Video: Axelrod channels Bloomberg

During an interview on MSNBC, Barack Obama senior adviser David Axelrod toll Chuck Todd that when the Boston marathon bombings went off, Obama thought they may have selected April 15th because it was 'tax day'. Axelrod then started to suggest it was someone with a "pro..." agenda. He caught himself and didn't finish the word but in light if the Kermit Gosnell trial, odds are that 'pro-life' or 'pro-gun' were the options rolling around beneath the combover.



Remember Michael Bloomberg telling Katie Couric that the Times Square bomber could have been someone unhappy with Obamacare?

Video: Chris Wallace vs. a very Pale-looking David Axelrod

In this exchange between a very pale-looking David Axelrod, senior adviser to Barack Obama, and Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Axelrod is asked to respond to Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter's remarks that the Benghazi attack is such a big story is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Expectedly, Axelrod doubles down and charges that Romney has politicized the attack and points to an interview Ambassador Chris Stevens' father gave to Bloomberg in which the senior Stevens denounced the politicization of his son's murder.

Axelrod then implies that anyone who discusses the attack isn't honoring the wishes of Stevens' father by saying everyone should wait until the investigation into the attack is completed. Forget the fact that the administration, at minimum, has a conflict of interest when leading any such investigation because it's shaping up to be a major scandal. Simply leaving it in the hands of people who answer to the administration is not acceptable.

Wallace, who was visibly agitated at the insinuation, stops him and points out that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told five different Sunday talk shows on September 16th that the attack was in response to a video, which proved to be demonstrably false.



h/t Free Beacon

Buzzfeed: Are Democrat operatives gearing up for anti-Mormon campaign?

An Obama supporter has apparently posted a strategy for winning some southern states in the Bible belt and he's posted it to an Obama campaign website designed to create a nexus between the campaign itself and the voices on the ground. That strategy involves driving Christian voters away from Romney because of... wait for it... his Mormonism.

Via Buzzfeed:

When the Obama campaign released its much-anticipated Dashboard platform last May, it was touted as a potentially revolutionary organizing tool that would connect supporters, and merge online activism with real-life grassroots campaigning.

It can also be used as a platform to launch whispering campaigns, as one user proved this week.

On Monday, a "team member" named Laurence De Palma, who lists his location as East Nashville, presented volunteers with some talking points to convince Southern Christian voters they shouldn't vote for a Mormon. The message was available under "Resources" and tagged "persuasion."

"I'm thinking that even though we don't LIKE campaigns to get nasty, we in the south (TN) come to EXPECT it," De Palma began. "What we also know is that we have a very 'rigid' view of Christianity, and apparently, Mormonism isn't anywhere in our views. This could easily win TN/SC/AL/GA, etc."

Though the post has since been taken down, Romney's campaign spokesman - Andrea Saul - has responded:

Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul condemned the posting in an emailed statement: "The news concerning the Obama Campaign's dashboard containing language based on sowing religious division is deeply disturbing. There is no place in politics for this, and it must be addressed and put to an end."

There are several reasons why the liberal media wanted Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee. The establishment wanted him (that usually bodes well for the Democrats); Romney is a moderate; Romneycare would help to neutralize the Obamacare debate; and Romney doesn't inspire the right-wing base, which leads to another reason.

Romney's religion. I've long believed that Mitt's Mormonism would be an issue for the left to exploit; we may just be getting closer to that reality. That's not to say that it hasn't been brought up; it has been.

Last month, James Carville said he thought Romney's religion was his biggest weakness. Last April, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said David Axelrod would attack Mormonism; MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell got quite aggressive against the Mormon religion while NBC's David Gregory did so in a much more subtle / pseudo-objective kinda way.

Also, let's not forget about when Donna Brazile inadvertently let it slip that Romney was the candidate the Democrats wanted to face. Michael A. Walsh, in a New York Post article, wrote about the incident at the time:

Lost in the weekend’s back-to-back debates in New Hampshire was this illuminating remark by Democratic strategist Donna Brazile after Saturday night’s soporific contest in Manchester: “Mitt Romney won tonight because no one touched him. And for Democrats, you know what? It was good news for us . . . because we believe that the weakest candidate is the candidate that the Republicans are not attacking. And that’s Mitt Romney.”

The remark drew guffaws from some of the other assembled party faithful and media commentators, but Brazile spoke the truth. Democrats do believe that Romney is eminently beatable, the perfect foil for President Obama, in fact.

Again, there are several reasons why the Democrats wanted to face Romney. The perceived ability to exploit his religion and drive evangelical voters away is one of them.

