George Nemeth: Hi. This is George Nemeth of Brewed Fresh Daily. We’re here with Paul Hackett today. I’ve got a number of northeast Ohio bloggers. I’m going to take the first question. Paul, what we do is we post that we’re doing an interview and then we ask our readers to submit questions. One of the northeast Ohio bloggers, Darby, asks what novel have you read recently? Then what will you do to kind of bring economic development for arts and culture when you get elected to the Senate?

Paul Hackett: Wow. Novels recently. Well, I started Blink.

George Nemeth: Okay. I got that on audio book.

Paul Hackett: Yeah. I think I probably need to get it on audio book because, man, I got a lot of reading done last year when I was overseas, but the campaign trail – time to read. So, I got through the first couple pages of Blink.

Economic development. I’ve got this crazy notion about economic development and that it’s all rooted in health care. And that health care should not be that complicated of a solution. And that as Democrats, Republicans, Ohioans and just citizens of the United States, we have to look to what Europe has done and take the best of what they’ve done and incorporate it. The sooner we incorporate it into our country and solve the health care issue, the better off the economy is going to be able to become. From a selfish point of view, suddenly Ohio is going to look like a good deal because we’ve solved a major problem for industry in the United States.

I think that’s the starting point. I’m convinced of it. That is the starting point for any sort of Ohio or nationwide revitalization of our industry. With that said, I don’t think that the industry, if you will, the old heavy industry of the last century is going to be the new industry. But maybe it’s going to be stem cell research or maybe it’s going to be some sort of pharmaceutical. Or maybe it’s going to be silicon related. Those are going to be the jobs that are going to revitalize this state, but those corporations are smart and savvy as all are and that’s going to be the first draw. I mean, I just think it’s at the root of all problems economically is the lack of a health care plan in the United States.

Brian Thorton: Hi. I’m Brian Thorton.

Paul Hackett: Hi, Brian.

Brian Thorton: My blog is FaggotyAssFaggot.com, which tends to get into a lot of gay issues. So, we’ll jump in straight here. You were quoted in the Salon.com article just about two months ago, where you said, “Gay marriage and gay rights. I’m fond of saying who cares. The debate is about whether or not American men and women can walk into a courthouse and get equal treatment under the law regardless of their sexual preference.� So, currently we cannot get equal treatment under the law. We have issues around health care, employment, having our relationships recognized, immigration, adoption, it goes on and on. What are you willing to support to help get gays and lesbians reach –

Paul Hackett: Anything that makes that happen. I know you’ll jump in if I don’t answer your question.

George Nemeth: Yes, he will. Very quickly he will.

Paul Hackett: Yeah. I’ll use this issue as an entry point to issues I’ve got with the Democratic Party and just society in general, and also that maybe articulate the divide/challenge that faces us in the states as Democrats to win statewide. I mean, first of all, gay rights, choice and guns I see in my simple mind as three issues that are all dealing with the same fundamental tie-in. And that is privacy. I view it from those terms. I view it from sort of a legal term. I mean, I remember the first time I was asked this in the Congressional race. It was by staffers. My response was just that. I’ve grown to like that response. Who cares? And they go, “No, no, no, no, you can’t say that. You’re going to offend the gay community.� And I’m like, “You know what? The gay community is a smart community like the rest of us and they understand what I’m saying and that is who cares in the best sense.�

Why have we allowed the dialogue of politics to degrade to a point where you have to state who you are and explain why you are the way you are. It’s a waste of time. It’s ridiculous. When I walk into the courthouse, when you walk into the courthouse there is not and should not be a form where you check off and it says, “I’m gay. I’m straight. I’m bi. I’m not sure.� We as Democrats have facilitated that conversation by allowing, what I call the radical right, to politicize. It’s just stupid. Gay Americans. Straight Americans. We’re all the same. We all get the same rights. Anybody who wants to say that there’s a litmus test on who gets rights and who doesn’t get rights based on their sexuality, it’s just un-American. And that’s how I view it. I am willing to support and defend and stand up loudly and proudly, as I did throughout the Congressional race about these issues when presented with them.

With that said, the challenge for us as Democrats is how do we talk about these issues in different parts of the state and not get engaged in what I view as a discussion that beats us over the head. I think we spend too much time being apologetic about standing up for that issue. Just say, this is the deal. We’re all Americans. We all have the same rights. If you want to say we don’t because we’re gay, then you just need to go back in your box because it’s un-American. You are in the minority if that’s what you believe.

Down in southern Ohio, which is far more Republican and conservative than it is up here, I remind my Republican friends that this is one of the issues or representative of what has happened to the Republican Party. The Republican Party has been hijacked by religious fanatics. That’s one perfect example. I lead into Barry Goldwater spinning in his grave. Barry Goldwater did not have issues with gay rights. Barry Goldwater did not have issues with choice. Why? Because it was a privacy issue. I think that’s where we need to direct that conversation regarding privacy issues.

On the day-to-day discussions that I’ve faced in the Congressional race, and depending upon where I am now, still face those questions. Each individual wanna-be representative has got to be smart about who they’re talking to and how they have that conversation. It’s a very different conversation, obviously, in rural communities.

Adams County, which is one of the counties in the second district that I ran in. I don’t know how familiar you might be. Adams County is a county where Danny Bubp – anybody know the name Danny Bubp? Okay. Danny Bubp represented – I’ve known Danny for years through the Marine Corps. Danny represented an organization, whose name I forgot, whose goal was to get the Ten Commandments in granite placed outside the entry point to the public school. It is a rural community. It’s an Appalachian community and it is, from those outside of the community, viewed as an extremely religious community. County, really. And it’s representative though of the challenge that we as Democrats face if we want to win this state because numerically a Democrat can no longer win statewide simply by pulling Lorraine and Cuyahoga and Mihoning Valley and the surrounding Toledo community. So –

Tim Russo: Let me follow-up on this for Brian. How did you vote on Issue One in 2004? Yes or no on the gay marriage amendment.

Paul Hackett: I’ve got to make sure – I voted the way that said gay marriage is fine. I mean, if that’s what people want to do.

Tim Russo: Okay. How would you vote on the employment and non-discrimination act?

Paul Hackett: Nobody should be discriminated against because of their sexuality, period. Does that help?

Brian Thorton: Sure.

Paul Hackett: Now, I will tell you this, to be candid with you, that the phraseology, if you want my humble advice, whether you call it marriage or union. I’ll just be direct with you. I think you ought to start off with union until people in general get used to it. Okay. Because I will just simply tell you in the rural communities, marriage means – that means, I’ve got to go to church on Sunday and watch a gay couple get married. That is the challenge of the term marriage. To me, I say can we just start off making sure that everybody has the same legal protection until people become comfortable with that. I know that’s not a necessarily great thing to tell people whose rights are being restricted, but let’s win the battle and then get the label right down the road.

But, to me, personally, union, marriage, I don’t see the difference. It’s just that I notice that when I’m talking to somebody who this is a major issue for in the sense that this is bad, this is really bad, we can’t let this happen, it’s caught up in the sense that somehow or another the term marriage is a label that seems as though a church has sanctioned it. While some churches have and should be able to, people just got issues with that. So, I say let’s start off and make sure everybody has got equal rights.

There was nothing unusual being down in Adams County. My point talking about Adams County is I won that county in the second district when I ran in it. I see that as holding out hope for Democrats that we can win these counties if we talk about these issues in a direct, just a real direct way. Instead of being sort of apologetic. I just noticed that my unwillingness to be apologetic about what I believed in on issues like this – but at the same time, except fine. If you don’t agree with it, that’s fine, but that’s your personal thing. I don’t need your personal values in my personal life. Forgive me, I love saying – and it seemed to be a good term and I hope everybody can use it if they find it useful and that is, I don’t know anybody who’s gotten divorced ‘cause the neighbors are gay. I know a lot of people have gotten divorced because the economy sucks, they’ve lost their job, they can’t pay the mortgage or some sort of health crisis has come up in their personal lives that have economically wrecked them. That’s the discussion that we have to be focused on as opposed to whether the neighbors being gay is going to destroy the fabric of America, which is, I think you’d agree, is generally preposterous.

Bill Callahan: So, how would you apply that to the issue of sexual identity in the military and what’s your position on don’t ask, don’t tell.

Paul Hackett: I think that the military has got to come to terms with the fact that there are already gay men and women serving in the military. We’ve got to figure out the simple logistics that are no more complicated than who gets housed where. That’s just a throw back to how the military is. I mean, heterosexual men and women don’t live in the same barracks, at least in the Marine Corps. You can still get punished if you’re in the opposite sex’s barracks, period. Doesn’t matter what time of the day. You’re not there. So, I think logistically that’s the only barrier. I’m sure somebody smarter than me can figure out it’s probably not that complicated.

George Nemeth: Brian, do you have a follow-up question or?

Brian Thorton: As a commander in the military, did you ever have instance where you found out about a gay soldier? And if so, what was the –?

Paul Hackett: No. I mean, for me personally, it was never an issue on my mind. Again, I just didn’t care. I mean, I cared about whether or not the men and women who I served with were doing their job. There was no litmus test. I just didn’t care. I mean, to me it’s just like an outrageously irrelevant issue in my life.

Tim Russo: That’s a nice segway into the Iraq question. Can you just tell us – I mean, you spent a lot of time there. Tell us something nice about Iraq.

Paul Hackett: The people are some of the nicest people I’ve ever met in my life to tell you something nice. I’ve lived all over the world. I’ve lived in Asia and I traveled all over Asia. I’ve lived all over Europe and lived in – just all over the world. If you want something nice, they’re just like us. They have a different religion that isn’t that different from Christianity and isn’t that different from Judaism, really. They have the same concerns and desires as we as Americans do. They’re very much like Americans. I mean, they don’t like to be told what to do from outsiders. Gee, sounds familiar. Good people.

Tim Russo: What do you think is going to happen if we withdraw?

Paul Hackett: Well, we’ve got to withdraw. And I’ll answer the questions that you’ve got on that when you bring them up, unless you want me to just ramble on it. Which I’m happy to do.

Tim Russo: We won’t let you ramble.

Paul Hackett: Here’s what’s going to happen when we withdraw, regardless of when we withdraw be it this year, next year, five years, ten years or 20 years, the place is going to get worse than it is now and worse than it is the day before we leave. I mean, that’s just pretty historically obvious when you look at any similar situation. After the Ottoman Empire left, after the British Empire left, anywhere we’ve been. After we left Vietnam. It steps down and it gets worse and that’s what’s going to happen in Iraq.

But I think long-term what’s going to happen – and it’s going to be easier to happen the sooner we get out is that the Suuni and the Shia are going to come back together, which they were. I mean, there were Shia in the government under Saddam Hussein. He was a secular guy. There were Suuni and Shia running the government. They will come back together and they will get rid of what I simply refer to as the foreign fighters, the Jihadists that have come in to their country that they despise and hate almost as bad as us being there. They’re going to get rid of those folks. And they’re going to get rid of them handily and quickly and very efficiently.

Tim Russo: You’re confident in the Iraqi troops as they exist today or maybe as they exist in a couple of years?

Paul Hackett: Yes and no. First of all, you’ve got to keep in mind that the Iraqi troops who are fighting with the American forces today were at best at the lowest levels of the former Iraqi military. We didn’t get the cream of the crop. The cream of the crop and the top were fired, dismissed and left when Paul Bremmer fired colonels and above, just across the board. That is, again, sort of a reflection of the lack of understanding that our civilian military in the Pentagon and this civilian administration had of the Iraqi military. It’s also a good example of how this civilian leadership, Bremmer, and this administration ignored the American military advice. Because the senior generals and the senior folks, uniformed military personnel are saying don’t do that.

Tim Russo: Let me get the decision on going to war in a little bit. First let me ask you this. Is it a good idea for American policy to facilitate a quiet partition of Iraq after withdrawal?

Paul Hackett: I don’t think so, really. It’s going to happen naturally to some extent.

Tim Russo: You think a partition’s going to happen naturally?

Paul Hackett: I think what’s going to happen is the Shia and the Suuni are going to come back to their original balance and that there will be probably a best case scenario, some sort of relationship between the Kurdish state and the Muslim/Arab state down below in the south.

Tim Russo: And a U.S. withdrawal? How would that affect that process?

Paul Hackett: I think it’ll make it happen more quickly. But whenever it happens, it’s not going to be pretty in the short term. But I think that our foreign policy should be moving in a direction that when we leave – and we’re going to leave sooner or later – that we should look toward Iraq becoming a useful member to the world community. And that we should have general demands and expectations that they generally – forgive me for being colloquial, but play well with their neighbors and that they generally – in broad, human rights terms – treat their population civilly. I’ll tell you right now, in my definition, that doesn’t mean we’ve got to be over there fighting to make sure that everybody gets to vote. Nobody in the military signed up to make sure that the Iraqi women don’t have to wear a hijab and should vote. First of all, under Saddam, they didn’t have to wear a hijab and we’ve created these issues. I mean, we’ve brought in religious fundamentalism.

Tim Russo: Let me just ask you a couple of quick questions about how you would vote as a senator and then we can move on. If you were a senator in 2003, would you have voted yes knowing what the senators knew then on Iraq?

Paul Hackett: I would have voted no to go in.

Tim Russo: You would have voted no in 2003?

Paul Hackett: Yeah. Quick reason why. It’s not that Paul Hackett is a genius. It’s just that Paul Hackett was listening to guys like Shinsecky, Zinni and Van Riper. If you Google their names, if you’re not familiar with them, you will see that those guys who had just left the active service of the military as three star and four star generals were saying what everybody in the professional level in the military knew. And what everybody has seen take place. I mean, they predicted it. Right t—

Tim Russo: So, you would have voted no in 2003? On the infamous 87 billion supplemental resolution, how would you have voted on that?

Paul Hackett: Whew. That’s a tough question. I think probably at that point I would have voted to give that money because it was guys like me who were out there scrambling around trying to put hillbilly armor on their vehicles. Maybe it extends the time that we’re over there. I know that argument can be made, but I can’t help but think that those guys, like me, like I was doing earlier this year. We need what we can get once we’re over there.

Tim Russo: So, Jack Murtha last week said that the Pentagon is now asking for another 100 billion. Would you vote for that?

Paul Hackett: You know, I think probably yes, but I think that simultaneously we’ve got to stand strong as a party and say, as Jack Murtha has said, we’ve got to get them out of there. We’ve got to quit backing off that.

Tim Russo: If you’re saying we should withdraw, but you’re also voting for another 100 billion, how do you reconcile those two positions?

Paul Hackett: Well, because until we get to the point where the policy makers have pushed through the withdrawal decision, and the withdrawal is taking place, there is young Americans who are over there fighting and dying who don’t have the equipment and need the equipment that they need to survive day-to-day. It’s just a reality. I mean, I was over there for seven months. We didn’t even have ACOX signing devices.

Adam Jusko: Does giving the money make it less likely that the withdrawal will happen though?

Paul Hackett: I understand that argument. I don’t think so. I just don’t think so. I think that the Democrats have to be secure in their position as the opposition party and say this is wrong, we’ve got to get out of there, period. And just keep driving that.

Tim Russo: While at the same time, voting for the 100 billion?

Paul Hackett: It’s tough, but yeah. I mean, life isn’t perfect. How do you get out of that?

George Nemeth: Bill, you got a question?

Bill Callahan: Yeah. Although actually, I don’t want to interrupt the flow of this one. Well, okay. So let me follow-up then. If you say that you probably would have voted against the original –

Paul Hackett: I definitely would have. I was saying it at the time. Everybody who cared to listen to Paul Hackett, citizen/lawyer at that point, had to hear it day in and day out. This is stupid. This is bad.

Bill Callahan: The other day, for the first time that I know of, an Administration official, namely the President actually named a number with respect to the number of Iraqi dead in the war, 30,000. And he said, I believe, the term he used was incursion.

Paul Hackett: Was what?

Bill Callahan: Incursion. That during the incursion… Do you think that, I guess the question I want to ask you is this – this is the subject that’s been verboten for any discussion from the political side, how many Iraqis have died in this. Particularly how many Iraqis have died when we were going in. Do you think that it’s important for people to start talking honestly about that side of the question? What Iraq has suffered and the extent to which people suffered in the course of doing their military duty in resisting an invasion?

Paul Hackett: I’ll try to hit it from both ways. Yes and no. I mean, yes, it’s important because you’ve got to realize that with the Iraqi deaths, it continues to fuel and worsen the problem that we’ve got to get over. That is how we put this country back together. How do we get them to help us put their country back together so we can get the hell out of there as soon as possible. Then, how do we get them to reach a point where they can be a good neighbor in the world community. So, when these things happen, it’s just bad. I mean, if we could be certain that every one of those deaths, which obviously it’s not because I’ve been there and I’ve seen the mistakes up close and personal.

If the number in a perfect world, whatever that number is, if you could say that every one of those men or women who died was unquestioningly an insurgent, I wouldn’t have any heartburn with it to the extent that they were trying to kill me or they were trying to kill my brothers or sisters that are fighting over there. But I know that’s not the case. And I know that every time the military makes a mistake over there that it worsens the problem of trying to have a decent relationship with the country down the road. The mistakes. You know. It’s just inevitable. In war, mistakes. It’s tragic.

Bill Callahan: I guess I was really asking less about the mistakes and more about the first year or the first three months when we were talking about bombs and we were talking about very general fighting and great many civilians being killed.

Paul Hackett: I think it’s, yeah, I mean –

Bill Callahan: I guess to sharpen the question a little bit, we spent a lot of time in the last 20 years debating how to view the Vietnam War, particularly in terms of how the people who fought it are asked to look at it or the culture looks at it in hindsight. Do you think this war is going to be looked upon as an honorable enterprise in hindsight?

Paul Hackett: I think it’s going to be looked upon as a foreign policy failure and mistake specifically. So, in that context, how can you ever stop and justify any of the lives that are lost. I don’t know if that answered your question. That’s just how I feel about it. Just a mistake.

Gerardo Orlando: Let’s switch gears a little bit. What’s your position on NAFTA, free trade, most favored nation for China?

Paul Hackett: Garbage.

Gerardo Orlando: Garbage. So what’s the alternative? I mean, is there a happy medium. The Democrats and particularly your opponent have fought pretty hard against that stuff, but it’s all passed. It seems like all we’re presented is free trade and then what some call fair trade, which is really a bunch of restrictions that just aren’t going to fly. So, is there a happy medium?

Paul Hackett: Well, I’ll highlight the fact that I thought NAFTA, as much as the years ago that that was passed, yeah, I thought it was a bad piece of legislation then. I thought it was kind of shameful that so many Democrats got on board and made sure that NAFTA got through. I think it’s pretty much been a resounding failure for Americans. I think that CAFTA is just an extension of that. I heard somebody say, “What’s the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.� And that’s CAFTA.

What’s the solution? My God. That’s so complicated, but it’s rooted in all these topics that we’re talking about. I mean, the solution is we have to demand with our trading partners that they treat us fairly with their currency, that we have got an educational system that’s producing engineers and creative people to propel us forward in our manufacturing, so that we can produce products and design products that not only Americans, but that the world want. We’ve got to solve the health insurance and the health care issues so that corporations quit exporting American jobs. We have got to demand that corporate America come back to being a member in our society. And that they, again, have a sense of duty and obligation in our society. And that it’s not just this bottom line. That’s important. That’s America. The bottom line is important, but so is sharing in the responsibility of a healthy America.

Those are the broad terms of how you answer that question. I realize in saying it that’s very superficial in general, but that’s what I want to hear my leaders doing. Whether I’m elected or not, I mean, that’s just frankly what I believe. Look. I believe in the American way. I own a hell of a lot of stock and have made a ton of money investing, thank God, a little bit wisely in the stock market. So, I want to see American industry be successful and healthy.

My concern right now though is that with their short term obsession with the bottom line that is looking out maybe a year or so, they’re making decisions that will cripple them and us as a nation long-term. They’ve got to get beyond that and – I’m going to slightly spin-off topic, so get me back on when you want me there – but an example of that is how do you explain that a corporate CEO makes 450 times what the line worker makes. And 20 years ago it was maybe 50-60 times what the line worker makes. They continue to send jobs overseas. There just has to be a balance. There has to be a sense that they’re a citizen and they, like the rest of us, have a duty to give back. I don’t mean give back in the sense of Wal-Mart shipping a million dollars worth of water down to hurricane relief. I mean a sense of you’ve got to pay something beyond $5.15 an hour – you’ve got to support that. You’ve got to provide health care. You’ve got to think long-terms of so, alright, what do we do when all the good jobs are in foreign countries and everybody left here is making $5.15 an hour. Who’s going to buy all those cheap goods at Wal-Mart? Who’s going to hire me? Who’s going to hire my neighbor the electrician? Or my neighbor the plumber? Or my neighbor the medical doctor? Nobody’s going to do that. So, it’s all going to affect us all eventually. It’s blatantly obvious to those of us who aren’t sleeping.

George Nemeth: There’s a couple of issues here. I want to ask a leadership question. You mentioned health care and you also mentioned education. So, if somebody could remember those questions and ask something about that.

I want to find out who your role model is for leadership? I haven’t had enough coffee this morning,

Paul Hackett: I probably have a number. I’ll start with and they’re bi-partisan. I’ll list a couple. Lincoln. Kind of obvious to a lot of people, I suspect. Teddy Roosevelt. FDR. Truman.

George Nemeth: Could you speak to some of their qualities? I mean, you mentioned bi-partisanship.

Paul Hackett: Yeah. Also, George Washington just railed on the development of the two-party system and thought it was just going to be the worst thing to ever happen to America. I think perhaps his concerns have been borne out.

What strikes me about Lincoln is the tremendous courage that he had to fight to keep this country together against such devastation and overwhelming opposition that he actually had the courage. I mean, it was he, individually had the courage to day in and day out face the mental anguish as a leader to ask people to think better of the country than they were at that point. And to lead them to a higher level. That’s what always sticks with me.

Gerardo Orlando: Just to jump in here, a lot of George Bush’s supporters try to draw that parallel. Maybe you can speak to that. I mean, certainly –

Paul Hackett: Abraham Lincoln would not be a Republican as defined by George Bush. And George Bush – it’s just absolutely disgusting and disgraceful to even say those two names in the same sentence. Sorry. I’ll tell you a quick story. This was 2003 – I think it was in the spring of 2003. I was coming out of bankruptcy court. I ran into sort of this, through marriage, this distant relative of mine who did a lot of bankruptcy work and is a Republican down in Cincinnati. She introduced me to this other guy who she knew who is also a bankruptcy attorney. He was wearing a tie. On the tie, smart me, I figured out very quickly that all the presidents on the tie were Republican presidents. I made the comment to him, I said, “What a shame.� Because Lincoln was right in the center prominently displayed. I said, “God, what a shame it is that Lincoln has got to share that tie with either Bush.� The conversation kind of spun from there.

Tim Russo: As it would.

George Nemeth: I don’t know if I’d call it spin.

Paul Hackett: Yeah. That then evolved into the whole Iraq discussion ‘cause it was right at the point either we had just invaded or it was abundantly clear that we were on the brink of invasion. This whole thing. I mean, it was a guy my age and he’s like, “This is great. This is going to be fantastic. We got to do this. Truth, justice the American way. Kill all Godless communists.� All this rhetoric. I remember saying to him – I kind of baited him. I said, “You must have been in the military.� He’s like, “Oh, no, no, no, no. I’m flattered that you would think so.� I said, “Oh now, come on, you weren’t in the Marine Corps or something?� He’s like, “No, I’ve always had an interest.� And all this stuff. And I said, “Well, why? Why don’t you go fight over there? Why aren’t you signing up and joining to fight this fight?� This was really before anything got bad in Iraq. And he said, “Well, I’ve got a wife. I got three kids. I’ve got a law practice.� This kind of stuff. I was like, “You know what, guess what? So does most of the Marine Corps reserve.� And here we are now three, however many years later and over 95 percent of the Marine Corps reserve has fought.

George Nemeth: Let me jump in here real quick because that’s something that I was thinking about too. I mean, how many kids do you have?

Paul Hackett: Three.

George Nemeth: Three. You’re married. You have a law practice and you just went. What’d your family think about that? You practice in a firm?

Paul Hackett: I’ve got my own practice.

George Nemeth: Okay. So it’s your own practice. I was going to ask about partners, but it’s your life partners that are more crucial so. How do they feel about that and were they concerned –?

Paul Hackett: My wife and I met here in Cleveland over 20 years ago, as you may or may not know. I went to college and law school up here. I was born up here. My wife grew up in Shaker –

Tim Russo: Did you go to Case?

Paul Hackett: I did. When did you graduate?

Tim Russo: ’94.

