First, it is pretty clear that McConnell knows his opponent, and can characterize him memorably:
Now here we are, with the President presenting the country with two options: Armageddon or a tax hike. Well, it is a false choice, and he knows it, but the President is a master at creating the impression of chaos as an excuse for government action--do nothing, fan the flames of catastrophe, and then claim the only way out is more government in the form of higher taxes.Second, McConnell grasps that the way to talk about the sequester is not to embrace Obama's narrative of doom, despair, and existential anguish, a la Boehner.
There is no reason in the world these cuts need to fall on essential services or emergency responders. After all, even with the sequester, Washington will be spending more than when President Obama got here. We are only talking about cutting one-tenth of what the President spent on the stimulus bill. Enough. Enough.And, third, McConnell links the sequester argument into the larger GOP argument regarding governing.
The President has been going around warning of utter chaos if the sequester takes effect. While I agree that those cuts could be made in a much smarter way and I don't like the fact that they fall disproportionately on defense, what does it say about the size of government that we can't cut it by 2 or 3 percent without inviting disaster? Doesn't that really make our point? Hasn't government gotten too big if just cutting the overall budget by a couple of percentage points could have that kind of an impact?It might be a good idea if Boehner works harder at NOT being the face of the GOP. Because he has a colleague who is simply much better at it.