Is David Axelrod a moron or a liar?

Appearing on Face The Nation, Senior White House advisor David Axelrod was asked about the Tea Parties that occurred across the nation on April 15th.


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.

Axelrod was asked on CBS’s “Face the Nation” about the “spreading and very public disaffection” with the president’s fiscal policies seen at the “Tea Party” rallies around the country last week.

“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.

You can never tell what a slimeball like Axelrod really thinks; people like him are just too good at playing the lying-and-obfuscation game.  But I would submit that he knows that the Tea Party movement is not an unhealthy reaction to the tough economic times but is in fact a healthy and vibrant reaction to President Obama’s unhealthy and stupifyingly unwise responses to the economic crisis.  The people at the Tea Parties are not the easily convinced, starry-eyed myrmidons who would applaud if Obama blew his nose or broke wind.  These are people who have been around the block before, who have seen Presidential economic decisions and their consequences before.  This was not a crowd that gets enamored by shiny objects – which is essentially how Mr Obama got elected.

I saw no “save me, I am a loser” signs (a la the Obama campaign) at the Atlanta Tea Party.  Other than the anti-bailout signs I saw nothing about the economy, but I did see a lot about Mr Obama’s collectivist response to the economic crisis.  These Tea Parties are not about the economic crisis, they are about opposing higher taxes and government growth that are being foisted upon us under the cover of the [largely government caused] economic crisis.

Mr Axelrod continues:

“The thing that bewilders me is that this president just cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people,” Axelrod argued. “I think the tea bags should be directed elsewhere because he certainly understands the burden that people face.”

Hmmmmm.  If anyone reading this actually believes that their taxes for 2009 or later will be lower than they are now, please comment on this post.  I have a relative in Nigeria who needs to get some cash out of the country and would share some of it with you in return for your help.  To those of you who are not net taxpayers, sponging off of the rest of us, I am sure that your Sugar Daddy President Collectivism will continue to rob other people to subsidize your lifestyle.  How else can he buy your loser vote? 

But seriously, that is just a pathetic response from Axelrod.  They could raise the tax rates on the most productive Americans up to 90 percent and they still would not be able to fund the President’s Brave New World.  Every single person in America who pays taxes will pay higher taxes as a result of Mr Obama’s huge spending.  I suspect that even some of the societal parasites who pay no taxes (approaching 50 percent) will see a decrease in the false-rebate welfare checks that they get simply for living within America’s borders.

I give credit to Carville for not toeing the line on calling the Tea Parties “unhealthy” and he has a point about the Tea Parties that is partly right:

Democratic strategist James Carville disagreed with Axelrod on CNN’s “State of the Union” when John King asked him if it’s unhealthy for “an American to go out and hold a sign and say ‘I think my taxes are too high.'”

Carville said, “No.” He called the Tea Party movement “harmless and damaging to Republicans.”

Carville has that partly right.  The Tea Party movement is damaging to Republicans who govern like Democrats: big spending, big government lovers.  This Tea Party movement is not coming from the GOP, it is going after the GOP.  Or at least the parts of the party who are indistinguishable from the Democrats.

Politicans, you need to be very afraid of the Tea Party movement.  We are the ones who fund this whole thing, the ones that President Obama is going to stick it to.  We are not going away because we know that the people that the Democrats are really sticking it to are our children and grandchildren.  Mr Obama clearly does not care at all about the future of this country when that priority stands in the way of his push for leviathan government.

I am ready for the next Tea Party.  It’s time to march on D.C.

In answer to the rhetorical question posed by the subject of this post: obviously, the latter.

15 responses to “Is David Axelrod a moron or a liar?

  1. axelrod and obama. both need to go. to compare them to rove an bush is laughable at, least they had the american people best interest at heart. this new crop in the white house is all about control and thisw has nothing to do with economic recovery.

