Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  No, what Woodward "suggests" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wrecktafire, ffour

    is that
    (1) the President, through Lew and Nabors, proposed the sequester, and that the President's statements that (a) he did not "propose" the sequester, and that (b) Congress "proposed" the sequester, are not accurate.  

    (2) the President's sequester proposal was not a "balanced" proposal but was all spending cuts.  

    (3) He has the full details and context in his book.  

    The fact that in this one particular, very short column, he does not call out Republicans in great detail does not make him a Republican shill.  It means that the focus of this one particular column was a misstatement by the President and by Jack Lew.  

    •  Point by point - you miss my point, entirely (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      1 - not what I was responding to - and, besides devolving to the level of playground cat-calling, who was first to propose the sequester is not relevant to my point.

      2 - not relevant to my point, so, swing and a miss right there.

      3 - irrelevant.

      To help you out somewhat, here is my point, restated.

      There were attempts to get a balanced deal before the sequester. There was an entire campaign fought and won on the grounds (in large part) of getting better balance between cuts and revenue to have a balanced budget, in the out years. There have been attempts to create a balanced budget post that election.

      The goal posts haven' t been moved. For anyone to believe that, as Woodward suggests, demands buying into the erroneous notion that the sequester somehow provided the contours of an agreement both parties want to see put into action. Neither party did. The goal-posts haven't been moved because the sequester didn't place any goal-posts into the political landscape.

      They placed a land-mine, something to avoid.

      Even during the sales pitch for the sequester, by Boehner, to the House GOP, he allowed that the only way the cuts only sequester goes into effect is if no agreement could be reached on a better balanced budget.

      It is not the President but the GOP, and yes, by extension Woodward, who are moving the goal-posts. The GOP is doing so for political edge, (the sequester was the President's - though who really cares, the House and Senate voted to put that land-mine in the road). Woodward stretches from a slim reed, who first verbalized the sequester, to embracing the sequester as the middle ground. That then allows him to characterize any action to get to the goal the sequester was meant to force, by avoiding the same, as, in his view, moving the goal-posts.

      Oh, yes, and that ahistoric assessment is apparently a view shared by you. Congratulations.

      Sequester was not "the deal" it was a last-ditch effort to force an eventual deal.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site