Paul Hackett is the Bob Huggins of Politics
Find this post and more at The Cincinnati Beacon
With Hackett's departure from the race for the United States Senate (and allegedly politics all together) the Cincinnati area is showing its love for mediocre figureheads once again.
In an article written months ago I discussed Cincinnati's longing for a basketball coach who never quite got the job done (which some argue about) but was still heralded by the city as a savior.
Paul Hackett gained his Cincinnati street cred with an 'almost victory' against one of the most laughed at congress people in the country. This loss (yes, loss) caused many Cincinnatians to fall in line and call him the savior of the Democratic Party, Cincinnati (or Indian Hill), and some have even said America.
What we have here is two similar people who have similarly won their way into the hearts of Cincinnatians by almost accomplishing something. Paul Hackett almost won a campaign against one of the worst candidates in Republican history and Bob Huggins certainly would have won a national championship in basketball had the stars not lined up against him.
The similarities between these two run even deeper than just their bond of partial success. They are both charismatic, larger than life figures that seem to attract unquestioning sheep in need of a shepherd. Their fiery rhetoric and commanding presence won the hearts of lost souls in desperate need of something, someone, anything to follow. Who will ever forget Bob Huggins meandering around, defying those unjust rules that demand a coach remain on the sideline, yelling at his players who are lost and in desperate need of his last second guidance?
These guys also show their flair for the dramatic by lingering around after their time is up, stealing attention even after they are no longer playing in the game. Bob Huggins shows up at games, poses for the cameras, and really lets Cincinnati knows what they are missing. Hackett of course goes on any show that will have him, especially conservative shows that allow him to tear holes in the party that shunned him and really hurt his delicate, ego-based feelings.
Now that both have been cast off by 'the man,' they are both raging against the machine. Huggins is bucking the University of Cincinnati establishment; his Kool-Aid drinkers (as his supporters are often called) fall right in line clad in their "Fuck Nancy" or "I support Bob Huggins" t-shirts. Hackett quite similarly 'supports' the party that he belongs to while telling everyone how corrupt it is--hoping that people will choose him over the establishment. His supporters harness his angry energy and are releasing it through the digital world at Sherrod Brown, who is blamed for Hackett's departure from the political scene.
The Bottom Line: We can do better. I know many of you Hackett and Huggins fans view these guys speaking as if you are a caveman who is watching the first flame ignite from two sticks, but we can do better. If I keep saying we can do better than maybe we will start believing it. All we need to make our city, country and world better is higher expectations. Higher expectations from our coaches, our athletes, our politicians, our media (that includes blogs), and of course ourselves.
There is more to the world than fiery rhetoric, charisma, good looks, and charm. Sherrod Brown might not yell enough, or his teeth may not glisten every time he opens his mouth to smile, but does he represent your values? Many of the people who follow Hackett to the depths of hell would probably find their values are actually more in line with Congressman Brown's (notice I called him Congressman because he has won a race-- Milford City Council doesn't count).
And how hypocritical is it that a hypocrite like Hackett is calling his party hypocritical (say that a few times fast)? If he dropped out to spend more time with his family then why is he going on TV and spewing his anti-Democratic at any Democrat that will listen? Why does he volunteer for a war that he doesn't believe in? And why would he even be worried about pictures of himself if there was nothing he did wrong?
Do we want results and record or do we want rhetoric and dimples?
With Hackett's departure from the race for the United States Senate (and allegedly politics all together) the Cincinnati area is showing its love for mediocre figureheads once again.
In an article written months ago I discussed Cincinnati's longing for a basketball coach who never quite got the job done (which some argue about) but was still heralded by the city as a savior.
Paul Hackett gained his Cincinnati street cred with an 'almost victory' against one of the most laughed at congress people in the country. This loss (yes, loss) caused many Cincinnatians to fall in line and call him the savior of the Democratic Party, Cincinnati (or Indian Hill), and some have even said America.
What we have here is two similar people who have similarly won their way into the hearts of Cincinnatians by almost accomplishing something. Paul Hackett almost won a campaign against one of the worst candidates in Republican history and Bob Huggins certainly would have won a national championship in basketball had the stars not lined up against him.
The similarities between these two run even deeper than just their bond of partial success. They are both charismatic, larger than life figures that seem to attract unquestioning sheep in need of a shepherd. Their fiery rhetoric and commanding presence won the hearts of lost souls in desperate need of something, someone, anything to follow. Who will ever forget Bob Huggins meandering around, defying those unjust rules that demand a coach remain on the sideline, yelling at his players who are lost and in desperate need of his last second guidance?
These guys also show their flair for the dramatic by lingering around after their time is up, stealing attention even after they are no longer playing in the game. Bob Huggins shows up at games, poses for the cameras, and really lets Cincinnati knows what they are missing. Hackett of course goes on any show that will have him, especially conservative shows that allow him to tear holes in the party that shunned him and really hurt his delicate, ego-based feelings.
Now that both have been cast off by 'the man,' they are both raging against the machine. Huggins is bucking the University of Cincinnati establishment; his Kool-Aid drinkers (as his supporters are often called) fall right in line clad in their "Fuck Nancy" or "I support Bob Huggins" t-shirts. Hackett quite similarly 'supports' the party that he belongs to while telling everyone how corrupt it is--hoping that people will choose him over the establishment. His supporters harness his angry energy and are releasing it through the digital world at Sherrod Brown, who is blamed for Hackett's departure from the political scene.
The Bottom Line: We can do better. I know many of you Hackett and Huggins fans view these guys speaking as if you are a caveman who is watching the first flame ignite from two sticks, but we can do better. If I keep saying we can do better than maybe we will start believing it. All we need to make our city, country and world better is higher expectations. Higher expectations from our coaches, our athletes, our politicians, our media (that includes blogs), and of course ourselves.
There is more to the world than fiery rhetoric, charisma, good looks, and charm. Sherrod Brown might not yell enough, or his teeth may not glisten every time he opens his mouth to smile, but does he represent your values? Many of the people who follow Hackett to the depths of hell would probably find their values are actually more in line with Congressman Brown's (notice I called him Congressman because he has won a race-- Milford City Council doesn't count).
And how hypocritical is it that a hypocrite like Hackett is calling his party hypocritical (say that a few times fast)? If he dropped out to spend more time with his family then why is he going on TV and spewing his anti-Democratic at any Democrat that will listen? Why does he volunteer for a war that he doesn't believe in? And why would he even be worried about pictures of himself if there was nothing he did wrong?
Do we want results and record or do we want rhetoric and dimples?
YOU CAN GO FUCK YOURSELF.
ESPECT THE MOTHER FUCKER BROWN TO LOSE THE SENATE RACE. HE IS TOO MOTHER FUCKING LIBERAL FOR OHIO!!
Posted by Anonymous | 3:02 PM
Thanks for your smart and insightful comments.
I've heard that Brown is "too liberal for Ohio" a few times and each time it makes me laugh a little bit. He represents the Democratic platform in almost all of his positions.
So, when you say that you are saying Democrats are too liberal for Ohio. The plan for this seems to be recruit a Republican like Hackett to put a D by his name and maybe there will be more elected "Democrats" in Ohio.
Might as well just keep electing Republicans, what's the point in kidding yourself with a guy like Hackett?
Posted by Andrew Warner | 5:58 PM
When Brown loses I will REALLY LAUGH IN YOUR FACE. I can't wait!!! I WILL remember your blog.
Posted by Anonymous | 7:04 PM
I've never said Brown will win. And by that rationale, should I be laughing at you since Hackett lost before the primary even happened?
In fact, I have openly said that either Brown or Hackett will probably lose to Mike DeWine, but I find it refreshing that a candidate that actually represents the core values of the Democratic party is running.
This is "American democracy." Put two sides with opposing values against one another and let the vote reflect which side of the values they support. If Ohio wants to be backwards and ultra conservative then let them choose the candidate that reflects those values. But at least people have a choice between an actual Democrat and an actual Republican-- no Republican vs Republican Lite.
Posted by Andrew Warner | 9:10 PM
Andrew,
I won't be nearly as rude as your anonymous troll guest here is, but will take issue with you. I've found most of your brown-hackett stuff a bit naive (to be kind).
The last shot you take - Republican Lite - is far from accurate. How many Republican moderates are in favor of gay marriage? How about against government intrustion on abortion? You might think you would have Paul on the gun thing, but you'd be wrong again. Paul's position on guns as it relates (key point) to the other rights he speaks of is the precise type of innovative thinking and stances that Dems need to take, especially here in Ohio where this true progressive record you speak of is easily used as a billy club over the heads of good Dem candidates - Sherrod Brown included.
What results can you document which might supercede what you call "rhetoric and dimples"? - again, an unfair characterization.
You last paragraph in that last comment demonstrates the naive thinking of those supporting Brown as the "true progressive". If we really care about winning elections in Ohio, we'd dispense with such 50's era civics lessons.
I have to say I'm with you on the higher expectations thing. Mine prevent me from supporting the actions of a Dem who would do anything it appears to get his shot at the Senate...up to and including smearing, backstabbing, and misleading said candidate. Raise your expectations with me and don't stand for such things.
What you see Paul Hackett doing now is essential to the correction that must be made if we are to get our party back. No more backroom deals, no more Washington arm-twisting. That is the ideal for which we should fight, yet too many are all too willing to give this up in champion of their progressive hero.
Posted by Eric | 5:57 PM
Eric,
Thanks for the comments.
Hackett from the little information availabe seems to be a Goldwater Republican at best. I believe he said something about getting the government out of people's lives being his main priority in the Senate. This is the reason for his stances on gun control, gay marriage, etc. How he feels about most other issues is still relatively unknown or inaccessible; the stances he does present seem more in line with a Libertarian point of view (what the Republican Party once was).
Your other arguments depend on rumor. Was Brown behind the alleged "Swift Boating"? Some may like to think he is, but that's all they can do... Presume.
Were these alleged photographs even the reason Hackett got out of the race? My sources tell me, and I was inclined to believe anyway, that he saw polls that showed Brown as unbeatable which was what made him leave the race.
I won't argue with you about the corruption of the two parties. I'm not a member of either because they are both too far gone. But what is Paul Hackett doing now to correct these problems? From what I can see he is making accusations with no proof and advancing the political career he claims he doesn't want-- neither of which is helping your party.
And as I mentioned, how could photographs be used against him if he wasn't caught doing something illegal? Do they have him caught committing war crimes?
Bottom line: If he wanted to fight to save the party he should have stayed in the race. If he's done nothing wrong than no photograph can make him look bad. When he dropped out of the race his criticisms became no longer productive and are now just plain divisive (for you Dems). Had he brought this message to the people while gearing up for the primary then you would have an argument and his criticisms would be constructive.
Instead he is leaving the court, taking the ball, and trying to ruin the game for the rest of you Democrats.
Posted by Andrew Warner | 6:16 PM