Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (702394)	3/4/2013 2:12:43 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573092

>> He may have been exaggerating a little, but Woodward clearly observed a tone from the White House that is less tolerant of criticism than any previous administration. Also, we still don't have any context from the phone call which may well have influenced Woodward's take on the entire incident.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (702394)	3/4/2013 2:25:15 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573092

Woodward didn't do anything different than Joe the plumber did..... The end justifies the means with Obama and his supporters.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (702394)	3/4/2013 4:01:04 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573092

>No he wasn't. He may have been exaggerating a little, but Woodward clearly observed a tone from the White House that is less tolerant of criticism than any previous administration. It was the previous administration that said that "people need to watch what they say." When you actually read the e-mails (have you?) they are so conciliatory. Sperling was obviously pointing out that Woodward was going to find out he was wasting energy going down the wrong path. Sperling said: "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 said: "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." If you consider that threatening, you must have a heart attack whenever you get slight criticism from anyone. These guys are friends. >Of course, the mainstream media, who is clearly gaga over Obama, isn't going to back Woodward up on this. Which is a real shame, because at one point they were all over the Bush administration with the notion that "criticism is patriotic." Huh? The "mainstream media" that was cheerleading Bush into war? They were backing Woodward up, until the e-mails came out. Then they realized they were wrong. Because they were! So they shouldn't be backing him up. -Z

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (702394)	3/4/2013 4:07:16 PM
From: i-node	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573092

>> Of course, the mainstream media, who is clearly gaga over Obama, isn't going to back Woodward up on this. Ten, I was astonished when one of my friends, who was a writer for a large daily newspaper and is an ultra leftwinger (aren't they all?), posted on FB after this incident that he had some serious questions about Woodward's "ethics" and methods. WHAT?!? I've read a good deal of Woodward's writing over the last 10 or 15 years, and the man plays it straight down the middle. He was highly critical of Bush at times, has been highly critical of Obama at times, but also has had positive things to say about both. I just can't imagine a more honest and forthright reporter than Woodward. Even if I don't always agree with his interpretation, when he says something I don't agree with I generally think I should re-think my attitudes.