Paul Hackett: Aw. Gees. That was a decade after me.

Bill Callahan: You went to Marshall?

Paul Hackett: I went to Marshall for law school and I went to Case undergrad. Yeah. Where were we. Yeah. I joined the Marine Corps in ’82. I met my wife in ’82, within weeks of doing both. I guess the first point is she’s been with me through this whole thing. She’s known me since I was 20 years old. The Marine Corps has always been a point. The question will – I mean, how do you do that. The Marine Corps is a family to me as well. I see Marines fighting and dying over there. It’s about family. It’s about a survival. It’s not any more complicated than that. Day-to-day over there, the Marines, who are they fighting for? The guy behind them. The guy to the left, the guy to the right. Getting through the day trying as nobly as possible to accomplish that mission. But, that’s it. That’s how the Marine Corps is. It’s a complete family. I mean, come holiday season, Thanksgiving Day. I spend half the day on the phone talking to my Marine buddies from around the world. From Japan to everywhere else. So, these guys have been with me for 20 years, more than that.

So, when it comes to, can I offer something to maybe help make sure that more of the young kids who’ve joined long after I really kind of got out of the main stream of the system. If I can offer something to make sure that they get home in one piece and that their experience within the context of war is as good as it can be, that’s what I feel like I owe them. That was thematically my drive was the sense of obligation to make sure that I could help some of these guys get back.

Gerardo Orlando: Back to health care. You mentioned getting the best out of the European system. What exactly do you mean by that? Are you talking about single payer because many people would argue that by getting the best out of their system, the government covering everybody, you’re going to get stuck with the worst as well, which is either holding back innovation and also the spotty health care or the long waits, etc.

Paul Hackett: I think to take exception with that, I don’t think that that is a serious risk if you look at it closely. I think that tends to be the Republican rhetoric. I think single payer is part of it. I think private industries and individuals who want to opt out of it as long as they provide it, needs to be integrated in it as well. But, in the final analysis, there’s no reason why, particularly given the amount of taxes that we do pay, that we as Americans should not expect that. The health care systems in Europe are good. They’re damn good. They’re every bit as good as ours.

Gerardo Orlando: I don’t – well, you really think so?

Paul Hackett: Yeah, I do. Look at Norway.

Gerardo Orlando: My cousin’s a surgeon in Italy. He does transplant surgery. So he was flying around the country picking up organs. In Italy and Milan, it’s as good as it is here. If you go to southern Italy, he said it’s no better than a third world country, the public hospitals. People who have money go to private clinics, but the private hospitals there are a mess. So, I don’t think you can completely discount the fact that there’s some down side to having that —

Paul Hackett: I don’t. But I would argue that we’ve got the same disparity throughout America, regionally. Look at Norway. If you step back and you look at the overall health of Europeans. I mean, they’re living healthier lives than we are. We’ve got to get smart. We’ve got to look at their systems that they’ve had in place, in some cases, many decades. We’ve got to smartly adopt the best of those systems and make them the American system.

Gerardo Orlando: What did you think of Kerry’s plan where –?

Paul Hackett: When did he unroll it? Did he unroll it after I left?

Gerardo Orlando: Unfortunately in the campaign, the media focused so much on the horse race, they paid very little attention to health care policies. His point was that the government should be responsible for catastrophic care. So, anything above $75,000 a year, the government would pick that up. And the result of that would be that insurance policies would go down in cost significantly because insurance carriers would not be subject to liability beyond a certain point.

Paul Hackett: Well, I’m not trying to evade that question, but getting back to a question you asked me about leadership and I mentioned Teddy Roosevelt. I think it’s time that we have a president that is geared up to bust the private health care trust system. And it’s a trust. What is Frist’s operation? HCA? I mean, the largest private hospital system in the United States. There are regions in the United States now where the only hospital that’s within a footprint is a private hospital and they won’t take people who are unable to pay or don’t have insurance.

So, I think that the answer lies in a system that assures that all Americans have health care and that maybe there is, through economic analysis, there’s a sliding scale of what we as taxpayers have to pay to be a part of that. And I think in the spirit of the United States, there can be those who opt out and pay on their own. And I’m not afraid of the boogey man that rich people are going to get better health care than poor people. I mean, first of all that’s the case already. So, I don’t think it’s going to get worse. And I think we need to view this issue as an impediment to our continued economic growth, an impediment to our ability to stay competitive throughout the world. Because the European Union is far ahead of us in solving this problem. If we want to stay competitive from an economic point of view, we’ve got to figure it out because it’s killing us.

I mean, look at private health insurance and private health care. The cost of managing those systems is in the 25 percent range. So, 25 percent of your expenses are for overhead. Well, in the Medicare system it’s like five percent. So, I stop right there and I say, I don’t buy off on big government gets everything wrong. Big government doesn’t get everything wrong. There’s a reason that government is good. Thematically it gets back to my point of why are we as Democrats constantly apologizing for the great things that we’ve developed in our party. Social security and health care should be one of those.

I’m sorry. Are you still picking me up on the microphone?

George Nemeth: Oh yeah, you’re fine.

Adam Jusko: I’m going to give you your chance to sort of make your primary pitch. My name is Adam Jusko by the way. My blog is Now That’s Progress.

Paul Hackett: Now that’s progress. Yeah.

Adam Jusko: Obviously, Sherrod Brown’s a big popular politician, especially up here. He’s got a lot of credentials. He’s got a lot of us feeling pretty good about him. And I’m talking as a primary voter myself as a hypothetical. So, I look at him and I think he’s great and he would make a great senator. And I look at you and I like what I’ve heard and I like what I’ve seen. So, my question comes down to, why should I choose you over him?

Paul Hackett: Well, I think it’s rooted in the challenge that we as Democrats have before us to win statewide. If we want to do more than win primaries, we’ve got to elect people who have demonstrated an ability to cut deep in independent and Republican conservative, moderately Republican and generally conservative areas of the state. Because the mathematics in Ohio are such that no longer can a Democrat win statewide simply by pulling Cuyahoga, Mihoning Valley, and the greater Toledo Lucas County area. We can get all those votes and still lose statewide. We’ve got to get cross over votes, independents and moderate conservatives. 2006 is going to be a great opportunity to do that.

Being new to this process, I’m still somewhat apprehensive to kind of blow my own horn. But in the second district race, I think that I resoundingly demonstrated the ability through the way I talk about these issues that we all believe in – at least I think we all believe in – to convey the same message and beliefs in a manner that people feel comfortable with. I really don’t have any issues with Sherrod Brown’s voting record. I think he’s got a great voting record. I think it’s fantastic. The worst thing that’s going to happen is one of us is going to lose. Hopefully one of us is going to beat Mike DeWine. I just tend to think that I’ve got a better chance of doing that in part because of my demonstrated ability to get cross over votes. In part, frankly, I don’t have the long voting record that is going to get wrapped around Sherrod Brown’s neck by Mike DeWine if he’s successful.

I also think that for me, and I was talking about this in the Congressional race and now sometimes people think I’m really taking jabs at Sherrod, which I’m not trying to do, but it comes across that way. I was saying it before Sherrod had gone into this race that part of the problem we face, I believe, is these career politicians that have manipulated the process that are driven by furthering their own careers at the expense of the rest of us. And I direct that for purposes of this conversation at Mike DeWine. And here’s a guy who’s been elected since he was 27 years old. Well, I asked myself how are those same folks going to fix what has gone awry on their watch. And how and what are they going to do if they’re just changing jobs within the administration. I don’t think 2006 is going to be the year where we play musical chairs on the deck of the Titanic. I think 2006 is thematically going to be the year of throw the bums out.

Regarding my experience, or lack thereof, I think I have some very valuable experience, real world experience and common sense experience in running a business for a lot of years that I created on my own. I think it’s relevant. I think it’s pragmatic. I think that my biases – I’d like to see more people in government who’ve come to government after they’ve lived in the real world and maybe had the opportunity to create jobs. Or maybe it’s the opportunity to have been on unemployment, as I have. And think in terms about how these decisions that they’re sent to Washington, D.C. really impact people. I mean, I generally know the impact that big government has got on small businessmen and women like myself. I know what it’s like to create jobs and provide benefits to my employees and deal with the day-to-day stress and burden of making sure that I meet payroll. I’m also a little bit familiar with making decisions in tough situations and what happens when you make the wrong decision. So, it’s my bias.

I don’t necessarily buy off that 25 years in Washington, D.C. while everything goes to hell in a handbag is the type of experience that’s going to try to turn around the ship. I do think it is grounded in a sense of service, commitment and leadership. And a sense at this point, history of strength and conviction to stand up and do more than simply show up and vote the good vote. Those who are going to be a part of turning around the ship are going to be those who have the courage to stand up and strongly advocate and explain to all Americans what’s going wrong. But the bottom line is we’ve got to win statewide. It’s not about winning a primary.

Adam Jusko: Let me follow-up with a question that you may not want to answer.

Paul Hackett: Probably won’t.

Adam Jusko: A lot of people have been very excited about you in Ohio. And sort of see you as a good new face of the future –

Paul Hackett: I’m going to interrupt and just start answering the question. Well, Jean Schmidt isn’t even going to get through her own primary.

Adam Jusko: The question I have though is if it doesn’t happen for you this time, are we going to see Paul Hackett continue either running for elective office or sort of in the mix in the future? Because you’ve gone from a congressional race to a senate race. What happens if you’re not the candidate in November next year?

Paul Hackett: I am not driven by a sense that I want to have a title of senator or congressman. I am driven by the fact that I believe in the marrow of my bones that this country that we’re about to leave the next generation, my kids, is not as good as the country that I received from my parents. And that my kids aren’t going to have the same opportunities that I had growing up. And that’s what drives me.

So, if somebody told me if I got up every morning at six o’clock and swept the streets of Cincinnati for 12 hours a day for the rest of my life, almost like some sort of modern sysafis, that I would bring about the change that our country’s got to do. If somebody could convince me that that would do it, I would do it. And I don’t care what they call me. I’m like the poster child for how good it can be in America, at least in the generation that we’re in. I mean, I chose well. I had great parents. And they gave me a great education up here in Cleveland. I didn’t excel necessarily academically, but I excelled at using that education to do well. I just don’t see those opportunities for the next generation in the volume that were available to us. I want to see it there. I don’t care how it gets done.

Adam Jusko: What’s the answer?

Paul Hackett: I don’t know. I really don’t know. I don’t have a burning desire to do anything except to see the end result happen. I will say this. If I lose in the primary, I will carry that burning desire to do whatever I can do. If somebody thinks I can help Sherrod Brown, I’ll do it. I mean, you all are sitting around looking at me. So I hope you can judge whether or not you think I’m just mimicking the words or parodying some sort of sound byte. My great concern is southern Ohio is very different than up here. We, as Democrats, have got to understand that. There’s a reason why we as Democrats have not won statewide in over 15 years. I think that’s roughly how long its been. Its been a disconnect between the northeastern part of the state and the southern, particularly the south, well all the south of this state. I mean, it’s a very, very different culture. It doesn’t look that way. It just is.

Jill Miller Zimon: My name is Jill Miller Zimon and I blog at Writes Like She Talks. I wanted to ask you a couple questions about No Child Left Behind. Just like you described, Ohio is the kind of state where you might think a law like No Child Left Behind would be helpful because of the disparities. However, Ohio is suffering from the shortfall of appropriations that No Child Left Behind doesn’t have. It’s almost like an unfunded mandate.

Paul Hackett: I think it is.

Jill Miller Zimon: I’d like to hear your opinion on whether it needs more money or it’s already too much federal involvement in education and depending on how long that takes, I’d also like to hear your opinion on vouchers.

Paul Hackett: Vouchers are bad. Just to speed it on. I’ll tell you a funny story about it. After the Congressional race. I got a call from a gentleman who I’d met somewhere in my campaigning in Cincinnati who taught at a school. He advised me after the Congressional race. This was still in the summer before school had started. It was, gosh, just a week or so after. He said, “Come talk. All the teachers are in conference getting ready for the school year. Come talk to us. Gees, we’re so excited.� So on and so forth. So, I spoke and somebody asked me the same question, similar question, they said, “Well, what do you think about charter schools?� I said, “Charter schools, I think are just bad. They’re draining public funding off of the system. I think that we should be focused on using the public funding to support the public schools.� This silence in the audience. You know where I’m going with this? It’s a charter school.

Jill Miller Zimon: Just to clarify, up here in Cleveland, one of the distinctions that people would point out about charter schools versus the vouchers is that the vouchers are giving the money to the parents to be able to choose how they want to spend it. The charter schools theoretically – well, there’s the option for them to be run through the public school district. Yes, they take the money per student into that charter school, but theoretically there’s the ability for them to be within the public school district. So, I do understand that but I think the difference between the voucher and the charters, do we give a chunk of money to the parents – but I’m sure –

Paul Hackett: Yeah. I mean, I just think that our tax dollars, when they come into the government should be spent to support a strong public school education system.

George Nemeth: Paul, there was a question posted to the blog. It was about home schooling and do you home school your kids?

Paul Hackett: Two out of three.

George Nemeth: Okay. So, speak to that a little bit about the differences.

Paul Hackett: Sure. Sure. There’s no real magic to it. I’ve got three wild kids. I’ve always sort of viewed it like I’m doing the school system a favor keeping at least two of them home. My wife, who graduated from Case Western Reserve with me back in ’85 got her Bachelor’s degree in psychology and then went to William and Mary and got her Master’s degree in school psychology. Then graduated from the University of Cincinnati with a doctorate in education. She wrote her dissertation on early childhood development. She used to be a school teacher. We just always thought it’d be neat. Our oldest daughter just started school. She went to private school, which frankly, I almost kind of wish she went to public school ‘cause it’s hurt my pocket book so much. That’s about how complicated it was. I mean, there are – I don’t know. My wife wanted to do it and I said, if you want to do it.

George Nemeth: You can’t argue with that.

Paul Hackett: Yeah. No. Look, I’m very biased. I think my wife is the most beautiful, smart, caring woman in the world. And somebody said, what about your mother and I said, “I think my wife is the most beautiful, smart, caring woman in the world.� And she wanted to do it and as much as I can support her, which is pretty tough these days on the road, I do it. We made the decision last year. Really my daughter, who is now eight and a half, wanted to go to school. We ran the gamut of the public school to a couple different private schools to a parochial school. We looked at them all and I relied on my wife’s decision. She chose the school. I sort of figure she’s, at least in our household, the expert on that. I mean, my gosh, she’s got a doctorate in it. Who am I to say no, that’s a bad idea. I don’t know. We don’t really have any issues with the division of –

Jill Miller Zimon: I would say I empathize as a parent of three kids as well. I totally hear what you’re saying.

Paul Hackett: My kids are wild. Last night we were at dinner at Shaker Heights at the Shapiro House. My cell phone rings. My wife calls up and she goes, “Do you want to get the update? We’re just leaving the emergency room.� I said, “Which one?� The two-year old, five staples across the forehead. Last year when I was in Iraq, three broken bones. My son broke both his arms on different occasions. My daughter broke a leg.

George Nemeth: Which is why you want to reform health care.

Jill Miller Zimon: I wanted to go back to No Child Left Behind. If you could speak about that a little bit. Is it too much federal involvement or what do you think would be an appropriate level of federal government?

Paul Hackett: I don’t think it needs to be an appropriate level of federal. You can’t go down that path in the sense that – look, the system is worse now with No Child Left Behind than it was before. We’ve got teachers in school systems that are spending so much time chasing a test and preparing for a test instead of focusing on what they should be doing.

Down in Cincinnati there was a teaching farm, Long Branch farm. A rural area in the second district. It was great because all of the school systems would spend days throughout the year, they’d come out to the teaching farm. That would help fund the farm. They had to close the farm down last year. Cincinnati Inquirer looked into it and the take was that the schools are spending so much time chasing the exams and the testing requirements that they didn’t have the time to do something, which I think is so important, giving that sort of the first look. I just think it’s garbage. Keep the federal government out of it.

Jill Miller Zimon: If you reduced the reason why No Child Left Behind had any merit to the factual existence of an achievement gap, how would you suggest that that achievement gap be closed? And when I talk –

Paul Hackett: I think the answer in Ohio is fair funding across the state. I mean, this is something that for 15 years has been unresolved. It should be resolved, which gets laid resoundingly at the doorstep of the state legislature and their unwillingness to solve the funding problem. I mean, you’ve got rural communities that are getting funded at a fraction of wealthy, suburban communities like Shaker Heights or Indian Hill or Upper Arlington. It’s not equitable and it’s not fair. I think if we begin to solve the problem of all schools getting an equal funding from the state and through the state, that’s going to be a step in the right direction.

Jill Miller Zimon: Would you want to see the dismantling of No Child Left Behind?

Paul Hackett: Yeah. Yeah. I don’t see anything positive coming out. I don’t run across any teachers who think that its done any good. I only hear people explain the harm that its done. I haven’t seen an improvement in the educational system as a result of it.

Bill Callahan: Broaden that equity question. One of the elements of a Democratic statewide victory, one is clearly being able to get votes that Democrats have not gotten. The other is getting votes that Democrats have gotten and in particular, getting people in Cleveland and Toledo and Akron and Mihoning Valley and Columbus to respond enthusiastically to a statewide candidacy as they did, for example, last year in the Kerry campaign when a huge amount of resources went into getting 170,000 people to vote through their city.

You’ve spent your life – I mean, I guess your office is in Cincinnati, but I think it’s fair to say you’ve spent your life around _____ in inner cities. My question is really, we’ve had shrinking population, shrinking fiscal base, shrinking federal funding, all kinds of shrinkage, including the base for education funding in cities like Cleveland. Do you have any ideas, opinions about the way the party should be pursuing as a new urban policy in the next round of political competition?

Paul Hackett: Man, can you get me directed a little more specifically? I’m not sure I really follow you.

Bill Callahan: Okay. We’re going through another round of budget, several tax cuts in _____. And as usual, it all has boiled down to where do you find money to cut food stamps

Paul Hackett: Okay. I got you. I follow you.

Bill Callahan: So, I guess, are you prepared to reverse tax cuts or otherwise find revenue? Are you looking for more federal funding for cities? Do you have ideas about the ways you would do that?

Paul Hackett: Alright. I understand now. Where to start. Look. What has made the Democratic Party the great party that it has historically has been, the same party that got us out of World War II, got us out of the Great Depression, ushered in the Space Age, was the same party that built this country. And is the same party that has as a principle that we help those who are less fortunate than us and I think that that is a cornerstone to the Democratic Party and that we should not be ashamed of our belief that it’s a good thing to help those who are less fortunate.

