Obama’s Sequester Backfire?

So argues Dan Mitchell:

…he miscalculated in thinking that the fiscal cliff tax hike somehow meant that he had permanently neutered the GOP, and he definitely goofed when he tried to use the sequester as a weapon to bully Republicans into another tax hike.

Ignoring the President’s hyperbole about the supposed catastrophic effects of a very modest reduction in the growth of the federal budget, Republicans have held firm.

And the President has suffered a painful political and policy defeat…

I won’t go that far – but I will say that I am pleased that the House GOP wasn’t stampeded by the “sequestageddon” hype being shouted by Obama and his MSM lapdogs.  It certainly isn’t working out as Obama hoped – what he clearly hoped for is a divided GOP providing him with more tax hikes…and then a dispirited GOP to be defeated in the 2014 mid terms.  He still might get that (the GOP can always surrender later, after all), but so far, so good.

At the end of the day, Obama has done the very worst political thing a leader can do – show himself to be a nasty,  unreliable negotiating partner.  Knee to groin tactics are one thing:  they are, indeed, expected in the rough and tumble of politics.  And even a bit of goal-post moving can be part of a larger political strategy to get what you want.  But when you are knee to groin and goal post moving all the time, eventually the other side gives up on negotiating.  Obama has proven himself a terrible politician – not just now, but all through his Administration.  True, he has won some victories, but only by the application of raw, political power.  He’s failed to co-opt or divide the GOP while also failing to really give his side all that it wants.  Had he at least some times kept his word and had he allowed even a few fig leaves to cover the GOP’s failure, he would have gotten a lot more – and would continue to get a lot more for at least another year (the thing about a 2nd term President is that authority oozes away at a remorseless rate…by this time 2014 everyone will be concerned with the mid-terms and after that all politics will be the growing fight on both sides to win in 2016).

We’ll see how all this comes out but right now the debate is about cutting spending (a strong GOP point), gun control (another strong GOP point) and gay marriage (polls show GOP weakness but when it comes to votes – especially in 2014 – I think this will work to the GOP’s advantage).  The GOP mostly just has to sit tight and start working on 2014 messaging – there’s not much Obama can do and what Obama has done promises to make things progressively worse in the United States.  The chickens are coming home to roost for Obama and he’s alienated the GOP…whom he needs to help get him out of his jam.  This could get mighty entertaining.

44 thoughts on “Obama’s Sequester Backfire?

  1. Cluster March 5, 2013 / 12:10 am

    Obama’s campaign scare tactics simply didn’t work this time, even with media support. The average American has become quite bored with the gloom and doom predictions and Obama’s hollow promises. Remember the summer of recovery in 2010?

    Also in a rare turnabout, the media is now actually looking into some of the administrations claims:


    No word yet on who will be threatened.

    • GMB March 5, 2013 / 8:54 am

      barky and the rats are doing their best to turn the United States into just another third world hellhole.

      The nosehorns are helping them along. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

      Sounds like treason to me.

      Jeb for chief vichyite 2016!!!

    • M. Noonan March 5, 2013 / 11:22 am


      I was thinking in terms of how Clinton worked with the GOP to essentially fix Clinton’s own mistakes – mistakes which Clinton made, of course, because he was listening to liberal leaders. Obama could do that to – he could even make ObamaCare palatable if he’d just let the GOP re-write the thing. He won’t do it – I think its because he’s a coward and is simply afraid to meet with GOP leaders on the square.

    • neocon01 March 5, 2013 / 12:59 pm

      Sir Knight

      My point was (moderated) that we have been electing, criminals, sexual perverts (kennedy-Klintoon), those with mental/sexual disorders (200 years of jurisprudence, and illegal in ALL states) drug users, and general stupid ignorant buffoons, and we wonder why we are where we are today and how we got there?


    • neocon01 March 5, 2013 / 1:01 pm

      GOP leaders ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES (PAID-public SERVANTS) on the square.

  2. Cluster March 5, 2013 / 8:55 am

    Failure is the Obama strategy, and he has been very good at it, but this time it’s with a purpose:


    This could be unprecedented. Intentionally inflicting harm on the economy and Americans to further a political agenda. Of course this strategy will work very well with morons like Mitch, James, Casper, etc., the question is – are the majority of Americans as dumb as they are?

    • neocon01 March 5, 2013 / 9:03 am

      the question is – are the majority of Americans as dumb as they are?

      apparently so,
      the most unqualified, racist, hate mongering, marxist, usurper was put in twice……but then again in Germany they loved hitler back in the day. we all seem to forget how that worked out…….history repeats it’s self.

      47% pay NO federal taxes 70 TRILLION in debt….what could go wrong? boehner and jeb are on top of it…..

      • GMB March 5, 2013 / 9:19 am

        Rinos über alles? LOL 🙂

  3. Retired Spook March 5, 2013 / 9:03 am

    The chickens are coming home to roost for Obama

    The chickens are come home to roost for all of us. The global liberal welfare state is imploding, much of it completely beyond our control, but certainly not beyond having an adverse effect on us.

    • M. Noonan March 5, 2013 / 11:19 am


      Curiously enough, except in Sweden – which has balanced its budget, reduced spending as a percentage of GDP and cut corporate and income taxes. Still a big welfare State, of course, but definitely heading in the opposite direction we are.

  4. Cluster March 5, 2013 / 9:15 am

    This is the most accurate description of Obama I have ever read:

    Under the Permanent Campaign Shimmy, the president identifies a problem. Then he declines to come up with a proposal to address the problem. Then he comes up with a vague-but-politically-convenient concept that doesn’t address the problem (let’s raise taxes on the rich). Then he goes around the country blasting the opposition for not having as politically popular a concept. Then he returns to Washington and congratulates himself for being the only serious and substantive person in town.

    • GMB March 5, 2013 / 9:32 am

      “.we are on the verge of collapse WHY??”

      Because over principled radical fringe social conservatives like me were not moderate enough. We defused to adjust our stance to appease the proggies.

      Makes my heart warm to know that most of the nosehorns won’t survive the collapse.

      Very little food grows in air conditioned offices these days. Hunting might be a problem too. Your swivel chair might get in the way.

      Have a nice apocalypse.

      • Amazona March 5, 2013 / 10:34 am

        Yeah, well, it’s a very personal and self-serving definition of “over-principled” upon which you base your whine.

        There is, of course, the position that because the Constitution does not even address social issues but restricts the role of the federal government to providing an umbrella of protections under which citizens can make their own choices, concentrating on government and understanding the limitations of what it can constitutionally do is actually much more “principled” than demanding that the federal government do things which it is not supposed to do., or that candidates promise to do things which do not even fall within the scope of their authority if they are elected.

        I see an analogy of some trying to build a house, working to establish the best foundation, making sure it stands on bedrock, engineering it to withstand the forces of nature, and focusing on the structure and integrity of the building, leaving its paint and wallpaper decisions to its inhabitants, while some strut around demanding that the real focus should be on the curtains and furniture and preening that this makes them more “principled” because they are looking ahead to the finished product—as THEY think it should be.

      • GMB March 5, 2013 / 10:45 am

        A whine? Nope not at all. An observation would be more like it.

        As i said, have a nice apocalypse. Those of you that depend on government to get you through your daily life will need all the luck you can get.

        I wish it to you.

        I find it interesting that the party that was founded on the biggest social issue of it’s day, now wants nothing to do with them. How things would have worked out had the elefants followed the Constitution as it was in 1856.

        It is your repub party now. Enjoy it while it lasts.

      • Amazona March 5, 2013 / 11:13 am

        Kind of an interesting spin to redefine the essential right of freedom as a “social issue”.

        BTW, when it comes to these “social issues” I am probably in 100% agreement with you. I abhor abortion, think it the worst sin of our nation. I believe it to be the most extreme violation of the right to life itself, and that our Constitution in stating the right to life ought to protect that life no matter how young it is.

        But the harsh reality is that once the SCOTUS handed down its ruling on Roe v Wade, the federal government was stripped of its ability to address the issue, which puts it firmly in the territory of the states.

        So while I want a presidential candidate who values life and believes that it is a Constitutional right not taken away by the decision of five unelected men, I think that making this the tent pole of a candidacy is shifting attention away from the very thing that will get him or her elected—and that is a commitment to the small-government Constitutional political model, as opposed to the big-government Leftist model.

        We are stupid—I repeat this, STUPID—I repeat this, STUPID—to allow ourselves to be sucked into the vortex of “issues” instead of making it clear to voters that elections are not about issues (which are so based on emotions and belief systems) but on GOVERNMENT.

