Why is Axelrod Speaking for Democrats?

David Axelrod (Wiki image)

Today’s “Meet The Press” on NBC, hosted by David Gregory, was about how the presidential race is shaping up for 2012.

Gregory interviewed one representative for the Democratic Party and one representative for the Republican Party.

David Axelrod represented the Democrats and RNC Chairman Reince Priebus represented the Republicans.

Gregory did a good job asking tough questions of both guys and not letting either one off the hook. They both reacted exactly as you would expect them to.

My questions:

  • Why is Obama’s former chief adviser, David Axelrod, representing the Democratic Party?
  • Why isn’t the DNC party chair speaking for the Democratic Party like the RNC party chair is speaking for the Republican Party?

David Axelrod?

David Axelrod pops up all over the place speaking for the Democratic Party. Why? It doesn’t make sense.

The same question could be asked of Karl Rove, too.

Shouldn’t DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz be representing the Democratic Party instead of David Axelrod in these situations?

Axelrod no longer has any official job in politics or government anymore. Axelrod is a private citizen living in Chicago who runs a consulting firm.

When an outside paid consultant and close friend of the President is representing the Democratic party instead of its official paid representative then it is legitimate curiosity to wonder how much the President’s friend is being paid.

How big are the consulting fees that Axelrod is raking in from Democratic campaign coffers? Why is Axelrod the mouthpiece (Chicago-style) for President Barack Obama?

Will the final total be in the millions?

Advertisements

About azleader

Learning to see life more clearly... one image at a time!

Posted on Dec 4, 2011, in 2012 Elections, David Axelrod, Democratic Party, Election, news, Obama, Politics, President Obama. Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. Let us add: why do these shows book guests whose very job is to pump up their candidate. It ends up being a press release disguised (and not very well) as a discussion. I used to love this stuff, but it’s gotten so very stale.

    Amanpour this morning introduced Barney Frank saying he’s retiring after 16 terms, adding ‘almost 30 years’ – in fact it’s 32 years, but a great example of not bothering to get even a little tiny thing right.

    Glad to have found you . . . media failure is a recurring theme for me as welll.

  2. Good points.

    Theoretically, they are trying to be “fair and balanced” by presenting both sides of an issue.

    Maybe it is getting harder to find ‘unbiased’ sources to take one side or the other. 😉

    Amanpour is still kind of a fish out of water in her new roll. As a war correspondent for CNN she was one the best of the best.

    • She was indeed great as a reporter and especially overseas. I’m so disappointed that she didn’t bring some fresh perspective to the ABC sunday show.

      Tell you the truth azleader, I think they’re all just lazy. There are hundreds of well informed writers and columnists and reporters who could bring something to the table, but they just do same old, same old.

      Anyway, it’s really not supposed to be about ‘taking one side or the other’, although that’s what it has become. It’s supposed to be about examining hte issues of the day. Oh well . . . .

Comments and questions are welcomed!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: