Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on September 17, 2012, 05:17:21 AM
-
Opinion: Columnists
New Woodward book shows how Obama made it worse
September 15, 2012 | 8:00 pm
Senior Editorial Writer
The Washington Examiner
E@conncarrollDConn on FB
WASHINGTON - SEPTEMBER 14: (AFP OUT) Bob Woodward, Assistant Managing Editor of the Washington Post and the author of "The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008," speaks during a taping of "Meet the Press" at the NBC studios September 14, 2008 in Washington, DC. Sen. Woodward spoke on the handling of the war in Iraq by the Bush Administration. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images for Meet the Press)
Bob Woodward knows a failed president when he sees one. The man who was instrumental in bringing down Richard Nixon has now covered eight presidents for the Washington Post while writing more than a dozen books about them.
Which is what makes the final verdict he renders on President Obama in his new book, "The Price of Politics," so damning. Woodward writes, "It is a fact that President Obama was handed a miserable, faltering economy and faced a recalcitrant Republican opposition. But presidents work their will -- or should work their will -- on the important matters of national business. ... Obama has not."
Over the course of almost 450 pages, Woodward depicts Obama as an arrogant, aloof and hyperpartisan president who manages to either alienate or disappoint everybody he needs to help govern Washington.
One of the first scenes Woodward recounts is a meeting at the White House where Obama invited House Republicans over to talk about the stimulus. After then-Minority Whip Eric Cantor distributed a five-point Republican stimulus plan that differed from Obama's tax plan, Obama told Cantor, "I can go it alone. ... Look at the polls. The polls are pretty good for me right now. Elections have consequences. And Eric, I won. So on that, I think I trump you."
Later, after the Democrats drafted a stimulus bill that contained zero Republican ideas, Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel put Obama's position on bipartisanship a bit more succinctly, "We have the votes. F--k 'em."
Obama's tone changed, of course, after the "shellacking" the American people gave him during the 2010 elections. But even when he knew he needed Republican votes to govern, Obama could not help but stereotype and lecture the other party. He confidently told his staff he could roll newly minted House Speaker John Boehner because, "He's a golf-playing, cigarette-smoking, country-club Republican who makes deals. He is very familiar to me."
Boehner did try -- very hard, in fact -- to make a deal with Obama on the debt limit. But it was amateur hour at the White House at every turn. At one point in the negotiations, Obama insisted on dragging every congressional leader to the White House for daily meetings until the crisis was solved. The veteran hill staffers thought this was a clear sign that "the president simply didn't understand how Congress works and didn't know how to negotiate."
"Boehner," Woodward writes, "hated going down to the White House to listen to what amounted to presidential lectures."
And congressional Republicans weren't the only ones disappointed in Obama's leadership. After Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., became so disillusioned with Obama's handling of the crisis that they eventually cut their own deal with Boehner, Woodward writes that Obama had essentially been "voted off the island in his own house."
As a result of Obama's bumbling, Woodward concludes, "The mission of stabilizing and improving the economy is incomplete. First, the short-term federal fiscal problem has not been solved. Instead it has been pushed off to the future, leaving the United States facing what is now called the fiscal cliff. ... Second, the long-term problem of unsustainable entitlement spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, highlighted by Republican House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and familiar to all informed politicians and economists including the president ... has been left largely unaddressed."
"Americans are now left with a still struggling economy in the midst of a presidential election," Woodward writes. "It is a world of the status quo, only worse."
"The status quo, only worse." What a perfect description of the Obama presidency. It even fits on a bumper sticker.
Conn Carroll (ccarroll@washingtonexaminer.com) is a senior editorial writer for The Washington Examiner. Follow him on Twitter at @conncarroll.
-
Should be interesting to see the reaction to this
-
Should be interesting to see the reaction to this
Don't worry - the libs will attack Woodward and say he is lying.
In the leftist bubble, its only Obama who ever tells the truth, everyone else is a liar and racist.
-
Anyone know what Woodward has been up to these days?
I heard he might be writing a book about the Trump Whitehouse.
333 - have you heard anything about this
-
Anyone know what Woodward has been up to these days?
I heard he might be writing a book about the Trump Whitehouse.
333 - have you heard anything about this
Is that what I heard earlier today about Mattis saying he was full of shit and never said the things Woodward claimed? Or was that something else?
Mattis responded Tuesday: “The contemptuous words about the President attributed to me in Woodward’s book were never uttered by me or in my presence. While I generally enjoy reading fiction, this is a uniquely Washington brand of literature, and his anonymous sources do not lend credibility.”
He continued: “In serving in this administration, the idea that I would show contempt for the elected Commander-in-Chief president Trump, or tolerate disrespect to the office of the President from within our Department of Defense, is a product of someone’s rich imagination.”
