The GOP has released a statement purporting to want to "bury" Paul Hackett, the Democratic Iraq War veteran and Congressional candidate.
In the race tomorrow for a Congressional seat in Ohio's conservative 2nd district, tough-talking Democrat Paul Hackett is not backing down from his harsh rhetoric toward George Bush regarding the Iraq war. Now the GOP has released a statement purporting to want to "bury" the Democratic Iraq War veteran. Certainly this must be making Republicans cringe behind the scenes.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Ann
I look at the facts every day. I'm a researcher. I look at the facts, I put 'em tables, and I provide them for reports and presentations about the economic indicators and economic development. That's what I do. But I also have a brain, and there is so much more to the economy than simple ratios.
This rosy picture you are merrily painting is a house of cards. It's not sustainable. It's the debt, the obscene redistribution, that gives me nighmares. I can't believe you are so sanguine about it.
Going to the BEA or the Census, checking out some numbers -- gosh... I'm speechless. Is that all it takes to reassure you about the future? They don't tell the whole story, how can you think they do?
You aren't making any sense. Really. I go back and read your posts and you seem to be just typing any old thing. Is that what you're doing?
I'm not repeating things told to me by my "political leaders," are you?
Where are you hearing about this stuff about corporations and their wonderful reconstruction efforts? There is no real reconstruction that doesn't benefit them. Look it up. And providing their own security? They ain't doing ANYTHING without billing U.S. tax payers for it. Are you just making stuff up now?
There is not going to be enough growth in tax revenue from a healthier, growing economy to cover the debt. It's just going to mount, so people like you think we are going fine economically, and then the hammer will drop, and it will be awful.
Math, math, it's all in the math.
Yeah, and thanks for the pretentious comment about Rousseau, it certainly made you appear literate.
Wal-mart: I know about Wal-mart where I live, and it doesn't pay $7 ph. Minimum wage, yes, you are right. I should have wrote "less than living wage." Not substantially higher than minimum wage! In what universe is $7.00 an hour "substantially higher" than $5.15 and regardless, it's not really enough to live on. You're being disingenuous when pretend that it is.
"Before you can understand Republicans you need to understand the idea that a society which encourages freedom and individual initiative benefits everyone regardless of their wealth or status."
Yes! These are the Republicans I remember, almost. Where did you all go? Where's your fiscal responsibilty? Here's what I want to know: What happened to Republicans??
It used to be, well, theoretically, it should have been: Democrats fight for social responsibilty, Republicans fight for fiscal responsibility. And we all bitched about taxes. Ideally, somewhere in the middle a solid compromise would have been made. Now it's all screwed up.
Republicans are SUPPOSED to care about the damn debt, about balancing the budget; Democrats are SUPPOSED to whine about redistribution. Now it's all screwed up and I feel like my dad died or something.
I'm holding up my end, why aren't Republicans? Bastards.
77 - Dave Nalle
>>I understand that.
Republicans don't.<<
Some do, some don't. The GOP is far more diverse than you realize.
>> Their modern brand of Crony Capitalism completely violates everything this nation stands for. <<
But this cronyism is present in the elite of the Democratic party to, so how does joining up with them help you at all?
The fact remains that Republican policies are still more friendly and supportive of the individual and the entrepreneur than are those of the Democrats.
Dave
78 - Dave Nalle
>>This rosy picture you are merrily painting is a house of cards. It's not sustainable. It's the debt, the obscene redistribution, that gives me nighmares. I can't believe you are so sanguine about it. <<
The debt is a problem, but the 'obscene redistribution' DOES NOT EXIST. If you're a researcher, look at the actual numbers. Don't just quote something from rote. I have looked at the numbers on wealth redistribution in detail. Although the rich have gotten richer in the last few years, the truth is that everyone at every level of income has is earning more and has more to spend, especially in the middle-income groups. The fallacy that many fall into here is in thinking that wealth is a finite, that if some get wealthier then others have to be getting poorer. Within the domestic economy this is just not true.
>>Going to the BEA or the Census, checking out some numbers -- gosh... I'm speechless. Is that all it takes to reassure you about the future? They don't tell the whole story, how can you think they do? <<
Of course not, but combined with my personal research and anecdotal evidence it all adds up.
>>I'm not repeating things told to me by my "political leaders," are you?<<
I don't have political leaders.
>>Where are you hearing about this stuff about corporations and their wonderful reconstruction efforts? There is no real reconstruction that doesn't benefit them.<<
Of course not, but what benefits the corporations which will be part of the future economy of Iraq and emply Iraqis benefits the nation and the people.
>>There is not going to be enough growth in tax revenue from a healthier, growing economy to cover the debt.<<
True. But the economic growth will lessen the impact of the debt somewhat, and in historical context the debt is actually not all that high relative to GDP and government revenues. It's big, but it is potentially manageable if we have some responsibility in Washington.
>> It's just going to mount, so people like you think we are going fine economically, and then the hammer will drop, and it will be awful.<<
Except that the debt does not, in fact, drop like a hammer. It doesn't have to be paid off 100% on the first of next year. It can be refinanced, paid off gradually, and ultimately ends up becoming a stabilizing force in the economy.
>>Wal-mart: I know about Wal-mart where I live, and it doesn't pay $7 ph. Minimum wage, yes, you are right.<<
Where do you live? According to every source I've looked at there is no WalMart in the country which pays minimum wage and average salaries there are over $10/hr.
>> I should have wrote "less than living wage." Not substantially higher than minimum wage! In what universe is $7.00 an hour "substantially higher" than $5.15 <<
You're proud of your math skills, right? Well, in what kind of math is a 36% increase in wages not substantial? It's the difference between having a car and insurance and not having them. It's substantial by any definition.
>>almosand regardless, it's not really enough to live on. You're being disingenuous when pretend that it is. <<
WalMart primarily employs people on a short term or part time basis or in first jobs. These are jobs for kids and moonlighting housewives and people reentering the workforce after having kids. In a job like that it is reasonable to expect to either have some other means of additional support, or to share expenses with other people. This whole idea of setting a 'living wage' based on living in a one bedroom apartment and having a new car is ridiculous. If you have a low income then you economize. You take the bus. You get a roommate or two. You find ways to cut expenses. That's how people live. Take a clue from the mexican immigrants who seem to have no problem doing this, working for low wages, sharing expenses and sending over 8 billion dollars back to mexico every year. I've lived this way. I know people who still do. It's not that much of a challenge.
>>Yes! These are the Republicans I remember, almost. Where did you all go? <<
We're still here, fighting to get the GOP back on track.
>>Where's your fiscal responsibilty? Here's what I want to know: What happened to Republicans?? <<
We got invaded by Democrats. The Neocons who have come into the party are largely former southern Democrats who brought their tax and spend philosophy and socially conservative agenda with them when they joined the GOP. There are still plenty of traditional republicans fighting them.
>>It used to be, well, theoretically, it should have been: Democrats fight for social responsibilty, Republicans fight for fiscal responsibility.<<
Actually, it used to be the Republicans fighting for both fiscal and social responsibility and the Democrats fighting for neither.
>>Republicans are SUPPOSED to care about the damn debt, about balancing the budget; Democrats are SUPPOSED to whine about redistribution. Now it's all screwed up and I feel like my dad died or something. <<
I hear what you're saying and certainly agree.
>>I'm holding up my end, why aren't Republicans? Bastards. <<
Many Republicans are, but it's an uphill battle when you have to fight Neocons in your own party AND Democrats who go right along with them when it comes to spending.
Check out the republican liberty caucus - we currently have over a dozen congressmen, about 7 senators and people elected to office in every state.
Dave
79 - Robert
The idiot who said that it's possible to live on $7 an hour needs to have his head examined.
80 - billbow
Republicans. The scum of our time. Stop them before it's too late.
81 - Scott
"Um Scott, they ran a republican in democrats clothing and still lost."
Suuuure they did, Dave. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
82 - Nancy
Dave, like most conservatives, believes in voodoo economics, trickle down economics, wishful thinking, magical thinking, and whatever crap the spinmeisters of Smirk's administration are serving up today to convince him that we're all just peachy, the war is now just a "struggle", the insurgents are in their "last throes", and the Mission [is] Accomplished".
83 - Ravenrog
Hackett is a liberal who had to hide his liberalism behind a military uniform to at least have a shot of winning. Considering he was wayyy behind in the polls and only lost by a few thousand shows that his strategy worked, somewhat.
What next? Why voter fraud, of course!! Republican intimidation! I mean what can be more intimidating than old white guys intimidating minorities?
You libs out there are LOSING and LOSING BADLY. Face it....
Time to go back to making up stories about Karl Rove...anyway to get back at Bush. I mean, after all, Bush and his administration aren't running for anything in '08, so it makes perfect sense to stay on the attack. What else are Democrats supposed to do besides obstruct and contradict themselves over and over again? Come up with ideas?
LOSERS....
84 - Rodger
Hmmmm! The GOP saying they want to "bury" Hackett or Hacket calling a sitting President (unashamedly and unapolgetically) an SOB, who owes whom an apology?
Rodger
85 - Ravenrog
Typical liberal response: But Bush IS an SOB. He's telling the truth! But to use the word "bury" when referring to a member of the Armed Forces, even though we celebrated when we reached 1000 dead, 1500 dead, etc., is just plain wrong! [And libs, check out his war record....he's seen ZERO combat. If memory serves me correctly, he was a writer, probably looking for cases to try at home since he's an Edwards-like trial lawyer]
86 - billy
an anti war deaniac who never ran before and had no money just turned the reddest district in the country into a swing district. no republican is safe next year. this should have been double digits, the republican party has become weak. they have no more ammo, there attacks are so loony they backfire. noone is buying it. say goodbye to the majorities soon. the more you deny it, the quicker it will happen.
87 - Jim
Just because you are a Marine and just because you served in Iraq does not mean that you know all there is to know about the reasons for going into Iraq. Serving in uniform should certainly give you insight into what service members go through. The Democrat Party seems to like to latch onto anyone who once wore the uniform and then try to make it look like they are a special hero who has this vast knowledge and insight. Well, guess what? There are hundreds of thousands of us out here who know a little bit about the military experience and we are not neccessiarily impressed. The civilians may be in awe of their new hero because they don't know any better. Catching a bullet and surviving doesn't neccessarily make you a hero. You know you risk death or injury each time you step on the battlefield or for that matter when you enter the military. We do our duty hopefully without ulterior motives.
88 - Bruce
Geez! Now that it is over in Ohio, let's see how the socialists spin this one. Hackett tried to lie his way to an election, but as usual, most of the prolitariet saw through his BS. He is a lawyer, right? Nuf said. Another great "combat" veteran? Civil affairs? Give me a break! The Dems (extreme left wing socialists) are really desperate. Main stream? The current democratic party can't even spell it. Now, Karl Marx, they can spell that one. They quote Mr. Marx all the time. Don't believe me? Read the manifesto. You probably can borrow a copy from Kennedy, Biden, Schumer, Durbin, or Hillary.
By the way. You should rename this blog, "hateblog.org".
Cheers,
Bruce
Monument, CO
89 - Dave Nalle
>>The idiot who said that it's possible to live on $7 an hour needs to have his head examined.<<
The 'idiot' lived on less than that for three years and is still here to tell the story.
Dave
90 - Eric Berlin
Wow, Bruce. I'm really curious as to whether or not you really believe what you just wrote.