So, let me then move that into tax cuts. Are you kidding me? I mean, we’re fighting three wars and our economy’s in the tank. Our infrastructure is in the tank and there are people who say we need tax cuts. You want to tell me how that happens. When are not only the Democratic leaders, but the Republican leaders going to face the reality that we are fast becoming a third world nation and that taxes are about reinvestment in America. They are about taking care of the less fortunate, which are all things that we’ve got to do. They’re just part of the process. If you want to live in the great country of the United States and enjoy the benefits of this country, you’ve got to pay taxes. Taxes are good and useful and have allowed us to grow to be what we are. If you stop paying taxes, we then become a third world country.

If you really want to know, even though you haven’t asked the question, this argument that where are you on rolling back the Bush tax cuts? Great idea. I didn’t need the 600 bucks. For the few of us at the top of the food chain that financially benefited from those tax cuts, we just bought more stock. I ain’t going to spend it. I just bought more stock with it. I gave my $600 to the YMCA that I’m a member of. So, it didn’t get really fed back into the consumer economy. I just think it’s wrong. Taxes are the price of admission. If for those of us who pay a lot of taxes, we should be happy to the extent that there are worse things that can happen in life.

If you want to continue to enjoy living in this free society without the fear that your sons and daughters are going to get drafted to go fight over in the war because you can afford to send them to college and afford to make sure they don’t have to go fight in a war, then pay your taxes. I don’t know if you’ve got the bumper sticker all over the place up here like we do down in Hamilton County, freedom isn’t free. I see it all over on the back of Cadillac Escalades and Hummers and so forth. It’s like, alright, yeah, I agree. Well, our neighbors out in Ciota and Pike, well their kids are fighting arguably for freedom that we’re so nationalistic and ramped up about. Well, what are you doing besides complaining about your taxes. So, what are you paying.

Bill Callahan: If you were making a primary campaign speech to a group at the corner of 30th and Woodland, where the vice presidential candidate appeared at Friendly Inn in the last election, what would you say would be the most important things that as a senator you would want to be working on for purposes of equity and growth in that kind of neighborhood?

Paul Hackett: Yeah. Maybe this just will reveal some of my naivety. I think the same issues that affect me are the same issues that affect the people at 30th and Woodland. They just have a bigger impact on the people at 30th and Woodland, but they’re still rooted in a lousy economy that’s related to health care and our inability to solve that equation. It stretches out into broader issues of education, which are all generally related to the war in Iraq to the extent that we’re spending six billion dollars a month doing nation building in Iraq when we should be spending six billion dollars a month doing nation building and painting the schools here in the United States. And rebuilding the infrastructure here in the United States and at 30th and Woodland. There’s a hell of a lot of schools in east Cleveland that need a good paint job. Well, that’s what we’re using the military in Iraq to do in large part is paint the schools. Nation building begins at home. Let’s do it here. Let’s spend that money here. And let’s have a more thoughtful foreign policy and a more intelligent foreign policy so that we don’t get hoodwinked in sort of a reactive way. And end up spending our wealth, both monetarily and through lives.

Tim Russo: How are we on time here?

George Nemeth: It’s been an hour and ten minutes that we’ve been talking.

George Nemeth: One more? One more?

Scott Piepho: I have the last question? Oh my goodness. Scott Piepho. I blog at Foe’s Akron Pages. I apologize for coming in late.

Paul Hackett: Did you drive in from Akron?

Scott Piepho: I’m going to resist the temptation to ask if you have a plan for improving Cleveland’s traffic.

Paul Hackett: We were just saying it’s not that bad up here.

Scott Piepho: There was an accident on 77 so. Because I was late, I may wander into an area that was discussed before. As I was doing my research for this, I ran across some newspaper articles talking about the Ohio second race and your criticism of Jean Schmidt for –

Paul Hackett: Being a rubber stamp?

Scott Piepho: Being a rubber stamp in particular with regard to tax hikes by the Taft administration. You’ve just talked about the need to roll back the Bush tax cuts. How are you going to answer charges of inconsistency there that you campaigned against tax hikes when the state arguably needed the tax hikes to balance the budget?

Paul Hackett: I would stand – yeah, I’d stand corrected if you’d pointed that out to me. I don’t ever remember saying that. The only time it was ever said was in the sense of the usual discussion that I always have is in talking about tax cuts, I think is just silly in the sense that we should be talking about how our tax dollars are spent. I would occasionally throw back to Jean who would yack on about we got to cut taxes. I would usually say, “But Jean, you say that, but you were the one who increased the gasoline tax and some of these other taxes. You don’t want to acknowledge that.� That was usually the context that I was talking to her about taxes. It was not in the sense that, yeah – I was not saying, cut taxes, cut taxes, that’s the answer. I was saying, “Jean, be consistent. You want to tell us that you’re the “ voice of cutting taxes�, but that’s not what you’ve done. Let’s move away from this and talk about how our tax dollars are spent and the causes which we use our tax dollars on.� If you show it to me, I’ll stand corrected, but I never remember saying, “Yes, we’ve got to cut taxes. That’s going to fuel the economy�.

Scott Piepho: Well, just to clarify for the record, Passing mentions in the Inquirer about you said, “He criticized Jean Schmidt.� And that’s what I wanted to know is how you –

Paul Hackett: Yeah. Well, every time Jean –

Scott Piepho: Because it’s going to come up.

Paul Hackett: Yeah. Every time Jean Schmidt ever opened her mouth, it was, “Paul Hackett wants to raise taxes and I’m the one who has cut taxes.â€? And I’d say, basically, “Bullshit, Jean. You raised the gasoline tax.â€? I forget what the percentage was, but it was pretty hefty. “And you raised the cigarette tax.â€? Which, fine. She would say things like, “We’ve got to support tobacco farmers.â€? It’s like, “Well, Jean, tell them how you raised’ – tobacco’s huge down south. But “Jean, tell them how you raised the tobacco tax, the sin tax. You want to bring that up since you’re supporting tobacco farmers today. You’re criticizing tax hikes tomorrow, but you manage to do all these things that are inconsistent.â€? That’s usually when I would level the criticism. It was like, let’s be honest, okay. I’m not ashamed to say we should be talking about how our tax dollars are spent as opposed to this dribble about let’s cut the taxes more…