        The Left OWNS “issues”, The Left OWNS any area dependent on or easily influenced by emotion. Where the Left is impotent is the area of political reality. That is why the Left is nothing but a series of carnival barkers, each trying to lure people into one tent or another. On the way to vote on what should be the best form of government for the nation, people are accosted by glib inducements to veer off into the territory of this or that “issue”, and once lured into one issue or another, the vote will be made based on that issue, and not on the elemental decision of actual government.

        So when we let ourselves be sucked into competing with the carnival barkers for people to support OUR issues, we are playing into their hands, because we are helping them bury the real purpose of elections, which is to vote on GOVERNMENT.

        And when we throw away our chance to get into the position of actually being able to influence issues, because we make issues the cornerstone of the election itself, we might preen that our loss was because we were so “principled” that we kept our issues front and center, contributing to the division of the vote, but that will not overcome the fact that by losing we lost any chance we might have had to make a difference on any of those issues.

      • neocon01 March 5, 2013 / 1:10 pm

        when we keep picking LOSERS = mclame, then pick a loser that LOST to mclame the loser who then lost and we wonder why?

        seems the left has NO problem winning on social issues, while shredding the constitution, but hey we need a bigger tent so we are just like them just ask the political genius Karl and co.

        Mean while we keep sinking lower into the slime pit of radical leftist social issues which we dare not address because we surely will lose if we even mention those….HUH??

        meanwhile little boys are kicked out of school for pointing a finger and boy scouts are led by homosexuals….

      • GMB March 5, 2013 / 1:33 pm

        All your grand plans, all your compromising, all your heavy lifting are nothing but one way streets headed to the left.

        The repub party is yours. The repubs will be lucky to muster 30 electoral votes in 2016.

        In the end, please don’t be a useless mouth to feed.

      • Cluster March 5, 2013 / 1:52 pm

        Kind of a duplicate post here. It happens. //Moderator

      • GMB March 5, 2013 / 2:02 pm

        I do not mandate the federal government do anything in my name. When repubs like you quit using my tax dollars to further the proggie agenda, come and talk.

      • Cluster March 5, 2013 / 2:35 pm

        I don’t want use your tax dollars for anything, other than border security and national defense, those aren’t proggie agendas.

      • neocon01 March 5, 2013 / 3:19 pm


        the anti gun activists are now in a full court press to ban anything, this is all un constitutional, but does not stop them one iota.We are engaged in a cultural war as well as a constitutional war for the heart and soul of our country. This war can not be limited, as the athiests, marxists, anarchists, homosexuals, gun grabbers are attacking on every side.
        To merely defend one window against a well funded well organized huge army assault is foolish and a recipe for disaster…see Dien Bien

        the GOP is like 3rd graders with pillows fighting against muslim insurgents in Iraq.

      • Cluster March 5, 2013 / 3:23 pm

        The social battle has already been settled. It’s called the Constitution. In re: to the gun debate – “shall not be fringed upon” is stare decisis if you will, settled law. That’s how we combat that issue. And it’s how we combat all proggie efforts to impose their social demands. Refer to the Constitution.

      • neocon01 March 5, 2013 / 3:30 pm

        not according to 1/2 the SC justices and these people

        We Have Ted Cruz’s List: Harvard Law Really Is Littered with Communists
        By Matthew Vadum

        It turns out Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was correct when he claimed Harvard Law School had significant numbers of what might reasonably be called “communists.”

        Anyone who knows the Ivy League knows the question shouldn’t be, Who at Harvard is Marxist? but Who at Harvard isn’t Marxist?

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/we_have_ted_cruzs_list_harvard_law_really_islittered_with_communists.html#ixzz2MhAqhFDL

      • neocon01 March 5, 2013 / 3:32 pm

        settled law??

        The Terror Threat from Pop-Tarts and Hello Kitty
        Jeannie DeAngelis

        A few months ago, a five-year-old Pennsylvania girl was standing at a bus stop talking to her friend when she made the mistake of insisting a princess bubble blower is superior to a Hello Kitty Bubble gun. The little girl suggested to her bus mate, “I’ll shoot you, you shoot me and we’ll all play together.” That conversation resulted in the kindergartener that made the suggestion being reprimanded in the principal’s office, suspended for 10 days for making a “terrorist threat,” and mandated into a series of counseling sessions with a therapist.

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/03/the_terror_threat_from_pop-tarts_and_hello_kitty.html#ixzz2MhBZdxmj

      • Amazona March 5, 2013 / 3:57 pm

        Oh, goodie—I was hoping for more Thought Police laws.

        It’s getting kind of boring, just having some laws that depend on what someone is THINKING while he commits a crime. But the Left has found a way to add to that.

        “…..-it also will punish sellers who have a “‘reasonable cause to believe the firearm will be used in criminal activity,” Leahy said” regarding this cockamamie law.

        Currently if a guy robs a 7-11 and kills a black clerk and a white customer, the law says that one of these murders is worse than the other, if the killer can be claimed to have a bias against black people. I’m sure the family of the white guy would be happy to learn that the life of their loved one is considered less valuable, by the Left and the laws they promote, than the other one, but that’s the Thought Police for you.

        Now you are supposed to be able to peer into the heart and mind of someone who might want to buy a gun from you, to determine whether or not he might, at some future time, use that gun illegally. That’s complicated by the fact that a gun might be legal when it is purchased and then suddenly become illegal, so owning it might be considered a “criminal activity” though it is never used to commit a crime other than simple ownership.

        What if you sell a gun to someone whose race or gender or residence is in a high-risk category? Is this alone enough to determine that the weapon might be used in criminal activity?

        These people are nuts. But we have to remember why they are in Congress in the first place—-stupid people sent them there.

        Here’s an idea: Let’s make it a crime to vote for someone if there is “…”‘reasonable cause to believe the person will then engage in abject stupidity.” That would clean out Congress in a hurry.

      • neocon01 March 5, 2013 / 5:39 pm

        That would ***clean out Congress*** in a hurry.

        the absolute BEST idea of the day!!

      • neocon01 March 5, 2013 / 6:16 pm

        move over yasser, ted, mao, pol, che, joe, Heeeeeeere comes hugo!!!!!!!

      • neocon01 March 5, 2013 / 6:55 pm

        Psalm 109:8

      • Cluster March 5, 2013 / 8:11 pm

        Hugo Chavez is dead and as expected, the liberal media gushes over him:

        Within minutes of the death of death of repressive socialist Hugo Chavez on Tuesday, MSNBC featured ex-Washington Post managing editor Eugene Robinson to fawn over the “quick,” “popular” leader. Though Robinson allowed that “freedom of speech suffered greatly” under Chavez, he praised, “He provided medical attention that the poor of Venezuela hadn’t received before, and, and, frankly, it was the first time in many decades that a leader had paid that kind of attention to the poor majority in Venezuela.”

        No mention of the $2 billion personal fortune that Chavez is reported to have amassed. BUT he did CARE for the poor.

      • neocon01 March 5, 2013 / 3:07 pm

        when the potus opens up the military to homosexuals, the feds make and enforce “hate” crimes, private businesses are told whom they have to hire, our federal subsidized schools kick out Christians while embracing witches, homosexuals,etc. we are told that men who call them selves women now have to share restrooms with our daughters. Dont tell us social issues dont count on the federal level they do big time.

        NOBODY cares a damn about two pervs live together in a “union”…..but it does not and will not end there, they have a HUGE AGENDA and are pushing it on all levels.
        DONT ASK DONT TELL works.

      • neocon01 March 5, 2013 / 3:10 pm

        GMB – you seem to advocating for that totalitarian state which imposes your ideals of social constructs.

        it worked for 200 + years.

        but now WE must capitulate to THEIR totalitarian state which imposes THEIR ideals on US?

        does not compute

      • neocon01 March 5, 2013 / 1:15 pm


        It is your repub party now. Enjoy it while it lasts.

        yup, TEA, Oath keepers, ……Dont tread on me………Molon Labe.

      • neocon01 March 5, 2013 / 1:23 pm


        We defused to adjust our stance to appease the proggies.

        not like the old days eh?? by the ones who FOUNDED this country.


        In 1778, Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment of castration for men who engage in sodomy,[1] however, what was intended by Jefferson as a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time was rejected by the Virginia Legislature, which continued to prescribe death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy in that state.[2]

        Prior to 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state, punished by a lengthy term of imprisonment and/or hard labor. In that year, the Model Penal Code (MPC) — developed by the American Law Institute to promote uniformity among the states as they modernized their statutes — struck a compromise that removed consensual sodomy from its criminal code while making it a crime to solicit for sodomy. In 1962 Illinois adopted the recommendations of the Model Penal Code and thus became the first state to remove criminal penalties for consensual sodomy from its criminal code,[3] almost a decade before any other state.[citation needed]

        Over the years, many of the states that did not repeal their sodomy laws had enacted legislation reducing the penalty. At the time of the Lawrence decision in 2003, the penalty for violating a sodomy law varied very widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction among those states retaining their sodomy laws. The harshest penalties were in Idaho, where a person convicted of sodomy could earn a life sentence. Michigan followed, with a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment while repeat offenders got life. This was later invalidated in the case of Michigan Organization for Human Rights v. Kelly (1987)

  5. Cluster March 5, 2013 / 1:50 pm

    Re: social issues, democracy and freedom inherently allows for divergent opinions of which must be tolerated. Otherwise you will wind up with a totalitarian state on one side of the other. GMB – you seem to advocating for that totalitarian state which imposes your ideals of social constructs.

    The founders crafted a brilliant document that allowed for social issues to be decided by local communities, which would allow people to vote with their feet, live in a community that best represents their social ideals, and allows for 50 laboratories of democracy if you will. By mandating that the federal government impose your idea of the proper social constructs, you are only the opposite side of the coin that is liberalism.

    Personally, I don’t support abortion in any form, and I don’t support gay marriage but I do support civil unions allowing same sex couples legal rights. I just think these issues need to be states issues, not federal ones.

    • Cluster March 5, 2013 / 2:40 pm

      Who knew that Rubio, Cruz, Martinez, Rice, Sowell, Labrador, Carson, West, Love, etc, were white?

      Of course when you focus on skin color, some might think you’re racist. How about you mitch?

    • neocon01 March 5, 2013 / 2:57 pm

      because we are the only ones working and paying taxes??

    • tiredoflibbs March 5, 2013 / 4:37 pm

      No surprise here, typical mitchie mentality.

      • mitchethekid March 5, 2013 / 6:02 pm

        You have clearly not been paying attention to the warnings about posting nothing but attacks and insults. Or you feel like testing us. No matter, it will not be tolerated no matter why you do it. Another warning and then you are gone. This time for good. //Moderator

      • Cluster March 5, 2013 / 6:24 pm


        Your ignorance truly astounds me sometimes. You, and liberals like you, speak as if the color of someones skin had even a thread of connection to a belief on how best to govern a country. Sadly however, there are numerous people with even less intelligence than you, who buy into the empty rhetoric and hollow promises of an ideology that stands for fascism much more than freedom and democracy and uses the treasury to buy their votes. Equally sad is the denial of the failure of that ideology and the desire to demonize anyone who has the temerity to make them aware of that fact.

        Have a nice day

      • tiredoflibbs March 5, 2013 / 9:50 pm

        “Talk about dumb drones.”

        Give us something to work with mitchie! You drones are all the same. You come here and regurgitate the same easily refuted nonsense. When the left’s tactics are used against you and reveal your complete hypocrisy, you whine and moan all the louder. It is too easy to show your hypocrisy and your mindlessness!

        If you are tired of hearing the same thing over and over, then give us something tangible to work with and not the same dumbed down talking points. I call them for what they are, since that is all you and your fellow drones give me to work with.

        See, again you ramble on about “armed revolution” and no matter how many times we refute that complete stupidity, you continue to regurgitate it.

        Pathetic mitchie. Now, run away and hide again, after another post of your sniveling whining.

      • tiredoflibbs March 5, 2013 / 9:59 pm

        mitchie: “If you had more words available to you to express your ideas, you might not be so frustrated.”

        I do mitchie. When I write a meaning post or thread, you avoid it like the plague! You only respond to level I have to in order for you uninformed proggies to understand. It is not my fault that you cannot understand our more meaningful posts.

        Are you trying to imply that you are more cerebral than the rest of us with the post above resorting to regurgitating the same tired dumbed down talking points on race?

        Keep posting mitchie, your unintended comedy is truly hilarious!

  6. tiredoflibbs March 5, 2013 / 4:36 pm

    obAMATEUR is playing politics, putting party line before the people.


    This fits the fact that obAMATEUR is going to try to get the maximum political mileage for HIS sequestration solution and try to place the blame on Republicans.

    This also fits the fact that obAMATEUR and the Democrats are interested in a massive scaremongering campaign against the Republicans with cries of call your Congressman/Senator and put pressure on Republicans.

    Scaremongering is taking place from the White House and balddoof is predictably silent on the issue.

Comments are closed.