home

Charlie Cook's Myopic Analysis

Charlie Cook writes:

. . . The second Democratic camp, the Purists, is chiefly composed of liberal activists and bloggers who see the current problems of the president and the party as the result of their being insufficiently liberal and of not sticking with their convictions. [. . .](Without weighing in on the validity of the liberal Purists' arguments, I would like the record to show that when conservatives made a similar argument -- that Republicans lost the 2006 and 2008 elections because they had veered away from conservative principles -- liberals laughed hysterically.)

Charlie is both wrong on what the "Purists" think and in his comparison of the "Purists" to what conservatives said about the 2006 and 2008 elections. First, the reason why the Republicans lost big in 2006 and 2008 was because George Bush's policies stunk, not because the policies were insufficiently anything. And the Purists' argument is, in fact, that the danger Democrats face in 2010 is twofold - first that capitulation on policy will lead to BAD policy. Second, capitulation on policy will lead to a demoralized base. One last point, the Obamaite Loyalist position is obvious yet not likely - Cook describes it thusly "if the economy turns around over the next year, the president's fortunes and those of his party will improve." The economy is not likely to be strong enough in 2010 to avert major Dem losses. The question is how big the losses. A demoralized base means BIG losses. The half-a**ed stimulus not geared towards job creation means a half-a**ed recovery. Which means big Dem losses. At least, that is this "Purist's" view.

Speaking for me only

< My Retreat From The Media | CA Legislature Passes Weaker Prison Reduction Bill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Let me add that this Purist (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 10:10:15 AM EST
    is more concerned with enacting good policy, even if that means a short term political loss, than in protecting the seats of the Heath Shulers and Travis Childers of the world.

    I'm concerned about my interests (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Pol C on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 10:42:17 AM EST
    The reason I have my back up on health-care reform is that I don't want, under threat of a $3800 annual fine, to be forced to buy junk insurance if my circumstances demand it. Mandates have to go hand-in-hand with a solid government alternative to the corporate providers. Otherwise, it'll just be a big boondoggle that doesn't solve anything.

    The "purists," for me, are the people who carped about Bill Clinton's compromises, which invariably improved the general situation, or at least didn't make things worse. What Obama seems to be leaning toward will make matters worse. And his faith in how well it will work out in practice is amply illustrated by implementation provisions, which state that nothing will take effect until after the 2012 election. Mr. President, if you're so convinced that what you want to do is so beneficial to the public, then let voters judge you by how well it works out in practice.

    If the Dems, bless their hearts, really want... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by lambert on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 10:46:25 AM EST
    ... to go the way of the Whigs, I'm more than happy to help them on their way.

    Purists? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 10:52:12 AM EST
    Or "scared sh*tless of our politicians and how their penchant for accepting bribes might screw us-ists".

    Did you know that Nancy Pelosi for the first time recently decided that the Public Option wasn't necessary?  Within hours of this revelation, United Health announced a fundraiser in her honor:

    Link to OpenLeft story

    There is an awful lot of room (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Steve M on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 10:53:37 AM EST
    between "Purity" and the Baucus Caucus.

    You're too much of an ideologue (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Pacific John on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 11:03:00 AM EST
    since only 80% of the country agrees with you.

    We and the 80% (none / 0) (#8)
    by SGITR on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 11:41:56 AM EST
    have two realistic choices. One is no bill at all and that is if the House Progressives chose to blow it up. The second choice is a badly diluted bill that Obama claims a moral victory.

    As they say pick your poison. Because politically either one could lead to loses in 2010.

    But of course this was all predictable. Only someone with zero political knowledge wouldn't know that the Republicans and the insurance owned Blue Dogs would see to it that a public option would never pass.

    So either Obama is a poor strategist by picking a fight on an issue that he could not win or he knew  exactly where we would end up on this and all the talk of a public option was just window dressing talk.

    [and please those reading this don't try to say that a reconciliation bill coming out of conference is not subject to 60 votes to pass. It's a reconciliation bill going into conference. It's a conference bill coming out of conference subject to filibuster as all conference bills are]

    Parent

    I have decided to be bipartisan on this issue (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 11:12:03 AM EST
    I agree with the Republicans that spending $900 billion of the taxpayers money on the "Baucus Plan" is not the solution to HCR.

