Richard Cohen's "History" Lesson

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:10:19 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Man, Richard Cohen really is clueless. He is predicting that Democrats will lose the 2008 Presidential election because they want to end the Iraq Debacle. I kid you not.

Antiwar Democrats in key primary and caucus states, particularly New Hampshire and Iowa, will not vote for a lukewarm antiwar candidate. This explains why Clinton recently reversed herself and voted to end funding for the war. The one Democratic presidential candidate from the Senate who did not was Joseph Biden. He said he opposed the war but saw no choice but to fund the troops. Precisely right, Joe. But more than right, prescient as well. As if to suggest what an issue this will become, Rudolph Giuliani called Clinton and Obama's vote a "significant flip-flop." Since then the Republicans have mostly trained their fire on each other. You can bet, though, that if either candidate gets the nomination, this vote will be hung around Clinton or Obama's neck, and the hoariest of cliches will be trotted out: weak on defense. It will have added resonance for Clinton because she is a woman.

Cohen thinks the GOP will win in 2008 like Nixon won in 1972, by attacking Dems for opposing a war. Cohen is a fool. More.

First consider what Cohen himself writes about polling on Nixon's handling of Vietnam in 1972:

In the second place, back then the Vietnam War was not as unpopular as you might think -- or, for that matter, as the Iraq war is now. In 1972, almost 60 percent of Americans approved of the way Nixon was handling the war.

Bush has a 25% approval rating on Iraq. Cohen is not very adept at history.

Consider the fact that Nixon had withdrawn virtually all US combat troops from Vietnam by 1972:

Between 1969 and 1972, [the Nixon Administration] withdrew 515,000 American troops, ended American ground combat in 1971 and reduced American casualties by nearly 90%.

Consider the fact that John Kerry, contrary to Cohen's assertion, was NOT hurt by his anti-Iraq Debacle stance in the 2004 election. Indeed, when he hit the issue hard is when he made up the most ground. Kerry's problem, as Frank Luntz pointed out, was not opposing the Iraq Debacle, it was the image of spinelessness and flip-flopping:

LUNTZ: Oh, flip-flop. This is -- just ask John Kerry what it is. The joke was: He was for and against Leave No Child Behind, for and against tax cuts, for and against the war in Iraq. If he'd been elected president, he would've been the first individual ever to be able to deliver the State of the Union address and the rebuttal the same night. We want people who will look you straight in the eye -- and I watch politicians -- how much -- when you're interviewing them -- how much they look down, whether they have notes in front of them. You want them to look you straight in the eye and absolutely say what you mean and mean what you say.

And Kerry barely lost. Richard Cohen's grasp of history and politics is fleeting at best. But what would really be remarkable would be if any Democrats actually listen to him. Not surprising, but remarkable.

< Deaths in ICE Custody: Security Requires Accountability, Not Just Flexibility | Thousands Gather on Capitol Hill Urging Habeas Reform, Closure of Gitmo >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Richard Cohen's "History" Lesson | 17 comments (17 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Are he and Broder in a "stupid-off?" (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Geekesque on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:24:01 AM EST

My money's on the Dean--decades of experience.

Makes my head spin (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by andgarden on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:37:09 AM EST

But I have no doubt (and even some personal experience) that some establishment Dems really believe this. The dog-whistle appears to be "responsible withdrawal." Joe Lieberman couldn't say it better himself.

Weak on defense? (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:32:04 PM EST

and the hoariest of cliches will be trotted out: weak on defense

That statement makes me absolutely furious. America is a system like any organism and it needs elements that feed it and nurture it and defend it. If anyone is weak on defense it is Cohen. He has sat in a chair and gazed at his own thoughts too long. Weak on defense was a cliche last election cycle. Our military forces are brittle and broken in places. We are so short on helicopter pilots that a student (an officer bound by the honor code) my husband caught blatantly cheating in flight school in testing last week and who would have been out processed two years ago is still in flight school and was given the opportunity to "really" study and take the test for real. A giant liar is going to run around the world with his finger on America's hellfire missiles because our military is in a such a crisis. When election 08 gets here, if we aren't out of Iraq yet nobody will call the Democrats strong on defense or even wishy washy. You have to have a defense first!

: Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:08:42 AM EST

a student (an officer bound by the honor code) my husband caught blatantly cheating in flight school in testing last week and who would have been out processed two years ago is still in flight school and was given the opportunity to "really" study and take the test for real.

Some of these things you should really let alone.
If your husband caught the guy, and if he reported it, and if nothing was done isn't he duty bound to take it further?

It also occurs to me again (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by andgarden on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:53:32 PM EST

that the relevant comparison is 1968, not 1972,

Of course (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:58:58 PM EST

1972 was an incumbent race, Nixon inherited Vietnam, etc.

It is simply a ridiculous column.


Well, (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by HeadScratcher on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 02:00:55 PM EST

He didn't inherit secret plans, bombing Cambodia, etc...


Interestingly (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 03:05:24 PM EST

Americans were not very much opposed to bombings in Cambodia.


BTD (1.00 / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:13:58 AM EST

Because it was easily understood that it was a viable and necessary strategy.


: Things have evolved (none / 0) (#17)
by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:45:08 AM EST

since Iraq was invaded. Now to the wingnuts it is "their deaths aren't worth worrying about." No matter who they are. Except the wingnuts own, of course.

I disagree (none / 0) (#18)
by Sailor on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:56:29 PM EST

There was a lot of protest about the secret war in cambodia. It wass especially a turning point for congress, reflecting the will of the American people and their disgust about being repeatedly lied to about the VN war.


Another "clueless" "fool?" (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Lora on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:12:39 PM EST

BTD, you sure have found a lot of them lately. How on earth do they survive? Of course, they couldn't possibly be masquerading as fools but really pushing an agenda, could they?

No, no. What am I thinking?

Uh, (none / 0) (#3)
by HeadScratcher on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:49:59 AM EST

Didn't he say it could happen, not that it will happen?

There's what, 16 months til the election? Anything can happen, but who knows what will happen?

Headline writer said could (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:05:27 PM EST

Cohen said this:

There are two ways to predict the winner of the 2008 presidential race: Check the polls or read some history. The polls tell you that with George Bush's approval ratings abysmally low; with the war in Iraq becoming increasingly unpopular; with the GOP lacking a dominant candidate; and with the party divided over immigration, social issues and even religion ( Mitt Romney's Mormonism), the next president is bound to be a Democrat. History begs to differ.
The history I have in mind is 1972. . . . Now we come to the current race. . . . You can bet, though, that if either candidate gets the nomination, this vote will be hung around Clinton or Obama's neck, and the hoariest of cliches will be trotted out: weak on defense. It will have added resonance for Clinton because she is a woman.
This is where history raises its ugly head. The GOP is adept at painting Democrats as soft on national security. It is equally adept at saying so in the most scurrilous way. And while most Americans would like the war to end, they do not favor a precipitous withdrawal and neither have they forgotten Sept. 11, 2001 -- the entirety of Giuliani's case for the presidency, after all.
Will history trump the polls? It will if, as in the past, the Democratic Party so wounds itself fighting the war against the war, it nominates a candidate beloved by a minority but mistrusted by a majority. It has happened before.

Richard Cohen has predicted that if the Dems nominate, Clinton, Obama or Edwards, they will lose.

Apparently, his candidate is Joe Biden.


: Maybe he needs (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:09:58 PM EST

his credit limit raised. /SNARK

Maybe Cohen isn't a fool. (none / 0) (#9)
by Edger on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 01:55:05 PM EST

But anyone who believes him is.

Dear Mr. Cohen: (none / 0) (#11)
by Alien Abductee on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 02:30:31 PM EST

The GOP is adept at painting Democrats as soft on national security. It is equally adept at saying so in the most scurrilous way.

Y'know, there's something you could do about that. Clue: as someone granted the responsibility of a nationally syndicated newspaper column, you could use it to expose the GOP when it lies instead of just telling Dems they'd better duck and cover cause the smears are incoming.

Although I'm not sure how helpful Richard Cohen could be. Logic doesn't really seem to be his strong suit, to say the least.