Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Seems the death of the Hackett campaign is more of the same......

When a man runs with the intent of giving the party more credibility on security issues ... a party in need of such credibility how intresting when the "un-credible" opponent in the primary is the one he gets pushed under the thresher for (H/t Captain's quarters)

A consultant hired by Mr. Hackett, Mr. Brown's onetime Democratic opponent for Senate, estimated the funding cuts would have totaled billions of dollars if enacted. None were. The consultant called Mr. Brown's votes on those proposals and a dozen more recent national security issues "toxic in today's political environment," according to campaign research documents obtained by The Blade.

Mr. Hackett quit the race last week, leaving Mr. Brown as the near-certain Democratic nominee against incumbent Republican Sen. Mike DeWine. But not before his campaign paid more than $5,000 to comb Mr. Brown's background for political weakness.

The research concluded it was unwise to attack Mr. Brown's career voting record in a Democratic primary, because he toed the party line faithfully. It also predicts Republican attacks on Mr. Brown this fall.

Look at those words in italics. If it is unwise to say this man doesn't have the vision to help make you more secure...if that isn't important in a political primary then your in trouble. Because that very issue WILL be raised in the General election. I think Hackett was in many ways a example of moonbat political action, but Hackett knew that preventing this fight would be key to wining the senate seat... while many of us on the political right in the blogosphere revile the Moonbat left, maybe they really are the only way for the Democrats to save themselves?

whats more telling is how Brown responds to this issue now that it is out.

Mr. Brown's campaign responded to questions about the Hackett research and Mr. Brown's votes with a written statement. It called keeping American safe Mr. Brown's top priority, said the congressman opposed the Iraq war because he knew it would divert resources from homeland security, and touted his work to strengthen ports, railways, and local emergency responders.

"Ohio voters are smart enough not to look at a one single vote, but to look at a record of fighting to make our communities and our country stronger and safer," campaign spokesman Joanna Kuebler said in the statement. "And Sherrod has done just that."

According to this article it was dozens of votes before the Iraq war ever happened. Instead of trying to disarm the issue the Brown camp tries outright mis-direction. And you can see right there what's been wrong with the Democratic campaigns to date.

So this is why as a case study they will loose in 06

No comments: