Paul Hackett Interview with OH02
OH02 managed to hold a very good and clearly unscripted interview with a bedraggled Paul Hackett this morning.
There are also some interesting insights into how he was treated by the national party, and some very choice words for certain people.
Even if you’re not into the inside-baseball stuff, there is a part that’s worth a listen. About 2/3 of the way through (22:15 to be exact), he mentions an issue that he feels very passionately about. About a minute later, he goes off on that issue for 2-1/2 minutes. There’s a good chance you’ll be screaming “yes” at your computer as he gets into it (hint: It’s like he’s channeling Michelle Malkin).
It left me wondering why I never heard about the issue during the 11 months he spent in public life.
Listen, and be amazed.
He did talk about it during the special. In the first debate with Jean Schmidt. It seemed to get a good reaction at the time.
Comment by Ohio 2nd — February 14, 2006 @ 10:47 pm
That explains it. That was during my attempt to stop commenting on politics phase that lasted from June 18 to July 24 or so. Hackett of course ruined that when his run at Schmidt got serious, so it’s all his fault that I can’t seem to stay away from it now. :–>
I don’t remember the issue getting coverage at the web site, and I think you’re agreeing with me that he didn’t do much with it after the first debate.
Comment by TBlumer — February 14, 2006 @ 10:51 pm
Yeah. He didn’t do anything with it after that. It just kinda came out while talking about security. He’s obviously sharpened his position on it since then.
At the time I didn’t think much about it. I was so into Schmidt pulling back on abortion and the whole megafarm flap that most everything else went by the wayside.
I don’t think that it would have gotten nearly as much traction from Schidt as it would have from DeWine. She’d be outflanking him on that one.
Thanks for the kind words, BTW.
Comment by Editor — February 16, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
#3, no problem.
I think Paul missed the boat, as do most Dems, that immigration is a “I’m not a far leftie” issue like guns. His 2nd Amendment position is why Strickland even has a ghost of a chance against (presumably) Blackwell.
Paul or other Dems who feel as he does about immigration (and there are many more Dems than the Washington people think who are “against illegals and for legals” as Paul is) need to be upfront with that position in GOP districts, even if it matches the opponent, because it shows IMO that a candidate passes the sanity test. They have to put up with the brickbats from the far left who throw out the R word every time someone articulates a position similar to Paul’s, but they are the loony fringe. And rejecting the loony fringe would also play well in a GOP district, or even in a purple state like OH.
I also think that someday someone is going to be smart enough to reach a lot of the 40% of the population that never votes, and when they do, illegal immigration will be a big part of that outreach.
Comment by TBlumer — February 16, 2006 @ 4:56 pm