So there it is, the big special election in the 2nd congressional district next door in southern Ohio. The Republican Jean Schmidt has beaten the Democrat Paul Hackett to replace Republican Rob Portman, selected for a trade post in the Bush administration.
JEAN SCHMIDT 57,974 52% (W)
PAUL HACKETT 54,401 48%
Congratulations are in order for Congressman Schmidt. However, as president of the SNL Mr. Belvedere fan club Tom Hanks said after they voted not to kill their idol, the vote shouldn't have been that close. President Bush carried this district with 64% a few months ago.
Watching the campaign as a local Cincinnati news story, Hackett actually seemed like a very poor candidate. He had the one big positive thing, his gimmick: He's a recent veteran of our war in Iraq. Obviously that looks good on him. But absolutely everything else about him was phony and hostile and disrespectful.
Particularly, he absolutely called the president an SOB while he's running as a candidate in a district that voted nearly two to one for the guy. That struck me as being stupid, besides being rude and unstatesmanlike. Yuck. Then he actually runs positive footage of Bush talking about patriotism and service in his ads. Mr. Hackett's got stones, you have to give him that.
Worse yet, he absolutely pitched the "chickenhawk" charge. Right from there, I'm all done with him. Those who pitch the chickenhawk charge are automatically discredited for rejecting the basic bedrock American principle of civilian control of the military. Thus he's either a fascist, insisting that only veterans have any right to participate in military decisions, or he's simply a demagogue scratching for an emotional hot button. Either way, this pretty much burns off all the goodwill he gets for being a veteran.
Yet he came within 4,000 votes of beating the Republican. Either there were a lot of voters so highly impressed with his service as a Marine that they weren't paying a bit of attention to anything he actually said, or the Republicans have some trouble. A Democrat should never have gotten within striking distance in this district.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ
YES! :)
2 - gonzo marx
too bad, i say...but then again, i don't agree with big Al that Hackett was all that bad a candidate, and i appreciate his giving his opinions straight up
too bad that an actual veteran of the current Conflict won't be sitting in the House to debate it...
the Voters have spoken, and the sheer closeness of this race should get some folks on both sides of the aisle to thinking real carefully about 06
a brief scan of the last 20 years or more in that district would normally make one think it should not have even been close...
less than 5% win in a district that is historically GOP overwhelmingly, and voted for the Shrub twice by a wide margin...
i can't wait till the first week of November 06....tho we should have plenty of blood in the water from both sides before then...
Excelsior!
3 - Al Barger
El Senor Gonzo- I predict we see several Iraq veterans show up as candidates next year. I expect Democrats to make an effort to recruit some veterans for candidates. That obviously goes a long way toward diffusing the typical Republican advantage on defense issues.
4 - gonzo marx
big Al,
tell that to Max Cleland and Sen. Kerry
GOP slime attacks care not who they smear
look at how vehement Limbaugh has been against Hackett...
on a side note..you listen to the Tool tune yet?
Excelsior!
5 - Al Barger
It's not that the GOP wouldn't attack an opponent who was a veteran, but that seems like it would tend to earn them SOME cover on defense issues. Kerry and Cleland were just poor candidates, and way to the left of the voters.
Also though, being a veteran of THIS particular ongoing conflict would be a bigger boost than Vietnam both for relevance and freshness.
Being an Iraq veteran won't guarantee you an election, but it seems to have gotten Hackett within about 3.5% or so of winning in a 2 to 1 Bush district.
6 - gonzo marx
my point is that i highly doubt his being a veteran was the ONLY reason so many in such a GOP dominated district voted for him
make sense?
and i take it that is a "no" on AEnima...
Excelsior!
7 - Al Barger
Agreed. This has a distinct tang of voters want to slap the president around a little. It'll do him good. Besides, he's got it coming.
"We've ALL got it coming, kid" Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven.
I've listened to the Tool, but I'll have to try it again before saying much about it. It didn't make a big impression on me one way or another the first time, but I'll give it another spin.
8 - Steve
One of the things that Democrats have thankfully learned in the last couple of years is to stop listening to empty Republican criticism. That is, the reason why you're whining about the chickenhawk remark is that it's factual and true. Many men who have never served in combat lack confidence in themselves and as such promote military blunders to overcompensate for their lack of stones.
Even FDR suffered from this. It was Churchill who was the moderating force(from his own experiences with failure at Gallipoli) and talked FDR out of launching the D-Day invasion in 1942. But without that balance, we end up in Vietnam or Grenada or Iraq because some guy thinks he has to prove to his daddy that he's a tough guy.
The point being, it's got nothing to do with civilian command of the military. It's got everything to do with displaying confidence and courage. Something I'm finding is absent from the Republican party, and it doesn't surprise me to see the American voters are noticing the same thing.
9 - RJ
Grenada was a bad thing?
And just how, exactly, have voters punished to GOP for supposedly being a bastion of "chickenhawks"?
They control the WH, the Senate, and the HoR. And the Dems lost the special election this post is about.
10 - Eric Berlin
I think an accusation of chickenhawk is acceptable when it's applied to a non-veteran civilian leader who carelessly throws soldiers into combat.
And yes, I realize that Bush was in the National Guard.
11 - Eric Berlin
Or who is willing to throw said soldiers into combat, I should say.
12 - ShadowFerret
It shoulden't be too hard for the Dems to recruit Iraq vets to run in '06-I imagine there's plenty of good men who left this country as Republicans, and after two years of being shot at, no clear objective, no timetable for withdrawl, no WMD's, no armor, insuffcient supplies, and Rummy making snarky comments at/about them, they come back as Democrats.
Oh, and can we please stop wetting ourselves over someone saying mean things about Bush? Oh, my goodness, politicans are attacking each other! THAT'S never happened before!
