David Axelrod's Comments Today on FOX News

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What's shown here that I think is interesting is the fact that in this election we have a choice between two campaigns that other than a few clearly partisan canards that have been around for a long time use some oddly similar rhetoric to characterize themselves and each other.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think the Romney campaign's pattern of distortions is going to bite them.  I know the finer points of reality get lost on voters.  But there's only so much you can do this one and their first anti-Obama ad before people stop taking you seriously.

Did you miss 2004 and 1988? That's the type of game Team Obama is going to need to beat Republicans at in order to win. Good luck with that.

Entirely separate from how ridiculous this statement is considering Mitt Romney's personality and already existing and entirely deserved reputation for mythomania, it terrifies me that you seem to think this is a good thing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Try since September 2008, remembering that Obama took office mid-meltdown, assuming the American people are capable of long-term memory any more (not a safe assumption, I know).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Try since September 2008, remembering that Obama took office mid-meltdown, assuming the American people are capable of long-term memory any more (not a safe assumption, I know).

One wonders then why the electorate would vote to continue on the road taken from September 2008 to November 2012.

Because that road was one full of as tolerable decisions as could have been made under the circumstances, except for those decisions which were made by a radicalized Congress and acquiesced to by an at those points politically weak President, and those decisions which were watered-down versions of ones that would have been better. The bad decisions that caused the bad situation were those taken before the collapse, although it doesn't surprise me that you're unaware of that since you've never exhibited a more than casual familiarity with how cause and effect works.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

And there's a thing. Ever occurred to you that had taxation been left at Clinton rates that the US would have, fiscally, been much better prepared to ride out the 'Crash of 2008' and the Great Recession? I mean come on if the best the US economy can yield in terms of jobs following trillions of $ in tax cuts is the fewest of any president this side of Herbert Hoover, then WOW, just WOW

Of course, I'd say the challenges facing developed economies this day and age are immense given that capitalism is increasingly global, which is why my priority would be to reduce business taxation

Setting aside the dubious hindsight/foresight problems with this as of 2004, why on earth would whatever idea you seem to be positing override one's desire to pay lower tax?

Certainly if there was greater tax revenue there is greater sums of money to give away to certain favored constituencies. But that doesn't seem to matter to many people.

There is of course a name for that personality trait.

People are willing to accept higher taxes in return for certain services but it has to be framed the right way. The Democrats have spent several decades being absolutely terrible at framing debates for the most part, especially Congressional ones, but when polled on specific issues lucidly described people often--not always but often--support somewhat more left-wing positions than election results or Congressional votes indicate.