Axelrod and Hippie Punching

by: Mike Lux

Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 10:27


I feel compelled to make a quick comment about the Axelrod/hippie punching moment in the blogger call yesterday, because I have been in Axelrod's shoes and know how tough those moments are.

I'll say at the outset that I have been extremely critical of the Obama political strategy much of the time over the last couple of years, including in a sharply worded post just a couple of days ago which Susie referenced in her question to David. I have been angry at the "left of the left" and "professional left" type of insults thrown out too often by this White House, not because I was personally offended but because I thought it was stupid politically and I want this President to succeed. I think the White House needs to expect these kinds of questions from bloggers when they dish out the insults themselves.

Here's the deal though: when your job is to speak for the administration, and defend it from attacks, you can't be passive when asked a question like that. Axelrod has been criticized for pushing back on Susie's question, but I don't think he had many options. I was on the call and all the questions up until then had been more traditional sounding questions in topic and tone, and then Susie went for it. I don't blame Susie for the question, not at all- like I said the White House needs to understand they will get these kinds of questions from bloggers. But I think David didn't have many options but to try and push back a little, try to form some common ground (with his "you're right, on both sides" line), but also to defend.

Look, a White House spokesperson can't just say "you are right, we suck" in reaction to that kind of question. And I have been in his situation, being forced to take the heat for things done by other people in that building. The irony here is that, admitting some bias here because David is an old friend, I think Axelrod is one of the good guys inside. From everything I have heard, he has been on the right side of most of the debates inside, has pushed back pretty consistently against folks like Geithner on policy and personnel decisions, and has been the leading advocate for a more populist message and policy. By all accounts, he was the leading advocate for bringing Elizabeth Warren in. And I am fairly sure I know who has done most of the anonymous left trashing talk, and it has definitely not been David, who I am consistently told is the leading advocate for reaching out to the base.

David's answer to Susie wasn't eloquent. The tone wasn't just right because he was caught by surprise. Having been in his shoes, I know these moments are tough. But I do hope people will cut him some slack on this, because I think he is one of the good guys in that building on Pennsylvania Avenue.  

Mike Lux :: Axelrod and Hippie Punching

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
"And I am fairly sure I know who has done most of the anonymous left trashing talk" (4.00 / 2)
then tell us

if you're as cut out of the loop as you often claim to be, there wouldn't be any consequences


Hint: his father was a terrorist. (4.00 / 5)
But who cares about the anonymous left trashing talk. Obama does it in plain sight.


[ Parent ]
I ask because if there's no reply it calls the other content of the post into question (4.00 / 3)
full disclosure would go a long way to adding credence to the theory that Axlerod isn't an asshole

also brace for a shock, but guess who that creep Booman is siding with on this issue? http://www.boomantribune.com/s...

(shockingly John Cole hasn't rushed to Ax's defense...yet...)


[ Parent ]
I agree (4.00 / 3)
The coyness is annoying. Name names.

I have mixed feelings about the way Madrak framed her question. Sometimes it seems that bloggers want respect from the White House, as if kind words would make everything fine.

But it ain't personal, or shouldn't be. It's about policy. It's be nice it the White House stopped taking rhetorical swipes at the left. It'd be even better it stopped being so relentless neoliberal.  


[ Parent ]
I don't think it's coyness, but understandable caution. (0.00 / 0)
After all, you-know-who has a record of doing nasty things when feeling pissed about somebody...

[ Parent ]
Strange (0.00 / 0)
it appears to me that I didn't take a side, but engaged in criticism of both sides.  

[ Parent ]
you defended Axlerod (4.00 / 4)
in a shocking twist of events, you were willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt despite, you know, all of the things they have said and done

We made ourselves their enemy and earned their enmity.

Well, you certainly haven't.  Also, how dare anyone call into question the (purportedly) liberal president doing a bunch of conservative shit?  For shaaaaame.


[ Parent ]
Maybe (0.00 / 0)
you missed the point of Lux's post here.  

[ Parent ]
"please cut David Axlerod some slack for trying to beat up on a blogger" (4.00 / 1)
please come here more often, I have so many thing to tell you, some of which don't even end with the word "you"

[ Parent ]
Right! Always leads to a good discussion to end sentences with "Sir"! (0.00 / 0)
Good idea. This will lead to a better understanding! That's laugh.., uh, laudable.
:D

[ Parent ]
Lux' point is to soothe the waves for the administration. (4.00 / 1)
It's part of his role as a government insider. But that doesn't say that others have to engage in the same behaviour! Most there don't have any WH contacts to lose, and can afford to speak freely.

[ Parent ]
b b but the President is a Democrat (4.00 / 1)
blue states! Bush! Tom Delay! hope!

[ Parent ]
you wahwahwanna say, the president is a DEMOCRAT? (0.00 / 0)
What the eff? You're playing me for sucker, right? Hehehe, what a joke! NOT?

[ Parent ]
hey traqvis stop troll rating comments you disagree with (0.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Not Exactly (4.00 / 1)
Mike wants to focus attention on substantive issues where positive change can be accomplished.

He's perfectly happy for there to be waves resulting from anger over coddling Wall Street, for example.  Hence his support for A New Way Forward.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Yeah, ok... (0.00 / 0)
..of course my statement was a bit onesided. And, like most folks here, I very much appreciate Mike's first hand insights. Even if they sound a bit overly diplomatic sometimes. Like not naming you-know-who...

[ Parent ]
Wonderful. Everything is equal. (4.00 / 1)
Truly asinine and symptomatic of just how the Democratic party got so piss-poor...the piss-poor bloggers who keep defending the rot in the White House and the Democratic Party.

[ Parent ]
Ladies and gentlemen: (4.00 / 2)
The next mayor of Chicago!

[ Parent ]
At least he chose a city where he fits in. (0.00 / 0)
Imagine him running in SanFrancisco!
:D

[ Parent ]
Obama (4.00 / 2)
"who cares about the anonymous left trashing talk. Obama does it in plain sight"

Thank you!


[ Parent ]
Do you really need to be told? ... (0.00 / 0)
I'll give you a hint ... it's the guy supposedly leaving soon to run for mayor of Chicago

[ Parent ]
if it's so obvious (4.00 / 1)
why didn't Lux come out and just say it?  why dance around it?

[ Parent ]
Fish allergy, probably! (4.00 / 3)
I can totally understand that Mike doesn't want to find dead animals in his mail.
:D

[ Parent ]
My question is: Who taught who? (0.00 / 0)
A professional like Mike just wouldn't disclose the name of an anonymous retard' in the WH.  I can respect that. (And no dis to real retards)

The thing is, however, that that particular retard's use of threats and fearmongering to bully votes his way is well known to most anyone involved in politics since the Clinton days.  So Mike really doesn't have to name names especially since, as other have said, that Obama is now duplicating and maybe even escalating the retards' exact same tactics.

In fact Obama has given license to many Dems - I note the recent slap out of Rendell's mouth - and WH staff to threaten Democrats who may hold him fully accountable on so many fronts by staying home.

Were I a Nevadan, no way in hell would I vote for Harry Reid.  With pleasure would I return Harry's horrible performance and Obama's threats and insults by sending him and our remaining cowardly Senators a live whoopee cushion like Sharon Angle to help get them off their lazy asses.  

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.


[ Parent ]
I thought Nevada .. (0.00 / 0)
had a choice of "none of the above" .. and what happens if that won come November?

[ Parent ]
I'm Afraid You May Be Right, Mike (4.00 / 1)
But that's just the problem.

This is as good as the Obama Administration gets.

See The Big Hurt's QH on their motion to stonewall the ruling overturning DADT.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Only Log Cabin Republicans should be able (4.00 / 2)
to serve openly in the military according to Obama's DOJ. Ironic NO?

Attorneys for the Obama administration objected Thursday to a proposed worldwide injunction being considered by a California federal judge that would halt the military's ban on openly gay troops.

Calling the possible move "untenable," Department of Justice attorneys filed their objections in U.S. District Court in Riverside.

They said Judge Virginia Phillips, who declared the policy unconstitutional earlier this month, would be overstepping her bounds if she tried to stop it in its tracks.

Instead, she should limit any injunction to the 19,000 members of the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay rights organization that filed the lawsuit to stop enforcement of the ban, the lawyers said.

The case has put the White House in the uncomfortable position of defending a policy President Obama has said he wants repealed. TPM



[ Parent ]
Truly Idiotic! (4.00 / 2)
I downloaded the DOJ brief.  It's the perfect embodiment of Obama's robotic bureaucratic modus operandi.

    "All my means are sane, my motive and my object mad.." - Moby Dick


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Dunno. Why not honesty instead? (4.00 / 9)
"Yes, sadly, there are some in this administration who badmouth the left, but I oppose this unhelpful attitude every single time it shows up. In my opinion Democrats need more party unity in these difficult times, and infights are totally counterproductive for achieving our common goals."
Really, what would have been wrong with such a more honest response?

this is an excellent question! (4.00 / 3)
yes, why was it that the immediate reflexive response was not "we need your help" but was instead "you're guilty too"?

