The Hill brings us an exciting report from the outer limits of bipartisanship:
Obama's top political adviser David Axelrod said Tuesday that the administration was unwilling to break up the president’s $447 billion jobs plan if Republicans were only receptive to passing certain elements.
"We're not in a negotiation to break up the package. It's not an a la carte menu. It's a strategy to get this country moving,” Axelrod said Tuesday on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"The president has a package; the package works together. We need to do many things to get this economy moving," Axelrod said.
Of course, everyone knows “bipartisanship” is a crude media code phrase for “Republicans capitulating to Democrats,” but it’s always useful for a top Democrat to confirm it. Too many people are hypnotized by the flowery “compromise” language Obama deploys when he’s on the ropes.
He’s most certainly on the ropes now – voters would have to be crazy to support giving President Solyndra another half-billion dollars, no questions asked and no discussion allowed. Such madness is not often displayed on behalf of a President wallowing in bottom-of-the-barrel poll numbers.
Why the tough “take it or leave it” language? For the same reason Obama was chanting “Pass this bill!” about a bill that didn’t exist. This is not a serious “jobs” proposal by any stretch of the imagination. It’s a loose and disjointed series of giveaways to various constituencies, tied to poisonous class-warfare demands for tax increases. Its purpose is to put down markers the Democrats can call in during the 2012 campaign, when they start moaning about the death of "compromise and bipartisanship" again.
Axelrod swung into line behind DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s new strategy of assuming Democrat voters are so stupid that they can’t even remember what happened in a brief televised debate less than 24 hours ago:
Axelrod praised Obama’s proposal as the only real solution to creating jobs and directed harsh criticism at the Republican GOP field, which participated in a CNN-Tea Party Express debate Monday night in Tampa, Fla.
He said none of the Republican presidential contenders had any solutions for boosting job creation.
"What voters learned was that they — really none of them had much to say about how they were going to create jobs now, how they were going to build an economy that works," said Axelrod.
That assertion would confuse anyone who actually watched the debate Axelrod desperately needs his base to forget about. Of course he’s not about to engage any of the many ideas Republicans advanced last night, contrary to his weak spin. He’d look like an utter fool comparing Obama’s tax-raising slush fund shopping list to the solid pro-growth proposals coming from all of the GOP candidates.
Remember when Herman Cain talked last night about how he'd been a worker before he was a CEO? Obama true believers saw an image of a man talking, and heard noises resembling human speech, but none of it made any sense to them. They understand fortune as a gift from the government, not the product of hard work and determination.
Much safer to pretend none of those things were said. Sometimes “bipartisanship” means capitulation. Today it means ignorance. Obama looks much better if you pretend he’s the only one talking, and no one is allowed to ask any questions about what he says, or what he’s done.
Update: Senior Administration officials walk back Axelrod’s no-compromise statements… or do they?
President Obama wants Congress to pass his jobs bill as is and quickly, but he would not veto individual bills if Congress broke the American Jobs Act into pieces.
Senior administration officials said that if House Republicans were to separate the employee payroll tax cuts, for example, Obama would sign that bill and then demand that Congress move forward with the rest of the package.
The comments reflecting thinking inside the White House seems to break from Obama's Chicago campaign headquarters. Senior campaign strategist David Axelrod said Tuesday morning that Obama wants the whole bill and nothing short of it, and does not support an a la carte approach.
The administration officials insisted there is no difference and stressed that Obama will not rest until he gets the whole package, regardless of whatever pieces he might sign along the way.
So… basically Axelrod is right about the new absolute-zero nonpartisanship approach, but unlike ObamaCare, America can cut this pile of slush down into small pieces before swallowing it. “Bipartisanship” therefore means “capitulating slowly.” Thanks for clearing that up, senior Administration officials!
