FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

Gawker's right. I just don't see any other way to parse it.

Again, if Bob Woodward did this with a Bush administrator, he'd be hiked up a flagpole by conservatives. And that's what bothers me most about today's political climate on both sides of the aisle. It only matters "did this help me or my beliefs win this very second?" It's so reductive.

 

100 percent.

BenPoquette, if you want to ever be viewed as anything other than a talking-point-spouting Republican lap dog on here, this is your moment. Because if you're sticking with Woodward's narrative at this point, your credibility as a serious political poster is shot. And it's not easy to win back. Trust me.

 

Unfortunately, Bob Woodward is to political writing what Murray Chass is to baseball writing. Both were great in the '70s.

 

I see him as akin to Ralph Nader. Both made a very real, important contribution to the country and have been coasting off it ever since. (Not that Woodward's been nearly as destructive as Nader.)

 

Interesting piece on California's pension crisis.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-malanga-pensions-california-20130224,0,60801.story
Reform might necessitate adjusting retirement age closer to age expectancy.

 

Dick, I am giving Woodward the benefit of the doubt that he has earned through years and years of solid reporting. We have no idea what the tone of the conversation was in the room with Woodward and Gene Sperling. We have no idea what Woodward's motivation was to send the reply he sent. If giving Bob Woodward the benefit of the doubt ruins my credibility on a message board full of supposed journalists...I can live with that. I am not saying 100 percent, black and while, I am right and you are wrong. But that's what you and others seem to be saying to me. I don't care about talking points, and have no idea how a defense of Bob Woodward's credibility and accuracy is "spouting talking points." It is looking at a situation and giving the benefit of the doubt to a journalist that has accomplished a whole lot more than all of us ever will.

If you want to be seen as someone that defends Obama to the hilt, even without knowing the facts with complete certainty, you are well on your way. And that surprises me.

 

[Lights to black. Curtain.]

 

You two are more preoccupied with the cost of chicken than I am.

 

Dick,
I also want to point out that this is not the first time this administration has done this sort of thing. To wit:

http://blog.sfgate.com/bronstein/2011/04/28/update-chronicle-responds-after-obama-administration-punishes-reporter-for-using-multimedia-then-claims-they-didnt/

Tell me, which side has earned the benefit of the doubt through words and deeds?

 

Ah, indeed, benefit of the doubt for journalists. Worked out so well on the Posnanski and Esquire threads in Journalism Topics.

 

Rumors around Twitter that Hugo Chavez is fighting for his life. End could be very soon.

 

Should be fun to go through BenPoquette's posting history at some point to see how much "benefit of the doubt" he typically affords mainstream political journalists in their coverage of the Obama White House.