• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House threatens Bob Woodward

if you can conclude anything definitive from that email, you are exhibiting confirmation bias.

What we can conclude definitely from that email is that Woodward was not 'threatened', and nothing in his response indicates he feels threatened.

On the other hand, if you are a Far Right extremist desparate for anything you can use against the President, I'm sure that email looks like one of the recent pronouncements from the leader of North Korea.

As I said earlier, you guys are funny!
 
what the hell are you talking about?



again, what the hell are you talking about?

My mistake. I thought you had said something about how SCOTUS said the health care mandate was a tax

By the way – the Supreme Court ruled that the health care mandate is a tax. Obama is raising taxes. Out of one side of his face, he claimed to not raise taxes, then out of the other side of his face he argued with the supreme court that this mandate is a tax and it is constitutional because it is indeed a tax

You are wrong


yes, it does. It acts as a tax and is legal because it operates as a tax.

quacks like a duck, looks like a duck. ITS A DUCK

Not if it's a cartoon (like your cartoonish argument)
 
My mistake. I thought you had said something about how SCOTUS said the health care mandate was a tax






Not if it's a cartoon (like your cartoonish argument)


since you acknowledged your error and now have offered nothing but childish rebuttals, we can close this chapter.
 
What we can conclude definitely from that email is that Woodward was not 'threatened', and nothing in his response indicates he feels threatened.

we can't conclude that definitely. When a person in authority threatens subordinates, sometimes the subordinates comply initially.
 
The problem with jumping on the bandwagon is that you look like a fool after it all blows over.
 
The problem with jumping on the bandwagon is that you look like a fool after it all blows over.

agreed.

we have two bandwagons though. those positive Woodward is lying, and those positive the administration threatened Woodward.

some of us are watching the bandwagon waiting for more info.
 
Yes, it was wrong of me to think you said something about SCOTUS saying that the health care mandate was a tax :roll:

So now it's not SCOTUS, it's the Obama admin?

it was both. POTUS provided a brief arguing the taxing power made this provision legal. SCOTUS agreed with the brief.
 
You are so transparent.

Nobody is calling Obama the boogey man. I have never engaged in this birther nonsense.

You keep lining up the straw man to bury a story.

Sure you are. You seem to be buying this threat on Woodward.


By the way – the Supreme Court ruled that the health care mandate is a tax. Obama is raising taxes. Out of one side of his face, he claimed to not raise taxes, then out of the other side of his face he argued with the supreme court that this mandate is a tax and it is constitutional because it is indeed a tax

You are wrong
Fail

The minor charge required to guarantee that everyone carries health insurance pales in comparison to Obama making permanent the "Bush Tax cuts".

Thanks to last night's Fiscal Cliff deal, we an now put to bed the term "The Bush Tax Cuts."
As of now, they're the Obama Tax Cuts.
It should be noted, that income taxes are lower for everyone today than they would have been if the American Taxpayer Relief Act hadn't gone into effect.


Read more: RIP: The Bush Tax Cuts; They Have Become The Obama Tax Cuts - Business Insider
 
Sure you are. You seem to be buying this threat on Woodward.

Woodward has earned enough of a pass for me to not accuse him of dementia. I am also not accusing the administration of being guilty because I have seen enough journalists over the years allow their ego to interfere with their reporting.

The minor charge required to guarantee that everyone carries health insurance pales in comparison to Obama making permanent the "Bush Tax cuts.

If you feel this is true, fine. But to claim Obama didn't raise taxes is 100% a lie.


those were not my words. you failed to quote the proper person.
 
1. Woodward has earned enough of a pass for me to not accuse him of dementia. I am also not accusing the administration of being guilty because I have seen enough journalists over the years allow their ego to interfere with their reporting.



2. If you feel this is true, fine. But to claim Obama didn't raise taxes is 100% a lie.
1. Sounds like a wash then.

IMO, Woodward was self-promoting by making a mountain out of a sand dune. Odds are pretty good that the conversation between the reporter and the staffer became quite heated. Was anyone threatened? I doubt it.

2. If John Roberts calls Obamacare a tax because it forces people to buy healthcare, that doesn't really make it one.
 
IMO, Woodward was self-promoting by making a mountain out of a sand dune. Odds are pretty good that the conversation between the reporter and the staffer became quite heated. Was anyone threatened? I doubt it.


And these two people, are they also making amountian out of a molehill?

"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."

http://mobile.nationaljournal.com/po...o-you-20130228

"A day after Woodward's claim that a senior White House official had told him he would "regret" writing a column criticizing President Obama's stance on the sequester, Lanny Davis, a longtime close advisor to President Bill Clinton, told WMAL's Mornings on the Mall Thursday he had received similar threats for newspaper columns he had written about Obama in the Washington Times."

WMAL : Where Washington Comes to Talk
 
1. Sounds like a wash then.

IMO, Woodward was self-promoting by making a mountain out of a sand dune. Odds are pretty good that the conversation between the reporter and the staffer became quite heated. Was anyone hreatened? I doubt it.

Odds are also pretty good that powerful politicians work very hard to control the message using overt threats

2. If John Roberts calls Obamacare a tax because it forces people to buy healthcare, that doesn't really make it one.

The Obama legal team used the fact that congress has the power to tax as the reason this mandate is legal. If it only legal because they can tax people, its a tax.
 
agreed.

we have two bandwagons though. those positive Woodward is lying, and those positive the administration threatened Woodward.

some of us are watching the bandwagon waiting for more info.
Nobody is disputing what was said. According to Woodward the "threat" was made in the e-mail, so we know exactly what was said. It is yourpersonal interpretation of it that is debatable.
 
And these two people, are they also making amountian out of a molehill?

"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."

http://mobile.nationaljournal.com/po...o-you-20130228

"A day after Woodward's claim that a senior White House official had told him he would "regret" writing a column criticizing President Obama's stance on the sequester, Lanny Davis, a longtime close advisor to President Bill Clinton, told WMAL's Mornings on the Mall Thursday he had received similar threats for newspaper columns he had written about Obama in the Washington Times."

WMAL : Where Washington Comes to Talk
Don't you have any new material. How many times are you going to post this verbatim in other places?
 
Luckily, we can all read the email exchange and draw our own conclusions.
Exactly. And that is why Woodward looks like a fool. He went on Hannity last night and told Sean he was a wonderful journalist.
 
Don't you have any new material. How many times are you going to post this verbatim in other places?

I posted it in one other thread. You think that is to much?

Is something that occurred a few days ago not new enough for you?
 
Odds are also pretty good that powerful politicians work very hard to control the message using overt threats



The Obama legal team used the fact that congress has the power to tax as the reason this mandate is legal. If it only legal because they can tax people, its a tax.

Are you sure that was Obama's argument? I thought it was something Roberts pulled out of his ass.
 
Nobody is disputing what was said. According to Woodward the "threat" was made in the e-mail, so we know exactly what was said. It is yourpersonal interpretation of it that is debatable.

Your interpretation is debatable. I have not come up with one yet, I am waiting for more information

For instance, Life exists outside of that email. What happened in the hours after the email? Did Woodward see any action that made him believe he needed to take this line about regret more seriously?

Or maybe he was immediately threatened and backed down for the threat. “oh don’t worry buddy. We are friends. I appreciate you yelling at me. I need that”. Then later he was ashamed of him lack of journalistic courage and came back out firing.

You have your mind made up. A closed mind is not something I respect at all.
 
And these two people, are they also making amountian out of a molehill?

"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."

http://mobile.nationaljournal.com/po...o-you-20130228

"A day after Woodward's claim that a senior White House official had told him he would "regret" writing a column criticizing President Obama's stance on the sequester, Lanny Davis, a longtime close advisor to President Bill Clinton, told WMAL's Mornings on the Mall Thursday he had received similar threats for newspaper columns he had written about Obama in the Washington Times."

WMAL : Where Washington Comes to Talk
Lanny Davis is not very reliable. He was a huge Hillary supporter and I can imagine both sides have an ax to grind there.
 
Are you sure that was Obama's argument? I thought it was something Roberts pulled out of his ass.

yes. I am sure

http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/healthwatch/dojbrief.pdf

from brief said:
2. CongressZs taxing power provides an independent
ground to uphold the minimum coverage provision. In
qpassing on the constitutionality of a tax law,r a court is
qconcerned only with its practical operation, not its definition or the precise form of descriptive words which
may be applied to it.r Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
312 U.S. 359, 363 (1941) (citation omitted). The practical
operation of the minimum coverage provision is as a tax
law. The only consequences of a failure to maintain minimum coverage are tax consequences: non-exempted
federal income taxpayers will have increased tax liability
for those months in which they fail to maintain minimum
coverage for themselves or their dependents. That additional tax liability will be calculated on the basis of the
taxpayerZs household income
 
I've had more 'threatening' exchanges in the check out line at the Supermarket while talking about the weather than this exchange. It looks an awful lot to me like Bob Woodward once again trying to become the story rather than reporting on it.
There really is no other way around it. Woodward was on Scarborough today. They did not agree with him but treated him like he was an ol fart who didn't know his name anymore. Woodward looks like a complete idiot, and the more he talks the more he looks senile.
 
Your interpretation is debatable. I have not come up with one yet, I am waiting for more information

For instance, Life exists outside of that email. What happened in the hours after the email? Did Woodward see any action that made him believe he needed to take this line about regret more seriously?

Or maybe he was immediately threatened and backed down for the threat. “oh don’t worry buddy. We are friends. I appreciate you yelling at me. I need that”. Then later he was ashamed of him lack of journalistic courage and came back out firing.

You have your mind made up. A closed mind is not something I respect at all.
Yes I have my mind made up on this issue. It was entertaining watching Woodward make a fool of himself, but it is time to move on. The story was supposed to be about the sequester, and now it is all about Woodward. I'm not sure if that is what he intended, but it discredits him, nonetheless.
 
Back
Top Bottom