Patches O’ Hoolihan Would be Proud, Obama’s Senior Adviser David Axelrod Dodges Whether Americans Better Off Than Years Ago … Axelrod Masters the 5 D’s of Dodgeball, Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive & Dodge (So Does Plouffe)

 

We have finally found the theme of the Barack Obama reelection campaign. It’s not “Forward” … ITS DODGE!!!

This morning on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, President Barack Obama’s chief adviser David Axelrod refused to answer the question that all incumbent reelection campaigns have to, is America better off than they were four years ago? Instead, Axelrod did his best dodge that only Patches O’ Hoolihan of the movie ‘Dodgeball’ could have been proud of.  For Axelrod and Team Obama, “if you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a political question about the failed Obama economic policies”. Axelrod actually said, “that we are in a better position today than we were four years ago.”  This is what they are going to tell the American people? Seriously, how does an incumbent President not going to answer questions on his record? Axelrod and Obama actually think they are going to run the campaign based on the 5 D’s of Dodgeball … “dodge, dip, duck, dive and, um dodge”.

As stated at Hot Air, how pathetic and telling is it that the head of Obama’s reelection team suddenly goes mute and tries to run away from the question by talking about the tough environment Barack Obama inherited. Wallace used the following stats, Unemployment: 7.8% then, 8.3% now – Median income: $54,983 then, $50,964 now – Gas prices: $1.85 per gallon then, $3.78 now – National debt: $10.6 trillion then, $15.9 trillion now and expected to go over $16 trillion during the Democrat National Convention.

Also on ABC’s ‘This Week’ George Stephanopoulosasked Obama’s senior White House adviser David Plouffe whether Americans are better off today than they were four years ago. Plouffe also dodged the question as he was taught as opined by the Lonely Conservative, if you can’t answer the question, just avoid it. In other words … “if you can dodge a car, you can dodge an economic question of the failed Obama presidency.

Asked the same question repeatedly host George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week,” President Barack Obama’s senior White House adviser, David Plouffe, reverted to talking points about job creation and the failings of the Bush administration.

“We were this close to a Great Depression,” Plouffe said at one point, pinching his thumb to his index finger.

Stephanopoulos cut him short.

“You still can’t say yes,” he told Plouffe.

As Doug Ross stated, look for the Obama minions to only appear on the complicit, corrupt media complex and away from Fox News where they might actually be asked and expected to answer a question. Now the question is will the liberal, in the tank media and the moderators ask the question to Obama during the debates?

Mandatory Viewing for All Obama reelection mouthpieces … The 5 D’s of political dodgeball” Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dodge!



If you liked this post, you may also like these:

  • Majority of Voters Believe US is Worse Off Today than 4 Years Ago … President Obama Does Not Deserve Reelection
  • What, Patches O’Houlihan Attested … Rip Torn Arrested for Alledged Armed Robbery of Bank
  • Daily Commentary – Wednesday, June 6, 2012 – Attorney General Eric Holder and Obama Adviser David Axelrod Had to be Separated!
  • Trouble in Obama Paradise … Attorney General Eric Holder & Top Obama Adviser David Axelrod ‘had to be separated’ After Near Donkey Fight in White House
  • Benghazi-gate: Axelrod defends White House on Libya & Throws Hillary Clinton and State Department Under the Obama Bus




  • Comments

    12 Responses to “Patches O’ Hoolihan Would be Proud, Obama’s Senior Adviser David Axelrod Dodges Whether Americans Better Off Than Years Ago … Axelrod Masters the 5 D’s of Dodgeball, Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive & Dodge (So Does Plouffe)”

    1. Steve Holloway on September 2nd, 2012 8:51 pm

      The dems keep asking how do you make jobs….they should be saying how they plan to make jobs….but wait…they are in power and havent done it..OUT I SAY, vote them all OUT.

      Well it is all but over execept the fat lady singing..O will stay in because the game is fixed. Ever heard of false flag event.

    2. RK on September 2nd, 2012 9:48 pm

      Four years ago gas prices were within pennies of where they are today. Someone’s not quite accurate with their version of the “truth.”

      Check the 4-year prices via gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx
      ________________________
      SM: RK, i realize that you like to provide your spun version of the truth, but please stop with your liberal BS talking points. Not only is gas more expensive than it was 4 years ago … we go by when your beloved Obama took office. After all we don’t want BO to inherit a gas price prior to the date he took office. We all know how he can’t take that and he would whine.

      The inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States took place on Tuesday, January 20, 2009.

      The price of gas hit a national average of $1.867 a gallon, up slightly from $1.855 a gallon on Saturday, according to motorist group AAA. Prices have been on an upward trajectory since the start of the year, gaining some 14% in January.
      http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/01/news/economy/gas_prices/index.htm (article dated 2/2/09)

      Average price of gas $1.898 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=average+gasoline+price+january+20%2C+2009

      They point to the price of gasoline on January 20, 2009 being a bargain at $1.83/gallon, now having basically doubled and headed much higher.

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/gasoline_prices_and_dollar_prices.html#ixzz25NMkE06k

    3. RK on September 2nd, 2012 10:52 pm

      RE: “Unemployment: 7.8% then” – Of course, this is quite true. Unusual that it is quoted here in that the very next month it went beyond 8%; the same month the stimulus was passed. And yet no one seems to care about that limit when they shout about it was “promised” (predicted, actually) how the stimulus was going to keep UE below 8%. It is (and was) impossible to keep the UE rate below a level it has already exceeded. I don’t know how idiotic some people are to seriously believe this BS. But I digress.

      Back to UE at 7.8%. UE due to the Bush recession had been steadily increasing after Jan 2008, when it was only 5.0%, until it finally reached 10.0% in Oct 2009. Since UE and the economy have no knowledge of election cycles, to think that a date of Jan 2009 is significant to UE or the recession seems far-fetched. What began under Bush the year before was going to run its course until events caused it to change. Therefore, the only possible UE figure that figures into the comparison is the maximum UE the recession caused: 10.0%.

      Of course the answer is that Obama has indeed improved the UE rate, from 10.0% to 8.3%; things under Obama are better than they were before. As a second, more easily grasped figure, you can look at monthly jobs. In Jan 2009, we were losing about 750K-800K jobs/month. Today, we are gaining jobs monthly, and have been doing so for over 20 months in the private sector. Here again, under Obama, we are much better off, almost better by 1,000,000 jobs/month.

      It’s all in the figures; the truth is out there.
      ____________________
      SM: Obama has lost more jobs than gained since he took office.

      Do you understand that the greater the recession, the easier it should be for job growth? Why do you think that the recovery has been so anemic? Or do you have no idea? You think that this is the new normal?

      It’s because you have a President and a Democrat party that is standing in the way of a jobs recovery.

    4. RK on September 2nd, 2012 11:06 pm

      #2-SM: Jan 20, 2009 is not four years ago. I was using your facts to look up the answer. What do you claim gas process were on Sept 2,2008?

      Now, if you want to change your criteria, well, please be complete in your analysis. Due to the Bush recession, gas prices dropped tremendously. On about 7-13-08, prices peaked around $4.12. From then until about 01-10-09, they fell sharply to a low near $1.61.

      Artificially selecting 1-20-09 gets a date when the price was still quite low due to extreme market forces as a result of the Bush recession. Of course, when the recovery phase began, prices slowly rose towards pre-recession levels. It is disingenuous to simply quote a few select prices, and totally misrepresent the gas price history. If you are serious about an analysis of gas prices that Obama caused, it would need more than your simple price histories, IMO.
      __________________________
      SM: Dude, no one is misrepresenting anything … the gas price when Obama took office was $1.83. PERIOD! You Libs make me sick … take some friggin responsibility for soothing in your lives. You have an excuse for everything. How pathetic, what are you 12?

      End of story.

      I am waiting for you and Obama to say thank you for capturing and killing Bin Laden because if it were not for the intelligence gathering during the GWB admin, UBL would never have been found.

      Make up your mind what you want to inherit and what you don;’t.

      Its a simple premise, the price of gas has doubled since Obama took office. Sorry if the #’s are not convenient for you.
      R

    5. RK on September 2nd, 2012 11:23 pm

      #3-SM: It is my considered opinion that when statistics are quoted, then they are either accepted as is or are refuted with more accurate statistics or perhaps with more precise analysis.

      Any reply that side-steps (or ignores) the presented statistics leaves the reader with a strong inference that the original statistics and analysis are not able to be questioned or refuted, and that they likely have significance or merit.

      I may be wrong, but that is my opinion. Avoiding a direct response can actually be quite telling!
      ___________________________
      SM: No, it means I am bored of talking to and trying to rationally discuss anything with an Obama sycophant. It means I have other hings to do than you wasting my time, which is ultimately your goal.

      It does not take a rocket scientist, unless you are a liberal to figure out that Obama cannot run on his past. It has been an epic failure. If Obama was a coach of a sports team he would have been fired after 3 years of failure. When Obama’s #1 and #2 mouth pieces can’t answer the question if Americans are better off today than they were 4 years ago. Obama has a real issue.

      When you are a challenger, you can run on the bull $hit of hope and change. When you are the incumbent, you have to run on your record. Sorry, but the numbers are terrible.

      following stats, Unemployment: 7.8% then, 8.3% now – Median income: $54,983 then, $50,964 now – Gas prices: $1.85 per gallon then, $3.78 now – National debt: $10.6 trillion then, $15.9 trillion now and expected to go over $16 trillion during the Democrat National Convention.

      Here is a simple comparison for you that all can relate to. Imagine being hired to head a department that was failing, was over budget, had terrible moral, sales numbers were down and income stream was subsiding. You got the job with little experience because you showed enthusiasm of how you could turn the department around. That and the alternative candidate for the job was lame. You also told ownership that if you did not turn the department around in 3-4 years, you would expect to be fired.

      Now imagine upon your job review, the numbers were actually worse than they were when you started. The department was even more over budget, moral was worse, the sales numbers were ahead a little, but still in the red. Do you honestly think you could look your boss in the face (WE THE PEOPLE) and use as an excuse it was not your fault and you inherited a bad situation?

      Answer, NO! This is what goes on every day, in every business, in every industry in America. Obama is nothing special. He is just one more failed manager who will be fired for failing to meet objectives.

      Its as simple as that.

      R

    6. RK on September 2nd, 2012 11:40 pm

      I’m sorry my facts upset you so much. The prices I quote on the dates I state are as accurate as I can find.

      I agree the premise is simple; much too much simple. It avoids quite a bit of reality that tells a very different story.

      I still don’t know why you avoid a real “4 years ago” date? I also know you are aware of the gas price changes I described due to the recession. It can be unfortunate when the actual data doesn’t line up with the spin intended. But facts are stubborn and don’t care about what we feel inside.
      _____________________
      SM: OK Mr. Literal. Any fool knows that the reference to, are you better off than you were four years ago starts at day 1 of the Presidency, not 4 years to the date of the comment. Grow up. I know you have no B-school education, I trust you have some common sense.
      R

    7. RK on September 3rd, 2012 8:55 am

      How about this: show me the Bush policies that were the cause of the gas price drop in late 2008.

      If there are none, then it seems quite clear that gas prices rise and fall on their own accord, and Presidents are not accountable for those changes.

      “Correlation is not causation”
      ___________________________
      SM: Enough, get over it … BUSH IS NOT IN OFFICE. If Obama thinks its so difficult and cant handle the job, which is obvious, he needs to just step down and resign.

      The reason why the gas prices are high and Obama does squat, is he and his ilk want high gas prices. They just did not want them during an election year that could harm his reelection. They want higher gas prices so to make their high priced, so-called green energy agenda more palatable. Obama has a war on oil, natural gas and coal.

      Imagine if prices were what they were when he took office and he made an effort to drill and refine resources so that they money went to the economy rather than a tank of gas?

      There is an estimated 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to a 2007 DOT study
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

      The average fuel economy of vehicles in the 2011 model year was 28.6 miles per gallon.

      In 2011, the United States consumed about 134 billion gallons.
      http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=23&t=10

      134,000,000,000 (gas-gal) x $1.93 (diff from today to 1/20/09) … approx $259,000,000,000 $’s saved that could have been infused into the economy from the private sector. Not one tax had to be raised. In B-school you would learn the law of large numbers principle. Imagine what our economy would look like today if Americans were allowed to keep and spend their own money rather than deal with an Oil hating President? He says he has an all of the above energy strategy which is a complete lie.

      Energy Secretary Chu Admits Administration OK with High Gas Prices
      http://news.yahoo.com/energy-secretary-chu-admits-administration-ok-high-gas-193900713.html

      Chu, along with the Obama administration, regards the spike in gas prices as a feature rather than a bug. High gas prices provide an incentive for alternate energy technology, a priority for the White House, and a decrease in reliance on oil for energy.

      The Heritage Foundation points out that hammering the American consumer with high gas prices to make electric and hybrid cars more appealing is consistent with Obama administration policy and Chu’s philosophy. That explains the refusal to allow the building of the Keystone XL pipeline and to allow drilling in wide areas of the U.S. and offshore areas.

      The consequences of the policy are not likely to be of benefit to the Obama administration. The Republican National Committee has already issued a video highlighting the spike in gas prices and the failure of the administration to address the issue.

      http://scaredmonkeys.com/2012/03/01/energy-department-secretary-steven-chu-says-obama-admin-not-looking-to-lower-the-price-of-gasoline/

    8. RK on September 3rd, 2012 10:30 am

      #7-SM: Well, that was quite a lengthy reply that ignored the single point that I specifically discussed.

      I have no clue why that topic was unapproachable or so difficult.

      p.s. – The use of Bush in 2008 was an attempt to try and figure out how Presidential policies affect oil and gas prices. Just looking for patterns in recent history. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
      _____________________________
      I do not care about Bush, I care about Obama’s policies. Why don’t we discuss how Harry Truman dealt with oil while you are at it.

      Obama has a war against fossil fuel. Please don’t tell me that is an opinion. If this President had just allowed drilling and was not in the business to destroy oil, he would have created millions of jobs. Instead he is an ideologe. Hell bent on destroying oil.

      Obama’s War on Oil

      http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/04/obamas-war-on-oil

      President Obama’s Secretary of Energy is former Berkeley physics professor Steven Chu, who said in 2008, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” We still have a way to go to achieve Secretary Chu’s goal. The average price for a gallon of gas in Europe is over $8.

      President Obama’s Secretary of Interior is Ken Salazar. When he was a Senator in 2008, he proclaimed on the floor of the Senate that he would oppose any offshore drilling no matter how high the price of gasoline rose, even to $10 a gallon.

      Obama’s War on Oil Crushing Small Businesses, Jobs
      http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/bobbeauprez/2012/02/03/obamas_war_on_oil_crushing_small_businesses_jobs/page/full/

    9. RK on September 3rd, 2012 12:07 pm

      IMO, ignoring gas price changes from their peak in 2008 until their low in early Jan 2009 when discussing the gas price changes from Jan 20,2009 until now is ignoring reality.

      I find it impossible to have a rational discussion on this topic with the parameters so strictly established. In my view, the world doesn’t remake itself overnight upon inauguration, as there is continuity to be addressed.

      If I understand your theory of time and presidents, it would seem that a Romney/Ryan win should lead to a balanced budget very quickly, that the history of Obama and earlier years are unimportant. They can set their path and just get it done.

      Although, the Ryan budget plan, if taken at face value, seems to actually take many, many years to reach a balanced budget. Now why would that be? Could it be the need to account for starting conditions? But as you say (to paraphrase), you wouldn’t care about Obama, Romney/Ryan would be the focus and be accountable come Jan 2013.

      Maybe there will be a chance to prove that theory right or wrong; who knows?
      ___________________________
      SM: You just make it up as you go along and what is convenient good for Obama you take, what is bad you ignore.

      Like I have said now a thousand times … you have ZERO experience in business or with business. Do you know what happens when you buy a business or take one over that is existing? You inherit all of the good and the bad.

      You take a business over the second the ink is signed. Politics is a little different because you could be in the House or Senate and be voting on bills that determine the future.

      You said … Although, the Ryan budget plan, if taken at face value, seems to actually take many, many years to reach a balanced budget. Now why would that be?

      It would be because the budget is so far out of whack and your boy Obama has not had one in 3 years that it is going to take years to balance. Take a friggin business course will you. You might learn something.

    10. RK on September 3rd, 2012 3:30 pm

      I love your crystal ball that knows so much about me. That kind of technology must be amazing. :-o

      If you think I’ve made something up, please do call me out on what I’ve said where the information isn’t correct. I don’t know why you wouldn’t jump at that chance; yet you seem to prefer to ding me with broad generalities and personal commentary. From my perspective, the lack of information in those cases provides very little meaning. Your call of course; you get to say what’s on your mind.

      Thanks for the response on why the Ryan budget would take so long to balance. My belief was just as yours was, that it takes time to dig out of a big hole. By your reasoning, the impact of the Bush recession, and the $1.2T deficit handed Obama at inauguration should, by all means, present a similar pattern. For consistency sake, you should also be willing to let Obama have about as many years as Ryan to reduce the deficit. Treating them differently would seem to be highly hypocritical.

    11. Super dave on September 3rd, 2012 6:33 pm

      The only balls any democrat could have would be crystal. They shatter so easily. Like the democrat party, a shattered band of criminals still on the democrat plantation.

    12. Majority of Voters Believe US is Worse Off Today than 4 Years Ago … President Obama Does Not Deserve Reelection | Scared Monkeys on September 4th, 2012 8:28 pm

      [...] of the universe. As Hot Air stated, instead of answering the Reagan metric, chief Obama advisers David Plouffe, David Axelrod and Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley tried dodging the inevitable question in every presidential [...]

    Leave a Reply




    Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

     
     
    • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
    • Red (comments)
    • Dugga (technical issues)
    • Dana (radio show comments)
    • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Close
    E-mail It