Ohio Dem in the Bay Area
Regular Ruth Grouper Dolores Heeb had the chance to meet Paul Hackett the other day. Here is her postcard.
* * *
Paul Hackett was at a fund raiser at the Hochschild’s in the city last night. He is a 43-yr-old Marine officer, Iraq vet and personal injury attorney. He is married and has 3 children.
He would be running for senate in OH against Senator Mike DeWine if he bests Sherrod Brown in the Democratic Primary. He narrowly lost to Jean Schmidt in a November race for the House in very solid Republican terrrority. In fact, he said his numbers were better than Bush’s against Kerry’s.
I liked the guy, He is a straight arrow.
I see 2 major problems with him. One, he is very outspoken. This is very good, in that someone must say the emperor has no clothes and he manages to say it in a pretty neutral tone. However, I’m not sure if he has the subtle political ear to ride that razor edge of not blowing it by his outspokenness.
The second problem is his lack of policy knowledge. I think he’s been in a pretty steep learning curve the last 9 or 10 months, and he is very bright and will probably pick up stuff quickly. But it is difficult to know where he stands on certain things or how he would carry policies out.
His response to Arlie Hochschild’s insistent query as an unemployed Ohioan seeking relief for her plight was woefully inadequate, in that he continually responded that he would say he was for limited govt that would keep out of people’s lives because that’s what is important to Appalachians.
And yes, he supports social security and other democratic policies, but that was not where he put his emphasis.
I know Sherrod Brown (his opponent in the 5/2 primary) is a good guy, so the good news is that we’ve got 2 good dems running, but I have a feeling that Hackett might have the capacity to really connect across a broad spectrum and would really stand up in the Senate in the way we desparately need.
He thinks quickly on his feet and his repartee is both funny and self-deprecating. He talked of joining the military out of love of country and desire for service and that his running is simply an extension of that. I believed him, and I think it is what would win him the election.
Dolores Heeb
* * *
Here are short takes from all three of the Senatorial candidates to the State of the Union on Tuesday night.
“For the first time in five years, the president has included health care as a central issue in his State of the Union address. And it’s about time. Since 2000, average premiums have increased by 73 percent, while nearly 50 million Americans do not have health insurance. And once again, the president fails to understand what Ohio families need.” - Rep. Sherrod Brown, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate
—
“A former oil executive telling us we are addicted to oil is like a tobacco company executive complaining that their employees take too many smoke breaks. Exxon made almost $11 billion last quarter, while Americans are paying surging prices to fill their gas tanks and heat their homes.” - Paul Hackett, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate
—
“I am very pleased that the president spoke in detail about our nation’s need for energy independence. This country must make a dramatic shift toward the use of alternative sources of energy. We can no longer rely on OPEC. The world is moving forward, and eventually we will have to switch to new fuels and other sources of energy, like fuel cells, clean coal technologies, wind and solar power.” - Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, who is running for re-election.
Hackett defends evangelist, terror leader comparison [Photo included] And here, a post by a Kossak about the melee provoked by Hackett’s comments. When the GOP leadership complained, Hackett fired right back.
Hackett gets praise for directness, but how well does he know issues?
Hughes for America blog likes him after an appearance on the Bill Press show back in August.
5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Comment Guidlines: This space is for commenting on the post above, the ideas, the context,the author. Your ideas, strong but civil, are appreciated. Long cuts and pastes from elsewhere are not. This is NOT the place to create your own private BLOG. Links to other articles are fine, if appropriate. Line and paragraph breaks are automatic; e-mail address are never displayed.
HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
February 1st, 2006 @ 10:54 pm
I too attended the Hackett event at the Hochschilds’ and came away impressed. I agree with much of Dolores says. Here is a gutsy, straightforward, Iraq War veteran marine talking about both old-fashioned Democratic lunchpail issues like employment, healthcare and love of country while bluntly endorsing gay unions and a woman’s right to choose. He is also a defender of the right to bear arms and points out that Democrats needlessly founder on universal opposition to gun ownership, even in districts where the owners are mostly union-member, lifelong hunters who might otherwise embrace the Democratic platform but for whom gun-ownership is a fundamental constitutional right.
