The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Gov't Too Big—David Axelrod

For John, BLUFIf the Federal is too big for the Prez to manage it is too big.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

The government is simply too big for President Obama to keep track of all the wrongdoing taking place on his watch, his former senior adviser, David Axelrod, told MSNBC.  “Part of being president is there’s so much beneath you that you can’t know because the government is so vast,” he explained.
This from Mr Andrew Johnson, writer for National Review's "The Corner".  Video from the Joe Scarborough Show embedded.  The title is "Axelrod:  Government 'So Vast,' Obama Can't Know About Wrongdoing".

So, the Tea Parties seem to have some useful insight about the size of Government.

Hat tip to Rush and Drudge.

Regards  —  Cliff


Mr. Lynne said...

This seems a non-point. Surly you're not expecting a federal government so small that a single man can be aware of every single person's comings and going's within it. If not, then this standard is a straw man standard.

C R Krieger said...

I am just going with Mr David Axelrod here.  I do think that the pyramid should not be so high that the word can't get up to the President on something like the IRS issue or the DoJ going after the AP.

Frankly, I think Mr Axelrod is just trying to make smoke to obscure the horizon so the President can maneuver.  However, I find the idea that he isn't getting fed information to be either unbelievable or scary.  Even TV Personality Chris Matthews, per Reporter Howie Carr, has recently said that every day Speaker Tim O'Neil would gather the staff and ask what is happening.  That is the sense of Mr Matthews in this video.

Regards  —  Cliff

Mr. Lynne said...

"I am just going with Mr David Axelrod here."

That's a bit simplistic. (Perhaps less politely - no you're not.) You're taking something Axelrod said and drawing conclusions based on assumptions you're making on what he said.

He pointed out the very uncontroversial idea that the President (any President for that matter) doesn't have perfect knowledge or control of ever person in the government. You took that as evidence that government is too big, which doesn't follow. Tying it to things other people have said about 'meeting with staff' is red herring. What other people said might be evidentiary data points for your conclusion, but not what Axelrod said.

Am I mistaken here?

C R Krieger said...


Regards  —  Cliff