DOWNLOADS: (116)

PLAYS: (1391)

Embed

Broadcast media seems to be quite obtuse when it comes to the overall implications of the Bain controversies over the past two weeks. This is either by design or because they've just become too lazy to actually understand the reasons this might be important, and Candy Crowley is no exception to this. Rather than actually probe for some answers with regard to why this might be something voters should care about, she just keeps repeating the same questions over and over.

Questions like this one (full transcript):

CROWLEY: At what point will you be ready to accept, if ever, that Mitt Romney, you know, may have been on a lot of filings, listed as the owner, but he had no day-to-day management, and, therefore, when you talk about outsourcing, he was not there when those decisions were made.

Shorter Crowley: Accept it David, because your media overlords deem it to be so. What part of this is difficult to understand? One of two things is happening. Either Mitt Romney rubber-stamp approved everything Bain Capital did without any involvement or review, or he was involved and he did review it.

That set of circumstances leads to one place: One either thinks it's Presidential to rubber-stamp approve major decisions without review because there are profits involved, or not. If the answer is "or not", then the next question is whether we want a President who thinks it's just completely fine to send a bunch of jobs overseas and kill factories here in the United States. That's the question, whether Crowley wants to understand it or not.

David Axelrod did a better-than-usual job of explaining this to Candy. I'm usually not a fan of his Sunday appearances, but he did a decent job on this one.

AXELROD: Well, it's interesting, Candy, because he's very willing to take credit for everything good that he thinks happened after that point that Bain Capital was involved in, but he's not willing to take responsibility for this. If their story is that he was the chairman, president, chief executive and sole shareholder of the company, and took no interest in any of the decisions they made, then they can make that case.

AXELROD: We know that "The Boston Globe," the AP, Bloomberg News have done reporting that calls these assertions into question. There, too, I mean, they could release their board minutes from that time and other records that would show exactly what his involvement was.

We do know that he said he had no involvement with any of the entities that Bain was involved in and yet he came back for board meetings for meetings of a couple of those entities.

But the larger point, Candy, is he was in charge when they bought these firms whose principal mission was to facilitate outsourcing and offshoring. What he's saying is, well, I left before they actually moved these jobs to China and to Mexico, and I'm not going to be held responsible for it. You know, Harry Truman had a plaque on his desk saying the buck stops here. If Mitt Romney became president he would have a placard on his desk saying the buck stops there.

If you're the head man, you have to take responsibility. And, you know, he's going to have to explain that to the American people.

This is the bottom line, and it's pretty basic when it comes to what people expect from their President, whether he's Republican or Democrat. Whenever I hear the lame excuses from Romney that he was out "saving the Olympics" like Superman with a torch in his hand, I think back to the Katrina disaster. How would he have handled that? Would he have been busy with something else and simply disavowed responsibility like Bush did, saying "heckuva job, Brownie" as if Brownie had actually done a heckuva job?

Something else David Axelrod said earlier in the interview struck me as really important, too, though I'm not sure how many people actually think about this carefully. It's not in the video, but here's what he said:

AXELROD: Tens of millions of dollars in the Cayman Islands. So when we reform the tax code, when we go to reform the tax code, Candy, how does that inform his judgment? He's told us that his business experience is the lens through which he's going to look at these decisions. We're getting a look at that experience, and people need to judge is that the kind of experience we want in the Oval Office.

CROWLEY: Can you tell me, when you do your taxes, don't you use every available way to pay as little as you can?

AXELROD: I can tell you that I have never had a Swiss bank account, I have never put money in the Cayman Islands, I don't have a Bermuda holding company.

CROWLEY: But are you suggesting then --

AXELROD: No one is suggesting -- Candy, I'm not suggesting that based on what we know, that he's done anything illegal. I'm not suggesting that, but what I am suggesting is that he's taken advantage of every single conceivable tax shelter and loophole that we can see. And now is he the guy who is going to clean up our tax code and make it advantageous to average taxpayers in the country, or is he going to look at it through the lens of his own experience?

This is a critical point. This tax code of ours is going to have to be reformed, and soon. It's a monster, so out of control and so full of political "rollover points" that the only people who benefit from it are the oligarchs and their wealth preservation brigade. Who do we want to be the leader with regard to tax reform? A guy who made millions while utilizing loopholes in order to maximize his profit?

I don't think so.

DOWNLOADS: (260)

PLAYS: (449)

Embed

I'm actually kind of relieved to hear this denial. The idea that a political staffer was part of national security meetings was repugnant to me, just as it was when Karl Rove was part of every decision in the Bush White House:

Senior Obama political aide David Axelrod said little today about a past fight with Attorney General Eric Holder, but flatly denied reports that he attended high-level national security meetings.

"I know there were weekly meetings dealing with terrorist threats and planning around it, but I did not attend those meetings," Axelrod said on CBS' Face the Nation.

As for a new book's report of a 2009 confrontation with Holder over the attorney general's concerns about political interference in legal matters, Axelrod said:

"First of all, let me say, Eric Holder is a great friend of mine. We actually went to the same high school. So we may have gone chest to chest back in the day. But we have a strong relationship. And I'm not going to get into the details of that, other than to say I respect him."

Axelrod, a former administration aide who now works with Obama's re-election campaign, also told CBS: "I obviously never tried to interfere in anything that he (Holder) did, never talked to him about a governmental matter or a Justice Department matter in all of the years I was in the White House."

DOWNLOADS: (371)

PLAYS: (920)

Embed

Oh mah stars! Gather mah smelling salts, I feel the vapuhs a-comin'!

According to Wikipedia, Bob Schieffer is 75 years old. He was born during FDR's first term and has lived through twelve presidencies since. If he had the least bit of intellectual honesty, he'd know that presidential campaigns rarely follow Marquess of Queensbury rules of fair play. Is he so forgetful that McCain's illegitimate black baby whisper campaign, Michael Dukakis' Willie Horton smear, or Donald Segretti himself has slipped his mind? I hope that this doesn't shock Mr. Schieffer's precious sensibilities, but politics are a full-contact sport and bruising comes with the territory.

But perhaps Mitt Romney's fee-fees are just a might bit over-sensitive, and the enablers in the traditional media need to stick up for him. It's not nice to hold up his record as governor of a state that was 47th in job creation during his tenure. Apparently, it's a cheap shot to point out that his entire business experience was in maximizing profits for his company without concern for layoffs or debts incurred by the companies he arbitraged. And Bob Schieffer was going to make damn sure campaign adviser David Axelrod knew it.

Schieffer brought up some of the more negative campaign tactics being used by Obama in contrast to saying in 2008 he wanted to run on ideas, not negative campaigns. Schieffer asked Axelrod why, now, the campaign has gotten rather negative on their side, with ads going after Romney instead of touting his accomplishments.

Schieffer was specifically referring to the Bain Capital ads being lobbed at Romney by the Obama campaign. Axelrod told Schieffer that most of the ads the campaign has run have been positive ones that have not gone after Romney. Schieffer almost bewilderedly asked Axelrod if he thought they’ve been running a positive campaign.

Why is it that President Obama has to be positive and we see no pearl clutching over Romney outright lying about Obama's record, grading his presidency an "F" and doing cheap stunts like the Solyndra presser?

The truth, though Schieffer will not see it, is that the media has been far more negative in its coverage of Obama than it has been towards Romney. It is incumbent (pun intended) upon Obama to make Romney as unattractive an alternative as possible, given how difficult the economy still is.

DOWNLOADS: (153)

PLAYS: (1162)

Embed

[h/t Greg Sargent]

Mitt Romney was given at least two opportunities to walk back his "politics of envy" remarks from his New Hampshire speech last night, but instead chose to affirm it this morning on The Today Show. Here's what he said:

QUESTIONER: When you said that we already have a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy, I’m curious about the word envy. Did you suggest that anyone who questions the policies and practices of Wall Street and financial institutions, anyone who has questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country, is envious? Is it about jealousy, or fairness?

ROMNEY: You know, I think it’s about envy. I think it’s about class warfare. When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on 99 percent versus one percent, and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent, you have opened up a wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God. The American people, I believe in the final analysis, will reject it.

QUESTIONER: Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy, though?

ROMNEY: I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like. But the President has made it part of his campaign rally. Everywhere he goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It’s a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach and I think it will fail.

I realize that Mitt Romney has no clue what it might be like to have limited opportunity in this country, but the politics of envy? Really? I also realize he's trying to frame himself as the heir apparent for the nomination and run against the President now, but the fact is, people are really concerned about where we are, and the fact that the money boys control far too much wealth and opportunity in this society.

