What the Ohio Senate Discussion Should Be About

By Neil the Ethical Werewolf

After reading the Majikthise-Dadahead exchange on Paul Hackett, I'm not especially happy with the arguments of either side.  I haven't yet decided who I want to win the Ohio Senate primary, though I'm leaning towards Brown.  (Like everybody else, I donated to Hackett's House race this year.)  Below, I'm going to criticize both of their arguments, and present the state of the debate as I see it.  I'm open to being convinced, but I don't think the arguments given so far are convincing. 

Lindsay says that "The reason to support Hackett over Brown is simple -- if Hackett wins (and he can win), the progressive blogosphere makes history."  She discusses Hackett's "ability to harness the power of the blogosphere" and says that he "owes the blogosphere."  These arguments really don't move me.  I care about helping poor people, preserving individual liberties from persecution, and having an intelligent and humane foreign policy.  The progressive blogosphere making history is not very high on my list of interests.  Even if it was, Hackett's Senate campaign is unlikely to be as closely tied to progressive blogs as his House campaign. 

Hackett was able to harness progressive blogs because he was an aggressive opponent of the Iraq War whose military record made him surprisingly electable in a very red district.  It's also because of the structure of a special election -- there were no other candidates that month to compete for bloggers' money, the relative news vacuum got Hackett national media attention, and some bloggers (like myself) saw fit to exploit the news vacuum by filling it with an attractive candidate's message, which would reflect well on Democrats.  Many of these factors don't apply to the 2006 Senate race.  Maybe a Hackett Senate campaign will get more money than his House campaign got, but he won't get enough to power a hard-fought Senate race in a big state while bloggers are also donating to defeat Katherine Harris and Rick Santorum, win open Senate seats in several states, and take back the House.  It's also possible that a Hackett campaign might draw funds away from other important races. 

Dadahead has criticized Hackett for claiming that Brown is "too liberal."  If Hackett had actually said anything like this, it would be a problem -- I like liberal Democrats, and I dislike any Democrat who tries to damage another Democrat's electability by making them seem extreme. But it's not clear that Hackett actually said this.  Dadahead gets his quote from David Sirota, who cites a sloppy Toledo Blade article in which Hackett is never quoted as saying any such thing.  The reporter puts the "too liberal" charge in Hackett's mouth, but doesn't present any quotes to substantiate it.  What Hackett actually seems to be saying is just that he'll have a wider appeal: 

"I believe in the core values of the Democratic Party," Mr. Hackett said. "I'm not afraid to fight for them and my values. Some of them are conservative, including on Second Amendment rights.

"A Democrat in Ohio can get all of the Democratic votes in the northeastern and central parts of the state and still not get elected," he said. "It's got to be somebody who believes in the values of all Ohioans, and that takes winning over independents and conservatives."

So he's conservative on the gun issue.  If you're big on gun control, vote for Brown.  But I don't see the "too liberal" charge anywhere, except in the vague "values of all Ohioans" way that only touches Brown by a faint implicature.  Maybe Sirota knows more than we do about this.  But given his egregious history of misrepresenting the positions of Democrats he disagrees with, I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. 

Hackett's military background will be resistant to the kinds of attacks that Republicans wheeled in against Kerry.  Hackett's cocky, aggressive attitude meshes much better with his military background than Kerry's stiff, senatorial persona did with his, and it'll earn Hackett a powerful media image.  While Americans didn't see the relevance of Kerry's Vietnam service 30+ years ago to his attitude to Iraq today, Hackett's more recent service in Iraq gives him instant credibility on that issue.   

To make my decision about whom to support, I'll need to know more about the candidates.  I like Hackett's public persona, which will help him unseat DeWine.  I also like the idea of having a somewhat stereotypical military man aggressively defending Democratic foreign policy views and strengthening our party's image on national defense.  But he has to show me that he will actually be a strong force for liberal positions.  (Somebody ask him about health care, please?)  As for Brown, I'm in near-total agreement with his voting record -- I'm probably more of a free-trader than he is, but everything else, including his vote against the war and his support for foreign aid, looks pretty much right.  I've heard great things about the organization he's set up in Ohio, which will help him beat DeWine.  Brown still has to show me that he has an appealing enough public persona to win the election and help Democrats win media battles as a Senator. 

So try to convince me.  Tell me what Hackett's policy positions are, and tell me what kind of persona Brown has.  Those are the areas that I and other  undecided folk are in the dark about, and it's  up to these candidates and their  supporters to enlighten us.