HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Woodward's Butthurt Lack ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:33 AM

Woodward's Butthurt Lack of Integrity

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/2/23/105026/160

Woodward's Butthurt Lack of Integrity

by BooMan
Sat Feb 23rd, 2013 at 10:50:26 AM EST


Bob Woodward is so butthurt that the Obama administration limited his access and made him irrelevant that he's no longer making any pretense about political neutrality or journalistic objectivity. He's gone at least half-Breitbart.

When it was conceived and enacted, the Sequester had two main objectives. The first was to bail Speaker Boehner out of a jam after he discovered to his dismay that this own caucus would not accept the deal he had negotiated with the White House. That meant that he had no plan for avoiding a default on our debt. He needed some trigger that would assure his mouth-breathers that actual cuts would eventually happen.

The second objective of the Sequester was to assure Democrats that actual revenue would eventually happen, and that is the reason that the Supercommittee was created. It's job was to come up with a mix of spending cuts and new revenues. That was the entire point.

To say that the White House created the Sequester is narrowly true, but only because they had to find a way to avoid a default, and Boehner was out of ideas. It was his caucus that was forcing the default, so it is more accurate to say that the Republicans forced the White House to improvise, and the Sequester was their solution.

To say that Jack Lew told a falsehood to the Senate Finance Committee when he explained this, is journalistic malpractice on Woodward's part.

To accuse the president of shifting the goal posts by asking for revenue is to contradict Woodward's own previous reporting, and even the internal logic of last night's piece.

All this does is prove the White House prescient when they decided to treat Woodward like any other journalist rather than some kind of saint.

12 replies, 1869 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

Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:41 AM

1. good reporting by Woodward

"it was narrowly true", booman concedes. But Woodward reported it narrowly. So where is the integrity problem?

When Obama and Lew denied it, they denied it broadly. The White House regained some of their integrity when Carney conceded it recently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 03:16 PM

12. 'Good reporting' for those ignorant of importance of nuance.

'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.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:58 AM

2. It was Obama's move the same way that, AFTER ALL of Repubs other moves in a chess game, and this

would include all of the moves that Repubs COULD have made but didn't, THEIR OWN next move in which THEY placed THEMSELVES in check-mate, IS really their opponent's move.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #2)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:06 PM

3. Wait

You're saying Boehner forced Obama into mate? I feel faint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:21 PM

4. Boehner lost, since ALL of his moves, including the Sequester which chronologically originated

in the Republican factionalists in the House, and including everything that Boehner/Repubs could have done, but DIDN'T, produced this result. It was THEIR idea and he made them wear it, AFTER giving them EVERY opportunity to do otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:29 PM

7. AND that "AFTER giving them EVERY opportunity" WAS at GREAT COST to him with an important part

of his base. He gave Boehner every chance on every one of his moves - instead of moving in and mating the KING immediately - he let Boehner fumble around and try to find his ass, which he never did, so President Obama hung Boehner's own stupid move on him.

Doesn't ANYONE play chess anymore? I'm not very good, but I used to play with my (attorney) husband before he passed on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:24 PM

6. Thanks for the catch! "Rhetorical you" really never does work right. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:23 PM

5. It doesn't really matter who's idea it was

Congress, including the Republican-controlled House, passed it, Boehner and several Republicans voted for it (those that didn't, didn't largely because it didn't go far enough I believe) and even Boehner crowed that he got 98% of what he wanted and praised the sequester, so he and Congress at least co-own it. If they thought it was such a horrible idea, they could've stripped it out of the final bill but they didn't or they could've been more cooperative in the Super Committee or, hell, they could've NOT taken the debt ceiling hostage in the first place but, ultimately, it's law now, and so now they have to deal with it (or not, as they seem inclined at the moment). Their response appears to be to do nothing and (disingenuously) blame any negative outcomes on President Obama. It's all political theater (of the absurd) right now. Wake me up when it's all over!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:32 PM

8. Apparently, Bob Woodward doesn't understand chess. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:48 PM

9. A new system of measurement!

"Half-Breitbart", which is a Full Beck lower than a Quarter Limbaugh.
I think we've hit on new terminology, here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:08 PM

10. All you need to know is that he's often on Faux Sunday shows. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:10 PM

11. K&R&T. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread