I wasn't going to write about this, but then something shocking happened: Chris Cillizza wrote something I agreed with. So now I have little choice.
Here's what I'm talking about: a reporter named Sam Youngman wrote a piece for Politico about how despicable Washington journalistic culture is and how he's so glad he went back to Kentucky to be a real reporter after his heady days of flying around on Air Force One. Now you might think that as someone who is often critical of the Washington press corps and sometimes of Washington in general (although it's complicated I would be saying "Right on, brother!" But I'm not.
When John McCain ran for president in 2008, he offered up a health reform plan. Nobody paid all that much attention to it, because it was pretty clear that health care was an issue McCain didn't care about at all, and much like the "patient's bill of rights" George W. Bush had touted when he ran for president eight years earlier, it would be forgotten as soon as he took office. Four years later, Mitt Romney had something resembling a health care plan too, but once again, nobody paid much attention to what it contained, because any time health care came up, the only question was how Romney could square his stated position that the Affordable Care Act was a poisonous hairball of misery coughed up by the Prince of Darkness himself, while the plan it was modeled after, often referred to as "Romneycare," was a wonderful thing that everyone in the state where it was implemented seems to like.
Both McCain's and Romney's plans were mostly an amalgam of ineffectual half-measures and truly terrible ideas, but mixed in there were a few proposals that might actually be beneficial. And now that we're just days away from the full implementation of the ACA, some conservatives will be offering up similar reform proposals again (here's one).. The problem they face is that once millions of people have been enrolled in new insurance plans, you can no longer just propose to repeal the law, because that would mean kicking them off the insurance they have. "Repeal it!" only works as a battle cry when you can pretend no one would be harmed. So they have two choices: stop talking about health care entirely, or have some kind of plan you can claim you're proposing to put in its place. And Democrats can respond by actually agreeing to one or two of the Republicans' ideas. It sounds crazy, I know. But hear me out.
In the last couple of years, every time something John McCain says makes "news," my immediate reaction—sometimes on Twitter, sometimes just in my head—is, "Remind me again why anybody should give a crap what John McCain thinks about anything?" I've never been able to get a satisfactory answer to this question. And here comes star reporter Mark Leibovich, author of the well-received This Town, with a 6,634-word cover profile of McCain for next week's New York Times Magazine. Do we need another one of these? I would have answered "no" before reading, but after, I'm even more sure.
During the 2012 campaign, I, like every liberal writer whose job it is to comment on politics every day, wrote many unkind things about Mitt Romney. Much of the time I found him more sad than despicable; politicians who nearly reach the pinnacle of their profession while being manifestly awful at politics are a rare and curious breed. Like Al Gore before him, Romney's discomfort with the requirements of campaigning was so close to the surface that he couldn't help but inspire a kind of pity. That isn't to say that I didn't find plenty of his statements and policy positions contemptible, because I certainly did, and said so without hesitation. But in the end, Romney wasn't as easy to hate as some other politicians might be.
So a year after he joined that small, melancholy club of presidential losers, it's time that even those of us who thought it would be a terrible thing if he became president can see Romney as a human being. In January, Netflix will be releasing a behind-the-scenes documentary called "Mitt," and the preview is surprisingly endearing:
It might seem that an argument about whether Santa Claus and Jesus are "really" white is nothing more than an opportunity for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to make fun of people on Fox News, and not a matter with actual political consequences. After all, Santa is a fictional character whose current visual representations here in America have their origins in early 20th Century newspaper and magazine illustrations, but he's portrayed in different ways around the world. But before you dismiss this as just silliness, let me suggest that it does have important political effects.