    I agree with the "purist" of the Democratic party that bad legislation is worse than no legislation both as a matter of policy and political strategy.

    The only solution IMO would be to scrap the current bills and expand Medicaid and allow those not able to get affordable health care to buy into the Medicare system.

     

    why being called a purist offends (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 12:00:27 PM EST
    well it goes without saying that just how it's used (with a sneer) it's not intended to be a compliment, but the underlying meaning is that the person who is a purist has lost objectivity about a policy or a political situation.

    i have found that centrists are NOT immune to losing objectivity themselves.

    Perching oneself on a fence is no great vantage point in terms of objectivity, no better than really any other vantage point in my experience, and the tendency for centrists to take a PURItanical view towards everyone else is just as great if not moreso.

    kind of the long way around to saying Cook sucks.


    Dylan Radigan called the healtcare (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 12:02:19 PM EST
    crisis a "math problem" which I thought was an astute and accurate description of the problem.

    There is little analytical and pragmatic thought (in the logistical sense) being applied to defining what ideas are going to be effective in solving this problem.  

    If you want to act in a bipartisan fashion, you must make the case for approaching problems without ideological concerns.  Unfortunately, the liberals/progressives (whatever one wants to call them) are being accused of being ideological when in fact their ideas are the most pragmatic - based on empirical data rather than being driven by any number of other ideological "condidtions" - like "no big government programs" that are coming from both the center and the right in the Village.

    I am constantly amazed that people can argue with a straight face that it is more important to keep government small than it is to protect and serve The People of the United States.

    I always believed that Obama was basically anti-government in his thinking.  I had hoped that the enormity and urgency of this issue - along with members of the Democratic Party who really see that - would have moderated Obama's anti-government sentiments at least on the healthcare issue.  I never imagined that he would be so obsessed with the far right that they would be the only ones to influence his opinion - then again maybe I did in a way - when they kicked the single payer people out to the curb, I did sort of get a clue about how this might go.

    In any case, single payer is the most elegant solution - and would be the most efficacious - but too many people are shackled by ideology to simply take the leap and enact the most effective idea out there.  Too bad.

    My realistic assessment is that we (none / 0) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 12:29:40 PM EST
    will wind up with bad legislation that will do more harm than good.

    At this moment, I prefer sarcasm over reality. Maybe later on in the day, I will deal with what will probably happen.

    I am a Purist (none / 0) (#13)
    by Manuel on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 12:46:21 PM EST
    Single payer is my preferred form of Health Care Reform.  Tere is IMO very little difference between no Public Option and any Public Option that might remain in a compromise bill.

    I am also a realist however, so I probably will support a bill that provides coverage for pre existing conditions and portability as well as mandates and subsidies.  This is very weak tea indeed but it is better than the status quo.

    One thing I have been wondering about is why the conservative opponents of reform were so much better at organizing for the town hall meetings (and getting media attention) than supporters of reform.  Was it all media bias or has the left lost its ability to organize beyond emails and blogs?

    Obama needs a good recovery but he faces (none / 0) (#14)
    by jerry on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 12:49:32 PM EST
    massive criticism from the right and even the left over the size of the deficit and stimulus.

    I'm a huge fan of Krugman, but I am only so-so on the statement that any stimulus is good stimulus.  From where I sit in my neck of the woods, the stimulus has been spent terribly, not on projects with long term payoffs (even when they are shovel ready) but on very short projects and often mostly on expanding government jobs.  

    As in the heath care debate, I think Obama could have, should have, placed some goals and metrics and shown leadership in terms of how the stimulus was spent.

    So in 2010, if there is a jobless recovery, Obama and Democrats will face criticism and buyer's remorse over the stimulus and what it seemingly hasn't done.

    And that's assuming there's no criticism over TARP and the toxic assets still being on the books, no criticism over lack of real help in stemming foreclosures, and no criticism over foreclosures in commercial real estate.

    I think it will be an (none / 0) (#15)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 01:18:19 PM EST
    uphill battle to get the same numbers and types of people out to vote Dem. in the mid-term election.  Obama himself will not be on the ticket.  

    Oh, (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 01:27:31 PM EST
    the GOP will put him on the ticket if he's unpopular and his "army" has already faded away it seems.

    Parent