Something has been bugging me all weekend.

I’ve never been to Chicago. From what friends and family have told me, The Windy City is indeed a great place. There is lots to see and do.

But you wouldn’t be told that if you asked any number of right-wing-talking-heads. To these folks, Chicago is a cesspool of corruption, filth and slime.

Michelle Malkin:

Goodbye, “Yes We Can.” Hello, “No, You Can’t.” Like Icarus, President Obama’s giddy ego flight has ended with melted wax and fallen wings.

Laura Ingraham:

R-I-O! May this be the first of many defeats for Chicago-style politics!

Jon Henke (whom I normally associate with being a reasonable conservative) tweeted:

Rush Limbaugh:

The worst day of Obama’s presidency, folks. The ego has landed. The world has rejected Obama.

Erick Erickson:

So Obama’s pimped us to every two bit thug and dictator in the world, made promises to half the Olympic committee, and they did not even kiss him.

So much for improving America’s standing in the world, Barry O.

… and he also tweeted:

Wow. We get it everyone, you don’t like Barack Obama. That is painfully clear now. But rooting for Chicago to lose its bid to host the Olympics? Really?

Maybe you guys don’t like Chicago. Maybe you visited Chicago as a youngster and the strong winds blew your balloon out of your hands. Maybe in your young adult years, you visited Second City and were made to cry instead of laugh. Maybe you loathed The Blues Brothers. Whatever the reason you don’t like Chicago, surely it has to be more than ‘well, that’s where Barack Obama is from’, right?

You see, this notion that because Barack Obama is from Chicago his political opponents must actively root for that city to lose its Olympic bid is nothing short of asinine. Why? So that you can say something negative about the President?

It’s no secret that I was no fan of George W. Bush. I didn’t like 95% of his presidency and even more of his policies. However, if the International Olympic Committee (IOC) was considering Crawford, Texas as a potential site for the Summer Games, I would be all for it. I would support that consideration not because I liked the former President, but because that city is on American soil. It’s called patriotism.

In my view, the largest fallacy of the anti-Chicago-hosting-the-Olympics movement is the financial issue. The vast majority of the Chicago naysayers are free-market, pro-capitalism conservatives. That in itself is a contradictory stance. To be anti-Olympics-coming-to-a-city (any city, not just Chicago) is essentially the same as denying that city thousands of new jobs and millions (billions?) of dollars in revenue generated by tourism. What city wouldn’t want those things?

Lastly, let me say this; I am not saying that these people are unAmerican. They have every right to speak their mind on any issue they choose. To claim that a dissenting opinion is unAmerican or unpatriotic is dangerous and irresponsible — and I won’t do that.

However, what I will say is that this posturing makes absolutely no sense to me. I cannot understand why someone wouldn’t want the United States to host an Olympic games. If the criticism was directed at President Obama for traveling to Copenhagen to make his ‘sales pitch’, then I would understand. But that is definitely not the case (see: Erickson’s tweet). These critics wanted Chicago to fail — and fail it did.

Now it is Rio de Janeiro that will get the jobs and potential economic growth.

Timothy Burger – Bloomberg:

Ken Vogel – Politico:

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 lesson that any adviser to a sitting president should have learned by now it is this: 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 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 deferred compensation connection that had the left foaming at the mouth:

Predictably, the right-o-sphere jumped on the story, precipitating a minor memeorandum blogstorm (ok – more like a heavy blog-drizzle) including Hot Air, protein wisdom and RedState. Their “enthusiasm” will give the left an opportunity to dismiss this story as right wing hyperbole. That would be a mistake. There has been too much smoke around David Axelrod for too long. Too many “appearances of impropriety” are piling up for an administration that ran on transparency and “change we can believe in”.

As with Jimmy Carter, the press is eager to reverse perceptions of favorable treatment to this president. It is easier to target someone close to Obama rather than the popular president himself. This is the role that Bert Lance played in the Jimmy Carter administration. It may be the role played by David Axelrod in this one. Even if this story does not have legs, it tarnishes the administration halo. How Obama handles the accumulating Axelrod “appearances of impropriety” 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. This is why I am surprised he 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 buying the 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:

Last week - The Audacity of Astroturfing:

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. There may not be enough spark in this story to light the fuse, but when the Axelrod time bomb goes off as it inevitably will, there will be collateral damage.

X-Posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“

We do requests:

“BTW, is there a reason Donklephant hasn’t covered the violence at various health care forums? Given that fistfights and shouting people down are the ultimate forms of discourse this site seeks to eliminate I thought we’d have a thread by now. For the record my group has been involved in Dingell’s forum. It was pretty clear the anti-Obama folk were there to make sure the forum was ruined, and maybe provoke a fight. Check out the Youtube videos…” – Nick

I’ll try to provide a selection of views from across the political spectrum, but will broaden the topic to a more general primer on the care and feeding of astroturf. First – I am not sure this is the clip Nick was referencing, but expect it is representative:

UPDATE: Nick provided a link in the comments to the specific clip he was referencing. Added:

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 the RNC- or something.

Not from the left:
Now, I think this kind of partisan political posturing (like astroturfing) 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’ stuff”, 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…

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 almost 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.

UPDATED 08/10/09: Added video, fixed typos and links
Cross-posted at “Divided We Stand United We Fall“

You gotta love this! 

The Blue State Cowboys, led by Matt Farmer, sing country-style about “pay to play” in the Windy City.

For those who might want to adopt this in their band’s repertoire, I’ve posted the lyrics on my blog at: http://thepurplecenter.blogspot.com/2009/01/blue-state-cowboys-sing-pay-to-play-but.html