Why Libs Should Be Petrified By This Top Dem Strategist And MSNBC Fave’s Take On Brit Elections

As Western Journalism reported earlier today, Friday, British Prime Minister David Cameron and his Conservative Party absolutely crushed their rivals on the left in the just-concluded national elections that saw the liberal Labour Party in the United Kingdom lose some two dozen seats in Parliament. And which former Obama strategist was a highly paid consultant to Labour candidates? Which big-time MSNBC political analyst had only days before the humiliating defeat suffered by his British clients predicted a “very, very close race?”

Why, that now thoroughly discredited pundit was none other than David Axelrod, who NewsBusters says collected the tidy sum of $463,000 for his advice that saw Labour Party leaders go down in flames. NewsBusters reports that, following the trouncing his clients took, Axelrod tried to shift the blame away from his advice about how to run their leftist campaigns.

“On Twitter, Friday, Axelrod blamed others: ‘In all my years as journalist & strategist, I’ve never seen as stark a failure of polling as in UK. Huge project ahead to unravel that.’”

Clearly, though, it wasn’t polling that led to the defeat of the candidates who followed Axelrod’s lead in choosing the campaign positions they would embrace — positions that British voters overwhelmingly rejected. Only yesterday, the day Britons went to the polls, Axelrod went on Andrea Mitchell’s MSNBC show to, essentially, declare victory for the Labour Party as well as to tout the supposed superiority of the political advice he gave the party’s candidates.

NewsBusters provides a partial transcript of that interview, which has now proven to be rather unfortunate for Mr. Axelrod and opinions about his competence in both advising about, and predicting the results of, today’s political contests.

…some of the same issues, Andrea, we’re dealing with here, that in the advanced economies, how do you create economies in which people that work hard get ahead, stay ahead of bills, have some hope for kids and their future… One thing seems clear is that there’s going to be a progressive majority in Britain after this election. Unless there’s a huge surprise today, it’s really hard to see how David Cameron puts together, puts together a majority coalition.

The real significance of David Axelrod’s utter failure here runs far beyond the Conservative Party’s landslide in the United Kingdom. It’s what Axelrod’s advice and insight — or lack thereof — could mean for the 2016 election cycle in the United States. That point is driven home with a vengeance by a recent post on the website of NBC News — a piece that, ironically, underscores the potential weakness of traditional Democrat talking points and what many might call “threadbare” campaign platitudes.

The opening sentences of the NBC News post are particularly revealing: “President Barack Obama’s former adviser David Axelrod has some advice for 2016 presidential hopefuls: Pay heed to politicians across the pond. The strategist, who has been advising the U.K.’s main opposition Labour Party ahead of Thursday’s election, said Americans contenders should draw lessons from Britain’s general election by putting household economics at the heart of their campaign.”

By clicking on the video below, you can watch the celebrated guru of liberal election victory lay out his philosophy that, if adopted by Democrats in 2016, could lead to the same kind of wipeout that the Labour Party just suffered across the pond.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Why Libs Should Be Petrified By This Top Dem Strategist And MSNBC Fave’s Take On Brit Elections

As Western Journalism reported earlier today, Friday, British Prime Minister David Cameron and his Conservative Party absolutely crushed their rivals on the left in the just-concluded national elections that saw the liberal Labour Party in the United Kingdom lose some two dozen seats in Parliament. And which former Obama strategist was a highly paid consultant to Labour candidates? Which big-time MSNBC political analyst had only days before the humiliating defeat suffered by his British clients predicted a “very, very close race?”

Why, that now thoroughly discredited pundit was none other than David Axelrod, who NewsBusters says collected the tidy sum of $463,000 for his advice that saw Labour Party leaders go down in flames. NewsBusters reports that, following the trouncing his clients took, Axelrod tried to shift the blame away from his advice about how to run their leftist campaigns.

“On Twitter, Friday, Axelrod blamed others: ‘In all my years as journalist & strategist, I’ve never seen as stark a failure of polling as in UK. Huge project ahead to unravel that.’”

Clearly, though, it wasn’t polling that led to the defeat of the candidates who followed Axelrod’s lead in choosing the campaign positions they would embrace — positions that British voters overwhelmingly rejected. Only yesterday, the day Britons went to the polls, Axelrod went on Andrea Mitchell’s MSNBC show to, essentially, declare victory for the Labour Party as well as to tout the supposed superiority of the political advice he gave the party’s candidates.

NewsBusters provides a partial transcript of that interview, which has now proven to be rather unfortunate for Mr. Axelrod and opinions about his competence in both advising about, and predicting the results of, today’s political contests.

