Cook triggers blowback by Dems

Democrats are hitting back at Charlie Cook, one of the most respected political analysts in D.C., after the Cook Political Report founder compared President Barack Obama’s health care push to President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq — in terms of political blowback.

In his defense, Cook clearly wasn’t suggesting that advocating health care reform was the moral equivalent of invading a foreign nation on shaky intelligence and failing to anticipate a vicious counterinsurgency that cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives.

But Democratic strategists were quick to push back, arguing that Obama’s mighty struggles over health care haven’t exacted nearly the same toll as the unspooling of Bush’s rationale for invading took on his presidency.

“Obviously, I think it’s inappropriate to compare Iraq to health care reform,” said Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse. “Think about it. Iraq got President Bush down to a 27 percent approval rating. This week Gallup had President Obama at a 53 percent approval rating. Guess what? That was exactly the same percentage he won with in 2008. … President Bush chose to go to war in Iraq; President Obama didn’t create the health care crisis.”

Cook was unrepentant. “Yes, I think choosing to take a Captain Ahab-like approach to health care — I’m going to push for this even in the worst downturn since the Great Depression — is roughly comparable to Bush’s decision to go to war,” he told me. “It basically destroyed the first year of a presidency.”http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0210/cook_triggers_blowback_0a36fa7d-18a9-4f50-a9a1-96d38cfb8aba.html

His argument is ridiculous. Pushing for healthcare was to address the problems of everyday people, and it is even worse for most people to afford health care during an economic downturn.

the Dems should inform the Food And Drug Administration!


rocktivity

:headbang:
rocktivity

even though the current free enterprise approach is eating up more and more of our stagnant paychecks every year. :crazy:

What an asshole. Seven committees, seven votes achieved for the first time in history to reform the dysfunctional health care system, and this asshole compares it to launching an illegal war.

HCR has brought the Righties and WingNuts out en Masse and
you cannot shut them up. The Righties have influenced
the Independeants and the blowback has brought Obama's
numbers down.

If you remember the Left was protesting the War and making
lots of noise for Bush.

He is not comparing policies , he clearly states that.

Essentially he is saying so much time and effort was
spent on HCR, time was lost because the blowback has
affected Congress. We still have not passed anything.

"Essentially he is saying so much time and effort was
spent on HCR, time was lost because the blowback has
affected Congress. We still have not passed anything."

Not a single person believed this was going to sail through in less time, meeting less resistance.

Bill Clinton spent almost two years and not a single vote was cast.


Politically the comparison is beyond ridiculous. When Bush launched his illegal war, public support was extremely high, mostly driven by fear. Also, not a single corporation/industry was fighting Bush on the war.

The health care crisis is severe and a lot more complex politically, both in terms of communicating the effects to people and fighting the special interests.

it is that bad, like any one of a million twit like comparisons to Hitler and the nazis ...

There is NO comparison, in no way ...

And, to try to SAY it is a political match is being part of the corporatized, brain dead MSM that is helping to CREATE the issue Cook is referencing, he is CREATING the issue he is saying it created ...

BO and congress have done A LOT in the last year - environmentally, economically, lobbying reform, transparency improved, foreign relations improved ...

It is HACK, jagoff right wing bought and paid for scumbags like Cook who are doing the GOPs bidding to bear the total focus on HCR, with the intent of making it fail and then pointing to that failure as THE example of BO's presidency ...

The Tea Party movement started long before the HCR debate even got started. And it is not anywhere near the numbers that were protesting against the war. The left was coming out in the millions, not less than 100,000.

The Independents are being influenced by high unemployment and fear for their economic futures not the lunatic right. And granted, Obama has not done a good enough job of explaining why Health Care Reform matters in terms of job growth. But the lunatic right was going to protest anyway, no matter what the issue. In fact, they are protesting his efforts to create jobs and improve the economy through the stimulus package. So it's not HCR. It's anything Obama does. Hell, they were hysterical during the campaign and the racism was palpable from a great many. They were going to be mad no matter what.

Charlie is making the mistake that Democrats do. He and they pretend that if Obama did something different they would not attack him. They are going to attack no matter what. So it is just stupid to say that Obama trying to pass critical legislation like HCR is the reason they are attacking.

Charlie's pretending that this is just about HCR shows how inept he is at analysis. A great deal of the anger and the disrespect is about a black man and a Democrat being in the White House and he is totally ignoring that fact which makes his analysis ridiculous. Everyone is trying to pretend racism this isn't the gigantic elephant in the room in regards to the Tea Party morons no matter how blatant they are about it.

His comparison is absolutely preposterous in more ways than one.

It's great that they're going after Cook for such an obnoxious (and insane) statement but I wish our party leadership/strategists would demonstrate more "fire in the belly" over other things- like pretty much anything Republicans say about us.

whereas the Whitehouse and Congress in the present case have bordered on incompetence.

By lying and manufacturing evidence to launch an illegal war? And does that mean Judith Miller's reporting was brilliant journalism.

Both in terms of political steps and nature of the communication frames and narrative leading up to the IWR.

Forget Judith Miller, the yellow cake and mushroom cloud imagery- what's important on the abstract level, which is how we derive lessons from the specific to the general is how those frames set the issue up. Then think about how using reconciliation over the summer to put a robust public option in place- without all the pandering and stalling would have set up a second battle this time over 60 votes on a "patient's Bill of Rights. Who's going to stand up for such demonstrably "evil" entities as health insurers?

