LISTEN: Franken is discussing the race. Craig Crawford just said the most hideous crap about Hackett on MSNBC: Hackett lost because he called Bush a “chickenhawk’ and that that cost him just enough votes to lose the election. “His language got out of hand,” said Crawford.
We need FIFTEEN seats in ’06.
Craig Crawford — what an asshole — just said that Hackett lost because he called Bush a “chickenhawk’ and that that cost him just enough votes to lose the election.
“His language got out of hand.”
On MSNBC.
all the votes that Paul got by calling Bush that name. Those people in that final county would have voted for that woman if she were Ava Braun. “ChickenHawk” got the word out that there was a guy who did not fear Bush and business as usual in DC. A guy who would fight for them…no matter what. I think he gained more votes by calling them as he see’s them.
http://www.airamericaradio.com
Thank you 🙂 Blush 🙂
I agree that Crawford is wrong in his view that the use of the word “chickenhawk” cost him the win. Certainly it’s likely that Hackett got far more votes by using the term than he lost.
But, I agree with a broader point implied by Crawford’s perspective. It’s that, when considering the mindset of one’s opponents, it’s vitally important to pay particular attention to the importance of language and how easily it can either enhance or undermine one’s image.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly not advocating the sort of equivocation and substanceless, cowardly and hollow rhetoric typical of DLC hacks. No. what I’m getting at is simpler. It involves, (in the case of Paul Hackett and his challenge against Schmidt), an accurate appraisal of the mindset of one’s opponents’ supporters. Schmidt supporters, for instance, have to be in a pretty deep state of denial in order to actually cast a vote for her over one for Hackett. But when people’s ability to maintain their denial, their illusions, are challenged, things like blunt truth become the enemy to their psyches. And, as such, quite often such simple truths like what Hackett declared actually wind up being provocations that have the reverse effect, actually causing the opponents supporters to unify, to rally round the perceived attack and intensify support for their own candidate, rather than attracting them to one’s own candidate.
I fully agree that Hackett’s blunt and truthful language was entirely right and appropriate for this election. What he said needed to be said, and it has sent a signal that there’s a lot of support for his views out here in the public arena. But, as Democrats and/or Independents, if we’re going to successfully displace these Repub extremists in congress and the White House, we’re going to have to do a much better job of forcefully articulating our beliefs in ways that can’t be dismissed as insolence or simple partisanship. And we have a very long way to go along that track.
I disagree with you and i don’t ever recall disagreeing with you before. I do think we have to be clear and many may disagree but I don’t think not calling a spade a spade is wrong. Paul spoke the truth. Look we are not winning elections by being the politically correct soft spoken easy going group. It’s not working. How many times have we said here or asked here when are the dems going to grow and spine and call these criminals what they realy are…lying, cheating, manipulating. greddy pukes. Now, when we get a candidate that does that, he gets told shhhhhhhh…be nice now, you shouldn’t ell the truth it will cost you the election. I say Bullsh*t brothers and sisters. STOP trying to be republican light and be who we really are. Paul came closer to winning that seat than anyone has in decades. NOW, can we start telling the American public the truth? You betcha babe.
Alohaleezy,
I don’t think we disagree; I do think there’s a misunderstanding.
In no way do I suggest that we should not be speaking the truth, or that we should be careful to not speak truth for fear of alienating others. What I’m saying is that it’s important to find ways to speak the truth that are effective, and to be able to do so without betraying our own principles.
Paul Hackett is a stand up guy and he did a stand up thing, calling the Pentagon and White house and Media cowards what they are, “chicken hawks”. He spoke a serious, deep and unequivocal truth, and he’s to be commended.
But here’s my difficulty. I’ve had quite a lot of experience dealing with unpleasant situations related to cult-style thought reform programs, coercive propagandizing, con-game schemes, and the deleterious effects of aggressive, power-centric religious and political proselytizing. With all this in mind, there is one thing that virtually all the experts in these fields acknowledge, and that is that truth and reason alone are almost never able to counteract the effects of a really effective coercive propaganda campaign. There are several reasons for this, but for the sake of brevity, the fundamental reason for truth’s failure to prevail against an organized campaign of lies is that propaganda campaigns operate primarily on an emotional level, not a rational one. Clever propagandists are quite adept at careful use of language both to ingratiate themselves with those they want to control and to demonize the opposition. So, for instance, a skilled campaign operative will know that if a constituency is primarily made up of older people, or of particularly religious people, or of not particularly “worldly” people, that those people are more likely to perceive strong, blunt accusatory rhetoric aimed at an authority figure as disrespectful, mean-spirited, or outright shameful, and they will form an unfavorable view of whoever uses that language. The kicker is, whether what a person says in this instance is true and accurate or not has absolutely nothing to do with how these people judge the person who says such things. How they feel about a candidate shapes what they think about him, not the other way around. They make their decisions, and their votes, based more on sentiment than on reason.
This is the essence of my point. I’m not a language prude in any way. I don’t believe there’s any such thing as a bad word. But, if I’m wanting to establish an effective rappor with a bunch of generally older, non-adventurous, somewhat incurious and staid republicans who have been accustomed to voting the same way out of habit for the last 30 years, odds are I won’t be describing things as “fucked up”, for instance, because I’ll be cognizant of the emotional effect such a term would be likely to have on them. I’ll try to find other words to convey the message.
There’s been lots and lots of talk since last November’s tragic election about what the Dems need to do to be able to communicate well with people in all those different (supposedly) Repub dominated groups, (Nascar Dads, evangelicals, oldies, etc.). What I’m saying is simply that any message we might create needs to be developed within a strategic framework that recognizes that emotion is the determinant factor in how people make up their minds far more often than reason and truth is.
I happen to think that Paul Hackett made the best possible strategic decision to speak his mind the way he did. He did, after all, gather many thousands of Repub votes, he just didn’t get enough to win. There were simply too many knee-jerk Repub “true believers”, people no Democrat could ever rally to his side, and I think that had he used more moderate language in such a short campaign he would probably have gotten fewer votes than he did.
I always enjoy your comments too alohaleezy, and I don’t recall disagreeing with you either. I lived in Hawaii for a long time and I like your UID. Do you live in the Aloha state? Is that terrible harpie Linda Lingle still the governor?
I accept your very valid points and you laid them out perfectly. I may be an idealist to some degree these days. I just want our country back in the worst way. Your point about the emotional versus the rational applies to us all, especially me. I try to stay focused and on point but man it is hard these days. My repub sister and I can’t even talk about politics anymore because we both get so emotional…lol. I agree that wording is important. I also believe tone and body language are of great importance. We need to work on these things as we proceed to the next elections. Thanks for the great input.
I no longer live there but enjoyed eight fabulous years on Kauai. I have used alohaleezy for years. Lingle is another turdblossom!
I’m very happy our respective perspectives are in sync.
some of the most beautiful places I’ve ever been are on Kauai.
Aloha!
Kauai has come up three times today. My heart will always have a special place for Kauai. I hope to go for a visit in the spring. Aloha!
I think, as a matter of practical politics, that you have to be a) willing to speak the plain truth, and b) willing to lose elections until the people catch on. And they do catch on, soon or later, most of the time.
Why does Bush’s popularity keep falling without creating a corresponding increase in the popularity of Democrats? Because people remember how the Dems lined up behind Bush in the lead-up to the war. Who would seriously believe that Democrats are an alternative to Bush? They placed their own electability ahead of the lives of an awful lot of American soldiers. That’s disgraceful, and the poor fortunes of congressional Democrats are well-deserved.
No one will accuse Hackett of being a spineless, poll-chasing suckup like John Kerry. Kerry may think he will be back to fight another day, but everyone else knows that’s just wishful thinking. Hackett, on the other hand, can most definitely come back for another round, and I hope he will.
Winston Churchill spent a lot of time in the political wilderness telling it like it was before world affairs and the British public caught up to him. Lincoln was a small-time politician on the losing end of more than a few political trends before he became president.
While I hope we do well in the 2006 elections, progressives can’t win on a large, society-changing scale right now. The political climate won’t allow it yet. The vast American middle is still half-asleep. But we can lose the future by playing games aimed at short-term gains. When the pendulum swings back the other way — and it will, as it always does — it will not be to our benefit as liberals and progressives if we do not now, while we are in the wilderness, establish ourselves as honest and courageous people who tell the truth even when it is unpopular.
The Republicans have spent 35+ years and $ Billions to consolidate the power they have. Like the huge machine they are, they were able to just sprout out a small firehose for OH-02, but they’re already looking much further out than this. The Democratic Party has to stop looking at each individual election and candidate as the end-all, be-all — huge buildup in emotion and contacts, then total dismantling. We can build on this — there’s another election in this very same district, along with every other House district, in a very short time. The Republicans may have their underwear tightened a bit, but even if Schmidt had lost, they would have left some resources to demand recounts, mop up mess, etc. — but the rest of the machine would have just kept looking to ’06, ’08, etc.
Paul Hackett is an honorable man, and much of the Democratic party can learn from him and this campaign. Some have felt it was a lot of $ thrown into a losing proposition, but I disagree. Hopefully the blogroots showed some power in both money and boots on the ground, Hackett offered credible discussions of the Iraq war which is so sorely needed by Democratic candidates.
And, as you said so well — we need to keep saying the right things, consistently, so when people are looking for an alternative they don’t find the DLC and decide there is no choice. This election showed a choice, and Hackett almost pulled it off.
Why does Bush’s popularity keep falling without creating a corresponding increase in the popularity of Democrats? Because people remember how the Dems lined up behind Bush in the lead-up to the war. Who would seriously believe that Democrats are an alternative to Bush? They placed their own electability ahead of the lives of an awful lot of American soldiers. That’s disgraceful, and the poor fortunes of congressional Democrats are well-deserved.
Yep! What’s the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The total imperviousness to reality that exists inside the beltway is astonishing. They’re still doing it! They’re still racing for the mushy middle, oblivious to the outrage and frustration in the electorate. Craig Crawford is not a stupid man, but he’s clearly living in the same self-reinforcing bubble of unreality that houses Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. It flies in the face of logic to deduce from this loss, and I’m sure many Dems will, that Hackett was just too brash and brazen. He lost because he was a Democrat running in a Republican district. Last week he was 17 points behind. He was tilting at a windmill, and he almost killed a giant.
I think if there’s a lesson here, it’s that brazen truth-telling has a place in politics. Hackett was amazingly successful. He was a total long-shot: a Democrat running in a staunchly Republican district, who lost by a very small margin, compared to the last Democrat who ran there. Clearly, his message resonated with some very unlikely voters. Bluntness and crudeness, far more offensive than anything Hackett said, has been working for Republicans for quite sometime now, anyway. I think one of the major problems facing Democrats is that they’re too nuanced. It’s easy to interpret that as being mealy-mouthed and not standing for anything.
I wonder if the phonebanking organized on dKos yesterday might not have had something to do with it.
I doubt Hackett lost 3500 votes because folks got upset about outsiders trying to hijack their election, but it’s entirely possible it cost him more votes than it gained him.
In terms of his rhetoric, it’s hard to argue with his numbers. He increased the Democratic vote in OH-02 by nearly 25 points (didn’t the last Dem in that district win about 24% of the vote?), and he sure didn’t do that by keeping his mouth shut.
If anyone in the US has the moral authority to call Bush a chickenhawk, who better than an actual combat veteran from Fallujah? Absolutely no-one.
I think you’ve made a really great point.
We saw that play out with Dean in Iowa … all the orange hats from out of state HURT Dean. (Yes, there were lots of other factors, like the assasssins that Kerry and Gephardt employed … but …)
And, even here in Wash. state, I noticed it when, the night before our caucus, my daughter and I went to Seattle and helped with the phone bank to get out the vote….
every single person we talked to sighed, and said that ours was about the 4th or 5th call they’d gotten from Dean people. They were SICK of it.
Know exactly what they mean Susan because I received three calls on Sunday from people doing work for the mayoral race in San Diego and I can’t even vote in it as I am in Del Mar, not the city limits as some folks are just a couple of blocks away. Phone banks need to make sure that they don’t give the same list to different people. All that is organizers though or groups like the dkos folks outside of the campaign.
Something happens in the hurly burly, frenetic last days of a campaign … we were just tossed lists of people to call … there were no indications (current ones anyway) that told us if these people had been called/talked to.
It needs to be tracked on a computer. It’d be almost better to miss someone than to call them too many times.
‘sides, I don’t like phone calls myself. I hung up on a guy from Democracy For America yesterday! I DID! I knew why he was calling … for money. Fuck it.
What about all the young voters who have unlisted cell phones? Those stats will be higher every year and by 2006, 2008 they will be very significant.
I am also on every dems list to contact for donations and I have told each one that asks that I will be happy to contribute when they start doing what they are paid for…speaking for us not the corporate bastards they take money from.
One of my biggest frustrations with the Nov elections was the disorganization I saw in my local county party. (Don’t get me started . . . )
However, Mark Strama managed to win a seat in our state lege in a very close, completely against the odds race, mainly because of his awesome organization. He detailed how he did it at the blogger’s caucus at DemFest. lookinforward was talking about it with Jerome from MyDD (who was at DemFest, but not at the caucus) an at Jerome’s request, lookinforward posted a transcript of Mark’s talk at MyDD. You can read it here.
I just reread it – I hope you will too – I was impressed all over again. This is exactly what more candidates and their campaign workers need to be working on. I hope we can spread around ideas like these in time for them to have an impact in ’06.
are some legal issues that lead to the multiple contacts. Specifically, I phone-banked for Kerry on behalf of MoveOnPac.org last fall to Colorado, and I believe that as a 527 they were PREVENTED from coordinating with the candidate or any other organization.
I’m sure there are others more educated in this than I.
As a side note, I do know that at least on the phone most people didn’t care or didn’t notice that I was calling from out of state (calling from CA to CO). Most were less than thrilled by Kerry and wanted to talk about now-Senator Salazar, but I didn’t mind straying from the script and just talking progressive politics with mostly younger folks (I think the precinct I was assigned was near Univ. of Co.). That might not apply to independent Iowans upset by out-of-state orange hats, etc. As to this election, the rural voters voted for Hackett, so it wasn’t them turned off by out-of-state phone banking by anyone. I look forward to more in depth analysis by people who know this stuff better than I, but it seems Schmidt’s victory (assuming no shenanigans) came from the rich suburbs.
What this basically comes down to is that we need better organization. We need to talk to each person once or twice near the election and then stop bothering them unless they ask for, say, a ride to the polls.
Howie Martin sent this along …
After a hard-fought race, Democrat and former Marine Paul Hackett came within a handful of votes or winning in one of the most Republican areas of the country. This was a win for Democrats everywhere, and Paul Hackett has made Democrats nationwide proud. Paul was a phenomenal candidate – one that put his life on the line in Iraq and was ready to serve again in Washington. Republican Jean Schmidt is the poster child for Ohio corruption – and she’ll fit right in with the Republican caucus.
Paul’s fight and his commitment to his beliefs helped turn a deeply red district a little more blue. His campaign was proof that by fighting in all 50 states – in every race at every level – the Democratic Party will be able to win anywhere. After rallying continually for weeks around Paul’s campaign, it’s nice to see it end with such a stunning win – even if it didn’t result in a new Democratic member of Congress.
A short round-up…
Hunter says: “Biggest winners here are the grassroots, and Dean’s 50 state strategy. A 70% Republican district was turned into an edge-of-your-seat race — I’d have liked to win the thing outright too, but realistically, these results are fantastic.”
John Aravosis says: “If the GOP can’t win by a romp in Ohio’s Second District, they are in big trouble. And four points in this district is big trouble. … Great job by Paul Hackett…he has started the campaign for 2006 and has given us all great hope.”
Armando says: “New Ohio Democratic superstar Paul Hackett went into the lion’s den of pure Red Southern Ohio and scared the pants off of the GOP losing by less than 4 points in the face of a NRCC promise to ‘bury him.'”
Tim Tagaris says it was “a win for the 50 state strategy, the netroots, and the future of the country–the grassroots of the Democratic Party.”
DavidNYC says: “Tonight’s results exceeded my wildest expectations. Don’t get me wrong – I would have been overjoyed had Hackett won. But I am still thrilled, and his tremendous showing in an incredibly red district should buoy the hopes of Democrats everywhere.”
Atrios reminds us of what Cook said, and adds: “Something is very, very wrong for the Ohio GOP.”
Chris Bowers at MyDD says: “It’s tidal, if you ask me.”-from The Blog on the DNC site.
Being that this is Ohio, I cannot help but raise some suspicious statistics. With 88% of the precincts reporting, this election was a dead 50/50 heat. with Schmidt less than 900 votes ahead. The last 101 precincts reporting (out of 762) went heavily for Schmidt: 60% Schmidt vs. 40% for Hackett.
Now, I am told that Schmidt’s home district was the last to report (suspicious in itself, in my opinion), and that it went heavily to Schmidt, but given Ohio’s track record regarding strange happenings on election day, shouldn’t we at least be asking questions as to whether or not everything was on the up and up yesterday?
I should also add that I lived in that district for ten years, and Hackett’s showing borders on miraculous. I remember years when no one even bothered to run against Portman.
Still, that Schmidt surge in the closing hours raises my suspicions. Watching her strident Stepford-like robotic talking-points presentation (Bush has made no mistakes) on Hardball last week it is hard to imagine any one voting for her.
Last night on FreeRepublic there were many, many people who had ‘pinched their nose shut and voted for Schmidt’. They know she stinks.
To a person, they all justified it as: We are not voting for a local politician. We are voting for a cog in a national political machine.
There you have it. Hard to argue with that logic.
Had the deaths of the 20 Ohio Marines occurred a few days earlier, Hackett would have won.