-
Is that what I heard earlier today about Mattis saying he was full of shit and never said the things Woodward claimed? Or was that something else?
I have to say the alleged Mattis quote did surprise me however it certainly sounds accurate
"the president had the understanding of a “fifth or sixth grader.”
I suspect Woodward has tapes of all of these interviews just like he has a tape of the recent phone call he had with Trump
this is not his first rodeo
Let's see if any of these people sue or demand retractions (or whatever would be done to retract an alleged quote from a book)
-
Another Trump book that’s backfired on the author 😂😂😂😂
-
Another Trump book that’s backfired on the author 😂😂😂😂
another one?
which one backfired ?
does the word backfire in Trumpistan mean selling millions of copies?
-
Another Trump book that’s backfired on the author 😂😂😂😂
Of course.. within minutes of the books release, a Trumpster declares a backfire. :)
On a side note, after hearing the conversation between Trump and Woodward, it's probably pretty accurate.
-
Straw, hats off. You checkmated the Trumpsters with digging up this thread and seeing the pro Woodward comments, especially Soul Searcher and his statement about the libs attacking Woodward and claiming he is lying... pretty masterful. The shoe is on the other foot and they are too dense to figure out they are doing exactly what they said the libs would do.
-
another one?
which one backfired ?
does the word backfire in Trumpistan mean selling millions of copies?
You’re severely uninformed. Michael Wolff’s Book to start. Hahahah
-
Straw, hats off. You checkmated the Trumpsters with digging up this thread and seeing the pro Woodward comments, especially Soul Searcher and his statement about the libs attacking Woodward and claiming he is lying... pretty masterful. The shoe is on the other foot and they are too dense to figure out they are doing exactly what they said the libs would do.
Soooo when Americans change their minds and opinions about someone it's not ok, but demoncrats change their minds and it's perfectly acceptable and normal?
-
You’re severely uninformed. Michael Wolff’s Book to start. Hahahah
how did it "backfire"?
-
Soooo when Americans change their minds and opinions about someone it's not ok, but demoncrats change their minds and it's perfectly acceptable and normal?
apples and oranges. Bob writes a book about a Democrat, Republicans state how liberals will say he is lying.. Bob writes a book about a Republican and conservatives say he is lying. If this irony is lost on you.. I can't help you.
-
You’re severely uninformed. Michael Wolff’s Book to start. Hahahah
looks like you're right
this was a pretty huge "backfire" assuming backfire means being a #1 bestseller and the fastest selling book the in publishers history.
The book was originally scheduled to go on sale on January 9, 2018, but the publisher, Henry Holt and Company, moved up the release date to January 5 due to "unprecedented demand."[17][18][8] An excerpt of the book was released by New York magazine on January 3, 2018.[19] The same day, other media outlets reported on further content of the book; for example, The Guardian reported "explosive" highlights, stating they were based on the full book.[9] That day, pre-orders of the book made it the number 1 bestseller in the country.[20] Fire and Fury debuted at number one on The New York Times Best Seller list,[21] and within a week had become the fastest selling book in the publisher's history, with over 700,000 orders shipped and 1.4 million orders placed.[22]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_and_Fury
-
looks like you're right
this was a pretty huge "backfire" assuming backfire means being a #1 bestseller and the fastest selling book the in publishers history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_and_Fury
Idiot
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/5/michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-author-admits-not-all-/
I can provide a shit ton more if you'd like
-
-
Idiot
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/5/michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-author-admits-not-all-/
I can provide a shit ton more if you'd like
let me know when you have something that actually prove "backfire"
the book was a huge success
the publisher sold the film and television rights the same month it was published and they signed Wolff to write a sequel
apparently that's considered a disastrous "backfire" in Trumptardistan
-
While I don't know about a backfire, Wolff came across less than believable in many instances, I don't think accuracy was in his toolkit. Woodward on the other hand, probably going to be a fairly accurate representation.
-
While I don't know about a backfire, Wolff came across less than believable in many instances, I don't think accuracy was in his toolkit. Woodward on the other hand, probably going to be a fairly accurate representation.
has anyone sued Wolff yet?
I'm sure he has tons of tapes
Regarding Woodward, he has hundreds of hours of tapes and most of the quotes in the book were corroborated by multiple witnesses
Also, everything I've seen from both books seems totally believable based on what we've all seen the POTUS say and do along with the people around him.
-
Don't worry - the libs will attack Woodward and say he is lying.
In the leftist bubble, its only Obama who ever tells the truth, everyone else is a liar and racist.
About what and who (which of the Presidents he's written about)?
-
has anyone sued Wolff yet?
I'm sure he has tons of tapes
Regarding Woodward, he has hundreds of hours of tapes and most of the quotes in the book were corroborated by multiple witnesses
Also, everything I've seen from both books seems totally believable based on what we've all seen the POTUS say and do along with the people around him.
I don't know that anyone has. I don't think the book backfired. Whatever that means. But I think Wolff was a terrible interviewee and made it clear to me that he wouldn't hesitate putting in questionable information and dressing it up as accurate or factual. Maybe it was, maybe it wasnt. He wasn't very credible in my view, although likely parts of the book were accurate and I'm sure he could probably back it up if need be. But of the two, Woodward is a much more credible person and it's likely what is in the book is pretty close to what he reports. But no one but CNN and MSNBC followers will care. As long as the 401K's are doing ok, he gets a pass
-
LOL. Hypocrites thought Woodward was honest and credible until he exposed Trump. Typical Republicans.
-
apples and oranges. Bob writes a book about a Democrat, Republicans state how liberals will say he is lying.. Bob writes a book about a Republican and conservatives say he is lying. If this irony is lost on you.. I can't help you.
So you're saying the American people can't change their mind about someone and his writings over a 6 year period? Are demoncrats the only ones allowed to change their minds?
The only irony is that 6 years ago he was hated by demoncrats because of his writings, now he's loved by them for attacking Trump. Apples and oranges, right? ::) ::)
-
The only irony is that 6 years ago he was loved by Repubs because of his writings, now he's hated by them for attacking Trump. Apples and oranges, right? ::) ::)
Don't worry. Another lawsuit will come out, or another person tied to him will be indicted or plead guilty, or someone will quit the WH.... You will be having something new to make excuses for in a few days.
-
So you're saying the American people can't change their mind about someone and his writings over a 6 year period? Are demoncrats the only ones allowed to change their minds?
The only irony is that 6 years ago he was hated by demoncrats because of his writings, now he's loved by them for attacking Trump. Apples and oranges, right? ::) ::)
In a way you are right.. but finishing the sentence "Now Republicans, who loved him when he was attacking Obama, hate him for attacking Trump.
-
In a way you are right.. but finishing the sentence "Now Republicans, who loved him when he was attacking Obama, hate him for attacking Trump.
Kind of the catch 22, tit for tat we find ourselves in constantly, each side pumping up some guy because an enemy of my enemy must be a friend of mine.
-
Kind of the catch 22, tit for tat we find ourselves in constantly, each side pumping up some guy because an enemy of my enemy must be a friend of mine.
True. IN this case it happens to be a glaring example of it with the Republicans on the "oops" side. But you're right, won't be long before the left do something like it.
-
True. IN this case it happens to be a glaring example of it with the Republicans on the "oops" side. But you're right, won't be long before the left do something like it.
The "oops" catches the dems as well, they hated Woodward then, love him now.
-
Woodward changed his writing? He had a brain injury? Does that explain why he is so detested now? Naw.... he didn't change. Just his subject matter did. And now the little Trumpettes are having to make more excuses for the orange turd.
It's a rough life having to live tweet by tweet. And hoping for new fap material of Mueller and Comey kissing to be leaked.
-
Woodward changed his writing? He had a brain injury? Does that explain why he is so detested now? Naw.... he didn't change. Just his subject matter did. And now the little Trumpettes are having to make more excuses for the orange turd.
It's a rough life having to live tweet by tweet. And hoping for new fap material of Mueller and Comey kissing to be leaked.
Just like the libtards did when he skewered obama. ::)
-
The "oops" catches the dems as well, they hated Woodward then, love him now.
Yep.
The Mainstream Media Thought Bob Woodward Was A Hack, Until His Trump-Bashing Book Came Out
9/05/2018
Media Bias: The mainstream press is rushing to defend Bob Woodward after President Trump attacked him over his new book. That's funny, because journalists themselves had been saying far worse things about Woodward for more than a decade.
Bob Woodward's new book — "Fear: Trump In The White House" — isn't out yet, but has already created a frenzy of news coverage about Trump's dysfunctional White House. Naturally, Trump lashed out in a series of tweets, attacking Woodward's credibility. We haven't read the book, and can't vouch for its accuracy. Neither have most reporters broadcasting its most sensational findings.
Still, you can see why reporters would want to protect one of their own from the vile attacks waged against their hero. Why just look at the vitriol that has spewed forth from his critics:
"The latest in a long string of questionable journalistic episodes."
"It reveals a grotesquely swollen ego fed by 40 years of hero worship."
"Bob Woodward's plunge into sheer hackery."
"Why does Bob Woodward get to lie and still be Bob Woodward?"
"As an analyst, Woodward is a particular kind of awful."
"He's the dumb blonde of American journalism."
"Woodward, despite filing one dubious story after another, retains his position as an eminence grise of DC reporters."
"It is relentlessly biased against the president."
"Illuminates his role as an Establishment cipher."
