Checking In With Bob Woodward of Watergate Fame...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Bob Woodward, the very same investigative reporter that along with Carl Bernstein was ultimately responsible for bringing down President Richard M. Nixon in the early seventies is reporting the White House is responsible for the looming sequestration. Hm, anybody else hear the scrambling of liberals ardently and strenuously denying Woodward's allegations?
What Woodward is reporting is very plausible, in fact it is more likely than not in the world of dirty political gamesmanship. And for those who believe the democrat party is above dirty politics one only needs to harken back to the days of LBJ and Mayor Daley to realize the democrats are primo at dirty politics in the furtherance of their agenda.
Spin as they may the reality is Obama and his administration in a stroke of almost genius proportions figured out a way to almost pin sequestration on the opposition party. A master plan they hoped Americans would fall far. As I said, DIRTY politics is nothing new to the democrat party. dEmocrats and rEpublicans are essentially cut from the same soiled cloth.
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Bob Woodward, the very same investigative reporter that along with Carl Bernstein was ultimately responsible for bringing down President Richard M. Nixon in the early seventies is reporting the White House is responsible for the looming sequestration. Hm, anybody else hear the scrambling of liberals ardently and strenuously denying Woodward's allegations?
What Woodward is reporting is very plausible, in fact it is more likely than not in the world of dirty political gamesmanship. And for those who believe the democrat party is above dirty politics one only needs to harken back to the days of LBJ and Mayor Daley to realize the democrats are primo at dirty politics in the furtherance of their agenda.
The Washington Post - Misunderstanding, misstatements and all the classic contortions of partisan message management surround the sequester, the term for the $85 billion in ugly and largely irrational federal spending cuts set by law to begin Friday.
What is the non-budget wonk to make of this? Who is responsible? What really happened?
The finger-pointing began during the third presidential debate last fall, on Oct. 22, when President Obama blamed Congress. “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said. “It is something that Congress has proposed.”
The White House chief of staff at the time, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the negotiations that set up the sequester in 2011, backed up the president two days later.
“There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger,” Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It “was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure.”
The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.
Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.
Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, “We didn’t actually think it would be that hard to convince them” — Reid and the Republicans — to adopt the sequester. “It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table.”
A majority of Republicans did vote for the Budget Control Act that summer, which included the sequester. Key Republican staffers said they didn’t even initially know what a sequester was — because the concept stemmed from the budget wars of the 1980s, when they were not in government. {Read More}
Spin as they may the reality is Obama and his administration in a stroke of almost genius proportions figured out a way to almost pin sequestration on the opposition party. A master plan they hoped Americans would fall far. As I said, DIRTY politics is nothing new to the democrat party. dEmocrats and rEpublicans are essentially cut from the same soiled cloth.
Via: Memeorandum
I've seen footage of Obama from late 2011 saying that he would veto any legislation that even attempts to eliminate sequestration. Methinks that this fellow has an exceedingly short memory.
ReplyDeleteIndeed...
DeleteGetting a little conspiracy theorist there, Les. I don't think the administration thought the GOP would allow the sequester any more than the GOP thought Obama would win the election. This isn't anyone's brilliant plan come to fruition. It's now happenstance. And it really doesn't matter who came up with what, because they were all on board with the sequester. We have to put the gossip aside and look at the results now, and what we're going to do about it. I say a massive public campaign to make the Tea Party wing of the GOP look as outside the mainstream as they are.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
Conspiracy theorist? Checking... nope wrong again jmj. Just putting it out there, food for thought is all. Didn't say it was true, just plausible, perhaps likely. And, the dude was at one time liked by the left. So, thought I would have a bit of fun...
DeleteIt's interesting, I'll give you that. It's also going to have some real sort of effect or other. This could have much farther reaching consequences than the "it's just some discretionary cuts, so what" crowd thinks. In the end, the GOP isn't going to look good. That could actually be very good for the GOP in the long run. It's the brick wall block heads on the far right that are everyone's problem right now. Maybe this will help to rein them in a bit, or get them out of the way.
DeleteJMJ
You sounded pretty good there, Jersey, until you wanted to get rid of the Tea Party, which is the most fiscally responsible wing of the Republicans (deficit hawks, no TARP, auto industry etc handouts, "cut cap and balance", audit and rein in the Fed, etc). Those are ideas that need to be more mainstream, IMHO, not less.
ReplyDeleteI am not a big fan of the Tea Party either dmarks. The fiscal responsibility, auditing the Fed, etc. I am all for. But the Tea Party wing has some nuts that unfortunately hurts the cause.
DeleteJMJ is a strong proponent of the bigger the government the better. Like in , do not do for yourself what your government can do for you instead.
Rational one: I attended two Tea Party rallies. At both, I saw not a single sign or slogan that was racist about Obama. I did see many many signs condemning the bailouts, corporate welfare in general, and socialism. I saw signs calling for auditing the Fed, in very specific language. I saw a lot of support for Ron Paul (yes, I know he is a Libertarian, not a Teapublican). I also saw signs in support of various parts of the Bill of Rights
DeleteI know it is another matter altogether in other places, especially the South, where KKK people sometimes apparently found the rallies to be too inviting.
Why would you say I believe such a stupid simplistic thing, Les?
DeleteYa' know, you guys really don't seem to understand liberals or progressives at all.
dmarks, did you see that shameful town hall with John McCain on the news the other day?
The Tea Party is anything but responsible, let alone serious or smart, or even decent.
JMJ
jmj, I simply analyze what you say and take your words to their natural conclusion. You are large proponent of more and bigger government. You have said so multiple times. The logical end is.......... you fill in the blank jmj.
DeleteLes, one day you will understand that neither you, nor I, nor Ayn Rand, truly think objectively. It's an impossibility. But when we see masses of people seeing things the same way. What you ou think you are "analyzing" and concluding is a projection of your misunderstanding of liberal and progressive thought. No liberal I know, and I'd include myself with those I know, is "a large proponent of more and bigger government." It simply isn't true, it's a lie, it's simplistic and stupid, and rather insulting to the intelligence. It's up there with "tax cuts pay for themselves" or "the private sector always does everything better than the public sector" or "if a presidential nominee just ran as a true conservative, he or she would win" or "it's not about taxes, it's about spending." Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong, with a little trace of truth to embellish the double-speaking nonsense.
DeleteAnd your "logical" end is what? Somalia? I hope you don't think I'm an idiot, Les. I don't have such a goofy simplistic view of you, and you'd be a lousy judge of character if you thought such a stupid "logical end" of my views. I may crack wise about stuff like that, but that's just social license. I'm not stupid enough to believe it. It's a metaphor.
I think where you get confused is in the way most liberals and progressives are not narrowly focused on some arbitrary "rightsize" of government, and you guys are. To us, that's a secondary matter. The important questions to ask about your government are, specifically and in each context and case, what is it doing, what is it not doing, what should it be doing, what should it not be doing. "Rightsizing" what it does is important beyond that point, yes. But I haven't heard any serious right wing considerations of such a complex subject, just blind, random, arbitrary, intellectually unsubstantial cuts. Then, of course, there's the conservative version of "reform," a word they believe means "destroy."
Liberals just don't think that way. Yes, we keep an eye on the size and scope of government, but it's what causes size problems that are our main focus, not just the size problem itself.
JMJ
FT, I don't know what happened to your comment, when I clicked publish your comment did not publish. But your point about Woodward's remarks being suspect is possible.
ReplyDeleteI don't know either. The software that supports these blogs is too often temperamental or capricious. But thanks, Les.
DeleteI hold Woodward in extremely low regard.
The liberals and the Leftists are the WaPo are having fits about what Woodward wrote. If Woodward's assertions are as blatantly false as these squawkers are claiming, then why are they making so much noise? Some of that noise is nothing but name calling -- and hideous name calling, too.
ReplyDeleteYou make valid observations AOW. It is, IMNHO, sad that there is no integrity or honor in politics any longer.
Deletehttp://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/02/23/how_bob_woodward_s_book_debunks_his_big_washington_post_op_ed.html
ReplyDeleteOf course don't print the link to a different viewpoint
ReplyDeleteYep bobble brain, wrong yet again. Do you ever tire of being wrong? Just curious. But really I couldn't care less.
DeleteOh, and another thing jmj, there are cranks cranks in every party at every level. Just as there are those so far out on the fringe they make no sense. Even your beloved dEmocrat party.
DeleteAnon meets the definition of a troll: he just makes up wild stuff in order to stir contorversy. He is so careless he never connects the dots even in his own comments.
ReplyDeleteLike you just made up your false tax facts
DeleteI would have liked to comment, but when I see someone who claims he's not biased call the DEMOCRATIC Party, the DEMOCRAT Party--a deliberate misspelling to show either disrespect or mockery, I decided it isn't worth it.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, RN. Do you ever refer to the GOP as the REPUBLIC Party or the Libertarians as the LIBERTARE Party?
I've never seen you do so. When you mock the Democrats by not referring to their party by its rightful name, you are advertising your bias. So why should I or anyone bother to have a discussion here on RASHUN NASHUN? Just a thought.
Sorry Shaw that you feel slighted. I ASSURE you it has nothing to do with either respect or disrespect. I also ASSURE you I recognize there are many fine individuals within BOTH. parties. However, the leadership in BOTH are lacking IMNHO.
DeleteYou might have noticed 95% of the time (or better) when I refer to the republican party I do so like this... rEpublican..., gee, I wonder why that is? Could it be because I am mean to send the message of disapproval? Golly gee, who would've thunk?!?
In reality I hold neither party, or perhaps I hound say its leadership in very high regard. Somewhere the national approval rating of, what is it currently at, 15%? So magain I am sorry you find yourself offended, it is after all, what it is.
On a final note, your RASHUN NASHUN is funny. Really My Dear Shaw, call me or this site what you will, for it does not affect me in anyway. Just don't call me late for dinner or cocktails. :-)
PS: Actually Shaw the Republic party (or one could refer to it as The Party of the Republic), if used to refer to the rEpublican party, would make sense. If it actually represented the Republic we live.
DeleteAs long as the party in question contains Democrats and not Democratics, calling it the "Democrat Party " is fair, and not an insult.
Deletedmarks,
ReplyDeleteIt is an insult to call someone or an organization by anything other than what that person or organization chooses to be called. All you did was rationalize an insult.
Demoncrap, or anything similar someone might come up with to counter Sue's Limbaughesque "Rethuglicans".... now that's an insult. Democrat Party? Not really. At least not until it is an insult to call a member of the party a Democrat also. And that's not happened yet. It's really splitting hairs to call the exact same word an insult for the party but just fine for a member of that party. The distance will never be that small.
ReplyDeleteFurther information. The Wikipedia page details the history of it being an insult, but then the whole argument runs aground toward the conclusion when they detail the following which includes actual Democrat[ic] Party organizations using the word;
ReplyDelete"Democrat" has been used as an adjective by USA Today [34] In Indiana there are several legally incorporated organizations with "Democrat" as part of their official name, such as the "Indianapolis, 17th Ward Democrat Club Inc." and the "Andrew Jackson Democrat Club Of Tippecanoe County." [35]
So, Shaw, perhaps before going after Rush Limbaugh over this, the regulars in the Party of Jefferson and Jackson had better get its own house in order?
ReplyDeleteIf you truly believe that deliberately calling someone or some organization by a name other than what it chooses to be called, then you won't mind my referring to you as d-minus-marks. Mkay?
ReplyDeleteYour examples are silly. Those organizations CHOOSE to be called the 17th Ward "Democrat" Club or Jackson "Democrat" Club. But you will not see any official publication, newspaper, magazine, etc., that refers to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party. Because that is NOT its name.
PS. I am NOT responsible for what Sue at Hellooo Mr. president writes, nor does any US Representative from the Democratic Party refer to the GOPers as Rethuglicans. You seem not to be able to tell the difference.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete