Someone at the White House Should Be Fired

MichiganRico

Superior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Posts
2,802
Media
0
Likes
3,884
Points
258
Location
SW Michigan
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Whoever the high-ranking White House official is who threatened Bob Woodward should be shit-canned stat! (And I don't care if it's the new Chief of Staff.) Intimidation of the press should not and cannot be tolerated in a democracy and harkens back to the dark days of Nixon and his "enemies list." (So much for criticism of Putin and his treatment of the press in the Russian Federation.)

Bob Woodward says he was threatened by White House – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
 
Last edited:

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,305
Media
0
Likes
2,087
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Woodward was never threatened. In fact, you have to worry about his mentation if he really continues to assert this.

Here is an email to Woodward from White House economic adviser Gene Sperling regarding a column that Woodward was working on about sequestration:
I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about 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 bargain 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.
Woodward took the phrase "you will regret staking out that claim" as a threat.

But it's obvious that Sperling's point is that Woodward is just factually wrong, in a way that can easily be shown in the record of discussions around the sequester. He's only saying that Woodward will have egg on his face. In that sense, he will "regret" writing such a column.

Obama always wanted a mixture of tax increases and spending cuts to address deficit reduction. He said this over and over again. In continuing to ask for this mixture, he is in no way "moving the goal posts."
 

balsary

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Posts
1,805
Media
4
Likes
66
Points
193
Location
Indianapolis (Indiana, United States)
Gender
Male
Woodward was never threatened. In fact, you have to worry about his mentation if he really continues to assert this.

Here is an email to Woodward from White House economic adviser Gene Sperling regarding a column that Woodward was working on about sequestration:
I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about 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 bargain 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.
Woodward took the phrase "you will regret staking out that claim" as a threat.

But it's obvious that Sperling's point is that Woodward is just factually wrong, in a way that can easily be shown in the record of discussions around the sequester. He's only saying that Woodward will have egg on his face. In that sense, he will "regret" writing such a column.

Obama always wanted a mixture of tax increases and spending cuts to address deficit reduction. He said this over and over again. In continuing to ask for this mixture, he is in no way "moving the goal posts."

Mind pointing out where your version of the email came from?
 
Last edited:

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,305
Media
0
Likes
2,087
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Mind pointing out where your version of the email came from?
Originally, from Salon, which drew the email from Politico.

Politico even gives Woodward's email response:
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
Doesn't sound much to me like a man who felt threatened.

Very strange.
 

balsary

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Posts
1,805
Media
4
Likes
66
Points
193
Location
Indianapolis (Indiana, United States)
Gender
Male
Originally, from Salon, which drew the email from Politico.

Politico even gives Woodward's email response:
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
Doesn't sound much to me like a man who felt threatened.

Very strange.

Thanks. It seems Sperling was apologizing for raising his voice in an earlier conversation though:

"I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. 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 ... My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize."

Bob Woodward Emails Show White House 'Threat' Was Not So Threatening

I suppose it's possible Woodward could have felt threatened by the comment, but when you take the statement in full context it's hard to see how. Maybe there's more to the story?
 

Bardox

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Posts
2,234
Media
38
Likes
551
Points
198
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Bob Woodward is a journalistic legend. He's been reporting in DC since 1971. He and Carl Bernstein broke the watergate scandal. No one can threaten this man. That being said, he did over react calling this a "threat". From the email I can say that I've had angrier words with a vending machine. The old man has a tough hide. He'll survive.
 

Eric_8

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Posts
3,559
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Lanny Davis echoed a similar sentiment. Clearly nothing short of a gun to a man's head will be considered a threat from the Obama administration on this thread, but I think we should at least raise an eyebrow at it.
 

Bardox

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Posts
2,234
Media
38
Likes
551
Points
198
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Lanny Davis echoed a similar sentiment. Clearly nothing short of a gun to a man's head will be considered a threat from the Obama administration on this thread, but I think we should at least raise an eyebrow at it.

I would agree if a threat had been made, but there just isn't a threat here. Even Erick Erickson said it's not a threat in a tweety earlier.

"Ok wow. Finally read the email to Woodward. I must now move to the 'not a threat' camp." ~EWErickson

The more people read the email, the more people say it wasn't a threat. It's just not there man.
 

Eric_8

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Posts
3,559
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I would agree if a threat had been made, but there just isn't a threat here. Even Erick Erickson said it's not a threat in a tweety earlier.

"Ok wow. Finally read the email to Woodward. I must now move to the 'not a threat' camp." ~EWErickson

The more people read the email, the more people say it wasn't a threat. It's just not there man.

What's a tweety?
 

ViewingPleasure

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Cammer
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Posts
842
Media
1,058
Likes
11,551
Points
523
Location
Virginia, USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Whoever the high-ranking White House official is who threatened Bob Woodward should be shit-canned stat! (And I don't care if it's the new Chief of Staff.) Intimidation of the press should not and cannot be tolerated in a democracy and harkens back to the dark days of Nixon and his "enemies list." (So much for criticism of Putin and his treatment of the press in the Russian Federation.)

Bob Woodward says he was threatened by White House – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

I really doubt it was meant as a threat. Move on.
 

ColoradoGuy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Posts
1,170
Media
35
Likes
1,467
Points
308
Location
Denver (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Whoever the high-ranking White House official is who threatened Bob Woodward should be shit-canned stat! (And I don't care if it's the new Chief of Staff.) Intimidation of the press should not and cannot be tolerated in a democracy and harkens back to the dark days of Nixon and his "enemies list." (So much for criticism of Putin and his treatment of the press in the Russian Federation.)

Bob Woodward says he was threatened by White House – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs


MichiganRico... I think you're going to regret posting this. It's not confirmed by the facts.

There, now I've threatened you in the exactly the same way that Bob Woodward was 'threatened' by Mr. Sperling. Do you feel your scrotum retracting in fear?

No? Don't worry, I didn't think you would... after all, it's not a real threat, is it?
 

rogerg

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Posts
613
Media
0
Likes
370
Points
148
Once again a perfect example of SLO "Selective Liberal Outrage". Finally some one from the mainstream media has challenged Obama on being the liar that he is and the white house clearly will not tolerate being challenged.