Has the left turned on Bob Woodward?
| Washington
Does the left now have its metaphorical knives out for Bob Woodward? It sure seems that way at the moment. Many Democrats are deeply peeved at what they consider to be distortions in Mr. Woodward鈥檚 account of President Obama and the origins of sequestration. They鈥檝e scoffed at reports that the hero of Watergate felt threatened by the White House鈥檚 own response to his charges.
鈥淲oodward鈥檚 act is getting painfully old, and I don鈥檛 plan to pay any more attention to his feverish efforts to stay in the limelight,鈥� writes Ed Kilgore, senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, in .
Conservatives are gleeful about this and count Woodward as a 鈥渘ew hero," according to a headline in Friday鈥檚 New York Times. The right-wing website Breitbart.com compiled a list of what it described as lefty-leaning mainstream media types who are now, in , 鈥渢hrowing Woodward under a bus."
What鈥檚 going on here? Why the partisan divide? As you might expect we鈥檝e got some comments on those questions.
Woodward's never been a liberal. Neither has the man who helped bring down President Nixon ever seemed a conservative. In recent decades he鈥檚 been something of an establishmentarian, reflecting the conventional wisdom of Washington insiders with his long, detailed books about policymaking in various administrations.
That means it would be dangerous for the right to anoint him one of their own. Next thing you know he鈥檒l say something that outrages them. During an appearance on NBC鈥檚 鈥淭oday鈥� show Friday, Woodward was already touting a possible move by Senate Republicans to accept some new tax revenues in a sequester-fix deal. That鈥檚 not going to make the House GOP happy.
The White House "threat" was exaggerated by the media. The e-mail exchange between Woodward and White House economic adviser Gene Sperling, which created the 鈥渢hreat鈥� uproar, actually seems fairly mild. Mr. Sperling says Woodward might 鈥渞egret鈥� his statements, but does so in a context which makes it appear that it refers to a possible future regret on the part of Woodward that he was factually wrong.
Woodward himself now plays this down. 鈥淚 never said this was a threat,鈥� he on 鈥淭oday." He pointed out that it was Politico that used the word 鈥渢hreat鈥� in its lead on a long story reporting his dispute with the White House.
The whole 鈥渢hreat鈥� meme is a sideshow, Woodward said. 鈥淭his is the old trick in the book of making the press or some confrontation with the press the issue rather than what the White House has done here,鈥� he told host Matt Lauer.
(But is it the White House that鈥檚 pushing this 鈥渟ideshow鈥�? Or is the press, always desperate for conflict to cover? We鈥檇 say the latter.)
Woodward is vulnerable on substance. 奥别鈥檝别 covered the guts of the substance here more substantially elsewhere, but we鈥檒l just say that Woodward, while mostly technically accurate, may not be telling the full story.
One of his points is that sequestration was the Obama administration鈥檚 idea. That鈥檚 true. But as the White House says, it was an idea floated in response to the GOP refusal to raise the debt ceiling, and was never supposed to go into effect.
Another of Woodward鈥檚 main contentions is that the White House has 鈥渕oved the goalposts鈥� by insisting on new tax revenue as part of any sequester-fixing deal. This is debatable 鈥� the administration has been clear for years that it wants tax contributions from the rich as part of pretty much every fiscal deal it tries to strike. Plus, the sequester is a new problem for a new year. The way we鈥檇 describe it is that both sides have moved the goalposts, and they鈥檙e playing a new game on a new field.
One last thing: If you鈥檇 like to relive the glorious days of Watergate, political scientist Jonathan Bernstein, at his 鈥淎 plain blog about politics,鈥� has reflecting day-to-day developments in the scandal 40 years ago.
On Feb. 28, 1973, the Senate Judiciary Committee convened L. Patrick Gray鈥檚 confirmation hearing to be director of the FBI. He mentioned that he鈥檇 let a White House aide named John Dean see FBI files on the bureau鈥檚 Watergate investigation. It was the beginning of the end of the coverup.
[Editor's note: The original version of this article misstated how long ago the Watergate scandal occurred.]
