General Discussion

cali

(114,904 posts) Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:35 AM Feb 2013

The humble, thoughtful email that that pig Woodward said was threatening

On Thursday morning, Politico released the text of the email exchange between Woodward and Sperling. The emails look to be a far cry from the kind of thuggery that Woodward implied.

Here's an excerpt from Sperling:

I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall -- but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim ... My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.

Woodward, who would later profess to be unnerved by Sperling's email, replied very calmly:

Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice.

<snip>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/bob-woodward-emails-white-house-threat_n_2781052.html

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The humble, thoughtful email that that pig Woodward said was threatening (Original Post) cali Feb 2013 OP

Wow - Woodward reveals himself to be a Whiney RepubliWanker Berlum Feb 2013 #1

First world problems. warrior1 Feb 2013 #2

It's hard to believe he would publicly call that a threat. Jim__ Feb 2013 #3

Here: cali Feb 2013 #4

Yes, I found it on google. Thanks. Jim__ Feb 2013 #5

OH MY GOD!!! CALL THE COPS!!! Iggo Feb 2013 #6

Cali, please don't insult pigs by comparing them to Bob Woodward. They are intelligent! catbyte Feb 2013 #7

The horror! Should we post guards? nolabear Feb 2013 #8

Berlum

(7,044 posts)

1. Wow - Woodward reveals himself to be a Whiney RepubliWanker

Reply to cali (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:40 AM

Feb 2013

What a whiney whimp (R).

warrior1

(12,325 posts)

2. First world problems.

Reply to cali (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:43 AM

Feb 2013

Woodward is full of himself.

Jim__

(14,077 posts)

3. It's hard to believe he would publicly call that a threat.

Reply to cali (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:45 AM

Feb 2013

Does the ellipsis actually cover some text? Or, is that the way the original e-mail read? If the ellipsis covers text, I wish they would have included a little bit more after the "threat", just for clarity.

cali

(114,904 posts)

4. Here:

Reply to Jim__ (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:49 AM

Feb 2013

But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand barain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really. It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios — but that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html#ixzz2MD2he4d1