Let's hope Brown runs

by Jerome Armstrong, Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 09:55:07 AM EST

You can discount this as someone that's on Brown's team, but even if I had the opportunity to work for Hackett, I'd punt it (I did) to someone else. Others can gripe about my choosing sides, so yea, I plead guilty ahead of time.

Sherrod Brown should run for the US Senate, he's our best shot at taking back the Senate seat, and will do the most for Democrats to grow organization in the state to win there in 2008.

What about Paul Hackett? Hackett can win, but let's not kid here. Putting aside Zogby's internet polling numbers, it's a longshot. He's not going to win on organization, but on the luck of television ads to be funded later. Dewine has $7M and a script of Hackett calling Bush a "son of a bitch." Heck, even a nimrod could turn that into a serious definitional problem for Hackett right off the bat. Would I support Hackett for the Senate? Heck yea; better him than about anyone else. But if Sherrod Brown decides to run, there is no question that he is the choice for a statewide run.

Brown has the money ($3 million in the bank). Al Gore was just in Cleveland raising $500K for Brown asking him to run. Hackett next to zero money, and few connections in Ohio to raise money either. He will be totally dependent upon the netroots and the DSCC for money, which means that they will control the consultants that work his race.

Brown has the organization connections, having won statewide, and traveled in the state; he's been working it the whole year. Hackett didn't go around and see what Ohio Democrats said about him running, he went to DC to ask. Hackett will be owned by the DSCC consultants, which will make it tougher for him to win.

You can call the Ohio Democratic organization behind Brown inept, but the truth is, Kerry gained 500K votes in 2004 over Gore in 2000 and Bush gained 400K in 2004 over Bush in 2000. Brown would organizationally push us over the top. There is a ton of organizing going on in the state among Democrats. I know for a fact that the organizational leadership put into place by Brown will run in every county a race like Democrats haven't seen in Ohio in decades.

If Brown decides to run, there may not be a primary. Hackett will either drop out, or he would run with no money and no organization and get beat 75-25. I guess it would be a good warmup for taking down DeWine.




Tags: House 2006 (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 160 Comments :: Post a Comment


So why hasn't Brown announced? (3.00 / 1)

There won't be a movement to get Hackett to run if Brown had already announced. If he expects to lead, he had better do so. If not, he needs to get out of the way.
by Quaoar on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:06:03 AM EST

Out of fairness... (none / 0)

I've known you for a few years now Jerome and thought you consulted on Rep. Brown's campaign website GrowOhio?  If that's true shouldn't you post it in the entry so others can have a balanced view of where you are coming from?  If it isn't true you can delete my comment and I apologize.

-K

Karl Frisch, Director of Media Relations at Media Matters for America
by Karl Frisch on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:22:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Out of fairness... (2.00 / 1)

Yea, as I've posted here numerous times, you can click on my name and see the politicains for whom I work. That's the disclaimer I choose, and no, I won't do anything further-- that's already above and beyond the law.
by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:29:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Out of fairness... (none / 0)

Good to know... I hadn't realized that.  The site kicks butt by the way.
Karl Frisch, Director of Media Relations at Media Matters for America
by Karl Frisch on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 01:14:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Out of fairness... (3.00 / 1)

above and beyond "the law"?  how about simple transparency?  every time an MSM channel covers its parent company, they note that they are covering the parent company.  every time.  are you saying you have a lower standard than the MSM?
by TimRusso on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 02:32:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Out of fairness... (none / 0)

Come on Tim, are you saying it's too much of a hassle for you to click on Jerome's name to find out what campaign he's currently working with? Or maybe bloggers should do a version of six degrees of seperation before posting anything on their blog, too. Because god knows if you know someone who knew someone who dates a guy working on a campaign, it may make someone doubt what you've written about that campaign. I only really discovered MYDD after Jerome came back from Dean's campaign and restarted the site. But everything I've read in the archives, and on the front page is never a shill for a particular candidate. I like Hackett, I gave money to Hackett, but the post reflects the reality of a Senate race in Ohio. I have no allegiances to anyone in Ohio, and that's the way I would see it. I have zero reason to believe that Jerome is posting because someone on Brown's campaign asked him to do so, which is what the comment at the top seems to imply.
by Kombiz Lavasany on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 03:08:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

First sentence? (none / 0)

He does say it in the first sentence of this post. And that sentence was already there when you posted this comment. So... you want more than that?
by rusty on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 04:42:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First sentence? (none / 0)

Hmm... I don't remember reading that before.
Editor
Ohio 2nd Blog
by ignatzmouse on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 04:50:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wasn't sure (none / 0)

Judging by the comments, I thought maybe there had been an earlier version of this that didn't include the top disclaimer. But I definitely know it was there before Tim's comment. Perhaps everyone skimmed past it before getting to what the post was actually about.

Just thought it was kind of odd that no one else had pointed it out yet.

by rusty on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:31:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wasn't sure (none / 0)

It was there all along, people see what they want to read.
by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:57:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I Agree 100% (1.00 / 0)

Brown is unquestionably the better bet to win the senate seat.

Hackett should run for Attorney General and start building a democratic bench.

by demhusky on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:10:44 AM EST

Re: I Agree 100% (none / 0)

you dont live in Ohio do you ?
by Pounder on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 04:30:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I live in Ohio (none / 0)

I know Brown has an in-place Statewide network as well as lots of campaigning experience.
I also know that Hackett has a very strong chance of winning OH 02.
Hackett does not have the experience at this point to be a stronger senatorial candidate than Brown.
For the first time in a long time the 02 has a chance of going to a Dem and the senate seat has a good chance of going to a dem.
I like that picture.
Brown's seat is in a dem district so whoever replaces him will be a dem therefore net gain: 2 new congressional seats going to dems.
I like that picture.
Hackett will better serve in congress than in the state. And he'll get better experience there because his issues are more related to national policy than state policy.
by carsick on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 09:40:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I live in Ohio (none / 0)

I live in Ohio as well. Still not convinced that Hackett can win OH-2 in a regular election. I hear a lot of rumbling for Hackett to do OH-2 in '06...but so far none of these comments present any analysis of how he will overcome the issues presented with a full regular election in '06. For my concerns, see my other comments in this post.

It's now or never for Senate. Let's go Hackett.

by BlueCollarBaby on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 10:02:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Brown can beat Dewine (none / 0)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on strategy in this one.
I just have greater confidence that he can win the 02. I've known Hackett since we were kids. He's smart and will fight. He also has learned a lot about the district and campaigning in it.  Likewise, Schmidt has done nothing yet nor in her campaign that shows she is anything but a Bush sycophant. Meanwhile the administration still has no game plan for Iraq (a Hackett strength) nor do they seem to have a game plan for working Americans  and the economy (another Hackett strength).  Schmidt is just pushing lower taxes but events and the growing government are not on her side of the real/fantasy coin.
The press will do a number of national stories on the new Iraq war democratic candidates so he'll still get free press. He won't have to fight so hard for the contributions which will definitely be harder to come by than last time because there are so many races nationwide.
I also have great confidence that Brown can beat Dewine. They both have been in tough races before and will fight hard.  I think Hackett could get thrown back on his heels against an experienced campaigner who won't hesitate to go dirty.
by carsick on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 11:37:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Brown can beat Dewine (none / 0)

Fair enough.
by BlueCollarBaby on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 11:55:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

PLEASE SOMEBODY FIND ME A REAL PARTY (3.00 / 3)

I can't believe that you are slamming Hackett for working with the DSCC... The people IN CHARGE of this crap for the Democratic Party. Remember them? They're the Party that Hackett and Brown belong to. That's how it's done. You work together as a team. You don't yank everyone's crank over and over and say one thing and then leak another thing and then expect everyone and they support teams to just instantatly say YES SIR, WHY OF COURSE SIR.

Brilliant stuff. Oh yes, please. Let's piss away as much cash as we can on a bitter primary fight so that we can ask the internet to donate twice as much money. Let's make sure that we are broke assed poor when we go up against the Mike DeWine's millions.

Brown would have been a great candidate for Senate. Hackett will be a great candidate for Senate. Brown said no. Hackett is saying yes. NEXT.

We have ZERO time for this crap. Leave it to Democrats to fuck up the biggest opportunity to create positive change in decades.

Brown needs to tell his people to get in line and SHUT THE FUCK UP. The last thing we need is Representative Hamlet poisening everyone on the stage.

Editor
Ohio 2nd Blog
by ignatzmouse on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:13:29 AM EST

Re: PLEASE SOMEBODY FIND ME A REAL PARTY (none / 0)

I tend to lean that direction too, but i aint so sure a primary is all that bad of an idea to be honest. It has its advantages too.

But as you say, the money is an issue

by Pounder on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 04:36:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PLEASE SOMEBODY FIND ME A REAL PARTY (none / 0)

Hey, WTF... let's rumble!!! I enjoy a good fight and taking on some liberal netroots heavyhitters will be fun batting practice. Kos v Armstrong... interesting matchup.
Editor
Ohio 2nd Blog
by ignatzmouse on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 04:52:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's Ohio's choice, as I see it. (3.00 / 3)

I'm not too fond of the way that Brown did this--waiting until Hackett was persuaded to run against DeWine (when the Democrats appeared to NEED an opponent) before declaring himself.  However, if Brown is the natural opponent, a viable and principled progressive, then I see no need for us to throw money at Hackett's campaign.  It would be better for us instead to save our money for beating REPUBLICANS.

I hope that Brown and Hackett sort this out between themselves.  We have the Repugs on the run now, especially in Ohio, and there should be a number of opportunities for rising stars to grab seats, rather than getting involved in a circular firing squad.      

by paul minot on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:18:34 AM EST

Re: It's Ohio's choice, as I see it. (3.00 / 1)

They did sort this out between themselves. Brown said he wasn't running... remember.

GAHH...

Editor
Ohio 2nd Blog
by ignatzmouse on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:20:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Ohio's choice, as I see it. (none / 0)

I wasn't aware that the Ohio Dems had already had their primary.

It is their choice.  This gets back to the issue of who a Senator's or Representative's constituents are. They are the people who vote for them.  "We" don't own them any more than a corporation that ponies up big bucks should own them. (Unless we are from Ohio.) Democracy, remember?

And where is it written that DC decides the nominees?  They don't own the candidates either.  That is Jerome's point. All politics is local, at least fundamentally, and people who have experience and know the territory generally run better campaigns than DC consultants who think they know more than the home-town rubes and make the candidate come across as a phony because they can't speak the local language.  This is all pretty basic stuff, folks.

