Sunday, December 11, 2005

Hackett supporters wage GOP lite attack against Sherrod Brown




I'm disheartened to read of several shots across the bow at Sherrod Brown by those who claim to be Hackett supporters. This one, in particular.

His complaint? That "Brown is dissing Hackett" too much. Ripped right from a Rovian playbook, it is.

And here's the play:

First, have Hackett supporters go ballistic about Brown deciding to run, and have them pass innuendo off as truth (saying Brown "promised" Hackett he wasn't going to run, yet never providing any such factual basis for their claims).

Then, at Daily Kos and perhaps elsewhere, post faux questions designed to smear Brown ("I wonder why he doesn't want to post here?" ad nauseum). Question his integrity. Call him a flip-flopper.

Not only do these machinations ring false, they're also evidence of a failure of imagination. For God's sake, can't Hackett and Co. do better than invoking cheap GOP shots from the 2004 presidential campaign? When your candidate is a total unknown who considers himself a "Democratic Libertarian," maybe trying to beat a solid, true Democrat requires dance steps Astaire would envy.

In light of all the mud they've been slinging at Brown long before he announced his candidacy, their feigned surprise and worry that Brown would dare respond to Hackett's unwarranted attacks is decidedly Oscar worthy.

They conveniently forgot Hackett's (and their own) cheesy assaults on Brown?

Give me a break.

But the absolute BEST has to be their newest accusation, one I've leveled at Hackett and his supporters from the moment they started mudslinging: the other guy's running scared.

To accuse Brown of this is ludicrious. Facts don't support it.

It's Brown who has party backing in Ohio.

It's Brown who has the proven populist track record.

It's Brown who labors day and night to fight the GOP machine in Washington.

It's Brown whose positions on issues are without question both Democratic and populist, unlike Hackett -- who remains an unknown, unproven -- just a candidate.

It's Brown whose donations are frequently so abundant they're given to other Ohio Democrats to help their races.

I've always thought - perhaps in light of these latest stunts, erroneously - Ohioans were above such nonsense as Hackett and his supporters are currently displaying. We liked civility between candidates, keeping a race above-board and honest.

Perhaps we won't know how correct that assumption is until next November.


But I humbly submit to Hackett and his supporters that, as a lifelong Ohioan, my money's on it still being true.

By firing first, and continuing to spin half-truths into sustained false outrage, Hackett and his supporters are disrespecting Ohio voters, the process, and themselves far more than anything else.


Comments:
John, hope all is well with your" match" search.
Maybe you can find looking for "careers" or jobs at www.directmatch4free.com
Just make sure you come back to this site to let us know how you are doing!
 
Hey everyone! Cool site! The customer support seems good and the technology jobs are endless. Maybe I will have a better directmatch searching for human resources
since my keyword "customer care jobs" did not fit as intended.
Glad I found you! Keep on keepin on!
 
Personally I have no problem with Sherrod Brown going negative. It makes the race more interesting. I also see it as a sign of weakness. He's the front runner. He's got tons of cash. He's got the party locked up. He's got the endorsements locked up. Isn't the smart thing to do in that situation to just ignore your opponent? Why go there? Why draw the debate to Hackett's strong suit: Iraq? He's playing like Hackett is a serious threat. That's not a slam against Brown. It's just my opinion. I believe that Hackett is a serious threat. I also believe that attacking Hackett is a very risky move, and it helps Mike DeWine in the general if Hackett beats him. If I was Brown I would be playing up all the stuff he's doing as Congressman. He's a leader... so lead. He's not leading when he's slamming Hackett.

Brown is trying to have it both ways. In just about every interview he says both that he's going to focus on Mike DeWine AND includes a digs against Hackett based on David Sirota spin. In interviews he claims both that he doesn't even know Hackett and that his staff ran his field operations.

BTW, the claim that Brown told Hackett he wasn't running is based upon a private meeting between the two men. It's impossible to provide proof since they were the only people in the room. One of the two is lying. We do know that Brown said that he wasn't going to run. We also know that Brown scrubbed this announcement off of his web site.

Having said all that I'll end by saying that Sherrod Brown is a great Congressman and would make a great Senator. I just like Hackett more.
 
I'm kind of unclear on when and where Sherrod Brown has "gone negative" Where has he gone negative?
 
David:

That's just the thing. He really hasn't. What Brown has done is respond to Hackett's personal attacks by defending himself.

Note that the person who posted above you was being disingenuous even here, responding to my post. That, or he/she cannot read clearly, because the post did not say Brown was "going negative" but that Hackett supporters were alleging this against Brown.

It's been my experience over the past several months at Daily Kos that Hackett's supporters have been nothing but negative towards Brown, smearing him pejoratively with innuendos and half-truths. Much like the GOP.

In fact, Hackett made a statement at Kos that was demeaning to Democrats. I'm really starting to wonder between his smear rhetoric and slagging of Democrats who and what Hackett really is. If it walks like a Repub, and quacks like a Repub. . .
 
This is the line that I've seen Brown quoted with a lot: "My position on the war has been consistent. Over the last three months, from his congressional race to now, he's had three positions. I think he's decided the only way for him to win is to be the most antiwar candidate, but he's danced too much for that."

He's using Sirota's questionable oppo spin to attack Hackett. That's fine... it is what it is, but don't act like he's a saint.
 
Do you know him, personally? Do you know his record? It's kind of hard NOT TO act like he's a saint - given that, to those of us in his district - HE IS.

He's not had "three positions" either. This is another one of those innuendo attacks I find so distasteful.

Brown voted against the war. However, when it comes to financing the troops for a war that's already in progress, he wasn't going to withhold funding from them.

I would think that is something Hackett himself could appreciate.

Please don't use my blog to put forth anymore bs about Brown that you can't substantiate with viable news links.

You don't see me doing that at your blog. Thanks in advance.

Anne
 
Oh, I almost forgot - as far as Sirota goes, that's his own blog. His opinions then, one can safely assume, belong to Sirota, not Brown.

How you can attribute Sirota's words to Brown himself defies explanation, and is yet another example of GOP smear tactics.

In case you're wondering, let me also say I'm not part of the Brown campaign. Not that I wouldn't love to be, of course.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

SherrodBrown.com : He's On Our Side
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Image hosted by TinyPic.com