Paul Hackett Talks to RK About Money, the Democratic Party, and Jim Webb

Anyway, here's Paul Hackett. Thanks very much to Paul for agreeing to blog on Raising Kaine!

Why did you decide to endorse Jim Webb for US Senate from Virginia this year?
I endorsed James Webb because he is the total package.  He+óGé¼Gäós a man who+óGé¼Gäós demonstrated his willingness and ability to rise above partisan politics and make the tough decisions for the betterment of the country not himself.  The American people need more political representatives that aren+óGé¼Gäót afraid to lead and are able to cross party lines to get +óGé¼+ôthe job+óGé¼-¥ done. This will not only allow James to attract the independent voter that will ultimately decide his race, but also will provide him the mandate to lead in the Senate when he wins.  And when he wins, America will be better off.

(more after the jump)
What do you think should be the Democratic party's rallying cry in 2006 and beyond?
The Democratic Party+óGé¼Gäós message should be that we are the party of fiscal responsibility, limited government, fair trade, and a strong national defense.  Democrats own these issues and successful Democrats will spread this message to +óGé¼+ôthe people+óGé¼-¥ and explain how we not only best support these issues but how important it is that we get back to these basics.

The successful Democratic candidate in 2006 and 2008 will inspire independent voters and moderate Republicans to help take back not only the Democratic Party but, in the process, our nation and the promise that our republic holds for future generations of Americans.

Think about it.  When was the last time the US had a balanced budget?  Under Democratic leadership, that's when. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts equals a balanced budget equals fiscal responsibility.  Never in the history of our nation have we waged war and cut taxes at the same time.  That+óGé¼Gäós fiscal irresponsibility and that+óGé¼Gäós today+óGé¼Gäós Republican Party.  Even worse, the debt caused by this fiscal irresponsibility will be passed to our children and grandchildren.  That will leave them a weaker and more vulnerable America, weaker and more vulnerable than the America we received from our parents and grandparents.

The Democratic Party has historically championed the interests of the military, both economically and through its strategic implementation.  A strategic implementation based on a forward-looking foreign policy that minimizes waste, degradation, and misuse.  The war in Iraq is not only the responsibility of the Bush administration+óGé¼Gäós failed foreign policy and dismissive elitist attitude toward the leaders of our military - think Anthony Zinni et al - but it+óGé¼Gäós also the result of the complete lack of leadership in our Democratic Party.

Fair trade.  We are the party that is the voice of the US working middle class and only through fair trade can we promote an economy that is vibrant enough to support the middle class.

And when it comes to limited government, surely Barry Goldwater is spinning in his grave looking at today+óGé¼Gäós Republican Party.

Call me crazy, but I don+óGé¼Gäót send people to Washington DC to tell me how to live my personal life, how to educate my children, or how to worship my God.  I also don't send people to Washington DC to dictate to my wife what decisions she should make with her doctor, anymore than I invite Chuck Schumer into my house to check out my gun safe.  Limited government means this: stay out of my bedroom, my neighbor+óGé¼Gäós bedroom, my wife+óGé¼Gäós doctor+óGé¼Gäós office, and my gun safe, and focus on maintaining a healthy economy that allows Americans to pursue the American dream.

What's the biggest problem with U.S. politics today and how can we fix it?
The greatest problem facing the political process in the United States today is money.  Money corrupts the process and always has, but it is an even greater challenge today than ever before. The need to raise millions of dollars in order to be a viable candidate keeps the best people from offering their services in the political process.

Additionally, the need to raise millions of dollars not only favors and encourages political careerism, to the detriment of the citizenry, it radicalizes and homogenizes the message of candidates all at the same time.

To the extent that career politicians pander to their extreme base, either privately or in +óGé¼+ôsilent votes+óGé¼-¥ at the expense of the moderate majority of Americans in the middle, we, the people suffer.

To the extent that career politicians refuse to take strong public positions on the pressing issues that face the American people and speak in homogenized meaningless +óGé¼+ôpolitical speak+óGé¼-¥ we, the people suffer.

It+óGé¼Gäós difficult to fully comprehend how insidious the +óGé¼+ômoney race+óGé¼-¥ is and its negative impact on the process without experiencing it first hand.  Suffice it to say in order to be competitive in most House races, one has to raise a minimum of 1 million dollars. To be competitive in most Senate races, one has to raise 10 million dollars.  Given this reality, the candidate has to spend most of his time on the phone begging for money.  Surely, his time can be better spent.  Equally obvious is the incumbency advantage in the quest for money.  When the turnover in the US Congress is less than that of the Soviet Politburo it should be obvious to all that a change is in order. 

The fix: public financing and regulated free air-time with narrow windows for campaigning.  Stop and think about it: we+óGé¼Gäóre more than two and a half years away from the 2008 presidential election year and candidates have already raised millions of dollars for that race.  Do you honestly believe such monetary demands are not a distraction from their day job: representing us?

Comments