What a shame, but not a surprise. They used and exploited this poor man, then threw him out into the snow. An Iraq veteran and a Democrat? Who heeds ya?

Story 1

Story 2

[ February 14, 2006, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Nice to see good folks are fighting over the chance to replace the current crooks.

It's so much better when the RepubliScum party does the same thing, because when the RepubliScum do it they're merely avoiding a fight in the primary and saving their resources for the general election.

For someone who decries hypocrisy, you're so full of it.

Yep. They want to win Ohio and don't want to waste any resources there. It's actually good to see that the Dems are being practical, not usually one of their strong suits....

I'm a big Hackett supporter, so I think it's terrible he's been forced out. I got a note from him yesterday that made clear his total disappointment. (It ends with "Rock on." Love it!) Howard Dean has also decried the "skullduggery" in Washington that led to this.

Hackett also recently stood up to a GOP thug who was acting real tough and insulting him. Hackett asked him if he wanted to duke it out right there, and the Republican skulked off, because he knew he'd get his silly chickenhawk ass kicked. Hackett doesn't play. The Democrats aren't ready for him, unfortunately, but people of Ohio and Americans in general are. We need more like him, not these wannabe Republicans like Lieberman, who was actually sucking up after Emperor Katrina at his Valentine's Day Party! WTF???

Now, is MIB going to give us links to how the Republicans in Georgia are forcing out Christian fanatic Ralph Reed, because of all his ties to Jack Abra-Mafia? Or no, maybe he'll link to Republicans in Missouri getting very anxious about boy-Senator Jim Talent, who's flipflopping on (he was against before he was for, or maybe he's against it again?) stem cell research?

Boy the guy would have my vote for sure. I will be following this story to see where it goes. I agree, the party needs him. Him and Murtha.

HockeyTom, I think there're over 40 (maybe 50 now) Iraq War and other veterans running on Democratic tickets across the country. And there's even a former Reagan official, Jim Webb, vying for the Democratic Senate seat in Virginia. It's good to see that lots of veterans have had it with the current state of affairs. I just wish Hackett hadn't been forced out. I am sending a letter to Schumer today, and the next DNC fundraising circular I receive is going right back to them, with some not very lighthearted comments about how they're trying their damnedest to screw things up and keep us under the Republicans' boots.

Good to hear fan. You have my support on this situation. I have heard about the Vets returning home to run, and a good deal of the Democrats. "Hardball" did a brief story on it the other day.

So the dems get rid of their token vet and somehow fantom turns it to something the repubs have done.

It's OK guys, he loved his country too much to be allowed to run.

Dems should stick to who they know best, the guys with the white hoods from WV

PF explain how you got that please cause I don't see it. My take on this is that the dems are idiots, period. I have no-one to support in the next elections. What a bunch of disgraceful morons. They deserve to lose again, and I hate the repubs but am so much more disgusted by this activity from my own!

the Democratic Party did nothing to Hackett

they didn't make him withdraw from the race-he could have filed for the primary

leaders in both parties take sides in primaries every cycle and try and get candidates to withdraw so their candidates are stronger

I would have preferred for Hackett to be the nominee in Ohio and for Brown to withdraw but that's not the way it happened

Brown has a war chest of over $4M right now compared to what for Hackett?

I'm just saying Vetrans just don't fit in the dems party... typically they love their country. Fairly contrary to most dems... as seen here.

But as usual fantom merely tries to list the 10 things he thinks the repubs did that he thought were worse cause no dem could ever do anything wrong...

Just sayin.

[ February 15, 2006, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: PhillyFan ]

Thoesdaddy, don't they get it that they have been doing everything wrong yet? Its the stupidity that galls me. Take a chance you freakin' pussies you make me sick (not you td, the dem establishment) BTW, You do realize they will lose again right? I mean even I'm getting sick of the spinelessness of these morons.

Now, now, be nice to sportinlife.

Face it: when it comes down to it, both parties are exactly the same. The Democrats just advertise themselves as the party of inclusion and acceptance and tolerance, even though they're quite the opposite.

No, because I'm sure you can do that for me. At least that would be sensible, though, because of Reed's ties to Jack. Hackett didn't have ties to someone unethical. There IS a difference. A big difference.

Point of fact: the issue at hand isn't stem cell research; it's human cloning for the purposes of such. There IS a difference.

I'm quite aware of Talent's problems, which may cost him the election in a rather conservative, bellweather state. He's unnecessarily afraid of angering business lobbies over human cloning. Where his spine went is beyond me.

PF, shut up. If we didn't love our country we wouldn't be fighting against your thieving party so hard.

Really not the republicans fault that ya'all are still bitter than we broke the commies down... it's ok.

Must be tough to be on the wrong side of all the important issues facing the country.

What's a "Vetrans?"

Do they have English 101 at your local community college?

Cant spell Veteran but I bet he can spell chickenhawk.

Unfortunately MIB,PF and ginjy may be more on than we suspect

DNC drops gay outreach

it gets really old being gay here in our beloved country. I think I am going to change my party affiliation to one of the others, greens or independents or something and stop giving any money to any of them.

Well last time the Dems needed their trophy Vet (to look pro-war) that didnt work out in the election so they changed to pure anti-war... inserting Dean.

Kinda like changing products... oops that didnt work.... HEY let's do this. The uneducated vote for us, they will follow.

Funny, it hasnt been working at the ballot box for years now.

As education rises in our nation more people turn away from them (except fantom of course).

Just sayin.

Funny, I think there was another thread about falling educational standards in the US and rising illiteracy in the US, which seemed to tie in with the rise of the GOP.

Sure that was found on one of the blogs.

HuffPuffington i suppose.

Nope,it was in a report out of Washington done by the Pew Charitable trusts (I'm not familiar with them or there possible politics). The report said about 50 % of 4 year university graduates and 75% of 2 year college graduates, in the schools they looked at, were basically functionally illiterate and unable to understand complex yet normal day to day tasks.
It did seem comparable to a show on PBS Frontline about 10+ yrs ago that said about 40% of the adult population was functionally illiterate below the grade 6 level and then talked about how much it cost American business in terms of training and accidents caused by people not understanding the instructions on how to work equipment etc. They used the example of a textile or carpet mill in Georgia I think.

Swim, Pew is one of the most respected (and richest) private nonpartisan foundations in the United States. Li'l Philly just said that to bait you, as he does with most things, because he has no argument whatsoever. I'll take whatever Pew has to say over Li'l PhillylePeu's rantings anyday. Holla!

I hate it that Hackett got bumped from the Senate race, but I suppose it's understandable. I guess Brown has more political chits to cash in with his buds than a newbie would. I still hope Hackett runs again against that low class rep from Cincinnati, was her name Schmidt? What a Republican bitch!

Many military members are not as conservative as they once were. My brother is still active and is one of the more liberal people you could ever meet. I think there are a lot of ADs who are closet liberals. They also see how this administration tries to screw them on a regular basis, from lying to them about why they're risking their lives and simultaneously limiting their pay increase in this year's budget to the lowest amount in many years and slicing away at the VA when it is more necessary than ever as more wounded vets come home from Iraq. How low can you go?

I really hope the Vets that are running as Democrats do well and lead more of their military brothers and sisters away from a party that takes their votes, as well as their lives, for granted.

nice post Dinger
im a very liberal person and your right there's a lot more liberals in the military than people think

Do you really think running a veteran helps the Dems? John Kerry was a decorated vet running against two draft dodgers in '04, and what did it get the Dems? "Swiftboat Vets for Truth." ...I know Kerry was a lousy candidate but I still can't believe how effective those attacks on him were....The Dems need to stick with bonafide draft dodgers; Bill Clinton did pretty well against two war veterans, didn't he?

That will depend upon whether voters' attitudes toward obvious smear campaigns have changed. I think they may have. But regardless the Dems have no moral alternative than to assume that they have changed and play to peoples' better instincts. They showed little patience in Hackett's case by instead playing politics. Taking a risk with Hackett would eventually have paid off IMO. Taking risks for principles takes political will.

[quote]sportinlife:
[QUOTE] Taking risks for principles takes political will. [/quote]I hope you are right, Sport, because the Dems have tried this before (don't forget the Georgia Senate race in '02)and they just seem to get hammered every time. I just don't get why the smear tactics work, but maybe the times are changing....

He also did pretty well with Monica. The Dems have to get over the fantasy of another Bill Clinton.

Times change. A Bill Clinton might not be what either party wants to return to. Swing voters might be especially skeptical of a slick talker.

I admire much that he did but we need to move on.

FT, Speaking of missing links, here's one you might like, describing how a Black GOPer has a good chance to step into the Ohio Governor's Mansion. Looks like he might have some Black GOP neighbors, too. There goes the Demo-hood? Blackwell That Ends Well, or Is It A Groundswell?

Gobar, thanks for the nickname - I DO enjoy a good strong Beefeater's every now and then! :cool:

Check this thread out, gmg:

http://www.outsports.com/cgi-bin/ultimateb...c;f=18;t=003129

You know if Blackwell really does have the starpower in Ohio that these articles seem to imply, he should just dump the good ole boy network of the Republican party and run as an independent. Just think of the fear he could put into both the Dems and Republicans. He clearly admonishes the way his party has been running the state for the past decade, what better way to distance himself than to run against the past of both parties. I am sure he could win alot of black votes and the voters from both parties who are sick of the status quo. That is if he has the balls ... just sayin.

It's a paradox, because we need Bill more than ever but you're right, we need to move on...The sad truth is that there is NO ONE for the Dems...NO ONE...

[ February 19, 2006, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: buccoman ]

Blackwell's candidacy has not only charged up Democrats, but also is upsetting the badly wounded Republican Party in Ohio, which is plagued by multiple scandals, the central one revolving around coin dealer-con man Tom Noe (facing 50+ counts and 175 years in prison), who's also under investigation for laundering money for George W. Bush's campaign. Blackwell, in his official capacity, closely linked to disgraced gov. Bob Taft, and as the person in charge of voting there, also is intimately tied to this mess. So if I were you, I wouldn't pop the corks yet. He's also come out as rather strongly against gay marriage, and is no friend of the homosexuals, so that should--ought to?--to be another reason not to join his cheering section. I'd add finally that it'll be a miracle if he can get the majority of White or Black Ohioans to vote for him. Ohio is no Illinois, and he's nobody's Obama (or even Moseley-Braun or Brooke for that matter).

One other reason I really liked Hackett is that almost unlike most other Democrats running for the Senate in the last few years--and almost unlike any of the recently elected Senate Republicans, who were almost all uniformly and openly antigay--he was very blunt about NOT being anti-gay and about demanding equality for all citizens. This was so refreshing it was almost shocking. Now, Barbara Boxer is pro-gay, we expect that. Obama is pro-gay but does this silly dance about gay marriage. Ken Salazar isn't anti-gay, but does the gay marriage wiffle-waffle. Obama, he and other Democrats like them aren't going to vote FOR the DOMA--well, Ben Nelson probably will--but they are sort of scared of being openly against it, like Teddy K., Kerry (one of his big ups in my book), and a few others, like hardcore longtime liberals such as Sarbanes. But Hackette was unequivocal! No namby-pamby play-both-sides crap. Maybe the Demos thought that Brown, who is fairly liberal, might be able to do the usual dance, which may play better in Ohio. I mean, Casey is now getting GOP flack for meeting with the HRC and receiving support from gay groups in Philadelphia and other parts of Pennsylvania. HE's conservative enough; the GOP hacks need to get off his back because he's actually being fair towards his gay supporters!

