From Mike Allen’s “Playbook,” a.k.a. that other political morning newsletter:
THE REASON PRESIDENT OBAMA is giving an economic address tomorrow (in Galesburg, Ill.), per a briefing by senior administration officials: People feel stable, but not secure. Since the inauguration, the administration has had to deal with the Middle East, gun safety and Snowden, and reporters have given attention to Benghazi and the IRS. So Obama wants to stop, grab the political debate and turn it to what he sees as the most important issue: growing the economy from the middle out, not the top down. Looking ahead to budget battles with Congress this fall, he’ll lay out the stakes, but won’t get into legislative tactics. He probably won’t use the word “sequester,” since many listeners wouldn’t know what he was talking about.
Is that last line sarcasm, or an actual expression of senior administration officials? Are they admitting that their “beware the horrors of sequester” campaign failed so spectacularly that the public at large not only isn’t upset about the spending cuts, but that they in fact forgot or never learned what it is?
If the public perception of the sequester is so casual and accepting, and the electorate has proven so persistently resistant to the administration’s usually effective scare tactics . . . and if the administration has grown so frustrated with its inability to shift public views on this topic that it has effectively dropped the issue . . .
. . . doesn’t the sequester represent the single biggest win for the cause of limited government in many, many years? And for that matter, for Republicans?