I'm backing the primary winner, once the people of Ohio hold the primary and/or otherwise decide.

by Mimikatz on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:27:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Ohio's choice, as I see it. (none / 0)

Read the post I was replying to and then read my response.
Editor
Ohio 2nd Blog
by ignatzmouse on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 07:50:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Ohio's choice, as I see it. (none / 0)

I agree with this completely.  I would actually prefer a Brown run for all the reason mentioned in Jerome's post.  I have always thought Hackett should run for Atty Gen first and then take on Voinivich later. And I think Brown is more progressive then Hackett.  But, why did Brown play it like this?  Why say no at first and then, only when Hackett was interested (apparently) change his mind?  Not a very upfront way to handle this.
Andy Katz
by Andy Katz on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 05:01:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Couldn't Disagree More (3.00 / 0)

What us Ohioans don't need right now is the same FAILED leadership of the Ohio Democratic party, lovable losers that they are (I'm a terminal Browns fan, so football and state politics go hand-in-hand for me).

Ohio needs NEW BLOOD in the Democratic party, and Hackett brings that to the table. What the Ohio Dems SHOULD do is thank their lucky stars they have a viable candidate for a change and throw open their machine's support.

Sherrod Brown might have been around the block a few times more than Hackett, but he can't win Ohio.

by T Dubya Ault on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:21:28 AM EST

Re: Couldn't Disagree More (3.00 / 0)

Brown could win. Hackett could win. Brown and Hackett wasting millions on a bitter primary fight WILL LOSE.
Editor
Ohio 2nd Blog
by ignatzmouse on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:23:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Couldn't Disagree More (none / 0)

Won't happen, because Hackett won't have the millions to spend. This isn't a congressional special election. It's a nationally prominent, statewide, 12 month race. It would take $15 million to win, minimum. How much can the netroots do? What,  $500,000?

You're dreaming. Hackett needs to stay right where he is and take that congressional seat next year. If we take a chamber, it's going to be the House anyway. So that's the better option for him.

by ColoDem on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 01:37:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Couldn't Disagree More (none / 0)

doesnt take 15 mil to win a primary fight, not even close. Who ever wins a primary will have the money.

as for oh02 next year - forget it, that boat sailed. Schmidt will face a primary, lose and that district is gone until 2008 and RON redistricting.

by Pounder on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 04:39:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Couldn't Disagree More (none / 0)

THE RETURN OF BOUNCING BOB!

Run Bob, run!!!

Editor
Ohio 2nd Blog
by ignatzmouse on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 04:53:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Couldn't Disagree More (none / 0)

heh. We can only hope ! It might be a seat out of reach now but that wont stop us enjoying the fun
by Pounder on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 08:28:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

By the way... (3.00 / 0)

If Hackett calling Bush a son of a bitch didn't hamper his campaign in suburban Cincinnati, why should it hurt him statewide?
by paul minot on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:21:41 AM EST

Re: By the way... (3.00 / 0)

Umm... call a spade a spade.

Babs Bush = BITCH
GW = Son of a BITCH

Plus, he's a son-of-a-bitch on his own merits, as well.  I guess you could say he's a self-made son-of-a-bitch, but he's also a literal one as well.

That comment won;t hurt him, because right now... even GOP lapdogs are thinking the SAME thing (for entirely different reasons, of course!).

McCain sucks!
by teknofyl on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:56:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the way... (none / 0)

He lost.  How do you know it didn't hinder his campaign?  Just saying.
by Mimikatz on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:28:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the way... (none / 0)

If it hurts him as badly as it did in cincy and he ONLY outperforms Kerry by 14 points, I think we'll be ok.
by dantheman on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 01:58:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the way... (none / 0)

And Hackett, in Ohio's most conservative district, damned near won anyway.

By the way:  Enough progressives got out to vote (and, unlike the Republicans, read and voted on the rest of their ballots) so that while Hackett lost by a squeaker, several important local levies (including a few that had been repeatedly voted down in the past) got passed.

by Phoenix Woman on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 10:05:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's hope Brown runs? (2.00 / 2)

What I hope is that these two gentlemen can get this sorted out and let us move the party forward in Ohio.  Hackett had said earlier that he was open to a Sec State run if Brown was gonna run against Dewine.  I would presume that he would still be open to that even though Brown has not handled this well.  Then Hackett can run for the Voinovich(?) seat in four years.  This would give us a great line up: Strickland (Gov), Brown (Sen), Hackett (SoS).  At that point we could possibly persuade Coleman to run for Lt. Gov and Fisher to run for his old job of AG.  We can run the table.  Blue Ohio 2006.
by Demo Dan in Dayton on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:49:28 AM EST

Re: Let's hope Brown runs? (3.00 / 0)

Secretary of State?

When did Hackett say that? I've heard him talk about Congress again if not Senate, but he always sounded disinterested in a state race.

Editor
Ohio 2nd Blog
by ignatzmouse on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:55:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's hope Brown runs? (2.00 / 2)

Was sure I saw this on a previous diary, if not sorry.  You have been all over this story since prior to OH-02 election so I'm sure you would have the best info on this.
by Demo Dan in Dayton on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:31:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's hope Brown runs? (none / 0)

Brown was Sec of State, until he lost re-election in 1990 to now-Gov. Taft.
by Corey Olomon on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 02:23:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Native Buckeye (3.00 / 0)

The way I see it, it is time to vote for some Pissed Off Democrats.

Pissed Off Democrats fight harder, longer, and meaner.

I will leave it up to you to decide which of the two is the Pissed Off Democrat.

by wes wing on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:56:05 AM EST

Re: Native Buckeye (none / 0)

Except have you actually researched what Paul Hackett's positions are? Yeah, he opposes the war. So do 65% of the public. But other than that, he's a pretty damn conservative dude. Probably should be an R, and would be if not for Bush and Iraq. If they've both got an equal shot at DeWine (which isn't true, imo ... Brown's the only one with a real shot) I'll take the progressive any day.
by ColoDem on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 01:40:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Native Buckeye (none / 0)

He has stated he favors sometype of gay marriage.
by Corey Olomon on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 02:25:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Native Buckeye (none / 0)

I believe that his stated position on gay marriage was "who the hell cares?"
"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 09:27:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Native Buckeye (none / 0)

i read it as a bit stronger than that- more like why  not
by bruh21 on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 08:52:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Native Buckeye (none / 0)

you dont live in Ohio.

Hackett is progressive except for guns. Pro gay, pro abortion. anti war. A libetarian Democrat

A liberal isnt going to win in Ohio - we arent that kind of state - hackett has shown he can win in the red areas - areas where Brown was trounced by Mr Popular - Bob Taft.

Tell me again who has the real shot ?

by Pounder on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 04:42:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Native Buckeye (none / 0)

and what's more is he isn't afraid to say it. Ask you his position and he tells it.
Editor
Ohio 2nd Blog
by ignatzmouse on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 04:55:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Native Buckeye (none / 0)

Where does this come from? Do people automatically assume because he's pro-gun and a Marine that he's a winger?

What positions exactly lead you to belive this?

by dantheman on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 02:00:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Either one is ok with me.... (2.00 / 0)

Sherrod Brown is probably closer to my progressive politics and he has more money in the bank, but its hard to argue with Hackett's combat experience and his ability to win over voters that Brown might not (Hackett's near win in a  heavily Republican District suggests he can make inroads in areas Brown can't).

If anything, Hackett, despite being a political novice, has the edge on "electability" whereas Brown gets my nod for being a bona-fide progressive who could win a Senate seat.

I will take either one, but Brown shouldn't have waited. Right now I lean Hackett just because I think he can wrestle the seat away, and I don't think calling Bush names will hurt him given Bush's current state of approval in Ohio (what is it --36% ?)

by Keith Brekhus on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:10:00 AM EST

I hope Brown runs... (1.00 / 0)

simply because I don't want to be bombarded again on MyDD by monetary pleas from the netroots' annoying soldierboy posterboy.  
Invest in nature
by NCDem on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:14:08 AM EST

Re: I hope Brown runs... (none / 0)

I am already near the point of not having any fundraising here for the next cycle.
by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:07:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope Brown runs... (1.50 / 2)

Don't do that.  I think the pleas, while annoying, do help raise some decent money.  If you are close  to doing it, maybe create a special section for them, or only allow pleas that are pre-approved.  Eliminating them entirely just doesn't seem like a great idea.
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 01:51:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope Brown runs... (none / 0)

I agree.  I think some of the fundraising appeals are a great catalyst for Democratic success.  The netroots should not be looked at as only a source of cash but there's nothing wrong with them also being a source of cash.   I'm pleased to have particpated in the push for Hackett in the OH-2.  I'd welcome more opportunities where I can weigh the candidates, issues, and chances to make a difference and make a donation decision accordingly.  

Fundraising on the net is certainly more, ummm...democratic?

by InigoMontoya on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 05:16:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope Brown runs... (3.00 / 1)

Please do...
Invest in nature
by NCDem on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 05:15:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Both are good... But No Primary Fight Please (2.00 / 0)

As has been said above, Brown had said No... and then after a few polls comw out showing DeWine as weakened, Brown is reconsidering. If Brown had balls over the summer, Paul Hackett would have let Brown have the nomination and would probably run again for OH-02.  

This isn't a bad scenario as having Hackett challenge to help take back the House and Brown challenging on the Senate side would be win-win... but don't degrade Hackett for waiting for other, more senior members of the dlegation tomake their decision... jumping into a vacuum... and then being challenged by one of those who earlier had been asked to challenge for the throne.

If they work it out so Brown runs for Senate and Hackett for an OH-02 rematch, that would be great... but if after deferring at first to more senior dems, and letting them pass, Pauly hackett now has decided to challenge DeWine, then he should be supported.

by Ian in DC on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:14:45 AM EST

I see that (1.50 / 2)

the "Think Tank" has spoken...

this is getting embarrassing

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:17:31 AM EST

Children, Please (2.00 / 0)

I was under the impression Hackett was in Brown and Strickland's good graces.

Which makes recent events all the more difficult to understand.

My guess? The DC establishment is afraid of Hackett -- unknown and inexperienced (what did he get, several thousand votes in the Democratic Primary before the netroots gave him a two week crash course in politics?) -- and worked the phones to get Brown to reconsider.

That being said, Brown is an experienced pol and a true progressive. Hackett is neither.

I cast my lot with Brown. (For very different reasons than Jerome).

by Democratic Wing on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:20:12 AM EST

And where is you (2.50 / 2)

Dislcaimer about Brown?

Between Warner and Brown I guess it is easy to buy your endorsement.

by marsblog on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:27:18 AM EST

Re: And where is you (none / 0)

Hey Scott why is this comment lame?
by marsblog on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:00:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And where is you (none / 0)

Because you don't agree with Jerome, he must be on Brown's payroll?

That's lame.

by Scott Shields on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:20:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And where is you (none / 0)

Umm... You might want to click on Armstrong's name.
Editor
Ohio 2nd Blog
by ignatzmouse on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:30:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And where is you (none / 0)

haha, I thought it was lame cause mars asked.
by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:38:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And where is you (none / 0)

You're right, I did not need to ask.

BTW it's good to see that Brown's consultants are trying to label Hackett as a creature of DC and as a tarnished candidate.

by marsblog on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 01:19:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And where is you (none / 0)

Deja Vu...

isn't this the basis of the Zephyr statement?

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 01:21:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And where is you (none / 0)

Zephyr statement? Is that the Dean thing?
by marsblog on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 01:26:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And where is you (none / 0)

This is exactly what Z. said that Trippi "hired" Jerome and Kos to buy influence on their blogs... Kos boew a casket and threatened that she would never work again in "the field"... but this is exactly what she said...

Bloggers are hired to keep other people off of their sites and to gain influence with their audience...

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 12:39:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And where is you (none / 0)

Uh... yeah. The minute I posted that, I thought, "wait a second" and kind of hoped no one would notice. Silly me.

Anyway, I still think it's lame to say that Jerome was "bought off" on this or any other opinion he gives just because he's done work for someone.

But anyone and everyone is free to rate my earlier explanation as lame. I'd prefer there be a 'moron' rating, but lame will have to do.

by Scott Shields on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:53:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And where is you (none / 0)

You're right buy was too harsh. I am sorry for saying that -- but he is a political consultant attacking a possible primary oppotnent.

It is getting odd around here ...

by marsblog on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 01:21:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And where is you (none / 0)

There's going to be a lot of different people wearing a lot of different hats all throughout the netroots. I would just caution that, if you've trusted someone in the past to be honest, keep trusting them. Maybe take what they're saying with a grain of salt if you think there's an agenda, but understand that not everything is motivated by money.
by Scott Shields on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 01:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And where is you (none / 0)

Ahh yes ... you are indeed correct.

Much wiser than me, espcially the last part "... understand that not everything is motivated by money."

by marsblog on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 04:22:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And where is you (none / 0)

Well, the notion that I should sit out on the sidelines because I directe the building of their website is odd to me. I'm certainly going to be active in the '08 primary all over the net.
by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 02:02:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And where is you (none / 0)

You don't have to sit anything out, of course. You can whatever you want.

But seriously, I think it is bad form for any political consultant for a congressperson to be attacking someone when their client may never get into the race. Or the consultant and the client need to own up to the attack.

Imagine the scenario like this:

Bob Shrum signs on for Kerry, Kerry think about running for President in 2008. Bob Shrum begins trashing Mark Warner on TV.

Would you spend one second not thinking that Bob Shrum speaks for Kerry?

by marsblog on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 03:57:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And where is you (none / 0)

I'm missing how it's bad form. Jerome laid out a case, you don't like it. So you decide that Jerome must be a hacking away for Brown. There are a boatload of comments about why Jerome is wrong on the case he laid out, but it's a bit silly to question his motivation for writing the post. Especially since there are problems and strengths to a Hackett candidacy. If anything this thread helps you make your case, since there are appearently a boatload more people here who think that Hackett is more viable than Brown. Stop commenting on the process.
by Kombiz Lavasany on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 04:42:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And where is you (none / 0)

It matters if this message is coming from Congressman Brown or his consultant who doesn't care if he speaks for his client.
by marsblog on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 05:29:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And where is you (none / 0)

With that view you just insured that either bloggers blog, and consult or have real voices of their own on the internet on their own blogs. You've killed the medium for people who want progressive change and are willing to act, and write about it.
by Kombiz Lavasany on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 06:01:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And where is you (none / 0)

No I didn't. I am simply saying that if you want to "Act and Write About It" and you are working for specific leaders and write about them or their opponentns (pretty narrow definition) then I would only assume you are likely to be doing what they ask -- I am not saying you can't say what you want, but be careful what you say on those specific topics.
by marsblog on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 09:01:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hackett vs. Brown from a native Southwest Ohioan (3.00 / 3)

There are a multitude of compelling reasons to support either Brown or Hackett.

Given, Hackett is a political novice. He had a brief stint as Milford City Councilman; however, he has never held an office that has significant political implication. In this sense, Sherrod definitely has the leg up. Additionally, Sherrod has both the infrastructure and money in the bank to begin campaigning effectively immediately (whereas Hackett will be focussing on raising a warchest quickly). Additionally, Hackett is much less experienced than Brown, so he is more gaffe prone. We witnessed this in Ohio-2 (not the S.O.B comment, that sort of straight shooting will aid him, I mean rather missing out on campaign opportunities and genuine slips of the tongue). In all of this, Brown's got Hackett beat, hands down.

But, here's the big but. Don't forget that Ohio is a midwestern state of epic magnitude. Much as Mr. Frank talks about Kansas as a simple plains state in What's the Matter with Kansas, Ohio has some of the same motiffs at play in it's social mentality. Allegiances to Ohio State football run deep, small suburban areas thrive off of the community created in the high schools, and academics are distrusted (see Ohio Rep. Mumper's Academic Bill of Rights). Brown is a legitimate academic. He's a Yale man. Additionally, he's been insulated in comfy Cuyahoga County (the democratic stronghold of the state) for over the last decade. Despite all of Hackett's inflammatory comments towards the right, I know he'll be able to connect with the majority of Ohio in way that will elude Brown. Also, Hackett's a shoe in for the NRA's endorsement (he didn't get it during the OH-2 race, but the NRA has stated recently that they will not be endorsing DeWine). Brown almost certainly couldn't garner support from the NRA, while Hackett would be a strong contender for it. Endorsements like the NRA's that go a long ways in shoring up support in the elusive southeastern portion of the state.

Long story short, Brown looks good on paper, but Hackett's got more of an intrinsic ability to connect with "ordinary Ohioans."

by BlueCollarBaby on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:44:52 AM EST

Re: Hackett vs. Brown from a native Southwest (1.00 / 1)

Couldn't have said it better, excellent analysis.
by Demo Dan in Dayton on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:23:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not my fight, but (none / 0)

I don't have a dog in this race and will leave the choice of who is the better candidate to the good Democrats of Ohio. But Jerome's reasoning worries me because it encapsulates much of the Democratic Loser Club thinking that has nearly wiped out the party since 1994.


Brown has the money ($3 million in the bank). Al Gore was just in Cleveland raising $500K for Brown asking him to run. Hackett next to zero money, and few connections in Ohio to raise money either. He will be totally dependent upon the netroots and the DSCC for money, which means that they will control the consultants that work his race.

Brown has the organization connections, having won statewide, and traveled in the state; he's been working it the whole year. Hackett didn't go around and see what Ohio Democrats said about him running, he went to DC to ask. Hackett will be owned by the DSCC consultants, which will make it tougher for him to win.

Nothing about which candidate beliefs best reflects his own. Nothing about which candidate can best articulate a progessive message in a way that will appeal to the voters of Ohio. Nothing about which candidate will do more to build the party in Ohio. Just who will be able to run more commercials in Oct-Nov '06 and has the beltway buddies to suck cash from.

I am not saying that financial viability and strategic considerations shouldn't be an important, or even top concerns when selecting a candidate. But when they are the primary rationale for a campaign, it is just a short slide to permanent minority status.

by writerofag on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:47:20 AM EST

Re: Not my fight, but (none / 0)

No, the encapsulation of the party is for the DSCC and DCCC to own their candidates, hire their consultants, and cash in, then rotate chairs for the next cycle.
by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:03:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not my fight, but (none / 0)

And adopting a show-me-the-money mindset will get us... ?
by writerofag on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 04:07:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not my fight, but (none / 0)

     Senator Joel Hyatt? That worked pretty well, didn't it?
by Lokileague on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 07:37:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not my fight, but (1.00 / 1)

OUCH  That really hurts.  Metz did his best for his son-in-law though.
by Demo Dan in Dayton on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 09:12:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not my fight, but (none / 0)

Hacketts real draw that Jerome doesnt mention - He doesnt need as much cash - because he will get a shit load of earned media because he is a political star. Brown - erm, not so much.
by Pounder on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 04:29:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not my fight, but (none / 0)

Brown is a proven progressive. It is well known in the state. Maybe that's why Jerome didn't mention it.
I think Hackett is a great candidate but he's also the best chance to win the OH 02 for the dems.
by carsick on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 09:44:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

what are primaries for? (none / 0)

Personally I would rather see a primary fight.

Avoiding fights just makes democrats inexperienced when they come across them.

by sterra on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:48:13 AM EST

Re: what are primaries for? (none / 0)

Remember how well set up we thought we were by avoiding primaries in Oklahoma?  In Alaska? Somewhere else I've forgotten?  The warring Repubs were in the news all spring.  The Dem struggled for coverage.  The Rs won.  

Primaries are costly, but they do focus attention on the race, offer a chance for party-building and help weed out not-ready-for-prime-time candidates.  They aren't intrinsically bad (or good).

by Mimikatz on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:35:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am troubled by Brown's (none / 0)

needing to be begged to run and needing to be "urged" by Al Gore this late in the game.  How much does he really want to be Senator?  Only bad enough to cock-block another guy who has more energy than he could ever dream of?

Brown's pussy-footing around made me go on to the moveon.org site and give to their already setup Paul Hackett for Senate donation fund.  I will not be giving to Brown.  He has turned me off bu his bullshit.  My money will go to McCaskill and Pederson and whoever wins the primary in MN instead.  Just my rant.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:28:56 PM EST

Re: I am troubled by Brown's (none / 0)

It's not that late in the game when you've been already been building a statewide network and fundraising. Brown's been doing that.
by carsick on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 09:47:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here we go AGAIN! Just like Rhode Island! (3.00 / 1)

Here we go again!

We had a candidate who repeatedly said NO to running despite appeals from everybody, rank & file Dems in Ohio, Netroots, other elected Dems.

Now that a Fresh face comes in with a real shot at winning & decides to run after careful evaluation, WE ONCE AGAIN ARE DOING the RHODE ISLAND FIASCO all over again!

This is the SAME scenario in the Lincoln Chafee episode. Poll after Poll were showing a decisive win for either Kennedy or Langevin.

The confidence among Democrats couldn't be better! Across the country, activists could smell a sure sure Democratic Party win! The chance to take a much needed Senate seat.

Lo & Behold, Kennedy gives way, Langevin decides to run BUT is PRESSURED by Pro-Choice Democrats to WITHDRAW because he happens to be Pro-Life.

Fast Forward today, Chafee is now leading in all the polls against any Democrat who is running & WE WILL NEED LOTS OF LUCK to PULL THIS ONE OFF!

A FREEKING POSSIBLE BLOWN OPPORTUNITY because of intra party Idealogical differences!

Today, we are AGAIN AS CONFIDENT as can be that Ohio will Vote Democrict this time ( despite years of consecutive disappointments & a state party in disarray)

CAN OUR PARTY PLEASE COME TOGETHER BEFORE WE BLOW THIS AGAIN! It's hard enough to win by defeating ANY INCUMBENT & we are acting like we are in the majority!

by labanman on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:30:13 PM EST

asdf (none / 0)

I'll support whomever the Dem nominee is...both Hackett and Brown are good men. I'd lean toward supporting Brown at the moment, because of his labor connections. I think that's important for Ohio to have at least on Senator who takes labor seriously.

It sucks that there's going to be a competitive Dem primary...would much prefer to have a cleared field.

by bi66er on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:36:55 PM EST

Pundit's fallacy = electoral error (3.00 / 1)

Hackett can win, but let's not kid here. Putting aside Zogby's internet polling numbers, it's a longshot. He's not going to win on organization, but on the luck of television ads to be funded later. Dewine has $7M and a script of Hackett calling Bush a "son of a bitch." Heck, even a nimrod could turn that into a serious definitional problem for Hackett right off the bat. Would I support Hackett for the Senate? Heck yea; better him than about anyone else. But if Sherrod Brown decides to run, there is no question that he is the choice for a statewide run.

You a Buckeye, Jerome?  That's a lot of certainty that this Buckeye totally rejects.   Brown lost his last statewide race in 1990 to a man (Bob Taft) who now enjoys approval ratings below 20%.

There is no question that Brown is NOT the choice for a statewide run.  Paul "Bush is a son of a bitch" Hackett is a far more exciting candidate.  Hackett would get my vote; Brown would have me voting independent or sitting on my hands.

Sorry, that's the way it goes.

by Nash on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:43:17 PM EST

Re: Pundit's fallacy = electoral error (none / 0)

agreed. Primary votes would go for hackett in a landslide. Heck I bet most primary voters worked for him on the OH2 race or knows someone who did.
by Pounder on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 04:26:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sherrod Brown and Mark Warner (none / 0)

Jerome- I noted with interest your support for Cong brown and Gov Warner - do you see any overlap/similarities here re policy, style, position ?
by DoctorDoug on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 01:00:20 PM EST

Money wont be a problem (none / 0)

He has been lining up big donors and he will get an avalanche of cash from the netroots. I dont mind a primary, and I like Brown, but for crying out loud, make a fuckin' decision. Brown plays the role of Hamlet each time around for Senate. My guess this is the same thing, and he wont run.
by jj32 on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 01:02:37 PM EST

Re: Money wont be a problem (none / 0)

flip flopper. No way he gets out of a primary with that tag.
by Pounder on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 04:25:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly. (none / 0)

I can see the ads featuring Brown's face morphing into Kerry's.

by Phoenix Woman on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 10:20:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What about taking out Voinovich? (none / 0)

I think we can agree that Hackett and Brown are the top two choices for a Senate run.  Brown could easily wait a few years to take out Voinovich when he's up.  Hackett, on the other hand, will not have the same celebrity that he does now, so the best opportunity for him is 2006.  That way if Hackett runs against Dewine, and Brown runs against Voinovich, we can replace both shitty-ass Senators from Ohio.
Rudy Giuliani hates firefighters. And puppies.
by Fran for Dean on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 01:30:11 PM EST

Re: What about taking out Voinovich? (none / 0)

Yep, you're so right.  Politics is timing.  The timing is at its peak for Hackett right now:  the celebrity status, the name recognition, the Iraq War being a front-burner issue.

People will say, "WHO???" when you bring up Paul's name in 2010.

If we want Hackett for ANYTHING, no is the time.  Fuck Brown.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 02:27:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about taking out Voinovich? (none / 0)

I live in Ohio and I think Hackett's star will rise again when he wins OH 02 next fall along with how many other national Democratic Iraq War vets running...five, six?
The first run was a special election. He gets a rare political do-over and he will definitiely win it this time adding another dem to the House while Brown adds another dem to the Senate.
Hackett and Brown in '06
by carsick on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 03:12:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about taking out Voinovich? (none / 0)

I live in Ohio and I think Hackett's star will rise again when he wins OH 02 next fall along with how many other national Democratic Iraq War vets running...five, six?
The first run was a special election. He gets a rare political do-over and he will definitiely win it this time adding another dem to the House while Brown adds another dem to the Senate.
Hackett and Brown in '06
by carsick on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 03:14:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about taking out Voinovich? (none / 0)

Incumbents win over 90% of the time. Schmidt will have had one year in her position. That's not enough time to make the people of OH-2 hate her, yet.

Long story short, the special election was our shot at taking the district. If we had taken it then, it would still have been a fight to keep in in the regular election. Since we didn't take it then, odds aren't looking that great to take it this time round.

I agree with what others are saying, It's now or never for Mr. Hackett.

by BlueCollarBaby on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 03:29:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about taking out Voinovich? (none / 0)

You don't have the confidence he can win the House seat in a contained district so now you think he can win a state seat?  Wha?
Disconnect.
I live in his district. The turnout in '06 will not be what it was for the conservatives in '05.
He has a great chance and precisely for the uniqueness of his story and with the continuuing debacle in Iraq.
by carsick on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 03:43:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about taking out Voinovich? (none / 0)

No disconnect at all. And no, I don't have the confidence that Hackett can win OH-2 next time around. But he can win DeWine's Senate seat now...

Hackett's run in OH-2 combined factors that were in our utter best interests. Low approval for the president (even in an arch-conservative district) combined with the factors of a special election (low voter turnout, with an energized Democratic base) plus a widely appealing candidate who was able to reach across partisan lines. These three factors helped us get within 4 points of winning.

In 2006 the sun, moon, and planets don't line up as well for the democrats in OH-2. The conservative base will most likely be demoralized, especially in Ohio. I agree that they will probably not have as strong of a showing as normal (hope hop hope). However, I do not believe that Hackett will have more of an advantage than he had in '04. Even with a low conservative turnout, the district is still too red to go democrat without extenuating circumstances. Hackett's a good candidate, but they'll already have heard of him. He'll retain his edge with the democratic base, but he'll probably have lost it with the swing Repubs who he picked up last time. Logically you would assume that voter turnout will be greater in 2006; that just means there would be even more Republicans voting in the OH-2 election. Also, even if he continues to win a portion of the Republican vote, he's still not going to be able to make up for the sheer number of Republican voters in the district who vote along party lines. Schmidt will have the incumbent advantage. No, '06 would not bode well for Hacket solely in OH-2. Just my opinion.

However, the rest of the state doesn't have the partisan index of OH-2. Hackett's showing in OH-2, and his ability to make up a double digit registered republican advantage shows his ability to pickup both independents and voters from the other party. Bush only won the state by 2% in '04 (compared to the typical double digit GOP advantage in OH-2). That shows Ohio is ripe for a competitive election and that Hackett will be able to make his case to GOP leaning voters.

And I may not live in his district, but I do live in Dayton, 45 minutes north, and I lived there all my life. I know the `Nati pretty well.

by BlueCollarBaby on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 04:42:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about taking out Voinovich? (none / 0)

Wha...?
"However, I do not believe that Hackett will have more of an advantage than he had in '04."

He ran in '05. Just recently actually and the issues he ran on are just getting worse for Bush and his new rubber stamp Jean Schmidt.
Advantage Hackett.

by carsick on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 09:53:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about taking out Voinovich? (none / 0)

But the rest of Ohio isn't as red as OH-02.

by Phoenix Woman on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 10:22:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about taking out Voinovich? (none / 0)

My bad. Slip of the tongue on '04. You still haven't addressed any of your points.
by BlueCollarBaby on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 10:31:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OH-02 is heavily, HEAVILY Republican (none / 0)

Ohio overall is 51-49ish.

Obviously, a Democrat, even one with a +10 by his name like Hackett, will have an easier time in the 51-49 race than the 65-35 one.  I'm for Hackett because of that +10 by his name, plus he sounds like he thinks the way I think.

by Geotpf on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 05:29:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about taking out Voinovich? (none / 0)

He lost by a sliver and it was before FEMA/Katrina, indictments, investigations and before the "stay the course" message started sounding so silly republicans even started to growl.
by carsick on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 03:55:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not to mention Club for Growth (none / 0)

This little factoid came out after the election:
The Club for Growth donated a whopping $120,683 to her campaign.
I believe Hackett's largest contribution was $2000.

Hackett's campaign will use the knowledge gained from their last campaign to win OH 02. He'd be starting from scratch in a statewide race.

by carsick on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 04:36:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No on Brown (none / 0)

Brown had his chance to display some leadership.  Instead, he minced around and equivocated for months.

Paul Hackett may not be my ideal candidate on the issues but he displayed guts in the way he went after Schmidt and I think he's also got that intangible "folk hero" quality, a little bit of that McCain "straight shooter" effect.  I'll take the rookie with raw talent and leadership over the established pro who couldn't make up his mind.

by InigoMontoya on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 01:34:53 PM EST

Re: No on Brown (none / 0)

You don't really know much about Sherrod Brown do you?
Those are pretty strong statements when we're talking about changing the face of both the House and the Senate.
You condemn him simply because he took a little while to get his kids settled in a new school before deciding; or he had to make sure his wife was onboard; or he needed a little time to make sure the lime was working and the body buried in his back garden wasn't going to stink up his chances?
by carsick on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 03:36:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No on Brown (none / 0)

Bullfeathers.   Brown had all the time in the world to make a decision.  He chose not to.  This isn't like a job offer coming in from out of the blue.

by InigoMontoya on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 05:08:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No on Brown (none / 0)

8 months to decide. Then he says no. Then somebody else decides to run. Then he reconsiders. We don't have time for Brown's Hamlet bullshit. He's just being plain rude to Hackett now.
by dole4pineapple on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 06:10:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No on Brown (none / 0)

he's being rude to his party.
by bruh21 on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 09:03:37