scenario in which this could truly be the president s decision about whether the government shuts down. we have already seen a big battle over the sequester. some will want to lock in spending at the lower level. you can imagine the house passing a cr that goes to the end of the year at the lower level and the senate decideing that is a good idea. we have members up for election and we don t want to be seen as the big spenders so let s pass it. now, the president of the united states who has fought the sequester tooth and nail says i will shut the government over the sequester and that is an important question to ask whether he would do it. shannon: do you think he would? so much to lose either way. i think in the end he would probably sign such a bill. number one, even with the sequester these are funding levels that are above what he asked for the agencies. so it is not as if he really has a stake in n. that. if they get the money moved around as they can when they pass a cr to
the latest battle over the sequester. bob woodward over the white house. it began with an woodward op ed saying the president had moved the goal posts in the sequester battle. woodward then revealed that a bhous official, later identified as economic advisor gene sperling said he would regret wrying the article. in an e-mail dated last friday sperling writes i apologized for raising my voice in our conversation today. my bad. i do understand your problems with the couple of our statements in the fall, but feel, on the other hand, that you focus on a few specific trees that give a very wrong perception of the forest. perhaps we will not see eye to eye here, but i do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying that the potus asking for revenues is moving the goal posts. as a friend i think you will regret staking out that claim. i read that e-mail, and it