I agree that Hackett needs to educate himself on a broad spectrum of issues and think he also needs to be more nuanced and sophicticated about those he embraces and more polished in his understanding of what Americans, for better or worse, have come to expect from candidates for elective office. For instance, he had no answer to the question of whom he most admires in public life (granted they are mostly not very admirable, but it’s a legitimate question and one he needs to be prepared to answer with alacrity and conviction).
Still, in the wake of quivering poll-takers like Al Gore, sniveling dilettantes like John Kerry, empty windbags like Joe Biden, charlatans like Joe Lieberman and Al Sharpton, and policy promiscuity princesses like Hillary Clinton, it’s heartening to see a Democrat emerge who thinks for himself and says what he thinks and is right about most of what really matters.
February 2nd, 2006 @ 5:10 am
I met Hackett at the LA fundraiser the day before and got a different perspective. I was expecting bravado and testosterone but instead I got thoughtfulness, humbleness, and introspection. I was actually shocked. I saw Hackett as a simple guy who a year ago was fighting in Fallujah and nobody knew who he was and didn’t care. Fast forward a year and we have a guy who is running for the Senate because he loves his kids so much that he wants change and he was taught service to one’s country.
I got the sense that Hackett knows he has those two faults as described above. The first, I get the sense he is going to temper his words in the future without losing “the punch”. The reason I say this is that the Joe Klein article seemed to really bother him and the fact that he did not spew anti-GOP venom in front of this liberal audience. Instead he talked about how he is going to reach out to indies and repubs too. The second, Hackett said he doesn’t have all the answers and he is learning daily.
I prefer Hackett because eventhough he doesn’t know it all, he is willing to fight for what is right when others who have far more knowledge cower in the background.
February 2nd, 2006 @ 8:37 am
I came away from the SF event for Hackett with feelings that were a bit more mixed. He does connect with people, no doubt about that, and I had a very positive initial response to his outspoken and really quite infectious approach. But there were a few too many questions he wouldn’t or couldn’t answer. Whether this would keep me from voting for him, I’m just not sure.
In the primary, Hackett is running against a Congressman with fairly strong progressive credentials, who is really no wimp himself, Sherrod Brown. When I asked him to define himself vis-a-vis Brown, he said that he could win and Brown couldn’t. Well, perhaps he’s right–I can’t judge–but any candidate would say that. The point is he didn’t identify any substantive issues that divide them and whether there are some–health care, trade, Iraq?–we didn’t find out. For an article on Brown, see http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2406/. (That’s not saying Brown would get my vote, just that we should know more about who he is.)
The most telling lapse was when Arlie Hochschild, who is no political slouch, kept challenging his they’ll-vote-for-me-because-I’ll-keep-govenment-off-their-backs mantra. Sure, Bush-style government is an incredible intrusion into our private lives, but Arlie was saying be careful with the small-govenment sloganeering or you will actually play into the hands of the right and end up neglecting all the vital functions that govenment has performed in our history and needs to resume. Arlie kept pushing and he kept repeating and there was a standoff that was frustrating to her and others.
So the question I came away with was: does he know what he doesn’t know? I wanted to like him, and did, but I wasn’t sure. If I lived in Ohio I’d carefully assess both candidates and then make up my mind.
February 2nd, 2006 @ 9:30 am
Thanks, everybody for the thoughtful assessments of Hackett.
One thing that Marty said bothered me - he put Al Sharpton in the same class as Joe Lieberman, calling them both “charlatans”.
Lieberman could, and should, be called much worse, but frankly, I kinda like Al. Anybody that can come up with a statement like “One good thing about Bush, he puts an end to the myth of white supremacy” is surely much more than a charlatan.
February 2nd, 2006 @ 9:36 am
PS Looking at the short takes of the three Ohio candidates on the State of the Union, Hackett’s is by far the best - most direct, colorful and memorable. Both Brown and the Republican asshole give Bush way too much credit for his empty words. Hackett points out the emptiness of the words very effectively.