August 1, 2005

2nd District (OH) Pre-Congressional Election Collection

Filed under: OH-02 US House — Tom @ 9:05 pm

BizzyBlog Cartoons and Commentary:
– Anatomy of Hackett’s Great Bush-Iraq Deception
– Campaign Odds and Ends
– Guest Toons in Review
– Guest Cartoons:
—- STATURE–The Tale of the Tape —- Official Hackett Campaign Seal
—- Paul Hackett’s Security Blanket —- Hackett Facing Some Flak
—- Hackett TV Ad Truth Detector —- Sample 2nd District Ballot
– Posts:
Hackett TV Ad Uses Presidential Footage, Pretends to Support Bush & the Iraq War
Campaign Press Releases from both candidates after July 7 London Terrorist Bombings
June 15th Interviews of Both Candidates by Talk-Radio Host Bill Cunningham

Other Pre-Election Commentary and Predictions:
- WMD: Hackett Claim of Slow Iraqi Troop Training Refuted
- (Meckler) weighs in with turnout scenarios for a Hackett victory, and more
- Nix Guy: General Feelings; The Numbers; Crazy Money
- Eric Minamyer: Why We Support Schmidt
- Large Bill: Sunday Links and Comments (go to end)
- OH02: The Smell of Blood
- Yankee Red: Congressman Jean Schmidt
- Weapons of Mass Discussion: 5 Reasons to Vote for Schmidt and Why I’m Not Worried
- Porkopolis: On Ohio 2nd Election
- Project Logic: Get Behind Schmidt!
- Viking Spirit: Eight Reasons Why I Support Jean Schmidt


NOTE: This post will not accept direct comments, only trackback “comments” (moderated for taste and civility), due to name-calling and intemperate comments received at related posts.

2nd District (OH) Congressional Race: Odds and Ends

Filed under: OH-02 US House — Tom @ 8:24 pm

Local News Coverage

My impression is that it failed again, and that to even have the slightest idea of what was really happening in the campaign, you had to check out the blogs and the R-rated Blower’s daily rant. Just a quick list of things you didn’t see in the local papers:
- Fake forums/debates (see next item).
- What celebrity visitors (Carville, Cleland, etc.) actually said (until the last day or two).
- What the candidates actuallly said at the debate (whatever happened to doing transcripts?).
- Schmidt’s “not 100% prolife” comment.
- Hackett’s “SOB” and “chicken hawk” comments about Bush (at least until reported by national publications–Zheesh).
- The exact nature of Schmidt’s direct dealings with Bob Taft and others affected the current scandals in Columbus–since it was out there at a high-DB level, if the real answer is “nothing meaningful,” it should have been investigated and reported. Instead, it just hangs there.
- Tax increases Hackett supported while he was on Milford’s City Council.

I’ve been told by newspeople that the papers are reluctant to report anything that will affect the outcome of an election, especially something that breaks in the final 7-10 days (those who remember the primary will know exactly what I think should have been covered that wasn’t).

Fine, folks, then just go home and stop pretending.

The Hackett Fake Debate/Forum Flap

I would be negligent if I didn’t mention and link to Project Logic’s exposes (here, and here) on Hackett’s fake events that were held in the eastern counties of the District. Knowingly holding a “forum” with an ambush audience, telling the press that both candidates are invited (when the other candidate has specifically stated they won’t be there, and is under no obligation to be there), and then pretending that the other candidate should have been there is deceptive and sleazy, and reveals a lot about the Hackett Campaign’s non-ethical mindset that I should have taken more seriously much sooner. For what it’s worth, the R-rated Whistleblower reported that it ticked off misled journalists in a major way.

Hackett Endorsements

Some of Hackett’s endorsements are quite problematic. Other than three area newspapers with in-district circulations well below those of the papers endorsing Schmidt (The Enquirer and Community Press), none are recognizably local.

