Posted on 02/28/2013 4:59:14 PM PST by nickcarraway
The weirdest and most unpredictable turn of the great budget war has been the emergence of Bob Woodward as flashpoint, news-driver, and sudden Republican hero. Woodward published an op-ed last weekend asserting that the Obama administration was “moving the goalposts” from its 2011 debt deal with the Republican House. Woodward now reports that he was threatened by an administration staffer, who turns out to be Economic Council director Gene Sperling. “I think you will regret staking out that claim,” said Sperling. In interviews with CNN and Politico, Woodward portrays this dark warning in sinister terms:
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.’
Threats, by their nature, often involve ambiguous language. (“I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse” could mean “we’ll shoot him if he refuses,” but it could also mean, “let’s make him a really attractive offer.”) You certainly can’t disprove the possibility that Sperling, a diminutive but feisty policy wonk, was attempting to make Woodward fear being targeted for anything ranging from a tax audit to a drone strike. But the more plausible interpretation, which comes through in Sperling's pleading e-mail, is that Sperling meant that Woodward would regret tarnishing his reputation with an easily debunked claim.
As it happens, Sperling was wrong about that, too. Woodward has, not altogether unjustifiably, amassed enough prestige to withstand a hundred terrible op-eds. Indeed, the latest episode will probably serve only to further burnish his reputation, by demonstrating that an administration fears him enough to threaten (or argue with, or beg) him, and that the reporter who took down a Republican president can make enemies of Democratic ones as well. To reconcile Woodward’s journalistic reputation with the weird pettiness of his current role, one has to grasp the distinction between his abilities as a reporter and his abilities as an analyst. Woodward was, and remains, an elite gatherer of facts. But anybody who has seen him commit acts of political commentary on television has witnessed a painful spectacle. As an analyst, Woodward is a particular kind of awful — a Georgetown Wise Man reliably and almost invariably mouthing the conventional wisdom of the Washington Establishment.
His more recent books often compile interesting facts, but how Woodward chooses to package those facts has come to represent a barometric measure of a figure’s standing within the establishment. His 1994 account of Bill Clinton’s major budget bill, which in retrospect was a major success, told a story of chaos and indecision. He wrote a fulsome love letter to Alan Greenspan, “Maestro,” at the peak of the Fed chairman’s almost comic prestige. In 2003, when George W. Bush was still a decisive and indispensable war leader, Woodward wrote a heroic treatment of the Iraq War. After Bush’s reputation had collapsed, Woodward packaged essentially the same facts into a devastating indictment. Woodward’s book on the 2011 debt negotiations was notable for arguing that Obama scotched a potential deficit deal. The central argument has since been debunked by no less a figure than Eric Cantor, who admitted to Ryan Lizza that he killed the deal.
Woodward entered the current debate in a way that is fundamentally analytical, not reportorial. His op-ed does not bring to bear any new facts, but merely crams already known facts into an argument so tendentious that not even Republicans thought to make it before Woodward did. 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.
Woodward has been forcefully advocating this absurdity in a way that illuminates his role as an Establishment cipher. The Establishment view of the budget war is that Obama’s position is completely correct. (That is, of course, a kind of bias — an important one that defines the Republican anti-tax position out of the debate). But Establishmentarians believe even more strongly in “bipartisanship.” The contradiction between the two beliefs leads bipartisan thinkers to any number of silly mental dodges to escape the paradox. Some of them simply ignore Obama’s position, or deny it altogether. A more common dodge, taken up by Woodward and several other bipartisan types, is to insist that Obama must somehow compel Republicans to abandon their anti-tax ideology. Woodward apparently believes — I write “apparently” because Woodward’s position here isn’t coherent enough to define with any certainty — that Obama should actually ignore the law altogether:
“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.” Now, obviously, ignoring the law would amount to an enormous actual abuse of presidential power, in contrast to the almost-certainly-imaginary abuse of dispatching an economic adviser to try to talk a reporter out of writing a really bad op-ed.
Update: Woodward tells the Post's media report he never used the word "threat," and largely pins th e whole brouhaha, which has turned quite embarrassing to Woodward, on Politico:
Politico wrote that in an interview, Woodward had repeated the “regret” line, “making clear he saw it as a veiled threat.” Pressed moments ago on whether he’d ever used the term “threat” or “threatened” by the e-mail, Woodward responded, “No, I have not….I am uncomfortable because it is not the way to operate,” he said. When asked whether he felt there’d be payback on this front, Woodward declined to get into that matter.
Here's what Politico reported: "Woodward repeated the last sentence, making clear he saw it as a veiled threat. “ ‘You’ll regret.’ Come on,” he said." It's true he didn't use the word "threat." Given that he told CNN Sperling's email made him "uncomfortable," and told Politico the effect was "tremble, tremble," the difference seems fairly minor, but it's not nonexistent. Update: Woodward, who has begun to look a little silly as even many conservatives have backed off their initial support, tells the Post's media reporter he didn't use the word "threat," and generally passes the blame for the brouhaha onto Politico:
Politico wrote that in an interview, Woodward had repeated the “regret” line, “making clear he saw it as a veiled threat.” Pressed moments ago on whether he’d ever used the term “threat” or “threatened” by the e-mail, Woodward responded, “No, I have not….I am uncomfortable because it is not the way to operate,” he said. When asked whether he felt there’d be payback on this front, Woodward declined to get into that matter.
Woodward did not use the term "threat." He used terms like "uncomfortable," "tremble, tremble." This is how Politico reported his interview:
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.’ "Threat" does not seem like a totally unfair interpretation of Woodward's account. On the other hand, there's enough space between what he said and "threat" that Politico could arguably bear some portion of the blame for the story's hype.
Woodward, whom I have disadmired since Watergate, is about to pay the price for straying from (i.e., criticizing) the Obama plantation. This is only the first of many media hatchet jobs about to descend on the co-hero who brought down `the hellish Nixon’, and will probably be the major source of regret that Sperling referenced.
Which is not to say that Woodward will not face an IRS audit or confront Secret Service agents at his front door.
What is becoming very apparent is the fact that people have been threatened. These are Democrats coming forward and making the claims. How many Republicans have been threatened?
Watch for when the dam breaks.
The fool! He told the truth! What was he thinking?
Ha ha ha ha!!!!!
That's rich! Woodward is, wasn't and will never be a "Republican hero"! Just for a moment now, he's a Dem villain, as in, "How dare he go off the reservation and try to embarrass Dear Leader!"
The White Hut is sure the dottering old coot will never effectively report on them. Right Bobby???
Maybe Woodward wants to take down one more president for his legacy by being the one to actually point out the fact that the emperor has no clothes. The whole Obama situation is the story of the century just waiting to be told. All journalists have the facts; the facts have been there for the taking since 2007. In their efforts to protect Hussein, MSM have ignored the truth.
Maybe Woodward asked himself, “Why shouldn’t I be the one to scoop everyone else and just tell the truth? I’ll be a hero — again.” The other reporters will be eating his dust.
Totalitarians sweep away washed up propagandists. Their neo-propagandists have arrived with pen and sword. Be quiet Bob and wait for Obamacare to comfort you in your last days. To backpedal is more comforting than a backstab from your faux admirers. Twist in the wind, former ink-stained wretch.
Obama and his administration have become stories of the century within stories of the Century by standards of the past. However the standards of today, merit no such status in the minds of our brain dead culture.
This is fun stuff, Woodward makes me smile for a change (rel political stuff)
Give O ten more headaches, its long coming.
There seems to be a tentative new hesitancy forming.
Hard to describe it, except now that we have PC fully and without limits - we find it is no better than what so many people have worked every day - to build.
It is so stupid, but maybe Woodward actually gets it.
Maybe. Keep an eye on that guy. :D
Woodward and Sperling are playing GOOD Cop, BAD Cop... on the republicans..
and they seem to be buying it..
Woodward was, is not now and never will be other than ultra left wing...
Woodward is in Obamas Camp.. a KoolAid drinker.. you know a TRAITOR..
Jonathan Chait apparently believes -- I write "apparently" because Chait's position here isn't coherent enough to define with any certainty -- that Woodward is a senile old fart who's wandered off the liberal reservation.
It's been a long time since I've read a column jam-packed with such tortuous rationale.
If the spotlight stays on the story throughout tomorrow, I predict the first suggestions/references/allusions to Woodward’s *racism* will appear by the Sunday news shows.
“Woodward is a senile old fart-———”
Gee,I hope you don’t have any elderly people in your life.I’m sure you wouldn’t be much comfort to them.
.
Oh, for cryin' out loud. I am, myself, an elderly person.
And to whom did I clearly attribute that thought? Was it Jonathan Chait...or was it me?
Read it again. I accept your apology in advance.
“Woodward..........is about to pay the the price for straying
.........from the Obama plantation.
“
OR he will be exalted as another David Gergen after he investigates,
reports on, and takes down his next notable Republican. Remember
Gergen. Because that lefty was a go-for in the Reagan Admin and
a butt boy in the Clinton Admin he earned acclaim and credibility
as a man for all seasons. Such is the fate of the already “esteemed”
Woodward unless he retires first. He is 69yrs old. I don’t think
Woodward enjoys sticking a knife in the back of fellow travelers
as he would any GOP muckymuck and things will be smoothed
over if the Obama Admin doesn’t piss him off.
I sure like “disadmired”. It’s a great word. Hope you don’t mind
if I borrow it.
El Rushbo doesn’t call him `David Rodham Gergen’ for nothing.
Heh, heh, “disadmired” came on the fly. I don’t hate Woodward but I sure don’t like his status as Watergate saint. Somehow I think it was the Watergate Inquisition more than post-Vietnam that ushered in the 1970’s we had to live through afterward. Etymologically, it’s like Clinton saying “If you don’t like my stand on guns, you can `diselect’ me next time”.
Feel free to use it. My compliments!
;^)
Aha! SO IT WAS WATERGATE THAT CAUSED DISCO! I guess forensics
Just isn’t my forte’.
My best pal at Cal Poly back in the early 70s was the fball team
fullback who is still a hardnosed right minded dude. Whenever
we get together I tell others around “Yah, Mike and agree on
everything but politics. Mike thinks that Nixon and Reagan were
the best two Presidents of the 20th while I just happen to
think it was the other way around!”
FYI fun fact! I work for a company with ‘Milhous’ in its’ title.
Yep, our founder was a first cousin to non-other. CHEERS!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.