The Alinksy-Obama Minions Would Have You Believe In the "Tea Party Downgrade".

Team Obama and the media minions seem to be all aboard the Alinsky Train; what else could explain the daily vitriol against the Tea Party during and since the debt ceiling debate.  Nearly every day something about the vicious Tea Party and their plan to ruin America has been at the top of Memeorandum. 

The more the media lambasts the Tea Party, the more likely the public will be to turn against them, or so the Alinsky model goes.

Here's David Axelrod explaining how the downgrade is the fault of the Tea Party:

Axelrod said S&P’s decision was “largely a political analysis.” “And that's what we should focus on because what they were saying is they want to see the political system work. They want to see a sense of compromise. They want to see the kind of solution that the president has been fighting for, a large solution that will deal with the problem, that will be balanced, that will include revenues.” 

Instead, said Axelrod, conservative, Tea Party-influenced Republicans “played brinksmanship with the full faith and credit of the United States. And this was the result of that.”

Excuse me, Mr. Axelrod, but what was Obama's plan?  Did he have one?  No, I didn't think so. Axelrod wants you to think it's the Tea Party's fault we got downgraded rather than Obama's lack of a plan or the over the top spending of the Democrats.

Steve Benen ponders a whole litany of wrongs by Republicans before he finally lights on the debt ceiling debate as "the worst thing the Republicans have ever done":

I still think there’s something unique about the Republicans holding the full faith and credit of the United States hostage, threatening to impose a catastrophe on all of us, on purpose, to achieve a specific (and unnecessary) policy goal. 

Again, never mind the fact that Obamacare is about to add millions to Medicaid forcing a rationing situation onto our medical professionals; never mind the explosion of cost and bureaucracy that will result from Obamacare because holding the line for fiscal conservatism is so much worse than that (as lame as that line was).

Howard Dean calls the downgrade "a tea party problem":

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean took a stronger tone on CBS, suggesting the tea party has been “smoking some of that tea, not just drinking it” and said of the entire default and downgrade morass, “this is a tea party problem."

Joe Biden even called the Tea Party terrorists (although he now denies it).

And so it goes...it's all aboard the Alinksy Train to attack the Tea Party, to marginalize them, to make them seem anti-American, even.  "Why, it's all the Tea Party's fault that your interest rates have gone up!"

Truth is, as Professor Jacobson pointed out:

Barack Obama never put forth a debt reduction plan.  Ever.

All Obama did was talk in generalities about what he might be willing to consider as part of a “grand bargain,” but it always was vague, the equivalent of voting present.  But when Republicans put forth actual plans to deal with entitlements (the Ryan plan) and to take dramatic action as to spending (Cut, Cap and Balance) the White House went along with Democratic demagoguing of the issue.

So now it's all the Tea Party's fault.

Do not be led down the dark, smoky path of the Alinsky-ite Obama minions.  The Tea Party faction held the line as best they could.  Even John McCain has gone from calling the Tea Party "hobbits" to defending their mandate:

“We could have reached an agreement a lot earlier, but the members of the House of Representatives had a mandate last November, and it was jobs and the economy and it was spending. And for them to then agree to tax increases and spending increases was obviously a repudiation of the mandate they felt they had from last November,” McCain said.

Call them names.  Alienate them.  Turn people against them.  Defeat them.  The Alinsky way.

Don't be snookered.  Obama owns the downgrade and whatever aftermath is to come -- not the Tea Party.

Is Axelrod Planning an Exit?

The New York Times profile of David Axelrod is that of an angry, frustrated, and, cranky man. He's frustrated by criticism from "the peanut gallery" that Obama just isn't getting the message out correctly:

In an interview in his office, Mr. Axelrod was often defiant, saying he did not give a “flying” expletive “about what the peanut gallery thinks” and did not live for the approval “of the political community.” He denounced the “rampant lack of responsibility” of people in Washington who refuse to solve problems, and cited the difficulty of trying to communicate through what he calls “the dirty filter” of a city suffused with the “every day is Election Day sort of mentality.”

The "peanut gallery," which one would assume is kin to the "chattering class" is just too stupid for this smart-power administration. They just can't figure out how to get down to the level of the common man and get their message out properly. Talk. Slower.

Could it be that it's the message and not the messenger?

The team with the best and brightest mix of "star power, brain power, and political muscle" just can't get the American people to swallow the expansion of government and intrusion into private lives that is topmost on their agenda.

As Axelrod puts it:

“For me, the question is, why haven’t we broken through more than we have?” Mr. Axelrod said. “Why haven’t we broken through?”

Probably because the American people don't want what you're selling, sir.

It's all so much harder than Obama thought it would be. It's all Bush's fault - if Obama could have just done it all his way and not had to clean up after Bush, it would be so easy:

“Believe me, if we were charting this administration as a political exercise, the first thing we would have done would not have been a massive recovery act, stabilizing the banks and helping to keep the auto companies from collapsing,” he said. “Those would not even be the first hundred things he would want to do.” But Mr. Axelrod argued that the president, confronted with “breathtaking challenges,” did not have the luxury of moving more slowly or methodically.

Governing is hard. Leading is harder.

Jennifer Rubin offers a suggestion:

Here’s the thing: leave if you don’t like it or can’t convince people of what a swell job you’re doing. There is no mandatory draft for the White House. In fact, some people consider it an honor and privilege to serve there.

Indeed. She goes further to suggest that the groundwork may be in place for an Axelrod exit, and she may be on to something. The New York Times profile reports:

As Mr. Obama began his term, Mr. Axelrod told him he would stay at the White House for a finite period — believed to be about two years — and that time frame remains unchanged.

So is Axe planning his exit? He says, “I know I’m not cut out for this town,” so maybe he's ready to hit the road. Again, it's not the messenger, Mr. Axelrod, but the message. I don't think anybody who comes in to fill Axelrod's shoes will be able to change the fact that people don't want a national takeover of the health insurance industry or massive expansion of government programs and entitlements, or an exploding deficit.

No wunderkid on earth will be able to sell that message.

DLTDHYOTWO.

(More at Memeorandum)

Team Obama Declares Fox "Not News"

The continuing White House battle against Fox News is just silly and resembles nothing so much as childhood kindergarten politics.

Here is David Axelrod with George Stephanopoulous this moring:



I don't argue so much that Fox has a point-of-view; they do. Their slogan is "fair and balanced" and some broadcasters honor that more than others, but you can't bash Fox as "not being a news station" and let MSNBC slide by without comment either. If anyone has a point-of-view, they do. Chris Matthews and his tingling leg? C'mon!

Which is just silly. The whole thing is silly.

Most Americans can see clearly that the issue is simply that Fox doesn't like Obama's policies so Obama doesn't like Fox and is trying to punish them with this silliness. Obama doesn't handle criticism well. We've seen that over and over. It makes him testy.

Does The White House think that this name calling, which is all it is, will hurt Fox's feelings? Drop their viewership? Marginalize them? What's the goal here?

Allahpundit points out that even the NYT is over it and points to this quote:

On the official White House Web site, a blog called Reality Check provides a running tally of transgressions by Fox News. It ends with this: “For even more Fox lies, check out the latest ‘Truth-O-Meter’ feature from Politifact that debunks a false claim about a White House staffer that continues to be repeated by Glenn Beck and others on the network.”

People who work in political communications have pointed out that it is a principle of power dynamics to “punch up “ — that is, to take on bigger foes, not smaller ones. A blog on the White House Web site that uses a “truth-o-meter” against a particular cable news network would not seem to qualify. As it is, Reality Check sounds a bit like the blog of some unemployed guy living in his parents’ basement, not an official communiqué from Pennsylvania Avenue.

The American presidency was conceived as a corrective to the royals, but trading punches with cable shouters seems a bit too common. Perhaps it’s time to restore a little imperiousness to the relationship.

Indeed. The entire brouhaha is simply a distraction from the more relevant and important issues in front of us all today. To make the important issue about Fox is just childish. Get over yourselves.


More at Memeorandum