Woodward’s Basic Point Still Holds: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed
You can read all of it via the Politico link below. I don’t care how the media seeks to spin this in the WH’s best interests, the simple point Woodward made holds. Sperling went to some length to intimidate Woodward and influence the coverage and it’s reasonable to assume he does likewise with greater effect to the many DC media upstarts now passing themselves off as journalists.
And judging from the reactions from the mostly boy toys that comprise today’s liberal DC media boy choir, this WH plays them just like the wannabe stars boy band members they look and act like. The bulk of these clowns are more qualified and experienced at writing a fanzine, than anything one could honestly called doing journalism. It’s little wonder more and more Americans have little regard, let alone respect, for our news media.
Just because it’s dressed up in DC cocktail circuit niceties doesn’t change the dynamic of what was taking place in the exchange. The problem is, the boy choir is such a part of it, they lack an independent perspective in judging it. My assumption is that it’s Woodward’s experience and maturity that allows him to retain some of his own perspective apart from the choir’s.
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