Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 A fine example of how Obama is a President for Everyman. Whether you yearn for the ruthless days of Nixon or the hapless malaise of Jimmuh Carter, the Obamination has something for *you*.
But if I were Bob Woodward, I'd stay away from stairwells and elevator shafts.
Posted by SteveS 2013-02-28 00:32||
#2 And small planes.
Posted by DarthVader 2013-02-28 00:33||
#3 So go after him, Bob. Because, believe me, he's coming after you...
Posted by tu3031 2013-02-28 00:45||
#4 Iff US Politicos are going to keep expanding US Debt levels + Welfare-Nanny State, then by definition its N-O-T a $$$ or Budget prob that will keep USN Nuclear Carriers, etc. away from the Persian Gulf andor NE Asia, now is it!?
BY THE DEMOLEFT'S OWN ARGUMENT, DEEP DEEP D-E-EP PERENNIALLY NEGATIVE DEFICITS + DEBT BURDENS = THE US IS N-O-T BROKE. IIRC THE BAMMER HIMSELF SAID AS MUCH SEVERAL MONTHS AGO.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2013-02-28 01:22||
#5 So publish the e-mail. Let us expose these punks for who and what they are!
As far as the politics, thought processes, and decision making abilities of young people, we're reaping the multi-culture and affirmative action crop we've sown. They have been instructed at an early age that to not attend college is a sure path to failure. As planned by liberal academia, our youth have been shuttled through the liberal feeding troughs and have been fully indoctrinated. The anti-establishment attitudes of the 1960's [anyone over 30 cannot be trusted and should be put to death] are alive and well, they've just adopted a new more progressive cause De jure.
The idea that any unflattering comment, thought, or failure to vote for a person of colour has at it's base racism and evil have become universally accepted. A free-pass is issued without a second thought. The revealing jingle "It's not your father's Oldsmobile" possesses a meaning and inference that is not limited to automobiles.
Posted by Besoeker 2013-02-28 02:59||
#6 Inline commentary nails it in the last bit. On so many levels, this is all about protecting income streams in the face of potential fury by the administration.
Younger leftist journalists (but I repeat myself) will lose their guaranteed income stream if they actually report on the negative things Obama and the clown posse are doing. While there are no doubt true believers amongst them who really think that the policies of this administration are the right thing, I'm guessing that most journalists are largely doing what they do, and not doing the reporting that they should, so as not to kill the gig. They will give lip service to whatever philosophies and policies they can to keep their salaries at their cushy jobs from disappearing. Reminds me of the amoral old man in Catch 22.
While Besoeker is right about the corrosive effect of Gramscian multi-culti indoctrination, there is a more powerful and simple force at play here.
Blame also lies on the demand end of things. Millions of people, including folks in their 40's, 50's, and older, watch/read/listen to NPR, PBS, MSNBC, Colbert, Stewart, NYT, etc. because they know they will never be exposed to any data which will give cause to doubt the leaders and policies that they have chosen to believe in. None of those "news" venues ever present any facts which might give cause to see the administration and its policies in a negative light on any issue of substance. They simply excise any data points and refuse to report them if they might reflect on the administration in any negative way. This is what the reporters want, of course, but it is also precisely what the core audience of these venues want, as well. They never have to deal with the anxiety and shame of seeing their cherished ideas fail, and they can claim plausible deniability when presented with the facts from other information streams.
"The administration put the screws to Gibson Guitars? I don't believe you. I didn't hear it on NPR or Colbert, and if they didn't report it, then it must not have happened. Faux News probably made it up. Obama is the best president ever and hasn't made any mistakes, and I'm also perfect because I support him."
You get the idea.
These "news" organizations are serving a market. If the people who frequent them started hearing any stories critical of the dear leader and the results of his policies, they would start casting about for some other news to watch or read that did not. So to keep their ratings NPR, MSNBC, NYT et al continue to feed them the pablum they whine for and need to maintain their precious illusory narrative. "Codependent dysfunction" would cover this relationship.
So would "damn lies".
Posted by no mo uro 2013-02-28 06:25||
#7 "Hello, Mr. Woodward? This is the Internal Revenue Service, calling to schedule your audit for the last three years of filed tax returns..."
Posted by Raj 2013-02-28 07:40||
#8 "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?" - Henry II [oft reported as "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"]
Those seeking favor of the King, did then kill Thomas Becket. Watch, at least, the character assassination of Mr. Woodward now unfold.
Posted by Procopius2k 2013-02-28 07:52||
#9 Woodward stepped out when Nixon was President and he survived a vindictive President. Most likely, he will survive this vindictive President also. He will probably sell even more books. Woodward is an interesting character. He never wanted to be a journalist. He studied history and English at Yale on an NROTC scholarship and served as an officer in the Navy for 5 years. Had service off the coast of Vietnam prior to taking a job with WAPO in 1970. His website has an interview that gives some background: Interview. An excerpt: I had no real journalism experience, but they gave me a two week tryout in August of 1970. I wrote about fourteen stories, none of which were very good. The metropolitan editor, Harry Rosenfeld, who I worked for on Watergate two years later, called me in and said, ¬"You don¬'t know how to do this.¬"
Posted by JohnQC 2013-02-28 08:02||
#10 As I read things, it looked like Woodward was being overdramatic - that it wasn't a threat so much as a warning - saying he was wrong and eventually that would come out and he would regret having made such reckless statements. Not a threat of retaliation, though probably intended to be intimidating.
Posted by Glenmore 2013-02-28 08:05||
Posted by Besoeker 2013-02-28 08:57||
#15 Teapot tempest. Read the e-mails. Ambiguous at worst. What is interesting is that Woodward chose the less flattering interpretation. In a certain sense, that choice is far more threatening to Champ than the revelation that there are thugs in this Chicago White House. 0 is loosing his cheerleaders.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2013-02-28 09:29||
This has the finger prints of the Chicago way of doing business: "Youse wouldn't want something should happen to your family, would yez?"
That puts the email threat squarely on Valerie Jarrett or David Axelrod.
Posted by Mugsy Glink 2013-02-28 10:27||
"From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013
I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. My bad. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall ¬-- but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here.
But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying 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. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand barain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding ¬-- from the start. Really. It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios ¬-- but that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)
I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is diffferent. Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously.
My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.
From Woodward to Sperling on Feb. 23, 2013
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. My partial advantage is that I talked extensively with all involved. I am traveling and will try to reach you after 3 pm today. Best, Bob"
Posted by Yosemite Sam 2013-02-28 10:39||
#18 Capone: I want you to get this fuck where he breathes! I want you to find this nancy-boy Eliot Ness, I want him DEAD! I want his family DEAD! I want his house burned to the GROUND! I wanna go there in the middle of the night and I wanna PISS ON HIS ASHES!
-- The Untouchables
Posted by Muggsy Mussolini1226 2013-02-28 11:28||
#19 I wonder what this 'controversy' is distracting us from....
Posted by CrazyFool 2013-02-28 12:57||
#20 Bingo, CF.
Posted by Barbara 2013-02-28 13:23||
#21 #19 I wonder what this 'controversy' is distracting us from....
Bengazi. and the NO ANSWERS therin.
Posted by Redneck Jim 2013-02-28 13:48||
#22 It's not about the e-mail, it's about Sperling screeching to him on the phone. The email is an apology wrapped in a mini-max gun skill list.
Ima lern something today.
Posted by Shipman 2013-02-28 16:28||
#23 "I wonder what this 'controversy' is distracting us from...."
'Continuing' Budget Resolutions signed by O on September 28, 2012 that applies fiscal year 2012 budget appropriations through March 27, 2013, when these little jewels expire. The Chicago folks are trying to softening the populace up as a prelude to the real fight.
If you think the 'woe is us' and 'evul murdering rethugulans' BS over the sequesters was intense, just wait a few weeks for the real fireworks.
Posted by Mullah Richard 2013-02-28 21:05||
#24 that applies fiscal year 2012 budget appropriations through March 27, 2013, when these little jewels expire
Surely it couldn't be that Speaker Boehner played the wily Pres. O?
Posted by trailing wife 2013-02-28 21:50||
#25 TW: I cannot help but think that real Republicans locked Boner the CaveMan in a broom closet somewhere so he couldn't grovel at Bambi's feet.
I trust Boner to hold the line about as far as I expect the sun to rise in the west.
Posted by USN,Ret. 2013-02-28 22:01||