Further Thoughts on Hackett
Lots of talk among the right wing blogs about whether Hackett means anything. The Right Angle Blog
says the Democrats can claim victory:Unlike many of our blogging friends, we here are worried at the implications for the Ohio Republican Party and they should be worried too, they took this race for granted, and they almost blew it.
That's reasonable; my main quibble is with the post's title. Rather than "Democrats Can Claim Victory", how about "Republicans Nearly Blow It, But May Be the Big Winners"?
Why? Because this has given the hard Left their head of steam heading into 2006. The argument the left wing has advanced as to why John Kerry didn't win in 2004 is that he wasn't tough enough on President Bush. If only they'd nominated Dean, he'd be in the White House right now. So Hackett comes along, runs a red-meat to the wolves campaign except for his TV ads
, covers the spread and nearly wins.
Advantage to the idiot side of the Democratic party. If that analysis sounds facile, it is. But the Democrats are
facile at this point. They sense that they're adift in this horrific conservative nation with very little chance of regaining power. So they grasp at whatever thin reed they can find.
The Left is fairly strong within the Democratic party right now and Hackett's "overwhelming victory" will give them the false confidence to argue within the party for a more agressive anti-Bush stance. In 2006 they will be disproportionately strong in the primary stage, and there is already talk of purges of those deemed insufficiently deferential to the desires of the left wing bloggers.
The Democrats are the big losers yesterday. Indeed, looked at in this light, a win for Hackett might have been the best outcome the Republicans could have imagined.