Brad Woodhouse, class act
Brad Woodhouse is the Democratic National Committee’s communications director. As such, you’d think he’d understand communications.
And so we can assume that when he says something, he means to say it–such as, for example, this message:
POTUS asked AG to review how leak investigations are done but some in the media refuse to meet with him. Kind of forfeits your right gripe.
I think he meant “right to gripe”; tweeting can cause some of the words to fall by the wayside. But we know what he’s getting at, don’t we? Play by the Obama administration’s rules or juvenile taunts and mockery will be coming your way, and just because you’re a member of the liberal press don’t think you’re immune.
The tone is no accident. It comes directly from the boss. Obama set it way back during the 2008 campaign, with his snide remarks and gestures that signaled a sophomoric nastiness. And all these years of being in power haven’t tempered the obnoxiousness of the left; au contraire, they’re positively giddy with power.
Attendance at that meeting with Holder to which the press was invited was only allowed on the condition that what was said there would be strictly off the record. The NY Times—belatedly and momentarily locating its long-lost cojones—refused, and that’s what Woodhouse is refering to.
Read the other tweets at the link where people respond to Woodhouse—some of them are pretty clever.
Oh, and by the way, this isn’t the first time Woodhouse has exhibited such class and brilliance. In 2009, when President Obama was given a Nobel Peace Prize, RNC chairman Steele had the temerity to ask what accomplishment had occasioned the award. Woohouse’s answer:
The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize — an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride ”” unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore ”“ it’s an embarrassing label to claim.
The response from the RNC:
“Like most Americans, the DNC can’t think of one achievement that the president has accomplished, so they resort to their predictable response and standard playbook of demonizing those who disagree with them. …Now, when challenged to answer the question of what the president has accomplished, Democrats are lashing out calling Republicans terrorists. That type of political rhetoric is shameful.
With that history, one can only imagine that Woodhouse’s repartee is exactly and precisely what the DNC wants in a communications director. And it’s what they got.
“an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride”
This is the philosophy of the Democrats in a nutshell.
You didn’t earn it, someone gave it to you for free, and, boy, should you be proud of that.
No wonder they see nothing wrong with accepting a Nobel Prize that’s based on zilch. There’s no real pride there. There’s only the idea of what freebies are in it for me. (Paging Sandra Fluke… Sandra Fluke are you in the building?…) I, as an American, cannot be proud of that. Sorry, DNC.
His accomplishments for receiving the Peace Prize were 1) not being Bush and 2) showing up.
Couple him with Lois Lerner and her emerging history of going after Republicans.
How in the world did we get here. And how do we get out of it.
What I find of interest is that in ‘projecting’ Woodhouse reveals himself and his party; “The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn.” In the quote above, just change “Republican Party” to Democrat Party.
Standard tactic, accuse the other fellow of ones own sins.
It’s not just the tone — it’s the content. Woodhouse apparently believes that freedom of the press — that is, the “right to gripe” — is conditional upon a newspaper’s willingness to follow the AG’s orders and is forfeited if a newspaper declines to do as it’s told. That is, in Woodhouse-World, the DOJ is in charge of whether or not the media has any constitutional protections. (It’s quite true that the DOJ does behave as if this is what it thinks!) Do people like this understand that we have a Constitution?
Woodhouse implies that when the administration says “Come” it is the press’ duty to say “Where and when?” Anything short of total obedience means all bets are off.
This is totally in line with what we’ve often heard about the WH press office’s treatment of reporters: verbally abuse reporters who dare publish negative stories about Obama, threaten to cut off access as a consequence, and actively exclude & delegitimize any organization who doesn’t play ball (Fox). They will even get prominent Dems and other members of the press to join in (see: Woodward, Bob).
“…belatedly and momentarily locating its long-lost cojones ….
🙂
…nice bit of color, that.
“Do people like this understand that we have a Constitution?”
Do you mean that really old and confusing piece of paper those Tea Partiers keep going on and on about? At this point, what difference does it make?
[These lines write themselves ;)]
I do not concur. NYT, still in its heart, wants to defend the Obama administration but is fearful for its own tarnished reputation, so it is now being more cautious. Not brave at all.
“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists — the Taliban and Hamas this morning — in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize.”
Which brings forth the main reason why I switched from Yellow Dog Democrat to Yellow Dog-Anything-But-A-Democrat: the strident partisanship of the Democrats. By 1980, I had turned into a third party, a “plague on both the Demo and Pub houses” kind of voter.
I noticed that in the Senate vote on Iraq War I in 1991, all but about five Democrat Senators voted against troops going to Iraq. That seemed to me to be a case of the Democrats playing partisan domestic politics on the international scene. I then decided to never again vote for a Democrat Party Presidential candidate.
In the 2000 election, I voted third party, so I was initially neutral regarding the ensuing recount brouhaha between Gore and Bush. I noticed that Democrats wanted to change the rules regarding eligible and ineligible ballots- dimpled chads and all that – in various counties that Democrats controlled. Yet because the Democrats controlled these counties, Democrats had set the rules in those counties regarding regarding eligible and ineligible ballots. I concluded that for Democrats, rules and procedures meant nothing- political gain was all that counted. I also remember that Democrats didn’t want to count overseas Armed Forces ballots.
[Recall that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has changed the procedure for filling a vacant US Senate position three times in the last 20 years , changing each time according to which party the Governor belonged to at the time].
After the 2000 election, I decided that I would not waste my vote on third parties, but vote to defeat the Democrats.
mousebert:
I wasn’t meaning to suggest the Times is brave. The statement was somewhat sarcastic (and note the word “momentarily”).
Mr Whatsit has advised me, correctly, that I should have written “media have” rather than “media has” in my 11:44 comment, so I am hereby acknowledging my error. It can be something of a trial to be married to a literate man. 😉
Three cheers for her majesty the queen:
Hip hip: hoorah
Hip hip: hoorah
Hip hip: oh forget it.