Longtime Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward is taking on the White House, saying in multiple interviews that the administration essentially threatened him to try to get him not to write a story. [...] “I mean, it makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, ‘you’re going to regret doing something that you believe in.’” Woodward said. “And even though we don’t look at it that way, you do look at it that way. And I think if Barack Obama knew that was part of the communication’s strategy — let’s hope it’s not a strategy, but it’s a tactic that somebody’s employed, and said, look, we don’t go around trying to say to reporters, if you, in an honest way, present something we don’t like, that, you know, you’re going to regret this. And just — it’s Mickey Mouse.”And then all hell broke loose... especially on the Right. And then the emails came to light. And then came the regrets...
"Looks like we were played," The Daily Caller's Matt Lewis wrote Thursday morning. Erick Erickson tweets: Ok wow. Finally read the email to Woodward. I must now move to the "not a threat" camp. Brit Hume tweets: On one hand, only Woodward can say if he felt threatened by WH email. On the other, hard to imagine feeling threatened by Gene Sperling.
"The sequester has an advantage, and this is kind of cruel to Republicans, but it's true. The sequester, not many people know what it is, but it sounds stupid and cruel. Therefore people think it's a Republican thing."LOL.
Scalia attributed the repeated renewal of Section 5 to a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” He said, “Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”That's quite a statement, and when I heard it all I could think was that the Voting Rights Act was enacted to stop the perpetuation of racial entitlement - for whites. It's been a long time since a statement truly shocked me. I've been a bit numb to Republican insanity, but this statement was beyond offensive. Since when is voting an entitlement? (Isn't it adorable how he used the Republican dog whistle?)
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who asked many questions in defense of the law, appeared taken aback by Scalia’s insinuation. In the final moments of oral argument, she asked Bert Rein, the lawyer for the challengers, if he agrees. “Do you think think Section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement?” she asked. When he ducked the question, she asked it again. He did not endorse Scalia’s sentiment.I bet she was taken aback. Scalia's comment was outrageous.
