National Journal chief: A senior WH official got so belligerent with me, I had to drop him as a source

posted at 3:21 pm on February 28, 2013 by Allahpundit

Woodward, Lanny Davis, and now Ron Fournier. How come it’s the older, more established D.C. hands who are piping up about being strongarmed by the White House and not the younger, less established ones? Is it because the young’uns have developed a thicker skin from being challenged more often? Because they’re small enough potatoes that Team Hopenchange doesn’t bother wasting much time yelling at them? Because Woodward and Fournier are better positioned career-wise to challenge the White House? Or because younger liberal journos are “team players” for The One in a way that older reporters simply aren’t?

Anyway. Another ray of sunshine:

I decided to share this encounter because it might shed light on the increasingly toxic relationship between media and government, which is why the Woodward flap matters outside the Beltway…

The official angered by my Woodward tweet sent me an indignant e-mail. “What’s next, a Nazi analogy?” the official wrote, chastising me for spreading “bull**** like that” I was not offended by the note, mild in comparison to past exchanges with this official. But it was the last straw in a relationship that had deteriorated.

As editor-in-chief of National Journal, I received several e-mails and telephone calls from this White House official filled with vulgarity, abusive language, and virtually the same phrase that Woodward called a veiled threat. “You will regret staking out that claim,” The Washington Post reporter was told…

Once I moved back to daily reporting this year, the badgering intensified. I wrote Saturday night, asking the official to stop e-mailing me. The official wrote, challenging Woodward and my tweet. “Get off your high horse and assess the facts, Ron,” the official wrote.

He ends, as did Woodward and as any indictment of White House boorishness evidently must as a matter of professional obligation, by noting that St. Barack would surely frown upon such treatment — even though Obama chooses to surround himself with people like Rahm Emanuel and Fournier’s source and he not-so-secretly disdains the media despite their adulation of him. Let’s pick a narrative, guys. Either (a) this sort of antagonism is wholly unremarkable for modern presidential administrations when dealing with the press behind the scenes, in which case there’s no reason to assume Obama doesn’t know or approve of it, or (b) it is remarkable in its nastiness, in which case either Obama’s a much nastier customer than thought or he’s lost control of his inner circle vis-a-vis media relations. Reason’s Mike Riggs spent some time today compiling stories from the past few years about Obama lackeys freaking out or even cutting off access over coverage that threw a little sand in the gears of their image-management machine. Is that normal for the White House in eras past, or is it so crucially important to the Celebrity Presidency that his aides are forced to get a bit rougher with reporters than usual? Only the media knows, but between the risks of losing access, harming their careers, and hurting “the cause,” they have little incentive to come clean. You need someone like Woodward or Fournier who’s well established and particularly pissed off to gain any insight. Otherwise, you’ll have to settle for hints:

Woodward himself is now toning things down a bit, per Erik Wemple at WaPo:

Pressed moments ago on whether he’d ever used the term “threat” or “threatened” by the e-mail, Woodward responded, “No, I have not….I am uncomfortable because it is not the way to operate,” he said. When asked whether he felt there’d be payback on this front, Woodward declined to get into that matter.

But there already has been payback, not from the White House but more broadly from what Matt Welch labels Planet Liberalism. NBC’s now calling Woodward a “temporary spokesman” for one of the two major parties with not a hint of irony. Like Noah Rothman says, whether it’s Team O or just their fans in the media doing the dirty work, Woodward will end up regretting this.

Update: Via Josh Kraushaar, no threats, just a little reputational tear-down:

“Inside the West Wing, Woodward is viewed, one top Democrat said, as a “self-righteous kook,” while an administration official said he “has been going nuts for no good reason.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Nice, AP. Expose the Goebbels.

Here’s another case

“Look, I am not going to take any clients that conflict with OFA. What I want to do with my work is just work with people and causes that I believe in. And OFA will be the most important thing that I do.”

– Jim Messina, campaign manager to President Obama, talking to Politico for an article rolling out his new firm.

O bama
F lukes
A merica

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Or because younger liberal journos are “team players” for The One in a way that older reporters simply aren’t?

Yeah, they’re moonbat True Buh-leeeevahs. Look at the way they’re tearing into Woodward on Twitter.

ddrintn on February 28, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Woodward, Lanny Davis, and now Ron Fournier. How come it’s the older, more established D.C. hands who are piping up about being strongarmed by the White House and not the younger, less established ones?

They see what these amateur Adolfs do to the land.

The WH discriminates agains old people.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 3:25 PM

The WH rejects GOP senatorial submission. These are insane times, indeed.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Summa Summarum on how insane the left are.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 3:27 PM

For Davis, who used to do the same sort of things for the Clintons, I can only say; “Karma’s a b!tc#, ain’t it.”

LegendHasIt on February 28, 2013 at 3:28 PM

The insane left have resurrected Nixon to down Woodward and save their Lilliputian Princeling. It’s a sign of being very frantic.

This is the Freudean slip of the new century

Matt YglesiasVerified account‏@mattyglesias

Woodward’s managed to make me suspect Nixon got a raw deal.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 3:28 PM

“Lies. LIES! All Damned LIES!!!111!!!”

-Obama Media apologists

portlandon on February 28, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Woodward, Lanny Davis, and now Ron Fournier. How come it’s the older, more established D.C. hands who are piping up?

I believe the word you are looking for AP is:

Raaaacisssst!!!!

can_con on February 28, 2013 at 3:29 PM

If only Obama knew…

aquaviva on February 28, 2013 at 3:29 PM

“What’s next, a Nazi analogy?”

If the shoe jackboot fits…

ITguy on February 28, 2013 at 3:30 PM

With mr thin skin
Its door #2 Monty

cmsinaz on February 28, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Yawn. Read the Woodward Email, as much as I hate this WH, I don’t see any ” threat”. I am really disappointed with Woodward. This feels like the ” bombshell” Turker Carlson promised us during the election which turned out to be overhyped.

celticdefender on February 28, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Will someone throw a shoe at Obama…

Electrongod on February 28, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Or because younger liberal journos are “team players” for The One in a way that older reporters simply aren’t?

Or, with their careers just beginning, they’re more easily scared silent.

Dexter_Alarius on February 28, 2013 at 3:33 PM

There came a time when Stalin would speak, and those in attendance would continue to stand and clap

in perpetuity

for fear of being the first to sit down. So much so that even Stalin considered it absurd.

So, Uncle Joe had his minions install a bell, that would ring when it was OK for everybody to stop clapping and sit down – without any fear of retribution.

To the young, indoctrinated, media punks -

Ovation.
Clap.
Ring.
Sit.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 28, 2013 at 3:33 PM

The biggest problem I see with the younger journos is that too many of them went straight from covering the campaign in 2008, when they were clearly cheerleading Obama, to attempting to objectively cover the Obama Administration. As Obama has remained in pretty much permanent campaign mode, they get sucked into continuing to cover everything from the standpoint of “is Obama winning?” This allows them to overlook and forgive even the most egregious lying, like what Obama has been doing for the last 10 days, because to them the story is only “is he winning?” Woodward comes along and actually decides to cover the real story, which is “is the President telling the truth?”

rockmom on February 28, 2013 at 3:33 PM

The WH rejects GOP senatorial submission. These are insane times, indeed.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but to the extent that this matters, doesn’t this give us the argument that Obama promised to veto any plan that would allow apply the cuts more prudently? I didn’t like the idea in the first place, but now I kind of want to call his bluff.

crrr6 on February 28, 2013 at 3:33 PM

I’m not sure but were any of these guys on the Journolist..?

d1carter on February 28, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Jim Messina is extra, extra creepy. He’ll be the first one drinking the Kool Aid.

As for the whole kerfuffle, then I believe that this is the correct answer:

or (b) it is remarkable in its nastiness, in which case either Obama’s a much nastier customer than thought or he’s lost control of his inner circle vis-a-vis media relations.

Why you are even asking this question Allah is beyond me? I’ve think that most non cultists realized about three or so years ago that Obama is a thin-skinned bully. Of course, the Ryan budget kerfuffle was probably the prime example of that. I’m sure that the WH threatens lawmakers behind the scenes as well with similar language. This is why the GOP lawmakers don’t talk with the White House and don’t want to be anywhere near Obama.

Illinidiva on February 28, 2013 at 3:35 PM

fournier is a conservative.

sesquipedalian on February 28, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Del Dolemonte on February 28, 2013 at 3:35 PM

shameful that the younger lsm is defending dear leader

cmsinaz on February 28, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Imagining the next Obama media scrum:

Mr. President, are you concerned that members of your administration are using thug tactics to intimidate the free press?

Obama: “what do you me to do about, suck i up with a straw?
Aid to Obama nudges him: ah, wrong situation sir.

Obama: Can’t you just let me eat my waffles?
Aid to Obama: great answer! Scrum over, thanks for coming!

can_con on February 28, 2013 at 3:35 PM

rockmom on February 28, 2013 at 3:33 PM

THIS

cmsinaz on February 28, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Since in terms of modern employment, “belligerent” means “anything but planting your lips on my ass until I get a hickey”, I hardly find this a credible reason.

MelonCollie on February 28, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but to the extent that this matters, doesn’t this give us the argument that Obama promised to veto any plan that would allow apply the cuts more prudently? I didn’t like the idea in the first place, but now I kind of want to call his bluff.

crrr6 on February 28, 2013 at 3:33 PM

This is exactly the case.
The fact is, he is refusing to make any cuts, by his own choice.

He wants the POWER to raise taxes, but is unwilling to take RESPONSIBILTY to cut spending.

His “Balanced Approach” screed is BS.

Jabberwock on February 28, 2013 at 3:39 PM

If only Obama knew…

aquaviva on February 28, 2013 at 3:29 PM

We all know that The Won considers himself a better security adviser, defense secretary, and budget director than his actual security advisers, defense secretary, and budget directors.

I bet he is actually a better thug than the thugs he hires.

Lily on February 28, 2013 at 3:42 PM

(a) this sort of antagonism is wholly unremarkable for modern presidential administrations when dealing with the press behind the scenes, in which case there’s no reason to assume Obama doesn’t know or approve of it, or (b) it is remarkable in its nastiness, in which case either Obama’s a much nastier customer than thought or he’s lost control of his inner circle vis-a-vis media relations.

Obama has a history of this kind of nastiness. For example, in 2008 in his campaign against Hillary, his campaign threatened members of the CBC who were still supporting Hillary. Ones who still supported Hillary, like John Lewis, were threatened that a young, black pro-Obama candidate would likely primary you. One of the pols delivering these threats for Obama was one Jesse Jackson, Jr. Of course, when it comes to stuff like this, Obama has always managed to stay “above the fray.”

TarheelBen on February 28, 2013 at 3:42 PM

celticdefender on February 28, 2013 at 3:32 PM

You missed all. It’s about the half hour phone call. The e-mail was an apology for it.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM

I’ve think that most non cultists realized about three or so years ago that Obama is a thin-skinned bully…

Illinidiva on February 28, 2013 at 3:35 PM

He is clinically NPD. Read also the Symptoms, top/lef of the screen.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Nice little newspaper you got there, it’d be a shame if anythhing happened to it

Sheesh, all these guys are lacking is a white tie with a black shirt and a toothpick…..

E9RET on February 28, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Update: Via Josh Kraushaar, no threats, just a little reputational tear-down:

“Inside the West Wing, Woodward is viewed, one top Democrat said, as a “self-righteous kook,” while an administration official said he “has been going nuts for no good reason.”

And this is how they regard Bob Woodward. Imagine how willing they are to destroy a less respectable journalist.

Doughboy on February 28, 2013 at 3:46 PM

The biggest problem I see with the younger journos is that too many of them went straight from covering the campaign in 2008, when they were clearly cheerleading Obama, to attempting to objectively cover the Obama Administration. As Obama has remained in pretty much permanent campaign mode, they get sucked into continuing to cover everything from the standpoint of “is Obama winning?” This allows them to overlook and forgive even the most egregious lying, like what Obama has been doing for the last 10 days, because to them the story is only “is he winning?” Woodward comes along and actually decides to cover the real story, which is “is the President telling the truth?”

rockmom on February 28, 2013 at 3:33 PM

+100 This was insightful if you ask me.

WitchDoctor on February 28, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Woodwardgate.

kingsjester on February 28, 2013 at 3:48 PM

What are the differences between Adolph Hitler and Barack Obama?

(You having trouble, too?)

Hitler had a little mustache. Obama doesn’t appear to be able to grow a mustache.

At the four year point in Hitler’s reign, he had yet to occupy the Sudetenland, never mind Poland or starting the Second World War…

They both have a visceral hatred of Jews.

Both exist in their positions with extraconstitutional powers never intended for the office.

Both are raging narcissists.

Both consider themselves peerless public speakers (Hitler is probably one of history’s most effective public speakers, albeit an evil one. Listening to Obama speak is like having liquid nitrogen poured in your ears).

Feel free to add your own…

I am convinced that this will not end well for our nation. I cannot imagine him relinquishing power peacefully as have all his predecessors.

turfmann on February 28, 2013 at 3:48 PM

E-mail floater

President Obama walks into the Bank of
America to cash a check. As he approaches the cashier he says,
“Good morning Ma ‘am, could you please cash this check for
me?”

Cashier:

“It would be my pleasure sir. Could you
please show me your
ID?”

Obama:

“Truthfully, I did not bring my ID with
me as I didn ‘t think there was any need
to.

I am President Barack Obama, the
President of the United States of AMERICA
!!!!”

Cashier:

“Yes sir, I know who you are, but with
all the regulations and monitoring of the banks because of
impostors and forgers and requirements of the Dodd/Frank
legislation,
etc.,

I must insist on seeing
ID.”

Obama:

“Just ask anyone here at the bank who I
am and they will tell you. Everybody knows who I
am.”

Cashier:

“I am sorry Mr. President but these are
the bank rules and I must follow them.”

Obama:

“I am urging you, please, to cash this check.”

Cashier:

“Look Mr. President, here is an example
of what we can do. One day, Tiger Woods came into the bank
without ID. To prove he was Tiger Woods he pulled out his putter
and made a beautiful shot across the bank into a cup. With that
shot we knew him to be Tiger Woods and cashed his check.”

“Another time, Andre Agassi came in
without ID. He pulled out his tennis racquet and made a fabulous
shot whereas the tennis ball landed in my cup. With that shot we
cashed his check.

So, Mr. President, what can you do to
prove that it is you, and only you, as the President of the
United Sates?”

Obama:

Obama stands there thinking, and
thinking, and finally says, “Honestly, my mind is a total
blank…there is nothing that comes to my mind. I can ‘t think
of a single thing. I have absolutely no idea what to do and I
don’t have a clue”.

Cashier:

“Will that be large or small bills, Mr. President?

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Journolist II: Circle the Wagons Boogaloo.

portlandon on February 28, 2013 at 3:51 PM

This is exactly the case.
The fact is, he is refusing to make any cuts, by his own choice.

He wants the POWER to raise taxes, but is unwilling to take RESPONSIBILTY to cut spending.

His “Balanced Approach” screed is BS.

Jabberwock on February 28, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Stated bluntly: Obama just promised to veto ANY spending cuts of ANY kind.

Can someone fax this talking point over to McConnell & Boehner’s offices?

crrr6 on February 28, 2013 at 3:51 PM

How come it’s the older, more established D.C. hands who are piping up about being strongarmed by the White House and not the younger, less established ones?

Because the older journos, despite being shameless lib hacks, understand what the role of the press is supposed to be in a free society and occasionally their consciences get the best of them.

The Ezra Klein’s of the world on the other hand couldn’t convincely make the case for a constitutional republic, separation of powers, checks and balances, or three coequal branches of government because their Marxist professors taught them to hate those things. They believe all political power comes from the barrel of a gun and are frankly pissed off that Obama can’t just deem gay marriage, pot, and host of other things legal while imprisoning his political enemies.

Kataklysmic on February 28, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Woodwardgate.
kingsjester on February 28, 2013 at 3:48 PM

The Sequester Molester

can_con on February 28, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Woodward, Lanny Davis, and now Ron Fournier. How come it’s the older, more established D.C. hands who are piping up about being strongarmed by the White House and not the younger, less established ones?

Why? You ask “why”?

The answer: “death panels.”

In his core, Obama loathes authority. He’s mad because his father abandoned him. Thus, he hates authority — it’s called, “resentment for what he’s still mad at not being given.”

So he goes about attacking all the “big things” he sees, real or imagined or just exaggerated because he’s threatened.

“You’re not my dad!” That should qualify as Obama’s legacy one-liner if anything can.

He’s a resentful, rebellious child who hates and loathes anything he thinks might “curb him,” or otherwise,, act “fatherly” like “old people” and traditions, standards, others’ values, the U.S.A….

Lourdes on February 28, 2013 at 3:52 PM

It will be incredible to wake up after the sequester and realize that no one died.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Did O possibly underestimate the media’s devotion to him? All of the non-transparency may finally be having some backlash.

Jackalope on February 28, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Can someone fax this talking point over to McConnell & Boehner’s offices?

crrr6 on February 28, 2013 at 3:51 PM

It won’t herl. The fool Boehner abandoned the Hastert rule and McConnell is the most arrogant/aristocratic azz in DC, right after Obama.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Because the older journos, despite being shameless lib hacks, understand what the role of the press is supposed to be in a free society and occasionally their consciences get the best of them.

Kataklysmic on February 28, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Yeah, the older ones are concerned with maintaining at least a facade of “objectivity” and integrity. The younger ones just let it all hang out. They don’t care.

ddrintn on February 28, 2013 at 3:54 PM

turfmann on February 28, 2013 at 3:48 PM

We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.

– Adolph Hitler [Speech of May 1, 1927]

We understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man.

– Adolph Hitler

It is also one of the aims before our movement to hold out the prospect of a time when the individual will be given what he needs for the purposes of his life …

- Adolph Hitler

Sounds like Obama to me.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 28, 2013 at 3:55 PM

These are insane times, indeed.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 3:26 PM

I’ve expressed this before and I’ll do so again: Obama is not mentally well.

Lourdes on February 28, 2013 at 3:55 PM

It won’t herl help.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Obama is not mentally well.

Lourdes on February 28, 2013 at 3:55 PM

He is clinically NPD’d.

An incredible thesis will one day be written about it, or a fabulous book.

That the land doesn’t realize it makes her deserve the demise.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Can someone fax this talking point over to McConnell & Boehner’s offices?

crrr6 on February 28, 2013 at 3:51 PM

It won’t herl. The fool Boehner abandoned the Hastert rule and McConnell is the most arrogant/aristocratic azz in DC, right after Obama.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 3:53 PM

New leadership NOW. I think we can get some momentum from the sequester, Woodward stuff, etc; it’s the perfect time for new leadership.

/I know that it doesn’t work that way with leadership elections, but one can dream.

Jackalope on February 28, 2013 at 3:59 PM

turfmann on February 28, 2013 at 3:48 PM

The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.

We demand the nationalization of businesses, which have been organized into cartels.

We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose.

- National Socialist German Workers Party platform [February 25, 1920]

Sounds like Obama to me.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 28, 2013 at 4:00 PM

These are insane times, indeed.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 3:26 PM

I’ve expressed this before and I’ll do so again: Obama is not mentally well.

Lourdes on February 28, 2013 at 3:55 PM

If you’ve never exprienced a close family member who is mentally “unwell” (mentally ill, in other words), tried to maintain a relationship with someone who was otherwise, you may not understand this but I think most people, whether they have or not, do understand this:

some personalities “infect outwardly” when they’re mentally ill — they agitate others, they instigate problems that others may not on their own encounter, they prompt others into anguished emotional, mental territory simply by affecting them with deranged suggestions, ideas, requests, general influence.