I find it interesting that Hackett (I’m starting to like the sound of “Hack-Man”) would tout the endorsement of the 2004 Democrat presidential candidate who BizzyBlog refers to as Wesley “WW3″ Clark. I’m not sure Hack-Man really wants to have WW3′s endorsement, as his peacenik base would probably have a tough time with the bit of history that explains Clark’s nickname (bolds are mine):

No sooner are we told by Britain’s top generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the west’s war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if Nato’s supreme commander, the American General Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers would have stormed Pristina airport threatening to unleash the most frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the cold war.

“I’m not going to start the third world war for you,” General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international K-For peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen. Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo’s provincial capital.

Hyperbole, perhaps. But, by all accounts, Jackson was deadly serious. Clark, as he himself observed, was frustrated after fighting a war with his hands tied behind his back, and was apparently willing to risk everything for the sake of amour-propre.

….. Jackson got full support from the British government for his refusal to carry out the American general’s orders. When Clark appealed to Washington, he was allegedly given the brush-off. The American is said to have complained to Jackson about the British general’s refusal to accept the order to take over Pristina airfield, and Jackson’s subsequent appeal to his political masters when Clark visited Kosovo on June 24.

….. Last week, Clark was told in a telephone conversation from General Henry Shelton, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, that he must leave his post early and make way for an older man, General Joseph Ralston, a favourite of the American defence secretary, William Cohen. Clark fell victim, not only to the Pristina airfield row, but to his tense relationship with Washington throughout the war…

Another Hack-Man endorsement worth noting, in light of their recent woes, is the one from the AFL-CIO. Given the recent splintering of one-third of its members, is Hackett’s labor endorsement from the AFLC (Americans Feel Labor Crumbling) or the LCIO (Labor Cannot Itself Organize)? Inquiring, or Enquirering, minds want to know. (Note: BizzyBlog supports the labor movement when it fights real employer oppression or mistreatment, and believes labor’s top leaders have let their members and certain other workers who need them down for at least the past 25 years.)

Schmidt Endorsements

The list of Schmidt’s endorsements represents a pretty impressive group of local and national supporters–until you get to the bottom of the page and find three listings each “to come” from five out of the seven counties in the District. Oops.

Going after people other than the candidate

I really don’t get this. What’s the point? Their names aren’t on the ballot; they won’t cast any votes in Washington, and in many cases they aren’t even GOING to Washington if the candidate wins. Although I think business dealings of high-level advisers are probably relevant, digging into their personal lives should be out of bounds. I should note that the ones digging up the dirt in this campaign are many of the same people who said that the country should stay out of the private lives of ACTUALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS during the previous presidential administration. Fortunately, in a campaign like this, such tactics usually either have a minimal effect or backfire on the candidate whose supporters are engaging in them, especially if that candidate doesn’t repudiate the tactics (as Paul Hackett hasn’t).

2nd Congressional District (OH) Special Election: Anatomy of the Campaign’s Greatest Deception (Hackett-Bush-Iraq)

Filed under: OH-02 US House — Tom @ 12:24 pm

The origins of Paul Hackett’s great deception go back to late May at a Democratic forum. OH02 attended and said this about Paul Hackett (bolds are mine):

When it comes to young, up and coming politicians Paul Hackett is straight out of central casting. And as much as it pains me to say it, I liked what I saw.

…… Mr. Hackett had just returned from Iraq several months ago. Surprisingly enough he didn’t bite at the chance to slam the President over Iraq, instead talking about the importance of completing our mission and of the Iraqi soldiers that he served besides, including in the battle of Fallujah.

It looked promising. A soldier who was developing into the clear favorite to win the Democrat nomination who wasn’t going to play the “Bush lied, people died” mantra (by the way, folks, the tune is really “Bush leads, millions freed”), and even appeared willing to take on his party’s antiwar extremists. As a result of this and other research, I suggested that Paul Hackett was going to be a serious and competitive candidate, regardless of The Second District’s GOP history: “Don’t even try to tell me August 2 is a lock if Paul Hackett is the other candidate on the ballot.”

I was much more concerned about what was happening in the GOP primary at the time, and didn’t give Hackett too much thought until the day after the primary, when he and Republican nominee Jean Schmidt were interviewed by Bill Cunningham on WLW. Thankfully, I took detailed notes, as I am aware of no transcript or other record of the interviews.

In his Hackett interview, Cunningham noted a Cincinnati Post report quoting Hackett as saying that biggest danger facing America is George Bush (in truth it was in response to a question, but the effect is the same). My notes on this portion of the Cunningham-Hackett exchange were as follows:

(Hackett) - “George Bush being the greatest danger to America” comment was tongue in cheek–was really talking in terms of how unhappy he is with how Bush has led the way of the government getting into the private lives of Americans. It’s dangerous.
(Hackett) – Says AlQ is biggest security threat, and Cunningham should have known that.
- Cunningham countered by saying that Hackett’s fellow Dems talk like that all the time.
- Hackett emphasizes that as a soldier he will lay his life on the line and obey President’s orders.

(the Post quote referred to above is not available online without a libary Proquest database subscription; it has been archived on BizzyBlog’s web site for education and discussion purposes only, and may not display in all browsers).

I figured I would take a soldier at his word that his concerns were only about domestic policy regarding internal security, though a little voice told me that the explanation wasn’t very convincing.

The little voice was right: Paul Hackett’s attempt to minimize the impact of his remark as was rank deception of the highest order, and would be proven as such during the remainder of the campaign.

Since that time, Hackett has joined the ranks of the battiest of Bush bashers of the war in and occupation of Iraq, even to the point of personally calling him a “son of a b______” and a “chicken hawk” (link requires registration)–the latter term especially being the province of the diehards who, after a decade of failing to show otherwise, still think The President somehow dodged or evaded his military duties thirty-some years ago.

Hackett’s revelation of what I must assume are his true beliefs might be tolerable if the campaign weren’t running TV ads that make it appear as if he unconditionally supports the President, the decision to go to war, and the current occupation strategy. But that’s exactly what is happening. What else could he possibly mean by these words from the first ad:

These young men and women, they get it! We’re going to help these people. We’re all over there because we think America is worth fighting for…

Any reasonable person would conclude that “it” Hackett refers to is the effort of the war and the subsequent occupation. What else could “it” be?

Last week, before the “SOB” and “chicken hawk” vitriol spewed forth, I said in my post on the first TV ad that the differences between the TV Hackett and the in-person Hackett show that:

Either Hackett is afraid that we can’t handle the truth as he sees it, or he is afraid that we won’t vote for him if we know what he truly believes. Either position should automatically disqualify him from consideration for public office.

… with all due respect for your service (Mr. Hackett), we could use as a congressman the “type of leader” that will at least have the integrity to (consistently) tell the voters what he really believes….. That’s obviously NOT you.

Hackett’s over-the-top statements during the past week in person, while releasing a second TV ad that still implies support for the decision to go to war in Iraq and the current conduct of the occupation there, only serve to reinforce my opinions of a week ago, and my belief that he is not fit to serve in public office.

UPDATE: Just heard latest Hackett radio ad. They have glommed old ad verbiage with new items. It starts with the Bush quote followed by criticism of Schmidt for involvement in state scandals and votes for tax increases. It’s an obvious attempt to again appear to be Republican (at some point after the election, I really want to hear from a lifetime Democrat about how proud they are of Hackett’s avoidance of the D-word). As to “substance”: Knowing somebody, not knowing somebody, remembering knowing somebody, or not remembering knowing somebody is not evidence of scandal involvement (except maybe in Howard DeanLand). And Paul Hackett’s support of a raising the Social Security earnings limit to $150,000 would raise taxes by up to $7,440 per affected person ($60,000 x 12.4%), and in total by at least $40 billion (the link discusses what increasing the limit to $160,000 would do, and I reduced the result indicate there a bit). That’s more than Jean Schmidt has ever voted in tax increases, probably by a factor of 5. And that would be just ONE Hackett vote; he would just be warming up.

NOTE: This post will not accept direct comments, only trackback “comments” (moderated for taste and civility), due to name-calling and intemperate comments received at related posts.

ALSO: Outside the Beltway Jammer.

2nd District (OH) Congressional Election: Hackett-Schmidt Guest Toons in Review

Filed under: OH-02 US House — Tom @ 12:04 am

Welcome Trey Jackson readers. Here’s a link back to a complete pre-election collection.

BizzyBlog would like to thank the guest artists for their valuable contributions. Given the nature of the campaign’s final week, the artists were sometimes frustrated with the web site’s PG-13 standards, but were gracious enough to modify some of their original work to stay within them. I can tell you, though, that the walls at BizzyBlog Central have a distinctively bluer tint. Anyone seeking artistic help should feel free to contact me, and I will put you in touch with the person whose work most impressed you right away.

By carefully screening the content of the cartoons presented, I was also able to ensure that they succinctly stated, and still state, my positions on most of the key aspects of the race, and at the same time spared this humble blog’s visitors undue BizzyBlog blathering. So here’s the recap of the points made in the past week:

HebeSTATURE: I agree with Hebe D. Feetid that Jean Schmidt, despite her diminutive height, stands tall (well above her physically taller competitor), both on the issues and in the way she conducted herself in the campaign. While some have criticized the statements and comments of some people loosely associated with her, and of others who had no involvement whatsoever with her campaign (except in the minds of the critics), there was no such problem in the Hackett campaign. The candidate himself was the one engaged in two-faced positioning, whining, swearing, and “vitriolic” comments and speeches.

OH BOO HOO: I agree with Wade Tillie Loozes that the Hackett Campaign and its imported help brought in a crybaby strategy, symbolized in his cartoon, that had been absent during the primary. The Whistleblower reports that this seal was discovered while someone (actually Mr. Loozes, on one of his extended lunch breaks) was “rummaging through all those out-of-state cars outside Hackett’s campaign headquarters in Batavia,” perhaps leaving the impression that the seal was (gasp!) stolen. I can now reveal that the filching that occurred was only photographic. No baby seals were harmed in the course of this cartoon’s creation.

PAUL HACKETT’S BLANKIE: Mr. Loozes’ wife, Betty Loozes, hit the nail on the head by noting that Hackett would call George Bush an SOB when speaking in public, but had no shame in using the President as his security blanket in his TV ads. Oh, and don’t forget “chicken hawk“–Hey, if Paul Hackett and the downward-spiraling New York Times want to bring back the “fake but accurate” glory days of Rathergate, I say “Bring ‘em on.” That’s right, Paul, regardless of what YOU think.

FACE IT: Ken Knotdrau lived up his name in making a point similar to Betty’s, but also emphasized that the TV Hackett is not only pro-Bush, but also pro-war, while the campaign-stop Hackett was against going into Iraq in the first place, and has been against how the occupation and transition to self-rule are currently being handled.

PARTY? WHERE’S THE PARTY?: Henrietta T. Hack’s sample 2nd District Ballot correctly surmises that Hackett would rather not see himself listed on the ballot as a D-D-D-D…Democrat. And of course, Par T. Crasher kicked things off six days ago by ridiculing the three big deceptions of the first Hackett TV ad (which remained in the second).

Since the artists relieved me of the burden of posting at length on the race after this past Monday’s entry on the first Hackett TV ad, I only need to comment on one remaining major hanging item, plus a few leftover odds and ends from the campaign. They will be handled in separate posts later today.

NOTE: This post will not accept direct comments, only trackback “comments” (moderated for taste and civility), due to name-calling and intemperate comments received at related posts.