Paul Hackett Postmortem
I tend to stay away from election politics here because of the job, but noticed a few things about the Ohio election involving the Dem Iraq vet. Here’s my conclusions, same as some others I’ve seen:
- The guy’s campaign ad tried as hard as it could to look like it was endorsed by the President, and in support of the Iraq war. The reaction I had when I found out that Hackett really was contemptuous of the President and his wartime decisions in public was one that completely rejected the man for public office (I don’t vote in Ohio). If you feel deeply about something, say it and take your lumps; the truth will out, and not only will you not gather the love you wanted, but you will gain a group who think you’re a dissembling snake.
- Patrick Ruffini (who worked the presidential campaign for the Bush side) calls the running of Hackett a strategic blunder for the Dems, stating that they should have started using their vets in a swing state. Makes sense, but the Dems had a shot; one good last-minute scandal or something could have turned it. Ruffini also makes the point that Iraq vets will likely be a hot commodity in the political world in the next couple of years. We’ve got at least two milbloggers stating their intention to run when they complete their Guard service–so that should be interesting.
That said, veteran status doesn’t necessarily help in a election. It’s a bonus, and helps with allegiance to a electorate subset (unless your service was considered dishonorable), but isn’t decisive. (Cleland (triple amputee vet) is characterized by some Dems I’ve read as losing an election as a slam on his service, but what I see is that he was evaluated as a serving politician and voted out on that basis.)
Ruffini also says that WV’s Byrd is vulnerable in the linked post.
- Rush Limbaugh called the guy a “staff puke” since Hackett was a Civil Affairs guy. That’s sleazy. We military types like to beat on each other by nicknames like that, but there’s a different meaning to it when some civilian on the radio uses a term like that to denigrate someone who did a
crappydifficult (better word) job and got shot at. Rush got called on it by several milbloggers, and well he should have been. Hackett’s service was honorable, and those who aren’t super duper SF types also serve with honor.
Anyway, my $.02. This’ll pop up intermittently the next few years.
6 Responses to “Paul Hackett Postmortem”
Trackback URL for Paul Hackett Postmortem: http://gmapalumni.org/chapomatic/wp-trackback.php?p=1079
August 4th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
Popping out of cover here for a moment while still on the road….
I think the fact that Hackett lost by 3.5 points in a district that votes 3-1 GOP is HUGE. Charlie Cook says so, and so does Newt – one neutral observer and one who ain’t. Hackett called W an SOB and a chickenhawk and almost won in this very conservative territory with almost no help from the DNC. That bodes ill for the GOP in 2006 unless Iraq turns — at the moment one gets GOP votes and high Dem turnout calling W what he is.
I think you totally miss the call on Cleland. He lost because Chambliss drowned him with ads, painting him as a consort of OBL and AQ — I know – I live in the TV market. Cleland did what he thought was the right thing and lent considerable Democratic support of W for the Patriot Act and more importantly for Iraq — and then W took a big crap on a war hero and a supporter.
Scales fall from the electorate’s eyes and the pendulum swings….that’s as American as it gets.
August 4th, 2005 at 8:56 pm
Nice to see you enjoying the vacation!
I’d tend to agree more with you than I would Ruffini on the Ohio election–things change a lot in a day in politics.
I agree that the TV ads were harsh (I only saw a little)–but didn’t come to the same conclusion–figured he got caught up on his voting record; even the VFW endorsed Chambliss, and that’s a pretty tough endorsement to blame on “W questioned my patriotism”. But I’m open to new information.
August 5th, 2005 at 1:18 am
Chap, if I recall correctly, Maj. Hackett served all of 7 months in country. Frankly, we must accord Lt. John Kerry more credit for his 7 months in Nam. When you have a chance you may wish to ask yourself why the military services have today’s relatively high ratios of handomely paid staff lawyers to frontline troops. The answer will be because the US Senate (mostly lawyers) “justified it”. Is there more bad behavior by troops these days or, is it one more example of lawyers gaming the taxpayer? By the way, are you saying Hackett actually got “shot at” in Iraq? Any witnesses?
August 5th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Vigilis–
It’s not as if Hackett is excoriated by the majority of those who served with him at the time. Kerry’s a different kettle o’fish indeed.
If Hackett was in theater he was at risk. I’ll give Hackett the benefit of the doubt.
Also, a battle JAG is a wonderful thing. The one we had in the ESG was absolutely a godsend. War is an extension of Politik; we need those guys to deal with that stuff with an expert eye, and good ones are a huge force multiplier.
March 10th, 2007 at 2:58 am
[...] if we think he’s wrong we don’t ostracize him–we just don’t vote for him or call him on it. In the case of Iraq vet turned candidate Paul Hackett, there was another attack when Hackett got [...]
March 27th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Re: Hillary
The first thing I noticed in her front office when I visited once was this big old shadowbox of medals from somewhere or other. This ain’t new; she’s been pretty forward about the trappings of being close to her military…