We’ve spent a fair amount of time looking at the details of the sequestration fight, so perhaps now is a good time to appreciate the forest instead of the trees.
The Washington Examiner’s Byron York, with whom I rarely ever agree, notices an overarching problem with the Republican message.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner describes the upcoming sequester as a policy “that threatens U.S. national security, thousands of jobs and more.”
Which leads to the question: Why would Republicans support a measure that threatens national security and thousands of jobs?
It’s puzzling, isn’t it? With nine days to go before this self-inflicted wound begins to do real damage, the Republican message seems to have three parts: (1) the sequester would do real harm to the country; (2) Republicans will allow it to happen anyway; and (3) this is a political winner for the GOP.
I’ll confess that I often struggle to understand how congressional Republicans see the world, but this fiasco in the making is puzzling, even for the GOP. Indeed, York’s question need not be rhetorical — if Republicans believe the sequester cuts are awful for America, why are they imposing it on America?
York, a conservative in good standing, added, “The effect of Boehner’s argument is to make Obama seem reasonable in comparison. After all, the president certainly agrees with Boehner that the sequester cuts threaten national security and jobs. The difference is that Obama wants to avoid them.”
This, too, is exactly right. Democrats and Republicans agree that the sequester is dangerous, but Democrats are ready to reach a compromise and the GOP isn’t. This is a winner for Republicans, how?
And in the larger context, isn’t Byron York’s incredulity evidence that maybe the right isn’t entirely unified when it comes to the GOP’s strategy?
Keep in mind, it’s not just York.