[ February 20, 2006, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Oh, just to add, out of the whole Black Republican crowd, Blackwell has the best chance as of recently because:

1) Michael Steele's ridiculous comparison of stem cell research to the Holocaust, coupled with his lies about the oreos being "thrown" at him, have damaged his credibility. He's falling in the polls. He needs to win Black voters to defeat Ben Cardin, and having alienated many Jewish and moderate voters, he's got an uphill battle. Maryland is a moderate-to-liberal state (outside Cecil County) that has kept reelecting ultraliberals like Mikulski and Sarbanes.

2) Butler is not going to defeat Debbie Stabenow. Just ain't gonna happen. Look, if Kwame Kilpatrick can be reelected mayor of Detroit, that ought to tell you quite a bit about the largest chunk of the Black vote in Michigan (and to win, he obviously had to get Arab and White voters, since the Black vote in Detroit would have split--how did he win???), and no Black person is going to win a statewide office there without it. Michigan is not Massachusetts (Deval Patrick could be the first Black governor of the Bay State).

3) Swann still has an uphill fight against Rendell. If and when they debate, Rendell will eviscerate him. Swann really doesn't have a plan or vision, and though he will probably get votes for being a Republican and certainly for being a Steeler great, it's not enough to win the entire state of Pennyslvania, which has some very conservative, and, um, not very pro-Black pockets.

Now, saying all of this, I actually thought that of all these folks, Steele had the best chances in Maryland. Until he started sounding like a nutcase. As it is, there is a not a single Black Republican representing any House district or US state in the country. Given how Republican the US South is these days, and the large Black populations in every one of those states (especially Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, and Arkansas), I would really like to see a Black Republican who's not a total loon run from one of those states. I think we may see another Black Democratic Senator soon, but where are the moderate Black Republicans?

[ February 20, 2006, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Congressman Sanford Bishop of Georgia is a very moderate Democrat. He was originally elected in a majority black district, but was able to retain his seat even after it was returned to a majority white makeup. He has been able to effectively hold on to his black/Democratic base and attract enough moderate white support in his southwest Georgia district. However, I haven't ever heard his name mentioned for higher office. Cynthia McKinney and John Lewis couldn't win outside Atlanta. Andrew Young, who probably could win statewide in Georgia, is past 70 now and declined to run for Senate in the last cycle. The newest, fast rising political star in GA is Atlanta mayor Shirley Franklin, but she has repeatedly said she's not interested in anything else.

HotAtlantaTarheel, I definitely agree with you that there are some moderate Black Democrats who might win statewide office in the South--Harold Ford is actually running in Tennessee, and he's not even really moderate, but a truly conservative Democrat--but I was talking about Black Republicans.

Will the Republicans in the South get behind a Black Republican? Will Black voters there vote for him or her (though I think Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell could both get a large percentage of Black votes in the South)? Why haven't the Republicans found and pushed any viable Black candidates in the South? There is Vernon Robinson in North Carolina, who admitted that he adored Jesse Helms, which basically destroyed his chances among Black voters; White Republican voters just would not support him, even though he is probably as ultraconservative as Helms. Why wouldn't they?

In truth, the Republicans at the federal level have very few elected people of color. There's also not one person of color in their leadership. As an inclusive party, which Ken Mehlman bills it as, you'd think they'd be a bit better on this. Meanwhile, almost 1/3rd of the Democratic Senate caucus is female, one has been outed as gay, they have Asian Americans, two Latinos (of different ethnicities), and an African-American (and had a Native American member until he switched parties), as well as Jewish, Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterians, Methodists, Unitarians, a Mormon, and even a Wiccan (just kidding) members. Now that's inclusive. There aren't any Muslims in the Senate--but I think at least one of the Democrats in the House is a Muslim.

[ February 20, 2006, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Hackett was on "Hardball" this afternoon. While the "neutral" stance he got from the Dems. after their change of heart he also said the raising of $3 million dollars was also a big decision factor for not wanting to run. He said that he would only be able to raise that amount which would only answer the charges by the other side, and it would take lots more to put out his own message. He did accuse the other Dem, whose name I forget, Sherrod? I think, of putting out some "trash" on him. Namely rumours. Thats kind of disgusting. He doesn't need to act like a Repuglican in my opinion! Sounds like he is still leaving some options open though. I am still very, very impressed with Hackett, and the party needs him in my opinion.

deleted due to my failure to read prior posts

[ February 21, 2006, 05:38 AM: Message edited by: copman ]

Copman, we've discussed Ken Blackwell extensively in this thread. (Please review above.) My question concerned the Republican Party in the South.

SORRRRY! Sometimes I have to GO TO WORK and don't get to read all the posts LOL eek! It takes me all day just to read all the Brokeback Mountain pages! And I realized Ken Blackwell is Secretary of State NOT A.G. Carry on with the topic!

I actually think the Dems need to run someone who runs on principles not the polls. Like Al Gore SHOULD have done. Don't try be all things to all people- be true to yourself & your principles.

And yes, I do think that vets running helps the Dems. I am so tired of the Republicans being able to show the Democrats as soft on defense and generally unpatriotic because of their lack of military credentials. The fiasco in Iraq is fresh, the problems with this administration are real; the Democrats can take advantage of this vulnerability if they frame the issues correctly and who better to help take votes away from Republicans than good-looking war vets? They're strong, they're leaders by training, and they are normally in income brackets that don't really benefit from Republican policy. Military members are also very excellent at implementing social policy within their organizations - just look at the history of integrating the military - it was done much better than within the society at large. This bodes well for the many gay military members now and in the future.

While I may not always support the politicians who control the military, I always support the troops!

But Dinger, many major Democrats were in the military service. Both Gore and Kerry served in Vietnam. Tom Daschle is a veteran. Max Cleland is a triple amputee because of his military service, and was still defeated by a guy who claimed "knee" problems kept him out of the miliary. John Murtha is a veteran. Hell, even Teddy Kennedy is a veteran. What the GOP manages to do is to impugn the Democrats' miliitary service and to paint them as unpatriotic. This occurs even though MOST of the major Republicans, except for John McCain and Donald Rumsfeld, avoided military service, often through deferments or some other means. Rove, Cheney, Hastert, DeLay, Frist...none of them served. Not one.

[ February 21, 2006, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

You are so right. But Dems have not learned how to frame the issues or the candidates as well as the Republicans. We keep thinking the truth will be enough to get our candidates elected. It's not. It's framing the issues in a manner that can be consumed quickly by our ADD society. And I think that when the issues are framed properly by these candidates, we have more hope than ever. And as we saw in the most recent national election, people will vote their values over their own economic self-interest. Well, why should the issue be "tax relief" rather than "public investment"? When the Republicans say "tax relief", we immediately think that taxes are something we need relief from rather than realizing that our combined efforts to solve common problems make all of our lives better. How would we ever have gotten the interstate system, the Internet, or a myriad of other common good type projects if not for "public investment"?

And sorry I got off topic. I do believe that these military types make great candidates. Both men and women. I hope they aren't just "one issue" candidates but can use their past experience to bring about some good changes.

Nice crack on WV ...but you live in Philly so you should know all about crack!
:mad:

[ February 21, 2006, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Ou Sooner 1997 ]

Whoops, sorry... nope.. dont live in philly kid.

Also dont vote Klansman into office either.

Wait, he said he's "sorry".... All is forgiven to KKKByrd.

Still this thread is about kicking out war vets from the party, something the Dems are good at doing. Nothing like aiding the enemy and losing your spines.

I guess we could be repugs; just start a war, get a bunch of our people killed for oil, drive the country into a huge debt, and generally screw as many middle class people as we can (and not in a good way), etc....actually, I think I'll pass on being a repug.

A war for oil? GREAT, when is it going to be a buck a gallon again? You have to work on that talking point.