White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod Is A Birther

...Or at the very LEAST he epitomizes the hypocrisy endemic of the Obama White house.

CNN: STATE OF THE UNION - Axelrod: There's a reason groups don't disclose.... White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod : "If people don't disclose, there's a reason." ..... He said that Democrats "believe deeply in disclosure,"

SOURCE-second article down.

First, let's examine the latter statement: He said that Democrats "believe deeply in disclosure,"
Really? Well, I guess that could be true if given the caveat "so long as disclosure comes only after the fact." à la Pelosi: 'We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it'

Now to the heart of the matter:

"If people don't disclose, there's a reason."

Now, let's substitute "people" for... let's say... PRESIDENT (he does qualify as
"people") and see Axelrod's logic in action, shall we?

"If the President doesn't disclose, there's a reason."

So by his own logic Mr. Axelrod either agrees with Birthers or is guilty of hypocrisy.

Clickable link for the above source:

voices.washingtonpost.com...

Here's a more complete quote from the link above:

White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod renewed the Democratic argument against outside groups' non-disclosure of donors, saying, "If people don't disclose, there's a reason." Axelrod said that the conservative-aligned group American Crossroads will spend "probably over $100 million" by Election Day. He said that Democrats "believe deeply in disclosure," hammering congressional Republicans for opposing disclosure legislation and pushing back against the notion that Democrats are focusing on disclosure because they don't want to talk about the economy and other issues.

I think that it's a stretch to call Axelrod a birther based on that those quotes.

I see your point about consistency, but editing out the context is not being perfectly straight forward.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott
The "stretch" was intentional.
Illustrating a point.

The full article was unnecessary. I was quoting Axelrod's exact words not the article author's article.
You're inclusion of it seems to be an attempt to blunt the argument as if saying he has a point.

Originally posted by GuyverUnit I
reply to post by GradyPhilpott

 

The "stretch" was intentional.
Illustrating a point.

The full article was unnecessary. I was quoting Axelrod's exact words not the article author's article.
You're inclusion of it seems to be an attempt to blunt the argument as if saying he has a point.

edit on 18-10-2010 by GuyverUnit I because: (no reason given)

No, his inclusion of it was an attempt to keep things in context and let the reader decide for themselves if your statement really has any merit or if you were deliberately taking Mr. Axelrod's words out of context in order to back up your argument.


And to your argument..um, why would you expect anyone up there in D.C. NOT to be a hypocrite?

Originally posted by GuyverUnit I

The full article was unnecessary.

But you still need a citation for the quote, which would include the entire article, though unquoted.

Placing the quotes in context would have been the responsible thing to do, or at least telling the readers what the context actually was.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

OK, point taken. I will be sure properly quote in future posts.