It's not as if anyone would have to lie or misrepresent egregious facts regarding their behaviors, is it?

On the procedural level, getting (and guiding) IWR through Congress with enough constitutional and practical wiggle room to ultimate reach such an outrageous result as the unfounded invasion of Iraq was quite the political accomplishment- that the consequences (the substantive policies) were disastrous or ill advised from the outset is irrelevant to the analysis.

A many have noted- there's a LOT Democrats can learn from the Republican playbook. Like or no, they're adept at using parliamentary procedures to pass their preferred legislation (and water down or defeat legislation that they oppose).

Failure to learn these lessons- failure to act assertively- or worse, to passively become associated with entities and actions that people despise, is one of the biggest reasons why the Democrats lose.

Yeah, because Bush would have had an easy time selling the war to Americans without the complicit media.

Bush played on the fears of the American public in the aftermath of 9/11.

No matter how you spin the IWR, the fact is that Bush lied in his SOTU, manufactured a report and launched the war despite the objection of key Senators, including Kerry and Kennedy.

This isn't "spin" it's procedural analysis, albeit not in the detail or sophistication one would write in a scholarly paper or a report to a client.

No one's trying to "justify" nor decry Bush and the Republican's actions.

Miller was only one of many who in a concerted effort placed frames into the overall narrative- put simply: Iraq was "evil" and "dangerous" and the situation demanded action, even though it was opposed by a LOT of people (who for various, sometimes disparate reasons) took to the street in protests and rallies.

Sound familiar? Replace "Iraq" with "health insurers" (yes, that's simplistic- but meant to illustrate a point).

The sad (yes, that's a subjective) thing is that Democrats didn't have to lie or manufacture reports. They had every bit of the equation sitting right there on a golden platter (or parachute, as the case may be).

From tens of thousands of deaths annually, to millions of bankruptcies, business and financial insecurities, to extreme and outrageous abuses perpetrated on ordinary Americans. AND a set of very unsympathetic fat cats hauling in record profits and bonuses- while (and this is astonishing) they continued to jack premiums up by double digits

All this and yet Democrats STILL failed to follow a winning formula to achieve (what many assume) were their preferred policy solutions.

That's why Cook's analogy is bogus- and why, almost a year later we're still having this conversation.

It's also why- and make no mistake, the Democrats are staring down at a royal thumping at the polls next November, when they might otherwise be looking at increasing their majorities.

deft: dexterous; nimble; skillful; clever

The Bush administration set out to create war and use that war to control the country, turning what appeared to be a lame edging on incompetent presidency shrouded in a haze of questions regarding its very electoral legitimacy into one of the most powerful presidencies in our history. In the mean time they managed to rob rape and pillage both domestically and overseas in such a way that their close knit group is unlikely to ever feel any financial pain. And to this day it appears most likely that not one of them will see the inside of a courtroom in connection to their many misdeeds.

I daresay that is rather deft.

mediawhores. Not impressed.

In addition to the post above, it's important to grasp that public policy in the United States is frequently (and effectively) driven by emotional responses: anger, fear (of untreated illness or bankruptcy, for example) and resentment being the predominant cards that were (and are) on the table.

That's quite different from the dry, rational process of formulating responsible solutions to problems- and implementing them promptly enough to make a difference politically and economically.

Bush and the Republicans are pragmatic in this regard- their strategists "get it" and interestingly enough, their rank and file stooges (including some who are otherwise imbeciles like Palin) often intuitively use the very principles that researchers like Lakoff, Westen et al, lay out in their scientific publications and writings.

Most Democratic leaders these days- in an irony well suited for classical tragedy, seem to be procedural idealists- not pragmatists (even though that's often how they're characterized- or how they charcterize themselves). This business about reason trumping viscera is an Enlightenment ideal- and worked well enough at times when applied to certain structural and societal problem in the 18th Century.

Of course, this isn't the 18th Century- and problems aren't solved in rooms full of landed, well educated gentry- though one might not know it by objectively observing some of the laundry list speeches and reasoned public statements by many of our Democratic politicians.

Bottom line: pragmatist play the hand that they're dealt- and use the methods readily available that are proven to accomplish the task(s) at hand. Even when this isn't their inclination- or not how we'd prefer it to be done.

Otherwise- as we've seen all too many times, they fail to get the job done (and/or fail "inexplicably" to win elections).

You can lead a horse to water...

Anybody who uses that line..we can't afford Health Care is an asshole.. pushing propaganda.

President Obama already explained why we couldn't Afford NOT TO.

Charlie Cook is a Hysterical fucking mediagrandstandingWHoore who is against the American People.

So there goes his stupid reputation.

"one of the most respected political analysts in D.C".

... during "the worst downturn since the Great Depression" -- in terms of the Federal budget? -- is more important than the costs of NOT enacting HCR -- in terms of societal costs to the population?

Is that correct -- that when people talk about the huge costs of this legislation they are only talking about Federal budget impact?

While on health care it hasn't passed yet, democrats are telling the truth and conservatives are telling every single lie they can think of hoping that something will stick.

Get the bill passed and people will start to see past the lies and see the truth.

My recollection is that Bush won the popular vote in that election (irregularities notwithstanding).

On the other hand, you're absolutely right:

Pass responsible legislation through whatever means necessary (Americans by and large don't care how) that tangibly benefits them in a timely manner and that will breed electoral success.

Caveat: The current Senate bill doesn't do that.