I am amused by Charlie Cook’s advice for Republicans. He thinks they will basically be throwing a boomerang at their own heads if they have a bunch of faux-scandal hearings that the public doesn’t give a shit about. Much better to launder these scandals through willing and witting reporters.
…as much as congressional Republicans are enjoying their schadenfreude, they would be well advised to think long and hard about their next steps. Even the most cursory look at opinion polls or focus groups reveals that the public is convinced we have an ineffectual and out-of-touch Congress that spends too much time backbiting, grandstanding, and Monday-morning quarterbacking while the country’s problems fester. Arguably, showboating for the cameras and holding hearings are what Congress does best; the temptation is unavoidable.
Republicans would be much wiser to pursue a third option: Dig up as much damaging information as they can about the Obama administration and leak it to reporters they know will write tough stories that won’t be traced back to the source. That way, the public won’t see the GOP as being obsessed with attacking the other side and playing gotcha at the expense of the big issues facing the country—the ones voters really care about.
Meanwhile, everyone in Washington will watch polls for signs of blood in the water, indications that the controversies or scandals—depending upon your perspective—are taking a political toll on Obama’s job-approval numbers.
It’s actually good advice, but it says something about Charlie Cook’s lack of objectivity, don’t you think?
Nobody suspects the sneaky nuts.
Like this?
Ahhhh, Bobby Boy. You are such a good intelligence asset!!!
The 2016 election is now in session. Bobby Boy nows on which side he is betting.
Carefully.
Very carefully.
Obama has made a mistake messing with the CIA.
Watch.
AG
Arthur, it’s hard to believe anyone can become President without some kind of tacit endorsement by the CIA and the perpetual government. Obama has been playing on the margins, very narrow margins, and considering all the things the CIA is doing it doesn’t seem like he’s been particularly in the way.
Obama protected State over CIA in the Benghazi thing and he didn’t do much for Petraeus when he got his dick stuck in the wringer. In fact, I would not in be in the least bit surprised if the Petraeus scandal was just a symptom of subterranean politics in the caves in the intelligence world. The PermaGov has factions, too.
Woodward? He has always appeared to me to be a messenger boy for some old-school CIA types. He does what he is told to do and he does it very well.
Here’s a fairly old post on him that I wrote long ago and far away. (2006)
It still holds.
Bet on it.
Bet on it.
AG
P.S. Here’s the link to that Pease article I referenced above.
AG
Bob Woodward has always been government intel, ever since he was in the ONI shuffling briefcases between Langley and the White House. When he got to WaPo, which has a long and storied history with the Agency, he worked with Ben Bradlee who, not surprisingly, had worked out of the CIA office in Paris after the war promoting the guilt of the Rosenbergs for the Voice of America.
The main purpose Woodward serves is to show what the Agency’s story is for any particular scandal.
My point…my ongoing point on this leftiness blog…is as follows:
If this situation is so plainly obvious…and it should become quite obvious after only about 20 minutes of internet search…then why is this PermaGov hustler being given even the slightest attention by the mainstream media?
Answer?
Sure.
He is an integral part of the ongoing, media-promoted fix.
Bet on it.
AG
But then what would the Do-Nothing Repub Congress “do” over the next 18 months? How many more “Repeal ObammyCare!!” votes can the Drunken Boner hold? How many prez nominations can be indefinitely delayed and filibustered by Addison McConnell & Co?
The Do-Nothing Repub Congress has a lot of time on its hands. Investigating fake, manufactured “scandals” is all they have, agenda-wise. And Cook advises ’em not to do it and use their corporate media stooges, scriveners, lackeys and talking-headlice instead? Unthinkable.
Plus, Boner’s Boneheads need to “develop” all the “evidence” for the inevitable impeachment proceedings. That’s where all this braindead boobery is headed. What else did these patriotic teaturds come to DC for?
Not a subscriber, but based on posts of his work that I’ve read, I never thought he was objective.
I am of the opinion that it is pretty tough to be absolutely objective and without bias. What I would appreciate is for journalists to drop the pretense and just be up front about their perspective, biases, blind spots, etc.
The hardest part is recognizing your own blind spots/biases. Unless someone tells you and you believe them it’s hard to see.
Everyone’s opinion is subjective. What this says about Cook is about his lack of integrity and honesty.
I think he meant to say “Make up as much damaging information as they can about the Obama administration….”
WHO ever believed Cook wasn’t GOP?
Agreed. I read him on occasion, and always feel there is a beltway wisdom bias and, as Josh Marshall wrote, the Beltway is wired for republicans.
Ah yes, the Heritage Cook Reports or the Charlie and Jim show.
Charlie Cook is volunteering, isn’t he?
Whatever makes Cook think Republicans ever stopped do that?
When the IRS scandal took place the head of the IRS was Donald Shulman (not sure of the spelling), a Bush appointee.
That is, it was a Republican who oversaw the scandal.
Republicans faked the smoking gun emails on Benghazi.
Republicans at the time demanded that Obama find out who leaked the Yemeni thing to AP.
Just saying.
And now we learn that Lerner planted the question that got the ball rolling.
Lerner Called Lobbyist To Plant Question
You only need to look back at the Lewinsky scandal to see how good this advice is.
The Republicans had President Clinton dead to rights. He go caught cheating on his wife with a young staffer, and acting like a dishonest scum weasel while giving testimony under oath. That should have been political gold for them.
But they got greedy and pushed the story way beyond what it could legitimately be expected to yield (an impeachment? Are you kidding me?), and they ended up making him even more popular and handing the Democrats a victory in the midterm elections.
If they’d just made sure the information was out there, and done what they had to do to make sure the press was paying attention, they could have really scored some political wins.
Which didn’t really matter because Clinton gave the PermaGov everything that the wanted: GATT, NAFTA et al, consolidation of the media, welfare “reform”, financial deregulation and a few other things not at the tip of my tongue.
First of all, Bob…please do not mistake joe from Lowell for anything other than a right-wing troll and/or someone so bone-deep dumb that he does not really know which masters he is serving.
But beyond all that…Clinton gave the PermaGov fits for only one reason.
He was too popular. Especially among the young-ish and minorities. Plus he had a dedicated “liberal” as a wife. A powerful and talented wife in a political sense. He/they were not to be trusted, and neither was Gore, the heir apparent.
Bush II/Cheney etc. on the other hand? They could be trusted.
Trusted to toe the economic imperialist line.
Rule #1-Take no chances.
So they didn’t. They ran Monica L. at Clinton; he bit and they reeled both him and Gore in. Two fer one. Next story? Butch II, Cheney, 9/11 + Iraq.
Nice.
AG
Your hostility only confirms that I’m doing something right.
If the guy who called Trayvon Martin a racist and defended his murderer’s thinking approved of what I wrote, I would feel that I had made a wrong turn somewhere.