  2. my comment is awaiting moderation? just dont post it you left wing idealogue i would rather be misquoted elsewhere

  3. Heh. I have never been called a left wing ideologue. Funny.

  4. Oh, obviously, Axelrod is an idiot. Why would anybody think that signs depicting the President of the United States as a witch doctor or saying that he should “go back to Kenya” are irrational and racist in tone. I mean, come on! Who would dare say that isn’t healthy for political dialogue in this country to call the President “an Indonesian, Muslim communist thug”? After all, if the organizer of the Tea Party movement says that, it has to be accurate, right? And, of course, anybody who even implies that Joe Wilson is a racist, even though he’s a member of the Sons of the Confederacy, has to be drunk on their own kool-aid. Sheesh. Somebody get a rope!

  5. @Johnrj08: Just brilliant. A few signs from loons are used to tarnish the whole group whose main difference from your side of the ideological spectrum is that WE PAY THE BILLS for your side’s pseudo-compassion disorder. The bulk of the people in the Tea Party movement are thoughtful people who simply reject the soft-slavery that your side sells.

    Based upon your “logic”, all Democrats are hard core marxists. Do I need to remind you of your Senior Senator (WV) who actually *WAS* in the KKK?

    I do not care at all that Obama’s skin is brown but I do have an issue with his RED POLITICS.

  6. “A few signs from loons”? You’re kidding right. Print and broadcast journalists who have been embedded in the Tea Party events have reported wide-spread racist attitudes by participants which have been expressed away from microphones and cameras. And what is this “We pay the bills”? Most of the people I’ve seen at these events are probably retired, which is why they have time to travel, and on Medicare and social security. “Thoughtful people”? Would those be the ones who are chanting “Go back to Kenya!” or “Bury Barry with Teddy!”? It sounds to me like you wouldn’t know “RED POLITICS” if it came up and ripped the pillow case off your head. Nothing that Obama has proposed is even remotely similar to “communism” or “Marxism”, but you go ahead and keep repeating words you don’t understand. We all know the real reason you so eagerly accept them as fact. “Soft slavery” indeed. It is a blessing to the United States of America that ideologues such as you haven’t been in power for the last 8 months. If you had, we would have allowed the auto manufacturers to fail and, besides watching tens of thousands of hard-working Americans slide into poverty and go on government assistance, we would also have conceded the largest marketplace in the world to foreign auto manufacturers. That would have been REAL smart. And, then, we would also have allowed the banking system to utterly collapse, which would have shut off all credit to small and mid-sized businesses which rely on it to meet payroll and maintain inventories. Oh, and we also could have watch millions of more people lose their homes. But, according to you, after all that mayhem, you would have just sat there beaming because at least we hadn’t terned into a bunch of commie socialist Marxists. And you say you don’t care about Obama’s skin color. Either you are a gutless racist, or just galactically stupid.

  7. Ah, the crafty racists with their signs that they hide when the media is around. Are they in black helicopters, too? Are the illuminati involved in some way? Please.

    Following your asinine tarnishing of all for a few nuts I could say that all Democrats are commies – and that would be a lot closer to the truth than your racism bullshit.

    Spare me your word games with socialism. You guys have to go on the offensive when correctly labeled.

    I wrote about people like you here:

    BTW, nice [typical] ad hominems, sport.

  8. Again, you haven’t a clue what “socialism” is. The government may now own a percentage of these companies, but it is NOT running those companies and the ROI is paying back the government. The objective of the government is NOT to be in the auto manufacturing or credit lending businesses. It takes very contorted logic to conclude that anything Obama has done is motivated by genuine socialism. Of course, the real question which critics fail to address is what would have happened if the government had done nothing?

    As far as “tarnishing of all” is concerned, I judge these people by the company they keep and the things they refuse to repudiate. It’s true. You could say that “all Democrats are commies”. But you would be wrong, just as anybody who said all people who oppose Obama’s policies are racists would be wrong. It’s the people who perpetuate the ridiculous lies about Obama’s policies that are probably motivated by racism, which is really nothing more than ignorance. The people screaming “Socialist!” and “Communist!” are simply using them as substitutes for the n-word.

  9. Keep playing your word games, John. One can never expect advocates of socialistic policies to be honest about it until they have completely taken over. Are you claiming that the govt is not essentially running GM? You are wrong about that.

    If you truly judge people by the company they keep then you either declined to vote for Mr. Obama based upon “the company he keeps” or you are a collectivist like him and his cohorts. Which is it?

    Like so many liberals, you do yourself no favors by caricaturing and misunderstanding your ideological enemies. You can try to convince yourself that people who oppose the Pelosi/Reid/Obama socialistic push are just racists and since that is utter bullshit that works for us – because it means that you are refusing to confront the real issues and will lose the debate – as you people have already done on the health care debate.

    If it makes you feel better we can call your ideology statism or collectivism, both of which are umbrella terms for the soft-tyranny that you and Mr Obama espouse. I know that the S-word is an epithet and you guys only react the way that you do because you know that such systems are, in the American sense, utterly immoral.

  10. A “collectivist”? And you’re not? Does that mean you won’t be accepting any social security checks or using Medicare when you turn 65? Will you boycott interstate highways, and let your house burn down before you let one of those firefighting collectives put out the fire? Will you refuse to pay property taxes from now (assuming you own property)? Will you glue our mailbox shut to keep those socialists USPS mail carriers away? You’re the ideologist, because you don’t have a pragmatic bone in your body. You throw out terms you don’t understand and expose your own hypocrisy in the process. The “real issue” is that there are some people in this country who are just plain pig-headed ideologues who refuse to any point of view which doesn’t validate their Antebellum ideas. I’ll end my last post in this blog with a simple question: What is the inscription on the Statue of Liberty?

  11. John it is truly flabbergasting to me that you cannot see the difference, but that is likely why you and I are on opposite sides of this huge statism/freedom ideological divide. You are really confused, so let me once again explain the difference between paying for some common infrastructure and services versus supporting societal parasites.

    Social Security, though it is a ponzi scheme run by the very same corrupt people that you would like to run our health care system, is something that I *PAY* *INTO* and therefore if there is anything left for me when I retire I will be pulling money back out that I paid in. The same holds for medicare – I get taxed for that for my entire productive life and then get to “take advantage” of it when some politicians say I can. Interstate highways are built with MY tax dollars and are indeed for the “general welfare” – though it is worth pointing out that they were ostensibly built for military purposes. The point here is that it is one thing for ALL AMERICANS to pay to fund common infrastructure and common needs like law enforcement whereas it is an entirely different thing to take money from a productive person to give to a less successful person. Examples of that are WIC, section 8 housing, the Earned Income Tax Credit and anything else where property is being transferred from its rightful owner to someone who used govt for what is essentially theft.

    USPS? Have you noticed that you have to buy stamps? You can do better than that. Firefighters? Once again, that is payed for with my taxes funding what is truly the “General Welfare” as opposed to the specific welfare of someone who is just lazy or unambitious. You show your complete lack of understanding with your last question:

    >> “What is the inscription on the Statue of Liberty?”

    JOhn, that is simply not relevant until someone passes an amendment incorporating statue engravings into the constitution. Are you going to be quoting the maps from the New York Subway next? That is just ludicrous; again, you can do better than that… or perhaps not.

    Let me be very clear about where the line is: everyone should pay in for common services and infrastructure, including the less successful, and no one should be able to use govt to subsidize their lifestyles. National Health care is a great example of a program that will essentially subsidize the lifestyles of people who do not want to spend their own money on their health care.

    I do not expect to *convince* you, John, I believe you to be a statist lost cause but you should at least understand my position. You do yourself no favors at all misunderstanding and caricaturing your political opponents, which is SOP for the Left in America.

  12. “National Health care is a great example of a program that will essentially subsidize the lifestyles of people who do not want to spend their own money on their health care.”

