The Audacity of Axelrod

The mainstream media is starting to take a closer look at this guy. So it begins...

Timothy Burger - Bloomberg:

"Two firms that received $343.3 million to handle advertising for Barack Obama’s White House run last year have profited from his top priority as president by taking on his push for health-care overhaul. One is AKPD Message and Media, the Chicago-based firm headed by David Axelrod until he left last Dec. 31 to serve as a senior adviser to the president. Axelrod was Obama’s top campaign strategist and is now helping sell the health-care plan."

Ken Vogel - Politico:

"Critics of President Obama’s health-care overhaul are zeroing in on his senior adviser David Axelrod, whose former partners at a Chicago-based firm are the beneficiaries of huge ad buys—now at $24 million and counting—by White House allies in the reform fight. The unwelcome scrutiny, largely from Republicans, comes at an inopportune time as Obama seeks to shore up support for health care reform. It revolves around two separate $12 million ad campaigns advocating Obama’s health care plan that were produced and placed partly by AKPD Message and Media, a firm founded by Axelrod that employs his son and still owes Axelrod $2 million."

Stephanie Condon - CBS

"The White House and the pharmaceutical industry are pushing back against allegations that one of President Obama's senior advisers is personally benefiting from industry cooperation on health care reform. On Tuesday, the House Republican Conference published a one-page talking points memo that says, "Even as President Obama campaigned on a platform of change and transparency, recent dealings between the pharmaceutical industry and the administration raise serious questions as to whether the drug lobby is helping to bankroll a multimillion dollar severance package for one of the president’s senior advisors."

If there is one thing that any close political adviser to a sitting president should have learned by now, it is this lesson: It is not necessarily actual conflict of interest or impropriety that bites you in the ass. It is the appearance of conflict of interest and impropriety that is political poison. While not always fatal to a political career, it is always very damaging to a presidency. This was true for Bert Lance. True for Michael Deaver. True for George H.W. Bush and the hordes associated with Iran-Contra. True for the legions touched by Whitewater. True for Dick Cheney. True for Karl Rove. And it will be true for David Axelrod.

As Hugh Hewitt points out, there is a direct comparison to the Dick Cheney/Halliburton connection that had the left up in arms:

"It should take about ten minutes this morning for Robert Gibbs to provide details of Axelrod's "retained interest" in his old firm --the term used by Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg when he was blasting Dick Cheney vis-a-vis Halliburton-- and Axelrod's participation in negotiations with any interest that is providing money to any group providing money to his old firm. With those facts in hand there are scores of D.C. lawyers who can comment on whether any of the many ethics laws governing the financial interests of senior advisors to the president have been violated."

Predictably, the right is all over this like a bad rash (From Memeorandum: American Spectator, Hot Air Michelle Malkin, Ben Smith's Blog, protein wisdom, The Jawa Report, Dr. Melissa Clouthier, Atlas Shrugs, RedState and Pajamas Media). So far, it is a minor blogstorm of positively smug and somewhat unseemly glee. Their enthusiasm for the the story will give the left an opportunity to dismiss this story as right wing "politics of destruction". That would be a mistake. There has been too much smoke around David Axelrod for too long. Too many stories like this. The "appearances of impropriety" continue to pile up.

Like with Jimmy Carter, the press is eager to reverse perceptions of fawning and favorable treatment of Barack Obama. They will find it easier to attack someone close to Obama rather than the popular president himself. This is the role that Bert Lance played in the Jimmy Carter administration. How Obama handles the Axelrod affair may very well turn into a bigger test of his presidency than than the health care debate. This is the lesson of the Jimmy Carter Presidency.

Axelrod is a very smart guy. He knows how to cover his tracks. He knows how to walk the line. That is why it is so surprising that he still chooses to walk so very very close to the ethical edge. Maybe it's a Chicago thing. I've been following him for some time and think he has crossed that line more than once:

October 28, 2008 - Barack Buys an Election:

"One wonders how Axelrod takes a leave from a co-located consulting firm with only three partners and where he is the “A” in ASK Public Strategies. Did they divide the office with blue tape on the floor and keep Axelrod on one side? Does he wear blinders and earplugs when in the office? But I digress... Also among ASK's clients? You guessed it. From Business Week:

"Among ASK's other clients: AT&T. The telecom company, formerly known as SBC Communications, had been a customer, Sedler confirms, when it requested ASK's help to defeat a broadband referendum..."

And why shouldn't AT&T hire Axelrod's firm? After all, the "S" in ASK is David Axelrod's partner Eric Sedler:

"Prior to joining ASK Public Strategies, Sedler served as a Public Relations Director for AT&T Corporation, managing the company’s offices in Chicago, Atlanta and Miami. In that position, he was responsible for directing the company’s corporate public affairs campaigns in the central and southeastern United States."

So AT&T gives a lot of money to ASK. Some of that money is in David Axelrod’s pocket, as one of three partners in ASK. But David Axelrod is on “leave” from ASK. Nothing to see here. Move along."

November 6, 2008 - Comment on Donklephant:

"He is twice as good Rove or if you prefer, twice as bad as Rove. Same difference. Definitely this is “Barack’s Brian” like Rove was to Bush... It would be real interesting to know who ASK’s clients are now, but the client list on their web page came down when Axelrod went to work on the Obama campaign. Axelrod said he was on leave from ASK, but again this is an organization that shares office space and has the same partners with the political consulting firm where he was still working. How does that work? In this new role shouldn’t we know who the ASK clients are? Shouldn’t we know the exact nature of his financial relationship with ASK both now and during the campaign? Where is the transparency?"

Last week - The Audacity of Astroturfing:

"The MSM mostly gave him a pass during the campaign as he claimed he was on leave from ASK (while working in the same office for the co-located political consulting firm AKPD) and said he had no intention of being part of the administration. I highlighted this relationship during the campaign, when I though it a little too cozy that ATT was a big client of ASK, and Senator Obama conveniently flip-flopped on Telecom Immunity. But nobody really cared about that, so let's move on... Per the Sun-Times, when he accepted the position with the administration in January, he "sold" his stake for $3M to be paid out out over 5 years. It was also disclosed that he received a partnership check of $151,914 from ASK in 2008. That was in 2008, when he was on "leave" from ASK. I guess it was a paid leave. So in 2008, ATT money went to ASK and ASK money went to Axelrod. Nothing to see here. Move on.

Let's walk through this buyout again. ASK Public strategies is a going concern, and will continue to have funds flow from their corporate "astroturf" clients into their coffers. Then money from the ASK coffers will flow into "Astroturf King" David Axelrod's pockets to compensate him for the buyout over the next five years, - coincidentally - exactly enough time to get past Obama's first term and election campaign. Of course, by then, he may get tired of politics, and ASK may want sell his share of the partnership right back to him. Who knows? It could happen. Audacious."

Yes, I am stealing this post title from myself. I think I can make a legitimate claim to being "patient zero" of a hot new blogospheric pandemic infection - ADS (Axelrod Derangement Syndrome). Does anyone really believe that this will be end of the revelations about David Axelrod? Barack Obama would be well advised to put some distance between himself and his favorite political adviser. When the Axelrod time bomb goes off, there will be collateral damage.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Chicago , Barack Obama, Health Care, ATT, Jimmy Carter, David Axelrod, audacity, graft.

The Audacity of Astroturf

The Democratic leadership made "astroturfing" a hot topic of conversation in the blogosphere and MSM. They've been quick to characterize vocal opponents of the current incarnation of Health Care Reform as faux protests, as examples of manufactured rage, as "astroturfing", specifically referencing scenes like this one at Michigan Congressman John Dingell's recent town hall forum:

So, what is "astroturfing? From Wikipedia:

"Astroturfing is a word in English describing formal political, advertising, or public relations campaigns seeking to create the impression of being spontaneous "grassroots" behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass, AstroTurf."

The administration charge is not new. Lloyd Benson is credited with coining the term in 1985, and wikipedia further points to an early example in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar with 'Cassius conducting what might be considered an astroturfing campaign on Brutus: he leaves letters where Brutus will find them encouraging Brutus to act against Caesar, purportedly from concerned citizens but really written by Cassius himself "in several hands".'

Unsurprisingly, the Chairman of the company that manufactures the fake grass and trademarked the name is not amused, but I digress.

Are these protests examples of astroturfing funded by the health care industry? Or is something else going on? Is it wise for the administration to slap this pejorative on their opposition? Or is it this administration that is doing the astroturfing? In this post I'll provide a selection of views from across the political spectrum about the protests, but will broaden the topic to a more general essay on the care and feeding of astroturf.

From the left:
This Kos diarist attended the Dingell Town Hall as a supporter with a "cut to the front of the line" pass, regrets being outnumbered by opponents and concludes they are all insane.

Matt Yglesias explains that the reason irrational opponents outnumber rational supporters at these meetings, is that the rational supporters are waiting to learn what is actually in the bill. Matt is certain that the supporters will outnumber opponents once the bill is out, even though he does not know what will be in the bill.

Boo Man at Booman Tribune thinks it is perfectly fine for protesters to exercise their first amendment rights, unless, of course, they don't understand what they are protesting. So I guess protesters need to be given a competence test first... or something.

From the administration:
The administration and Democratic leadership weigh in to explain exactly what the opposition is all about.

Robert Gibbs disses the "Brooks Brother Brigade" and calls the opposition "manufactured anger" all paid for by the official administration designated demon of the day (cue scary music) The Insurance Companies.

Barbara Boxer picks up on the sartorial theme, explaining that you can tell the protesters are fake, because - well- they are too well dressed.

Harry Reid waves a piece of astroturf as a prop to dismiss opposition "as phony as this grass."

Nancy Pelosi agrees that it is all phony astroturf and throws in a few nazi references to boot.

Finally, the DNC runs an ad to make sure everyone knows that the opposition to the President's healthcare plan are just an ugly angry mob that storms out on to the streets at the beck and call of (cue scary music) The Insurance Companies - or something.

Not from the left:
This kind of partisan political posturing (like astroturfing itself) is par for the course. Pretty much the same old tried and true game of demonizing opposition to rally your team and get your bill passed. Not exactly "hope and change", more like "same ol' shit", but it doesn't bother me. It can create problems though - if you don't finesse it just right.

One problem is when Democrats start believing their own BS. Then you get situations like this - where a Democratic Representative at a town hall meeting calls out one of the "manufactured", "astroturf", "hijacker", "mob" participants that is disrupting the meeting...

... only to later learn the guy asking the question is a Doctor, Democrat, constituent, and is just trying to get a question answered.

Another possible problem is when union members and other Obama supporters (not astroturf - genuine grassroots) spontaneously begin showing up in numbers at Town Hall meetings and take White House rhetoric from political strategists David Axelrod and Jim Messina to "punch back twice as hard" a little too literally.

Not all Democrats are buying into the Axelrod strategy. Claire McCaskill was quick to distance herself from the White House with this tweet:

“I disagree that the people showing concern over some healthcare proposals are “manufactured” Real folks, strong opinions.”

Not sure what she is thinking. Why wouldn't she want to get on board insulting and belittling her constituents?

The Audacity of Axelrod
This is where it gets surreal. We have the administration and leading Democrats throwing the "astroturf" pejorative at Republicans and (cue scary music) The Insurance Companies and yet - the guy who practically invented the term "astroturfing" ...The guy who is known as "The Astroturf King"... is none other than Obama's right hand man and political adviser - David Axelrod.

Recall that prior to the campaign Axelrod was a founding partner in two firms co-located in the same office. One, the political consulting firm hired by the Obama campaign, and the other ASK Public Strategies - the gold standard in astroturf consulting firms (Axelrod is the A in ASK).

The MSM mostly gave him a pass during the campaign as he claimed he was on leave from ASK (while working in the same office for the co-located political consulting firm) and said he had no intention of being part of the administration. I highlighted this relationship during the campaign, when I though it a little too cozy that ATT was a big client of ASK, and Senator Obama conveniently flip-flopped on Telecom Immunity. But nobody really cared about that, so let's move on.

How about an update now that the Astroturf King is Obama's right hand man in the White House and his bio has disappeared from ASK's website?

Per the Sun-Times, when he accepted the position with the administration in January, he "sold" his stake for $3M to be paid out out over 5 years. It was also disclosed that he received a partnership check of $151,914 from ASK in 2008. That was in 2008, when he was on "leave" from ASK. I guess it was a paid leave. So in 2008, ATT money went to ASK and ASK money went to Axelrod. Nothing to see here. Move on.

Let's walk through this buyout again. ASK Public strategies is a going concern, and will continue to have funds flow from their corporate "astroturf" clients into their coffers. Then money from the ASK coffers will flow into "Astroturf King" David Axelrod's pockets to compensate him for the buyout over the next five years, - coincidentally - exactly enough time to get past Obama's first term and election campaign. Of course, by then, he may get tired of politics, and ASK may want sell his share of the partnership right back to him. Who knows? It could happen.

Audacious.


UPDATE:
Just when you think it cannot get more surreal, we move into Salvador Dali territory. Although Democratic leadership is decrying the "astroturfing" of town hall meetings, well funded Democratic non-profits are actually advertising and paying people to show up and demonstrate for Obamacare. Which is pretty much the definition of astroturfing. Or maybe to paraphrase Richard Nixon "Its not astroturfing when we do it."

Pheistyblog has it (among many others): "Astroturfing: Make $$$ doing something you love!"

H/T - Fausta

There is nothing wrong with this activity. It is just the breathtaking hypocrisy of Democratic leadership demonizing the protesters for activity that does not hold a candle to the astroturfing efforts they have underway.

I have a couple of unemployed nephews that recently graduated from college. I'll send them this list. The administration may not be fostering the creation of many private sector jobs, but they do appear to be stimulating the market for astroturfing.

Cross-posted at Donklephant.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: libertarian , Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, astroturf, Health Care, David Axelrod.

The Arrogance of "Hope"

Image ripped from Barbeefish

Much has been written about what to expect from the Obama administration. Past presidents are often invoked as models for comparison. Will Obama be like FDR - leading the country out of the depression? Or is the big spending, big government, big deficit liberal icon LBJ a more apropos comparison? Or should we simply accept the comparison to the vision, vigor and youth of JFK as Obama has consciously and carefully cultivated throughout his campaign and early presidency?

DWSUWF has also indulged in this game, comparing candidate Obama to the ivory tower academic Jimmy Carter and also noting President Obama's embrace and defense of the Bush/Cheney expansive redefinition of unitary executive. Perhaps all of these comparisons are wrong, and the comparison that is most apt, is a comparison to Richard Nixon, as exemplified by the money quote in the Frost/Nixon interview -"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

That seems to be the conclusion of Tom Laruia in this disturbing CNBC Maria Bartiroma interview aired yesterday. Lauria is a White & Case Financial Restructuring Attorney who represented the first lien Chrysler bond holders in the bankruptcy proceedings. He outlines how this administration abused their power to strong arm legitimate creditors into giving up their legal contract rights in order to hand a sweetheart deal to the Obama union contributors and constituents:

[CNBC Video No Longer Available]

Now Tom Lauria is not a dispassionate observer. He is an advocate and has an axe to grind. But what he says in this interview rings true, and is completely consistent with other reports of what this administration is really all about. The money quote:

"We all have the sense that what is on the table here is all about America and saving the concept of free enterprise in this country. Things that are baked into the Constitution, the founding fathers put the right of contract in the Constitution and there is a reason for that... You know what's interesting? The company (Chrysler) had no involvement in that negotiation whatsoever, which is another kind of shocking thing. We should ask ourselves under what Federal law is the US Government running Chrysler? TARP does not provide for the US government to run an auto company. We have not been able to find any other statuatory scheme. So if there is no legal authorization, is this kind of a separation of powers issue under the Constitution where the executive, a la President Nixon, is now doing what he thinks he should do, what he thinks is right, but is nevertheless not permitted under the law." - Tom Lauria

Obama is like Nixon? Lets see, abusing executive power in the service of political goals was the defining characteristic of the Nixon administration. Yup. Sounds about right for our current administration.

The defining characteristics of the Obama administration are just now coming into clear focus. This is what it looks like to DWSUWF:

1. Ruthlessly wield executive power to push political objectives - The willingness - no - eagerness of the Obama administration to aggressively use the power of the presidency to meet political goals regardless of whether there is any legal basis for that exercise of power is right there in plain sight for any who care to see. The strongarmed Chrysler bondholders are the most recent example.
2. What Obama says is wildly at variance with what he does - The gulf between what this President says and what this president actually does grows wider with every passing day. The more the MSM lets him get away with it, the bigger the gulf seems to get. Talk government transparency - do the opposite. Talk fiscal responsibility - spend recklessly. Talk gay rights, do nothing. Talk protection of civil liberties, defend the Bush/Cheney unitary executive. If he keeps this up, his credibility gap will look like the Grand Canyon.
3. Script the talking points, enforce message discipline, reward loyalty - The message discipline and efficiency of the Obama/Axelrod White House makes the Bush/Rove politburo look like rank amateurs. Even more astonishing - The ability for the Obama hard core faithful to put on the blinders, drink the kool-aid, and parrot whatever talking points are being pushed out of the oval office. DWSUWF has seen nothing like it - well - except for the hardcore faithful on the right during the GWB administration. The mindset is absolutely identical. Obama/Axelrod are just better than Bush/Rove at leading the acolytes around by the nose.
4. Drive an arrogant ideological agenda - The core conceit of this administration is the radical ideological view that a few really smart academics can manage the economy. Regardless of the lip service paid to the principles of free enterprise (see point number 2) this administration's core belief in central planning is clear. The administration intends to manage everything from executive pay to credit card interest rates and, as noted above, they have no problem ripping up contract law to steamroll bondholders and stamp their ideological vision on a bailed out and restructured automobile industry. This kind of central economic planning and top down industrial policy has never worked. But - since these guys are smarter than everyone else, no worries. I'm sure it'll all turn out fine this time.

Bringing this back to Chrysler and the auto industry - I'll wrap this up with the same conclusion I reached in an earlier post. Although I am a satisfied owner of a Jeep Grand Cherokee bought new 10 years ago - you could not give me a Chrysler or Fiat product today. I'll never own a Chrysler product again. The truly dangerous and flat out wrong behavior on the part of this administration should not be supported, and I won't support it with my discretionary dollars. Boycott Chrysler. If the same thing happens to GM, boycott GM.

In any case, it looks like we'll have some rich fodder for future posts as we slowly ramp this blog back up after our little hiatus.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.