November 14, 2010

Axelrod on Fox News Sunday.

Man, was he evasive. I'll put up the transcript later and show you what I mean. Meanwhile, Jim DeMint is on after the break. An excellent opportunity to look brilliant simply by answering the questions asked in a reasonably specific and concise manner. Axelrod seemed robotic and anesthetized. His mustache was cut shorter on one side than the other. Asked whether Obama would accept any of what the deficit commission came up with, Axelrod droned emptiness until he latched onto the topic of Nancy Pelosi, which he blathered about until Chris Wallace cut him off.

ADDED: Transcript. [Analysis coming soon!]

ACTUALLY: It's too boring to pick apart. I've got to give Axelrod that. After the break, you can read the interchange about the deficit commission that annoyed me so much.

WALLACE: ... The co-chairs of the deficit commission, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, both of whom the president appointed, came out with a plan this week to cut our debt by $4 trillion over the next decade.

Will the president include some of those proposals in his budget in February?

AXELROD: Well, we're obviously very, very interested. The president empaneled this commission for purposes of looking at this very difficult problem, and we're eager to look at all the recommendations once the commission reports. And his commitment to the chairman was to not -- was to refrain from commenting on their work until after December 1st.

But obviously, we're looking for all good ideas to help deal with our long-term debt problem. This is something that is going to affect our economy. It affects our kids. And we need to deal with it.

WALLACE: You say refrain from commenting. Nancy Pelosi didn't refrain from commenting. She immediately rejected the package as, quote, "simply unacceptable." Does the president agree or disagree that this package is simply unacceptable?

AXELROD: Well, I've seen comments from the left and the right on this, Chris, in fairness.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Well, I'm asking about Nancy Pelosi.

AXELROD: ... on the -- on the -- I understand. But I'm telling you that there were comments on both sides about this. And of course, this is something that we have to confront as we move forward.

One thing I know, Nancy Pelosi had concerns that -- and I understand those concerns and I respect those concerns. The truth is that as we move forward, if one side says we can't raise any taxes on anybody or any interest, and the other side says we can't cut anything, we're obviously not going to make progress on this. And our interest is in making progress on this.

Within that, we're going to protect important equities, for sure. I mean, we shouldn't cut without sensitivity to the impact of those cuts, and certainly Social Security, which is something she's concerned about, is a great concern to us.

But we should move forward in the spirit of cooperation, because we're not going to solve this, one party or the other, alone. We have to...

WALLACE: All right.

AXELROD: ... do it together.

WALLACE: All right. I want...

AXELROD: And that's what we want to do.

36 comments:

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Stop giving the Althouse Hillbillies Red Meat, Althouse!

Instead, please give us a list of all the Palin Lies for the last month!

Also, I have evidence that you have stock in a road paving company...suggesting the obvious source of your antipathy to high speed rail in Wisconsin!

Fen said...

Axelrod is looking for a door.

Rats. blub blub blub.

Maybe the AGW crowd will hire him.

Alan Adamson said...

Chris Wallace, surely, not Matthews, on FOX.

Ann Althouse said...

"Chris Wallace, surely, not Matthews, on FOX."

Oops. Fixed.

Hagar said...

Heh, that's funny.

Chris Wallace will never forgive you for that one!

donttread2010 said...

Taking to large a glug of the White House (acidic) kool-aid can be bad for the facial hair...

Maguro said...

Hmmm...I thought the administration was boycotting Fox News since it's not a real, unbiased news organization like MSNBC.

Is this some kind of new wingnut-outreach effort or am I just behind the times?

vw - palinona. Snowobile?

M. Simon said...

Broadway Bank. Rezko.

James R Ament said...

Droning emptiness is what too many of them do. I stopped listening to the empty droners. (I know, droners is not a word.)

Robert said...

I caught a short segment while flipping through the channels this morning. I don't think I've ever seen such a bad case of West Denial Virus. Somebody ought to inform the Democrats that it's deadly to donkeys.

SteveR said...

Don't squeeze the Charmin' says Mr. Whipple. That's the best advice he could have given Obama. Alas it was not so.

edutcher said...

Ann's lead-in says it all. "evasive", "...robotic and anesthetized. His mustache was cut shorter on one side than the other".

These people have run out of lies (or is it illusions?) and now have to face the truth.

I'd say this is starting to sound like Greek tragedy, but it's more like old B-movies.

Mark O said...

Every time I see Alelrod my first thought is that he is an aging porn star. Am I alone?

michaele said...

Oh, Robert, that was darned clever!

Kansas City said...

The transcript of the one part did not seem that bad. It seemed typical.

My question is the same one that I have every time I see Axelrod on television. Why on earth would a sophisticated political operation like the Obama administration believe it is a good idea to put him on TV? They can't think it is a positive? Is it just thought to be a safe pick in the sense that he will say nothing of significance and, even if he does, he is just a political guy, not someone in a position of authority?

And, in a larger sense, why does the media treat political hacks like Axelrod and Ploufe as persons to offer serious comments on the state of the country? I saw in the WPost this morning a serious account that Axelrod is leaving and Ploufe is replacing him in the White House. Why even accept that these guys should even be in significant White House positions? I realize the same think could be said about Rove, although my recollection is that he was never considered anything other than a political advisor.

RebeccaH said...

Empty words, that's all we get from this administration. Platitudes and meaningless phrases, and not a single stand on any issue, except "this is something we have to confront as we move forward."

My question is, move forward to what? They can't even tell us that.

Anybody but Obama, 2012.

Christy said...

"Don't be boring," the Althouse former rule of commenting, sprung to mind as I watched. I had a brief fantasy of a gong and a hook coming from off camera to drag Axelrod away.

But then, real politics is boring, isn't it? The WH can now say they are trying to communicate with their opponents. Better that we complain that Axelrod said nothing than give us an issue to complain about.

MayBee said...

Axelrod, Jarrett, and the two Obamas have spent the last decade and a half keeping each other well employed.

With Axelrod around, though, I can see why Jarrett said Obama is always bored.

former law student said...

How can this be a goal of deficit reduction? Wouldn't this defeat the goal?

Caps revenue at or below 21% of GDP and gets spending down to 22% and eventually to 21%.

Kansas City said...

MayBee, funny comment.

Jarett is an example of someone who appears to be empty hanger on and friend, but that is different than Axelrod and Ploufe, whom I assue are capable campaign advisors.

Jarett comes across as stupid on TV, so I guess someone as some level has recognized that and minimized her TV appearances.

Michael Haz said...

Axelrod seemed unaware that an election happened earlier this month.

Chef Mojo said...

When I see someone like Axelrod up there on TV like a deer in the headlights, it's pretty disturbing. This guy is the power behind the throne, and he's obviously in shock. He doesn't have a clue.

Look at it this way: The Hole In The Wall Gang gang has been elected to run the Union Pacific Railroad, and after two years, Butch turns to Sundance and says, "Wait a minute; we're actually supposed to be running a railroad?"

Penny said...

Actually, according to the transcript, Axelrod didn't drone on about Pelosi and her comment that these recommended changes were not acceptable. Instead what he ATTEMPTED to do was try to put distance between her shoot-from-the-hip reactionary comment by pointing out all the serious problems our elected politicians on both sides of the aisle need to deal with sooner instead of later.

Unfortunately, he was ineffective as "the statesman".

CBDenver said...

I don't think Axelrod's shell-shocked demeanor is due to the election but rather is due to the cold reception of Obama and the American contingent at the G20 meeting. Losing power amongst the "ignorant bitter-clingers" is not nearly as devastating as losing power among the enlightened globalists of Europe

Kansas City said...

Good comment by Chef.

Some democrats recently suggeted Obama announce he would not run for a second term and, instead, get to work and he might be a great president. He won't do it and, in view of his hard left views and lock of any real qualifications to be president, it would not work anyway.

But, there is a good opportunity for a good republican politician and for the country for a candidate in 2012 to declare he is a one termer. McCain has a great opportunity that he blew in 2008 to declare himself to be a one termer. Apparently, he was on the verge of doing so and he changed his mind. Big mistake.

TheGiantPeach said...

It's not just Axelrod. Does any politician say anything of substance when talking about deficit reduction? (I give Paul Ryan credit for trying, but his math doesn't hold up.)

The American voter is very clear on the issue of taxes and spending. No tax increases will be tolerated. No cuts to high-ticket budget items (Social Security, Medicare, Defense) will be tolerated. And the budget must be balanced.

Given those constraints, how can you blame a politician for essentially saying nothing at length when confronted with questions on the deficit?

Alex said...

Funny how Althouse doesn't hold Republican lawmakers to the same standard as Democrats. They are equally evasive when asked which spending they would cut. Republicans love to talk about "spending cuts" in the abstract when it's convenient, like during an election season. Then it comes time to deliver and they are just as bought off as the Democrats. The welfare state rocks on.

tjl said...

Plouffe!
What a name to reckon with. If you spent hours trying to invent a parody name to represent a type of effete hanger-on of an out-of-touch regime in an obvious state of disintegration, you couldn't do better than that.

John Salmon said...

A President is only as good as his appointees, and from Biden to Alexrod on down, they are a singularly unimpressive lot.

former law student said...

A President is only as good as his appointees, and from Biden to Alexrod on down, they are a singularly unimpressive lot.

Axelrod managed two of the great Paul Simon's campaigns -- to someone who believes that a man is known by the company he keeps, that says a lot. Just as GW's consorting with Karl Rove told a lot about him.

HDHouse said...

Ann wrote "His mustache was cut shorter on one side than the other."

OMG. Well that changes everything. Thank you for the astute political commentary. That made a lot of difference ya'betcha.

HDHouse said...

John Salmon said...
"... from Biden to Alexrod on down, they are a singularly unimpressive lot."

He says longing for the days of Scooter and Turd Blossom.....sigh!

madAsHell said...

Yes, I see the aging porn star.

It's the mustache....and the Nice-n-Easy hair color.

I had a mustache when I was 20, but it didn't survive the wedding night.

Hmmm....has Axelrod a bride?

w/v: dings - This administration is full of them.

TheGiantPeach said...

There is some confusion here.

David Axelrod was not the porn star. That, of course, would have been David Axle-Rod.

Kennach said...

His body language was great - when he was talking about possibly cooperating with Republicans. he was shaking his head no. His word were weasely, but his body language betrayed his true intentions.

Jeff H said...

"robotic and anesthetized"?

That's an insult to all robots, and to all truly anesthetized people.