Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Axelrod’s Syrian Maneuver

Axelrod’s Syrian Maneuver

Have you noticed another skirmish brewing, not in the Middle East but among Republicans over support for Obama’s Syrian debacle?

David Axelrod must be twirling his mustache with delight over his latest manipulation of the leaderless Republican party as they provide cover for Obama’s latest fail.

Of course, Obama’s Syrian problem isn’t about Congress, it’s about his own failures as a leader — in this case the logical extension of his worldwide apology tour presidency.

Enter Axelrod (if he ever was off stage).

August 30 Axelrod puts New York Times, et al., on notice of what the talking point will be — “this is up to Congress”:

A gleeful tweet on August 31:

Sept. 2, a thank you to the New York Times for pitching in:

I imagine a phone call from Axelrod to Obama, perhaps sometime Friday night, with Obama pouting about his off-teleprompter “red line” comment. Axelrod has an idea. Foment a little diversion by foisting Obama’s Syrian debacle onto hapless Republicans.

Says Axelrod: go play a round of golf. Show dismissiveness for Congress, especially the Republicans; don’t call them back, let it fester. More time for the Republicans to stake out opposing sides as it drives them crazy just in time for the Sunday talk shows.

Some simple game theory: by bringing Congress into it, Obama [Axelrod] wins in every scenario — or at worst, a draw:

  • If Congress approves, Obama goes ahead –> They’re in it together. Obama wins.
  • If Congress doesn’t approve, Obama goes ahead –> They didn’t back him up. Their fault, Obama wins.

If it works, Obama’s a genius, overcoming extremists in the Republican party.

If it doesn’t work, he’ll blame Congress for not backing him up. If only they had expressed support, together we would have had the gravitas required to recruit the global community.

Without Congress in the narrative, it’s Obama’s behemoth blunder. With Congress, he’s saved.

Obama better send another invite to the Lincoln Bedroom for his friend Axelrod.

 

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:
,

Comments

There is another policy clash taking place here. Between 2 wings of the Democrat party. The hypocrites, vs. the ones who will put country before party and vote no!

The one word to describe David Axlerod is: Smarmy.

The Republicans are doing it out of pity. What’s Axelrod’s excuse?

    Juba Doobai! in reply to caseym54. | September 4, 2013 at 2:52 pm

    Not pity. Sheer stupidity.

      Yes, but something else, more. Stupidity, delusion, need, fear. Many leading Republicans have fallen over themselves to endorse what the democrat Obama proposes in a kind of inverse insistence to how democrats stymied and slandered Bush. It’s more than just stupidity, it’s like a pathology.

      Harry Reid and other democrats/leftists during the surge: “we’ve already lost the war. Bush lied, people died.” Etc. The Left was completely without shame in following a policy that would have humiliated America and hurt our interests as long as it damaged Bush.

      Republicans McCain, Graham, Boehner et al — “we unhesitatingly endorse and support Obama’s position. We don’t even want to wait for a debate. We MUST do this. Now.”

      And this is after Obama has already illegally commenced hostilities in Libya and after his shameless lies to the American people about the causes and effects in Benghazi.

      This isn’t mere stupidity, it’s sickness.

MouseTheLuckyDog | September 4, 2013 at 3:47 pm

If I were a Republican leader, I would simply respond:
“Congress did not draw a red line, but we will be happy to allow the use of force. However, as a condition for the authorization of force, Congress will first require that the President submit a spending bill requesting the money, and detailing how he proposes to pay for the extra spending. Before force can be used this bill must be signed into law.

Phillep Harding | September 4, 2013 at 4:40 pm

Oh, wow. Check Drudge.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/the-houses-syria-hearing-live-updates/?id=e68f139f-e012-476c-876e-2467ba30e5e3

“Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.”

OBAMA CLEARS FIRST HURDLE Senate panel OKs force against Syria

Difference being, the DUCKLINGS Have More Sense. Follow Mommy, House of Ducklings..
http://oforchristsakes.wordpress.com/

And unfortunately the moron-class of voters will, as usual, lap up the drivel that spills off the chin of this disgusting puke.

When Bush was President, the Democrats worked like crazy to block anything he did, the country be damned.

Unfortunately, we now have Republicans who allow Obama to do anything he wants, the country be damned.

I hope one day I can cross Axeldork’s red line.

I’m beginning to see the Boehner strategy at work here.

Now now, stop laughing.

If the Axelrod strategy is to divide Republicans, the Boehner strategy is to divide Democrats. It works like this —

1) Boehner and Cantor as House ‘leaders’ say that of course they’ll support the President in a foreign crisis. No recrimination there.

2) Boehner and Cantor then sit on their hands. Yes, the party faithful back home are angry but right now the MSM isn’t baying at them.

3) Pubs look divided and the MSM notes that (of course).

4) But guess what — there are plenty of anti-war Democrats. By today’s count more House Dems will vote ‘no’ than ‘yes’. Of course that could change, and Madame Pelosi could whip the Dems into strong support. But it won’t be near 100%.

5) So on vote day the House is divided and the resolution fails. Enough Democrats vote ‘no’ to ensure that Obama can’t blame the Pubs (though he’ll try and the MSM will help). But when 50 to 60 Dems vote no it’s going to be noticed. Boehner and Cantor proclaim that it was a ‘bipartisan’ vote that killed the resolution.

For this to work Boehner has to believe that there are 50+ Dems who will vote ‘no’. I think that’s about right.

    While I wish to believe that Boehner is that politically astute, I feel if this is the outcome, that it occurs more by happenstance, than any well thought out stratagem on the part of Republican “leadership”.

I was sorry to see this post. No one in the democrat party has to do anything because the US no longer has a 2 party system. Half the country is without political representation. The ‘sides’ pretend the other party is the bad guy, causes ‘gridlock.’ The GOP didn’t beat democrats in 2012 and didn’t want to. It did beat the Tea Party which is its only opponent. Obama helped with his IRS connections. The GOP owes Obama big time because he helped save them from the Tea Party. David Axelrod isn’t the problem. “As Country Club Republicans Link Up With The Democratic Ruling Class, Millions Of Voters Are Orphaned,” Angelo Codevilla: “At the outset of 2013 a substantial portion of America finds itself un-represented, while Republican leaders increasingly represent only themselves. By the law of supply and demand, millions of Americans, (arguably a majority) cannot remain without representation. Increasingly the top people in government, corporations, and the media collude and demand submission as did the royal courts of old. This marks these political orphans as a “country class.””…Ted Cruz is my “political party” but one person can only do so much.

The keywords for any Republican to use when speaking about this disaster are as follows: Bipartisan, Coalition, Funding, UN Security Council Resolution, Hazy on the details, Unpopular, National interest.

Used in a sentence, they can go like this: Why don’t I support the President’s call for military action against Syria? There is no Coalition behind us, there are no UN Security Council Resolutions in favor of it, and there is Bipartisan opposition to an Unpopular plan that has been Hazy on the details since it was unveiled. The intelligence is not even a slam-dunk on the details of the weapons used against the Syrian people. If the President thinks we should intervene in their civil war, he needs to have his rationale on what compelling National interest is at stake, and what he plans on doing before asking for our support.

‘Manipulating’ the Republicans… Gee, that’s hard.

It’s as if Axelrod beat-up a 2 year old, and went around twirling his moustache in glee over being a tough guy.

We, as much as anyone, are to blame for the GOP’s ineptness, cowardice and backstabbing ways — because we tolerate it when we have the voting power to change it.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend