Woodward’s Apostasy - The hero of Watergate becomes a Beltway villain.

Bob Woodward’s charge that he was threatened by a high-ranking Obama administration official after publishing a column critical of the White House was, it turns out, at least somewhat exaggerated. But it’s no accident that the media has chosen to focus on Woodward’s characterization of his exchange with White House economic director Gene Sperling, while all but ignoring the essence of the column that touched off the brouhaha in the first place: that Obama’s claims about Republican responsibility for the looming sequester were false, and that it was “months of White House dissembling” that had “eroded any semblance of trust between Obama and congressional Republicans.”

Indeed, the media treatment of the episode provides an all-too-telling glimpse into the administration’s relationship with the press. It hardly bears repeating that from the start of Barack Obama’s career on the national stage, he has enjoyed an unprecedented kinship with the media—one that, as frustrated opponents rightly observe, often seems indistinguishable from outright alliance. On contentious issues like those involving the budget, especially, the administration has been hugely dependent on a compliant press—not only to shore up public support for its ongoing campaign of class warfare, but also to marginalize competing arguments.

So overt has the media cheerleading been on the president’s behalf that few have noted the potential pitfalls that the arrangement holds for both sides. By now, the media are so all-in with Obama that they cannot call his credibility into question, even when the facts demand it. By the same token, so reliant is Obama on the lapdog media that he is uniquely vulnerable to what might be called Emperor’s New Clothes Syndrome: any meaningful breach in the code of silence and the whole damn thing could come crashing down.

Enter Bob Woodward. For weeks, coverage of the looming sequester had been going precisely the way the administration intended. Indeed, the media’s handling of this difficult and complicated story is a reminder of why, notwithstanding four-plus years of bungling, the president has paid no political price for the stalled economy. Though frustrated Republicans believed that they had both math and logic on their side—the mandated cuts amounted to less than 2 percent of a $4 trillion budget, and federal spending would remain massively higher than when Obama took office—the White House–generated scare stories appeared day after day. In short order, we heard, there would be four-hour waits at airports; draconian cuts to special education; a gutting of mental-health services; a military unable to react to the Iranian mullahs’ saber-rattling. Here in southern Arizona, where I live, local news reports have been rife with tales of released illegals running amok.

Then out of nowhere came Woodward—the iconic co-hero of Watergate, a man who convinced many of today’s media stars to enter the biz in the first place—declaring in his February 22 column that it was all a crock. Not only was the sequester legislation Obama’s own creation, and not Congress’s, as he’d had been everywhere proclaiming; the president also had great discretionary power to determine which cuts would be made. Moreover, in insisting on new taxes not required in the legislation, the president, whom the media portray as fair-minded and reasonable, was “moving the goal posts.”

Unsurprisingly, the White House was incensed, but its reaction revealed how much it had at stake. Woodward soon reported that a senior administration official, later identified as Sperling, had warned him that he would “regret staking out that claim” about moving the goalposts. Undeterred, Woodward was at it again a few days later, saying that Obama’s citing the looming sequester as an excuse for failing to send a second aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf was “a kind of madness.”

Woodward’s observations about Obama and the sequester were not just true but obvious. The president’s critics had long since gone much further. “Mr. Obama is not only out to scare everybody about a tiny cut in the growth of our out-of-control spending,” wrote Bernard Goldberg; “I think he wants the most hardship to the most people so he can secure the most political points.” Michael Walsh added: “By now, it should be clear to even the dumbest Republican that Obama has no intention of negotiating in good faith. His goal isn’t the nation’s financial stability of the country. . . . Having gotten one round of tax hikes in the year-end ‘fiscal cliff’ negotiations, the president is back for another bite of the apple.”

The administration’s problem is that the legendary Woodward is clearly no conservative, which makes it harder for his media colleagues to dismiss him. This is why the coverage of the Obama-Woodward brawl constituted a major test for the media, one that most have failed. The leader of the pack, the New York Times, has led from behind, underreporting the story into virtual nonexistence. Others have done what would once have been unthinkable: they’ve gone after Woodward outright. While some merely mocked him for characterizing his exchange with Sperling as threatening, others have been more personal, even vicious—especially as they’ve realized that they have sufficient numbers for safety. Reason’s Matt Welch calls them “pack-attack critics.”

A small sample, courtesy of Welch, will suffice. Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo: “Who goes birther first, Scalia or Woodward?” Jason Linkins, Huffington Post: “I think Woodward will find people will stop yelling at him the very minute he decides to stop sucking so much at his job.” Matthew Yglesias, Slate: “Woodward’s managed to make me suspect Nixon got a raw deal.” These are young journalists, much esteemed on the left.

Bob Woodward can take it; his place in history is secure. But journalism’s future, to say nothing of its present, is worrisome. “Now that the truth is inconvenient to the WH, Woodward is being attacked and vilified,” Jonah Goldberg reports that a friend e-mailed him. “‘Truth’ is no longer determined by what is factually accurate, but by what is politically necessary. Woodward shouldn’t be a ‘hero to conservatives’ suddenly . . . he should be a hero to Americans who want their office holders held accountable regardless of partisan affiliation.”

“‘Truth’ is no longer determined by what is factually accurate, but by what is politically necessary."

Claire Wolfe once said that we were at an awkward stage -- too late to work within the system, and too early to shoot the bastards.

She's half right.

Woodward is still a suckup to 'rats.

Now he's invited Bammy and Bammy's enforcer over to his house. Plus the return e-mail from Woodward was extremely contrite.

Woodward just wants to help H! against the First Wookie in '16.

It isn’t like lib columnists and scribblers from the past weren’t ideologues. It’s that the new generation of inkstained wretches i.e. hacks are so overt about their liberalism/leftism, they might as well be wearing a big blinking sandwich board with Obama’s logo on it. Say what you want about Woodward, but he’s an old lib columnist who merely reported the truth i.e. Obama is the biggest liar to ever inhabit the Oval Office. And since his Dem predecessor was Bill Clinton, that’s saying something.

Only the first sign of the Jackboot—will not be the last. The reporters who helped make Obama will be destroyed by him and replaced with “loyal” people who will not say a word to soil the perfection of the president. With this the Republic is doomed—the TV watching public will stay amused and believe what they are told—The Rich Republicans are at fault! Its the Joos or Snowball (see 1984) any one but Obama and his cronies. This is why I bet Obama will serve a 3rd Term and maybe a 4th. there will be elections with stuffed ballot boxes and the masses will suck it up until at some point the mask is pulled away. I hope i live to see that day.

The liberal media, always Obama’s cheerleaders are now his Brownshirts! Thuggary is the new “journalism”, Woodward now knows this. Liberal “facts” as with liberal “truth” are 180 degrees from our understanding of those words... liberal “truth” is whatever advances their cause of tyranny... they can say one thing one minute with “facts” and completely contradict those “facts” the next minute… and in their odd minds, if their political agenda is advanced, both statements are “true”. The worst mistake those not liberal can make is to give any of their nonsense even a small nod of credibility. Look at them and quickly dismiss as BEEE EEESSS! That’s the only way to defeat them. I wish the GOP would understand that… but then maybe they’re part of the problem, not the solution.

“the First Wookie ....”

Read this article, and you’ll see how completely unfair it is to refer to Michelle Obama as “First Wookie” (unfair to Wookies, that is):

http://www.thoughtleadersllc.com/2012/03/all-leaders-need-a-wookiee/

There is only one type of person a liberal hates more than a conservative and that’s a turncoat liberal. Hey Bob, you committed the mortal sin of turning on your own. You can do all the mea culpas you want but you sir are now a target like the rest of us.

MSM butt kissing isn’t going to help old school reporters... the ones worth respecting. Butt kissing never works with totalitarians... I feel for the young reporter who asked a serious question. She held old values - good values ... Obama’s people called her names - including but not limited to ‘c*unt’. Charming Chicago thugs - roughing up one of the few honest members of the press.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2993111/posts

Read this - it’s from the end of the article:

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
“I had a young reporter asking tough, important questions of an Obama Cabinet secretary,” says one DC veteran. “She was doing her job, and they were trying to bully her. In an e-mail, they called her the vilest names — bitch, c—t, a—hole.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.