[ Parent ]
Absolutely. That's respectful and (0.00 / 0)
honest.

I don't know if this explanation of why the Dems folded on the middle-class tax cut vote is accurate, but if it is, then the Dems should just say it. If you can't throw us a bone, throw us a dog-whistle.


[ Parent ]
the best way to demonstrate that you're trying to get something done (4.00 / 2)
is to actually try to do it

mention this at your next OFA meeting!


[ Parent ]
That's It Exactly (4.00 / 4)
There once was a time when this sort of thing didn't even need to be said.

Now it appears that it can't even be said.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
LInk to someone criticizing his pushback? (4.00 / 3)
I haven't seen any.

But now that you mention it, I don't think that was the only possible reaction. This "good guy" could have, of course, said, "You know? You're right. People in the administration shouldn't be going after the base. I do my best to see it doesn't happen in the future."

Or, he could have done something even more courageous. He could've echoed his boss, and told Madrak to stop moaning and complaining. Or like Biden, could have told her to "get on board."  


Brad DeLong (4.00 / 2)
Hardly a fire-breather, had this.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Yup, it could have been worse. But it also could have been better. (0.00 / 0)
Looks like this question really caught him by surprise. I guess this is one of those cases where the light bulb goes on when the opportunity has already passed: "Damn, I should have said..."

[ Parent ]
Surprise (4.00 / 4)
The scary thing is the question really did apparently catch him by surprise.  How is that even possible at this point?

You can see the problem if one of "the good guys" in the administration is this disconnected.


[ Parent ]
Dunno what Axelrod had in his mind at that moment... (0.00 / 0)
...so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe more important stuff was on his radar, who knows...

[ Parent ]
Yes, Exactly (4.00 / 1)
He should have been expecting this from the moment the call was first arranged.  He should have thought about this one inside out.  It should have been like a big fat one right down the center of the plate.  

And, pretty, that's just what it was.

No one's fault but his own if he hit a dribbler down the third base line.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
help me here (4.00 / 1)
why couldn't Axelrod raise the issue himself, directly? He has a mouth doesn't he?  Why hasn't anyone walked back Gibbs' remarks? Why hasn't Obama. And not just them. There are other Democrats too. Grayson called Gibbs "Bozo" and he deserves credit for dissing his disgusting behavior. This administration likes the fight with the left, it welcomes it, it has kept it going and whenever possible has tried to use it. Ideally they'd like the fight AND left support.

[ Parent ]
"Yes, yes, I'm sorry. That was a mistake and we regret it." (4.00 / 9)
How freakin' hard could that be?  When I bad mouth someone, they call me on it, and I agree it was unfounded I apologize.  What's so strange about expecting common decency?

----

Lambert over at Corrente has been pushing an interesting question lately: what do we get?  If we show up for Democrats (moderates and progressive candidates), what do we get out the other end?   EFCA?  Tax hikes for the rich?  Another shot at Medicare for All?  What have we been offered for our 'critical' support?

Answer: Nothing.  

STFU and vote for us or the Republicans will eat your babies!  They have two heads and hunger for human brains!  They will repeal health care reform and make you beat your grandmother!

Come on, WHAT IS IN IT FOR US?  Honestly, it's not that hard, why should we support you when you need it most?  If the situation really is that critical, surely you would be willing to offer almost anything.  They haven't even bothered to offer anything after all the empty promises in 2008 got them into this mess.  Well, how about meeting those promises and then we'll talk?

Because honestly, I don't really care what happens this Nov.  I'm not convinced
Republicans would be so much worse the next 2 years and as mentioned above, it gives progressives some great chances to make real gains in 2012.  But keeping these same Democrats just to keep the Republicans out is folly, especially when it only guarantees deeper losses in 2012 if these Democrats act in the exact same manner the next 2 years.  Let em go, what good are they?


Surprise (4.00 / 7)
"The tone wasn't just right because he was caught by surprise."

These people are SURPRISED that their base don't like being ripped in public?  They are dumber than I thought.


It's not about Axelrod and never has been ... (4.00 / 8)
... it's about his boss and the dysfunctional team he's put together.    

Axelrod might be a nice guy and he might say a lot of things I agree with, but when he speaks for the administration he owns the actions of everyone in it, including his boss and all the anonymous hippie punchers.  Actions have consequences.  You want Susie Madrak's support? You might start by not calling her and her community crazy in public. I'm with her all the way on this, and resent your insider-y reference to her "going for it". The spectacle of Obama standing in front of his richest donors and ridiculing the rest of us was, and remains, deeply disturbing.

How about he say "You're right, those cracks are stupid, it isn't coming from me and I fight that battle here every day. I don't always win that battle so I get my ass kicked on calls like this but I'm still fighting.  Are you with me?"  But no, his comeback is "well you do it too".  That doesn't even win an argument among five year olds.

Obama's team isn't all pulling in the same direction, and he/they have a lot of balls criticizing US for not being team players.  Clue for the clueless - we're not getting paid to be team players.  That's your job.

 


As the person in question.... (4.00 / 16)
I'd like to note an interesting phenomena. I'm an experienced political operative (press secretary in a high-profile race, although not at Mike's level) and this question was never about MY feelings: I made a strategy point.

As in, "If you really want netroots support, you really need to stop bashing them." Nothing whatsoever about my feelings.

And yet, apparently because I have ovaries, few male commenters (right wing AND left wing) have missed the opportunity to lecture me thusly: "It's not about your feelings, put on your big-girl pants and get over it." Fascinating.

I told Axelrod how difficult it is to motivate people when you keep hitting them. How complicated is that? The vast majority of blog readers aren't political operatives, and they do take it personally. That's why I'm attacked as a shill and a hack when I write something positive about the administration.

By the way, I certainly never asked anyone to defend me, because I'm more than capable of doing that myself.

My only problem with Axelrod's response is that he didn't actually address the issue. And I used the girl-under-the-bleachers analogy because it's easy to remember, and I wanted him to think about it -- because the netroots is still thought of primarily as a cash machine, and they're pissed off that the machine's out of order. Even though they're the ones who broke it.

So please, don't assume you know my motivations. All anyone has to do is ask me.


Susie (4.00 / 2)
Just so you know, I was going to post on this before Mike took the lead, and it was always perfectly clear what you were saying, and perfectly righteous as well.

Thanks for stopping by & weighing in.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I appreciate your asking the question. (0.00 / 0)
They may never let you have a similar chance again, but if they do, I hope you will be even more explicit about how the left has been excluded and marginalized at the same time the administration has betrayed so many basic promises on progressive policy. Thanks again.

[ Parent ]
hey V stop troll rating comments you disgree with (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Bottom line: The scoreboard says Fail! (4.00 / 4)
Axelrod may indeed be a nice guy who's advocated the correct side of issues, but he was on that call speaking on behalf of the Administration, not himself. As such, he's fair game for anything it has said/done, even if he wasn't the source or didn't initially support the policy decisions.

By any objective measure Axelrod failed. Stipulating Mike's contention that Axelrod was one the correct side of internal debates, it's clear he lost most of those battles. Don't care if he's a good guy. Fail!

On matters of positioning, messaging and political strategy/leadership, the Administration has entirely lost its macro foundation of change, restoring faith in government, hope and a (capital D) Democratic vision of patriotism/nationalism. Instead, they allowed a radical, regressive teabag swift-boating of Obama and squandered all of the gains made in 2006 and 2008. They allowed GOP separation from W. Incredibly, with nine years advance notice, they still allowed the Bush tax cuts to be framed as the Obama tax hikes. This is Axelrod's shop. Fail! Fail! Just too many examples of Fail to enumerate.

Finally, they failed on party discipline. Rahm the enforcer couldn't get a dog catcher confirmed in the Senate. Most of Rahm's House pals -- enough to lose our majority -- are off the reservation, demonstrating they're unworthy of support. These are the people Axelrod now pleads for our help in saving. Fail.

Karl Rove never would've let these things happen in George Bush's White House. I really don't care if Axelrod's the nicest fucking guy in the world. The bottom line is the scoreboard says Fail!

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans


False, Weak and Stupid (0.00 / 0)
It's short, so apologies for quoting in its entirety:

False, Weak and Stupid

Here's the Democratic message for the Fall, according to Axelrod:

  "I don't think anybody in America at this point doubts where the president is, where we are, and where the Republican party is. We'll repeat it every day," Axelrod said on the call. "The Republican Party is holding hostage tax cuts for the middle class."

The Democrats control whether a bill comes to the floor in the House (and, really, the Senate), so it's not only false, but it rings false because even those not paying any attention know that the Democrats have majorities in the House, Senate and White House.

You can't be a victim ("hostage") if you're in charge, unless you're weak.

And, of course, it's stupid because a lot of people in America have serious doubts about where the president and Democrats are. Even the successes like HCR were muddy.

Total Fail.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans






USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

STATE BLOGS