HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Bob Woodward: Sequester w...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:15 PM

 

Bob Woodward: Sequester was proposed by Obama administration


“The sequester was something that was discussed,” Carney said. Walking back the earlier statements, he added carefully, “and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward.”

In fact, the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.

So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html


So...is Woodward a Republican? Is he being blackmailed by the Republicans? Or is he telling the truth?

40 replies, 2701 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bob Woodward: Sequester was proposed by Obama administration (Original post)
bigapple1963 Feb 2013 OP
Ian David Feb 2013 #1
elleng Feb 2013 #8
FarPoint Feb 2013 #26
DURHAM D Feb 2013 #2
Cooley Hurd Feb 2013 #3
jberryhill Feb 2013 #4
elleng Feb 2013 #10
Autumn Feb 2013 #5
bigapple1963 Feb 2013 #6
elleng Feb 2013 #7
Ian David Feb 2013 #9
elleng Feb 2013 #11
Ian David Feb 2013 #12
bigapple1963 Feb 2013 #13
Ian David Feb 2013 #14
Autumn Feb 2013 #15
TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #25
Comrade Grumpy Feb 2013 #31
markpkessinger Feb 2013 #36
mwrguy Feb 2013 #16
patrice Feb 2013 #17
abelenkpe Feb 2013 #18
Enrique Feb 2013 #19
Autumn Feb 2013 #20
Ian David Feb 2013 #22
Autumn Feb 2013 #24
Comrade Grumpy Feb 2013 #32
TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #28
woo me with science Feb 2013 #35
markpkessinger Feb 2013 #37
Ian David Feb 2013 #21
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #23
tblue37 Feb 2013 #27
cali Feb 2013 #29
bhikkhu Feb 2013 #30
jeff47 Feb 2013 #33
Ian David Feb 2013 #34
bigapple1963 Feb 2013 #38
OGKush Feb 2013 #39
dballance Feb 2013 #40

Response to bigapple1963 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:18 PM

1. It's customary to link to your source.

Also, Yes...

Bob Woodwards gets his rocks off writing poorly sourced and childishly thought-out anti-Obama screeds that are barely a step above NewsMax or WorldNetDaily.

Bob Woodward's Anti-Obama Bias
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/10/10/bob_woodward039s_anti-obama_bias_292662.html

Good Reviews of Bad Books, Woodward Edition
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bob-woodward-price-of-politics-review-13541591




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:26 PM

8. Thanks, Ian David.

Seems that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:32 PM

26. Well said!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:18 PM

2. Your source?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:20 PM

3. What unsourced crap is this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:21 PM

4. Boehner: "I got 98% of what I wanted"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:27 PM

10. Yes he did,

and the nuance of the entire process is clearly not something woodward wants us to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:23 PM

5. Do you have a link for that? I thought the pukes were the

ones who wanted the sequester.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:24 PM

6. sorry all

 

I have added the link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:25 PM

7. I'll provide a cite, with some info, as you didn't:

'At the Feb. 13 Senate Finance Committee hearing on Lew’s nomination to become Treasury secretary, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) asked Lew about the account in my book: “Woodward credits you with originating the plan for sequestration. Was he right or wrong?”

“It’s a little more complicated than that,” Lew responded, “and even in his account, it was a little more complicated than that. We were in a negotiation where the failure would have meant the default of the government of the United States.”

“Did you make the suggestion?” Burr asked.

“Well, what I did was said that with all other options closed, we needed to look for an option where we could agree on how to resolve our differences. And we went back to the 1984 plan that Senator Gramm and Senator Rudman worked on and said that that would be a basis for having a consequence that would be so unacceptable to everyone that we would be able to get action.”

In other words, yes.

But then Burr asked about the president’s statement during the presidential debate, that the Republicans originated it.

Lew, being a good lawyer and a loyal presidential adviser, then shifted to denial mode: “Senator, the demand for an enforcement mechanism was not something that the administration was pushing at that moment.”

That statement was not accurate.

On Tuesday, Obama appeared at the White House with a group of police officers and firefighters to denounce the sequester as a “meat-cleaver approach” that would jeopardize military readiness and investments in education, energy and readiness. He also said it would cost jobs. But, the president said, the substitute would have to include new revenue through tax reform.

At noon that same day, White House press secretary Jay Carney shifted position and accepted sequester paternity.'

Not really, but looks to me like woodward doesn't want us to be confused with the nuances of REAL facts.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story_1.html


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:27 PM

9. I'm shocked to find Bob Woodward playing fast and loose with the facts to smear President Obama.

Again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:29 PM

11. Really.

Must say I've been sadly disappointed the last 'few' years with woodward's changed approach to many things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:31 PM

12. Well, it's only been recently that the Democratic President has been all Black and stuff.

But I'm not saying Bob Woodward is a racist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:31 PM

13. ok I found the whitehouse transcript

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/19/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-2192013


And lastly, everyone agrees that the sequester is a bad idea, but didn't it originate -- the idea for the sequester originate here at the White House?

MR. CARNEY: Well, we’ve been through this a lot -- I know you’re filling in -- but here’s the fundamental fact. During the deficit reduction of the debt ceiling negotiations, because the Republicans refused to embrace balance, refused in the end to join hands with the President and pursue a grand bargain, there was an absolute necessity to avoid default, and both sides were looking for trigger mechanisms -- this is complicated budget-speak -- to help make this package possible.

The sequester was something that was discussed, and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward because it was put forward by Republican Senator Gramm and Rudman back in the ‘80s as part of the Gramm-Rudman deal -- there is a history here to this. But let’s be clear: Republicans embraced it. Every member of the House Republican leadership voted for it. Nearly two to one in the House Republicans voted for it over Democrats. And on the day it passed, the Speaker of the House said he got 98 percent of what he wanted and that he was pretty happy.


So, seems like White House proposed and Republicans agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:33 PM

14. It says exactly the opposite of what you just said it says.

Who's on the MIRT this session?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #14)


Response to Ian David (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:24 PM

25. What in the world does exactly the opposite mean on planet Ian David?

It directly says "it was an idea the White House put forward"

Exact opposite is not possible from there, maybe you should stick to your tag team partner's "lack of nuance" position (though the nuance still leaves the facts undisturbed but rather frames the reasoning).

Are you seriously hanging on the the justification that a couple of TeaPubliKlans had a similar idea a fucking generation ago? That is the wiggle room you think justifies calling for MIRT on the OP and throwing out charges of racism on Woodward even as you state that wasn't what you were doing.

It says what it says. Gramm and Rudman have nothing to do with the described events other than an irresponsible tactic dusted off by our fucking White House.

You are fucking flailing around here.

MIRT doesn't stand for Make Ian's Reality True.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:58 PM

31. Huh? Carney: "It was an idea that the White House put forward."

Maybe you should call off that drone strike.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:41 PM

36. "it was an idea that the White House put forward" . . .

. . . Which word do you not understand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:49 PM

16. Fuck Bob Woodward. He jumped the shark years ago.

Ignore him and maybe he'll go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to bigapple1963 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:59 PM

18. Is this today's argument? Who started it?

Cause that is not going to solve the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:03 PM

19. yes, and we were discussing his strategy at the time

the sequester was supposed to be so unpalatable to the Republicans that they would avoid it by coming to a deal in the Super Committee, a balanced deal with tax increases. But it didn't work, they stuck to their hard line and the Super Committee did not produce any legislation. So here we are. The sequester that was not meant to happen is going to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:06 PM

20. Until I read what Carney said I thought it was all the pukes idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #20)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:43 AM

22. You mean where he says, "it was put forward by Republican Senator Gramm and Rudman back in the ‘80s"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #22)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:13 PM

24. I mean the part where he said "it was an idea that the White House put forward"


just because it was put forward by Republican Senator Gramm and Rudman back in the ‘80s , when there were sane republicans does not make it a good idea when put forward by the White House in 2012 when the republicans are all bat shit fucking crazy and have been crazy since Obama has been in office. Any Democrat knows that there are no sane republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #22)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:00 PM

32. Did Graham and Rudman cut a deal with Boehner?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #19)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:41 PM

28. Magical thinking the whole way. People have oversold themselves on the 11D chess myth

creating a closed loop of self justifying logic in every discussion.

The sequester that wasn't "supposed to happen" was wishful thinking and a testament to faith in politicians which is the height of irresponsible citizenship and foolhardiness.

Faith is for personal relationships and deities not the line of work that could give used car salesman a run for their money in a dishonesty and misdirection contest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #28)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:40 PM

35. Some magical thinking, but also a LOT of propaganda.

Rev us up into our Red and Blue teams, and they hope we will circle the wagons to defend anything.

It's worked for them so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #19)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:43 PM

37. Exactly -- the White House played a very dangerous game here . . .

. . . and it looks as if they, or rather the American people, might very well lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:42 AM

21. See also: Woodward's Butthurt Lack of Integrity

Woodward's Butthurt Lack of Integrity
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251289629

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:57 AM

23. No! No! No! He knew it was a bad deal and that's why he vetoed it! Oh, wait........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:34 PM

27. Woodward has always been a Republican water-carrier. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:49 PM

29. FAIL. As the lovely DUers who responded so ably,

demonstrated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:51 PM

30. The original repug version didn't touch defence spending, only social programs

and, of course, there was no new revenue, and the bush tax cuts would have been permanent across the board. It was a completely unworkable piece of garbage that they never even bothered to seriously put together. They still spouted it every election year as some kind of reagan-inspired gift from the gods.

To some extent, when someone has a ridiculous ideology that they stubbornly cling to for decades without ever considering the consequences of putting it into play, forcing them to actually play their hand and see what a pile of dogshit they have is a positive step forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:03 PM

33. No, Woodward is just dumb

His premise is that the sequester was the plan forward all the way along.

The reality is the sequester was supposed to be the awful thing that drove the parties into compromising.

The fact that it didn't have any revenue is irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:33 PM

34. How Woodward Missed The Mark on Sequester Politics

How Woodward Missed The Mark on Sequester Politics
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022418990

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:59 PM

38. even the new york times agrees

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/us/politics/fault-finding-grows-intense-as-cuts-near.html?hp

The idea for sequestration did come from the White House, as news accounts made clear at the time. Jacob J. Lew, then Mr. Obama’s budget director and now his nominee for Treasury secretary, was the main proponent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Reply #38)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 12:19 AM

39. Wow...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 06:57 PM

40. Okay, So Obama Threw the Dice on This One and Lost. He was Wrong, He Made a Mistake.

Happy now bigapple?

I would imagine we might all be able to agree Obama threw the dice on this one by proposing sequestration with the thought that the bi-partisian commission would be reasonable and actually do something productive. Well, he lost his bet.

If you want to blame Obama for something then you should blame him for being naive enough to think the bi-partisan committee would accomplish anything given there were elections to be held and, in the weird universe of congressional temporal physics, lots of time left to do something before the sequester hit.

But to go on about this right now is only an effort to try to pin all the "blame" the sequester is supposed to engender squarely on the President. To do that simply ignores the reality that the intransigent GOP-controlled house voted for it and supported it and that the GOP leadership supported it and voted for it. It is to also ignore the cause of it in the first place. That would be the GOP house holding the nation hostage with the debt limit.

Notice Obama learned his lesson from the 2011 fiasco. He told the GOP to go pound sand this last December when they tried it again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread