Google+
Close

The Corner

The one and only.

The Sequester and What We’re Up Against



Text  



Just read Eliana’s superb post on the GOP’s resort to, of all people, Bob Woodward (he of Bill Casey told me everything fame) as their secret weapon to prove that the sequester that Obama Dems are whining about was actually Obama’s own proposal. It put me in of a question that is relevant to my own column this weekend, which discusses the hypocrisy entailed in Obama’s embrace as president of Bush/Cheney counterterrorism policies he condemned as a candidate.

The question is this: Does the typical voter who reelected Obama — the “low information voter,” as Rush puts it — even know what the sequester is, much less whether it matters whose idea it was?

I doubt it. 

We’re seeing the same cynicism in national security policy. Obama runs around condemning Bush/Cheney/GOP with claptrap like, “We don’t have to make a false choice between our security and our values”; yet, all the while, he has actually adopted an aggressive executive unilateralism that would have made President Bush and Vice President Cheney blush.

From what I see, the typical Obama voter hears and is enthralled by the former, and doesn’t have a clue about the latter.

Seems like in the Beltway, Republicans still fight (at least on some things) as if the key is to be right on policy; yet, out in the culture, the millions who elect this administration, having made up their mind up after watching The View or Jon Stewart or Pimp with the Limp, either don’t give a hoot about policy or are under a complete misimpression about policy because they gobble up Obama demagoguery and are indifferent to Obama action. 

I wish I knew what to do about that in the short term.



Text  


Subscribe to National Review

Sign up for free NRO e-mails today: