Come On, People - At Least Stop Denying the Sky Is Blue

After I posted an item about the need to not throw stones from glass houses in the Ohio 2006 Senate Democratic primary between Congressman Sherrod Brown and Paul Hackett, the blogosphere reaction was quite telling. First, I received a number of emails thanking me for finally making exactly this point, and backing it up with facts. Then, predictably, I was attacked by Hackett supporters. But here's what was so strange: among the attacks from Hackett supporters were those who vehemently claimed that Hackett's position on the war has been entirely consistent. That kind of denying-the-sky-is-blue behavior is just plain crazy.

Now, let me just reiterate - the very explicit point of my earlier post was not to criticize Hackett for reversing himself and taking a stronger stand on the war. As I said, we should congratulate him for that. But his clear reversal means he shouldn't be criticizing others like Sherrod Brown who reversed himself on a far less critical issue (ie. his decision about which office to run for).

But here's the thing - it's one thing to attack the messenger for raising these points, and it's an entirely different and more troubling level of delusional hysteria to try to deny that the sky is blue. Hackett has dramatically reversed his position on Iraq - that's a hard, concrete, not-debatable fact. Using George W. Bush-esque language, Hackett said this summer "We're there now...We can't cut and run." Now, Hackett says we need a timetable for a full withdrawal. That's a major reversal of positions. Think about if Republicans, who have used the same "can't cut and run" rhetoric did the same thing and started pushing for a troop withdrawal. It would be an obvious reversal, just like Hackett's position is a reversal. To argue otherwise is literally laugh-out-loud funny, cry-your-eyes-out sad, or put-on-a-straight-jacket deranged.

Again, I'm glad Hackett has reversed himself, and I hope we can trust that he didn't reverse himself on such an important issue for purely political, thumb-in-the-wind reasons (like many Democrats too often do). But his reversal is certainly a fair point to raise in questioning why someone who did that would then attack an opponent for a much smaller reversal. And it is certainly fodder for discussion in light of all the really ridiculous attacks from people who say they are "progressive" yet berate someone like Sherrod Brown, a guy who Mother Jones recently noted was a true "champion of progressive causes."

Come on people - let's get real. There are good people on both sides of this race, including both candidates who are solid guys. You can scream at me all you like and tell me you hate me because I happen to think that it would have been a stronger ticket and better for everyone to have Brown for Senate and Hackett for House. You can whine that I am "attacking" Hackett, when all I am doing is pointing out the facts as a way to elucidate a broader point (as Harry Truman said, "I don't give 'em hell, I just tell the truth and they call it hell.") That's fine - I am used to being attacked, and frankly, if you don't like me anymore simply because I happen to support Sherrod Brown, well...maybe you are the kind of person I wouldn't expect to like me or what I write in the first place, which is disappointing.

But regardless of who you like in this race, the point still stands: it doesn't help anyone - Hackett or Brown - to throw stones from glass houses. Instead, let's make this a good contest, not a "nasty" one like some of Hackett's aides say they want to make this race. Whatever happens at the end of the day, we should all keep our eye on the goal of defeating the Republican in this critical campaign.

COMMENTS: Go to Sirota's Working Assets site to comment on this entry