In the column at the center of the storm, Woodward writes the White House has been deliberately disingenuous about its role in the sequester, and accused Obama of "moving the goal posts" by insisting Republicans agree to new tax revenue as part of any substitute for the sequester. "That was not the deal he made," he says.
Now, Woodward alleges that he was bullied even ahead of publishing his report. He told Politico Wednesday that one Obama aide "yelled at me for about a half hour" and in an email message delivered a veiled threat.
"It was said very clearly: 'you will regret doing this,'" Woodward told CNN. "I'm not going to say [who], a very senior person. It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters you're going to regret doing something you believe in."
"I think if Barack Obama knew that was part of the communications strategy, let's hope it's not a strategy, but just a tactic he's employing, he'd say, 'look, we don't go around trying to say to reporters if you in an honest way present something that we don't like, you're going to regret this,'" he said.
Quote:
A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.
--John F. Kennedy
Nothing new. Since Day one of being President Obama has blown up every time even a minor negative comment was placed. He's like a head cheerleader who goes ballistic if the whole school doesn't like her.
This is just the latest in a LONG, long line of Chicago style politics.
Nothing new. Since Day one of being President Obama has blown up every time even a minor negative comment was placed. He's like a head cheerleader who goes ballistic if the whole school doesn't like her.
This is just the latest in a LONG, long line of Chicago style politics.
lol and the other cheerleaders are upset with you judging by the red thumbs
Calling shenanigans on politicians is GREAT until you start calling shenanigans on MY politicians.
-Ted Turner
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
From Bob Woodward to Gene Sperling:
Quote:
Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening. I know you lived all this. My partial advantage is that I talked extensively with all involved. I am traveling and will try to reach you after 3 pm today. Best, Bob
Yeah- politico really screwed up that story about "threats" - it is pretty clear (i think) that woodward did not feel like there was a threat of retribution.
Further, woodward was wrong in the original article. Obama has always tied revenue and spending to sequestration
__________________
I didn't come from no damn monkey!
Now can you post the recording of the 30 minute phone conversation between the WH aide and Woodward?
If Woodard, a lifelong democrat who brought down Nixon in Watergate, didn't feel that this was such a big deal, why would he give interviews saying he felt threatened by people in this administration?
Yeah- politico really screwed up that story about "threats" - it is pretty clear (i think) that woodward did not feel like there was a threat of retribution.
Quote:
"It was said very clearly: 'you will regret doing this,'" Woodward told CNN. "I'm not going to say [who], a very senior person. It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters you're going to regret doing something you believe in."
Interesting read from the guy who was AP's Washington Bureau chief, now in charge of National Journal
Quote:
As editor-in-chief of National Journal, I received several e-mails and telephone calls from this White House official filled with vulgarity, abusive language, and virtually the same phrase that Woodward called a veiled threat. “You will regret staking out that claim,” The Washington Post reporter was told.
Once I moved back to daily reporting this year, the badgering intensified. I wrote Saturday night, asking the official to stop e-mailing me. The official wrote, challenging Woodward and my tweet. “Get off your high horse and assess the facts, Ron,” the official wrote.
I wrote back:
“I asked you to stop e-mailing me. All future e-mails from you will be on the record -- publishable at my discretion and directly attributed to you. My cell-phone number is … . If you should decide you have anything constructive to share, you can try to reach me by phone. All of our conversations will also be on the record, publishable at my discretion and directly attributed to you.”
I haven’t heard back from the official. It was a step not taken lightly because the note essentially ended our working relationship. Without the cloak of anonymity, government officials can’t be as open with reporters – they can’t reveal as much information and they can’t explain the nuance and context driving major events.
I changed the rules of our relationship, first, because it was a waste of my time (and the official’s government-funded salary) to engage in abusive conversations. Second, I didn’t want to condone behavior that might intimidate less-experienced reporters, a reaction I personally witnessed in journalists covering the Obama administration.
That gets to why this matters beyond the incestuous Washington culture. One of this country’s most important traditions is “a free press that isn’t afraid to ask questions, to examine and to criticize,” Obama said at the 2012 White House Correspondents Association’s annual dinner.
Because of tech-fueled changes in the market, there are fewer reporters doing more work with less experience than when I came to Washington with Clinton in 1993. Also, the standard relationship between reporters and their sources is more combative, a reflection of polarization in Washington and within the media industry.
Personally, I had a great relationship with Clinton’s communications team, less so with President Bush's press shop, and now -- for the first time in my career -- I told a public servant to essentially buzz off.
This can’t be what Obama wants. He must not know how thin-skinned and close-minded his staff can be to criticism. “I have the greatest respect and admiration for what you do,” Obama told reporters a year ago. “I know sometimes you like to give me a hard time, and I certainly like to return the favor, but I never forget that our country depends on you.”
In fact, the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.
So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.
Now can you post the recording of the 30 minute phone conversation between the WH aide and Woodward?
If Woodard, a lifelong democrat who brought down Nixon in Watergate, didn't feel that this was such a big deal, why would he give interviews saying he felt threatened by people in this administration?
He said the "you will regret this" statement was the big threat, the email itself debunks that claim.
Linear Mode
