I have said before that Barack Obama was one-third to blame for the sequester because, when he agreed to the idea back in 2011, he believed he was dealing with generally rational critters amongst House Republicans when, by late fall 2011 when he made that deal, he had plenty of evidence to prove him wrong.
Pushing the blame more than one-third into Obama's court is the idea that, then, and possibly even now, he continued to believe in the powers of his mellifluous voice (thanks, soft bigotry of low expectations) to have charms to soothe the savage wingnut breast. Wrong.
Pushing the blame level to 50 percent Dear Leader or higher? His negotiating away too much on the tax side on the "fiscal cliff," with the sequester looming in the headlights ahead, made his negotiating position weaker.
Putting 50-50 at the starting point at least? He's the man who appointed the Catfood Commission more than three years ago, the gang that started us down this road in the first place.
Now, I don't totally agree with Bob Woodward's take on the actual 2011 lowdown. But, he's not totally wrong, either. And, for all that's wrong with Woody, being a consummate Beltway guy means he actually has a fair amount of cred on an issue like this.
As for Andrew Sullivan calling Woody a liar, hell, there's not that many black pots and kettles in Paula Deen's kitchen. And, no, I wouldn't pay Sully for a subscription to read shite like this.
Hell, for all we know, Obama may kind of want this to be going down. He'll eventually get to austerity-lite, blame the GOP, and tell Dems this was the best he could do. (Sully gets that fact spot-on in his link.) And a lot of Obamiacs will continue to ... stand by their man. Even if Hillary's not there baking cookies and going to teas any more.
Yes, tea partiers may love the sequester, but, Obama had to know that by late 2011, and he doesn't totally hate it himself. With librulz NOT part of the reality-based community on this issue, we're going to hear more Obamiac nonsense in days ahead.