13 - Eric Berlin
You'd have to think that this race is going to have major ripples across political waters with implications for how '06 races are going to be run on both sides...
14 - RJ
I recall the same thing was said in November 2001, when Democrats took over NJ and Virginia as Governor.
And then, in 2002, the Dems got their asses handed to them...
15 - El Bicho
Al, quit your whining. The guy made a strong showing in his first election and he probably learned a lot. How did you do your first time out?
Anyone who serves has every right to call someone a chickenhawk. If you don't like it, get off the keyboard and make a sacrifice as great as he did.
You detail how he was hostile, I guess, and disrespectful but how was he a phony? I don't get Cincy television.
16 - Scott
I was Googling just to see who won, and found this site. The blog is pretty hostile and nasty to Col. Hackett. I left the US 22 years ago when I married a European woman, and I just can't believe how uncivil and mean-spirited things have become back home.
From what I understand, Ms. Schmidt has been running a mean campaign against her opponent and Col. Hackett has been saving his anger against for the administration of record.
I've been reading a lot of history of the 1930s, and was active during the 1970s and 1980s working with Latin American refugees who were displaced from their homes and jobs by the civil wars.
The GOP scares me. They are independently re-inventing a lot of institutions/practices our grandparents had to go to war against once.
In aiding totalitarian anti-communist thugs throughout the world, more than a little of their anti-democtratic ways have rubbed off onto us.
After Florida 2000 and Ohio in 2004, I see a 52-48% split as a little too pat.
Way to go, GOP, you've smothered my faith in American democracy by simply acting too undemocractically, in too many world regions for too long, for me to believe you whenever you speak about democracy. Voting has become a smoke screen, just as in any other essentially undemocractic place.
It's not the voting that counts, but the counting of the votes.
And to whoever the person is who wrote this mean-spirited attack on Mr. Hackett, be careful about what you wish for, you just may get it.
17 - Michael Coats
I can see why the term "chickenhawk" offends so many of you...well...chickenhawks.
However, you obviously misunderstand the term. It is not applied to those who did not or do not serve...it is applied to those who vocally support taking military action, but yet can't seem to find the stones to actually do do anything other than put a sticker on their car to actually support the effort. God forbid that either you or yours actually fight for what you profess to beleive in. If the feathers fit....wear 'em!
18 - Gayle Szeredy
You Democrats are crazy! Hacket was underhanded and devious. He didn't even admit he was a Democrat while running his television ads. He knew that if he admitted he was a Democrat, he would have no chance of winning, so he just omitted that little bit of insignificant information. Talk about underhanded and deceptive. But it's the only way you folks have a chance in hell of winning anything anymore. Many people probably voted for him thinking he was a Republican, or at least a very conservative Democrat because after all, he served in Iraq. Woohoo!
19 - Toph
It continues to amaze me...When the Republicans win the Dems try to make it look like a loss. Hackett lost! Bush won get over it
20 - Glen
The charge is DEPREAVED INDIFFERENCE. The President, Vice-President, S of D and others in the Bush administration act without any concern for human life. In Iraq, Gitmo, the Plame case and others, they use troops, civilians, government agents, money, weapons and more as tools in a game where they don’t care about or understand the consequences. In this case the consequence is many human lives and the charge is DEPREAVED INDIFFERENCE. If Bush, Cheney, or others had actually served in combat, they might understand that this is not a game. There are many in public offices who understand how serious war is, even without the experience of combat service, but there doesn’t appear to be anyone in the Bush administration with that understanding.
21 - Bob
What this proves is that liberal democrats need to lie about their beliefs just to be competitive.
Come on out of the closet and tell everyone you want to raise taxes, expand existing welfare programs, create new welfare programs, and last but not least, that your national security policies involve grabbing your ankles and making sure you don't offend anyone.
Then see how competitive you are.
22 - Joel
What this election proves is how unpopular the handling of the war in Iraq is. Bush is at his lowest approval ratings ever - most American don't trust that he's telling the truth regarding the runup to the war now. That's going to hinder any Republican candidate that gets too close to him and this war in the next election.
This particular election never should have been so close.
The Iraq war nightmare may finally be bad enough to start tipping some close elections to the Dems.
Additionally, every fiscal conservative out there is already mad at the neocons. If Carl Rove gets indicted things could get even worse for the Repubs. Plan on some backlash in the next election.
23 - billy
i hope there are more republicans like the ones blogging here. they are in denial. the reddest district in the country just turned swing. there are no safe republicans next year. hackett was a deaniac anti-war trash talker who never ran for an election before, there is a problem with the republican party going forward. i hope you remain in denial.
24 - gonzo marx
well Bob..i am an Indepndant myself..
amd i do have serious objections whenever someone such as yourself comes out and sez things like...
*Come on out of the closet and tell everyone you want to raise taxes, expand existing welfare programs, create new welfare programs, and last but not least, that your national security policies involve grabbing your ankles and making sure you don't offend anyone.*
you see, you are exxagerating, not to mention that your statement quoted is an outright blatant LIE.
there may be some who hold the beliefs and policies you are quoting...but, as is usual for the crypto fascist dittoheads, you will continuously paint ALL of yoru opposition with the same, tired, and factually incorrect spin and propaganda...
in conclusion, all there is to say to small minded big mouthed dittoheads such as this one is...
liar, liar, pants on fire!
nuff said?
Excelsior!
25 - billy
"national security policies involve grabbing your ankles and making sure you don't offend anyone"
oh, sort of like what bush does when he puts on makeup and holds hands with saudi dictators and strolls around his ranch with his crew of homos, ken mehlman, karl rove, . . .?