Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward attacked President Barack Obama on Wednesday, saying the commander-in-chief’s decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier because of budget cuts is “a kind of madness.”
“Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, ‘Oh, by the way, I can’t do this because of some budget document?’” Woodward said Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“Or George W. Bush saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to invade Iraq because I can’t get the aircraft carriers I need’ or even Bill Clinton saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters,’ as he did when Clinton was president because of some budget document?” Woodward added. “Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement. ‘I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country.’ That’s a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time.”
The Pentagon announced earlier this month the U.S.S. Harry Truman, which was supposed to leave for the Persian Gulf, will remain stateside due to budget concerns. The sequester, which will cut billions in defense spending, is scheduled to hit on Friday.
Woodward has become an unlikely conservative hero in recent days for calling out the administration over whether Obama had “moved the goal posts”’ in negotiations over the sequester.
Apparently all it takes to become an unlikely conservative hero these days is a complete lack of grounding in fiscal reality. Seeing as we have more aircraft carriers then the entire rest of the world, combined, we'll just have to make do somehow.
Next, I hope to see an editorial lambasting President Obama for being "weak on defense" because he won't deploy orbital nuclear weapons just because some piece of paper says he can't.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote: Apparently all it takes to become an unlikely conservative hero these days is a complete lack of grounding in fiscal reality. Seeing as we have more aircraft carriers then the entire rest of the world, combined, we'll just have to make do somehow.
Next, I hope to see an editorial lambasting President Obama for being "weak on defense" because he won't deploy orbital nuclear weapons just because some piece of paper says he can't.
It's just politics...
Although, I do find it strange that the ICE department is releasing the illegals... Jan Brewer is pissed... but, then again, she seemed pissed a lot lately.
Automatically Appended Next Post: oho... did the WH just threaten Woodward? THE Woodward? WTF?
Bob Woodward has revealed that a "senior" White House official warned he would "regret challenging them" with a story about the origin of sequester. Given how Woodward earned his stripes as a reporter, the White House must have felt the issue was very important indeed.
Woodward revealed an email he received from the White House about his sequester story, which argued that the White House had originally proposed the plan and was moving the goal posts for political reasons. Video of an interview Woodward gave to Politico shows him making the claim. He apparently said the same thing on CNN a few hours later.
Earlier in the day, Woodward appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe and said what the White House was doing was "a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time." Though he didn't spell out how long, this seemed to be an allusion to the Nixon White House.
Woodward's revelation undercuts the claims made by a number of media figures that the origin of the sequester is inconsequential. Recently, Howard Kurtz proclaimed it a "pointless" argument. Chuck Todd also opined that it was "one of the dumber" arguments. Apparently the White House did not agree and felt strongly enough about it to risk bullying one of the most respected journalists in Washington.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/28 00:48:40
But, to me "gimmie dat generation" are the voters. But, then again... nothing really changed so the current voters need a new name.
Yeah, I don't think there's anything particularly unique in this generation. You think it was different during the Flint strikes? That was just one group trying to claim a bigger piece of the pie, and another group trying to keep it to themselves.
It's why the Republican claims that this or that policy by the Democrats is class warfare are so very silly - there's always class warfare. The workers are always trying to claim a bigger piece of the pie. The employers are always trying to claim a bigger piece of the pie. Human history is the history of 'gimmie dat'.
Just look at the sequestation hysteria... even the GOP Governors are crying about the cuts, when they RAN on lower spending.
They're all hypocrites.
Easy E put it wonderfully - those cuts were supposed to happen to somebody else.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I don't get the whole Woodward angle. I'm not trying to "discredit" him, I'm just not understanding how the House and Senate are going to blame the President for legislation that the majority of them voted for and then advanced to his desk for him to sign. I mean, what is the argument here, exactly? Are they claiming they're totally spineless rubber stamps and pretending that's an improvement over what they were before? Honestly, just baffling.