That’s what Barack Obama does. He’s not a well man but he does accomplish the “infection” of others around him by influence, pressure, requests, tales told, favors dispensed, whatever…by his influence on others.

Psychopaths (though I don’t presume here to apply that label to Obama, I’m no physician, but just saying here), psychopaths are oftentimes quite charming. More charming and influential than others, in fact. The “big flirt,” etc., these are people who apply undue influence emotionally on others to get what they, the influential one, wants. Obama is like that, and at this point there is little need for more proof of what he’s about.

Lourdes on February 28, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Jackalope on February 28, 2013 at 3:59 PM

The people should shun both parties. They are both charlatanic. The Rs enable the Lilliputian in Chief. Thus, I hate them more than him.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 4:01 PM

I’ve expressed this before and I’ll do so again: Obama is not mentally well.

If so, its because of is upbringing, his mentors, and a whole lotta stuff he’s inhaled or ingested.

hawkeye54 on February 28, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Obama’s idol discovered: Sid Phillips

[Reading warning on rocket] “Extremely dangerous. Keep out of reach of children.” Cool! What am I gonna blow?

[talking in his sleep] I wanna ride the pony…

Whatever she said, she’s lying!

BobMbx on February 28, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Lourdes on February 28, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Obama is not “charming”, nor “simpatico”. It’s a made up meme. Obama only likes himself. Basta.

He is clinically NPD’d.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Bob Woodward:

V “I am not a kook.” V

Curtiss on February 28, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Obama is not mentally well.

Lourdes on February 28, 2013 at 3:55 PM

He is clinically NPD’d.

An incredible thesis will one day be written about it, or a fabulous book.

That the land doesn’t realize it makes her deserve the demise.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 3:57 PM

I agree that Obama has Narcissistic Personality Disorder but I also think his mental derangement goes much farther than “just” that.

I really do think he’s psychotic.

Lourdes on February 28, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Whitehouse to older propaganda artists who remember what Journalist are suppose to be (not that they are real journalists mind you)… THIS IS SPARTA MORDOR ON THE POTOMAC you will only say what we tell you to say… <— spoken in think Russian accent…

SWalker on February 28, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Does everyone understand the point of why Woodward did this?

Woodward’s “Price of Politics” came out Sept 6th.

The White House buried it underneath Benghazi so no one would pay attention to the fact Woodward said Obama was flailing on the economy, and some of it like “shovel-ready jobs”, was purposeful deception.

It’s no accident this all started after Politico’s “Puppet Master” story or Barry’s Weekend With Tiger.

Woodward sees what’s coming with the economy and the only way to make Obama negotiate on the CR, instead of campaign, is to use Barry’s tactic – create a distraction.

This stopped Obama’s people cold. On the day of the Sequester.

So what now happens for the rest of the month as we build towards Shutdownmania?

If Barry keeps his usual con going, they are going lay enough ground so that he has part ownership of the shutdown, when last month he would have free from responsibility.

budfox on February 28, 2013 at 4:06 PM

I really do think he’s psychotic.

Lourdes on February 28, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Indeed he is Obama the great destroyer…

SWalker on February 28, 2013 at 4:06 PM

The Sequester Molester

can_con on February 28, 2013 at 3:52 PM

That’l get lester’s dander up !

Jabberwock on February 28, 2013 at 4:08 PM

This story fascinates me, inasmuch as it is revealing once more how completely in the tank the rest of the media is. They don’t even pretend anymore. There is no pretense of fairness or balance…they are, and have been, defenders of the cult of Obama. To attack Bob Woodward as they have, his fellow “reporters” (admin lackeys, really) and admin officials alike, is astonishing. This is the guy that brought down a former president, yet even he is not allowed to criticize the One. Else he’ll regret it, just as the WH promised. That’s chilling…the differences between our gov’t and North Korea’s become a bit less acute every day.

changer1701 on February 28, 2013 at 4:08 PM

This from Ace. It’s what the White House and their media fanboys are trying to bury by making this about Woodward;

There are several lies Woodward has exposed:

1. Obama, despite the media blitz to blame the GOP, actually conceived of and proposed the sequester.

2. Obama, despite now claiming that tax increases must be part of the deal to avoid the sequester, agreed last year that only spending cuts would constitute the plan to avoid the sequester. Thus, he’s “moved goalposts” yet again.

3. Obama does not in fact have to release illegal aliens or cancel ship deployments due to the sequester — he’s doing these things by choice, for political purposes.

Marcus Traianus on February 28, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Lourdes on February 28, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Obama is not “charming”, nor “simpatico”. It’s a made up meme. Obama only likes himself. Basta.

He is clinically NPD’d.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 4:03 PM

I agree he has Narcissistic Personality Disorder (“NPD”) but I disagree that he “isn’t charming.”

He USES a false pretense of charm (gifts, luxuries, “celebrity affect,” associations with grandiose places and personalities and goods, theatrical appearances — which is more of that grandiosity — all the “campaigning” instead of doing his actual job, etc.) to leverage what he wants and that is other people’s adulation.

I agree he’s not genuinely interested in much outside his own satisfaction. But he USES an AFFECTATION of “charm” to leverage his own goals — thus, his affect on others of a sort of hypnotic or “love affair” quality: people feel “in love” with him, offer themselves to him like a gift, etc., risk their life’s work’s reputations and such just to maintain relationship or identity “with him”….

all that is called “charm” in action. It’s an affectation done by Obama, but still it’s “charm”…and “charm” isn’t necessarily a good quality, it’s more akin to falseness, what some people simply call “putting on airs” or “flirting”.

Lourdes on February 28, 2013 at 4:08 PM

I’ve expressed this before and I’ll do so again: Obama is not mentally well.

If so, its because of is upbringing, his mentors, and a whole lotta stuff he’s inhaled or ingested.

hawkeye54 on February 28, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Well, it very often is due to all that…

Lourdes on February 28, 2013 at 4:11 PM

“And now, here to talk about the sequester, Congressman crrr6 now joins us life from Washington – good evening…”

“Yes, good evening.

I would just like to point out that this president is perhaps the biggest con man in US history. As Bob Woodward pointed out, he invented the sequester 2 years ago and promised to veto any changes to it.

Now, he says he wants a balanced approach after he already got his middle class tax hikes. Now, we even offered him complete authority to pick and choose what to cut, and he promised to veto that too. So, he will not accept any cuts of any sort and now thinks compromise is coming to an agreement of how much to raise taxes.”

crrr6 on February 28, 2013 at 4:13 PM

I’ve expressed this before and I’ll do so again: Obama is not mentally well.

If so, its because of is upbringing, his mentors, and a whole lotta stuff he’s inhaled or ingested.

hawkeye54 on February 28, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Well, it very often is due to all that…

Lourdes on February 28, 2013 at 4:11 PM

And a profound belief that white America really is evil, that capitalism enslaves the common man to the wealthy Robber Barons and that Marxism genuinely is the path to freedom. Ok, well, and yea, a very unhealthy dose of sociopathic physios and narcissistic personality disorder.

SWalker on February 28, 2013 at 4:16 PM

So it slooooowly dawns on the Pravda press that their boy is a total wacko, but too late. They’re all in. He is THEIR wacko and they will damn sure circle the wagons to protect him. Think of what’s at stake for them: They went all in on this lunatic. They bought the con. Fell for the shiny objects. Now they’ve got themselves an incompetent nutjob that THEY are responsible for foisting upon the nation. They will never, ever, not ever admit their error. Better to sail along with the wack-a-doodle than to admit they were so, so wrong. That is the liberal mindset.

Rational Thought on February 28, 2013 at 4:17 PM

@Lourdes

Nice, but the problem isn’t diagnosis, the problem is saving yourself, your family and the country.

One guy alone isn’t much of a problem. But this fellow has quite a posse.

CrazyGene on February 28, 2013 at 4:18 PM

During Stalin rule of evil and when the Soviet Union communists were killing and jailing their own people by the millions many of the victims were known to say “If Stalin knew this would not have happened to us”… of course it was Stalin and only Stalin who ordered the death and jailing of the millions of people…

mnjg on February 28, 2013 at 4:19 PM

@Rational Thought

Frighteningly correct, I’m afraid. (Actually, after enough of them get personally screwed, they may change, but by then it will be way too late.)

CrazyGene on February 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Maybe the pony in all the Obama reelection manure is that the administration will relax a bit and show its arrogance and undo itself for all to see.

During the campaigns, it was for all to see that the Obama encampment took any criticism as a threat and it met all threats by to destroying the attacker.

It is also clear to see that the Obama modus operendi is to divide, not to unite. He attacks the wealthy, today. Tomorrow, he will attack the rest of us because we, the rest of us, let him get away with separating some from us all.

“If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.”

billrowe on February 28, 2013 at 4:28 PM

So be a real journalist and share the name with us…

right2bright on February 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM

One guy alone isn’t much of a problem. But this fellow has quite a posse.

CrazyGene on February 28, 2013 at 4:18 PM

A LOT of deranged people have large numbers of followers. I mean, just look at history for proof of that.

And Obama’s dedication to Marxism if not his own interpretation of tweaked-Communism: that’s the fruition of his resentments as I earlier explained or to which I referred earlier (above).

He has these “boogy men” ideals, especially as to Capitalism but it’s really just an elaboration and projection of his own resentments while believing “others” got what he didn’t but which he “deserved to have”. So he maligns the producers, the “makers,” the “daddies…”

He hates the makers because they didn’t make for him, in other words. He’s still functioning on that door-slamming, temper-tantrumming, shin-kicking animosity he felt when he didn’t get those presents that he saw others getting but believed should be given to him.

I realize all that description does little to nothing to make any difference as to the damages the man is waging on the nation (and citizens) but it’s a way to view his ongoing actions with more predictability, like, say, “predicting his irregularities,” or understanding that he’s not going to be behaving anywhere near normally in the Presidency or afterward.

Lourdes on February 28, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Feel free to add your own…
turfmann on February 28, 2013 at 3:48 PM

The biggest difference that I can find is:

Eva Braun never managed to crash the Academy Awards and present the Best Picture Oscar.

LegendHasIt on February 28, 2013 at 4:38 PM

As to those delusional or otherwise who follow Obama…

…just think of co-dependence relationships like, say, the people who express their own insecurities by attaching themselves to others with obvious problems: they “need” to be fulfilling a role of managing, “helping” or otherwise explaining themselves as he or she who saves the other one.

I think the Left, so many people involved in the various identity groups that define the Left, are mostly people in need of affixing themselves to someone else or some “cause” so they can form the identity they’re missing as individuals. Or believe they’re defined by…

If that weren’t so, then the whole racial-gender-sechual-food-identity groups wouldn’t be so rampant as defining tools among and by the Left.

They’ve affixed self-worth onto Obama as figurehead. His vulnerabilities, if admitted by them, would be devastating to their sense of existence, their identities…

…then if they’d carry on after all that, they’d simply reaffix themselves to another one of these fictitious-celebrity-big-people. Also explains why the Hollywood/theatrical integration with the Left…

Lourdes on February 28, 2013 at 4:39 PM

We’re talking about a guy who threw his own white grandmother under the bus!

This guy is beyond. the. pale.

can_con on February 28, 2013 at 4:41 PM

@Lourdes

Nice, but the problem isn’t diagnosis,

CrazyGene on February 28, 2013 at 4:18 PM

I’m not diagnosing anyone, I’m not a physician.

It’s my own observation, what I expressed. And from afar at that so I’m sure what I expressed is irregular at some point on a medical (or “diagnostic”) level. But it’s what and who I see in Obama, thus I express it.

It’s a way to realize that expecting “sanity” or sound actions and statements from Obama is not sound itself — ’cause he’s not going to provide sound actions and sound decisions for reasons I expressed earlier.

He hasn’t made sound decisions, he’s made outrageous lies that even a simpleton can recognize while in office and before hand…his appointments have mostly if not all been contrary to reliability and assumed purpose (reveals his counter-purposes to the appointments he’s made)…

…we shouldn’t be expecting him to act rationally, in other words, because he isn’t rational. Seems to me that it’s up to Congress to keep the nation somewhat safe and sound until this nutcase in the White House moves on.

Lourdes on February 28, 2013 at 4:46 PM

All the journalists that supported Obama on this…watch an Obama payback granting lots of “exclusive” interviews with Michelle and Barry for their publications…

albill on February 28, 2013 at 4:46 PM

The MSM has been Barry’s whores for years now. So now they want RESPECT?

It’s a little late for that.

GarandFan on February 28, 2013 at 4:46 PM

I know they’re already marginalizing these older-school journolists, but I wonder how quickly they’ll start breaking out the “he must be getting a little senile” statements to further add to the “move along, nothing to see here folks.”

DrAllecon on February 28, 2013 at 4:47 PM

National Journal chief:

A senior WH official got so belligerent with me, I had to drop him as a source

Yeah, by all accounts Valerie Jarret is a real pain in the azz.

ToddPA on February 28, 2013 at 4:59 PM

The MSM has been Barry’s whores for years now. So now they want RESPECT?

It’s a little late for that.

GarandFan on February 28, 2013 at 4:46 PM

They’re not whores. You have to pay whores. These guys do it for free.

Missy on February 28, 2013 at 5:00 PM

So if Obama didn’t approve of this (heh, that’s a line for Leno)it seems that’s evidence that he’s unable to show leadership in his own White House…not to mention the Mexican border and Benghazigate and..

Don L on February 28, 2013 at 5:00 PM

This guy is beyond. the. pale.

can_con on February 28, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Heh, that’s another line for Leno.

Don L on February 28, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Like Noah Rothman says, whether it’s Team O or just their fans in the media doing the dirty work, Woodward will end up regretting this.

I am not so sure he will regret it…he knew what he was doing when he started talking..if he did not want to piss people off, he would have just shut up.

Terrye on February 28, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Journalism’s younger crowd believe their proper journalistic mission is to change if not the entire world, at least our section of it. As luck would have it, the country and world Obama envisions is also the country and world they envision. They actually believe Obama is the last, best hope, the lightbringer, and that their shared mission is righteous in its ultimate goal of social justice. They’ve been taught that when the cause is just and objective reporting would do harm to that cause, they then have no obligation to objectivity. To the contrary, their obligation is to further their mission’s goals and to use all the tools at their disposal to do so.

SukieTawdry on February 28, 2013 at 5:13 PM

SukieTawdry on February 28, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Well said. Even when they do take issue occasionally with Obama’s actions or policies, they stamp it back down into what passes for their consciences “for the greater good.”

Missy on February 28, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Update: Via Josh Kraushaar, no threats, just a little reputational tear-down:

“Inside the West Wing, Woodward is viewed, one top Democrat said, as a “self-righteous kook,” while an administration official said he “has been going nuts for no good reason.”

And this is how they regard Bob Woodward. Imagine how willing they are to destroy a less respectable journalist.

Doughboy on February 28, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Should anyone who has not been in a coma and even remotely sentient be surprised by any of this?

The media are all invested. Anyone who does not worship The Precious will be run over by the bus.

We have seen this over and over again. The only slight surprise is that Woodward was silly enough not to have realized that his wandering off the plantation would get him a very quick push under the bus. Perhaps he thought he was immune. Why would he be – an ambassador certainly wasn’t.

No one is immune. The most important thing is to protect The Precious.

kim roy on February 28, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Belligerent is OK as long as he’s transparent.

RdLake on February 28, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Sounds like begging.

pat on February 28, 2013 at 5:23 PM

I am not so sure he will regret it…he knew what he was doing when he started talking..if he did not want to piss people off, he would have just shut up.

Terrye on February 28, 2013 at 5:08 PM

.
Think it through a little further …

… Woodward is no starry eyed idealist – he knew what he was doing when he made the “madness like I have not seen in a very long time” reference.

He knew pointing out the SCOAMF’s lie regarding sequestration and calling him out on “moving the goalposts” would bring him an angry call (during which the REAL threats were made) and a follow up “mea culpa” email with the “soft” threat.

And he knows putting the last part out in the public arena would set off the Kneepad Media in an all out attempt to discredit him.

Bob Woodward knows everyone who is anyone in Washington. He has been privy to their secrets for the last 40 years.

If he has decided to take on the White House, while giving the SCOAMF the opportunity to throw others under the bus

… isn’t it more likely than not he has his plan for how he will move on from this point? Including what he may say next?

PolAgnostic on February 28, 2013 at 5:35 PM

budfox on February 28, 2013 at 4:06 PM

What you say makes sense. This administration is full of distractions and deflections away from the real issues.

Woodward wrote about Obysmal’s role in the CR issue and its obvious politicization prior to the election. He exposes O’s role in orchestrating the sequester via Lew’s advice, little thinking that his behaviors would have demonstrable consequences.

The irony is that Woodward telephoned the WH with his intentions to write the original article.

The younger media members are easily intimidated. As rockmom wrote, they were part of the crew that eased O into the presidency and thus see their role as continued supporters. They are nothing more than transcriptionists of WH propaganda and agitation tricks. These youngsters do not understand the purpose of the First Amendment and the role of the press (media) in making our elected personnel accountable. Their skills in research are wanting; they are accustomed to churning out boilerplate with WH-approved talking points and word choices.

Even the much older Chris Matthews has trumpeted that he sees his role as making sure that the O administration succeeds. (Succeeds in what is the larger question.) Now he announces that he will do the same for Hillary C. should she plan to run.

onlineanalyst on February 28, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Lourdes on February 28, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Lourdes, part of O’s “charm” offensive is to put his arm or hand on the person that he is talking to in order to feign empathy. The techique is transparent as all get out.

onlineanalyst on February 28, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Matt YglesiasVerified account‏@mattyglesias

Woodward’s managed to make me suspect Nixon got a raw deal.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2013 at 3:28 PM

I’ve never doubted that. Nixon, for his personal faults, was an excellent representative of American interests abroad.

Little known fact: Nixon never increased troop levels in SE Asia. In fact, he began drawing down almost immediately after taking office. But somehow, he gets blamed for “expanding the war”.

And that is seared into my memory.

BobMbx on February 28, 2013 at 5:51 PM

They’re not whores. You have to pay whores. These guys do it for free.

Missy on February 28, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Ah…sluts then.

BobMbx on February 28, 2013 at 5:52 PM

… isn’t it more likely than not he has his plan for how he will move on from this point? Including what he may say next?

PolAgnostic on February 28, 2013 at 5:35 PM

What he’s going to say next is “I’m sorry I said that. Now can’t I please be invited to the parties again?”

He just had a brain-fart followed by a hissy-fit, and the “youngsters” in his profession can’t wait to move him (and his peers) out so that they can move up.

bofh on February 28, 2013 at 5:55 PM

As evidence of the diversionary tactics, the WH trots out Michelle O these last several days. She polls well still, though Lord knows why. The Academy Awards appearance almost caused a bump in the road because of its inappropriateness.

A column assuredly ghost-written for Michelle O appears in the WSJ today.

She is interviewed by Robin Whatshername (cancer survivor) to discuss the “success” of Michelle’s anti-obesity dietary intrusion on American lives, and the “wonderfulness” of the Obama’s (because they care!) is reinforced. Stephanopoulos fairly creams himself in the introduction to that segment and the wrap up. Then (black) woman to (black) woman, the two celebrities superficially discuss nutrition. The interview could have been just between two women , but the optics of having a cancer survivor field the interview is icing on the cake. The racial angle optics is the cherry on top.

onlineanalyst on February 28, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2