And then there are quiet rooms, where tax policy should be discussed, because clearly the common people shouldn't be concerning their precious selves over something like tax policy? Mitt Romney's problem is that he truly doesn't understand any perspective but his own.

David Axelrod responded:

Not a gaffe. It’s what he believes. Last week he said “productivity equals income.”

But the point is, it hasn’t for the typical American worker over the last three decades, and, particularly, over the last decade.

This is the central challenge of our time, and he doesn’t get it.

It appears as though the election is shaping up to contrast the messages of the 99 percent versus the 1 percent, provided, of course, we confine the tax policy to quiet rooms where the elite discuss tax policy.

And, as was noted in the clip above, by framing Barack Obama as the fomenter of envy-laden politics while also painting him as a European-style socialist, he gets to insinuate that the guy in the White House isn't a real American, like Romney is.

I somehow doubt this message will resonate with too many people as the campaign wears on. It's just difficult to imagine Mittens telling us he feels our pain while he's also telling us we envy others who have no pain.

DOWNLOADS: (193)

PLAYS: (1742)

Embed

David Axelrod appeared on ABC News “This Week with George Stephanopoulos" to defend the president's record against attacks by Republican nominees at last night's debate. First, he argues that the president has done a good job on the economy:

STEPHANOPOULOS: It is good to be back. Boy, you saw right [out] of the box, Mitt Romney last night walking that tightrope on the economy, welcoming the good news, but saying President Obama doesn't deserve any credit for it. He's made things worse. That's going to be the key debate of this campaign.

AXELROD: He ought to ask 1.5 million auto workers and people who work in the auto industry who are working today because the president intervened when Mitt Romney said we should let Detroit go bankrupt.

He said something worse than that, George. And more preposterous, which is that the president's policies have made the recession worse. The fact is--

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's his argument.

AXELROD: The facts -- he has a lot of arguments, none of them are supported by facts. If you look at the history of this, the president came to office. The quarter before he got to office, the country, the economy shrunk by 9 percent. The first month he was there, the country lost 750,000 jobs. We have had 22 months of private-sector job growth now. It's been a climb up. And there are a series of -- manufacturing up for the first time in decades.

I mean, we have plenty of work to do. We have got big problems that took a long time in the making, they're going to take some time -- more time than we'd like to solve. But to say that his policies made the recession worse -- and here's the thing, George -- he had -- when he was running in president in 2007, in 2008, he had not one unkind word, one critique of the economic policies of the last administration that led up to and through (ph) the worst of this recession. He thinks that the policies that were in place then were the right policies, and now he wants to go back to them.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But unemployment is still not as low as you all predicted it would be when President Obama first came in, and according to most projections, it's likely to be the highest for any incumbent president in modern times.

AXELROD: Well, we'll see where those statistics lack. I think the direction is important here. Governor Romney may be rooting for slips and falls here. We're concentrating on moving this economy forward.

But there's a larger issue, George, which is what kind of economy are we aiming for? We have to get people back to work, but we also have to make sure that work pays.

And this is where the administration is going to have trouble. A report issued a few weeks ago pointed out that while manufacturing jobs are indeed up, wages for those jobs are almost half of what they were. This is a campaign tightrope they have to walk, because many people are doing substantially worse, and they won't be happy to hear the administration imply that they're not. People aren't doing better. They're just not sliding as quickly.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, governor--

AXELROD: That's a big distinction between us and Governor Romney. He doesn't understand that that's a fundamental issue that is facing this country.

Continue reading »

Greg Sargent says the White House is denying that they're willing to accept tax cuts -- just yet, anyway:

The White House is sharply denying the Huffington Post story I noted below claiming that David Axelrod signaled a willingness to accept a temporary extension of all the Bush tax cuts, claiming that their position remains unchanged.

Axelrod emails:

There is not one bit of news here. I simply re-stated what POTUS and Robert have been saying. Our two strong principles are that we need to extend the tax cuts for the middle class, but we can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

And White House comm director Dan Pfeiffer adds:

The story is overwritten. Nothing has changed from what the President said last week. We believe we need to extend the middle class tax cuts, we cannot afford to borrow 700 billion to pay for extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and we are open to compromise and are looking forward to talking to the Congressional leadership next week to discuss how to move forward. Full Stop, period, end of sentence.

