Skip to main content

View Diary: Bob Woodward rewrites the history of the sequester (34 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Maybe this is a bit of semantics, but I believe (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ItsSimpleSimon, vernonbc

    you and Woodward are drawing the wrong conclusion.  Per Woodward's article, he notes the following:

    “There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger,” Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It “was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure."
    The Republicans INSISTED ON AN AUTOMATIC TRIGGER which would become effective in case the super committee failed at their task of BALANCED DEFICIT REDUCTION (revenue and spending cuts).
    A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, “We didn’t actually think it would be that hard to convince them” — Reid and the Republicans — to adopt the sequester. “It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table.”
    It is Lew's and Nabors' contention that the GOP demanded an automatic trigger, and the only automatic trigger available was....wait for it....SEQUESTER.

    So, yes, technically, the sequester was offered by President Obama (via Lew/Nabors) in response to a demand by the GOP.  One can argue that it was quite clever of the GOP to get the White House to actually propose it.  I suppose that is why President Obama refuses to name specific, detailed entitlement cuts now.  He has learned his lesson and now knows the GOP modus operandi.  Let the GOP do their own damned dirty work!

    My take on this diary is that the diarist is more focused on Woodward's assertion that President Obama has "moved the goal posts" rather than who proposed the sequester.

    I agree with the diarist.  In attempting to replace the sequester with BALANCED DEFICIT REDUCTION, the President has not moved the goal posts at all!  The whole purpose and goal of the sequester was to force that specific outcome.  How can anyone conclude otherwise?  The sequester was not the goal, it was the mechanism to achieve the goal.  The president still has the same goal (posts).

    I must admit, however, that I am very biased against anything produced by Woodward.  Ever since he "concluded" that the failure to reach a deal was the President's fault, I cannot read or listen to him.  Even in hindsight he should be able to see the error of his ways and know that there was absolutely no way to reach a deal with Boehner.  Until Woodward admits that, he is persona non grata to me as I have no choice but to consider him either a tool or simply incompetent.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (160)
  • Community (83)
  • Baltimore (80)
  • Freddie Gray (59)
  • Bernie Sanders (58)
  • Civil Rights (51)
  • Elections (40)
  • Culture (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (33)
  • Media (33)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Racism (29)
  • Law (29)
  • Education (25)
  • Labor (25)
  • Environment (24)
  • Politics (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Police (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site