« Lost Republicans | Main | Tagging Out For Now »

What Ever Happened To The Left's Favorite Loser Paul Hackett?

Last year the "netroots" gang of lefty blogs jizzed all over each other in their praise of Paul Hackett, a maverick Iraq war veteran who ran in a special House election in a solidly conservative district. After tens of thousands of lines of blog love, significant fundraising, and a last minute infusion of Howard Dean's special brand of DNC love, Hackett still ended up losing to Republican "Mean Jean" Schmidt.

In case you thought that Hackett would join the list of other Kos-back netlosers (Ginny Schrader anyone?) and fade into obscurity, he's back for a second helping on a bigger stage. This time he's running against seasoned Democratic candidate Rep. Sherrod Brown for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in Ohio.

He's off to a rocky start...

The Akron Beacon Journal reports that Hackett has been equating religious Republicans with Osama bin Laden.

Hackett said in a Sunday column in The Columbus Dispatch: "The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of the other religious nuts around the world."

Hackett also said the practice of denying homosexuals equal rights is un-American. The newspaper asked Hackett if that meant the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted to ban gay marriage were un-American.

"If what they believe is that we're going to have a scale on judging which Americans have equal rights, yeah, that's un-American," Hackett said.

When challenged on his assertion Hackett said, "I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it."

Sherrod Brown might be the luckiest man in the world...


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What Ever Happened To The Left's Favorite Loser Paul Hackett?:

» A Face Made 4 Radio, A Voice Made 4 the Internet linked with There He Goes Again

Comments (22)

To use your horrible analog... (Below threshold)
jp2:

To use your horrible analogy last week equating abortion to slavery - a sizeable portion of Americans also wanted slavery. Does that make it right?

Nope.

And I'm sure you are all very happy with the way Jean Schmidt has done so far, especially with calling Murtha a coward. Where is the praise though?

Last year the "netroots"... (Below threshold)
JohnAnnArbor:

Last year the "netroots" gang of lefty blogs jizzed all over each other in their praise of Paul Hackett,

That's really a pretty crude sentence, especially to start a post.

jp2,
Anything actually relevant to say?

The praise for Murtha? Gee,... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

The praise for Murtha? Gee, jp2, I'll just provide a few quotes for you on Senator Murtha from Republicans from various sources:

Bush: "a fine man, a good man" who served with "honor and distinction," who "is a strong supporter of the United States military."

Rumsfeld: "a fine man, I know him personally"

Rep. Henry Hyde: "A-plus as a truly great American"

Rep. Curt Weldon: "..none of us should think of questioning his motives or desires for American troops."

Both Dems and Repubs fell over themselves in order to praise the man. How much more praise do you want, jp2?

Oh, by the way, Rep. Jean Schmidt violated of a House rule that another "member is not permitted to refer to another member by name, or to address him in the second person. The proper reference to another member is 'the gentleman (or gentlewoman) from ...,' naming the member's state." If you want to praise the man, you should be able to critique the man (or woman) as well. Even more importantly, Schmidt was relaying the words of Col. Bubp, so technically, she wasn't even formally addressing him. But the Col. was correct: "Cowards cut and run. Marines do not."

As for gay rights: Um, exactly what rights do gays not enjoy now according to Hackett? Voting? Covered. Protection under the law? Covered. Right to fair trail? Covered. Right to due process? Covered? Right to free speech? Covered. Right to freedom of assembly? Covered.

After that, pretty much everything else is a priviledge and not covered in the Constitution.

I agree about the "jizzed a... (Below threshold)
Smartguy:

I agree about the "jizzed all over each other" comment. This blog should be above comments that crude.

And while I'm at it, it's "ended up losing" and "other Kos-back netlosers". Al Gore is a "loser", whereas Bill Clinton's morals are "looser" than those of the average chimpanzee.

Knowing a little about sout... (Below threshold)

Knowing a little about southern Ohio, I wouldn't be surprised if Hackett's one of those buddies that Howard Dean was talking about enticing. You know, the ones with the shotgun in the rack and the Stars and Bars facing backwards.

Signed,

Living North of Canton.

If you recall, the initial ... (Below threshold)
Chris:

If you recall, the initial White House reaction was to say that Murtha "is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party." Then they found that didn't fly with the public, so they softened their tone.

And Jean Schmidt was reading comments from a Colonel Bubp, who in addition to being a Colonel is also a Republican politician who had campaigned for her while in uniform, a violation of the military code. And now the smear machine is attempting to bring into question Murtha's Purple Hearts. It seems particularly callous to criticize a soldier wounded in battle because he didn't bleed enough. In this case the charges are a rehash of those made by a long-ago political opponent, who is now too senile to comment on them.

This is in addition to Republican efforts (so far unsuccessful) to solicit military leaders to speak out against Murtha. They're saying the right things to the press, but they're still trying to smear him.

I understand that if Hacket... (Below threshold)
Lew Clark:

I understand that if Hackett loses this bid, he and a few of his Democrat buddies are moving to Iran where you don't have to have the most votes to get elected. Like it should be, ya know.

"Hackett still ended up loo... (Below threshold)
Nitpicker:

"Hackett still ended up loosing..."

So, what did Hackett release?

Repeat after me: "Loose lips lose ships, but loose ships don't lose lips."

Rep. Murtha is a very unimp... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Rep. Murtha is a very unimpressive person given what we have seen in his "analysis" of the state of our Armed Forces and the strategery of Iraq.

He had no words when confronted with today's fighters' accusations that he and his old and bloated ilk were screwing up Iraq.

Peter, After th... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Peter,

After that, pretty much everything else is a priviledge(sic) and not covered in the Constitution.

I'm pretty sure the equal protection clause is in there though. Amend. 14, Sec. 1. I'm sure you're familiar with it since you mentioned it in your list of rights:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Hey, privileges! Right there in the Constitution!

Unfortunately, mantis, gay ... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

Unfortunately, mantis, gay marriage has been protrayed as a "right" by its proponents. They are quick to point out that they are being denied their civil "rights" not their civil "privileges." Show me where marriage is listed in our Constitution as a "right," and I will agree that the 14th amendment applies to the gay marriage argument.

I think the Democrats have hit upon a new strategy. They have taken the Howard Dean lesson and expanded it. You take a candidate who might or might not be able to stand on his own feet. You then add another candidate into the mix who is a stark-raving lunatic. He provides a contrast making the "normal" candidate look palatable to the voters. The accidentally did that with Kerry and Dean and did fairly well.

Where's hackett? Back unde... (Below threshold)
moseby:

Where's hackett? Back under the rock he came from.

Unfortunately, mantis, g... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Unfortunately, mantis, gay marriage has been protrayed as a "right" by its proponents. They are quick to point out that they are being denied their civil "rights" not their civil "privileges."

Well, I don't answer for what other people might or might not say, but my guess is they feel that the 14th amendment provides them with the right to equal protection under the law. The civil right, in this case, is to not be denied the civil privileges everyone else gets.

Show me where marriage is listed in our Constitution as a "right," and I will agree that the 14th amendment applies to the gay marriage argument.

Marriage isn't in the Constitution at all. However, that didn't stop the Supreme Court from ruling that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. From that decision (Loving v. Virginia):

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

Paul Hackett, what a wuss. ... (Below threshold)
MyPetGloat:

Paul Hackett, what a wuss. Just like these guys:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171183,00.html

Typical low-tooth-per-capita conservative rhetoric.

Love the war, hate the warrior...

hackett a wuss? Maybe--no ... (Below threshold)
moseby:

hackett a wuss? Maybe--no proof though. Probably queer the way he defends pillow biters. As for the 6 'warriors' running for political office--who really cares?

mantis:Sorry that ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

mantis:

Sorry that I didn't cover that most important Amendment, I was simply ripping them off the top of my head as they came to me.

However, I would counter with this: What "law", according to Amend. 14, is being violated by not recognizing gay marriage? And yes, I do realize the case you cited (Loving v. Virginia) makes an important ruling, alothough I would quibble with the court saying one has a "right" to be married. Being loved and getting married is a priviledge, an honor, but it is not a "right".

As I'm reading the case, the state of Virginia issued an indictment against the Lovings, with the state saying they had violated Virginia's interracial marriage ban. At the time, there were also 16 other states than banned interracial marriage. Now "bans" are one thing, not "recognizing" gay marriages is another. There are no laws or bans (to my knowledge) that say gays can't marry, just that the state won't recognize them. And there are certain arguments and legal situations (hospital visitation priviledges, wills and so on, that I think should apply to any co-habiting couple) and that I very much believe need to be ruled upon.

Honestly, I have had many gay friends throughout my years growing up San Francisco and Seattle, and I can't tell you how derisively they've spoken of heterosexual marriage and how they mocked that flawed "institution" in those years. Anyone can change his or her mind over the years, and that's great and I'm all for it. But, from my perspective, the whole issue comes off as a tad hyprocritical and a social power grab. Believe me, I've called more than a few of my friends out on the matter and have either been met with a faint and muted response or, in one instance, a humble apology.

And there are certain ar... (Below threshold)
mantis:

And there are certain arguments and legal situations (hospital visitation priviledges, wills and so on, that I think should apply to any co-habiting couple) and that I very much believe need to be ruled upon.

Well this is the issue for me, anyway. I don't really care about semantic arguments about what marriage is. The fact is that under our laws married couples are entitled to certain privileges, such as those you mentioned and others, and to deny those privileges to gay couples is unconstitutional in my understanding. They can call it whatever they want: marriage, civil unions, rainbow partnerships, whatever. As long as things are equal in the eyes of the law I would have no problems concerning names.

I would agree that it would be hypocritical for gays to one minute deride marriage as an institution and the next minute insist their right to it (though none of my gay friends in San Francisco--I grew up there too--have done that to my recollection). I would also say that since many of the people opposed to gay marriage and the bills and referendums being introduced insist on not only denying marriage to gays, but also outlawing legal recognition of civil unions or any agreement which endows the legal privileges of marriage to gay couples, that those people are not really motivated out of a desire to maintain tradition, but rather out of their prejudice against gays. But that's all culture war crap, and I'm only interested in equal protection under the law.

Btw the privilege I'm talking about is not marriage per se, but rather the privileges the state gives to married couples.

mantis:The fact... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

mantis:

The fact is that under our laws married couples are entitled to certain privileges, such as those you mentioned and others, and to deny those privileges to gay couples is unconstitutional in my understanding. They can call it whatever they want: marriage, civil unions, rainbow partnerships, whatever. As long as things are equal in the eyes of the law I would have no problems concerning names.

I couldn't agree with you more! I also agree that any bills or referendums introduced to outlaw gay marriage are nothing but acts of ignornace and predjudice against gays. I say give them same legal protections as hetero couples but drop the whole marriage as "right" talk; a compromise along the lines "yes, you'll enjoy the same legal protections, but let's not call it a marriage" would be more acceptable. Rather semantical, for sure, but one that might make both sides happy. Maybe. (And maybe I'm grasping at straws...who knows...)

Really? You never got razzed by them? Wow! Well, I guess I hung out with a more outspoken/militant group of gay friends. (All in good humor, of course.) lol.

Actually, they (gays) have ... (Below threshold)

Actually, they (gays) have the same privledge of marriage that straights have. The right to marry ONE person (at a time) of the opposite sex. What they want is seperate privledge.

SCSIwuzzy, I'm so ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

SCSIwuzzy,

I'm so sick of this tired old argument. Gays who marry do not have the same privileges that straight people who marry do, such as the ability to make emergency medical decisions for their partner if he/she can't, to visit them in the hospital, to leave them their estate in a will, life insurance benefits, bereavement or sick leave, and a whole host of others. They want those privileges which are afforded to everyone else who chooses to marry.

Gays can get married all they want, it's the legal recognition they can't have. Yet.

Re: Loving v. Virginia... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Re: Loving v. Virginia

The U.S. Supreme Court said this:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

This was right after the senctence describing that freedom to marry as a "liberty interest" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

As far as the argument that "gays are free to marry one person of the opposite sex..." (just not each other) this argument falls pretty flat in the face of Loving v. Virginia, in which it could have been argued that the plaintiffs were free to marry one person of the same race... just not each other.

The main difference in the two cases is this. Race is a protected class under the 14th Amendment. Sexual orientation, has not been so recognized. When gay activists speak of "equal rights" they are asking for homosexuality to be considered a protected class on the same basis as race. Frankly, it seems unlikely that homosexuality would be raised to the same level as race because even gender itself is only partially protected under 14th Amendment jurisprudence.


It's always funny to see th... (Below threshold)
farkubush:

It's always funny to see these comments from little turds who have never served the country that they hate. That's right, America was founded on LIBERTY and the concept of freedom and enlightenment.
My favorite quote,

"There are two visions of America. One precedes our founding fathers and finds its roots in the harshness of our puritan past. It is very suspicious of freedom, uncomfortable with diversity, hostile to science, unfriendly to reason, contemptuous of personal autonomy. It sees America as a religious nation. It views patriotism as allegiance to God. It secretly adores coercion and conformity. Despite our constitution, despite the legacy of the Enlightenment, it appeals to millions of Americans and threatens our freedom.

The other vision finds its roots in the spirit of our founding revolution and in the leaders of this nation who embraced the age of reason. It loves freedom, encourages diversity, embraces science and affirms the dignity and rights of every individual. It sees America as a moral nation, neither completely religious nor completely secular. It defines patriotism as love of country and of the people who make it strong. It defends all citizens against unjust coercion and irrational conformity.

This second vision is our vision. It is the vision of a free society. We must be bold enough to proclaim it and strong enough to defend it against all its enemies."

And of course
"If what they believe is that we're going to have a scale on judging which Americans have equal rights, yeah, that's un-American,"




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy