Find this post and more at The Cincinnati BeaconWith 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?
