When Bloggers Cross the Line

This is a long post, so bear with me - but I've just got to get this off my chest. Sometimes, as readers know, I write caustic stuff, especially when going after people who sell their souls to step on the little guy. I make no apologies for that. But there are lines and rules of engagement, even for someone like me. Unfortunately, that's not the case for everyone out there who purports to advocate for the progressive side. It is these folks who reinforce all the stereotypes about the left being willing to eat its own in order to further this or that individual's ego.

The latest example of this can be seen in the pandemonium over Congressman Sherrod Brown's decision to enter the 2006 U.S. Senate race after having originally said he would not run. This has apparently offended the (incredibly fragile) sensibilities of those who like Paul Hackett, the Iraq War veteran who lost a special election in the Cincinatti suburbs, and who said he would run in Brown's place. Bob Brigham, a very talented guy who is normally an ally of mine (and I expect to be a close ally of mine despite this difference between us), shows us exactly what's wrong with our side. Brigham, formerly a Brown guy now a Hackett guy (talk about flip-flop), is taking the immature, whining-like-a-baby tact of dishonestly smearing Brown for his reversal, actually calling him "untrustworthy" a "waffle" and deriding him as a "Washington insider." These kind of ad hominem lies from a guy who's partner, Tim Tagaris, was paid by Brown to go help Hackett in Hackett's first run for office (doesn't say much about loyalty, does it?).

Brigham's comments are clearly attempting to frame the controversy in the most crass and misleading of ways: Brigham's (current) guy Hackett, the honest knight in shining armor who we are expected to believe is this great, proven progressive champion, versus Brown, who Brigham wants us to believe is just another corrupt sell-out politician. What a total demeaning insult to the intelligence of progressives.

Now, look - Brown's reversal was, to be sure, clumsy. No one argues that. But for people who purport to be "progressive" to now try to crucify a progressive champion like Brown because he was late in getting in is pathetic, sad, counterproductive, and the epitome of one of the reasons why progressives have been so politically ineffective over the years. People - many of whom stake their careers to individual causes without regard to anything else - put their own egos over the good of the Movement.

If you are an honest progressive, concerned both with winning elections AND with making this country more progressive, the choice in the Hackett-Brown situation is obvious. Sherrod Brown should be the Democrats Senate nominee, and Paul Hackett should be the Democratic candidate in the congressional race he almost just won. People who argue that Hackett should challenge Brown in a primary, frankly, are putting their own egos ahead of the Movement.

It doesn't matter what their public reasoning is, these people for whatever reason (maybe they see better job prospects for themselves with Hackett than with Brown?) are not being honest, because no honest person could say that a Brown for Senate, and Hackett for House ticket isn't the strongest possible way to gain the most congressional seats on election day. I'm sorry, you just can't. It is a hard, concrete fact. As my article notes (and math dictates), winning a U.S. Senate seat and picking up a U.S. House seat is better for Democrats than competing only for the Senate seat.

Obviously, people can disagree with me. That's fine. But here's what really bugs me: progressives have every right to their opinions and to push for their candidate, but they do not have a right to dishonestly and disingenuously slander someone like Brown as disloyal to the Movement. That is beyond crazy - that is a disgusting lie, and people who continue to say this, in my humble opinion, should no longer be considered credible voices either in progressive circles, or in politics in general. They should be considered pariahs who know nothing about politics and worse, don't really stand for any of the progressive ideals they claim to represent.

Why do I say this? Because, as I noted in the American Prospect, by any way you measure it, Sherrod Brown has been a progressive champion in Congress - before there were self-proclaimed political experts on blogs, before there was any support structure for progressives, before it was cool to stand up and fight, before any of the people attacking him had ever lifted a finger to get involved in the fight.

I've never worked for Brown, but I can tell you from working 5 years on Capitol Hill, this is a person who has never wavered on the tough votes, and has consistently taken the leading role in fighting for the little guy, even when it meant going up against his own party. This is a person who, on the most critical issues facing America, is as "trustworthy" as they come. Period. And remember, this is me talking - I'm not a guy who praises a ton of Democrats, especially those in Congress.

If the worst you can say about Brown is that he took too long to decide whether to run for the Senate, then that's a damn good candidate, if you ask me. People who want to overlook Brown's "trustworthiness" on the issues that count by trying to make us believe Brown's political decision about his candidacy mean he's "untrustworthy"...well, these are the people whose values and convictions are suspect.

Now remember, this is no attack on Paul Hackett at all. I don't think any progressive should attack or dishonestly smear Hackett, just like I don't think they should do that to Brown. Hackett is a great guy, ran a great race, and his service to our country in the military deserves all sorts of respect. But inarguably, Paul Hackett is no Sherrod Brown in terms of a proven record of advocating for the progressive Movement. Mind you, that's not Hackett's fault because he hasn't been in politics very long, but it is a fact. Sure, Hackett may turn out to be a great progressive in Congress, but how do we know that? With Sherrod Brown, we don't just know it, we can count on it, because he has been delivering for years, not just when its been politically opportune.

So let me sum up: we can all have our differences on who might make the best candidate, Hackett or Brown. And we can all advocate on behalf of the people we like. But if you consider yourself truly committed to ideals, principles and conviction - and not just to whatever candidate you may be personally tied to and may mean the best job for you after election day - then you should refrain from lying about and smearing one of the few Members of Congress who has been keeping it real for our side for more than a decade (and this goes in reverse too - we shouldn't dishonestly attack someone like Hackett either). People who call themselves "progressive" who then smear someone like Sherrod Brown as "untrustworthy" are themselves the ones who are "untrustworthy" - for they are the ones who ultimately undermine our side's ability to really make serious change in this country in order to further their own personal egos.

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