Pro-gun Democrat in Ohio - Hatchet job by Klein in Time


PDA






Malone LaVeigh
January 22, 2006, 09:23 PM
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1151749,00.html

It's Easy to Be Hard and Hard to Be Smart

In a Democratic Congressional primary that could have implications for the mid-term elections this Fall, an amateur's bluster squares off against an old political pro

Exerpt:

... "I'm a strong Democrat from the great state of Ohio and damned proud of it," he thundered. "What does the Democratic Party stand for? Limited government. Strong national defense. Fair trade. Fiscal responsibility." Limited government? That was the fun part: "I don't want to send someone to Washington to invade my private life, control what goes on in my kid's school, get involved in the decisions made by my wife and her physician or to find out how many guns there are in Hackett's gun safe."

If you enjoyed reading about "Pro-gun Democrat in Ohio - Hatchet job by Klein in Time" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Helmetcase
January 22, 2006, 09:27 PM
I like that guy. I've emailed offering to do some stuff with their campaign efforts. Did a brief writeup on him on my blog.

http://progunprogressive.com/?p=52

Standing Wolf
January 22, 2006, 10:14 PM
What does the Democratic Party stand for? Limited government. Strong national defense. Fair trade. Fiscal responsibility.

Not since Franklin D. Roosevelt's election in 1932.

Lone_Gunman
January 22, 2006, 10:42 PM
Limited government. Strong national defense. Fair trade. Fiscal responsibility.

The Republican Party used to stand for this also, until the Neo-Cons took control.

Lone_Gunman
January 22, 2006, 10:43 PM
--

Helmetcase
January 22, 2006, 11:06 PM
Not since Franklin D. Roosevelt's election in 1932.
Well, if you bother to read on, you'll see his explanation. He was talking about limiting the govt's intrusion into our personal lives vis a vis social issues, like abortion, guns, etc. The Dems can also lay claim to being the party of Fair Trade since fair trade is often a euphemism for protectionism. FWIW, I'm a liberal but I'm generally anti-protectionist. I like the spirit of trying to protect our industry, our job base, etc., but I see it as generally a losing battle in the technological age. Given the way we're spending money like drunken sailors in Thai whorehouses, I don't have a problem with Dems like Hackett calling for some fiscal responsibility either.

beerslurpy
January 22, 2006, 11:10 PM
What does the Democratic Party stand for? Limited government. Strong national defense. Fair trade. Fiscal responsibility.

Omg I wish it were so. I would vote for that Democratic party in a hearbeat.

But lets review the list anyway, shall we?
The last time the Democrats stood for limited federal government was in the 1860s when they tried to secede from it. Since FDR especially, the Democrats have done nothing but increase the intrusiveness, cost and reach of the federal government. Democrats gave us Wickard v Filburn, most of the federal beaureaucracy and nearly all of our federal gun control laws.

FDR was big on national defense, but the peace movement killed that. Since Reagan, the democrats have been the anti-military party.

Free trade? Since when have the democrats been for free trade? Oh right, he said fair trade, which I imagine is a somewhat more government controlled alternative to that. Ok, nevermind.

Fiscal Responsibility? The Bush administration has made it hard to poke fun at the spending habits of previous presidents. That being said, I dont support Bush either. Still, Bush hasnt really broken the Democratic stranglehold on crazy spending. FDR and Johnson spring to mind as prominent spenders of money.

Lets review the examples too:
The party that doesnt want to get into your gun safe? NFA, GCA, AWB, Brady? All passed by democratic congresses and signed by democratic presidents. Need I say more? Ok, I will. Every single anti-gun proposal for a law comes from a democrat. Every single pro-gun proposal comes from republicans. I think that pretty much wraps it up. Democrats are weak on gun control and weak on government intrusiveness.

Interfering with the practice of medicine? Ok, who gave congress the authority to meddle with the practice of medicine? FDR and his supreme court nominees. The only reason the Supreme Court even thinks it has any authority to meddle in abortions, assisted suicdie, medical marijuana and other private medical issues is because congress has been doing so for decades, thanks to Democrats and their twisting of the Commerce Clause.

Controlling what goes on in your kid's school? Oh lets guess which party established federal control of your kid's school!!! Can you guess? US Dept of Education was founded during the Carter administration and can you guess which party was controlling congress when it passed the bill to Carter to sign? Thats right kids, democrats again!

I'm all for what this guy is proposing, but the Democrats havent brought it to the table yet. As soon as they do, I'll start voting for them.

Helmetcase
January 23, 2006, 09:55 AM
But lets review the list anyway, shall we?
The last time the Democrats stood for limited federal government was in the 1860s when they tried to secede from it. Since FDR especially, the Democrats have done nothing but increase the intrusiveness, cost and reach of the federal government. Democrats gave us Wickard v Filburn, most of the federal beaureaucracy and nearly all of our federal gun control laws.

Hackett would argue they're the party of effective government and that they had to change with the times; but you're still not addressing that they've historically also been the more socially permissive and less intrusive party on most every social issue as well.

FDR was big on national defense, but the peace movement killed that. Since Reagan, the democrats have been the anti-military party.One of my favorite myths. A) After Reagan, the Cold War ended. B) As a result, spending on the military went down. C) Clinton's military spending was in line with the first Bush's. D) Republican Congresses approved those budgets under Clinton, and they had control of the purse strings.

The Dems are not anti-military. They simply don't believe in using the military to chase down every tin pot dictator around the globe like we're playing a video game.

Free trade? Since when have the democrats been for free trade? Oh right, he said fair trade, which I imagine is a somewhat more government controlled alternative to that. Ok, nevermind.
It means protectionism, not government control per se. How many of those beers have you slurped tonight? ;)


Fiscal Responsibility? The Bush administration has made it hard to poke fun at the spending habits of previous presidents. That being said, I dont support Bush either. Still, Bush hasnt really broken the Democratic stranglehold on crazy spending. FDR and Johnson spring to mind as prominent spenders of money. Dem stranglehold on it? He's setting all kinds of new records for spending it like it was water. The Dems are the party of fiscal restraint by comparison, so that oughta tell you something.


Lets review the examples too:
The party that doesnt want to get into your gun safe?
Homey, were you paying attention? He was calling attention to the very fact that Dems have been responsible for that bull????. Give the man some credit where it's due.

Interfering with the practice of medicine? Ok, who gave congress the authority to meddle with the practice of medicine? FDR and his supreme court nominees. The only reason the Supreme Court even thinks it has any authority to meddle in abortions, assisted suicdie, medical marijuana and other private medical issues is because congress has been doing so for decades, thanks to Democrats and their twisting of the Commerce Clause.
Not even going to touch this one. So many fallacies there that we'd be here all night. Suffice it to say the Constitution gives Congress the ability to pass relevant laws, and plenty of Supreme Courts since FDR have confirmed that right, including a bunch of Repub nominated justices.

Controlling what goes on in your kid's school? Given the kind of crap that you see in Kansas and Dover, PA, I personally favor a strong central govt protecting the interests of students everywhere, including those out of the way places.

beerslurpy
January 23, 2006, 10:08 AM
Listen koolaid drinker, social permissiveness applies to social activities that the left doesnt like, too. Otherwise you end up with "permissive" soceities like france which are wonderful for white catholics but hell for everyone else. Social permissiveness means "hands off" or it is meaningless.

There is no such thing as "effective" government when the government is doing things it has no business doing. Effective tyranny does not make the case for more tyranny. Effective socialism does not make the case for more legalized theivery.

All the anti-war and anti-military rhetoric comes either from democrats or from Ron Paul. While I like Ron Paul, he is not really a mainstream republican. The Democrats have taken up an anti-military-spending stance since Reagan because opposing Reagon was the partisan thing to do and it eventually became a habit. Just like opposing the war in iraq is good because it hurts Republicans (obviously most Republicans feel the reverse). Republicans are just as guilty of this genre of behavior, but that doesnt justify it as a subsitute for rational thought.

And Wickard v Filburn is a lie. You know it and every socialist in this country knows it. If it wasnt a lie, you wouldnt have needed to pass the 18th amendment to regulate the interstate market in alcohol. And like all lies, it will eventually get corrected. You would think that left would embrace federalism in a time when they are increasingly beaten back in all 3 branches of the federal government.

Trying to paint the democrats as the party they should be is dishonest because they arent yet that party and many within the party dont want it to go that way. Youre going to have to wait another 10-20 years for the old guard to die, or youre going to have to strongarm them. Dean tried and then torpedoed his own campaign. Better luck next time.

Helmetcase
January 23, 2006, 10:30 AM
Listen koolaid drinker, social permissiveness applies to social activities that the left doesnt like, too. Otherwise you end up with "permissive" soceities like france which are wonderful for white catholics but hell for everyone else.
KoolAid my ass; sure sign of someone caught with their pants down with a poorly thought out argument--name calling! Whoopeee! The only social activity the left hasn't been permissive about is gun ownership, and people like Hackett, Dean, and I are trying to change that. Give it time.

There is no such thing as "effective" government when the government is doing things it has no business doing.There are some things the govt shouldn't delve into that it has, no doubt. But you're casting too wide a net.

All the anti-war and anti-military rhetoric comes either from democrats or from Ron Paul.
Ah baloney. Anyone taking an anti-military stance is a fringe character and doesn't speak for a majority of us on that issue.

While I like Ron Paul, he is not really a mainstream republican. The Democrats have taken up an anti-military-spending stance since Reagan because opposing Reagon was the partisan thing to do and it eventually became a habit. Just like opposing the war in iraq is good because it hurts Republicans (obviously most Republicans feel the reverse). Dry that one out and you can fertilize your lawn. They (and the Republicans in Congress) reduced military spending because the Cold War ended. Get over it. It's not 1982 anymore.

Trying to paint the democrats as the party they should be is dishonest because they arent yet that party and many within the party dont want it to go that way. Youre going to have to wait another 10-20 years for the old guard to die, or youre going to have to strongarm them. Dean tried and then torpedoed his own campaign. Better luck next time.
What he's doing is a good thing, a strong voice moving the party from where it's been to where it should be. He's speaking the truth and doing the work that needs be done.

beerslurpy
January 23, 2006, 10:34 AM
Youre trying to sell something no one here wants to buy. When the Democrats start selling what we want to buy, we will be lined up around the block to get it. Until then, bugger off. Dont you get it? We arent progressives*!

*The latest name for the redistributionist left.

Helmetcase
January 23, 2006, 10:58 AM
Who is this "we?" Judging the by the fact that Hackett almost unseated that obnoxious Jean Schmidt in a district that went almost 70% for Bush in 2004, I'd say the people not included in "we" is getting to be bigger all the time.

Redistribute that thought for a while. :neener:

Henry Bowman
January 23, 2006, 12:27 PM
Ohio voters, keep this in mind. He is a liar. He is saying what he thinks he needs to say to get elected (to defeat an anti-gun RINO). If elected, he will be a junior Senator with no power and will need to tow the Dem leadership (read: far leftist) line to survive.

On the other hand, Dewine (RINO-OH) does not deserve anyone's vote. He needs to be defeated in the primary. If Dewine loses to Hackett, the disfunctional Ohio rep. Party will interpret it as a need for the Repubs to shift to the center, rather than noticing that their candidates have abandoned conservative and individualist principles.

Judging the by the fact that Hackett almost unseated that obnoxious Jean Schmidt in a district that went almost 70% for Bush in 2004, In that election, 2 out of 3 conservatives stayed home, assuming that it was a shoe-in. Do not misinterpret the results.

Helmetcase
January 23, 2006, 12:40 PM
Ohio voters, keep this in mind. He is a liar. He is saying what he thinks he needs to say to get elected (to defeat an anti-gun RINO). If elected, he will be a junior Senator with no power and will need to tow the Dem leadership (read: far leftist) line to survive.
Liar? How so? Everyone's got some skeletons, so feel free to enlighten us as to Hackett's. But the guy's got a military background and might just have the kind of backbone to not tow anyone's line. He's already said more pro-Gun things than you'd expect from a Dem candidate at that level, so no one will be expecting him to change that. For a majority of the Dems who aren't activist on the gun issue, they just see it as something that will lose them votes but not win them any, and would prefer to just leave it alone. I don't think anyone will be pressuring him to change his stance on that issue--and I doubt they'd have much luck.


In that election, 2 out of 3 conservatives stayed home, assuming that it was a shoe-in. Do not misinterpret the results.
That's a testament to the guy's ability to campaign as well, and also speaks more about the weakness of Schmidt than anything about the voters. I'd be curious to see some stats to back up your argument here; even if you're right, it was one of the strongest pro-W districts in the entire US, so for him to make it so close is remarkable, any way you want to slice it.

Bigjake
January 23, 2006, 01:43 PM
Hacket's all talk, like most dems these days. look at the man's record, ignore his speeches

besides, theres no way he'll defeat brown in the primaries, so its irrelevant



Amen, beerslurpy man

LawDog
January 23, 2006, 01:51 PM
Name calling, knee-biting and general discourtesy.

Lights out!

LawDog

If you enjoyed reading about "Pro-gun Democrat in Ohio - Hatchet job by Klein in Time" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!