which I do from time to time.
So congratulations for a good thread here.
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
said on 3/16/2006 @ 11:03 am PT...
PLACE MORE SCRUTINY ON NEW VOTING MACHINES BEING PUT IN PLACE EACH DAY AND LESS CRITICIZING OF THE PARTY IF WE ARE TO STAND A CHANCE OF REPLACING THE DICTATOR AND HIS CABAL IN 2006 AND 2008
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
said on 3/16/2006 @ 5:23 pm PT...
Paul said in #31 --- The view that such appearances are 'suspect' is a the same as saying you have some kind of doubt. So what?
Well, that's what I was saying. I kinda thought somebody might be interested as I'm a take regular part of the conversation on this blog.
The rest of your post --- You jumped to conclusions (by ignoring a few little words) and didn't understand what I was talking about. (In the flow of unedited words, I'm not always clear, so I'll be happy to accept the blame for a misunderstanding.) Of course, I realize that Congress is often slow-moving and obtuse. My point had to do with times such as these which I believe to be similar in many ways to "revolutionary" times in our history. I mentioned the Jacksonian era, the rise of the Republicans, and so on. I think you will find in these eras far more to-the-point energy in Congress and elsewhere than you do currently.
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
said on 3/16/2006 @ 5:27 pm PT...
#32 - Floridiot said, I write like shit, hope you get the drift of it.
Hey, I like your postings. Always have.