Politico: “Threatening Emails To Woodward Came From Gene Sperling”

Gene Sperling

Gene Sperling

Gene Sperling is economic adviser to the president. Here is the text of one of the emails:

From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013

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. 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.

Gene”

There is more at Politico

Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Politico: “Threatening Emails To Woodward Came From Gene Sperling”

  1. sortahwitte says:

    Regurgitation from another asshat.

  2. GomeznSA says:

    I’ve read this story on several other sites – Woodward says the overt threats being made make him ‘uncomfortable’. UNCOMFORTABLE? He should be hopping mad and shouting from the rooftops about the attempt to shut him up. Wait, what’s that, it’s being done from a democRAT white house? Oh never mind – guys like Woodward only get really upset when it is the ‘other’ guys who are trying to muzzle him…………….

  3. notamobster says:

    Well, that email doesn’t seem bad. I’ve said worse than that on accident.

    • Jim22 says:

      I have as well but I was not representing the President of the United States. Regardless of Sperling’s intent this comes off as a threat.

    • slinger says:

      If I understand correctly, this email is in response to a verbal call between Sperling and Woodward. Sperling is now creating an apology paper trail to try to cover over his threatening words on the call.

      I expect the actual words used on the call would sound much more threatening, but I don’t expect we will ever know.

      Sperling is covering his rear in anticipation of Woodward’s untimely demise …

      IMHO

  4. Doc says:

    Perhaps if Mr. Woodward would grow a pair, go over to Mr. Sperling’s office, & DOT HIS EYES & CROSS HIS TEETH, I’ll bet those “threats” would stop…just sayin’….

  5. DocO says:

    Yeah, Nice career you got there Mr. Woodward. It’d be a shame if something should happen to it. I’m not saying there’s a tax audit in your future I’m just saying you should think twice about what you say about the POTUS. Have a nice day.

  6. jacksonsdad says:

    It’s not the threatening tone that BW insinuated it was and it’s probably been overblown but … personally I don’t give a shit anymore. If it gives the WH a friggin’ headache then I’m all for it. After all the intentional lies and obfuscations coming from those pukes… selective editing from the MSM… the chorus of hateful divisive rhetoric coming from the left in general… who cares if this gets blown out of proportion?

    It wasn’t that long ago I had such a sense of “fairness” that it probably could have been categorized as ‘overdeveloped’. Certainly at times it was frustrating in situations like this where “the right” is making a mountain out of a molehill. I’m proud to say those encumbrances no longer plague me. Once the ‘referees’ removed their stripes and declared themselves as actively playing for the other team the whole game changed. Add to that being labeled a Racist Sexist Homophobic Bigot and it’s easy to see why ‘fairness’ is no longer a burden I must bear.

    Also there is the pesky little FACT that BW was right about the subject of the ‘regrettable’ disagreement. Given that Da Prez got his ‘revenue’ just a few weeks ago in the Fiscal Cliff Deal it most definitely IS ‘goalpost moving’ to demand even more tax hikes now. Sperling can ‘agree to disagree’ all he wants but it doesn’t change the fact that he is wrong and BW is right. Of course The Truth has never been a persuasive argument to a lefty anyway so… how about this for a line of reasoning…

    A “threat” is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, if BW perceived a threat then a threat it was. Who are we to comment about another persons FEELINGS anyway? If the man says he felt threatened then he felt threatened. period.

    Meanwhile, my fondest wish is for the WH to get treated in this matter with the exact same intellectual honesty that they have displayed throughout their tenure. How ‘fair’ is that?

    • DocO says:

      I hate to say it but I too feel I no longer need to be constrained by rules of engagement that include fairness and a respect for those disagreeing with me. This president has vilified and falsified the positions of half of the nation for the advantage of the other half.

  7. dukka says:

    From a CNN piece…The e-mail had Woodward “very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters you’re going to regret doing something.”
    “Let’s hope it’s not the strategy,” he said.

    Holy shit!…THAT IS AND HAS BEEN THEIR STRATEGY!!

  8. RJM says:

    Good thing it wasn’t Hillary, he might have committed suicide on a walk in the park.

    Just saying….

  9. Tatersalad says:

    A third person has now just come forward also saying they were threatened by the White House:

    #1. Bob Woodward
    #2. Lanny Davis
    #3. Ron Fournier

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/02/28/the-dam-breaks-national-journals-ron-fournier-says-the-obama-white-house-threatened-him-too/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Tatler

    • Jim22 says:

      This is getting bigger. In one day we have three nationally known journalists who say they have been threatened by ‘High level Administration officials.

      Ron Fournier says this: “The official angered by my Woodward tweet sent me an indignant e-mail. “What’s next, a Nazi analogy?” the official wrote, chastising me for spreading “bull**** like that” I was not offended by the note, mild in comparison to past exchanges with this official. But it was the last straw in a relationship that had deteriorated.

      As editor-in-chief of National Journal, I received several e-mails and telephone calls from this White House official filled with vulgarity, abusive language, and virtually the same phrase that Politico characterized as a veiled threat. “You will regret staking out that claim,” The Washington Post reporter was told.”

      http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-bob-woodward-s-fight-with-the-white-house-matters-to-you-20130228

  10. Notamobster says:

    Nothings gonna change. The white house will be emboldened and become more overt in their abuse. Still, I like adding stress to there lives.

  11. BigJimTX says:

    I know this will never happen, but it would be incredible if this POTUS is able to turn his media completely against himself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>