Obama: Sequestration Should Be Painful To Public

I wanted to keep today about Benghazi, since it's the topic that seems to enrage wingnuts like no1, Moonbat, and USAP more than any other. However, since after today it's clear that we're going to be talking about Benghazi for years, and it will come to dominate the next Democrat presidential primary cycle, if not the general election, I'll take a break (for now) from Benghazi and move on to another topic near and dear to my heart: Obama's use of the sequestration to aggravate the American electorate.

Here's a link to an internal US government memo, a smoking gun (as if the air traffic controller furloughs and Obama's statement that he would veto any bill designed to give him flexibility in how the sequestration cuts were implemented were not already a flaming Howitzer) in the case that Obama will hurt the American people if he doesn't get his way:

http://griffin.house.gov/sites/griffin.house.gov/files/email.pdf

So, a question to you libboes out there: never mind whether it's good governance to, as an executive, use your power to inconvenience and annoy your constituents (it is not); is it sound political strategy to do so?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I wanted to keep today about Benghazi, since it's the topic that seems to enrage wingnuts like no1, Moonbat, and USAP more than any other. However, since after today it's clear that we're going to be talking about Benghazi for years, and it will come to dominate the next Democrat presidential primary cycle, if not the general election, I'll take a brea ...[text shortened]... ience and annoy your constituents (it is not); is it sound political strategy to do so?

This is much ado about nothing. Of course Sequestration will be painful to the public, anytime you cut funds for government services, it will no doubt be painful. Stating the obvious won't sway the public one way or the other.