Quantcast

Comments about ‘Kathleen Parker: The First Amendment's protection of free press was no oversight’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, March 5 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

"And how, by the way, might Woodward come to regret it?"

If one were to say run a newspaper column and be wrong in their premise they might come to regret it.

ECR
Burke, VA

“Though the tone was conciliatory, and Sperling apologized for raising his voice, the message nonetheless caused Woodward to bristle.“

It sounds to me like it is Mr. Woodward that is showing his “thin skin” in this matter.

Maybe Mr. Sperling was just suggesting to Mr. Woodward that his premise would be proven to be false and his reputation as a fact gatherer might be tarnished if he published the op-ed piece. The facts show that Mr. Sperling’s email was anything but threatening and it was the president and the Speaker of the House who, together, agreed to the draconian measures of the so-called sequester in hopes that those terms would motivate the Super Committee to come to a more reasonable package of budgetary actions. But alas, they didn’t. I hope the media can get some thicker skin.

And isn’t it ironic that Ms. Parker would claim this administration “has demonstrated its intolerance for dissent and its contempt for any who stray from the White House script” just four years after the Bush Administration with its scripted and orchestrated Town Hall meetings?

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "If one were to say run a newspaper column and be wrong in their premise they might come to regret it."

Perhaps.

But, regret stemming from being frozen out, not for being wrong, but for being clearly, demonstrably, provably, right, and thereby failing to sufficiently support or toady up to the imperial White House is much, much more common in Obama's Washington.

George
Bronx, NY

lets examine the full text shall we,

Bob:
I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. My bad. 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. 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. cont....

George
Bronx, NY

continued text...

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.)
I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is diffferent. Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously.
My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.

George
Bronx, NY

woodwards response

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.)
I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is diffferent. Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously.
My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.

Does this really seem like a threatening exchange between these two men or is woodward just playing games to garner attention?

George
Bronx, NY

correction

woodwords response

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. I am listening. I know you lived all this. My partial advantage is that I talked extensively with all involved. I am traveling and will try to reach you after 3 pm today. Best, Bob

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Thou shalt not criticize Obama! Especially when it is deserved!

Liberal Today
Murray, UT

Don't question, just worship. That is all Obama asks of reporters who get access to his government.

He is the president, after all. He does deserve respect.

David
Centerville, UT

I am feeling more and more confident that history will not be kind to President Obama on so many fronts.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments