It certainly is refreshing to see someone stand up and speak truth in an arena where he will certainly be the underdog.
Bob Woodward...or Watergate fame...has stated an opinion that directly opposes the President and his administration as relates to the Sequestration matter. He did so knowing he would be flayed alive for it and yet did so anyway.
Particularly noteworthy is the fact Mr. Woodward is certainly not a Conservative. Richard Nixon would be happy to affirm that were he alive.
Yes, I'd say Woodward exhibited courage.
He didn't, however, want to label a lie a lie; he should've done that.
So he's not there yet. He's not ready to admit how tyrannical this White House is.
But the situation illustrates that even liberals aren't exempt from Obama's ire if they expose his untruths and bullying ways.
I have always thought that Bob Woodward and Obama's White House were in a symbiotic kind of relationship, especially during Obama's first presidential term, when Woodward was given "full access" to the White House and to Obama himself when he was gathering material for his two books that touched or tugged gently on Obama's style of leadership. Now that the ties have been cut (irretrievably? I doubt), it would be interesting to find out how the rest of the main stream media would act and react to two of their own (liberal, progressive, left leaning etc.) having such a very public fight. Who will they side with? Reading ScottGrubber's post, it seems he is still firmly on the side of the much adored and venerated president
Bob Woodward is one of the few who would not be intimidated by this group of leftist thugs.
Why should he be? He knows what to do with politicians.
Mr.Gruber strikes me as one who would happily volunteer to redact our history books to suit the administration.
Someone disagreed with the President!
Is this supposed to be news? Woodward is a Fox commentator now.
Statistical analysis shows that people become more leftist during their lives but become comparatively more conservative to the mainstream because it becomes more progressive faster, as a result it's pretty clear that someone who was not a conservative during the Nixon administration may well be one now.
Wow. Melodrama much?
Bob Woodward got into a spat with an economic adviser over the sequence of negotiations that created sequestration two years ago. Bob remembers one version of events, the White House remembers it differently.
Nobody's getting "flayed alive." I know in the right-wing nut-job multiverse, Generalisimo Hussein Obama has journalists hung by their eyelashes for printing negative stories, but that doesn't actually happen in this universe.
But it is quite entertaining to see the RWNJs hailing Bob Woodward as their new hero. Do continue - it's endlessly hilarious.
Considering that Bob Woodward has lately been contributing quite a bit of political commentary on Fox News , most of it critical of Obama's handling of the Benghazi tragedy, and the sequestration debacle, The White House's response to it ( Woodward going rogue, and in effect co-habiting with the enemy) was not unexpected. But to make quite a public spectacle of the whole thing is counterintuitive as it was counterproductive, much as what Obama is now doing... threatening and scaring the American people of the "dire" consequences of the sequestration... an idea that Obama himself authored and signed into law in 2011.
How could he do that? Taxes he wants to raise maybe?
See I am a little bit conflicted on this.
Woodward's reply e-mail gave no indication that he felt threatened in any way, shape, or form. However, I am curious as to what it means to be sorry for running a story.
That's the question, really.
And Woodward indicated he's partly concerned because young inexperienced reporters may be treated that way and may feel very intimidated.
There's another recent story where another reporter was even more bullied; the paper that ran his story was told not to run his stories again or something, something about being banned from access to the White House press conferences............I need to check that out again....I just heard a little bit about it on Hannity earlier...........
Well, with the passage of the NDAA, the administration showed it was theoretically willing to violate the free speech rights of anyone. Obama may not end up doing anything to journalists (aside from access issues, which I think is a tool any administration has as its disposal). Unfortunately, expanding the power of the feds to this extent, aside from the violation of free speech, is also setting a dangerous precedent for future presidents.
Wow, Hannity! Now there is an open minded disinterested objective source!
Oh no don't worry. They said that but they didn't really say that because it was in the right wing nut job multiverse..
Even though they did say that.
Speaking the truth is what is expected! Why would he get praised for that. I like Woodward and the openess that Obama has shown in previous interviews with him shows that he does as well. This flap is over whether a staff member was thrteatening him when he said ""I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today, You're focusing on a few specific trees that give a very wrong impression of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. … I think you will regret staking out that claim."
That quote - which is directly from Bob Woodward- doesnt sound that threatening to me.. So what is the big deal, a White House Staffer disagreeing with a writer or the fact that it is out in the open?
Yeah, you are right! The email didn't read as a threat but it is hard to tell what the actual posturing was in an email. Evidently there was a heated debate before the email? and I'd say only Woodward would know if any of this was actually meant as a threat or intimidation in the total context of his experience with the White House. I mean who are we to criticize "the most transparent administration in history" Duh! (if you believe that I have a bridge to sell ya....cheap).
Here's a peek into the right wing nut job multiverse:
Exactly. Woodward himself doesn't say he actually felt threatened, and says he doesn't believe this was part of an actual White House communications strategy. It was a heated exchange with one official. He's downplaying the incident.
In the RWNJ Multiverse, however, you're painting Bob Woodward as the sole journalistic voice standing up against tyranny, despite the fact that there are multiple newspapers, radio talk shows, blogs and even a cable news network devoted to bashing the President.
In reality CNN thought it was worth bringing up and pressing him on.
In the left wing nut job multiverse you fully agree with the statement he will be sorry.
That was said. It's a fact.
There is one and only one News network that doesn't chirp the chirp, tweet the tweet, join the barking chain along with the mainstream media. They are bashed continually for that. I hardly see it but if I want to find out about something and not listen to how the Republicans are causing a problem according to the left wing nut job multiverse they bow to I will watch Fox.
Woodward said the word "regret" was "coded" to mean "you better watch out."
He also said Sperling shouted at him over the phone for 30 minutes.
To understand what really happened - you need to read Woodward's original piece where he describes the sequester problem as "madness."
Given that Lonny Davis and Ron Fournier (both liberals) have said they, too, were bullied by the Obama Administration, this appears to be par for the course.
The throne-worshipers here might not like it - but there it is.
Never said that now did I?
It's Bob Woodward talking about the incident.
I think you did say that - Here is what you said:
"Here's a peek into the right wing nut job multiverse:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t72SRceRqcQ (this link is a CNN video in case you didn't notice)
I did notice. I purposely used CNN and the multiverse thing is in response to the snarky response I got above from someone living in the left wing nut job mulitverse. He's probably busy tending his unicorn right now.
Oh sorry, I missed that...Your post didn't have a reference (like "in reply to this") following these posts can be confusing. I'm "right" with ya now.
Bob Woodward's own reply to the email rather contradicts what he is now saying about it.
Bob Woodward telling it like it is. On MSNBC...Not Fox.
Oh noes - now they'll label MSNBC as a right wing propaganda machine.
Do you find it strange at all that there are people willing to throw themselves (and all logic) under the bus for this President?
Woodward is standing up and declaring that the Emperor has no clothes, but the Obamatrons are purposefully looking away so they wont have to see the President's....well, you know.
It's weird because almost every liberal I ask thinks Obama is just Ok and every hardcore leftist I talk to doesn't think much of him at all. An opinion I share, Obama is a mediocre president at best just much better than the alternative is all.
This Obama cult mainly exists in the minds of conservatives.
Obama has been horrendous on civil liberties, even worse than Bush. He's just less bellicose about it.
However, he has pushed for increased environmental regulations to combat climate change (while also supporting the Keystone Pipeline), turned into a supporter of gay marriage, and has been willing to fund infrastructure repair and education- which are all positions consistent with a moderate Republican, but still good nonetheless.
The right has just turned nasty and reactionary, so Obama in comparison strikes those leftists like me as highly reasonable. But, examining his kill list and the NDAA, he is a supporter of the police state, which is a highly disappointing aspect of his presidency.
Obama suported the Keystone pipeline? Are you serious?
If he reallysupported it, the construction of that pipeline should be half-finished by now. The fact is he continues to bow to his rabid environmentalist supporters.
His administration recently released a report saying it wouldn't be detrimental to the environment. His inaction is not due to a lack of support; it's his calculation that the political winds are not quite ready.
So in Obama's world, political considerations are more important than economic necessities? WOW , quite a stunning realization, but not one I am so totally unexpecting, considering that Obama is the most ideologically bent president since...?....I could not think of any other president as ideologically driven as Obama.
I agree that there isn't a widespread love for Obama, or an Obama 'cult'. What is a more common trend is a general acceptance of his policies based on the notion that the other guy would be worse. There has to be a point, though, where we all have to demand better.
I'm at peace with people who disagree with me economically, but when we're dealing with basic civil liberties and people's lives, simply pointing at the Republicans is not good enough. Even if, as many on the left try to tell me, Obama is forced to work with the Republicans on the NDAA in order to pass other policies, this is no excuse for acceptance. We then have to conclude he is compromised and therefore not fit to be President.
The only 'cult' we need to be looking at is this cult of apathy and acceptance, 'the better of two evils' NONSENSE. Ok, no ranting.
Agreed, it's why I voted third party but the practical truth is we are left with little true alternative than one far less than perfect party and one living in the wrong century and I am not sure how to fix it.
Third party voting in the US has never really caught on which leaves your average voter with a tough choice, vote for inferior parties or effectively waste their vote and as a result get something even worse.
In Oklahoma, the choices on the ballot were Romney and Obama. I expect Romney would've been pretty much the same as Obama on foreign policy, without the diplomatic illusion of reasonableness that Obama portrays.
But, on social and economic issues, Romney was a true corporate conservative. He would have done nothing to fundamentally help anyone who wasn't rich.
Every bit as much as Josak assures us Obama is not left I can certainly assure you Romney is and was not right.
There hasn't been a Conservative in the White House since Ronald Reagan.
The right believes in reducing regulations and taxes on businesses.
Romney was right because he agreed with those things. You could say Romney wasn't right enough (since he wasn't a real libertarian), but you can't argue that he isn't right.
Obama isn't left because he doesn't support any of the ideas the left does. His ideas for minuscule tax raises, his willingness to cut programs for the poor, his support of imperialism (which isn't a necessarily left or right issue, but is usually supported by neocons), and his unwillingness to hold the banks accountable are just a few of the ways he differs from a real liberal. Raising taxes alone does not make a politician liberal. Taxes could be raised for imperialism or the police state.
Romney was on the same railroad tracks as the right, he just didn't travel far enough down the road for many of the libertarian variety.
I don't think lots of the left folks share your views otherwise he wouldn't have gotten re-elected.
Of course it would have helped had there been a viable contender against him.....
Obama or Romney. Which one would a liberal vote for if given no other alternative?
You're right that some liberals refuse to criticize Obama. I think it's because they are afraid if they fling the type of rhetorical bombs at Obama they did at Bush, then it will help a republican win the next presidential election. But if the democrats and republicans are the same on the violation of civil liberties, being silent isn't going to be effective.
It had nothing to do with who was running against him, content is king, the problem is there was no legitimate political platform running against him, right wing loons are not a viable alternative.
Reagan is not a modern day conservative really. The modern conservative movement is obsessed with so called fiscal responsibility Reagan was the man who begun large scale debt spending for economic stimulus I don't agree with everything Reagan did but unlike present day conservatives he understood modern economics.
I don't think so.
I recall watching people gush all over themselves simply because a black man won the Presidency. There were news segments, even, on that subject. I remember seeing an elderly black woman gush about it, and the reporters said well she's an old woman so she's got a right to (be biased) if she wants to. Ummm...no, she really didn't have a moral right to be biased, even if she had a legal one.
Because she didn't talk about his policies or anything; she simply make it clear that she was gonna vote for him because his face was black.
Most of them didn't care what he was like politically or personally; they just saw his face and lost their will to make good decisions.
And some of them thought he really would help them, again simply because he was a "minority" and they assumed he really wanted to help them. Even some white people. But all he really wanted was their vote. I remember at our polling place at the first election, a neighbor of mine started gushing about how Obama was gonna help poor people and those who couldn't afford health insurance. She said she'd vote for him twice if she could! That's a totally unpatriotic and nutty thing to say, just like the older lady I mentioned. Yep, she was mesmerized just like all those people who cried when he won, like the woman on tv who said Obama was gonna pay her bills, and all those people whose legs got all tingly like Chris Matthews! LOLOL. That's cult-follower behavior.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/2 … 77681.html
Here's even an article..using the same video I posted...from the Huffington Post.
Gotta be right....cause you know that the hipper types never lie.......do ya?
by IslandBites 5 weeks ago
"We're in crazytown!"Bob Woodward: Trump's aides stole his papers 'to protect the country'"He's an idiot. It's pointless to try to convince him of anything. He's gone off the rails. We're in crazytown," John Kelly is quoted as saying at a staff meeting in his office. "I...
by taburkett 4 years ago
Why do US citizens continue to support a failing Administration. Is it because they are communists.With the latest scandal exposed about the Administration, one would think that the citizens would wake up to the destructive game being played by the leaders of the White House and Senate. ...
by ptosis 13 months ago
Oh the sting of betrayal goes deep.Benedict DonaldWhat do you think about what National labor leader Richard Trumka said;"You had two factions in the White House, you had one faction that actually had some of the policies that we would have supported on trade and infrastructure but turned out...
by Cassie Smith 5 years ago
Why is the White House acting like the Mafia?They threatened Bob Woodward with an email saying that he'll regret disagreeing with the White House regarding the budget cuts. Should we now start kissing Obama's ring?
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 7 months ago
What steps should be taken to reorganize?Jared Kushner? John Kelly? Sessions? Ivanka?Should Melania file for divorce?Should Trump pray more?Is Mike Pence the sane one
by taburkett 5 years ago
With corruption in the White House, who do you think will restore the Constitution of the USA?.The USA has reached a new corruptive pinnacle through the class-warfare, race raucous, and lying games orchestrated by the Administration. Hiding behind their "Cloaked Transparency"...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|