91 - Dave Nalle
>>To think that during a dem presidency we had less abortion every year...year after year. It's amazing how education is the answer...not prohibition!<<
Mikey, there's been no effort to prohibit abortions under Bush, with the exception of partial birth abortions which even most democrats think are abominable. And under Bush both abortions and teen pregnancy are down substantially - something I firmly believe his presidency has absolutely nothing to do with, btw.
Dave
92 - PD
Wow, too bad Hackett couldn't run as what he really is...a liberal. You notice he tried to run as a "conservative". Another case of how can we fool them today, but the good folks in Ohio knew the difference. Liberals will never win any elections if they run on what they truely believe or stand for, it must be difficult to have to lie to yourself. Ask John Kerry and the rest of the group leading this party. I actually am starting to feel sorry for the "libs" because they are so pathetic and hungry for any kind of victory.
93 - billy
dont worry, since the gop cant win by much in their safest districts, there will likely be a lot of liberal victories to come.
94 - rick
Listen up Libs, you all need to listen to Rush, and pay attention to what he says. The truth will set you free!!
95 - Eric Berlin
Okay, I'll get in touch with the other Libs to let 'em know The Truth.
96 - John
This Balletshooz is crazy as Hackett should apologize to the President and his Commader-in-Chief. He is the one doing the disrespecting.
97 - VietnamVet
"For the troops to hear that one of their own is going to be “buried” by the Republican Party sends a message that... the troops [are] unimportant to the GOP."
What a load of crap! I am a vet and it doesn't say that to me. Where there is one lie, more are hiding...
98 - Dave Nalle
"buried" in this context is a purely competitive term and has nothing to do with killing him or his military service or anything silly like that.
Dave
99 - Eric Berlin
I see the "bury" comment as just another brash, arrogant take on a war veteran who "dared" to take on this administration and its war policies.
100 - Dave Nalle
There's no reason to make a relationship connection between the use of the word 'bury' and the fact that he's a veteran. They likely would have used it if he'd never served as well. It's meaningless.
Dave
101 - Bruce
Eric. You bet I believe it! If you would open your eyes and ears a little, you would too!
I first read the manifesto over 40 years ago. The scary part is that today's left wing dem's don't even paraphrase Mr. Marx, they quote him word for word. Don't believe me? Go read it.
Cheers
102 - John Bambenek
Okay, on behalf of the GOP, I would like to apologize to Hackett for beating him back to political irrelevancy.
103 - Eric Berlin
John: Paul Hackett is now a star on the rise.
And he's given hope and energy to the Democratic Party.
So... no need to apologize.
104 - Dave Nalle
Does anyone else find Eric's last statement just a little pathetic?
Dave
105 - Eric Berlin
You find it pathetic because you want to find it pathetic, Dave.
But it's not. In 15 months, we'll see what's what.
106 - Jeff Davidson
yeah, major "beat back" there John. Schmidt squeaked by in what should have been a landslide win in that district.
I love it when people support the troops as long as those troops don't speak their mind.
107 - Dave Nalle
Let's try to apply some thought here.
Schmidt had to run against Hackett and his personal charm and military background.
Hackett had the easy job of essentially running against Bush and ignoring Schmidt.
Hackett still lost.
Now consider - how many Hacketts do the Democrats have to run? How many people who basically don't agree with moveon.org will they even be allowed to run?
Remember, in 2008 and to some degree 2006 just running against Bush isn't going to cut it, they're going to have to run against the entire GOP, which offers a great deal of diversity.
In addition, the Democrats still face the fundamental problem that when they explain their platform they are basically saying "we're offering all the problems of the current administration PLUS higher taxes, more spending and less freedom." That's a hard, hard sell.
Dave
108 - Eric Berlin
You can't have it both ways with Hackett. Either he's "charming" or he's "offensive" for calling Bush an SOB, etc.
Onward: Hackett is offering a new model for Democrats to run on as he's exposed vulnerability on the administration's anti-war policies. This should be a no brainer, in my opinion, but there it is.
The fact that ANY Democrat ran so well in this district is a big warning sign to Republicans.
Finally, Dave, your point about taxes, spending, and freedom (and moveon.org) is tired, misleading, and out-of-date.
109 - Dave Nalle
>>You can't have it both ways with Hackett. Either he's "charming" or he's "offensive" for calling Bush an SOB, etc.<<
I never tried to have it both ways. Fine with me if he calls Bush an SOB. It's even part of his charm.
>>Onward: Hackett is offering a new model for Democrats to run on as he's exposed vulnerability on the administration's anti-war policies. This should be a no brainer, in my opinion, but there it is. <<
This shouldn't have been a revelation to anyone. Plenty of Democrats are going to run against the war and lose because their GOP opponents will keep the race focused on their record rather than the president's.
>>Finally, Dave, your point about taxes, spending, and freedom (and moveon.org) is tired, misleading, and out-of-date.<<
Hardly out of date. Democrat positions have become even more socialistic and unacceptable as they've become more marginalized as a party.
Dave
110 - Mark Saleski
marginalized?
you all act as though the results of the last election were 95-5, when it was actually not far from 50-50.
111 - Scott
Nalle's voting for Bill Frist in '08.
112 - billy
this republican denial that their party is hollowed out, even in the reddest district like 0h-2, will only help democrats. please keep believing everything is ok going into 2006 and that howard dean is a disaster.
113 - Eric Berlin
I'm encourated for '06 (even if that makes me "pathetic"). I think people are finally (!) ready for some real change and reform.
114 - Dave Nalle
I agree with you on the change and reform, Eric.
It's time for us to put aside the failed politics of callousness and greed and move in a new direction. If they get their act together the GOP might be able to offer that new hope. The Democrats never will. If necessary we can look elsewhere alltogether.
BTW, I wouldn't vote for Bill Frist if he were the last candidate on earth.
Dave
115 - Scott
Well, whether conservatives like it or not, I think this bodes well for Democrats in the 2006 elections.
116 - John Bambenek
As I said in another thread, this race showed that in order to compete, the Democrats have to pretend to be Republicans... if that's your definition of boding well... that's your perogative.
117 - rush limbaugh
Bend way over for your apology.
118 - billy
"pretend to be Republicans"
keep dreaming that is the reason republicans have become weak in red districts.
he called bush an sob, opposed iraq, pro-choice, pro stem-cell. if you call that acting like a republican, you are in for a surprise next year.
119 - Dave Nalle
It does sound like my kind of Republican, Billy.
Dave
120 - billy
maybe thats why he did good, but it isnt Jon B's type of republican so I dont know why he is claiming that. anyways, your kind of republican dave, is apparently . . . a democrat.
i can only think of 1 position that hackett had that could even be remotely called republican, which was 2nd amendment, but in that respect hackett was a howard dean clone.
121 - Dave Nalle
Hackett didn't come out as a big spender or a tax raiser as far as I can tell. So that sets him apart from a lot of other Dems, as well as the gun position.
Dave
122 - John Bambenek
On his website, on his flyers, and in his commercials, no where can it be seen where he really stands on issues or that he's even a Democrat.
He ran as a Marine, that got votes. It was a good strategy. It didn't work.
123 - Eric Berlin
He ran as an anti-war, anti-Bush, pro-health care and education reform Democrat. He's also pro-gun ownership.
That sounds like a decent platform to me.
124 - Dave Nalle
So long as it's pro healthcare reform and pro education reform, it doesn't sound like a democrat at all. If it's pro national health and pro more money for failing education institutions. THEN it sounds like a democrat.
Dave
125 - Eric Berlin
If it's tax breaks for pharm companies and do nothing for the millions of un and under-insured, then it sounds like ANOTHER party...