Zip over at Weasel Zippers asks:

Do they really want to make this about religion considering Obama’s Jeremiah Wright past?

Considering that Romney has avoided hitting back at Obama with Fast and Furious after several obvious opportunities to do so. Obama campaign / Super PACs accused Romney of being too 'secretive', suggested he was a 'felon', and implied he murdered a woman. David Axelrod even compared him to Richard Nixon.

Fast and Furious was a gun-walking operation run in the shadows; the Justice Department stonewalled Congress for over a year (and continues to do so) - that's secretive. Fast and Furious was more than just a little felonious - putting guns in the hands of bad guys does qualify. As for murder, Fast and Furious is responsible for the murder of at least one U.S. Border Agent - Brian Terry - and hundreds of Mexican nationals. As for the Nixon comparison, Obama is the one who asserted executive privilege to prevent documents about Fast and Furious from being presented to Congress.

With all due respect to Zip, if Romney won't hit back at these blatantly projectionist attacks by the Obama administration with Fast and Furious, why would he respond to attacks on Mormonism by bringing up Jeremiah Wright?

Ah, there's another reason the Democrats wanted to face Romney.

How will Romney respond to Axelrod comparing him to Richard Nixon?

Seriously, if Mitt Romney doesn't respond to David Axelrod comparing him to Richard Nixon by pointing to things like Obama invoking Executive Privilege over the Fast and Furious documents after Attorney General Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress, Charles Krauthammer may be right. Romney won't deserve to win.

Last month, on Face the Nation, Romney demurred when given the opportunity to chide Barack Obama for the latter's decision to grant one million illegal aliens amnesty. He could have questioned Obama's real concern for Mexican nationals by pointing to the operation that led to hundreds of dead Mexicans and the fact that no one has been held accountable yet.

Romney has had countless opportunities to tap into conservative anger on this issue. Instead, he has become a one-trick pony on the economy and seems incapable of inspiring people.

Here is another opportunity - perhaps his best yet - to throw the Nixon comparison right back in Obama's lap but something tells me he's not going to do it. Here is audio of Axelrod during an interview with ABC, comparing Romney to Nixon.

Via Fox Nation:

Who's Lying? David Axelrod or Eric Holder?

At the June 7th House Judiciary Committee Hearing, Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) asked Attorney General Eric Holder about the AG's relationship with Senior Adviser to Barack Obama, David Axelrod. Fast forward to the 1:30 mark for the relevant excerpt. Here are some quotes from Holder that might raise some eyebrows after watching the exchange between Axelrod and CNN's Candy Crowley.

From the June 7th hearing, via the Daily Caller:



Note that Holder asserts that he'd had conversations with Axelrod about how best to handle political attacks that were being levied against the Justice Department. Forbes also got Holder to admit to having conversations with Axelrod and the White House Counsel's office about how to address Congress relative to Fast and Furious.

Contrast Holder's claims about his meetings with Axelrod with the words of Axelrod himself, today on CNN's State of the Union. Axelrod says he "rarely spoke to (Holder)." When asked by Crowley if he ever offered political advice to Holder, Axelrod had a one-word answer:

"No."

Via DC:

Axelrod: Republicans taken hostage by Right Wing terrorists

Though the headline is not an exact quote, that's about what Barack Obama adviser David Axelrod said to CNN's Candy Crowley.

Via Breitbart:

Video: David Axelrod accuses Republicans of Alinsky tactics (he must absolutely hate himself)

Wait a minute. Did the senior political adviser to the top ideological protege of Saul Alinsky just accuse the Republicans of using Saul Alinsky's tactics? If so, then Axelrod knows the true intent of Alinsky is so despicable that he wants to smear others with it while embracing it himself. How on earth does one such as Axelrod live inside his own skin?

First, Alinsky believed that in order to agitate, you had to focus on what the masses were already predisposed to be angry about and intentionally make it worse. In short, it doesn't get much more evil (go figure, Alinsky dedicated his work to Lucifer).

Anyway, during an interview, Alinsky said the following:

"Now it's up to us to go in and rub raw the sores of discontent, galvanize them for radical social change."

Fast forward to today. During an interview with the sycophantic Chuck Todd of MSNBC, Axelrod said something eerily similar, except he wasn't applying it to himself or Obama. He was applying it to his opponents:

"Well, let me say that the Republicans are very good at fanning the flames of discontent. Their whole campaign is predicated on fanning flames of discontent, so it's not surprising that they do that here."