    You actually believe this? You think all the people who go bankrupt because they can’t afford medical insurance and all those who go untreated for the same reason are looking for a handout from the government? You think small and mid-sized businesses which can no longer afford to offer health care benefits are looking for a handout? You think that the doubling of premiums, deductibles and co-pays every 7 years is perfectly acceptable as long as none of those “societal parasites” get coverage?

    You are so wrapped up in your ideological argument that you refuse to even look at the problem. You are unable to see that a failure to reform health care would have a major impact on the “public welfare”, much more so than any crumbling bridge or deteriorating highway. Thanks to the insurance industry, health care in this country is a natural disaster on a national scale, and only the federal government can fix it. Or do you think the state of Louisiana should have handled the destruction of Katrina on its own?

    Private insurers are earning billions in profits during the worst global recession in 75 years, while millions of Americans are forced to go without coverage. In the next 7 years, the average family of four will be paying +$23,000 per year on premiums alone. And that doesn’t even include co-pays and out-of-pocket cost due to high deductibles.

    Where the hell is your common sense? You want to spend all your time debating a term, while the country burns down around you. No, you will never “convince” me because you and I are fundamentally different people. What you define as “SOP for the Left in America”, I call common sense, prudent economics, and compassion for others. Your attitude toward those things is what is currently defining the Republican Party.

  13. Yawn.

    I understand where you are coming from, but like a true leftist you have to make my opposition to your soft-tyranny into something evil. SOP for your side.

    The fact is that once you remove the people who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it (, the President’s long-ago-debunked 47 million number becomes 8-10 million. Get them on medicaid and move on, do not destroy the best health care system in the world. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

    Our health care system is NOT broken. That is just propaganda.

    John, you and I are not going to agree. Your ideology requires the implicit acceptance that the government owns all of us. I reject that.

    I do hope that you continue to stop by and debate. :^)

  14. This alleged statistic was debunked long ago. It ignores the rather obvious fact that many people “voluntarily” choose not to buy medical insurance do so precisely because they can’t afford insurance premiums. The statistic you’re quoting does not distinguish between those who can and cannot afford insurance. Those who opt out of the system are gambling their financial security on their continued health. No sane person in this economy who has any personal networth at all would risk everything on such a bet unless they really had no other choice.

    Another well-known and previously debunked argument is that a lot of uninsured people are qualified for Medicaid, but the government has simply done a terrible job of informing them so they go without coverage. This, of course, is another lie. A family of four spends an average of +$13,000/year for medical coverage, and that coverage usually comes with a high deductible. Even a family with a household income of more than $30,000/year, which would clearly disqualify them from Medicaid, would be bankrupt if it incurred any significant medical costs at all. And, if they did have insurance, they would probably have their policy cancelled as soon as they made a claim.

    In the next 7 years, that annual cost for that family is going up to +$23,000/year, much faster than the increase in wages or rate of inflation. Obviously, no small business is going to be able to offer that kind of benefit to its employees, so those people will have to go to private insurers, where they will face significantly higher premiums and deductibles. This should be totally unacceptable is what is reputed to be the greatest country in the industrialized world, and the only one that fails to offer all of its citizens affordable health care.

    The fact that you say the health care system “is NOT broken” flies in the face of what nearly every elected representative and financial expert in the country says, including those who didn’t vote for President Obama. So, I would suggest that you are the one who is operating inside an ideological box.

  15. John – pardon me for not accepting your claims. Perhaps you can provide some links to your irrefutable evidence.

    So your position is that insurance is expensive and the solution is government, which has never had a single program that was not WILDY over budget. I remind you that govt has no money, every cent was taken from someone who earned it.

    I understand why you think this way. You may be familiar with the old saying that “if the only tool that you have is a hammer then everything that you see looks like a nail”. The only tool you accept is government.

    Under socialized medicine I will get worse health care at a higher cost, all in the name of people who are where they are in life because of the sum total of the decisions that they have made. And now they want me to subsidize their laziness and bad decisions.

    Government does NOT own us, John. To accept that government can control health care is to accept that we are just livestock living on the government collective.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s