Archive for ‘David Axelrod’

July 29, 2009

Progressive nepotism!

Lefty blogger wannabes hoping to hustle a posh New Media gig get screwed over by Team Obama:

Ethan Axelrod is joining the Huffington Post, the liberal Web site that has been largely supportive of President Obama. His dad, now a White House senior adviser . . .
“I’ve been interested in journalism for a while,” the 22-year-old Axelrod said Tuesday. “I heard through my father that they were expanding, so I applied for it.”
The younger Axelrod started yesterday as editor of the Huffington Post’s new local edition in Denver, the third of a dozen planned sites that have already launched in New York and Chicago and will next target Los Angeles. He applied for the job, was interviewed by Arianna Huffington along with other candidates, and was tapped after submitting a mockup of the Denver home page. The site goes live in September. . . .

Attention, Denver-area activists in the progressive netroots community: Arianna says you suck.
Maybe she’s right. First time for everything, I guess . . .

(Hat-tip: Memeorandum.)

May 27, 2009

Chris Matthews — and Allah? — bash Rush

“The reason the White House goes after Rush, Newt, and Cheney isn’t because they’re out of power, it’s because they’re unpopular, something Matthews knows (or should know) better than anyone given his network’s obsession with trumpeting Limbaugh’s pronouncements as a foil to Obama.”

April 20, 2009

Axelrod doesn’t get Tea Party concept

Dishonest or ignorant? You decide:

Senior White House adviser David Axelrod on Sunday suggested the “Tea Party” movement is an “unhealthy” reaction to the tough economic climate facing the country. . . .
“I think any time you have severe economic conditions there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that’s unhealthy,” Axelrod said. . . .
“The thing that bewilders me is that this president just cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people,” Axelrod argued.

Let me explain something to you, David Axelrod: Obama and the Democrats didn’t “cut taxes” in a way that will stimulate economic growth. They didn’t reduce or eliminate the capital gains tax. They didn’t reduce or eliminate the corporate tax. Most of all, they didn’t reduce the top marginal rate.

The stupid “targeted tax cuts” approach that Democrats have been pushing for the past 15 years — check this box on your 1040 and add an extra few hundred bucks to your refund — does nothing meaningful to stimulate growth. The fact that most of that money is going to people who don’t pay income taxes anyway means that it is, in fact, a welfare giveaway, not a tax cut.

What you, David Axelrod, don’t understand is that those of us who support a growth-oriented economic policy aren’t in favor of tax cuts on a “more-money-for-me” basis. It’s not about who gets what, it’s about increasing prosperity by expanding liberty. But Democrats are so narrow-minded that they don’t even grasp the concept.


No surprise that the master of astroturfing would find a true grassroots movement distasteful.

Via Donald Douglas, here is CNN’s John King calling the Tea Party movement “ginned up”:

UPDATE: Linked at RCP Best of the Blogs.

September 22, 2008

Obama astroturfing expose

UPDATED & BUMPED (AGAIN): Ace and Dan Riehl find the smear artist has deleted his YouTube accounts — evidence of what criminologists call “conciousness of guilt.”

Michelle Malkin has a thorough roundup. More coverage at Hot Air, Jim Treacher, Gateway Pundit, and Powerline. Who’s not covering it? Well, the left side of the blogosphere is oddly silent, and so far the MSM has managed to ignore the exposure of Obama’s fake grassroots.

UPDATED & BUMPED: Here it is! Rusty links an Obama-connected PR firm to this video pushing the bogus claim that Sarah Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party:

The “convention welcome” clip you see in the video is actually something Palin recorded as part of her ceremonial duties as governor, rather than an endorsement of the party. Rusty explains it all, and produces a large amount of evidence to suggest that this is part of an extensive smear campaign launched by Team Obama, at a time when polls showed Palin boosting the GOP ticket.


UPDATE II: Took about an hour from the time Rusty put up his post until the YouTube video was deleted. “Crisis management”!

PREVIOUSLY: Ace is hinting at something kind of big. It does seem like a lot of “coincidences” keep helping Axelrod’s candidate. I can’t wait to see the big scoop.

September 8, 2008

Shaking their confidence daily

“Oh, Cecilia, you’re breaking my heart.
You’re shaking my confidence daily …”

— Simon & Garfunkel, 1970

If the choice of Sarah Palin as GOP running mate has done nothing else, it’s shaken the confidence of Democrats, and that’s important.