…some of the same issues, Andrea, we’re dealing with here, that in the advanced economies, how do you create economies in which people that work hard get ahead, stay ahead of bills, have some hope for kids and their future… One thing seems clear is that there’s going to be a progressive majority in Britain after this election. Unless there’s a huge surprise today, it’s really hard to see how David Cameron puts together, puts together a majority coalition.

The real significance of David Axelrod’s utter failure here runs far beyond the Conservative Party’s landslide in the United Kingdom. It’s what Axelrod’s advice and insight — or lack thereof — could mean for the 2016 election cycle in the United States. That point is driven home with a vengeance by a recent post on the website of NBC News — a piece that, ironically, underscores the potential weakness of traditional Democrat talking points and what many might call “threadbare” campaign platitudes.

The opening sentences of the NBC News post are particularly revealing: “President Barack Obama’s former adviser David Axelrod has some advice for 2016 presidential hopefuls: Pay heed to politicians across the pond. The strategist, who has been advising the U.K.’s main opposition Labour Party ahead of Thursday’s election, said Americans contenders should draw lessons from Britain’s general election by putting household economics at the heart of their campaign.”

By clicking on the video below, you can watch the celebrated guru of liberal election victory lay out his philosophy that, if adopted by Democrats in 2016, could lead to the same kind of wipeout that the Labour Party just suffered across the pond.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

David Axelrod Takes Aim At Hillary’s Campaign, Encourages ‘Humility’

The man behind much of Barack Obama’s electoral success recently weighed in on the shortcomings he believes Hillary Clinton must overcome in order to become the next president. David Axelrod, who served as Obama’s campaign strategist during the 2008 election, has dealt with Clinton before and offered some tips regarding how she can improve her strategy ahead of 2016.

“Humility is the order of the day,” he insisted. “In 2007, her campaign was this juggernaut of inevitability and it was a top-down experience.”

As it turned out, of course, the far less recognizable Obama was able to overcome the name recognition gap and defeat Clinton to earn his party’s nomination. Axelrod speculated that Americans can grow to resent the notion that a particular candidate’s nomination is a foregone conclusion.

“Voters don’t like to be told that their decision is predetermined,” he explained. “They want to be asked for their vote; and more than that they want to have a genuine connection with the candidate.”

Though he saw some redeeming qualities in Clinton following her 2008 loss in the Iowa caucuses, Axelrod cautioned that she needs to remain humble throughout the process in order to come out victorious in next year’s primary.

He described the post-Iowa Clinton of 2008 as one who “threw caution off” and was better able to identify with voters.

“The candidate you see in Iowa today is much closer to that candidate,” he concluded, “and I think that’s authentically who she is.”

Regardless of her personality on the campaign trail, however, plenty of evidence exists that prospective voters are already weary of Clinton’s near-constant media coverage more than a year and a half before Election Day. Whether due to the fact that she has been a household name for more than two decades or that she has been linked to countless scandals throughout that time, reports of Clinton’s inevitability – as in the 2008 campaign cycle – might be premature.

Share this article on Facebook if you oppose Hillary. 

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Chris Matthews Clueless On Why Hillary’s Private Email Account Is Suspicious

MSNBC

The New York Times piece by Michael S. Schmidt on Hillary Rodham Clinton using a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state has many of her supporters scrambling to justify her actions. Mrs. Clinton’s exclusive use of a personal email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department is a serious breach of federal law since these communications are considered government records.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews thinks that Mrs. Clinton not using a secure government email account is not worthy of scrutiny. He compared the use of personal email for official government correspondence with the petty violation of stealing office supplies for use at home.

I don’t know with this formal custom how often it’s honored, how often it’s not. It’s almost like don’t take your pens home and use them at home. I wonder if it’s one of those roles.

Matthews asked former campaign strategist David Axelrod if this should be a NYT front page story.

David Axelrod, you’ve got experience with this. What did you – you think this is something worth the top of the fold of the New York Times? Hillary Clinton didn’t use her email instead of her government email? Is this worthy of this kind of hootin’ and hollerin’?

Jonathan Allen, Bloomberg News D.C. Bureau Chief, explained to the Hardball host that all government letters and emails belong to American citizens.

I think what’s interesting about this story, it used to be the criticism that the Clintons wanted to re-write history. Now it seems that Hillary Clinton doesn’t want to have history recorded at all with these emails. I mean, it’s disturbing on the level, you know, as Ron pointed out today, these are our emails. This is our information and I think it goes to a larger question.

Matthews interrupted with a weak analogy that Mrs. Clinton should be able to send her husband an email to meet at a restaurant for dinner through a private email account. Mr. Allen responded that a private email is permissible for personal communications, but all government business needs to be conducted on a government email server.

You can have a private email for your private conversations. But you shouldn’t be conducting government business from your private email account. And honestly, if you look at the way this is set up, it was set up with a forethought to evade the spirit of the open records laws. I mean, it’s the pattern almost of paranoia.

Matthews interrupted Allen in an attempt to defend the former secretary of state.

What was the law at the time she did this? What was the law at the time she did this? I thought the law didn’t come into effect after…

h/t: Newsbusters

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

No Scandals For Obama Administration? You Can’t Be Serious!

Stephen Goddard (Flickr)

David Axelrod, former top advisor to President Obama, made a revelatory comment on his book tour this week. In an appearance at the University of Chicago, touting his political autobiography, Axelrod said, “I’m proud of the fact that basically you’ve had an administration that has been in place for six years in which there hasn’t been a major scandal. I think that says a lot about the ethical strictures of this administration.”

Perhaps most surprisingly, Axelrod made the statement with a straight face. The only logical explanation for such a statement is that either he’s oblivious to what the administration has done over the past six years, or he’s completely detached from reality. At the very least, he clearly could have a promising future as an actor.

Equally alarming is the context within which Axelrod made the remark. He was responding to a question from an audience member on why Obama broke his promised ban on lobbyists in the White House. Axelrod replied that he didn’t “think that’s true.”

Lobbying scholar Conor McGrath has documented how inaccurate Axelrod’s perception is. In the latest issue of the Journal of Public Affairs, McGrath said, “President Obama’s public rhetoric on contact with lobbyists does not always accord with his private actions.” You’ll recall that on his first day in office, Obama ostentatiously signed an Executive Order banning former lobbyists from working in his administration. That makes it even more difficult to disavow the reality that they hired 119 former lobbyists, including 60 in senior administration posts, according to McGrath.

Since Mr. Axelrod seems to be oblivious to the administration’s failure in regard to hiring lobbyists, he’s certainly left the door open to erroneous perceptions with regard to administration scandals, as well. So let’s take a look at some of the scandals that have not taken place over the past six years, per the former advisor.

Things like the IRS being used as a political enforcement arm of the administration in targeting opposition groups and taxpayers. And how about the three-fer of refusing to provide adequate protection of our ambassador to Libya, blaming his murder on a video that no one in Libya had seen before then, and then covering up everything from the State Department to the Pentagon and the White House to prevent the truth from being revealed.

Axelrod clearly doesn’t think Obamacare’s a scandal, but there are a great number of Americans who believe differently. What else can it be called when a president promises our health insurance would drop by $2,400 and we could all keep the policies that we like, but then prices rise by an average of 78% in four years, and tens of millions of Americans lost that insurance they were promised they could keep? In a normal person’s lexicon, that would be considered scandalous, especially since it was all obviously based on a lie.

And let’s not forget Axelrod’s “non-scandal” of dozens of our veterans losing their lives, and tens of thousands of them being deprived requisite healthcare because of internal politics within the Veteran’s Administration. When policies lead to one unnecessary and innocent death, isn’t that scandalous? So why is it not when it leads to over 40 deaths?

In banana republics, politicians giving money to their political cronies, and vice versa, is considered graft and corruption. This administration has proven one of two things: either the U.S. is now a banana republic, or such graft and corruption is now acceptable in the most powerful republic in the world. How else can we classify the billions of “stimulus” dollars that went to administration friends at Solyndra, NextEra, Ener1, Solar Trust, and dozens of other well-connected companies, which all subsequently went bankrupt?

Typically, when a government illegally (according to its own laws) operates a gun-running operation, putting guns purposefully into the hands of drug cartels and their goons, leading to the deaths of government law enforcement agents, it would be considered a scandal. Perhaps Mr. Axelrod just thinks that the DOJ’s “Fast and Furious” operation was just business as usual.

We could go on and on, including the EPA’s collusion with the green lobby, the 25 documented unconstitutional actions of the administration after taking an oath to uphold it, the massive debt and deficit spending that threatens our economic stability, and the Bowe Bergdahl fiasco of trading five of the most hardened jihadists for an army deserter. And then, in the case of the latter, having the temerity to claim the “Taliban is an armed insurgency; ISIL is a terrorist group. So we don’t make concessions to terrorist groups.”

I’m sure that a major component to Axelrod’s ignorance of administration scandals is the fact that the mainstream media has virtually ignored all of them. To a media that has ignored the myriad of administration scandals, failures, lies, and incompetency, if they don’t report them, the scandals apparently never occurred. Kind of like the old philosophical question of a tree falling in a forest; if there’s no one to hear it, does it make any noise? To the media, if they don’t report it, it didn’t happen; and the administration affirms the nonevent.

Then again, perhaps it’s just a characteristic of sycophancy. If Axelrod denies the scandals occurred, they didn’t. For perception rarely approximates reality in a sycophant’s mind. Such detachment from reality may be laudable in Hollywood, but certainly not in the top echelons of government.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom