From Politico Pro (subscription required):
“Sequestration isn’t ideal, but on the whole, sequestration is fine. … I think it’s been a relatively positive exercise [because] it forces people to address defense spending,” said Andrew Moylan, the outreach director for the conservative R Street organization. “We’ve learned Congress won’t reduce spending unless it is forced.”
“The automatic sequester, while not perfect for a number of reasons, is going to be a lot better than any sort of deal they come up with in the lame duck,” argued David Williams of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
As for Norquist, he said that even if Republicans could control all the levers of government, they shouldn’t drop the defense cuts to zero.
“We have to dramatically reduce the cost of defense, whether there is a sequester or not. Maybe the sequester focuses their attention, and to the extent it does, that’s a helpful thing,” he said. “We need to look at defense the way we look at welfare and education — just because somebody calls something by a good name doesn’t mean that every dollar is spent wisely or constructively.”
Williams went even further. “It’s going to be absolutely disappointing to see any sort of deal that doesn’t really cut defense spending,” he said.
Norquist hinted that a formal coalition to oppose a sequester punt was in the works, and that something could be put together within the week.
Moylan said the discussions were under way. “That coalition is building now,” he said.
Moylan — who acknowledged that he’s “anticipating the puntiest of all punts that have ever been punted” — said a lame duck postponement would lead to “frustration … that we’re continuing to kick the can down the road without dealing with the issues.”

Featured Publications