An example I cited today at AmSpecBlog is Nate Silver’s sudden realization that perhaps Obama was counting too much on the “enthusiasm gap”:

It seems plausible to me that some segment of conservative Republican voters had effectively been in hiding from the pollsters, either embarrassed by the performance of George W. Bush (and therefore disengaged from politics), or embarrassed to disclose to pollsters that they support him. Suddenly, with the selection of Palin, there has been a jolt of energy within this group, a release of pent-up frustrations, and they are coming out of the woodwork. If this is the case, then perhaps the partisan composition of the electorate had never shifted as much from 2004 as it has appeared to; rather, the conservatives were either reluctant to identify themselves as Republican, or reluctant to take a pollster’s calls in the first place. (Emphasis added.)

Silver’s observation is crucial for several reasons, but what I wish to emphasis here is that one of the most obvious of political facts — the general long-term stability of partisan identification — seems never to have previously crossed Silver’s mind.

Silver, like a great many other progressive Democrats, seems to have bought whole-hog into the marketing hype about Obama. He’s a “map-changer” who will finally vindicate David Sirota’s “50-state strategy,” etc.

This hype was easier to believe because Obama defeated the once-inevitable Hillary. Yet as the Clinton campaign repeatedly tried to point out:

  • Obama’s advantage in the delegate count was wholly a function of his superior performance in caucuses;
  • Hillary performed better in big swing-state primaries like Ohio and Pennsylvania; and
  • In the end, Obama still failed to win a nominating majority among pledged delegates and only clinched the nomination because of a super-delegate shift in his favor.

And something the Clinton campaign didn’t point out, for obvious reasons, was their own stunning incompetence.

Obama’s triumphant march to the nomination, in other words, was less impressive than it seemed to his enthusiastic supporters. It was this triumphant narrative — the idea of Obama’s inevitability created by his defeat of Hillary — that David Plouffe so carefully exploited with his June presentation to the Washington press corps. “Surgical precision!” exclaimed Eleanor Clift (no fool like an old fool).

Obama’s inevitability narrative was closely intertwined with the (carefully cultivated) reputation of Plouffe and David Axelrod as political geniuses who had somehow discovered a magic formula for Democratic victory that other strategists overlooked.

How overrated was the Plouffe-Axelrod genius factor? A few weeks ago, Team Obama posted a page with the title, “The Next Cheney,” featuring oppo-research material on nine potential running-mate choices for McCain. In addition to the short-list names everyone knew — Pawlenty, Ridge, Jindal, Romney — Team Obama’s roster also included such long shots as Carly Fiorina and FedEx CEO Fred Smith.

Guess who wasn’t on that list? Sarah Palin.

In other words, the putative political geniuses Plouffe and Axelrod utterly failed to anticipate McCain’s pick of Palin, and thus failed to prepare their supporters to challenge the GOP running mate. This might explain why Democrats had to resort to spreading scurrilous rumors, eh?

Maverick completely outsmarted the Team Obama brain trust, miraculously ignited the GOP base, and now — with just eight weeks until Election Day — Nate Silver is beginning to realize that, despite the 2006 meltdown and “Bush fatigue,” the underlying partisan alignment has changed very little since 2004.

The Democrats’ desperate quest for a gaffe or a scandal that will destroy Palin shows the attendant risk of the Plouffe-Axelrod technique of stoking expectations — hyping Hope, as it were — to fuel a campaign built chiefly on enthusiasm. Once that bubble was pierced, the deflation was sure to be swift, and the sudden poll swing toward the GOP ticket was predictable.

What next? Unless there is some big scandalous revelation, or Palin flops in her ABC interview this week, the McCain-Palin momentum should result in a growing poll advantage over the next several days.

How will Democrats react as they see the GOP ticket move even further ahead, with no immediate prospects of a reversal? Check out this HuffPo lunatic’s panic and rage, and expect to see a lot more of it in coming days. In the short term, most of this fear and loathing will be directed toward the usual bogeymen — Fox News, Republicans, etc. But if the current poll trend continues into next week, the rage will be turned toward Plouffe and Axelrod, as the smarter Democrats start to realize they’ve been conned into believing a narrative that was always more about perception than reality.

UPDATE: Just in case some of y’all are too young to remember, here’s the song, “Cecilia”:

My older brother had this album when I was about 10, and I always loved the combination of syncopated percussion and soaring harmonies on this song, a classic example of Paul Simon’s pop songcraft.

September 7, 2008

David Axelrod spins

Question Avoidance 101:

Via Hot Air, where Ed says:

Axelrod refers to the idea that McCain wanted to pick Joe Lieberman as his running mate, but was too afraid to do so. . . . It’s an absurd statement and shows how desperate Axelrod has become.

What I’m waiting for is somebody to ask Team Obama about their June plans to send their candidate to the “battleground” state of . . . Alaska.