The question remains, though, whether the White House will hold fast to Obama's demand last week that the extension of the tax cuts for the middle class remain permanent while extending the high end ones temporarily. The main sticking point is that Republicans won't allow the two categories to be extended for different durations, because that would force them to push for just an extension of the cuts for the rich later.

You mean even Republicans know how bad it looks?

This is a bit of a shock, but I guess it's predictable. People who have political and policy jobs tend to see things through the wrong end of the telescope, because they're so proud of the work they did, they can't see the big picture. What continued to astound me was that the White House staffers seemed completely out of touch with the depths of the economic devastation out here, so if any of these staffers are responsible for that blind spot, a change will serve the president well:

Some high-level Democrats are calling for President Barack Obama to remake his inner circle or even fire top advisers in response to what many party strategists expect to be a decisive defeat on Tuesday.

Tensions have come to the surface after meetings over the past few weeks in which Obama senior adviser David Axelrod discussed communications strategy with senior Democratic strategists and party officials. Some Democrats were so unhappy with the White House meetings, they started their own.

The strategy sessions aired a range of disagreements over how to help Democrats forestall an electoral drubbing at the polls—a defeat party strategists believe could have been minimized with a different White House playbook.

Among the complaints: Mr. Obama conveyed an incoherent message that didn't express what Democrats would do over the next two years if they retain power; he focused more on his own image than helping Democratic candidates; and the White House picked the wrong battle when it attacked Republicans for using "outside" money to pay for campaigns, an issue disconnected from voters' real-world anxieties.

The latest strategy session took place Monday afternoon.

"The money thing could work, but there's never been a larger frame around it to connect it to people's lives," said Dee Dee Myers, a consultant who worked for the Clinton White House when Republicans swept the 1994 elections. She said she participated in an Oct. 8 meeting with Mr. Axelrod and about 15 Democratic strategists at the White House.

Continue reading »

To say I'm blunt would be an understatement (although if I were a man, I like to think that people would call me "refreshingly direct", like John McCain)! So when I got to ask the last question on a White House conference call yesterday, I asked two things.

I asked David Axelrod if he knew what I meant by "hippie punching," and I also mentioned the Mike Lux article on Open Left this week. (Mike says voters are more easily persuaded by ads run by outside groups, but that Obama for America - later to be Organizing for America -- starved the liberal groups of needed cash by telling big donors to give them the money instead. That position apparently continued after the election, too).

I asked Axelrod if he saw that now as a tactical error.

That question was a response to a long explanation by Axelrod that the Democrats were under siege because the Republicans had all the outside special interest groups running attack ads for them, and that was why the Dems needed our help. That was why I asked the equivalent of Dr. Phil's "So how's that donation block working for ya?" (He said he didn't know anything about it. Uh huh.)

It was kind of funny to ask a White House advisor if he understood what I meant by "hippie punching", it amused me. (I needed a diversion, because a dear friend had surgery to remove a brain tumor yesterday and I hadn't heard from her family yet.)

But I was also trying to help. You know, as in: "If you want help from people, you need to stop bad mouthing them."

He got a little pissy at me because he tried to change what I said and I wouldn't let him. Whatevs! The call was over, and I hung up.

But then the emails started. Highly complimentary emails, which led me to the conclusion that a lot of people on that call agreed with me, but didn't feel comfortable enough to say it publicly. (Which really doesn't bother me. No matter what people say about the Veal Pen, the fact is, people have to make a living and they'll try to keep their jobs -- especially now. So I'm not casting aspersions on anyone else for not saying things like this. I'm in the uniquely dangerous position of having nothing left to lose.)

And then Greg Sargent wrote about it at the Washington Post. And all the nasty wingnut tweets started, crowing over the hippies bolting from the Democratic party. Swell.

Anyway, for the record:

• The version I wrote on my blog was supposed to be funny. I figured the "Casablanca" quote would tip people off that it wasn't verbatim, but apparently not. Not even the Jerry Springer-like tone wasn't enough.

• No, I wasn't using a date rape analogy.

• I just have to laugh at the pearlclutchers who are upset about my language. Obviously, they've never worked on a professional campaign. Trust me, that was mild and I'm sure Axelrod wasn't the tiniest bit shocked. And do I have to point out that ultimately, these people work for us, and not vice versa?

• I wasn't whining about my feelings, for heaven's sake. I mean, who cares? It would take a remarkable lack of self-awareness (the kind Republicans have) to think that Axelrod wanted or needed to hear about my feelings. I was talking about the Netroots, laying it on the line: If I take you at your word, that you need netroots support, you need to stop treating us like the girl you're embarrassed to have your friends see you with. Help us help you by knocking off the condescending digs. (And that wasn't even touching the many policy differences we have.)

Despite it all, the White House does recognize our power. That's why bloggers were the first people to talk to Elizabeth Warren, and that's why we got 45 minutes with Axelrod today. Is it enough? Of course not. It's a start, though.

Oddly enough, the wingnut tweets and blog posts in response to my question are what has finally closed the mid-term enthusiasm gap for me. Because while I am less than thrilled about this administration, spite is a very powerful force and I'll be goddamned if I'm going to spend the next two years reading a bunch of right-wing nut jobs crowing over winning this election.

Why, I'm getting enthusiastic just thinking about it!

So basically, everyone says they just love DNC chair Tim Kaine so much, they don't even care if they lose Congress this year. And that yucky Howard Dean, the one whose leadership led to taking the House, the Senate, and the White House? They seem to pretend he had nothing to do with that:

Senior Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill are expressing confidence in party Chairman Tim Kaine despite the possibility of huge losses in the midterm elections.

In an interview with The Hill, White House senior adviser David Axelrod said the Obama administration will “absolutely” have confidence in Kaine’s leadership even if Democrats take a drubbing this fall.

Axelrod praised Kaine’s work on the nuts-and-bolts of party building, especially in comparison to the more controversial leadership style of Kaine’s GOP counterpart, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.

“I think Tim Kaine is out there doing what he should be doing — building the party, building the party apparatus,” Axelrod said. “That is what you want a party chair to do. That is the guts of the job.”

Even though it really upset party insiders when Dr. Dean did it!

Lawmakers and party insiders contacted by The Hill expressed unified support for Kaine’s work as chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and praised him for working to channel President Obama’s grassroots support into a tool for governing.

Kaine has worked quietly to integrate the White House’s political arm, Organizing for America (OFA), into the party’s structure while also juggling a heavy travel and fundraising schedule to prepare for the midterm elections.

Those efforts have seemingly insulated Kaine from the maelstrom of blame that can often tarnish party leaders who sustain heavy electoral losses during their time in charge.

[...]Kaine’s smooth relationship with congressional leaders stands in stark contrast to that of his predecessor at the DNC, Howard Dean.

Dean famously bickered with then-Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) during his tenure, though the former Vermont governor also attracted accolades for his “50-state strategy,” which some say helped Democrats regain control of Congress in 2007.

Kaine is much more reserved than the outspoken Dean.

The former Richmond mayor isn’t known for his sound bites, and unlike Dean and Steele, he is not gaffe-prone.

Thank God we don't have to worry about Tim Kaine ever telling Democrats they need to stand up for the voters! Because that would really hurt their feelings.

DOWNLOADS: (844)

PLAYS: (1250)

Embed

On This Week with Jake Tapper, David Axelrod points out that we already know what Republican ideology does to the economy. I hope they start pounding home that message, because voters really need that reminder:

TAPPER: So the president's popularity among independents is sinking. It's a real problem for him politically. One year ago, he was at 56 percent approval with independents. Now it's 38 percent. Why do you think independents are turning away from the president?

AXELROD: Well, first of all, there are all kinds of numbers out there, so this is one set of numbers. There are other sets of numbers.

But, look, I think I've said this to you before. When I -- when I sat down with the president and his economic advisers, a group of us in the middle of 2008, and they told us what was about to ensure and -- about the recession that we were well into at that point, I said to him, you know, we're going to -- your numbers are going to suffer here, and we're going to have a difficult election, because these are going to be difficult times for the country.

Our job is not, though, to worry about that, Jake. Our job is to worry about how we get people back to work, how we move this country forward, and if -- if we do our job, the rest will take care of itself.

And, remember, elections -- the presidential election is an eternity away. Elections are about choices, though. They're not referendums. And on the other side of the ballot in November will be a party that has an economic theory, and it was tested, and it led to catastrophe.

We lost 3 million jobs in the last six months of 2008. The financial market almost collapsed. They turned a $237 billion surplus that Bill Clinton left into a $1.3 trillion deficit. And they're running on the same policies.