your son plays hockey and i played a lot of hockey. but you hear the crowd, that really backfired. no, it didn t backfire. it certainly didn t work, i ll give you that. but it didn t work because every gopher in the romney campaign saw an opportunity to go out there and make a seen and try to disrupt david axelrod s proper and accurate representation of the fact. even eric said he was 47th out of 50th in terms of job creation in the state of massachusetts. rick perry, the governor of texas, on a point during the republican primary. we got that. and i m saying this in fairness to axelrod. in 2008 they ran a really strong campaign. but he s lost his footing here. it seems like, you know, there s something missing. meet the press for david axelrod, that s the place that he belongs. if he wants to go on and anywhere on nbc news, they are
organizations that accept any money from outside or foreign sources making clear how the money is being spent. the chamber says, we ve received so much money, if we take all the foreign money aside, which they claim they have and i happen to believe them, we still have hundreds of millions to spend here. you re talking about a small amount of money. axelrod and democrats are right to make the point, we can argue whether or not they ve been consistent over the last ten years, but i think they re wrong more importantly on the political effectiveness. the most important number from yesterday was the market dropping 165 points. the most important number for democrats is the one you pointed now the snow over and over again, the 9.7% unemployment number. i understand what the president and david axelrod are trying to do. at the end of day, i don t think it s an effective argument. they have a right to make it because citizens united have changed the way for democrats and republicans read
dime because he tries to get out of the way of an avalanche when it s coming. please f you really believe this, fight tore this two years earlier. fight for it when you re senator and democrats are doing this in 2006 to take over the house. fight for it when the money is coming your way. frankly, what feingold and mccain did was noble. they did try to stop this. neither of them had a dog in the fight at the time. something has fundamentally changed since then. there was a monumental supreme court case involving citizens united. it was monumental in the sense that it overturned parts of mccain-feingold, allowed for corporations, unions and others who in the past would have had to form separate organizations and not have been able to communicate or coordinate with specific candidates. now they can. now, in fairness to axelrod and the democrats, which i think the argument is a hollow argument. but in terms of its political effectiveness, there is something to be said for
is really mystifying. that s not mccarthyism. i hate people little joey gets thrown out at first base, people will go, that s mccarthyism. that s not mccarthyism. that is the logic of mccarthyism. prove it. you want me to prove a negative? which is again going back to sheiffer, sheiffer said to axelrod, give us evidence. give us evidence that they re not. it is a desperate attempt, i think. i agree with everything mark said up to the last word, which is mystifying. i don t think it s mystifying at all, given the cards they ve got and the genuine legitimate frustration with the results of the citizens united case, where you have this total flow of money utterly untraceable, i