Yes, everyone is right: Bill Keller's op-ed blaming Barack Obama for sequestration because, well, dammit, he's suppose to be leading, is awful. And kudos (and the Catch) to Greg Sargent for pointing out that Keller somehow or another just absolutely is missing Obama's actual position.
Perhaps some of the problem is that Republicans are more unified in their spin on this than are Democrats; a lot of liberals don't like Obama's position (because, after all, he's open to cuts in Social Security and Medicare) and so they aren't really thrilled about "defending" that White House position. If so, does it count as irony if the very fact that Obama is willing to dissent from liberal orthodoxy is the reason that some pundits won't believe that he will?
Or perhaps it's just that thing about lies traveling around the world while the truth is hanging out watching an "Apes" marathon on AMC. As Greg points out, while Keller complained that "If Obama had campaigned on some version of Simpson-Bowles rather than on poll-tested tax hikes alone, he could now claim a mandate from voters to do something big and bold," Obama basically did exactly that -- including in his convention speech. But maybe Keller only remembers the staggering lie that Paul Ryan told in his own convention speech.
At any rate, it's worth remembering that Obama asked for less in revenues than Simpson-Bowles did. So whether or not his proposals, which as Greg points out are well-documented, constitute a "version" of Simpson-Bowles or not, what's certainly true is that Obama is closer to the Republican position on taxes, and probably overall, than Simpson-Bowles.
So, I'm still cranky. And: nice catch!