Axelrod on Alito’s Heckle: Well, It’s A ‘Weird Political Season’

video

by Glynnis MacNicol | 8:42 am, February 1st, 2010

» 14 comments

MR. GREGORY: During the State of the Union, there, there was a moment that got a lot of attention–I want to show it to you here–where the president was critical of the Supreme Court decision about campaign finance reform. And in the audience, Justice Alito had a, what seemed to be a pretty critical response, as the line was said. He’s shaking his head there. And then as it gets closer, it looks like he’s saying, “That’s not true.” Was it appropriate for the president to criticize the Supreme Court during the State of the Union? And do you consider Justice Alito’s response to be appropriate or inappropriate?

MR. AXELROD: Well, I certainly think it was appropriate for the president to talk about the threat that this decision brings to our democracy. Basically, it’s going to be open season for special interest groups and big corporations to participate in our elections with all their might and all their money. And that includes foreign–domestic branches of foreign-owned businesses, even government–foreign government-owned businesses. In fact, some of the, some of those companies signaled on Friday, according to The Wall Street Journal, that they’re going to lobby vigorously against any effort to rein this in.

One thing we ought to be able to agree on, and, and maybe we can here today, is that we shouldn’t have foreign-owned businesses and foreign–you know, Hugo Chavez should not be playing in American political campaigns. And I, for the life of me, don’t understand why we wouldn’t make that illegal.

MR. GREGORY: That moment, though, was that the appropriate forum?

MR. AXELROD: Well, this is a big–one of the things that we face, David, and one of the things the American people recognize is that we have too much influence of special interests in the decision making here in, in Washington.

MR. GREGORY: But the question I’m asking, David, is whether that was an…

MR. AXELROD: But, but this…

MR. GREGORY: …appropriate criticism.

MR. AXELROD: But this, this, this is central to that. If you’re going to deliver a message on the State of the Union, then one of the things you have to address is how do we get–how do we free our government from the grips of special interests? We, for example, proposed that every lobbyist disclose who they have contact with, whether it’s in the administration or contact–or Congress, on behalf of their clients. We have to take some steps to protect our, our government, our democracy from the overweening influence of special interests.

MR. GREGORY: You still haven’t answered whether you think it was an appropriate thing–criticism of the president.

MR. AXELROD: I, I think it was totally appropriate.

MR. GREGORY: And Alito’s response?

MR. AXELROD: Well, I–look, we–in this weird political season, we’ve become accustomed to unusual outbursts in the chamber during these speeches, so.

Pages: 1 2

barack obama, David Axlerod, David Gregory, Floyd Abrams, Justice Alito, Meet the Press, Reliable Sources, SCOTUS, SOTU

The Real Royal King

I wish one of the key Democrats had the spine to mention that Alito and Roberts assured the American people that the type of judicial activism we witnessed in the atrocious ruling still being discussed would never happen. We were misled by these men. I suppose, Axelrod at least provided us a gentle reminder of this grand deception.
Fidoohki

Bull. Axelrod got it wrong and he is trying to cover it up. That’s all it is.
Fidoohki

Sorry The president got it wrong and axelrod is trying to cover it up.
TfT

Even the NYTimes printed that Obama got it wrong; Did the host of MTP ask Axelrod why Obama misrepresented the SCOTUS decision? Did David Gregory even mention that Obama got it wrong?
The Real Royal King

Fidoohki, you don’t seem to offer any evidence of your conclusions.
Fidoohki

The ruling of the Supreme court in this case only extends to US companies. Not Foriegn ones. That ban is still in place. Subsidiaries of a foreign company cannot donate as a company due to federal regulations.
Fidoohki

Here’s the link:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/27/barack-obama/obama-says-supreme-court-ruling-allows-foreign-com/
timzank

Fidoohki, save your breath, people like The Real Royal _____ couldn’t care less about facts or rights that are perceived to help their opponents. You can list facts all day long and it will not matter, he and his ilk are completely blinded by ideology only. It’s a common trait among progressives, no common sense whatsoever.

It’s not exactly rocket science, before the ruling, corporations or unions had to write checks to 527′s, an obvious sidestep to funnel the money to candidates. After the ruling they can basically write checks to the candidate directly. Anybody see a fundamental difference there?

Why in the fark would/should this be a big deal to anyone????
timzank

As an after thought, does anybody else find it pathetic that a Professor of Constitutional Law and the Editor of The Harvard Law Review doesn’t really know sh&t about the law or the constitution?
The Real Royal King

I suspected that is what you meant, Fidoohki, and I appreciate your clarification. I don’t have the same problem as you do with the formulation. I am sure you understand that “US companies” are owned in significant measure by foreign investors and entities. I acknowledge François y Françoise’s Fromages Françaises, SNC, cannot make a contribution to the campaign of Ron Paul, but Nina’s Nutty Chewies, Inc., which recently acquired Paul’s Pralines, SA for a 35% stock issuance can. The point is that campaign reform was gutted by an activist rightist Court. I will ping President Obama for glossing over the niceties.
The Real Royal King

I will say, Timzank, your gratuitous nastiness, most importantly to our President, but also to me, notwithstanding, the campaign finance law gutted by the rightist activist Court was rather gutless to begin with, and your point regarding the 527′s is not without merit.
timzank

Gutted my ass, all the decision really accomplished is transparency, (a concept this administration is obviously unfamiliar with) the money still flows from the same donors, you can simply track it now without auditing six layers of “bundlers” and pacs….
Puter Boi

heckle
–verb (used with object)
.
To harass (a public speaker, performer, etc.) with impertinent questions, gibes, or the like; badger.

Yep…that was some heckle…practically stopped the president in his tracks….no wonder Glynnis is writing those blaring headlines again. I share her faux outrage!!!
Fidoohki

The Real Royal King says:
February 1, 2010 at 9:47 am

I disagree. The law as written didn’t seem to even begin to pay so much as lip service to
our garunteed freedoms.I believe transparency would correct this without violating
the first amendment. which is what our esteemed indiocy that is congress should
have written in the first place!

timzank says:
February 1, 2010 at 9:43 am

*shrugs* he asked an honest question. I’m not afraid of that at all. If I feel he made
an good point, an honest error, or just annoys the crap out of me I’ll reply otherwise he
is entitled to his opinion just like others are entiled to say he’s wrong or right … but they need to
prove it.