Plausible lies | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    The last week of February must have been a slow news period, because all we seemed to hear about was a heated discussion between Gene Sperling and Bob Woodward. We heard all manner of interpretations. Some suggested that Sperling had threatened his long time pal, Woodward. It was even suggested that Woodward must have changed sides (from Dem to Rep. which I am sure gave him a good laugh.) Anyone who was around during the time when he and Carl Bernstein exposed the Watergate misbehavior would surely know that he was tough but honest - which is a lot more than one can say about many of the mainstream media folks today.

    It seems that Mr Woodward had the temerity to place the sequester at the feet of the Prez. Further, he suggested that the last minute addition of "increased revenues" being pushed by the Prez amounted to "moving the goal posts". (Based on my recollection, he was right on both counts.) Of course since the Prez is never responsible for anything unpleasant, the spear carriers (or someone) in the White House apparently took great umbrage an anyone suggesting anything to the contrary.(I suppose that would explain the number of times my editor has asked if there are any black Suburbans with heavily tinted windows on the street outside my house. Hmmm...)

    Get ready for one of what Thomas Sowell calls another of the Prez' "plausible lies". During the "fiscal cliff negotiations" the Prez argued for higher tax rates for the rich. Instead of accepting higher income tax rates the Reps countered with an offer to raise an equivalent amount of revenue by eliminating tax loopholes and the like. The Prez insisted on tax rate increases and succeeded in getting the Reps to accept some higher marginal tax rates for the so called rich. It was after that deal was done and the sequester issue began to heat up that the Prez began to demand closing loopholes (i.e. increasing revenues) as part of the deal (as though the "fiscal cliff" argument had never ended) claiming the Reps had already agreed to cleaning up loopholes and the like (Plausible?? Yes!! The truth?? No!!) When Mr. Woodward claimed that the reintroduction of the arguing point into the new negotiation and claiming it was a Rep idea, amounted to no more than "moving the goal posts" the Prez apparently took umbrage and loosed the attack dogs (which did not likely include Mr. Sperling who was - and apparently still is - Woodward's friend.)

    And then on last Thursday (2/28) I thought I heard the entire panel on Special Report with Bret Baier agree that the e-mail exchange between Gene Sperling and Bob Woodward did not contain a threat from Sperling, loud voices not withstanding. The two gentlemen in question are, and for a long time have reportedly been friends. Loud conversations between friends happen.

    I suspect that at some time or other all of us have raised our voice to one of our friends without damaging the friendship.

    In fact, it seems that, even though their conversation reportedly got a little heated (i.e. loud), the E-mail from Sperling amounted to a friend alerting a friend that he needed to be careful lest the Chicago crowd black list him, a bit of information that would likely "spook" a great many of the new young reporters and thereby keep them in line (but not Woodward, who will surely continue to print the facts as he would seem to have been doing for a long time beginning at least with the Watergate scandal). After reading the two e-mails and contemplating their significance I find the above construction rather plausible. And so it is when one is left handed...

    D'ya think??