Mother Of Spokesweasel Who Banned Herald From Obama Event Is David Axelrod’s Sister (Updated)

Updates in bold.

The corrupt apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. 

In case you missed it, the White House banned the Boston Herald from full access to Obama’s fundraiser in Boston today because the Herald ran an op-ed by Mitt Romney on its front page on the same day of the Messiah’s visit here back in March.

The White House Press Office has refused to give the Boston Herald full access to President Obama’s Boston fund-raiser today, in e-mails objecting to the newspaper’s front page placement of a Mitt Romney op-ed, saying pool reporters are chosen based on whether they cover the news “fairly.”

“I tend to consider the degree to which papers have demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly in determining local pool reporters,” White House spokesman Matt Lehrich wrote in response to a Herald request for full access to the presidential visit.

Howie Carr, a Herald columnist, was livid and went ballistic on his radio show today.

Watch Howie’s rant here. 

Makes you wonder what Obama’s internal poll numbers are showing in a matchup with Mitt, doesn’t it?

Update 5/19:

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell sides with the Herald.  No, your eyes are not deceiving you.

O’DONNELL: The Herald says it made a request to send a pool reporter to today’s events. Pool reporters provide information to the rest of the media when there’s limited access at a press event. The Herald said in turning down their request, White House spokesman Matt Lehrich mentioned the Romney op-ed from the last time President Obama was in town. Lehrich’s email to the Herald said in broken English, “I tend to consider the degree to which papers have demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly in determining local pool reporters.” Good luck trying to diagram that sentence. “My point about the op-ed was not that you ran it but that it was the full front page which excluded any coverage of the visit of a sitting President of the United States to Boston. I think that raises a fair question about whether the paper is unbiased in its coverage of the President’s visits.”

Okay, White House, let’s get something straight here: The Boston Herald is not unbiased. Let’s get something else straight: The Boston Globe is not unbiased. The New York Times is not unbiased. The Washington Post is not unbiased. There are now maybe no more than ten cities left in America that have more than one newspaper. Boston is one of those lucky cities. The Boston Globe, the dominant paper in the region, likes you guys in the Obama White House. The Boston Herald doesn’t like you. Get used to it. And understand that the Herald can do you no harm. You won Massachusetts by nearly 26 points. You are going to win Massachusetts again no matter what the Herald says about you. If the Herald had the power to change minds in Massachusetts, John Kerry would not be a senator and Deval Patrick would not be a governor. 

You know you’ve really stepped in it when you have the likes of Lawrence O’Donnell calling out your stupidity.

 

Obama: The Time For Talk Is Over….Unless It’s Me Doing The Talking

For someone who keeps claiming the time for talk is over, he sure is talking a lot.  And he plans to keep on talking when he travels to Ohio on Monday.  If his Ohio speech is anything like the two previous shrill, revival tent events I can’t imagine he will accomplish anything other than cementing the opposition.

Visiting America’s heartland, Obama tried to rally support for his healthcare legislation among wavering Democrats. He urged them to set aside their worries about a political backlash and support the legislation.

“Folks in Washington, they like to talk. So Washington is doing right now what Washington does,” he told a crowd at a high school in St. Charles, Missouri. “They’re speculating breathlessly day or night. Every columnist. Every pundit. Every talking head. Is this proposal going to help the Republicans or is this proposal going to help the Democrats?”

“The time to talk is over. It’s time to vote,” he said. “I don’t know about the politics, but I know that it is the right thing to do and that is why I am fighting so hard to get it done.”

He doesn’t know about the politics?  Pu-leeze.  He knows very well that the politics stink and the vulnerable members of his party are looking at a bloodbath in November if they vote for his wildly unpopular legislation.  But he’s willing to sacrifice anything and anyone to get this done.

The more he talks, the more desperate he seems.  You have to wonder who is advising him to carry on like this.  My guess is its Axelrod and Plouffe who are both still in 2008 Messiah mode when it comes to Barry’s soaring speeches and swooning audiences.

Axelrod: I don’t give a flying f*ck if people think I have a man crush on Obama

As the White House Turns continues in the press today.  Instead of leaking to Dana Milbank and others at the Washington Post like Rahmbo and his allies, Axelrod and his sister (?!?) attempt to combat his suck factor on the record to the New York Times

“Typical Washington junk we have to deal with,” Mr. Axelrod said in an interview. The president is deft at blocking out such noise, he added, suddenly brightening. “I love the guy,” he said, and in the space of five minutes, repeated the sentiment twice.

Critics, pointing to the administration’s stalled legislative agenda, falling poll numbers and muddled messaging, suggest that kind of devotion is part of the problem at the White House. Recent news reports have cast the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, as the administration’s chief pragmatist, and Mr. Axelrod, by implication, as something of a swooning loyalist. “I’ve heard him be called a ‘Moonie,’ ” dismissed Mr. Axelrod’s close friend, former Commerce Secretary William Daley. Or as the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, joked, “the guy who walks in front of the president with rose petals.”

Still, it is a charge that infuriates Mr. Axelrod, the president’s closest aide, longest-serving adviser and political alter ego. “I guess I have been castigated for believing too deeply in the president,” he said, lapsing into the sarcasm he tends to deploy when playing defense.

[…]

In an interview in his office, Mr. Axelrod was often defiant, saying he did not give a “flying” expletive “about what the peanut gallery thinks” and did not live for the approval “of the political community.” He denounced the “rampant lack of responsibility” of people in Washington who refuse to solve problems, and cited the difficulty of trying to communicate through what he calls “the dirty filter” of a city suffused with the “every day is Election Day sort of mentality.”

When asked how he would assess his performance, Mr. Axelrod shrugged. “I’m not going to judge myself on that score,” he said. But then he shot back: “Have I succeeded in reversing a 30-year trend of skepticism and cynicism about government? I confess that I have not. Maybe next year.”

Or maybe not.  Reconciliation, anyone?

Read on.  It’s not a puff piece and my guess is Axelrod can’t be happy with final product which did not achieve its desired effect. 

Rahm – 3, Axelrod-0

White House releases staff salaries, TOTUS not on list

As Billy Ray Valentine once said:   “We are paying some of our employees an awful lot of money.”

Twenty-eight-year-old speechwriter Jon Favreau, for example, rakes in the top salary, $172,000: just as much as Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Senior Advisor’s David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett and National Security Advisor Gen. Jim Jones.

The President’s ever-present “body man” Reggie Love scores a paycheck of $102,000. Social Secretary Desiree Rogers makes $113,000.

The boy-wonder speech writer makes the same amount as the National Security Advisor.  What’s up with that?

Michelle Obama wants a bigger role, hires full-time speech writer

Now we know why she fired her chief of staff, Jackie Norris and replaced her with her friend, Susan Sher.  Michelle wasn’t happy with the traditional role of a First Lady and wants to play a bigger role in….well, everything.

A First Lady Who Demands Substance.

Her new chief of staff, Susan Sher, 61, is a close friend and former boss who the first lady thinks will be more forceful about getting her and her team on the West Wing’s radar screen. The first thing Sher said she told senior adviser David Axelrod, whom she has known for years: When I call, “you need to get back to me right away.” angry michelle

Although Obama’s job-approval ratings have soared, the first lady — a Harvard-educated lawyer — wasn’t satisfied with coasting. She is hiring a full-time speechwriter and has instructed her staff to think “strategically” so that every event has a purpose and a message. She doesn’t want to simply go to events and hug struggling military families, she said; she wants to show progress. “Her desire is to step out more and have deliverables,” said communications chief Camille Johnston. “It’s about things that are coming up that we want to be a part of: child nutrition reauthorization act, prevention and wellness for health-care reform.”

The former chief of staff, Jackie Norris, 37, was “not on the first lady’s wavelength,” said one source, echoing others, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters. “Susan is more of a peer,” a senior White House official said. “I think that’s probably a better model.”

Michelle and her new chief of staff are cut from the same diva cloth.  And what is wrong with simply hugging military families?  If she wants to do more, then fine.  But does she need an audience to do so?