2nd District (OH) Congressional Race: Odds and Ends
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…
incident:
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).
BizzyBlog note: This entry was approved, even though the poster was separately asked to provide a link and didn’t. If anyone has a substantive link refuting the Guardian’s version of events, I’d appreciate getting it.
_______________________
What a total misrepresentation of the incident. In fact, the Pentagon and the British had ordered Clark to block the runway to keep the Russians from landing. The Russians were a loose nut trying to weasle in on the NATO operation. There was no confrontation or none envisioned. By NATO protocal, British commander has the right to ask his countries permisson not to do what the Supreme Allied Commander, at the orders of the Joint Chiefs, to do. This British general is a wild card to was implicated in a massacre in Northern Island and a hardliner. His exaggerated statement, which he later retracted, misrepresented the situation. When the British decided to back off and back their man, General Clark took another tactic to keep the Russians from interferring on behalf of the Serbs. He discussed the issue with some Eastern European nations who wished to be part of NATO (and now are) if they would deny fly over rights to the Russian craft. This was done and a crisis adverted by Clark’s diplomacy. Since a few Russian troops were cut off from supplies by this tactic, General Clark and NATO were feeding the Russian troops within days. Folks should know what they are talking about before throwing out false charges. The airport was not to be stormed, it was already under NATO control. Jeeesh!
Comment by Noel Schutz — August 2, 2005 @ 4:02 am
BizzyBlog note: This entry was approved, even though the poster was separately asked to provide a link and didn’t. If anyone has a substantive link refuting the Guardian’s version of events, I’d appreciate getting it.
________________
Those comments about Wes Clark above are most inaccurrate and subscribe to the right-wing talking points coming out of the primaries in an attempt to put down the biggest threat to the Republicans in a general election: Wes Clark.
Clark has always been a proponent of what is now called the “Powell Doctrine”. (Of course, he was a proponent long before Colin Powell came to power and the doctrine was ascribed to him. Clark even wrote about the concept many years before anyone knew Powell.) The Powell Doctrine says basically: once you decide war is inevitable, send an enormously powerful force to overwhelm the enemy in as short a time as possible. Obviously, this doctrine was created to avoid another Vietnam. Clark is by all accounts a VERY aggressive military commander. When Clinton authorized the aerial bombardment of Serbian positions, Clark repeatedly asked for permission to send in ground troops to finish off the Serbs and take control of the area. When a limited ground war was authorized by NATO, he again antagonized the administration and his superiors by repeatedly requesting the use of attack helicopters. The choppers finally arrived, but too late to be used. He was ordered to let known war criminals, who were caught behind enemy lines, back into Serbia and Bosnia. Clark was increasingly frustrated that a Vietnam-like mindset was creeping into the mission, and the more he pushed against it, the more enemies he made.
Perhaps the defining moment (certainly it is for the Bush camp) was the Pristina airport incident. Even with the end of the cold war and President Boris Yeltsin’s friendliness to the west, Russia was increasingly alarmed with NATO expansionism - which would eventually envelope several former Soviet republics. Russian military brass put tremendous pressure on Yeltsin to make a stand in Kosovo, to reassert Russian military power in a region they had once dominated. At the same time, Clinton and NATO were negotiating with the Russians to allow them a limited role in the conflict, including an eventual peacekeeping role. But the US and NATO’s insistence that Russian forces would be under the control of NATO (and hence, the US), made that idea unpalatable to the Russians. Historically, the Russians were strong supporters of the Serbs, which were the primary antagonists in the region.
Clark was frustrated with his bosses for not being allowed to put a decisive end to the conflict and limit allied casualties. There was tension between NATO and Russian forces just across the border in Bosnia. The last thing Clark needed was an unnecessary injection of Russian troops on a photo-op excursion into Kosovo while the war was winding down.
But that’s exactly what the Russians did. 200 Russian paratroopers stationed in Bosnia, northwest of Kosovo, were sent across the border to occupy the Pristina airport, ostensibly to help “stabilize the region”. It was a highly publicized event, carefully staged for the invited camera crews. Clark responded by ordering French and British troops, under the command of British General Mike Jackson, to get there ahead of the Russians and secure the airport. Jackson refused the order, fearing that a confrontation with the Russians could escalate out of control, and replied, “Sir, I’m not starting World War III for you.” Once the Russians had arrived, Clark ordered attack helicopters into the area to prevent the Russian’s resupply. Again, the order was refused, and the point became moot when Hungary denied Russia the use of its airspace and the 200 Russians were stranded by their own military. The British government backed up General Jackson 100%. When Clark complained to Washington, he was virtually ignored by the White House and the Pentagon, and his fate was sealed.
Although these issues were publicized at the time, in the final analysis they were forgotten by the public as the war (and now the post-war) was successful with zero loss of allied lives. By all accounts, General Clark executed the overall military mission brilliantly, and the end results can be seen today with a peaceful Kosovo.
Comment by Lara — August 2, 2005 @ 9:03 am