Is Axelrod playing at something? Re:White House Gives In On Bush Tax Cuts

[Poll_Blind]

After reading White House Gives In On Bush Tax Cuts, I thought a couple of things were a little odd. Maybe not. But why, with the President still in Asia, is David Axelrod calling the Huffington Post into his office at the White House "late Wednesday" for a 90-minute (which produced curiously little column inches) meeting in which to drop a bunch of sure-to-cause-a-firestorm bombshells, like giving in on the Bush tax cuts and shit like...get this:

A student of history and a onetime political reporter, Axelrod expressed curiosity and even some optimism about the tea party, suggesting that Obama could work with them on matters such as a ban on spending earmarks and on winding down the war in Afghanistan.

What the fuck?

Is he pulling a minor Haig of some sort? Why now? Why him? Why the Huffington Post. This just sees odd.

PB

[Hawkowl]

1. Axelrod has been instructed

I doubt Axelrod goes to the bathroom without permission. There is NO way he's making this shit up impromptu.

[ProSense]

2. The article

is strange.

The use of the word "shellacked" (twice) is bizarre.

[breadandwine]

6. Obama used the same word.

Probably the report is authentic and Obama is caving on taxes and doing it through surrogates while he is out of the country to avoid bad publicity with the Democratic base.

From the get-go Obama's plan has been to shaft the Democratic base.


What else is new?



He has to be in the middle of the road even if the entire road is all the way over on the right side of the universe.

[instantkarma]

3. More like Fineman and Stein playing at something.

The title of the article is stated as if it were a fact. In the first paragraph they claim Axelrod "suggested" it. Suggestion does not make something a fact; it is an interpretation the authors made. In paragraph seven they offer a quote from Axelrod in which he says, "the president's commitments haven't changed." Whether or not the title of the article comes to pass, Fineman and Stein are full of shit.

What's amazing and disturbing to me is the gullibility and utter stupidity of people who read the article -- or more likely, just the headline -- and conclude that "giving in" on the tax cuts is a position that's already been decided by the administration. The intentional spin of this article is totally an invention of the two authors, and I imagine they had already written this article in their heads before they even interviewed Axelrod.

The following is not directed specifically at you, Poll_Blind, but to anyone gnashing their teeth and wailing about this article, as in many other threads, assuming that it's the truth, get your heads out of the clouds, your feet on the ground and wake the fuck up. It's nothing but propaganda, like 99.9% of everything else in the "news" these days.

As an aside, even the section of the article you provide has nothing Axelrod actually said and is totally an invention (interpretation) of the authors. Is it true or is it false? There's no way for me to tell, so I take it with a grain of salt.

[deacon]

4. Right. I prefer to wait to hear it from the horses mouth. n/t

[thunder rising]

7. Well if the pattern wasn't so typical maybe people would take the article skeptically

[instantkarma]

15. It's not necessarily about being skeptical

It's more about being able to discern the difference between reality and one's interpretation of reality.

[ljm2002]

26. So here we have two respected news reporters...

...and a high Administration official, doing an on-the-record interview, yet you think that anyone who takes the interview seriously is both gullible and stupid.

Well you have a right to your opinion. Time will tell who is gullible and who is stupid.

[BzaDem]

5. Not sure why some people thought a repudiation at the polls would push Obama to the left.

I mean, if a party loses 60 seats in the House and control of the House, that party's ability to push an agenda is limited. Not sure why this is difficult to understand.

[thunder rising]

8. He lost because he did not lead. And, of course, it's the voters fault. The Repugs couldn't have a

better President. In the wave of liberalism that was coming, to get Obama, was a blessing. He has killed the party.

[BzaDem]

14. "He lost because he did not lead." He apparently did not lead in the direction that people

wanted, which according to exit polls, is further to the right.

Perhaps if more people wanted him to lead us to the left, they should have showed up at the polls. Elections have consequences, even when we don't like those consequences.

[thunder rising]

18. Yep like I said, it's those ignorant voter's fault ... that's an old Pogo cartoon.

[demwing]

20. Why to the right?

Because they like the policies of the right?

Exit polls say NO.

They like to be associated with a team that fights. The Republicans fought against Dems. Dems took their majority and bowed to a vocal minority.

