No, it's not Sherrod Brown changing his mind about running. It's Paul Hackett changing his mind about what to do in Iraq. Yet, everyone talks about a change of heart when it comes to running, but no one talks about a change of heart when it comes to a real substantive issue. Why is that? Hypocrisy, perhaps?
Once again, Sirota nails it:
"Ohio Senate candidate Paul Hackett once told the Washington Post that "we need more straight-talking, straight-shooting politicians." And he has dispatched his staffers to attack Congressman Sherrod Brown (D) for supposedly not talking straight about whether Brown was going to run for the Senate (the two now face a primary). But what is more troubling - a candidate that changed their mind about running for office, or a candidate who hasn't talked straight about their own position on Iraq?
That's right - in the fulminating over Hackett as the supposedly populist champion of anti-war sentiment, it seems many have forgotten that Hackett continues to change his position on the Iraq War whenever it appears politically opportune. For instance, on 7/19/05, the Cincinatti Enquirer reported that Hackett says "the Bush administration...must develop an exit strategy" from Iraq. Two days later, however, Hackett told the Associated Press he did not support ending the war. "We're there now," he said. "We can't cut and run." Then four days later Hackett spoke to the American Prospect. Appealing to that magazine's more progressive readership, Hackett said, "I disagreed with the war." Now, as a candidate for another office running in a primary, Hackett is supporting full withdrawal.
. . . .
Again, let's be clear - Hackett has every right to change his position, just as Brown had every right to decide to run. But the two examples of waffling are clearly not equal in terms of gravity. While some parts of the blogosphere would like to try to make a candidate's reversal of tactical decisions a penultimate sign of "trustworthiness" vs "untrustworthiness," the real penultimate sign of backbone, spine, "trustworthiness" and "straight shooting" is on the issues. One candidate, Hackett, has clearly wavered on those in his short time in politics. Another candidate, Brown, has never wavered on those, even though he has been in politics for a long time taking tough vote after tough vote. And no matter how much spin and hype surrounds this race, them's the facts, whether we like it or not. Hackett folks attacking Brown for his reversal on a tactical decisions are throwing stones from a very, very fragile glass house."
|
|
|
Permalink :: 162 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
