DescentBB

...is now Obama's

Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a "very senior person" at the White House warned him in an email that he would "regret doing this," the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-wood ... z2M9yWoggb

For a supposedly 'transparent' administration, Obama is looking very Nixonian.

It is almost certain that he has an 'enemies' list- soon to include quite a few of his own fellow Americans.

Kewlz.

I heard from a "even higher very senior" person at the White House that they're going to build a space station the size of a small moon but somehow overlook an exhaust vent that puts the entire thing in danger. I don't know how I'll sleep tonight...

< mod-edit > Keep it professional.

As to TB's op, watch how quick the left will now try and eviscerate Woodward. The only problem is Woodward has more solid credentials than 90% of them combined. There is even one idiot out there calling Woodward old and past his prime. Wonder if he was saying the same thing about Dan Rather. Be interesting to watch all this unfold.

Dan Rather is WAY old, and WAYYYYYY past anything like Prime. Woodward has become irrelevant for over a decade now, in fact, it's starting to look like Berstein was the brains of that pair. Anyone who read that email as a threat is nuts, especially when written to an established journalist. Woodward is trying to sell some books, nothing more to the story.

callmeslick wrote:Dan Rather is WAY old, and WAYYYYYY past anything like Prime. Woodward has become irrelevant for over a decade now, in fact, it's starting to look like Berstein was the brains of that pair. Anyone who read that email as a threat is nuts, especially when written to an established journalist. Woodward is trying to sell some books, nothing more to the story.

A good journalist doesn't have 'relevance' because the story isn't about him.

Funny you call Woodward irrelevant and cite his stature as proof the email wasn't a warning all in the same breath. You just spout off out of both sides of your mouth at will...

stature? I said senior status....in that he'd been long established in his career. I'll leave it others to determine his stature.

callmeslick wrote:Dan Rather is WAY old, and WAYYYYYY past anything like Prime. Woodward has become irrelevant for over a decade now, in fact, it's starting to look like Berstein was the brains of that pair. Anyone who read that email as a threat is nuts, especially when written to an established journalist. Woodward is trying to sell some books, nothing more to the story.

Sending a threat, especially to a journalist who is being critical of the president is just a bit creepy (and yes I would take " You will regret it" as a threat). And it is what is in the book that has the White House's panty's in a bunch. Of course your "Brains" comment is stereotypical of you when someone criticizes your smartest president ever.

callmeslick wrote:stature? I said senior status....in that he'd been long established in his career. I'll leave it others to determine his stature.

That is a pathetic dodge! You clearly implied his credentials as a journalist were such that the Whitehouse wouldn't make a threat to him. And you implied he is of no importance with your 'no relevance' comment.

So, yea, we can leave it to others to recognize the hypocrisy of your commentary or not.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:stature? I said senior status....in that he'd been long established in his career. I'll leave it others to determine his stature.

That is a pathetic dodge! You clearly implied his credentials as a journalist were such that the Whitehouse wouldn't make a threat to him.

nonsense, I claimed that someone of his seniority is not going to be threatened in any way by the words 'you may regret........'. And further, for him to feign otherwise, shows his desperation for the limelight he has long ago left behind.

And you implied he is of no importance with your 'no relevance' comment.

yes, I did. He's a has-been, and apparently a sorry version of same at this point.

So, yea, we can leave it to others to recognize the hypocrisy of your commentary or not.

and, your reading skills, too.

Bullcrap! Here is what you said:

callmeslick wrote:...
nonsense, I claimed that someone of his seniority is not going to be threatened in any way by the words 'you may regret........'.
.....

callmeslick wrote:?.. Anyone who read that email as a threat is nuts, especially when written to an established journalist. ....

He is an established journalist, by your admission. He did see it as a warning. Lanny Davis received the same warning and said the language in the email he received sounded like the same thing Woodward received.
And you are glossing over the fact that the email came on the heels of a Whitehouse spokesman shouting at him for a protracted amount of time over the report that the Whitehouse was angry about. A report that was a factual piece of work.

The Whitehouse was trying to bully a journalist for straying from the Obama Plantation.

Expect to see more of it because they all have about 3 years left to try and reestablish some appearance of journalistic 'integrity' after carrying water for Obama all this time. He's been re-elected, now they need to think about their own future.

Will Robinson wrote:He is an established journalist, by your admission. He did see it as a warning.

and, I call bull★■◆●, the words are in no way ominous. Sorry.

Lanny Davis received the same warning and said the language in the email he received sounded like the same thing Woodward received.

and I stated that I have little credibility in Lanny Davis, since he never mentioned the event for two years, and suddenly gets 'alarmed' now? While speaking to a Breitbart mouthpiece? Spare me, but the stench is pretty bad from that one.

And you are glossing over the fact that the email came on the heels of a Whitehouse spokesman shouting at him for a protracted amount of time over the report that the Whitehouse was angry about. A report that was a factual piece of work.

as with most Woodward pieces, a bit of fact and a lot of Bob's guesswork, actually. I am not glossing over the staffer's behavior, which he apologized for via the email.

The Whitehouse was trying to bully a journalist for straying from the Obama Plantation.

gratuitous hate-speech. And, the whole escapade completely serves as a convenient smokescreen to the whole sequester mess the GOP right wing got us into.

WOW…for someone that thinks labels like “leaning left” are an oversimplification, you sure use the term “right wing” often enough.

Spidey wrote:WOW…for someone that thinks labels like “leaning left” are an oversimplification, you sure use the term “right wing” often enough.

um, the term 'GOP right wing' is not an oversimplification, it's a pretty basic description of the 150 or so Congresspeople from the Republican party who make up the conservative caucus. My wording is shorter, of course.

CobGobbler wrote:Kewlz.

I heard from a "even higher very senior" person at the White House that they're going to build a space station the size of a small moon but somehow overlook an exhaust vent that puts the entire thing in danger. I don't know how I'll sleep tonight...

this made it worth it to click on this thread.

You are welcome indeed Ferno.

Here is the text of the email that is so Nixonian.

From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013

Bob:

I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. My bad. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall — but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here.

But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand barain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really. It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios — but that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)

I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is diffferent. Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously.

My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.

Gene

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/e ... z2MGTJyEjT


I'm sure Bob Woodward had to hire personal security service after this kind of threatening email. My god, what on earth are we going to do when an economic advisor sends out letters with this level of vulgarity? Three apologies? That's straight Capone style!

an even more enlightening read is Woodwards email in response. He defers any need for an apology to him, and sounds anything but threatened. Now, he's claiming that he never felt threatened, but thought the email was 'Mickey Mouse'.....scary stuff, indeed.

callmeslick wrote:an even more enlightening read is Woodwards email in response. He defers any need for an apology to him, and sounds anything but threatened. Now, he's claiming that he never felt threatened, but thought the email was 'Mickey Mouse'.....scary stuff, indeed.

This is similar to the newsy's deriding of Rubio for taking a drink of water.

If the Whitehouse hack had started the conversation with 'I read your piece on our position and it is wrong. I think you'll regret writing it.... ' then the email is innocuous.

If, however, the Whitehouse hack first shouted at the guy for 30 minutes berating him for excercizing his right to free speech and a free press.....and this outburst of anger was so much that he felt compelled to apologize later....then the whole thing takes on a different tone. Especially coming from a Whitehouse that routinely cuts off access to reporters and networks that challenge it!

Woodward never made the email out to be a "threat", he never said it was either. He offered it as a piece of the whole exchange between the two that in total illustrates the Whitehouses arrogance which goes right in step with the story he reported to earn their contempt in the first place!

So feel free to focus on the email, and dispute that it contains a "threat" but if you do you are not addressing the point Woodward raised, you are instead helping erect a strawman, you are being led by the nose to do the Whitehouses bidding to discredit a reporter who had the balls to expose their dishonesty.

The story isn't if the sentence in the email apology is a threat in itself. The story is the Whitehouses standard operating procedure is to bully reporters, cut off access as punishment. When that is who you are dealing with and their closing statement is "you will regret it" then you have to consider what they do to cause regret....

Yea, sounds a little like the diversion tactics used by the Clinton Whitehouse.

It’s also what magicians do.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:an even more enlightening read is Woodwards email in response. He defers any need for an apology to him, and sounds anything but threatened. Now, he's claiming that he never felt threatened, but thought the email was 'Mickey Mouse'.....scary stuff, indeed.

This is similar to the newsy's deriding of Rubio for taking a drink of water.

that was just an awkward moment, with utterly no significance for anyone in the nation(beyond Rubio, who actually was probably helped in realizing he has to sharpen up a bit before the actual campaign starts).

Will Robinson wrote:If the Whitehouse hack had started the conversation with 'I read your piece on our position and it is wrong. I think you'll regret writing it.... ' then the email is innocuous.

If, however, the Whitehouse hack first shouted at the guy for 30 minutes berating him for excercizing his right to free speech and a free press.....and this outburst of anger was so much that he felt compelled to apologize later....then the whole thing takes on a different tone. Especially coming from a Whitehouse that routinely cuts off access to reporters and networks that challenge it!

Woodward never made the email out to be a "threat", he never said it was either. He offered it as a piece of the whole exchange between the two that in total illustrates the Whitehouses arrogance which goes right in step with the story he reported to earn their contempt in the first place!

So feel free to focus on the email, and dispute that it contains a "threat" but if you do you are not addressing the point Woodward raised, you are instead helping erect a strawman, you are being led by the nose to do the Whitehouses bidding to discredit a reporter who had the balls to expose their dishonesty.

The story isn't if the sentence in the email apology is a threat in itself. The story is the Whitehouses standard operating procedure is to bully reporters, cut off access as punishment. When that is who you are dealing with and their closing statement is "you will regret it" then you have to consider what they do to cause regret....

you realize that this White House in NO WAY restricts journalists' access as was done in several prior Administrations, right? Hell, the Bush White house was terrible with that, and Clinton had his moments, too. Obama, in comparison, is a breath of fresh air.....

callmeslick wrote:...
you realize that this White House in NO WAY restricts journalists' access as was done in several prior Administrations, right? ...

No I don't realize that. I do realize the media has said otherwise so I'll go with their firsthand experience over your predictably Pollyannaish depiction of all things Obama.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...
you realize that this White House in NO WAY restricts journalists' access as was done in several prior Administrations, right? ...

No I don't realize that. I do realize the media has said otherwise so I'll go with their firsthand experience over your predictably Pollyannaish depiction of all things Obama.

find me one respected journalist who claims this administration is worse than the prior for access, or control of story publication. One.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...
you realize that this White House in NO WAY restricts journalists' access as was done in several prior Administrations, right? ...

No I don't realize that. I do realize the media has said otherwise so I'll go with their firsthand experience over your predictably Pollyannaish depiction of all things Obama.

find me one respected journalist who claims this administration is worse than the prior for access. One.

You are silly. You just bluster about declaring something doesn't exist everytime an issue is brought up that contradicts your spontaneous unfounded assertions!
From here and go ahead, stick to your standard operating procedure and tell us that PBS is a hate orginazation....lol....

Is it bad for democracy when a president answers impromptu questions from the press 107 times after a photo opportunity, compared with his predecessor's 355? Or that he's more likely to dish with the ladies of "The View" than he is to sit down with the New York Times?

These are the questions reporters are raising about President Obama's White House as he enters a second term having ruffled feathers in the Fourth Estate. It's a question of reporter access, but also of media control. It's a story that gets Washington in a lather, but also gets at the way an administration conducts itself.

Politico's Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei write in a four-page behind-the-curtain piece Tuesday that "the balance of power between the White House and press has tipped unmistakably toward the government."

They quote a number of White House reporters, including the Times' Peter Baker and CBS News' Mark Knoller, who are critical of their lack of access to Mr. Obama and are amazed at the amount of content produced by the administration's media specialists.

Politico notes the "softball" interviews Mr. Obama gives to local and national TV anchors rather than White House beat reporters; the copious official administration photos compared to scant opportunities for photojournalists; weekend document releases that take advantage of slow news cycles; and the White House press team's method of using Twitter and social media to control the release of information.

"This administration loves to boast about how transparent they are, but they're transparent about things they want to be transparent about. He gives interviews not for our benefit, but to achieve his objective," Knoller said.

nothing in that story I can, or would, disagree with, Will. I just want you to find me one journalist who feels that Obama is WORSE than Bush's people were. That was my originally worded challenge, and you still haven't produced one. I agree that Obama has not been as fully transparent with the press as they wish him to be(he tends to focus on public accessibility, as the article notes, due to the nature of the Internet age). That isn't my point. My point is that the press had it far worse before, and they know that full well.

I don't know callmeslick. If ol' Woodward himself has found a trail of stink, the barrel of rotten apples has to be nearby. I think that Washington is a perpetual political sewer hole, and it infects everyone that moves there with the stink of abuse of power, even those that went there with the best of intentions. Obama's no exception. You know that he's from Chicago, the birthplace of some of the dirtiest politics, so why would he be exempt from the hip deep crap that usually infects Washington?

I think Obama's problem is that he's battling the obstinate tea party crazies, and he's now resorting to every dirty political trick he can think of to win. Sad. We're the losers.

callmeslick wrote:nothing in that story I can, or would, disagree with, Will. I just want you to find me one journalist who feels that Obama is WORSE than Bush's people were. That was my originally worded challenge, and you still haven't produced one. I agree that Obama has not been as fully transparent with the press as they wish him to be(he tends to focus on public accessibility, as the article notes, due to the nature of the Internet age). That isn't my point. My point is that the press had it far worse before, and they know that full well.

You need to read it again. The first few lines to start with....'Obama facing questions from reporters less than a third as often as his predecessors' and that isn't the only example of reduced access cited. Your denial is deep!

Will, the article cited one third the questions allowed after photo ops, not the number of press conferences, for example. It also noted that Obama is far more excessible to non-traditional outlets, like open internet forums, which even allowed for followup questions. The article clearly pondered whether part of the problem is the continued trend to less relevance with the public of 'traditional' media/journalist outlets(a very fair phenomenon to ponder). At no time did it suggest that Obama's White House has been anywhere near as closed, restrictive and even punitive as was the Bush/Cheney crew. It wouldn't, because that just isn't true. The prior administration banished folks regularly from White House press credentials when they didn't like stories....Obama has NEVER done so. The Bush crew very tightly controlled information flow, and was caught on several instances feeding outright falsehoods to the press. Much of the leadup to Iraq was founded on same. Apples and oranges, Will, and for you to suggest otherwise shows nothing short of a willingness to look for faults as smokescreens to avoid the real issues facing the nation.

callmeslick wrote:Will, the article cited one third the questions allowed after photo ops, not the number of press conferences, for example. It also noted that Obama is far more excessible to non-traditional outlets, like open internet forums, which even allowed for followup questions.

Refusing to answer questions at a third the rate of Bush is refusing to answer questions at a third the rate of Bush no matter what the heck he was doing before the reporters got a chance to ask questions!! So focusing on the tally coming at photo ops is a lame distinction to prop up.

The article, as I'm sure you noticed but ignore, also notes that the extra access via alternative outlets such as forums and twitter etc dont expose the president to the scrutiny of a journalist's questions nor said journalist's ability to broadcast that exchange to the masses! That article goes on to say Obama is only transparent on the things he wants to be transparent on. That is a distinction worth noting....or dodging depending on if you are the reader...

I'm sorry but just because the president makes himself available to #I'mBarakSoLoveMe and even sometimes allows follow ups doesn't mean that JoeSixPack is going to ask a hard question or that Joe has the network/publishing behind him to get the presidents remarks out into the public.

Hiding behind the number of appearances on local TV with softball questions and Twitter posts IS LAME. And now that you hold that up as substantive you join in the lame-fest.

callmeslick wrote:The article clearly pondered whether part of the problem is the continued trend to less relevance with the public of 'traditional' media/journalist outlets(a very fair phenomenon to ponder). At no time did it suggest that Obama's White House has been anywhere near as closed, restrictive and even punitive as was the Bush/Cheney crew. It wouldn't, because that just isn't true. The prior administration banished folks regularly from White House press credentials when they didn't like stories....Obama has NEVER done so.

Well you and Obama have that in common....move the goal posts...then declare an outcome.
I was pointing out examples of Obama bullying reporters. You brought up a direct comparison to Bush. As if 'the other guy did it worse' is some kind of excuse for Obama. You tried to limit the scope of my comments to fit your new criteria.
But since you are so often full of crap I decided to follow you down this rabbit hole and see what was there and lo and behold....you are still short of the touchdown even though you moved the goalposts.

Yes, Obama has done it too. The New York Times and the other broadcast networks had to come to the defense of Fox News because the Obama Administration selectively excluded Fox News because they were asking the wrong questions and embarrasing Obama. The other networks refused to do the scheduled interview if the Whitehouse didnt back down from excluding Fox...
The New York Times and other media outlets published their regrets that they had not acted fast enough to jump on stories Fox had been breaking about the Obama administration...Van Jones, ACORN, etc.

A Freedom of Information Act release produced emails from the Obama lackeys that spelled out the mission to exclude Fox News. Obama's response was to blame Hannity and O'Rielly basically saying that the Fox News division suffers that fate because the Fox network has it in for him.

callmeslick wrote:The Bush crew very tightly controlled information flow, and was caught on several instances feeding outright falsehoods to the press.

Just like Obama is doing and has been doing since day one. The cost of HealthCare, the number of jobs being cut this week by Sequestration...etc. etc.. There may be less volume of picking through those false statements going on thanks to the media just now showing they remember what their job is...but that doesn't mean the Obama team isn't pumping out the lies just like Bush and Clinton and Bush and Reagan and Carter and....and....and...

callmeslick wrote:Much of the leadup to Iraq was founded on same. Apples and oranges, Will, and for you to suggest otherwise shows nothing short of a willingness to look for faults as smokescreens to avoid the real issues facing the nation.

No, I'm perfectly capable of noting the way he bullies the reporters that expose him AND still note all the other crappy things going on in the world. My concerns are far wider than your attempt to camoflage Obama's tactics. By the way, since you are so concerned, how will the average Joe know Obama's role in the "real issues facing the nation" if he is allowed to manipulate the media? Oh, I know, you don't care because he's your guy....don't answer. It was a rhetorical question that was tossed up for other people to ponder. The ones who don't share that Koolaid with you.

tunnelcat wrote:...

I think Obama's problem is that he's battling the obstinate tea party crazies, and he's now resorting to every dirty political trick he can think of to win. Sad. We're the losers.

You are far to kind or naive to suggest he is only now becoming the cold blooded politician he is.