And then I saw this on Suburban Guerrilla today, and if it is true, it's pretty slimy on Hackett's part. Basically, the Toledo Blade is reporting that Hackett's campaign did some background research on his (then) democratic opponent Brown, and was going to use that information to paint Brown as being soft on national security, intelligence, the Patriot Act, etc.
Mr. Hackett quit the race last week, leaving Mr. Brown as the near-certain Democratic nominee against incumbent Republican Sen. Mike DeWine. But not before his campaign paid more than $5,000 to comb Mr. Brown's background for political weakness.Which isn't surprising in and of itself, since Hacket would need to find a way to stand out against his fellow running mate, had he stayed in the race. But the information his consultant came up with, and what is now leaked to The Toledo Blade may or may not now harm Brown's viability as a winning Democratic candidate in Ohio:
The research concluded it was unwise to attack Mr. Brown's career voting record in a Democratic primary, because he toed the party line faithfully. It also predicts Republican attacks on Mr. Brown this fall.I'm really, really, really hoping that his camp didn't leak the info but that maybe it got stolen somehow by The Other Side.
"For Sherrod Brown, the issue of terrorism presents a big problem," a Hackett consultant wrote in an undated memo. A paragraph later, the consultant called Mr. Brown's intelligence votes "evidence that Brown would be pummeled in a general election match-up, as we already know how Republicans use the issue of terrorism against Democrats."
Posts
4 comments:
Mags, forgive me for my confusion, but what action on Hackett's part do you find slimy? The GOP is going to attack Brown on defense no matter what -- this is their primary tactic in all races, even against war heroes.
You're absolutely right - the GOP is going to attack Brown on defense no matter what. That's their M.O. No surprises there. But if Hackett's camp leaked the results of their "research" to the Toledo Blade, that to me is pretty much like handing over your playbook to your opponent. I mean, both Hackett and Brown were both competing for the Democratic ticket. I think that if Hackett's folks leaked out their Brown "findings," it reeks of sour grapes and pretty much provides the GOP with specifics on Brown's record that they may or may not have found out on their own. Does that make sense?
Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
So is there any evidence that this actually happened?
P.S.: the special "word verification" word to leave this comment is "magweb". Nice.
I've been trying to find an update to this, but haven't seen anything yet. But I remember reading somewhere (sorry, don't remember now where) that it might have been leaked by an angry staffer who thought s/he'd have a job until at least until the elections.
Post a Comment