Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with Bob Woodward. I think he made a mistake on this one, but overall he has had a good career and he has helped this country.

Maybe we should stop cheering or booing him based solely on whether his words support our side or not.

Its not who he backs or who he is critical of, its the "because I'm Bob Woodward", that is used as the supoosition for why whatever he attacks is about to fall. Its a juvenile assumption. The man is an opportunist, nothingmore.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
frankly, i found everyone and every side at fault for this mess. i dont care who started it at this juncture. weve had failed leadership on really wanting to address the issue that its become a joke almost but with real consequences that we choose to treat like nothing because everyone is too busy wanting to argue and be right about this philosophical argument of cuts and taxes

What do you see as the solution? One side wants to raise taxes and spread cuts evenly. The other side refuses to raise taxes and wants the cuts to be aimed at the old, the sick, and the poor. Where is the middle ground?

Power never gives up anything willingly. What's Woodward's tax bracket these days?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:looks like woodward will get his dream job at fox.

Look for The Blaze's Op Ed.

Obama hired Emanuel, a known thug. That tells me all I. Need to know

Rahm is how tall? a thug? In his dreams.

Everyone is a thug to you wing nuts. Bunch of crybabies.

"Don't tread on me! Whimper..."

"So what if I think gays are an abomination? Don't get mad, it's my constitutional right! Why won't they tolerate my intolerance?!!! {sob}"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:looks like woodward will get his dream job at fox.

Look for The Blaze's Op Ed.

Obama hired Emanuel, a known thug. That tells me all I. Need to know

Rahm is how tall? a thug? In his dreams.

Everyone is a thug to you wing nuts. Bunch of crybabies.

"Don't tread on me! Whimper..."

I don't have a problem with Bob Woodward. I think he made a mistake on this one, but overall he has had a good career and he has helped this country.

Maybe we should stop cheering or booing him based solely on whether his words support our side or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares what Ezra Klein thinks... He's a nobody .

Exactly! And Woodward is a big-name fancy pants!

(And you wonder what's wrong with American politics...)

Bob Woodwatd was nothing but a front man for Ben Bradlee, IMHO. Classic move: you want to break a story , but need to protect your contacts, influence and livelihood in Washington? So "deep throat " feeds his tips to these two no names who the report back to their big boss. , who is now not taking any risk beyond backing his two young bucks, and looking like a gem for doing that, perfect. Now Woodward is the man with the career to loose, the contacts and the livelihood to loose. Fat chance he crosses the red lines. He knows damn well where they are.

Anonymous wrote:Given that Woodward comes across as a petulant little primadonna and a liar, Sperling looks more prescient with each passing hour.

Exactly.

Given that Woodward comes across as a petulant little primadonna and a liar, Sperling looks more prescient with each passing hour.

Just in case someone reading here missed it, here's Woodward talking to politico:

Digging into one of his famous folders, Woodward said the tirade [from a White House official] was followed by a page-long email from the aide, one of the four or five administration officials most closely involved in the fiscal negotiations with the Hill. “I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today,” the official typed. “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.”

Woodward repeated the last sentence, making clear he saw it as a veiled threat. “ ‘You’ll regret.’ Come on,” he said. “I think if Obama himself saw the way they’re dealing with some of this, he would say, ‘Whoa, we don’t tell any reporter ‘you’re going to regret challenging us.’”

Here's the Obama goon's (Sperling) response:

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.

To which Woodward responded:

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.

What a lying sack of cat turds Woodward is.

Anonymous wrote:Especially in these times of knee-jerk support of your own political party, it is important to learn from history. One is far more likely to allow political over-reaching from the party with which you agree. You will always easily spot the over-reaching by your opponent, but history is full of examples of tyranny that begin because the supporters of the gov't look the other way (or badger those raising legitimate complaints, etc) when lies and/or over reaching happens.
Kudos to Bob Woodward for speaking his truth on this. When he spoke truth against a Rep., he was a hero, now that he speaks truth against a Dem., he's a turncoat. We, as the public, should be open minded enough to listen and not vilify.

The hilarious thing about your post is your belief that Woodward spoke the truth. The article to which Sperling rejected contained an accusation that is refuted by Woodward's own book. Woodward was simply wrong. When the fact that he was wrong was pointed out all over the media, he tried to take the focus off of it by accusing Sperling of having made a threat. Then, when the full email exchange came out, Woodward became a laughing stock. Even conservatives are running from him now.

Woodward is far from a truth-teller. He is an ego-centric celebrity writer who thinks the President should kowtow to him.

Anonymous wrote:Especially in these times of knee-jerk support of your own political party, it is important to learn from history. One is far more likely to allow political over-reaching from the party with which you agree. You will always easily spot the over-reaching by your opponent, but history is full of examples of tyranny that begin because the supporters of the gov't look the other way (or badger those raising legitimate complaints, etc) when lies and/or over reaching happens.
Kudos to Bob Woodward for speaking his truth on this. When he spoke truth against a Rep., he was a hero, now that he speaks truth against a Dem., he's a turncoat. We, as the public, should be open minded enough to listen and not vilify.

Let's be clear about one thing. Republicans hated Woodward because he brought down a Republican president. Therefore he was "liberal". Meanwhile, no liberal who has ever read Woodward has thought he was a liberal. What he is is a Beltway consensus radical centrist. His job has been to regurgitate the Conventional Wisdom. That's why when Bush was ascendant, he wrote a book about Bush the bold and fearless warrior. As Bush's poor decision-making resulted in a massive failure in Iraq, he repackaged the exact same material as an indictment of Bush. He wrote a glowing hagiography to Alan Greenspan just before his policies cratered the world economy. He wrote a widely debunked book about Obama's first term. You may disagree with my take on his ability as a journalist, but it's frankly idiotic to say that Woodward was a hero among the Left. If you new anything about liberal critique of Beltway journalism, you'd know he's been dismissed as a hack for a very, very long time.

Bob Woodward had a lot of credibility in my mind as someone who remembers Watergate, but I was a kid then , and now that I have lived in Washington almost 20 years I see things very differently. Journalists are used as tools by insiders who leek information for political reasons. Some of the time those reasons are a sense of right and wrong, but other times its just plain old fashioned ambition that leads to leaks. Today in Washington it's this ideologue atmosphere that locks people into such bitterness that , when they can't negotiate politically with each other they leak to a plum journalist .

Not exactly truth telling. Is it? I call it spin mastering. Whether you use Judithillet or Bob Woodward or some other resident of CP who has their kids and their grand kids in Sidwell , has their social circuit all depend on their "influence" that doesn't make it a news story

Especially in these times of knee-jerk support of your own political party, it is important to learn from history. One is far more likely to allow political over-reaching from the party with which you agree. You will always easily spot the over-reaching by your opponent, but history is full of examples of tyranny that begin because the supporters of the gov't look the other way (or badger those raising legitimate complaints, etc) when lies and/or over reaching happens.
Kudos to Bob Woodward for speaking his truth on this. When he spoke truth against a Rep., he was a hero, now that he speaks truth against a Dem., he's a turncoat. We, as the public, should be open minded enough to listen and not vilify.

Anonymous wrote:The House should at least pass a bill. They have nothing.

I know-- they are so protective of their prerogative to originate appropriations bills, except now.

The House should at least pass a bill. They have nothing.