Mr. President

Christopher Hitchens wants Al Gore to run for president. My favorite part:

I am only guessing here, but I think that when Gore wakes up early and upset, he isn't whimpering about the time that the Supreme Court finally ruled against him in 2000. He is whimpering about the time in 1992 when he left the field open to Bill Clinton, a man he secretly despised. Can he really stand to watch yet another Clinton walk away with a nomination that could have been, or could still be, his? To move, then, from a consideration of elevated politics to a reflection upon the baser motives, we have to ask if Gore can possibly be content to be a "citizen" when he could still be a contender.

Meanwhile, the Romney boys answer the call of duty.

How could we possibly forget?

Boy, am I glad I didn't see this exchange this morning. I might have thrown up my breakfast:

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Republican presidential contenders sparred over abortion on Sunday but generally agreed the United States must remain in Iraq as part of the war on terror.

"Just come home," countered Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the lone dissenter on a debate stage when it came to Iraq. He said there had never been a good reason to go to war in the first place.

"Has he forgotten about 9/11?" interjected former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

I can appreciate how the governor feels. I'll never forget the rage I felt when all those Iraqis piloted those planes into the World Trade Center, and then Saddam Hussein threatened to unleash his weapons of mass destruction if we dared to retaliate.

Seriously, I'm glad Mitt Romney said that. It's proof that you can be a wingnut Republican and still get elected governor of one of the most liberal states in the nation. And to me, it's another reminder just how scary this field of Republican contenders really is--and how stupid they think their fellow countrymen are.

(If two unscientific online polls are to be believed, Ron Paul cleaned everyone's clocks. Click here and here.)

A healthy solution?

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney touts his state's landmark health care reform on the conservative op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal. I haven't had time to study the fine print, but it appears not unlike the Swiss system in which individuals are required to purchase health insurance, and those with low incomes will receive subsidies to do so. It also includes a mechanism for automatically enrolling those eligible into Medicaid, because as Romney explains, 20 percent of the 500,000 or so uninsured Massachusetts residents are eligible for Medicaid but are not currently enrolled. It's a good idea, but it makes me wonder if it might make the plan more expensive than Romney lets on.

For Romney, a likely candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2008, it's a smart move politically. The plan is centrist, offering something for everyone--expanded Medicaid coverage and insurance subsidies for liberals, health savings accounts for conservatives. It was passed by a Democratic-controlled Legislature, with the support of a conservative think tank and the backing, it would seem, of at least some of the business community. Granted, die-hard fiscal conservatives and libertarians won't like it, and it falls way, way short of the kind of universal health care favored by much of the left.

Nonetheless, as a Republican, Romney has co-opted what promises to be a major issue for Democrats over the next several years, perhaps allowing the pro-life Mormon to compete for swing voters. The plan may be a disaster, but it will be too soon to know by 2008. This is a good reminder why governors tend to have a clearer path to the White House than senators and House members.