David Axelrod's Talking Points

[depakid]

David Axelrod was on http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-07-14/administration-confronts-its-flagging-popularity">the Diane Rehm show this morning -- a great opportunity to connect with listeners who will actually stop what they are going and pay attention, at least for a short while. He was awful.

He had even the most basic facts wrong -- it's not "8 million people have lost their jobs" but rather "more than 8 million jobs have been lost" since December 2007. He rambled -- it was hard to see his point, particularly in the introduction. But most of all, there was no narrative -- why exactly did we have a recession, why has it been so bad, and why aren't the jobs coming back?

Without a narrative, how can anyone make sense of the past 18 months?

Axelrod can choose his narrative -- and obviously doesn't need to agree, for example, with the view that the financial system became dangerous and now needs to be reined in -- but he has to say something coherent. You can't just make isolated points like "the fiscal stimulus helped" or (even more confusing) "we'll now address the budget deficit."

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-johnson/david-axelrods-talking-po_b_646091.html

[DJ13]

1. The admin cant get too deep into specifics as to why it happened

That would undermine their non stop support of the very TBTF institutions that caused it.

[ProSense]

2. " it's not '8 million people have lost their jobs'

...but rather 'more than 8 million jobs have been lost'"

Simon must have a lot of time on his hands.

"Blaming things on the Republicans in some vague sense (e.g., tax cuts) also doesn't make sense to people. If you want to get partisan, you have to connect the dots in a convincing manner -- otherwise people will (rightly) tune out."

What's wrong with blaming Republicans for Bush's tax cuts?

[depakid]

3. Having trouble accepting even the most basic facts, too?

There's big difference between the two statements.

The gist of the article is that the administration is having major trouble even figuring out what it's message is much less selling it.

The latter being the gist of this article:

Death of a Salesman

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20010512-503544.html?tag=exclsv

Part of the reason for that is of course is that they acted on faith- rather than listening to the more credible experts with regard to the size and nature of the stimulus and so didn't expect to be having to put together a new narrative at this point in the game.

[ProSense]

4. The gist of the article is

nitpicking. Seriously, Johnson says what he thinks will not make sense to people and then gets into the nuance of 8 million jobs lost vs. 8 million people losing their jobs.




We went from about seven million unemployed to nearly 16 million unemployed.

Axelrod is right, and people will relate to people losing jobs instead of some abstract notion about lost jobs not linked to people.

[depakid]

5. Looks to me like from the last post- it's not Simon doing the nitpicking

or engaging in a display of vicarious defensiveness.

btw: this was the second muddled Axelrod performance on the economy this week.

[Politics_Guy25]

6. Axelrod and Emmanuel are at the root of the problem in this administration

If I were President Obama, as I mentioned earlier today,. I'd fire them both along with Gibbs. It is the message control that is at the heart of the president's problems more than policy or accomplishment. That trio is incompetent. I'd keep Valerie Jarrett, however, as she has both his and Michelle's back and they have been friends for years. Emmanuel is a right wing kook not to mention mentally unstable (see his anger outbursts)and David Axelrod as much as I like him personally is incompetent. David's an affable guy but just doesn't know how to run the W.H.

[Radical Activist]

7. Is there a link to the interview or a transcript?

The link on this post goes to a page that doesn't mention Axelrod and has no transcript.

[Exilednight]

8. The problem with Axelrod is ..........

he tries to use catch-phrases to explain a point. Which is fine when you are running for election, but horrible when you're trying to run a country.

It works for rethugs since their base is a simple minded lot, but horrible when talking to an audience like NPR.