Wow! A threat to First Amendment freedoms if ever there was one. Right?
There's just one problem.
Every one of the quotes above — every single one — was penned by prominent, mainstream journalists. (Arianna Huffington, founder of Pulitzer-prize-winning Huffington Post, is the one who called Woodward a "dumb blonde.") There are many more attacks where those came from.
In fact, the mainstream press had been on something of a campaign to tear down Woodward's credibility for years.
During the Bush and Obama administrations, Woodward-bashing articles ran in Newsweek, New York magazine, The Huffington Post, The New Republic and many others, with headlines like:
"Bob Woodward's Credibility Finally Hits The Ocean Floor."
"The Myth of Bob Woodward: Why Is This Man an American Icon."
"What The Hell Happened to Bob Woodward?"
"Woodward as Journalistic Hero: The Real State of Denial."
"The Long, Long Fall of Bob Woodward."
"The troubling things I learned when I re-reported Bob Woodward's book on John Belushi."
Woodward's Fall From Liberal Media Grace
Why the brutal attacks from journalists on one of their own? And the Pulitzer-Prize-Winning-Reporter-Who-Brought-Down-Nixon-And-Inspired-Legions-To-Become-Journalists no less?
Well, back in the early-2000s, Woodward committed the cardinal journalistic sin of writing a couple books that were more or less sympathetic toward the Bush administration. He later wrote books bashing the administration, but that wasn't enough to redeem himself.
Then, during the Obama years, Woodward doubled down on his sinful ways by daring to criticize President Obama, challenging the truthfulness of some of Obama's claims, and once suggesting that an Obama administration official tried to intimidate him.
If there's one thing you can't do to be a journalist in good standing, it's write anything that makes a Republican look good. Or that makes a Democrat — especially Obama — look bad. Even if the reporting is solid, and the reporter is Bob Woodward. It doesn't matter.
The message to journalists everywhere is clear. No one, not even Woodward, can stray from journalism's liberal dogma and keep their reputations intact.
But now Woodward has written a book that makes Trump look even worse than the Washington Establishment had suspected.
So, all his past sins are forgiven. His reporting is impeccable. His facts unassailable. Any challenges to Woodward or his craft are deeply offensive.
At least for now.
After all, Woodward might someday churn out a subsequent book that is critical of a future Democrat. Then he'll once again be a disgrace to journalists everywhere.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/bob-woodward-trump-book-media-bias/
-
End thread
-
and right wingers LOVED Woodward when he was bashing Obama
I still haven't seen anyone saying they are suing Woodward over this new book
Is anyone suing Wolff?
-
Dos has been gone for awhile so he might not be up to speed on the fact we were pointing out the blatant bias of each party. When Woodward was not very positive about Obama, the left questioned his integrity, the right supported his view. After writing an unflattering book on Trump, the right question his integrity the left support his view.
-
and right wingers LOVED Woodward when he was bashing Obama
I still haven't seen anyone saying they are suing Woodward over this new book
Is anyone suing Wolff?
Mattis denied saying what he is alleged to have said
-
Mattis denied saying what he is alleged to have said
I would expect them all to deny it
Mark Felt denied for many many years that he was the anonymous source for Woodward and Bernstein
-
Perceptions can be more dominate than truths. IMO Trump's biggest fault, specially to other politicians, might be that he doesn't behave like a politician (like they do). On the other hand, Trump's uniqueness and roguishness is part of his appeal to those who support him. That he's sometimes perceived as the underdog actually works in his favor.
-
Perceptions can be more dominate than truths. IMO Trump's biggest fault, specially to other politicians, might be that he doesn't behave like a politician (like they do). On the other hand, Trump's uniqueness and roguishness is part of his appeal to those who support him. That he's sometimes perceived as the underdog actually works in his favor.
Just my perception, but rooting for a good underdog is understandable, rooting for Loki over Thor, not so much
-
Perceptions can be more dominate than truths. IMO Trump's biggest fault, specially to other politicians, might be that he doesn't behave like a politician (like they do). On the other hand, Trump's uniqueness and roguishness is part of his appeal to those who support him. That he's sometimes perceived as the underdog actually works in his favor.
That's one of his biggest strengths IMO.
-
Dos has been gone for awhile so he might not be up to speed on the fact we were pointing out the blatant bias of each party. When Woodward was not very positive about Obama, the left questioned his integrity, the right supported his view. After writing an unflattering book on Trump, the right question his integrity the left support his view.
This just proves that politicians and political parties will support and agree with anyone that supports their side, regardless of past indiscretions towards their party. It's amusing and sad at the same time.
-
This just proves that politicians and political parties will support and agree with anyone that supports their side, regardless of past indiscretions towards their party. It's amusing and sad at the same time.
Damn it.. I agree
-
Damn it.. I agree
Hate it when that happens.