Alright Whembly, you can now go to line 30.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/28 03:07:19
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote: I don't get the whole Woodward angle. I'm not trying to "discredit" him, I'm just not understanding how the House and Senate are going to blame the President for legislation that the majority of them voted for and then advanced to his desk for him to sign. I mean, what is the argument here, exactly? Are they claiming they're totally spineless rubber stamps and pretending that's an improvement over what they were before? Honestly, just baffling.
Yeah... the all voted on it because the believed they could come up with a "Grand Bargain".
I think the WH is upset that Woodward is saying that the sequestration idea came from the WH... contradicting the WH's claim that it was the Republican's idea.
Truth of the matter... the HOUSE and SENATE voted for it... and OBAMA signed it. ALL of them own it.
EDIT: Holy gak OUZE! That's fething hilarious!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/28 03:08:50
Indeed. Ultimately, as they all sit around, pointing at each other, poop all over their faces, it doesn't ultimately matter whose idea it was to fling it first. Where we are is kind of the important part, and that is: poopfaced.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote: Indeed. Ultimately, as they all sit around, pointing at each other, poop all over their faces, it doesn't ultimately matter whose idea it was to fling it first. Where we are is kind of the important part, and that is: poopfaced.
If anyone still doubts that the sequestration is all political theatre with absolutely no economic reality underneath it, here's the testimony of Ben Bernanke, chairman of the fed, from today;
"Significant progress has been made recently toward reducing the federal budget deficit over the next few years. The projections released earlier this month by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicate that, under current law, the federal deficit will narrow from 7 percent of GDP last year to 2-1/2 percent in fiscal year 2015.8 As a result, the federal debt held by the public (including that held by the Federal Reserve) is projected to remain roughly 75 percent of GDP through much of the current decade.
However, a substantial portion of the recent progress in lowering the deficit has been concentrated in near-term budget changes, which, taken together, could create a significant headwind for the economic recovery … Moreover, besides having adverse effects on jobs and incomes, a slower recovery would lead to less actual deficit reduction in the short run for any given set of fiscal actions."
What I don't understand now... is that the WH and their "allies" are trying to discredit Woodward! It's assinine...
It doesn't make any sense to me as a threat because, honestly, no-one really listens to Woodward anymore. He tried like hell to take down the Bush administration (staked his reputation on the claim that in 2006 or so an attack on Iran was imminent). Any report of a threat against Woodward is far bigger news than what Woodward is actually saying so... I don't know.
I suspect what we've seen is an attempt to manage media reporting that the Obama official screwed up (they're a very modern political organisation and that means media management is intense). The quoted email text sounds like it was an attempt to explain the situation in a more Obama friendly interpretation that got heated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Alright Whembly, you can now go to line 30.
Brilliant!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/28 03:23:35
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
What I don't understand now... is that the WH and their "allies" are trying to discredit Woodward! It's assinine...
It doesn't make any sense to me as a threat because, honestly, no-one really listens to Woodward anymore. He tried like hell to take down the Bush administration (staked his reputation on the claim that in 2006 or so an attack on Iran was imminent). Any report of a threat against Woodward is far bigger news than what Woodward is actually saying so... I don't know.
I suspect what we've seen is an attempt to manage media reporting that the Obama official screwed up (they're a very modern political organisation and that means media management is intense). The quoted email text sounds like it was an attempt to explain the situation in a more Obama friendly interpretation that got heated.
meh... The fact that the WH is taking on Woodward so aggressively, IMO, lends credence to his account.
Ouze wrote: Apparently all it takes to become an unlikely conservative hero these days is a complete lack of grounding in fiscal reality. Seeing as we have more aircraft carriers then the entire rest of the world, combined, we'll just have to make do somehow.
Next, I hope to see an editorial lambasting President Obama for being "weak on defense" because he won't deploy orbital nuclear weapons just because some piece of paper says he can't.
It's just politics...
Although, I do find it strange that the ICE department is releasing the illegals... Jan Brewer is pissed... but, then again, she seemed pissed a lot lately.
Jan Brewer is a woman I would NOT want to cross in any capacity. I want to move back to AZ specifically so I can keep voting for her.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Ouze wrote: Apparently all it takes to become an unlikely conservative hero these days is a complete lack of grounding in fiscal reality. Seeing as we have more aircraft carriers then the entire rest of the world, combined, we'll just have to make do somehow.
Next, I hope to see an editorial lambasting President Obama for being "weak on defense" because he won't deploy orbital nuclear weapons just because some piece of paper says he can't.
It's just politics...
Although, I do find it strange that the ICE department is releasing the illegals... Jan Brewer is pissed... but, then again, she seemed pissed a lot lately.
Jan Brewer is a woman I would NOT want to cross in any capacity. I want to move back to AZ specifically so I can keep voting for her.
What's she like? From afar, she seems like a tough broad.... and wagged that famous finger at the Prez.
Ouze wrote: Apparently all it takes to become an unlikely conservative hero these days is a complete lack of grounding in fiscal reality. Seeing as we have more aircraft carriers then the entire rest of the world, combined, we'll just have to make do somehow.
Next, I hope to see an editorial lambasting President Obama for being "weak on defense" because he won't deploy orbital nuclear weapons just because some piece of paper says he can't.
It's just politics...
Although, I do find it strange that the ICE department is releasing the illegals... Jan Brewer is pissed... but, then again, she seemed pissed a lot lately.
Jan Brewer is a woman I would NOT want to cross in any capacity. I want to move back to AZ specifically so I can keep voting for her.
What's she like? From afar, she seems like a tough broad.... and wagged that famous finger at the Prez.
Up close she's a tougher broad. Gotta consider what state she's running. No wimps allowed on the border, you gotta be ready to kick arse and take names from day one. Especially with the border troubles and minimal help from the federales. *snorts* DHS, useless lot of feth heads.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Don't they know he took down a previous administration? (not that there's really anything in the current one).
I hope they piss him off. It would be nice to have one "lefty" actually start going after Obama. Note: I like Woodward actually. He's usually pretty good at getting inside an administration.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Releasing the illegals is crazy and borderline criminal. The WH is saying "we didn't do it." Guess what Edited by Manchu, YOU"RE THE GUYS IN CHARGE.
This explains a lot.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/28 23:36:42
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Don't they know he took down a previous administration? (not that there's really anything in the current one).
I hope they piss him off. It would be nice to have one "lefty" actually start going after Obama. Note: I like Woodward actually. He's usually pretty good at getting inside an administration.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Releasing the illegals is crazy and borderline criminal. The WH is saying "we didn't do it." Guess what Edited by Manchu, YOU"RE THE GUYS IN CHARGE.
NOTABLES CLASH OF THE TITANS: Veteran journalist Bob Woodward is embroiled in an extraordinary public clash with the White House over his reporting on the sequester, reports ABC’s Devin Dwyer. Woodward has been making the rounds accusing a “very senior person” in the administration of threatening him last week ahead of an op-ed he later published in the Washington Post attributing the idea for the automatic spending cuts to President Obama. The blitz drew a harsh rebuke from former senior Obama adviser David Plouffe Wednesday night: “Watching Woodward last 2 days is like imagining my idol Mike Schmidt facing live pitching again. Perfection gained once is rarely repeated,” he wrote on Twitter. http://abcn.ws/XcphXC
BACKSTORY: 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. Woodward’s report has rankled administration officials, particularly since it undermines the narrative the White House has been pushing ahead the March 1 sequester deadline. Democrats claim the automatic cuts were mutually agreed upon and never intended to be enacted, making Obama’s demand for new revenue a legitimate one. Republicans claim the sequester was Obama’s idea and that any replacement plan was to be entirely cuts. 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.” http://abcn.ws/XcphXC
WOODWARD AND SPERLING: BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith, citing unnamed sources, first reported last night that the official with whom Woodward had the tense exchange was the director of the White House Economic Council Gene Sperling. BuzzFeed’s story: http://bit.ly/Z0ZXl1 And this morning, Politico released the e-mails in question: http://politi.co/YBLRof
My twittah feed is going nuts over this... not sure why, but they're acting as if all of this is "new", ie: The Bob Woodward story isn’t important. That’s why liberals and the media (PTR) are losing their minds over it.
Remember: They’re not attacking Bob Woodward because they think he’s lying. They’re attacking him because they think he’s telling the truth.
David Freddoso: If you don’t want to be badmouthed, stop saying things unhelpful to our president.
It was one of those real vacationy vacations. Lots of beach, lots of cocktails, little or no news. The most ambitious I got was on the second day, when we rented a golf cart and toured the entire length and breadth of Isla Mujeres — before lunch. If you ever find yourself at the Privilege Aluxes beach bar, order the hot wings (more of a Jamaica jerk than Buffalo) with a side of habanero sauce.
We didn’t get back until well after midnight last night, so it’s with some trepidation that I’m sticking a single toe slowly back into the news and
OMIGOD THE WHITE HOUSE IS GOING TOWAR AGAINST BOB EFFING WOODWARD???
An infinite and expanding universe is incapable of holding enough popcorn for this show. Imagine Brian Cox joining the Campus Crusade for Christ. Imagine me on a horse with my gentle sidekick, tilting at Glenmorangie. Picture, if you can for just one moment, a day with three or just four links from Instapundit.
All of these things are more likely than a Democrat White House going to war against Bob Woodward. And yet it has happened.
Of course, now is when journalists of every stripe, from far leftwinger to slightly less far leftwinger, will rally ’round the man who inspired each of them to become a journalist! The man who brought down a President!
My, but the crickets do chirp loudly for this time of year.
The long knives will come out for Bob Woodard, mark my words. Richard Nixon had to be destroyed because he created the EPA and ended the war in Vietnam and instituted wage & price controls — while having the gaul to not be a Democrat. And now one of their own is going after Teh Won? He. Must. Be. Destroyed.
It won’t happen, of course. Woodward is too much of an institution, and far too sane join in his own demise. And there’s a good chance that enough of the press still has enough integrity not to join in, either. But don’t listen for many full-throated defenses of Woodward, either — not from the White House Steno Pool, anyway. And already, day and night, the producers and crew at NBC News are deceptively editing old video to make it appear as though it were Woodward who ordered Alderaan to be destroyed, and right after Rachel Maddow had told him everything he wanted to know, too.
So I can’t tell you if I’m this giddy because of eight days of total relaxation, or because of good times spent with my wife and two of our closest and bestest friends, or because of the lingering effects of an irrational number of double-añejo-rum-on-the-rocks. But I can tell you that the White House-Woodward War is the greatest show on earth.
But first I have to put in a bulk order of enough Orville Redenbacher to cover the hot side of Mercury.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/28 23:37:16
Seb covered why most of this sequester nonsense is pointless and stupid. As someone (Whembly?) said, rising medical costs for medicare/medicaid are pretty much the number one issue. The trouble is the the medical insurance lobby has basically gutted the government's ability to negotiate on Medicare costs; they're too afraid medical insurance companies would lose money if Medicare could negotiate. Fixing our disgustingly high medical costs will do more to help the federal deficit than cutting 2.4% ever could. As long as Big Business has its say though, we are thoroughly boned.
I became a federal employee recently, and opted to go with GEHA insurance. Non-profit insurer, which is awesome. They ARE allowed to negotiate, and have amazing benefits.
Fortunately for me, the head of my division saw sequestration coming and stashed away enough of our budget that we will not be furloughed.
1. Obama, despite the media blitz to blame the GOP, actually conceived of and proposed the sequester.
2. Obama, despite now claiming that tax increases must be part of the deal to avoid the sequester, agreed last year that only spending cuts would constitute the plan to avoid the sequester. Thus, he's "moved goalposts" yet again.
3. Obama does not in fact have to release illegal aliens or cancel ship deployments due to the sequester -- he's doing these things by choice, for political purposes.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Since you two cannot play together nicely you can both go to your rooms and think about what you've done. Hey, get out of the cookies! I can't turn my back on you for one minute can I.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Why Bob Woodward's Fight With The White House Matters to You
The fight between the White House and journalistic legend Bob Woodward is a silly distraction to a major problem: The failure of President Obama and House Republicans to lead the country under a budget deadline.
Woodward-gate is a distraction the White House welcomed, even encouraged, as part of a public-relations strategy to emasculate the GOP and anybody else who challenges Obama. It is a distraction that briefly enveloped my reporting last weekend, when I essentially broke ties with a senior White House official.
Yes, I iced a source– and my only regret is I didn’t do it sooner. I decided to share this encounter because it might shed light on the increasingly toxic relationship between media and government, which is why the Woodward flap matters outside the Beltway.
On Saturday, White House press secretary Jay Carney accused Woodward of being “willfully wrong” on a story holding the White House accountable for its part in a legislative gimmick called sequestration. (Months ago, the GOP-controlled House passed, and Obama signed, legislation imposing $1.2 trillion in cuts unless an alternative is found by Friday.)
Carney isn’t the first press secretary to criticize a reporter. Presidential aides do it all the time to set the record straight or -- often, more cynically -- to dodge accountability. I was struck by the fact that Carney’s target has a particular history with White House attacks. I tweeted: “Obama White House: Woodward is ‘willfully wrong.' Huh-what did Nixon White House have to say about Woodward?”
Reporting by Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered Watergate misdeeds and led to the resignation of President Nixon. My tweet was not intended to compare Nixon to Obama (there is no reason to doubt Obama’s integrity -- period) but rather to compare the attack to the press strategies of all the presidents’ men.
I had angered the White House, particularly a senior White House official who I am unable to identify because I promised the person anonymity. Going back to my first political beat, covering Bill Clinton’s administration in Arkansas and later in Washington, I’ve had a practice that is fairly common in journalism: A handful of sources I deal with regularly are granted blanket anonymity. Any time we communicate, they know I am prepared to report the information at will (matters of fact, not spin or opinion) and that I will not attribute it to them.
This is an important way to build a transparent and productive relationship between reporters and the people they cover. Nothing chills a conversation faster than saying, “I’m quoting you on this.”
The official angered by my Woodward tweet sent me an indignant e-mail. “What’s next, a Nazi analogy?” the official wrote, chastising me for spreading “bull**** like that” I was not offended by the note, mild in comparison to past exchanges with this official. But it was the last straw in a relationship that had deteriorated.
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 Politico characterized as 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.”
Now, obviously Woodward put a stress on Sperling's original comment of 'regret' quite deliberately. Perhaps he didn't mean for it to be taken all the way to 'threat' but he certainly was implying something in that direction. Now he's running away from that, because he realises it makes him look like an idiot.
This is largley because as the greater story is becoming clear, it's becoming obvious that Woodward's analysis is, well, terrible. His idea that any deal to negate sequestration could not include revenue measures is just plain old terrible analysis.
"Woodward’s argument is that Obama agreed that the failure to secure a debt agreement would trigger automatic budget cuts, or sequestration. Since sequestration did not include tax increases, he claims, Obama is “moving the goalposts” by demanding them.
Obama is moving the goalposts in the sense of trying to alter the terms of the automatic sequestration. But then, so are the Republicans, who also want to alter the terms of the automatic cuts. The 2011 agreement was designed to forestall a debt ceiling crisis and force some kind of agreement on the budget later, the parameters of which the two sides would have to contest. Literally nobody involved believes that Obama agreed, in any literal or figurative sense, that a failure to get a deal before the election meant he would give up trying to include revenue. Woodward’s argument is demonstrably absurd."
Don't wait for any of that to impact to Republican noise machine anytime soon. They've got a new story and they're running with it. Because the alternative is to report that Obama has offered up an establishment vetted, centrist position to resolve the sequestration issue, and the Republicans have backed themselves in to a corner where they cannot accept it. Again.
Why Bob Woodward's Fight With The White House Matters to You
The fight between the White House and journalistic legend Bob Woodward is a silly distraction to a major problem: The failure of President Obama and House Republicans to lead the country under a budget deadline.
And here's the fundamental stupidity of the right wing pundit position, expressed perfectly.
I mean, imagine that I want to buy a car, and you want to sell one (imagine as well that I'm only the possible car buyer in the world, and you're the only seller, because I'm bad at analogies). Consider that everyone is looking in on this deal, and they're all in broad agreement that a trade should happen, and it should be for around $20,000, because that's what the car is worth. We start negotiating, and I make all kinds of declarations about how for the sake of the nation and the lives of our children I cannot pay more than $15,000.
You listen to all that, and you offer up a deal of $20,000. I reject this, and say it must be $15,000 or nothing at all.
Then imagine the pundits out there saying 'oh both sides are to blame. They couldn't come to a deal.'
You look at this and think 'what the merry feth? I offered a good, fair deal. That is literally all I can do. I cannot be blamed for failing to close a deal with people who simply don't want a deal, or want a deal so ridiculous it will never happen. At some point those pundits need to stop making noise, and start looking at the substance of the deal in front of them, and realise the deal I'm offering is the deal everyone accepts is the one that should happen.'
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/01 02:30:18
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
You know that we had a major economic boom over this same period, which also accounts for the net interest as a % of GDP dropping? Also, you mention a grand bargain- I would LOVE a grand bargain, but saying we need one is akin to saying we need to do what Clinton did- address the problem by agreeing to cut some entitlements. Obama says he is willing to do this somewhat... but it is undeniably necessary.
Does the above graph not show our debt as a fraction of GDP approaching post WW2 levels? Seems like a good time to take evasive action to me...
I agree that there are probably 1000s of smarter ways to cut federal spending (more gradually, etc). But if this is the only way that the government can get it's act together enough to do it... well, it's a start.
Entitlements need to be brought under control, plain and simple. I'm willing to pay more taxes, too- but as of the start of this year, I'm Already paying more taxes (or rather, paying what I used to be paying) with regards to Social Security. That is not a tiny hit, and neither is sequestration, but both are necessary in some measure.
Bring on the grand bargain, and stop the squabbling already! But don't tell me we don't need to cut entitlements (not that you are, that's a general "you") or only raise taxes... like any business, the government needs to balance it's books. State and local governments have been doing so for the last few years, and it makes sense that the federal government needs to, too. It's just common sense.
But labelling this a "Republican" or a "Democratic" problem is just silly, imo. Democrats generally want more government programs, Republicans generally want more tax cuts, both of which can be good things in the right circumstances. Finding that balance is the key, and honestly is why I voted for Obama again, as I hope he will. But it's a balance, and some cuts to Federal spending is NOT the end of the world. Are they stupid cuts? Yes, certainly... but some cuts have to be made.
My company just laid off 7 people, out of a 35 person company. We're leaner and honestly better off for it. They were underperformers. It was painful, but we're getting past it. Without steps like that we'd go under (and honestly we still might, things are rough out there for getting funding). To think that the federal government can just continue to grow and not ever cut (not that you're saying this, this is again a general statement) is counter to everything any normal, healthy business does.
You cut back where necessary, invest where necessary, and bring in new sources of revenue when you can. Our government needs to do the same thing and hopefully this step will wake up the lawmakers one way or the other:
1) If no real effect, then they realize cutting isn't the end of the universe
2) If a strong negative effect, then they realize they need to get their act together and cut smarter, not harder
d-usa wrote: Politicians are always in campaign mode. If not for themselves then for their brand.
Well... sure, but a 2nd term Prez?
To be honest, I can only remember Clinton's / Bush's 2nd term and I think Obama campaigned more already in his 2nd term than both Clinton/Bush 2nd term total.
But... eh, his leadership style is different so... probably doesn't matter.
He's not campaigning for himself, but for the Democratic Party and his issues. He still has his community organizer background and knows that campaigning for issues is still an effective way to win the PR battle and to get people calling their reps and senators.
d-usa wrote: He's not campaigning for himself, but for the Democratic Party and his issues. He still has his community organizer background and knows that campaigning for issues is still an effective way to win the PR battle and to get people calling their reps and senators.
RiTides wrote: You know that we had a major economic boom over this same period, which also accounts for the net interest as a % of GDP dropping? Also, you mention a grand bargain- I would LOVE a grand bargain, but saying we need one is akin to saying we need to do what Clinton did- address the problem by agreeing to cut some entitlements.
I think you need to read my post again. I wasn't making any comment that rates have been lower. My point was that rates had been as high as the forecasts before, and the result wasn't catastrophe.
I mean, 'oh my God we must do something or payments will drift up to their 1990 rate and we all remember that was a blighted wasteland of suffering and sorrow' is stupid.
Obama says he is willing to do this somewhat... but it is undeniably necessary.
The cuts being proposed are actually quite undeniably completely unecessary. Hardship for no gain. In fact hardship that will only produce even more hardship. Read Bernanke's quote I already posted in this thread;
"Significant progress has been made recently toward reducing the federal budget deficit over the next few years. The projections released earlier this month by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicate that, under current law, the federal deficit will narrow from 7 percent of GDP last year to 2-1/2 percent in fiscal year 2015.8 As a result, the federal debt held by the public (including that held by the Federal Reserve) is projected to remain roughly 75 percent of GDP through much of the current decade.
However, a substantial portion of the recent progress in lowering the deficit has been concentrated in near-term budget changes, which, taken together, could create a significant headwind for the economic recovery … Moreover, besides having adverse effects on jobs and incomes, a slower recovery would lead to less actual deficit reduction in the short run for any given set of fiscal actions."
Does the above graph not show our debt as a fraction of GDP approaching post WW2 levels? Seems like a good time to take evasive action to me...
The point of that graph was to show what drove each deficit spike, coming as it did after each round of Republican tax cuts. Did you read my answer to whembly, or just look at the graphs?
And the climb in future deficit is due entirely to rising healthcare costs. If you want to take any kind of action, then you have to reform the healthcare system (something the ACA actually did quite a lot of).
I agree that there are probably 1000s of smarter ways to cut federal spending (more gradually, etc). But if this is the only way that the government can get it's act together enough to do it... well, it's a start.
They're not getting their act together. They're replacing one set of stupid policies undertaken for entirely political reasons with a new set of entirely unecessary policies undertaken for political reasons.
I've used this analogy before, but I once saw a guy driving on the freeway, putting on clown make up as he went. It was one of the stupidest, most reckless things I've ever seen, but maybe at least that guy was trying to get to a party where he was going to make someone happy.
What the Republicans are doing doesn't even meet that minimum standard, because not are there actions here stupid and reckless, but they're not even trying to get any benefit out of this for anyone. They're just rejecting long term budget reform (reduced tax deductions and welfare reform) in favour of sequestration cuts that are on programs they actually like (including military cuts).
Not really. Not when much of the stupid is coming from the Washington establishment, who some time ago came to think of themselves as world weary battlers, who just knew the best way forward was a compromise position that reduced tax deductions and reformed welfare programs, and that both parties were equally at fault for failing to deliver it.
But the problem is that Obama has offered up exactly what they said is needed. And the Republicans have rejected it, because they've decided they're going to go back to being insane again this month.
The establishment folk, like Woodward, are caught in a weird bind, because the President is offering exactly what they said was exactly what's needed, but they can't say that, because then they'd be aligning with a Democrat and risk losing their 'pox on both your houses' bi-partisan cred. So instead they write incoherent stupidity about how it's Obama's fault because the other side won't agree to what everyone agrees is a good deal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/01 05:02:41
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
: 