Not much difference between "rubbing raw" and "fanning flames."

CLICK HERE to see the video.

Hopefully, I will never know what it's like to have so much self-loathing to find what I believe to my core to be so despicable that I accuse my enemies of embracing it instead.

h/t Weasel Zippers

Video: David Axelrod Sounds like Charlie Brown's Parents

Obama adviser David Axelrod looks like Nathan Thurm in this exchange with CBS's Bob Schieffer while sounding like any adult in a Charlie Brown cartoon. In between the nervous, rambling lines of incoherence, Axelrod manages to spit out his belief that this is a 'Tea Party downgrade,' in reference to S&P downgrading us to AA+. Aside from that, there wasn't much he said worth reporting. He looked shaken, nervous, and like a man whose entire belief system is crashing down. More than once, Axelrod said 'compromise is not a dirty word.' Uh, Dave, it's a dirty word when it involves socialists.





As an added bonus, John Kerry also called this a 'Tea Party downgrade.'

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

h/t Verum Serum and The Blaze

OUCH! AXELROD BASICALLY CALLS SESTAK A LIAR

This thing is - metaphor alert - BLOWING UP. CNN's John King, to his credit, continues to press David Axelrod about Joe Sestak's claim that he was offered a job by the White House in return for dropping out of his race with Arlen Specter. At one point, King actually refers to the charge as a "felony" and Axelrod has to deal with it.

He does so by conceding that if Sestak's charges are true, it would be very serious. That may seem innocuous but it almost eliminates a possible future course of action for the White House to take. If the claim is true, the White House will not be able to minimize it and say it's just politics. Axelrod eliminated that potential by saying it would be serious.

Another revelation given by Axelrod here appears to be the elimination of himself as the source of the job offer. If it was Axelrod, why would he put himself on the hook by saying - as he did in this exchange - that he wasn't involved in the conversations?

Sestak is on video, countless times saying that he answered "honestly" the question about being offered a job by the White House as a bribe. Axelrod tells King there is "no evidence of that". Unless I'm wrong, that's the equivalent of calling Sestak a liar.

This exchange is VERY damaging to Obama's administration.



h/t to Hot Air

VIDEO: AXELROD ASKED ABOUT SESTAK SCANDAL

While it is certainly noteworthy when anyone at MSNBC asks a member of the Obama administration about 'Jobsgate' - a scandal involving allegations that Joe Sestak was offered a bribe, this exchange between Chuck Todd and David Axelrod, while brief, is revealing.

Axelrod changed the subject quickly but it's how he did it that struck me as a possible microcosm for the tactics used by the Obama administration to co-opt the media in general. Watch as Axelrod abruptly changes the subject while mysteriously having a copy of the Washington Post on hand, featuring a story about Chuck Todd.

Axelrod proceeds to heap praise on Todd, who embarrassingly melts in front of the audience.

Shameful.

Via Hot Air Pundit

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

UPDATE: In the context of that video and the rubbing of Todd's belly by Axelrod, take a look at Todd the next morning on MSNBC'S Morning Joe. In this exchange, Chuck couldn't be any more of an apologist for the administration. Is it a coincidence that shortly after receiving fawning praise by Axelrod, he's defending the White House?

Video via NewsBusters

VIDEO: GERALDO, COULTER, AXELROD, AND LIMBAUGH

You can watch the entire Rush interview on Fox news Sunday at the bottom of this post but before doing so, I thought this exchange between Geraldo and Ann Coulter does a good job of providing insight into what's at the heart of the controversy that is almost certain to be front and center for a few days.

Geraldo takes issue with two specific statements from the extremely compelling Rush Limbaugh interview with Chris Wallace. First, he unbelievably implies that Limbaugh's statement that Barack Obama is a "man-child" was racist. Secondly, he feigns indignation over Limbaugh's take that Obama's trip to Dover Airforce base to salute a fallen soldier was nothing more than a photo op.

However, Coulter totally blindsides him with something I'm sure he wasn't expecting. His response was so very indicative of the left's mentality. Coulter actually responds by saying that the White House told New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny - you know, the guy who asked Obama at a press conference what he found most "enchanting" about being president - that it was an attempt by the administration to "buy time".

The OCTOBER 29TH ARTICLE by Zeleny didn't have the phrase Coulter pointed to but it did have a few interesting excerpts that seem to point in that direction:

The trip was a symbolic one for Mr. Obama, given the gravity of his coming announcement of a new strategy for Afghanistan.

A symbolic trip? How about a trip without symbolism (or photographers)?

The overnight trip was not announced in advance. The president, wearing a dark suit and a long overcoat, left the White House just before midnight. A small contingent of reporters and photographers was quietly called to follow him to Dover, where he met for two hours with members of 14 families. He returned to the White House at 4:45 a.m.

It would seem that Zeleny's article points to exactly what Limbaugh forcefully said; specifically, that Obama's trip to Dover was a "photo-op".

One more thing about Geraldo before you watch the video. Note that after Coulter points to the Zeleny article, Geraldo says, "that's gross". In light of the direction Coulter took the debate, the focus was on Zeleny's article. Was Geraldo calling the article gross or the White House's take on the trip? Decide for yourself.



Face the Nation's Bob Schieffer then lets David Axelrod respond to Rush's assertion that the Obama trip to Dover was a photo-op. Axelrod's refutation of it was beyond pathetic. However, look out for a couple of other things.

1.) Axelrod goes down the road of the Republican party being extremists yet fails to mention that it's the White House that has surrounded itself with radical communists and people who revere the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century, Mao Tse Tung. Not only that but Axelrod himself was mentored by SDS member Don Rose (SDS gave birth to Bill Ayers' Weather Underground) and is a longtime friend of another SDS member Marilyn Katz who, like Ayers, REGRETS NOTHING.

2.) Axelrod contradicts himself in this interview starting at about the 3:15 mark when Schieffer asks him about the White House "war" on Fox. Axelrod says, "We're not at war with anyone. We're at war only with people who represent mis-truths as truths." Uh, so now they're singling out individuals at Fox? The bigger problem here is that Axelrod actually said the White House is at war with people who disagree with them. Troubling indeed.



MUST SEE: LIMBAUGH'S INTERVIEW ON FNS SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

Here's part 1 of the Limbaugh interview on FNS



Part 2 of Limbaugh interview



Part 3



h/t to H4A and GP

WHITE HOUSE EMAIL STORY BECOMING RADIOACTIVE?

GovDelivery has been identified by the White House as the now infamous "third party" responsible for all of those inboxes receiving David Axelrod spam seeking to counter all of that "mis-information" about Obama-care. Aside from the implication that taxpayers are funding the White House publicity campaign for something they may not agree with, GovDelivery doesn't seem all that willing to accept blame so easily.

VERUM SERUM does it again by uncovering the details of this story. In a Q&A on GOVDELIVERY'S WEBSITE, the president of GD makes the following claim:

GovDelivery is never involved in fundraising or advocacy on behalf of non-profit or political organizations.

Wait a minute. The White House is claiming that Govdelivery is responsible for spamming citizens with advocacy. So who is lying? Well based on this administration's track record, do you really have to ask that question?

Nonetheless, VS continues following the trail. GovDelivery's president further explains GovDelivery's role in the mass mailing of its clients' information:

GovDelivery allows clients to upload existing contact lists into GovDelivery.

So does this mean that the White House would have necessarily had to have issued those email address to GovDelivery instead of GovDelivery harvesting them like the White House claimed last week after finding itself in a pickle?

Be sure to read Verum Serum's ENTIRE ANALYSIS. It points to a very radioactive pickle that the White House tried to give to GovDelivery to deal with. GovDelivery appears to have either not been brought into the loop or is refusing to play ball. Popcorn a must at the next White House press briefing with Robert Gibbs when Major Garrett asks Gibbs to explain.

Just because it's fun to watch, here's the exchange between Gibbs and Garrett that opened this can of worms back on August 13th:

AXELROD THE ASTROTURFER-IN-CHIEF?

For those who have actually decided to open their eyes at what's really going on with this administration, they risk being immune to the level of corruption in the White House. It's beginning to make Bill Clinton blush (I know, it's hard to tell when Bubba's blushing).

Anyway, Michelle Malkin does it again as she's all over what's going on with David Axelrod, the man who made astroturfing an art form. As the Obama administration continues to refer to the town hall grass roots movement as "astroturf" or fake grass roots funded by special interest groups, it continues to accuse others of doing what David Axelrod is a master at doing - Astroturf.

As you watch Michelle explain in very clear language with quintessential specificity exactly what's going on, ask yourself a question.

What does it say about how an entity or human being views itself when it demonizes and vilifies opponents by accusing them of doing despicable things that the accuser is doing to an extreme?

Not only is it projection but it shows that entity / human being to be extremely vile.



CLICK HERE for more from Michelle on how corrupt this is.

h/t to HOT AIR for the video