If we fight, we win.

But it's more and more clear that allowing the country to pull left was never on the table. We are exatly where our corporate managers wanted us to be. We are nothing but humans resources, waiting to be deployed. The only line we draw is the bottom line. The only thing we fight for is increased profits.

Fuck.

[ljm2002]

27. And yet the Republican losses...

...in the last election did not affect their ability to push their agenda. It did not affect their willingness to stand by their positions. They did not move to the left, they in fact moved further to the right. And our Administration moved right along with them, in the spirit of "compromise" in order to get votes from them which never materialized.

Funny how that works.

[jeanpalmer]

9. How is it that Obama announces

trade deals and job creation while Axelrod announces tax cuts for the rich, Gates announces troops staying in Iraq beyond 2011, and Simpson and Bowles announce proposed SS benefit cuts? Why didn't Obama announce all of them? That is odd how that works.

[Occulus]

10. If you consider that we're BEING PLAYED, everything makes perfect sense. n/t

[jeanpalmer]

11. I've considered the possibility.

And no one announces outsourcing events.

[instantkarma]

16. Perhaps we are being played

but by whom?

[Occulus]

17. Both parties, together.

It's the only disease that fits the symptoms.

[instantkarma]

22. I think they're not the only ones.

How is it that you get information about what representatives of the two parties are saying and doing? And, who tells them what to do? To borrow a concept from Mr. Carlin, it ain't us. For an example, think of Inhofe. Who does he represent when he talks about global warming fraud? "The American people"? Well, maybe a small group of American people, and maybe some who aren't. And how is it you became aware of his views? I'm assuming he didn't visit you personally. I guess my point is, if the politicians are pulling our strings, who's pulling theirs? As another example, as infuriating as Limbaugh and Beck are, whose interests are they representing? Do you think they're at the top of their particular foodchain? Personally, I think they are not.

Also, in the game of big dog versus little dog, remember there is always a third participant: the observer.

[Occulus]

25. Which would be the corporate media. I "get it".

But where do their information and their soundbites come from?

Politicians, or their adjuncts.

Neither party is "for the People".

We need an American Labor Party.

[global1]

24. Good Cop - Bad Cops......

Do you think the President is trying to avoid having to pass on bad news to us?

After this week - I now more than ever think that Obama never intended to be more than just a one term president. He is saying that he has to deal with the tough decisions. I think he is resigned to the fact that these tough decisions are not endearing him to the American people. In a way I feel bad for him - BUT - I feel worse for ourselves.

When just two short years ago he took this country by storm. He inspired the electorate and got more people involved in the process than ever. He energized and excited us about putting BushCo behind and looking forward to recapturing the greatness that this country use to enjoy. He gave us hope that we that aren't rich and in the top 2% could at least again live our lives in relative comfort and be able to have a job, go to a restaurant or movie, take a vacation and live out our lives in retirement in a decent manner.

Now we're faced with serving the corporatists and the rich while we struggle day to day to just exist. Working harder than ever for less and not being able to afford some of lives little pleasures. And now they want to take even our waning years from us.

I grew up learning that getting a good education, working hard and saving for the rainy day is the American way and that at some point - maybe 62 or 65 I could take a break from the workaday world and maybe enjoy what little time I have left on this planet. Maybe read, maybe try my hand at art or writing a book, maybe travel, maybe enjoy my grandkids. And now they want to take that away from us now as well.

I'm really both mad and sad at the same time.

I believed in the American Dream and now it just seems to be turning into a nightmare.

[Yeahyeah]

12. Some of that really complicated chess stuff?

[Bucky]

13. Folded. Like an accordion. Like a cheap card table. Like a Hallmark April Fools Day card.

Are we sure these guys are from Chicago?

[eridani]

19. If they want to see if the public would shoot down a "trial balloon?--

--then WTF are we waiting for? SHOOT THE FUCKER DOWN!!!

[madrchsod]

21. i`ll trust david`s game more than rahm`s

david forgot more about politics than rahm will ever know. that`s why rahm was let go.

rahm was elected from a district in chicago that would elect a dog if it ran as a democrat.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. 5th dimensional ju-chess-su. nt